Critiquing: #036 — Has the Resurrection Been Debunked?

April 30, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Resurrection Evidence — Women’s Testimony — Jewish Tradition — Historical Context — Jesus’ Appearances

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C	The episode presents accurate historical context but sometimes overlooks counterarguments. Claims about the women’s testimony being debunked are not substantiated with specific studies or scholarly references.
Degree of Coherence	B	The arguments are logically structured, though occasionally complex. The explanation of resurrection within Jewish eschatology is clear, but some transitions between topics are abrupt, affecting overall coherence.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	Generally free from fallacies, but some points rely on assumptions not fully supported by evidence. For instance, the claim that the inclusion of women as witnesses inherently supports the authenticity of the resurrection could be considered a hasty generalization.
Degree of Evidence	C+	Evidence is provided, but some claims would benefit from more robust support and references. The discussion of historical arguments lacks citations of contemporary scholarship, which weakens the overall argument.
Degree of Testability	D	Many theological claims are not easily testable or falsifiable. The physical nature of the resurrected Jesus, as described in the Gospel of Luke, cannot be empirically verified, reducing the testability of these claims.
Rational Confidence	C	The confidence in conclusions aligns with the evidence, though some claims are more speculative. The episode maintains a moderate level of rational confidence, yet it occasionally presents theological interpretations as historical facts.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Accuracy of Evidence:

“The argument has been soundly debunked with evidence.”

This claim regarding the women’s testimony at the empty tomb needs stronger substantiation. The podcast should reference specific studies or scholars who support this debunking to improve accuracy.

2. Testability of Claims:

“Jesus says in Luke, a ghost doesn’t have flesh and bones as you see, I have.”

Theological claims like the physical nature of the resurrected Jesus are difficult to test or verify, making the argument less robust from an empirical standpoint.

3. Evidence Supporting Women’s Testimony:

“Would you invent stories about women? Would you introduce them at that stage?”

While the inclusion of women as witnesses is argued to support authenticity, the claim requires a deeper analysis of the cultural and historical context of female testimony in ancient Jewish society.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Authenticity of Resurrection Accounts

1. Premise: Ancient Jewish tradition did not accept women’s testimony.
2. Premise: The Gospels include women as primary witnesses to the resurrection.
3. Hidden Premise: The inclusion of women is unlikely to be a later invention due to cultural norms.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, the resurrection accounts are authentic and early.

Counter-Argument:
The argument hinges on the assumption that cultural norms would prevent inventing female witnesses. However, it’s possible that the inclusion served a theological or narrative purpose, emphasizing the transformative nature of the resurrection and aligning with early Christian values of inclusivity.

Argument 2: Historical Plausibility of Resurrection

1. Premise: Jesus’ resurrection was unexpected within Jewish eschatological beliefs.
2. Premise: The resurrection story spread rapidly despite being countercultural.
3. Hidden Premise: Rapid spread of a countercultural belief suggests a historical basis.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection is historically plausible.

Counter-Argument:
The rapid spread of Christianity can be attributed to various socio-political factors and not solely the historicity of the resurrection. Social movements often grow rapidly due to charismatic leadership, societal unrest, or existential promises, regardless of the factual basis of their core events.

Argument 3: Women’s Testimony as a Sign of Authenticity

1. Premise: In ancient Jewish culture, women’s testimonies were considered unreliable.
2. Premise: The Gospels prominently feature women as witnesses to the resurrection.
3. Hidden Premise: Including unreliable witnesses indicates an attempt to convey truth rather than fabricate a convincing story.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, the resurrection accounts are likely authentic.

Counter-Argument:
The inclusion of women could serve to underscore the new values introduced by Christianity, such as the elevation of marginalized voices, rather than solely to assert historical authenticity. This narrative strategy could aim to differentiate early Christian communities from traditional Jewish norms.

Argument 4: Consistency with Jewish Resurrection Beliefs

1. Premise: Jewish eschatology included a belief in bodily resurrection.
2. Premise: Early Christians claimed Jesus was bodily resurrected.
3. Hidden Premise: Consistency with existing beliefs enhances credibility.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim of Jesus’ resurrection is credible within its Jewish context.

Counter-Argument:
While bodily resurrection was a Jewish belief, its application to Jesus individually, before the general resurrection at the end of days, diverges significantly from mainstream Jewish thought. This divergence could be seen as a theological innovation rather than a straightforward continuation of existing beliefs.

◉ The Failure of Jesus to Undergo the Actual Penalty for Sin:

The Inadequacy of Three Days as a Substitute for Eternal Death

The concept of substitutionary atonement in mainstream Christianity posits that Jesus Christ, through his death and resurrection, paid the penalty for humanity’s sins. However, a critical examination reveals a significant logical inconsistency in this claim. To illustrate this, imagine a judge who sentences a criminal to 30 years in prison. Instead of sending the criminal to serve the sentence, the judge offers his only begotten son to take the criminal’s place. Oddly, the judge releases his son after only three hours behind bars. Has justice been served?

This analogy mirrors the theological assertion that Jesus paid the penalty for sin, which is traditionally understood as eternal death. According to Christian doctrine, humanity’s sin warrants eternal separation from God, an unending penalty. Jesus, however, was dead for only three days before his resurrection. Can three days truly substitute for an eternal sentence?

To clarify, let’s consider the calculation:

• Penalty for sin: Eternal death (infinite duration)
• Time Jesus spent dead: 3 days (finite duration)

It is evident that 3 days ≠ eternity. The disparity between the penalty and the substitute’s duration is stark. Thus, the claim that the penalty for sin has been fully paid through Jesus’ three-day death lacks logical coherence.

This discrepancy suggests that the penalty remains unfulfilled, raising critical questions about the efficacy of the atonement. Just as the criminal’s 30-year sentence cannot be considered served by three hours of imprisonment, the eternal penalty for sin cannot be satisfied by a temporary death. The core issue is not the quality of the sacrifice but its quantitative inadequacy in meeting the demands of justice as defined by the doctrine.

Furthermore, this logical inconsistency challenges the foundation of the substitutionary atonement theory. If the substitution does not equate to the penalty, then the notion that Jesus’ death fully atones for sin is fundamentally flawed.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and reflections are invaluable as we explore the depths of theological doctrines and their implications.