If I were to fake a resurrection....

If I were to fake a resurrection....

Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler wrote an excellent article about how to fake a resurrection. Some of their arguments are summarised below.

Josh McDowell wrote; "I had assumed that someone, or several someone's, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible myth maker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. As much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first-century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently"

Firstly, if faking a resurrection it is important to wait a good long period of time before publishing or publicising the account. If you decide to publicise it to early then much vital evidence will still be hanging around. There are graves that can be checked and witnesses that can be interrogated. But if you wait a sensible period of time for witnesses to die and the grave to be lost then these worries can be avoided.

However, few historians doubt that the disciples began preaching the resurrection soon after the even elf. Peter's Pentecost sermon occurred within 50 days of the resurrection. Textual research indicates that the written accounts and the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15v3-8 are extremely early in origin - possibly as early as within 2 years of the event.

Secondly, it is a good idea when faking a resurrection to preach the event a good long distance away from where you are pretending that it happened.

If you preach it to nearby then there is a danger that the hearers might want to check out the evidence - which can only lead to you being discovered. At a good distance this removes any likelihood that your hearers might bump into witnesses or find the grave or the evidence. However, it is universally agreed that Christ's resurrection was first preached in Jerusalem - where the resurrection occurred.

Thirdly, I would select my "witnesses" carefully - they would have to be skilled in the art of telling "tales" and remaining consistent with it. The disciples, however, were a completely random group of 1st century Jews. They came from varying backgrounds and were of varying educational abilities.

Fourthly, I would avoid - as much as possible - using clearly identifiable names in my account. Once named individuals are mentioned it allows for the possibility of them being directly questioned or interrogated about their experiences.

The gospels are littered with the full names of individuals who would have been clearly identifiable at the time. There are at least 16 named witnesses in the accounts.

Jospeh of Arimathea is a particularly noteworthy named individual in the account. As a member of the Sanhedrin - the Jewish "High Court" of their time - he would have been well known and easily identifiable. J. P. Moreland writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case." His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted.

Fifthly, if I were to fake the resurrection I would use credible witnesses and ensure that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were not prohibited from giving legal testimony.

In the gospel accounts it is very significant that the women were the first to find Jesus' tomb empty and to see the resurrected Lord. Women at that time and in that culture were considered to be invalid witnesses and were not allowed to testify in court. If these accounts were fabrications then women would never have been included as key witnesses in these accounts.

Sixthly, I would surround the resurrection with impressive supernatural events.

Interestingly according to the gospels not one of the witnesses claims to have been present when the resurrection took place. None of the disciples even claims to have understood it or believed it when they first saw it. It would have been so easy for them or their successors to have supplemented their account with fanciful embellishments. But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to try and `improve upon` the truth the total picture presented in the gospels becomes far more trustworthy.

Next I would ensure that the gospels were carefully crafted together to eliminate any possibility of inconsistency between the accounts.

Many critics have pointed out befuddling differences and apparent inconsistencies in the gospel Resurrection accounts. But if this story was fabricated why weren't these differences smoothed out to paint a single perfectly consistent and well ordered story. Instead the gospels present a variety of different incidents with the risen Jesus in various situations and, on occasions, not always in perfect agreement. However in doing so they display a total lack of collusion and tend to agree and disagree (apparently) as much as genuine eyewitnesses in legal proceedings do.

Then I would ensure to make myself, and any co-conspirators, appear switched on or even heroic.

However, the New testament accounts present brutally frank and unflattering accounts of Jesus' followers (for example, Peter or Thomas). They are shown to be skeptical and a little slow on the uptake. This is in stark contrast with popular myths and legends from antiquity where the main characters are generally heroes.

To avoid any subsequent investigation or disproof of my account I would ensure that the location of the tomb was either a mystery or was destroyed shortly after the resurrection.

The gospel accounts, however, are completely open about the tomb. They describe the owner, Joseph of Arimathea - who would have been well known and easy to track down. But they go further and describe the exact location of the tomb; "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41). Anyone interested in checking out the facts could easily have done so.

Lastly, no matter how well believed I was - I would not be prepared to die in the most horrific way for the story I had made up. I would ensure to stop short of dying for my lie. What possible benefit could there be in that?

Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.

"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."

• < Prev
• Next >