Jésus s'est-il vraiment levé des morts ?
Voici un débat très intérésssaant entrepris par un ex pasteur Evangélique (Dan Barker) et un savant chrétien ( Michael Horner ) sur la réssurection de Jésus.
Now we are going to be discussing the historical grounds for believing in the Resurrection, grounds that I think are very good. In doing so, though, I would not want to imply that there are not other grounds for believing in the Resurrection, like one's personal experience of the Risen Christ.
Now, clearly, something happened in Palestine that has had a remarkable impact on the world. And the issue is: what is the best explanation for what happened? Which explanation or hypothesis is best supported by the evidence and best explains the data? It is easy to just criticize an existing hypothesis, like the Resurrection, but what is needed is an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the data with equal force. It's a comparison of hypotheses that we must do here tonight.
Now I will present evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead. Dan will need to present an alternative natural hypothesis, and evidence for it. In the absence of a more plausible hypothesis by Dan, I will suggest that the Resurrection is the best explanation for the data.
Now, if it can be shown that the tomb of Jesus was found empty, that he did physically and bodily appear to many people after his death, and that the origin of the Christian faith is inexplicable apart from a real resurrection, then, if there is no plausible natural explanation that fits the data, one can rationally conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
In tonight's debate I'm going to make two basic points. First of all, there are good reasons to affirm the Resurrection; and secondly, there are no good reasons to deny the Resurrection.
First, there are good reasons to affirm the Resurrection.
First reason is: the writings about the Resurrection are too early for legend to prevail over the truth. The Gospel accounts of the appearances are too early to be legendary. The legend theory rests very heavily on the premise that the Gospels were written after 70 AD. But even the liberal critic John A. T. Robinson challenges this late dating as largely the result of scholarly laziness, unexamined presuppositions and almost willful blindness on the part of the critics. In fact, a growing number of scholars would argue for dating the book that we call Acts, or the books that we call Acts, Luke, Mark and Matthew before AD 70. And one of the reasons is that Acts makes no mention of known historical events that took place between AD 60 and and 70, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the persecution of the Christians by Nero, the death of James and the death of Paul. The best explanation for these significant events going unmentioned by the writer is that they hadn't yet occurred when the Book of Acts was completed. Hence, Acts was written before AD 62-64, and the Gospel of Luke, being Part I of Luke's writings, was even earlier, possibly AD 57-62, and most scholars believe Mark was one of Luke's research sources, and so it would be earlier still, somewhere between 45-56 AD. This pushes the accounts of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus to within 15-32 years after the events, or roughly one generation.
Secondly, First Corinthians, Paul's writings about the Resurrection, are too early to be legendary, having been written around 53-55 AD, only 20-25 years after the events. But the important point is that all of these accounts are based on earlier written and oral sources that are dated much closer to the events. These sources contain sayings, statements, hymns that are highly Semitic, highly Jewish, and translate very nicely from Greek, in which they are written, back into Aramaic, the language that Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke. This points to an early Jerusalem origin, within the first few years, and even weeks, after Christ's death. There simply was not enough time for the basic set of facts to be replaced by myth or legend.
The second reason for affirming the Resurrection is: the tomb was empty. There are at least four lines of evidence that I will present tonight that support the tomb being empty on that first Easter morning.
First, the written account describing the burial is widely recognized as being historically credible. The inclusion of Joseph of Arimathea as the one who buried Jesus in his own tomb is one of the many reasons that most scholars accept the accuracy of the burial story. It is highly unlikely that fictitious stories about a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling class, could have been pulled off. The absence of competing burial stories further enhances the credibility of the biblical account of the burial. If the Gospel tradition is legendary, one would expect to find conflicting burial stories, especially Jewish literature. But there are none.
Moreover, the burial and empty tomb story are a continuous narrative. They are linked together grammatically and linguistically. If the burial account is reliable, then the empty tomb account is also likely reliable.
Now, if this burial account is accurate, then the grave site of Joseph's garden tomb would have been well known. And if that grave site was well known, no one would have believed that Jesus had risen, not the disciples, nor the thousands of others who did believe, unless that tomb really was empty. And you can be sure that if the body had still been in the tomb, the Jewish authorities would have exhumed it and exposed the whole charade. But in fact, even though they had every reason to want to refute Christianity, they never could produce the body of Jesus, in or outside of the tomb.
Second, the earliest anti-Christian propaganda confirms the tomb was empty. The Jewish religious leaders claimed that the disciples stole the body. The fact that they never denied that Jesus' tomb was empty, but only tried to explain it away, is persuasive evidence that the tomb was in fact empty. Historically, this is evidence of the highest quality because it comes from the opponents of Christianity.
Third, the fact that Jesus' tomb was never venerated as a shrine in the first century indicates that it was empty. The custom was to set up a shrine at the site of a holy man's bones. There were at least 50 such sites in Palestine at that time, and the absence of such a shrine for Jesus suggests that the bones weren't there.
Fourth, the testimony of the Apostle Paul implies the tomb was empty. Writing in around 55 AD, Paul quotes an old Christian saying that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day. Now the idea that a person could be raised from the dead while the body remained in the grave still would have been nonsense to Paul's Jewish mind. The Jewish concept of resurrection was extremely physical. Paul is clearly assuming and implying an empty tomb here. As W. L. Craig pointed out, were this not so, then Pauline theology would have taken an entirely different route, trying to explain how resurrection could be possible even though the body is still there in the grave. Moreover, this saying concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, from which Paul is quoting, is much to early to be legendary. Paul would have learned it in his first two years as a convert, or at least no later than AD 36 when he visited Peter and James in Jerusalem. Thus this formula is no later than 5 or 6 years after the Resurrection -- not enough time for legend to dominate.
These four points are among many that provide a powerful case for the tomb being empty that Sunday morning after Jesus' death. And the move in scholarly circles in recent years has been toward the acceptance of the empty tomb, because it is very difficult to refute on historical grounds. The historian Michael Grant, who is himself not a Christian, says, "The historian cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb." If we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.
Now most people who reject the empty tomb do so because of philosophical assumptions or prejudices, such as: miracles are impossible. But this type of assumption may simply have to be changed in light of historical fact.
Now the empty tomb by itself did not produce a belief in a resurrected Jesus. For most of the followers, it was Jesus physically appearing to them that led them to the conclusion that Jesus had risen. And so my third reason for affirming the Resurrection is that Jesus physically appeared to many witnesses.
Now most scholars agree that even though there is interdependence between much of the Gospel accounts, the appearance accounts are independent of one another. So, evidence from five independent historical sources indicate that on 12 separate occasions various individuals and groups in various locations and circumstances saw Jesus alive after his death.
The four Gospels tell us about the appearances to Mary Magdalen, to the women returning from the tomb, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, to Peter, to the disciples with Thomas absent, to the disciples with Thomas present a week later, to the seven disciples at the Lake of Tiberius in Galilee, to the 11 and probably others on a mountain in Galilee, to the disciples at the ascension.
Paul, besides repeating the appearances to Peter, the twelve, and to all the apostles (probably a larger group), also mentions appearances to James, Saul (that is, himself), and to over 500 people at one time. Now, Paul's accounts of the appearances are likely not legendary because of his [having] listed in this [the] appearance to more than 500 people. You see, Paul is using the accepted method of his day to prove an historical event: the appeal to witnesses. He specifically states that most of these people are still alive, thereby inviting cross examination of his witnesses. He would not likely have done this unless they were real people, and that they would back up his claims as well.
The Gospel accounts of the appearances are more likely historical than legendary. First of all, they are too early. Professor A. N. Sherwin-White, who is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek history, has studied the rate at which myths develop in the ancient Near East, and he chides the New Testament critics for not recognizing the quality of the New Testament documents compared to the sources that he has to work with in Roman and Greek history. He says those sources are usually removed from the events they describe by generations or even centuries. Despite when they were written, though, and the typically biased approach of the writers, he says historians can confidently reconstruct what actually happened. In stark contrast, Sherwin-White tells us that for the Gospels to be legendary, more generations would have been needed between the events and their compilation. He has found that even the span of two full generations, 50 - 80 years, is not long enough for legend to wipe out the hard core of historical fact. Even a late dating of the Gospels by critics meets that criteria, let alone the early dating that we argued for. The legends about Jesus that the critics are looking for do exist, but they arose in the second century, which is consistent with the two-generation time frame discovered by Professor Sherwin-White, when all the eye-witnesses had died off. Thus the trustworthiness of the Gospel account is highly probable because there just wasn't enough time for the mythical tendencies to creep in and then prevail over the historical fact.
Secondly, the fact that women and not male disciples are listed as the first witnesses of the appearances and the empty tomb adds powerful credibility to these incidents. You see, women were of such low status in first-century Jewish society that their testimony in court was considered worthless. So it would have been purposeless, even counterproductive, to record the women as being these first witnesses if it were not the way that it actually happened.
Third, the Gospels are not written in a legendary style of writing. The style of the Gospels lacks the legendary embellishments that are clearly part of the later writings. C. S. Lewis, one of the great literary experts on ancient myths, commenting on the Gospels, writes, "I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths, all my life. I know that not one of them," the Gospels, that is, "is not like this."
Fourth, where external verification is possible, the New Testament has demonstrated its reliability time and time again, thus supporting its overall credibility. Craig Blomberg, New Testament scholar, says, that as investigation proceeds, the evidence becomes sufficient for one to declare that what can be checked is accurate, so that it is entirely proper to believe that what cannot be checked is probably accurate as well. Other conclusions, wide-spread though they are, seem not to stem from even-handed historical analysis, he says, but from religious or philosophical prejudice.
Thus, it's hard to deny on historical grounds, that numerous people had experiences that they interpreted as appearances of the risen Jesus. Thus, the evidence is that Jesus made multiple appearances after his death.
My fourth reason for affirming the Resurrection is that the origin of the Christian movement is inexplicable apart from a real resurrection. First, the disciples' belief in a resurrection needs an adequate cause. Even the most skeptical of scholars admit to the existence of the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. That is, the Christian movement began based on this new belief of a resurrected Jesus. Something must have happened to create this belief. Where did it come from? There must be an adequate cause.
Earlier in the 20th century it was common for scholars to suggest that the disciples borrowed this concept of Jesus' resurrection from pagan sources. But it cannot be emphasized too strongly that experts no longer consider this position tenable.
(Let me find my right overhead here. Here we go.)
One would have to prove that there are parallels sufficiently analogous to Jesus' resurrection. But none of them are sufficiently analogous. The alleged parallels are contrived. Some are made to look analogous by the importation of Christian language like "Savior" and "Redeemer," back into the nonChristian stories, and the majority are not even intended by the religions to be viewed as anything more than just symbolic legends, unlike Jesus' resurrection, which was clearly intended by the writers as being historical. Furthermore, Jesus' resurrection is so specific and so unique that the parallels just don't fit. We have a transformed body with Jesus, that never dies again, not just a resuscitated corpse that does have to die again. And it's not just a continuous cycle of deaths and rebirths. Even Ian Wilson, the British skeptic, concludes, "on close inspection, the parallels are unimpressive."
Second, even if the parallels were better, one would have to show that there was sufficient influence of the alleged parallels in Palestine at that time to cause monotheistic Jews to posit a resurrection and worship Jesus as God. But the scholarly consensus is that there was very little influence from the pagan religions in first-century Palestine. Historian Michael Grant summarizes the scholarly opinion. He says "Judaism was a milieu to which the doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit." Even the very skeptical critic, Hans Grass, points out that "it would be completely unthinkable that the original disciples could have come to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead on the basis of pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal gods."
The third point in response to these alleged pagan parallels is that Jewish and early Christian thought was exclusive, unlike most of the other religions at the time. It wasn't open to incorporating the ideas of other religions into its own. Therefore the lines of influence are more likely to have run the other way. In fact, that is what the evidence implies. All of the material that we have that tells us about these mystery religions, all of it is from well past the first century, and most of it is from the third and fourth century. The few parallels that do exist more than likely, then, reflect Christian influence on the pagan religions rather than the other way around.
Then we have the transformation of the followers, skeptics, and enemies. It's inexplicable apart from a real resurrection. You see, the disciples were devastated, defeated after the Resurrection. They thought that their glorious three years with Jesus had come to a bitter and final end. But something changed them from being frightened, discouraged and despondent to being bold, courageous and outspoken. Peter, who denied he even knew Jesus, stood up a few weeks later in downtown Jerusalem proclaiming Jesus was Lord and risen from the grave. There's got to be a sufficient explanation for the dramatic change in these people's lives. And it was not just followers, but skeptics and enemies who were transformed. James and Jesus' other brothers did not believe Jesus was the Lord during his lifetime. Now they later believed. And James not only believed, but became the leader of the early Jerusalem Christian movement, and he died a martyr's death. Saul of Tarsus, the chief persecutor of the early Christians -- he hated the Christian heresy, even to the point of killing to stop it -- but something happened that changed him from Saul, the number-one persecutor of Christianity, to Paul, the number-one propagator of Christianity. He was totally transformed. He gave up the prestige and comforts be being a respected rabbi, and took on the life of a traveling missionary who experienced incredible hardship. Something incredible must have happened to change this man. There must be a sufficient cause to explain both the origin of this belief in the Resurrection, and the amazing transformation of frightened followers, skeptics, and enemies. There seems to be no plausible explanation that fits the facts apart from the explanation that these earliest Christians gave, that is, Jesus physically rose from the grave and appeared to them. Now these events are inexplicable [apart] from a real resurrection.
So, the evidence shows that the tomb was indeed found empty, that Jesus physically appeared to different people on numerous occasions in a variety of places after his death, and furthermore, the very origin of the Christian faith and the transformation of followers, skeptics, and enemies is inexplicable apart from a resurrection. There is no probable natural explanation for any one of these three independently established points, let all three of them put together. The Resurrection hypothesis, however, explains all three without distorting the data. Together, these three facts point powerfully to the same unavoidable conclusion: Jesus did rise physically and bodily from the dead.
So a rational person can hardly be blamed for believing in the Resurrection. If one denies this conclusion, he is rationally obligated to provide a more plausible explanation that fits the facts.
Now my second major point today is this: There are no good reasons to deny the Resurrection.
First of all, an a priori dismissal of miracles is illegitimate. One cannot rule out the Resurrection because of prior assumptions that miracles are impossible. If in trying to determine whether a miracle has taken place one rules out any documents containing miracles, one has merely argued in a circle. He has not done a fair investigation. He has merely assumed the conclusion he wants to prove. It amounts to this: "I do not accept the Resurrection miracle because I do not accept any miracle." Not much of an argument. You see, as long as it is even possible that God exists, miracles are possible. What one should do then, is try to honestly answer the question: "What does the evidence suggest is the most plausible explanation for the data?"
And as the philosopher W. L. Craig remarks, "That miracles are possible is neutral ground between the opposing claims that miracles are necessary and miracles are impossible." "And once one gives up the prejudice," he says, "against miracles, it's hard to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts."
Secondly, the alleged contradictions in the Resurrection accounts can be harmonized, and they show a lack of collusion among the writers. Many people reject a resurrection of Jesus because they think the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection are hopelessly contradictory. But the differences in the accounts establish their independence, which means we have multiple attestation to the Resurrection, and it also shows that there was no collusion among the writers. The differences show that the information [of] the different Gospels is from different sources. This is a more reasonable hypothesis than the view that the writers borrowed from each other and were so stupid that they botched all the points they borrowed. And the more sources a historian has that say essentially the same thing, the greater the probability of their veracity.
As many scholars have pointed out, the confusion between the different accounts in the Gospels do not appear to have been contrived. "The conflict of testimony is more a mark of the sincerity of those from whom the testimony is derived than a mark against their veracity," says James D. G. Dunn, well-known New Testament scholar.
Secondly, the differences are minor, and they are to be expected. Differences in details do not necessarily discredit the entire account. No historian suggests that just because there are differences in the eyewitness accounts of Kennedy's shooting, that therefore JFK wasn't assassinated. The differences in the Resurrection accounts are minor, and are to be expected since each account is based on different witnesses' reports, written by a different author with slightly different themes or emphases, and to different audiences. Witnesses don't usually report the details of an event exactly the same. In fact, it's when they do that lawyers get suspicious. What is really remarkable is that they are so similar. The Gospels are not intended to be exhaustive accounts of Jesus' life. They are summaries. Only to presuppose that they are exhaustive can you get contradictions in the Resurrection accounts.
Third, the differences have been harmonized. Works by John Wenham and Murray Harris recently have shown the differences to be complementary, not contradictory.
None of the naturalistic explanations fit the facts. Old theories like the Conspiracy and Swoon theories are just passe, they are rejected by scholars of the last 100-175 years.
Now Dan has a principle that he applies to the Resurrection. He claims that extraordinary or outrageous events require extraordinary or outrageous evidence. But this charge makes no sense, and it creates a phantom standard that virtually nothing could meet. It's a powerful rhetorical device, but it's very misleading because it amounts to a thinly disguised assertion that miracles are impossible. What is required of an event is good evidence, not extraordinary evidence, whatever that means. Presumably, by an "extraordinary event," the skeptic means an event that rarely happens. But then, since evidence is made up of events, extraordinary events would require other extraordinary events, that is, other events that rarely happen, which would require even other events that rarely happen to support it, which would require other events that rarely happen to support it. And you've got the concept of "extraordinary evidence" reduced to a nonsensical infinite regress.
One atheist has used the example that they had a flat tire on the way to tonight's debate. He says we would believe what he says. But we would probably not believe him if he claimed he was abducted by aliens. According to this atheist, we would require "extraordinary evidence" to believe that. But we've seen that the concept of "extraordinary evidence" is nonsense. What we would want is just plain good evidence, because the alien abductions is an event of great import. So the skeptic has found a kernel of truth here -- events that do not have great import, like a flat tire, we will suspend the criteria of good evidence, that's true. But let's say that the flat tire ends up being an alibi that gets the person out of a murder charge. Now all of a sudden we would hold that flat-tire event to the standard of good evidence. But what's the difference? It's still the same event: a flat tire. Events rationally require good evidence, no matter what kind of events they are. But if they do not have great import or significance, we willingly suspend the requirement of good evidence.
The upshot of all this is that if the evidence for an event such as the Resurrection is good, it should not matter that it is an extraordinary (that is, rare) event. Good evidence is sufficient to establish any event. Just because something hasn't happened often or at all should be irrelevant to the weight of evidence that it did in fact happen this time. And the evidence for the Resurrection meets this standard of good evidence.
So, we see that not only are there four good reasons to affirm the Resurrection, but there are no good reasons to deny the Resurrection. [Applause]
Suite du débat avec Dan Barker ...