'Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.”'
- Acts 17:32 ESV
In the gospel accounts we read about three groups of people who Jesus often came into conflict with. The first were the religious leaders of whom it was said they did the things they did to be seen by other people. Today we would refer to such people as virtue signalers. The second were the scribes, analogous to the academic world. The third were lawyers. They received such a bad rap because of the propensity to use legal codes to bring about desired outcomes instead of bringing about justice. Despite their prominent place in society, it wasn't the virtue signalers, the academics, or the lawyers who transformed the Roman Empire from the inside out. It was accomplished, at least initially, by the first century equivalent of blue collar workers.
What accounts for this transformation of not just one society but much of the planet? People still debate this today but it ultimately goes back to an outrageous claim they made: someone they knew had died, physically resurrected from the dead, and then instructed them to publicize this fact and the implications of it far and wide. Even someone who doesn't actually believe this happened has to admit that someone coming back from the dead is not something of minor importance. You don't even have to understand what the implications are to recognize that something so entirely, unfathomably against the grain of everyday experience cannot not have implications. It is no less an outrageous claim from where we stand in the early years of the twenty-first century than it was when it was first made those long years ago. We just hear about it so much we forget about how outrageous a claim it really is. While it is probably safe to assume no one disputes it is an outrageous claim, things become a bit more contentious when it comes to determining whether it is a rational claim. Is it? Well, that depends......
The Case For Easter is divided into three sections that examine the events that underpin the festival now celebrated globally as Easter. The first section considers why crucifixion was used as a method of execution and details from a medical perspective what it does to a human body. Essentially, if you were nailed to a roman cross, there was zero chance you were coming down from it alive. Even if you somehow did survive – a miraculous event in itself – you would not be inspiring any revolutions. The whole point of such a brutal and public method of execution was to make you the example that ensured everyone else stayed in line. The second section considers the circumstances surrounding the empty tomb; elaborating on the burial practices of the time period, the expectations placed on soldiers to fulfill their duties, and other historical background information. Disinterring a tomb was a far more elaborate affair than visiting a graveyard with a shovel and a flashlight under cover of darkness. Lastly, the post-resurrection appearances of Christ are considered. It is certainly the case that people have died for things they believe to be true throughout history. Just recently I was reading a news report of seventy Christians beheaded in a church in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The question that needs to be asked of the original disciples is the opposite of this though; not is anyone willing to die for something they believe to be true but why would anyone be willing to die for something they knowingly have fabricated? These were people who were on the scene when and where it all began. If they made up these stories, they knew they were not true. Is is psychologically tenable for an individual to persist in a lie that is going to cost them their life, perhaps that of their loved ones, and really serves no purpose if they are fully aware it isn't true (which they certainly would be aware of if they made it up)? Is it psychologically tenable for a multitude of people to do that? Skeptics make much of the fact that there were various messianic movements springing up in this time period that fizzled out once the leaders were put to death but this is more of a problem for skeptics than it is for believers. One must wonder why all of those movements dissipated once the leaders of them were executed just as one might expect but this one – to quote the onlookers of the day – went on to turn the world upside down.
The author makes a good legal case that the resurrection really did happen. However, it is worth noting this book is built on the assumption of the veracity of the source material. Jesus is mentioned in passing in a few extra-biblical historical documents from the same time frame but the gospels are the only ones that are anything like the modern genre we refer to as biographies. The legitimacy of the christian faith stands or falls on their veracity. Having looked into this previously, I am persuaded the source documents are historical records, not fabrications.
Traveling even further back along the evidential chain, one might not even care to try and determine for themselves if the source documents were trustworthy if prior to that one did not have reasons for thinking the universe was permeated by and originated from a transcendent Spirit instead of believing it had come from nothing and is governed by inflexible, mechanistic laws that somehow had been generated by the very system within which they appeared (ie. that, much like the universe itself, simply appeared).
In other words, it's a cumulative case. Is believing someone rose from the dead rational? Well, if the universe we live in is like the first description, it is perfectly rational. If the universe we live in is like the second description, it is irrational nonsense.
I happen to believe it is perfectly rational. This short little book concisely but not exhaustively lays out some of the reasons why.