The Rationality of Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
It has in modern times grown increasingly difficult to argue that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is reasonable. My observation is that many people who provide proofs and resources to Christians to help defend their faith tend to ignore the presuppositions which make belief in the resurrection difficult. Most people who are predisposed against belief in the resurrection will not be persuaded by a list of "proofs." Further, many Christians, having been supplied with "proofs" of Jesus' resurrection, still don't know how to interpret them, and eventually retreat to the position that one must simply "have faith" in these things without strong rational premises.
My job, in a short space, is to not only give some proofs (evidences) of the resurrection, but also to explain how these things compel rational belief. But before I start, I need to spend some time addressing the presuppositions which make belief in the resurrection difficult for most people today. And it is necessary that all Christians do address these things, because the idea that a man died over 1900 years ago and then, by the power of God, came back to life, and is alive today, is rather incredible. For someone to question such an assertion is not unreasonable (thus, the "rational objections" I list below), though I hope to show that continued skepticism in this regard is not reasonable.
Please note that the following discussion is not philosophically rigorous. I originally intended, for example, to discuss Hume's "in principle" argument against miracles, and why it absolutely fails as a vehicle to invalidate the resurrection, but I decided this would introduce complexity into this discussion that most people would not find helpful. I am prepared to discuss such things, though, and invite any email in this regard.
"How can the resurrection be true? There is no truth."
I want to begin by noting that what I might call "postmodern assumptions about the relativism of truth in a pluralistic society" make the whole prospect of talking about Jesus coming back from the dead seemingly irrelevant. Without entering into a full-blown critique of postmodern assumptions, I want to make two proposals. First, as we consider whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable, I want to suggest that we bracket (set aside consideration of) any discussion of the implications of the resurrection. I do think that, if Jesus came back from the dead, then it is the most important event in all of human history, and if it is, it cannot be unimportant for you or me. The resurrection validates Jesus' teaching, and what he taught was not simply that we should love one another, but that we should entrust our lives to him, and frankly, that doesn't make any sense unless he is who he said he was, and that he is alive today. But I don't want to spend any time dealing with the implications of Jesus' resurrection, or what that says about your life, or what that implies about the validity of other religions. I simply want to argue that a certain event happened, or more precisely, I want to argue that it is reasonable to believe that it happened. That is all.
I am also presuming that there is truth out there to know, that you can know something about events which you did not witness yourself, and that when you hear another person's account of past events, there is a rational process by which you can determine whether the account is worth believing. You do it all the time in your life. People tell you things, you see them in the paper, you see programs on TV, and while all these could be fictions contrived to fool you, you have a certain approach to deciding whether it is reasonable for you to believe them.
For example, I was at a conference last summer and someone walked up and told me that Princess Diana had just been killed in an automobile accident. I did not immediately believe this person, because it seemed too incredible to be true. But I started to weigh the options. Could this person be joking with me? They appeared to be serious. Did I have any reason to distrust them? Actually, I knew this person to be extremely honest. Nor would it make sense for her to deceive me in this regard. What would she have to gain? Nothing. These all constitute reasonable grounds for believing what she told me. When I had numerous people tell me the same thing in succeeding hours, it became even more rationally compelling to believe that Princess Diana had, indeed, been killed. But I should stress that I had no direct knowledge of this fact, nor were any of the people who told me eyewitnesses of her death. But nearly everyone would agree that it would be reasonable for me to believe that she had been killed and, conversely, unreasonable to be a skeptic. I want to argue that Jesus coming back from the dead is an event that we can discuss the believability of in the same way as any other event we don't directly participate in.
If I bracket the issue this way, it also makes it irrelevant to talk about rejecting the resurrection because Christianity has been used negatively or oppressively at some stage in human history (such as the Crusades or the Inquisition), or rejecting the resurrection because some Christians are hypocrites. Again, the issue is whether a man came back from the dead, not whether self-proclaimed Christians are good people or do good things.
"I think there is truth that can be known, but miracles are not possible."
Once these postmodern cultural assumptions are set aside as impractical ways to approach life (i.e., whether there is such a thing as truth, whether we can know anything about things we don't see with our own eyes, etc.), we are left with modernistic critiques of the believability of the resurrection. So I am assuming that, of critics who nonetheless believe there is really truth out there to know, we have two groups: those who believe miracles are not possible, and those who believe miracles are possible, but that Jesus' resurrection isn't one of them.
This idea of miracles not being possible is an interesting one. There are two ways that this is normally developed. First, there is the idea that one shouldn't believe in anything that doesn't happen according to a pattern, or that natural law does not permit exceptional things to happen. This is the sort of thing that people mean when they say, "The laws of physics cannot be broken. It's not reasonable to believe that they are broken, especially with regard to one unrepeatable event which happened a long time ago." Second, some people argue that spiritual things do not exist. There is no God, there is no soul, there is no life after death, so there cannot be a miracle.
On the first issue, that the laws of physics cannot be broken, let me point out that what we think of as "natural law" about how things should work cannot be considered prescriptive. In other words, science tells us what does happen, not what can happen. It's descriptive, not prescriptive. The laws of physics are not meant to draw lines that cannot be crossed. They are meant to describe what actually happens, whether it fits our preconceptions or not. Einstein said that "our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most logically perfect way."1
In other words, just because we can't explain how something occurred in light of modern science doesn't mean we should rule it out. And let me add, I have no idea, in scientific terms, how to explain the reinvigoration and transformation of Jesus' body. I have no reason to think that the way this occurred couldn't be explained using some scientific terms, though perhaps we would have to expand our science to develop them. So this is a miracle in the sense that the ultimate cause of the event is spiritual (as I also believe the ultimate origin of the existent universe is non-physical), but the resurrection itself is a measurable, physical phenomenon, just like the universe. In other words, I feel that science could probably be stretched to describe the resurrection of Jesus' body, just as it can describe the beginning of the universe, though it cannot explain the source of power behind either of these things. (Thus, I would say that the beginning of the universe was a one-time miracle in the same way that Jesus' resurrection was a one-time miracle.) So the laws of physics could conceivably allow for the resurrection.
In the case of the assumption that events which break the laws of science can't be true, or the idea that Jesus couldn't come back from the dead because there is no God, let me point out that the assumption is getting in the way of the issue under consideration. Of course the resurrection is unbelievable if you've already decided that things like the resurrection cannot occur. But that's what the investigation is all about: is it reasonable to think that this event could have occurred? If it is more reasonable to think so than to not, then you would not only be rationally justified in believing that Jesus came back from the dead, but also in believing that God really exists, and that life after death is possible. So again, I want to argue that modernistic assumptions which do not allow us to evaluate this event should be bracketed, because even the biblical authors take the stance that the resurrection was a unique event, and that it is difficult to believe, but it happened, and they saw it.
"I think that miracles are possible, but I don't believe that Jesus came back from the dead."
The final position I want to consider is the idea that, while it is possible for a dead man to come back to life, it isn't very likely. The typical reason used to justify this is a skepticism about the historical value of the biblical record. Some have argued that (1) the authors had a theological and not a historical agenda, (2) the accounts are contradictory and should be abandoned, and (3) we should reject the resurrection because we can explain the church's belief in the resurrection in other ways (e.g., they hallucinated the resurrection appearances, or Jesus wasn't actually dead but just really hurt, or the whole thing was a fraud perpetuated by the early Christians). Let me consider these three objections individually.
1. The authors had a theological and not a historical agenda
These agendas are not exclusive. No serious historian would automatically discount a historical record because the historian had a reason for recording some event. In fact, it's accepted that virtually every historian has some degree of personal bias with regard to their work. This is a factor in evaluating history, not a reason to reject it outright. In the case of the New Testament authors, they spread the news about the resurrection because (1) they actually witnessed it, and (2) it changed their lives. These reasons are not inconsistent, nor are they antithetical to recording history. What is almost universally assumed today is that the early Christians believed the resurrection had occurred. One can argue that they were wrong about it, but virtually everyone agrees that these people thought Jesus had risen. A great many suffered for that belief, and the assumption underlying their religious experience was that something really happened.
2. The accounts are contradictory and should be abandoned
There are inconsistencies between the gospel accounts. Some authors record details that others leave out, some arrange events in different sequence than others. I want to stress that the great majority of these examples only trouble us when we assume that the authors share our modern conceptions of how history is to be accurately preserved. But they don't. They feel the freedom to summarize longer statements into shorter ones, to leave out details that they feel are irrelevant or which they simply weren't told about, to order events, at times, in a way that is not chronological. These are the same things we do every day when we tell people about things we have experienced. How I present the truth and how someone else presents it can be different without being contradictory. And for someone to say, "That's false, because it's not exactly the way someone else told me about it," would seem absurd to us. And also to the biblical authors. Which is why they make no effort to harmonize the accounts of the resurrection.
And even if there were outright contradictions, no serious historian would conclude, "Well, these accounts have no truth in them." Part of the job of doing history is to weigh accounts to determine what kernal of truth can be reasonably discerned within them even if we know one part is not true. All of this invites us to approach the accounts of Jesus' life and death as potentially accurate, historical documents, subject to our critical investigation.
3. The early church's belief in the resurrection can be explained by natural means
For example, we could suppose that the disciples hallucinated Jesus' resurrection, or that it was a big fraud. But the fact that one can make up an alternative (however improbable) doesn't mean it must be right. It's what every defense attorney does to get a client off. "My client didn't do it; he was framed. It was a police conspiracy." That's possible, but is it reasonable? These are things you weigh in connection with the evidence. How probable are the alternatives? That many hundreds of people had hallucinations on many occasions and in different locations of the resurrected Christ? This is a natural explanation (i.e., it's not miraculous, and therefore seems easier to believe), but if we suspend a bias against the miraculous (as I argued earlier), the idea of chained hallucinations is more incredible than the simple explanation that Jesus actually came back to life and appeared to hundreds of people. (It's an even bigger problem trying to explain how all these people had such a vivid, coherent series of hallucinations at different times and in different places.) If the evidence doesn't make this alternative reasonable, and the original explanation is supported by eyewitness evidence, one is not rationally justified in adopting the alternative. I will return to these alternatives to the resurrection later, but in every case I will argue that the alternative is less reasonable than belief in the resurrection.
Accounts by Eyewitnesses
The principal evidence for the resurrection is located in the accounts of eyewitnesses preserved in the New Testament. The biblical accounts claim to be written by eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4; Gal. 1:11-17; 1 John 1:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:16), and this is critical, because the accounts of those who merely hear of an event are not as compelling as those who witness it directly. As with my earlier example of the person who told me about Princess Diana's death, there are two requisite conditions for reliable testimony: (1) the witness must not be mistaken, and (2) the witness must not be intentionally trying to deceive. In fulfillment of the first principle, one historian notes that the very best sources of history are the written reports of eyewitnesses. Once the source has been determined as authentic, the temporal distance of the source is incidental.2 In the case of the New Testament authors, we have people who (1) actually saw the events in question, and (2) who claim to be sincere, and had nothing to gain by falsely testifying in this regard (in fact, their testimony cost them their lives).
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (2 Pet 1:16; NASB)
In other words, the biblical authors are arguing that they did not believe in mere hearsay; they actually saw the resurrected Christ, as incredible as it might seem (and it was no more credible then than it is now). But this quote from 2 Peter doesn't actually detail the nature of what was witnessed. For this we turn to 1 Corinthians 15.
In discussing eyewitness evidence for the resurrection we begin with Paul, because his letters probably precede the writing of the gospels, and were written a relatively short span of time after the crucifixion. While some might claim that the gospels are mythological stories developed by the early church, Paul's letters cannot be dismissed as intentional fiction. They are letters which comment on historical developments in the early church, and in the case of Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans, are universally accepted by scholarship as historical.
In 1 Cor. 15, Paul is responding to those who criticize the validity of bodily resurrection. (Much of Greek philosophy thought that the soul was immortal, with the body as an imperfect and secondary accretion that was unnecessary for immortality.) His argument is that if bodily resurrection is invalid, then Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead either—but this can't be, because many people witnessed the event who were still alive:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor 15:3-8; NASB)
The resurrection is cited here as a fact, confidently related by a man who had ample time to confirm its historicity. To make the situation more convincing, he notes that most of these people are still alive, though some have died. In adding himself to the list, Paul includes himself as an eyewitness of the resurrection. Paul is not just relating hearsay; he is himself a participant in this experience.
In light of the proximity of these writings to the resurrection itself and Paul's personal contact with the people involved, there is little doubt that these people experienced something, and they understood it to be Jesus risen from the dead.
Narratives composed from eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection
The gospels spend considerable time relating the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection, including numerous resurrection appearances to people who could affirm or deny the validity of these accounts as they were spread throughout the early church. There are some critical reasons to take these accounts as dependable, historical accounts, and these reasons argue against treating the gospels as mere fiction developed long after the events described. I will highlight only a few of these, to keep this focused.
A . The gospels have the earmarks of historicity.
The gospels possess intimate knowledge of Jerusalem before its destruction. They are full of references to proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and opinions and customs of the time. They do not try to suppress apparent discrepancies; there is no attempt at harmonization between the gospels, which is in keeping with legitimate attempts at recording history.
For example, the burial accounts describe the design of the tomb Jesus was laid in, a type of tomb which is rare in Palestine (i.e., a bench tomb with a roll-stone for the door), but of the few that have been discovered, all date from Jesus' era.3
B. The biblical authors mention that the primary witnesses to the burial, interment, and discovery of the empty tomb were women (Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:49, 55; 24:1,10). This is striking because of the low view of the testimony of women in Jewish society. The fact that the gospel authors would include this (when they could have contrived a much more believable story) indicates that their primary agenda was to depict precisely what happened.4
This conclusion also receives confirmation from the fact that there seems to be no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate their leaders by having them hide in cowardice in Jerusalem while women boldly carry out final devotions to Jesus' body—unless this were, in fact, the truth. Their method of anointing the body by pouring oils over it is plausible in light of contemporary custom. And the listing of the women's names weighs against an unhistorical legend at the story's core, since these women were known in the Christian community.
C. It is reasonable to date the writing of the gospels to within 20 years of the resurrection. The nearness of the dating makes it improbable that any myth would develop within the resurrection accounts.5 Further, the controlling presence of eyewitnesses would inhibit any development of legend surrounding this event.
We know that Mark predates Luke, and Luke predates Acts.6 Acts should be dated at roughly AD 62-64 because (1) it has no mention of the fall of Jersusalem in AD 70, which would be odd in light of the centrality of Jerusalem in Acts; (2) it makes no mention of Nero's persecutions of the Christians in the mid-60s, and in fact Luke writes of the Roman government in peaceful terms; and (3) the martyrdoms of James (AD 61), Paul (AD 64), and Peter (AD 65) are not mentioned in Acts. The best explanation for this is that Acts was written before these events occurred. Dating Luke-Acts in the early 60s suggests a dating for Mark in the 50s.
The empty tomb (Matt 28:11-15; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:11-18)
It might seem as though merely arguing that the tomb was empty after Easter does not add much to the historicity of the resurrection. But if Jesus was not raised, either his body remained in the tomb, or it was stolen. The latter theory is so problematic that some have argued that the body must have remained. So to argue that the body did not remain in the tomb is tantamount to arguing that it must have walked out. (I will consider the possibility that it was taken by the disciples in a moment.)
A. The historical credibility of the burial story supports the empty tomb.
If the burial story is basically reliable, then the conclusion that Jesus' tomb was found empty is strongly implied. The burial site would have been known to both Christians and Jewish opponents. In such a case it would surely be impossible for the story of the resurrection to survive if the body had remained in the tomb, where the validity of the account could easily be checked. And there are other aspects of historical credibility:
(1) Paul's testimony in 1 Cor 15:3 provides evidence for the historicity of Jesus' burial.
Paul begins this section with a traditional formula: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." In other words, this formula (it could be an early hymn or congregational confession) was older than Paul's letter and clearly was widely known for Paul to quote it this way. Craig dates this formula at roughly AD 30-36.7 If the formula predates Paul's letter by a number of years, and the letter itself was written not long after the resurrection, it means that from the earliest time the church was aware of and was celebrating the resurrection. As I've mentioned, the age of this passage and its proximity to the original events argues against a legendary depiction of the burial.
(2) The burial story was part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old.
It is universally acknowledged that the burial account is part of a tradition predating Mark's gospel and is continuous with the description of the resurrection. In other words, Mark includes an account of Jesus' burial that was already in existence before he sat down to write. The age of this tradition and its proximity to the actual events is insufficient for a purely legendary story to arise, and would be precluded by the existence of eyewitnesses who could challenge it.
(3) The description of Joseph of Arimathea is probably historical.
Even the most skeptical scholars agree that it is unlikely that the person of Joseph of Arimathea could be invented as part of a legend surrounding the burial, since as a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin his identity could be confirmed, and the location of the tomb he owned could be ascertained.
(4) The description of how Jesus' body was interred is probably historical.
As mentioned, the description of the tomb as a bench-type or acrosolia, along with archaeological discoveries in recent times of such tombs, gives credibility to the narrative.
Observations like these (and others) suggest the historical credibility of the burial account.
B. It would have been virtually impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty.
Even if the disciples had failed to check the tomb, the Jewish authorities would not have missed an opportunity to falsify the resurrection claims. Note that the resurrection was being proclaimed within a few weeks after it occurred in the very location where it happened, making it difficult or impossible to maintain a story that was not true.
C. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb (Matt 28:13). The Jews responded to news that the tomb was empty by claiming that Jesus' disciples stole his body.
In other words, the only known Jewish response to the resurrection assumes that Jesus did not remain in the tomb, and they had to supply another explanation to invalidate the resurrection. What the Jews could not do is prove that the disciples stole the body, and a simple consideration of the implications of such an action make it implausible. (I will consider this shortly.) But even the Jewish response admits that the tomb was empty.
Other alternatives can be offered to explain what happened to Jesus' body (e.g., the disciples stole the body, Jesus was not really dead, the women went to the wrong tomb, etc.), but these are less believable than the resurrection itself. Here are the two most prominent of the alternate explanations.
1. The theory of subjective visions
Some have agreed that the disciples undoubtedly had an experience of the resurrection, but that it must have been visionary or hallucinary. If the disciples truly longed for and expected the return of their beloved master, it is at least conceivable that they might have hallucinated his return as some sort of wish-fulfillment. But this assumes that the disciples thought Jesus was going to come back from the dead. They did not think this, however. They fled in terror after his crucifixion, with no conception that he would rise after three days (despite his own teaching in this regard). The common Jewish understanding of resurrection was that all the dead would be raised at the end of the age (see John 11:24; Dan 12:2), not that one person would be raised in just a few days.8 Note that when Jesus appeared to some of his followers, they did not recognize him (John 20:14), and even when they did recognize him, their first thought was that he was a ghost, not that he had risen bodily from the dead (Luke 24:37). In other words, they were not psychologically predisposed to hallucinate that Jesus had risen from the dead.
When this scared, frightened band of the apostles which was just about to throw away everything in order to flee in despair to Galilee; when these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confident mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation. For a sect or school or an order, perhaps a single vision would have been sufficient—but not for a world religion which was able to conquer the Occident thanks to the Easter faith.9
Further, the number and various circumstances of the appearances attested to by Paul makes this explanation unlikely. Paul mentions that 500 people saw Jesus at one time (1 Cor. 15:6), which can hardly be explained as a mass hallucination. Even if there was a chain of hallucinations immediately following the resurrection, occasioned by some sort of mass hysteria among the twelve disciples, neither Paul nor James stood in the chain. And a hallucination still doesn't account for the evidence of the empty tomb. Jesus' body was gone after Easter.
2. The theory of deception
This theory argues that the disciples perpetuated a deception—that they knew that the miracles and resurrection did not take place, but said that they did. This theory (unlike the previous) explains the empty tomb, but cannot account for the accounts of actual eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose, including Paul, who was not present (or even a follower of Christ) the day the tomb was found empty.
Another problem with this theory is that the sincerity of the disciples is attested by their suffering and death. The nature of the disciples' actions following the crucifixion requires a better explanation than an intentional deception. We know from extra-biblical historians (such as Tacitus and Suetonius) that Christians were clothed in the skins of wild beasts and thrown to the dogs, or smeared in pitch and lit on fire, during the Neronian persecutions of the 60s. From the testimonies of such men as Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, it is clear that Christians were voluntarily submitting to torture and death rather than renounce their religion. This does not validate Christian faith per se, but it shows that the early Christians were not deceivers. They actually believed Jesus had been resurrected, and this fact surfaces in the historical accounts of their deaths as the reason why they submitted to torture and death.
It also is unlikely, from a logistical standpoint, that the disciples could have stolen the body from the tomb. The Jews had the ability (by Roman decree) to prevent the body's being stolen, and it was in their interest to do so. For the guards to fail to stay at their post and execute their duty would be punishable by death, so it is unlikely that they would permit the disciples to take the body, or that they slept through a tomb robbery (which would involve several men rolling back a heavy stone door).
In light of the quality of the evidences which surround this event and its historical character, and the weaknesses of competing explanations for what the disciples experienced, we can conclude that there is are reasonable grounds for accepting the resurrection of Christ as a historical event. I would again stress that the criteria that one has for accepting any account that one has not personally experienced are satisfied by the evidences surrounding the resurrection. Using a postmodern or scientific presupposition to reject the resurrection, as I discussed in the first part, is to reject the critical process of evaluating any event that we cannot explain by our limited understanding. If the resurrection is reasonable, it simply follows that our science is limited in its ability to explain certain phenomena, and it's difficult to imagine that any true scientist would deny this. Consequently, the Christian can reasonably assert that the resurrection is credible and science needs some work.
1. Albert Einstein, in P.A. Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist, Library of Living Philosophers (New York: Tudor, 1951), p. 248.
2. Turrettin-Vernet, cited in William Lane Craig, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (Lewiston: Edwin Mellon, 1985), p. 319.
3. William L. Craig, The Son Rises (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 55-56.
4. See E. L. Bode, The First Easter Morning (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), pp. 160-61; Craig, The Son Rises, pp. 59-61.
5. A. Sherwin-White, a classical historian at Oxford University, has studied the rate at which myth replaced history in the ancient Near East. He states: "Tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over a hard historical core" (A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978], p. 190).
6. Assumed here is that Mark's gospel was written first, and was one of the sources Luke used in composing his gospel. Also assumed is that the author of Luke (the gospel) is the author of Acts. Both of these assumptions are held by the large majority of New Testament scholars.
7. W.L. Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1989), pp. 1 ff., 353.
8. George Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 50-73; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1983), pp. 44-65; Craig, The Son Rises, pp. 129-131.
9. Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 125. (Pinchas Lapide is an orthodox Jewish rabbi, not a Christian.)