Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened In The Black Box?
by Kris Komarnitsky
I would like to extend my thanks to Dave who runs this website for allowing me to introduce my new book on Christian origins, Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened In The Black Box? I will introduce my book in an unconventional fashion by sharing a recent cordial discussion I had with popular Christian Internet apologist JP Holding after he reviewed my book (unfavorably of course). Even if you don’t know who JP Holding is or don’t care about the details of an exchange between JP and myself, the discussion below offers a great introduction to my book and also a great introduction to an interesting topic of Christian origins.
After JP published his review of my book, I approached JP to discuss a specific matter in more detail. The topic we discussed was whether or not some of the first-century Christians at Corinth doubted Jesus’ resurrection, and whether or not the Apostle Paul was in his first letter to the Corinthians trying to convince them of the historical veracity of Jesus’ resurrection. I say yes on both counts, JP says no. These two questions are important when assessing the historicity of the discovered empty tomb, which in turn impacts on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection (more on that later).
Our discussion centered on how best to interpret the doubts of the Corinthians which are captured in this statement by Paul: “how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor 15:12). When we got into the details, I finally asked JP why Paul would add to the tradition that Jesus appeared to over 500 people (1 Cor 15:6) the qualifier that some were “still alive” if none of the Corinthians doubted Jesus’ resurrection and Paul was not defending it? He responded that, “Paul appealed to the witnesses of the creed in order to validate themselves as being able to testify to the nature of a resurrection body, since they had all seen and in some cases touched one.” In other words, according to JP, Paul’s reason for stating that some of the 500 were still alive was not so the Corinthians could ask some of the 500 if Jesus had really resurrected, but so the Corinthians could ask them questions about what kind of body Jesus had so they could get a better idea of what kind of body they will get when they resurrect (JP’s underlying position being that the Corinthians only doubted their own future resurrection, not Jesus’ resurrection).
Ironically, and inescapably, JP’s position on this issue still ends up at the same place as mine with respect to Paul’s intent to defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. For even if the Corinthians did not doubt Jesus’ resurrection before Paul wrote his letter, they would have after Paul points out the obvious: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised” (1 Cor 15:13), and the result is the same – Paul has to defend Jesus’ resurrection. As the highly respected evangelical Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBCOT), a source solidly in JP's camp with respect to Jesus' resurrection, says:
As an aside, the evangelical EBCOT also says, “[Paul] is here dealing with a group of Corinthians who are close to denying a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, namely, the resurrection of Christ.” (pg. 392, emphasis added). A person “close to denying” Jesus’ resurrection is plainly and simply someone who doubts Jesus’ resurrection.
JP went on to argue that the “high-context” society Paul and the Corinthians lived in can account for Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb even if the Corinthians doubted Jesus’ resurrection and Paul was defending it. As JP has written, a high-context society is one where people “presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or high knowledge of the context of anything referred to....[and therefore] extended explanations were unnecessary”. In plain language, JP is simply saying that the discovered empty tomb was implied by Paul and assumed by his audience.
In a general sense, JP has a point. People and cultures often operate on unstated assumptions. However, regardless of the degree of context of Paul’s or the Corinthian’s culture, the level of detail Paul felt the need to go into at the moment he was writing about Jesus’ resurrection is what is important here and it is evident in Paul’s letter itself. In addition to the list of multiple appearances (1 Cor 15:5-8), Paul presents as evidence for Jesus’ resurrection the community/tradition consensus that Jesus was raised (1 Cor 15:4), that this was confirmed in the scriptures (1 Cor 15:4), and he goes into detail on the consequences if Jesus did not resurrect: preaching useless, faith useless, we are false witnesses, we are still in our sins, those dead are lost, and we should be pitied (1 Cor 15:14-19). The Corinthians already knew about every single one of these things and yet here we have Paul explicitly emphasizing them again. Given all of the evidence that Paul explicitly repeats here in support of Jesus’ resurrection, it is hard to imagine why Paul does not also repeat the fact that Jesus burial location was discovered empty. Such a discovery would have been a solid piece of evidence in favor of Jesus’ resurrection and it is the only piece of major evidence missing from Paul’s argument for Jesus’ resurrection. As Dr. Tony Burke said of Jake O’Connell’s recent debate attempt to explain Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb: “It is one of O’Connell's weaknesses that he cannot effectively respond to the silences of the texts. No one can. So, why did he even try?” Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb suggests that the discovered empty tomb tradition is a legend.
The above is only one small part of my book. My primary effort is to account for the rise of all the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-8 if there never was a discovered empty tomb and Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. My intent here and in my book is not to participate in a disrespectful argument with JP or anyone else, to claim definitive answers, or to thrust my conclusion on others. My only intent is to offer one person’s opinion about Christian origins and let others make of it what they will. In addition to the topic above, JP voiced his opinion about other aspects of my book. I appreciate his effort, but I found his opinions there even less persuasive than what was discussed here. I wish JP and anyone else interested in Christian origins all the best in their studies. I think how all the world’s religions deal with their origins is an important topic that the human race eventually needs to come to grips with.
All the best and thanks for letting me introduce my book; I think many of you might find it worth your time.
Kris Komarnitsky
References
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008.
I would like to extend my thanks to Dave who runs this website for allowing me to introduce my new book on Christian origins, Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened In The Black Box? I will introduce my book in an unconventional fashion by sharing a recent cordial discussion I had with popular Christian Internet apologist JP Holding after he reviewed my book (unfavorably of course). Even if you don’t know who JP Holding is or don’t care about the details of an exchange between JP and myself, the discussion below offers a great introduction to my book and also a great introduction to an interesting topic of Christian origins. After JP published his review of my book, I approached JP to discuss a specific matter in more detail. The topic we discussed was whether or not some of the first-century Christians at Corinth doubted Jesus’ resurrection, and whether or not the Apostle Paul was in his first letter to the Corinthians trying to convince them of the historical veracity of Jesus’ resurrection. I say yes on both counts, JP says no. These two questions are important when assessing the historicity of the discovered empty tomb, which in turn impacts on the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection (more on that later).
Our discussion centered on how best to interpret the doubts of the Corinthians which are captured in this statement by Paul: “how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor 15:12). When we got into the details, I finally asked JP why Paul would add to the tradition that Jesus appeared to over 500 people (1 Cor 15:6) the qualifier that some were “still alive” if none of the Corinthians doubted Jesus’ resurrection and Paul was not defending it? He responded that, “Paul appealed to the witnesses of the creed in order to validate themselves as being able to testify to the nature of a resurrection body, since they had all seen and in some cases touched one.” In other words, according to JP, Paul’s reason for stating that some of the 500 were still alive was not so the Corinthians could ask some of the 500 if Jesus had really resurrected, but so the Corinthians could ask them questions about what kind of body Jesus had so they could get a better idea of what kind of body they will get when they resurrect (JP’s underlying position being that the Corinthians only doubted their own future resurrection, not Jesus’ resurrection).
Ironically, and inescapably, JP’s position on this issue still ends up at the same place as mine with respect to Paul’s intent to defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. For even if the Corinthians did not doubt Jesus’ resurrection before Paul wrote his letter, they would have after Paul points out the obvious: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised” (1 Cor 15:13), and the result is the same – Paul has to defend Jesus’ resurrection. As the highly respected evangelical Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBCOT), a source solidly in JP's camp with respect to Jesus' resurrection, says:
In one of the reports Paul received concerning what was going on in Corinth, he heard that some were claiming “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:12)....Paul was so deeply concerned about this theological position that he gave an extended discourse in ch. 15 to prove the resurrection of Christ and to set a timetable for the final return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead. (2008, pg. 247, emphasis added)
As an aside, the evangelical EBCOT also says, “[Paul] is here dealing with a group of Corinthians who are close to denying a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, namely, the resurrection of Christ.” (pg. 392, emphasis added). A person “close to denying” Jesus’ resurrection is plainly and simply someone who doubts Jesus’ resurrection.
JP went on to argue that the “high-context” society Paul and the Corinthians lived in can account for Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb even if the Corinthians doubted Jesus’ resurrection and Paul was defending it. As JP has written, a high-context society is one where people “presume a broadly shared, well-understood, or high knowledge of the context of anything referred to....[and therefore] extended explanations were unnecessary”. In plain language, JP is simply saying that the discovered empty tomb was implied by Paul and assumed by his audience.
In a general sense, JP has a point. People and cultures often operate on unstated assumptions. However, regardless of the degree of context of Paul’s or the Corinthian’s culture, the level of detail Paul felt the need to go into at the moment he was writing about Jesus’ resurrection is what is important here and it is evident in Paul’s letter itself. In addition to the list of multiple appearances (1 Cor 15:5-8), Paul presents as evidence for Jesus’ resurrection the community/tradition consensus that Jesus was raised (1 Cor 15:4), that this was confirmed in the scriptures (1 Cor 15:4), and he goes into detail on the consequences if Jesus did not resurrect: preaching useless, faith useless, we are false witnesses, we are still in our sins, those dead are lost, and we should be pitied (1 Cor 15:14-19). The Corinthians already knew about every single one of these things and yet here we have Paul explicitly emphasizing them again. Given all of the evidence that Paul explicitly repeats here in support of Jesus’ resurrection, it is hard to imagine why Paul does not also repeat the fact that Jesus burial location was discovered empty. Such a discovery would have been a solid piece of evidence in favor of Jesus’ resurrection and it is the only piece of major evidence missing from Paul’s argument for Jesus’ resurrection. As Dr. Tony Burke said of Jake O’Connell’s recent debate attempt to explain Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb: “It is one of O’Connell's weaknesses that he cannot effectively respond to the silences of the texts. No one can. So, why did he even try?” Paul’s silence on the discovered empty tomb suggests that the discovered empty tomb tradition is a legend.
The above is only one small part of my book. My primary effort is to account for the rise of all the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-8 if there never was a discovered empty tomb and Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. My intent here and in my book is not to participate in a disrespectful argument with JP or anyone else, to claim definitive answers, or to thrust my conclusion on others. My only intent is to offer one person’s opinion about Christian origins and let others make of it what they will. In addition to the topic above, JP voiced his opinion about other aspects of my book. I appreciate his effort, but I found his opinions there even less persuasive than what was discussed here. I wish JP and anyone else interested in Christian origins all the best in their studies. I think how all the world’s religions deal with their origins is an important topic that the human race eventually needs to come to grips with.
All the best and thanks for letting me introduce my book; I think many of you might find it worth your time.
Kris Komarnitsky
References
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008.
Comments
Post a Comment