Apologetic Analysis And Refutation A Defense Of The Resurrection

Apologetic Analysis and Refutation: A Defense of the Resurrection
Timothy Gordon
July 28, 2012

ii
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
A Renaissance in Historical Jesus and Resurrection Studies .......................................1
The Orthodox Biblical Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ ....................................2
APOLOGETIC ANALYSIS AND REFUTATION: A DEFENSE OF THE RESURRECTION ...............3
Apologetic Analysis of the Critical Factors and Objections.........................................3
Mi hael Ma ti ’s Fi e C iti al Fa to s ........................................................3
Other Contemporary Critical Objections....................................................4
Refutation of the Critical Factors and Objections .......................................................8
Strengths of the Critical Factors and Objections........................................8
Weaknesses of the Critical Factors and Objections ...................................9
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 12
A Balanced Apologetic Approach ............................................................................. 12
The Rise and Challenge of the New Atheism ........................................................... 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 15

1
INTRODUCTION
The title of this pape is, Apologeti A al sis a d Refutatio : A Defe se of the Resu e tio .
The theme focused on an apologetic analysis and refutation of the five critical factors of Michael Martin
and some additional objections by Dan Barker and eight other contemporary critics of the resurrection.
The study was introduced by looking at the renaissance in historical Jesus and resurrection studies. The
importance and significance of the orthodox biblical doctrine of the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus
was covered in juxtaposition to the view of denying the same by critical scholars like the Jesus Seminar.
The main argument of this essay dealt with an apologetic analysis and refutation of the five
critical factors of atheist Michael Martin, as well some objections by other contemporary critics like Dan
Barker. The refutation is a critical analysis and defense of the resurrection, noting some of the strengths
and weaknesses of the critical arguments.
In the conclusion, the concept of a balanced apologetic approach to these critical objections was
introduced with the minimal facts approach (4+1) of Gary Habermas and Mike Licona presented as the
best one to use. Finally, a brief prediction of the rise and challenge of the new atheism to the
resurrection was provided.
A Renaissance in Historical Jesus and Resurrection Studies
Gary Habermas states that the study of the historical Jesus is perhaps the most captivating
theological topic in North America in the last thirty years.1
Jesus Seminar fellow and critical scholar
Ma us Bo g e hoes ith his o se atio that, A ajo e aissa e is o u i g i North American
Jesus studies. 2
In his essay, Habermas focused on resurrection studies and he noted that since 1975, more than
1400 scholarly publications on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus have appeared.3
In his
analysis, the majority of publi atio s o the su je t of Jesus’ death a d esu e tio e e itte
North American authors. Of these North American works, he noted an approximate ratio of 3:1 of
moderate conservative to skeptical publications (The European publications had a surprisingly similar
ratio.). In his study, Habermas found six general research trends with several of them focusing on
objections to the resurrection. One trend he noted is a recent surge in naturalistic explanations,
1
Ga R. Ha e as, Resu e tio Resea h f o 5 to the P ese t: What a e C iti al “ hola s “a i g?
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2, (January 2005), http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/
J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3.2 _2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3.2_2005.htm (accessed 20 July 2012).
2
Ma us J. Bo g, A Re aissa e i Jesus “tudies. Theology Today 45, no. 3, (October 1988): 280, ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed 20 July 2012).
3
Ha e as, Resu e tio Resea h, .p.

Apologetic Analysis and Refutation: A Defense of the Resurrection 2
specifically of subjective visions, hallucinations, and objective illusions. A second trend was scholars who
addressed the subject of the empty tomb. A thi d t e d add essed the atu e of Paul’s testi o i
Corinthians 15:3-8. A fourth trend is that of critical scholars questioning the notion that Jesus was raised
bodily.
The Orthodox Biblical Doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ
Ma us Bo g, i a espo se to Willia Willi o ’s iti ue of his defi itio of the p e-Easter,
post-Easter Jesus4
asks the following questions that are relevant to this issue:
What do you mean by Easter? Do you mean a supernatural intervention by God which
transformed the corpse of Jesus and left the tomb empty? . . . I want to ask why that
particular understanding of Easte is i po ta t. What’s at stake i the supe atu al
interventionist physical understanding of the resurrection?5
It is crucial to note the significance and importance of the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of
Jesus as an event in space and time history. The foundation of the Christian faith rises or falls on the
historicity of this event. The apostle Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 that if Christ was not
bodily raised from the dead, then 1) the faith of believers is useless (vss 14, 17); 2) they are still in their
sins (vs. 17); 3) departed loved ones are lost (vs. 18); 4) our preaching is useless (vs. 14); 5) the apostles
are false witnesses (vs. 15); and 6) we are of all men most to be pitied (vs. 19).
The resurrection is an essential part of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-5). Paul explicitly states in
Romans 10:9-10 that confession in Jesus as Lord and belief in the heart that God raised him from the
dead are both salvation imperatives.
4
Willia H. Willi o , Mode Dist a tio s, The Christian Century 114, no. 31 (November 5, 1997):
1009-1011, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).
5
Ma us Bo g, Post ode Re isio i g, The Christian Century 114, no. 31 (November 5, 1997): 1011,
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).

APOLOGETIC ANALYSIS AND REFUTATION: A DEFENSE OF THE RESURRECTION
Apologetic Analysis of the Critical Factors and Objections
Michael Martin’s Five Critical Factors
In his book The Case Against Christianity6
, atheist philosopher Michael Martin noted that New
Testament and historical evidence must be assessed to determine whether Jesus was resurrected.
Martin states that there are five factors that would affect the reliability and strength of this evidence. In
Ma ti ’s ie , ea h of these fi e fa to s u de i es the eight of the Ne Testa e t e idence in favor
of the resurrection.
1. The purposes of the Gospel writers. This is a appa e t allusio that the autho ’s pu pose i iti g
the New Testament gospels and letters are biased with their specific theological presuppositions. In
other words, their theological persuasions shaped their account of the resurrection. Martin claims
this makes the New Testament writers unreliable. Martin suggests it is even more difficult to
determine the reliability of documents with known biases when they are intended to be accurate
histo i al a ou ts. Ma ti the su ises that to o e o e ou i itial suspi io the ust eet
st i t histo i al sta da ds. 7
2. The inconsistency of the resurrection story. This factor is an assumption by Martin that the New
Testament accounts of the resurrection must contain contradictions since they do not agree on the
details in the events that they record. Martin divides the resurrection accounts into two parts: what
happened at the tomb after Jesus' death, and what happened after the discovery of the empty
tomb. Martin concludes that the gospel accounts at the tomb are inconsistent because of
implausible interpretations and that without these interpretations they simply could not all be true.
If not contradictory, they are very different, hard to reconcile, and harmonizing them is impossible.8
3. The lack of eyewitnesses. Ma ti ’s lai is that the e as o e e it ess a ou t of the a tual
resurrection event itself. Belief in the accounts must be based on inferences to the alleged
appearances and the empty tomb. Paul was the only contemporary eyewitness of a post-
resurrection appearance. All the other eyewitness cases are second- or third hand reports. Martin
assumes that Paul’s e pe ie e must have been a hallucination.9
6
Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 76-77,
http://books.google.com/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#
v=onepage&q=Resurrection&f=false (accessed July 20, 2012).
7
Ibid., 77.
8
Ibid., 81.
9
Ibid., 81-82.

4. The reliability of the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the scribes. Martin asks how we can be certain
that the eyewitnesses, those who reported the accounts, and those who later wrote the stories
down were reliable and trustworthy. He maintains that we should be suspicious since they are not
o je ti e i depe de t o se e s e ause the e e Jesus’ f ie ds a d follo e s. He uestio s the
identity and motives of the reporters and the possibility that they embellished the stories. He
concludes that the oral transmission of the stories over the decades generated inaccuracies in the
a ou ts, i ludi g Paul’s.10
5. Lack of independent confirmation. Martin considers the lack of independent confirmation of the
resurrection to be a major reason for rejecting it, especially considering its high prior improbability.
By independent confirmation he is referring to confirmation both external and internal to the New
Testament, but outside of the gospels. He concludes that the Pauline and other epistles provide no
independent support for the empty tomb stories and the resurrection is not confirmed by Jewish or
pagan sources.11
Other Contemporary Critical Objections
1. Dan Barker. In chapter 51 of his book, Losing Faith in Faith, Barker lists four reasons why the Jesus
story is a myth:12
a. There is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories.
b. The New Testament stories are internally contradictory.
c. There are natural explanations for the origin of the Jesus legend.
d. The miracle reports make the story unhistorical.
On his website and in his book (LFIF), Barker has also issued an Easter challenge for Christians.
I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what
happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely
that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important
doctrine was born.13
2. Alan Dundes and Robert Price. In the documentary video The God Who Wasn’t There14
(narrated by
Brian Flemming), skeptic Alan Dundes a gues that Jesus’ life o fo s to that of a he o sto . He
eads f o Lo d Ragla ’s ook o he oes he e the sto of Jesus o es i thi d pla e ith out
of a possible 22 hero points. He concludes that the higher the score, the less likely the hero is a
historical figure. The video also interviews Robert Price who is a Jesus Seminar fellow and a
p opo e t of the Jesus th. He lai s e a k o the e as a Caesa Augustus e ause he is
tied into the history of the time. However, the biblical stories contain outrageous improbabilities like
10
Ibid., 82-83.
11
Ibid., 84-85.
12
Jeffrey J. Lowder, "The Contemporary Debate On The Resurrection," Internet Infidels, http://
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html (accessed July 22, 2012).
13
Dan Barker, "Leave No Stone Unturned," Freedom From Religion Foundation, http://www.ffrf.org/
legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone (accessed July 21, 2012).
14
The God--Jesus Who Wasn't There [Full Film].flv, (Youtube, February 22, 2011), Video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmhhZ-dex-k&feature=related (accessed June 4, 2012).

the slaughter of innocents in both the Old and New Testaments, the Jewish supreme council
meeting on Passover eve to get rid of Jesus, or Pontius Pilate letting go a known killer and
insurrectionist Barabbas and letting Jesus be thrown to the mob after trying to get him off the hook.
To Price, these stories defy any historical similitude. He asks if it looks like Jesus as a mythical figure
has been inserted into history here.
3. Gerd Ludemann. In a recent essay, Habermas reviewed the recent trend of thought on the
hallucination hypothesis originally made popular by David Strauss in the nineteenth century.15
Gerd
Ludemann, whose work on the resurrection is representative of the hallucination view, is Professor
of History and Literature of Early Christianity at the University of Göttingen, Germany. Lude a ’s
recent work claims this explanation can be applied to all of the chief participants in the earliest
church: the disciples, Paul, the 500, and James, the brother of Jesus. Ludemann concludes that
hallucinatory visions are required, along with auditory features that produced a stimulus,
enthusiasm, religious intoxication, and ecstasy for Peter. This spread to the other disciples by
an incomparable chain reaction. Paul, the other apostles, 500 persons, and James all similarly
experienced these subjective visions. The appearances were collective, amounti g to a ass
e stas .
4. Robert Funk. Comparing his work to that of Martin Luther, Jesus Seminar co-founder and liberal
scholar Robert Funk has written twenty-o e theses outli i g hat he des i es as The Co i g
Radi al Refo atio . His thesis u e te is oted he e, hi h deals ith Jesus’ esu e tio .
The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse. Jesus did not rise
from the dead, except perhaps in some metaphorical sense. The meaning of the
resurrection is that a few of his followers—probably no more than two or three—finally
came to understand what he was all about. When the significance of his words and
deeds dawned on them, they knew of no other terms in which to express their
amazement than to claim that they had seen him alive.16
5. John Dominic Crossan. Crossan has written a number of books and articles on the historical Jesus in
recent years that give us insight into his presuppositions. Though he is difficult to pin down on his
exact view of the resurrection, when asked about the resurrection in an interview by James Halstead
he eplied, I do ot elie e that the esu e tio i ol es a body coming out of a tomb or an empty
to . 17
His view is what could be termed as metaphorical or spiritual also. He denies the literal
resurrection arguing that the sequence of events surrounding it lacks multiple independent
accounts.18
Crossan even speculates that Jesus’ dead od as eithe left o the oss o u ied i a
15
Gary Habermas, "Explaining Away the Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories,"
Christian Research Journal 23, no. 4 (January 1, 2001): 26-27, http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/
crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm (accessed July 20, 2012).
16
Robert W. Funk, "The Coming Radical Reformation: Twenty-one Theses," The Fourth R 11, no. 4
(July/August 1998), http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Funk_Theses/funk_theses.html (accessed
July 20, 2012).
17
Joh Do i i C ossa , The O thodo U o thodo of Joh Do i i C ossa : A I te ie , I terview
by James Halstead. Cross Currents 45, no. 4 (Winter 1995/96): 520, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).
18
John Dominic Crossan, "The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," The Christian Century 108, no. 37
(December 18/25 1991): 1199, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).

shallow grave and his body was eaten by dogs.19
He remarks regarding the symbolic nature of the
sto of the t o dis iples o the oad to E aus: The s olis is o ious, as is the etaphoric
condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon.
E aus e e happe ed. E aus al a s happe s. 20
Crossan insists that the resurrected Jesus is
real but in a totally different mode of existence.21
He further states,
…Jesus as a d is di i e fo those ho e pe ie e i hi the a ifestatio of God . . . .
I do not separate or emphasize words over deeds or death over life. It is the whole that
counts in that sense, and only in that sense. I understand and accept statements about
Jesus having risen, body and soul, from the dead. Those are, for me, acceptable
mythological ways of insisting that is the whole which perdures as permanent and
abiding challenge to Christian faith.22
6. Marcus Borg. Borg is a Jesus Seminar fellow and Oregon State University professor of religion. Borg
argued that by the 1960s the coming Son of Man sayings in the Gospel texts were not accepted to
e authe ti ut i stead e e eated Jesus’ follo e s i the de ades follo i g Easte .23
Thus,
following this view, the early church was convinced that the Easter event became the origin of their
eschatological or end-of-ti e hopes. I Bo g’s a al sis, the o se sus of s hola ship p odu ed the
view that Jesus mission and message were non- apo al pti . Though Ha e as’ atu alisti esea h
does not elaborate on Borg, his theory would possibly be classified as naturalistic subjective.
Borg has made the following statements about the resurrection:
I have no idea if Easter involved anything happening to the corpse of Jesus or an empty
tomb . . . resurrection means entry into another kind or mode of existence, one beyond
death, beyond time and space. A resurrected person will not die again. Resurrection
need not involve something happening to a corpse.24
I see Easter as true, even though I am skeptical that the tomb was empty or that
anything special happened to the corpse of Jesus.25
7. John Shelby Spong. As a retired Episcopalian priest and Jesus Seminar member, Spong followed
Fu k’s lead i his essa e titled A Call fo a Ne Refo atio he e he issued t el e theses to
Christian leaders, inviting them to an open debate with him. His thesis number seven states:
Resu e tio is a a tio of God. Jesus as aised i to the eaning of God. It therefore cannot be a
19
C ossa , The O thodo U o thodo of Joh Do i i C ossa : A I te ie , 5 . Also oted i
Ha e as, The Late T e tieth-Century Resurgence of Natu alisti Respo ses to Jesus’ Resu e tio , .p. This
may be an allusion by Crossan to Psalm 22:16.
20
Crossan, "The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," 1200.
21
C ossa , The O thodo U o thodo of Joh Do i i C ossa : A I te ie , 5 -521.
22
Joh Do i i C ossa , “o e Theologi al Co lusio s f o M Resea h, The Living Pulpit 3, no. 1
(January-March 1994): 18, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).
23
Bo g, A Re aissa e i Jesus “tudies, 5-286.
24
Marcus J. Borg, "The Historian, the Christian, and Jesus," Theology Today 52, no. 1 (April 1995): 11,
25
Marcus Borg, "Hearing the Easter Stories Again," Living Pulpit 7, no. 1 (January/March 1998): 16-17,

ph si al esus itatio o u i g i side hu a histo . 26
On March 20, 2005 at Bethel College in
No the I dia a, Willia La e C aig a d “po g e gaged i The G eat Resu e tio De ate. 27
In
that debate, Spong made his point very clear that he viewed the resurrection of Jesus as a
metaphorical rather than a historical event.
8. Bart Ehrman. As an evangelical turned skeptic, Ehrman is professor of religious studies at the
University of North Carolina. In 2006 he debated William Lane Craig on the subject of the historical
evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.28
In the transcript from this debate, Ehrman stated his views
on the resurrection. Ehrman concluded that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb
were probably later inventions. In fact, Ehrman argued that the empty tomb stories were not
checked out because they lost track of time from when the stories began to be circulated. In the
meantime, the body of Jesus had decomposed. The postresurrection appearances were most likely
visions which are more plausible than a historical explanation. Ehrman claimed there is no evidence
within the first 500 years of Christianity that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection.
These critical scholars have changed their meaning of the term eschatological from the
apo al pti se se to the etapho i al. The te es hatologi al Jesus a e to efe to his post-Easter
significance in a metaphorical way. The essence of this view is that the resurrection is not a literal or
bodily event but was real to his followers in an eschatological (metaphorical) way. The denial of the
resurrection as a literal event leads to reasoning that eschatological sayings were metaphorical. There
obviously cannot have a second coming by a dead messiah. It also akes it easie to assu e that Jesus’
resurrection spiritual and it follows that the appearances to his disciples would be visions or
hallucinations.
26
John S. Spong, "A Call for a New Reformation," The Fourth R 11, no. 4, (July/August 1998),
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Spong_Theses/spong_theses.html (accessed July 21,
2012).
27
The Great Resurrection Debate (1 of 2) (William Lane Craig Vs John Shelby Spong), debate (Youtube,
April 19, 2011), Video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BTjAVNHWac&feature=related (accessed June 18,
2012). This debate was held at Bethel College on March 20, 2005. Part two of the video was available in audio only
and is located at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSylhvej8BU.
28
William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, "Is There Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus?,"
Reasonable Faith, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-
craig-ehrman (accessed July 22, 2012). This debate took place on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross,
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States – March 28, 2006.

8
Refutation of the Critical Factors and Objections
When all factors are considered, it is difficult to see many strengths in the skeptical arguments
and objections to the resurrection. When probing below the surface, there is a strong basis for believing
the historical truth of the empty tomb. But as Russ Dudrey notes, the canonical accounts of the
resurrection and the resurrection appearances contain some apparent difficulties if you view the
objections purely on a literary and surface level. In his survey of the canonical Gospel accounts, Dudrey
notes numerous places where the accounts were vulnerable to attack by unsympathetic pagan readers.
In light of pagan and contemporary objections, the Gospels fail to guard themselves from criticism in
several ways.29
Strengths of the Critical Factors and Objections
1. The purposes of the Gospel writers. Martin claims that the bias of the Gospel writers prevented
them from being trustworthy in their accounts. Further, with the exception of John none of the male
witnesses initially believes. The question follows, how can they be trusted when by all accounts,
they did not understand the meaning of the resurrection and after it occurred, they were not
prepared for it? They expect to find Jesus in his tomb but finding no body, they think grave robbers
have stolen him away (John 20:2, 13-15). When the risen Jesus appears to the eleven, he first
rebukes them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they have not believed the women's
report that he is risen. All the witnesses, including the women and doubting Thomas, take some
convincing (John 20:24-29).30
2. The inconsistency of the resurrection story. Martin claims the accounts contain too many
discrepancies in their incidental details that lead to implausible interpretations. Dudrey notes some
of these:31
a. How many women went to the tomb? John focuses on Mary Magdalene alone. In Matthew, two
Ma s go to the to ; i Ma k, t o Ma s a d “alo e; i Luke, t o Ma s, Joa a, a d the
othe s ith the —thus at least five women.
b. How many angels were at the tomb? One angel in Matthew; a young man in Mark; two men in
shining clothes in Luke; none is mentioned in John.
c. Where were the resurrection appearances, Jerusalem or Galilee? The answer likely is both, but
Galilee was about a week's walk from Jerusalem. Luke and Acts give only the resurrection
appearances in and around Jerusalem; Matthew and John give appearances in both Jerusalem
a d Galilee. Ma k gi es the dis iples oti e that he goes efo e ou i to Galilee ut sho s
only an appearance in Jerusalem (Mark 16:7; [16:9-11]).
3. The lack of eyewitnesses. As Martin rightly noted, the Gospels give no eyewitnesses of the actual
resurrection event, only of the empty tomb, the angels, and the resurrection appearances of Jesus.
29
Russ Dud e , What the W ite s “hould Ha e Do e Bette : A Case fo the Resu e tio of Jesus Based
o A ie t C iti is s of the Resu e tio Repo ts, Stone-Campbell Journal 3, no. 1 (March 1, 2000): 68, 71, ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2012).
30
Ibid., 69-70.
31
Ibid., 70.

Jesus’ disciples only saw his empty tomb, and then saw him after he had risen. Matthew says the
Roman soldiers who were there to guard the tomb saw the angel come down and roll away the
stone door of the tomb and sit upon the stone and were terrified by this (Matt 28:2-4). As the
Gospels p ese t it, the a gel olled a a the sto e to e eal a to that as al ead e pt : Wh
seek the li i g ith the dead? He is ot he e, he is ise . 32
4. The reliability of the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the scribes. Martin dismisses the testimony of
the eyewitnesses and reporters entirely because the only testimony to the empty tomb in the
Gospels is that of the friends and followers of Jesus, despite the fact that the enemies of Jesus know
about it too. Matthew says that the soldiers took a bribe to lie and claim they were asleep while
grave robbers (the disciples of Jesus) came and stole the body; this is the report that persists among
the Jews of his day (Matt 28:11-15). The only real witnesses of the empty tomb are friendly
witnesses. Initially several female followers of Jesus went to the tomb, found it empty, and reported
it to the apostles; then Peter and John ran to the tomb to see for themselves (Luke 24:12; John 20:1-
13).33
As Dudrey notes, the testimony of the women would not be accepted in either a Roman or a
Jewish court. We are dependent on John for the account of Peter and John running to the tomb
(John 20:1-10). Matthew and Mark do not even recount the tale, and Luke gives us only a single
verse regarding Peter's visit to the tomb (Luke 24:12). Otherwise all the first witnesses of the empty
tomb are women, who in the ancient world were thought proverbially unreliable.34
5. Lack of independent confirmation. Lowder argued this was one of Martin's strongest points because
he framed the discussion in the context of the background probability of the resurrection. Ma ti ’s
argument, given the fact that the Resurrection is understood as a miracle, has high prior
improbability, though Lowder states it is not impossible. He agrees with Martin that it is extremely
important that there be some independent confirmation before the Resurrection story is
accepted.35
Weaknesses of the Critical Factors and Objections
1. The purposes of the Gospel writers. As Dudrey notes, the Gospel writers do not embellish their
accounts of the resurrection, despite their Christian bias. They chose to tell the story, warts and all,
in a bald fashion when compared to the Gospel of Peter's retelling of it.36
Some of the strongest
criticism of Martin comes from fellow atheist Jeffrey Lowder. Lowder states Martin's first factor (the
reliability of the authors) is the weakest.37
He asks some legitimate and probing questions. What
type(s) of purposes would convince Martin that a document was not a reliable historical account?
How much would the account have to be shaped by said purpose? How would we know? And
doesn't every author have biases? The criterion seems both vague and flimsy. Martin fails to prove
that the New Testament writers were unreliable because of their purpose. He also fails to give any
examples of this, which if true, should be easy for Martin to find. Without such examples, it is
unclear what Martin thinks the writers' purpose was, or how their purpose distorted historical
information, including facts concerning the resurrection.
32
Luke 24:5. See also Matt 28:6; Mark 16:6.
33
Dudrey, 68.
34
Ibid., 69.
35
Lowder, n.p.
36
Dudrey, 76.
37
Lowder, n.p.

2. The inconsistency of the resurrection story. This is a subjective argument. Martin seems to imply that
different accounts of an event should agree on almost every detail. The New Testament sources and
early Christian writings all agree that Jesus died, was buried, and rose on the third day. With
Ma ti ’s iti is of i o siste ies, he should deal with proposed harmonizations of these
accounts but Martin does no such thing. Lo de s olds Ma ti ’s lack of effort here as inexcusable to
not attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts himself.38
3. The lack of eyewitnesses. As Lowder notes, Martin's third factor for determining the reliability of
eyewitness testimony is equally unclear. Martin claims that eyewitness accounts are more reliable
than second or third hand accounts. The gospel writer Luke in Luke 1:1-4 claims that his narrative
included eyewitness testimony. If true, this would minimize the effect Martin's second factor would
have on the reliability of the testimony. Moreover, a second hand writer like the author of Luke
might be able to "compare" different historical traditions, and rely solely on the "more reliable"
traditions. The atheist Lowder argues that second-hand testimony like Luke could therefore be more
reliable than the exuberant accounts of the alleged eyewitnesses themselves.39
4. The reliability of the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the scribes. Lowder said it is unclear what
Martin expected to accomplish with this argument. He argued there are other historical documents
where the author is unknown, but we nonetheless tend to accept what was written, unless we have
good reason to do otherwise. It is unclear why we should reject the New Testament as historical
documents, simply because we do not know much about the eyewitnesses, the reporters, and the
scribes.40
5. Lack of independent confirmation. Habermas and Licona (H&L) argue that when an event or saying is
attested by more than one independent source, there is a strong indication of historicity.41
Jesus'
disciples claimed he rose from the dead and appeared to them. As H&L note, there are nine early
and independent sources that fall into three categories: (1) the testimony of Paul about the
disciples; (2) the oral tradition that passed through the early church; and (3) the written works of the
early church. Paul’s testi o is i depe de t of the o igi al dis iples ut the e is evidence that he
received it within five years of the events.42
This list of nine independent sources includes Luke (Acts
7; 12), Clement of Rome (1 Clem 5:2-7), Ignatius (Smyrn 3:2-3), Polycarp (Phil. 9:2), Dionysius of
Corinth (Eusebius EH 2:25:8), Tertullian (Scorpiace 15), Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56, 77), Paul, and
James.43
Dudrey adds that whatever else they are, the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus
a ot e the i e tio s of Ch ist o spi ato s e ause the a e ot good at fa i ati g their
accounts and conspiring to harmonize them.44
They do not gloss over items unfavorable to their bias
like Peter's denial, Judas's betrayal, all the disciples' unbelief and incomprehension and infighting
over who was the greatest among them. Their story has many of the kinds of discrepancies in
incidental detail that one would expect from accident reports done by independent witnesses.
Discrepancies there are, but their story has the ring of truth.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2004), 37.
42
Ibid., 51-53.
43
Ibid., 223-224.
44
Dudrey, 75-76.

6. Jesus Lacks Historical Confirmation (Barker, Price). This claim of both Barker and Price is radical and
fringe. Barker lists eight sou es that lai this Jesus M th a d o e appea to e spe ialists o
the historical Jesus or the New Testament text.45
Even the liberal scholars of the Jesus Seminar and
Bart Ehrman acknowledge Jesus was a real historical person, despite their attempts to deconstruct
the gospel texts. Lowder thinks this argument is not convincing and believes Barker is unreasonable
to use it, even if there are inconsistencies in the New Testament. H&L have shown in their research
that forty-two authors mention Jesus within 150 years of his life; nine traditional New Testament
authors, twenty early church authors outside the New Testament, four heretical writings, and nine
secular non-Christian authors.46
Even Tiberius Caesar who was a contemporary of Jesus only had ten
authors mention him within 150 years of his life.
45
Dan Barker, "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?," Freedom From Religion Foundation, http://ffrf.org/
legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php#f9 (accessed July 23, 2012).
46
Habermas and Licona, 233.

CONCLUSION
A Balanced Apologetic Approach
A concept of a balanced apologetic approach comes from Ronald Mayers. Mayers defined
apologeti s as a o p ehe si e app oa h that is a philosophi al, theologi al, a d histo i al
de o st atio of the t uthful ess of Ch istia it . 47
In his doctoral dissertation, Daniel Janosik studied
the apologetic approach of John of Damascus, who served the Ummayad caliphs in the eighth century
and then retired to a monastery to write his theological works.48
John sought to develop a methodology
for Christians to understand their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of their opponents (Muslims), to
stand strong in the face of growing controversy, and to fulfill the challenge of 1 Peter 3:15. Janosik
advocates a holistic approach that incorporates both dialogue (irenics) and debate (polemics),
depending on the situation. He states there are three reasons for apologetics, namely, preparing,
defe di g, a d efuti g. Ja osik’s app oa h e hoes the ala ed app oa h used Mayers.
There are no alternate explanations that account for the evidence better than the resurrection
hypothesis outlined by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. There is agreement by most scholars
that this is the earliest account of the gospel message of death, burial, resurrection, and post-
resurrection appearances of Jesus within 5 years of the event. Since the objections are mostly historical
and literary rather than philosophical, it seems that the minimal facts (4+1) approach of H&L is the most
balanced apologetic approach that Christians can use to counter the arguments of the skeptics like
Martin and Barker.49
This approach is accepted by most specialists who study the historical Jesus and the
resurrection, whether skeptics or believers. The burden of proof is on the critics to provide a better
account (that is independently validated).
1. Jesus death by crucifixion. This event is reported by all four gospel accounts and a number of non-
Christian sources including Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and Mara bar Serapion.
2. The disciples believed and proclaimed that Jesus rose from the dead. They would not risk torture and
death if they knew it to be a lie. The gospel writers and Paul all believed it, preached about it, and
wrote about it.
47
Ronald B. Mayers, Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith
(Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), 8, http://books.google.com/books?id=q9NhV42cayMC&source=
gbs_navlinks_s (accessed July 27, 2012).
48
Daniel Janosik, "John of Damascus: First Apologist to the Muslims," (PhD diss., London School of
Theology, 2011), 2-3, http://ses.mrooms3.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=5755 (accessed May 28, 2012). This
citation is from chapter 9 titled, The Development of John's Apologetic Approach.
49
Habermas and Licona, 220-225.

3. The conversion of church persecutor and skeptic Paul. Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee of Pharisees. He
was as militant against Christianity before his conversion as he was passionately committed to it
after his conversion. A learned and experienced man like Paul would not be easily persuaded to be a
Christian unless he had an experience that changed him to the very core.
4. The conversion of James, the skeptic and half-brother of Jesus. The gospels clearly record James as
being a skeptic prior to the resurrection. Paul says Jesus appeared to James after the resurrection
and James went on to become the leader of the Jerusalem church. The significance of this event had
to be great for James since Jesus did not have credibility with his brothers prior to the resurrection.
5. The empty tomb. This fact is a given for the resurrection to occur but it is still significant
circumstantial evidence. The evidence of the empty would be an easy fact or corroborate in a city
the size of Je usale . Jesus’ e e ies lai ed that his dis iples stole the od hi h i di e tl poi ts
to the empty tomb. The gospel accounts of women being the first witnesses of the empty tomb
would have been embarrassing and damaging to their claim.
The Rise and Challenge of the New Atheism
In the last five years, there has been a renewed effort by militant atheists in their attacks on
religion in general and Christianity specifically. Kerby Anderson has noted that these new atheists are no
longer content to argue that Christianity is not true but are advocating that it is also dangerous and
evil.50
One of the trends within the new atheism is to abandon the scholarly arena to write books to a
popular audience. Some of these recent popular authors include Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion),
Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon), and Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), among
others.
John Lennox devotes a chapter on the resurrection in his new book on the new atheism but,
ironically, he notes that the one area in which the new atheists have not seriously taken on is the
question of the resurrection:
I know of no serious attempt by any of the New Atheists to engage with the evidence for
the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Indeed, it is even worse than that. Their whole attitude
to history in general is characterized by sheer closed-mind prejudice: light-years
removed from the open-minded scientific attitude that they pretend to hold in high
esteem.51
At this point, the new atheism may seem like a non-issue with regard to the resurrection, yet it may be
the next challenge that Christian apologists will be confronted with. With advocates of Darwinian
naturalism taking on creationism and intelligent design, it may be just a matter of time before they take
on the resurrection. Christian apologists must be ready to take a stand.
50
Kerby Anderson, "The New Atheists," Probe Ministries, http://www.probe.org/site/pp.aspx?c=
fdKEIMNsEoG&b=4221431&printmode=1 (accessed July 21, 2012).
51
John C. Lennox, Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Oxford: Lion Hudson,
2011), 187. Kindle edition.

The theme of this paper focused on an apologetic analysis and refutation of the critical factors
and objections to the resurrection of Jesus. Due to time and space considerations, the primary focus was
on the five critical factors of Michael Martin and some objections of a few other critics. The introduction
briefly examined the phenomenon of historical Jesus and resurrection studies from about 1975 to the
present day. The orthodox biblical doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus was noted as crucial to place the
study in context. The main body of the essay was an apologetic analysis and refutation of Michael
Ma ti ’s fi e iti al fa tors and the objections of a few other contemporary critics of the resurrection.
The refutation viewed the strengths and weaknesses of these critical factors and objections. In the
conclusion, a balanced apologetic approach in defense of the resurrection was covered, advocating the
minimal facts approach. Finally, a brief profile and prediction of the rise and challenge of the new
atheism to resurrection studies was noted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Kerby. The New Atheists. Probe Ministries. http://www.probe.org/site/pp.aspx?c=
fdKEIMNsEoG&b=4221431&printmode=1 (accessed July 21, 2012).
Barker, Dan. Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://ffrf.org/
legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php#f9 (accessed July 23, 2012).
________. Leave No Stone Unturned. Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/
books/lfif/?t=stone (accessed July 21, 2012).
Bo g, Ma us J. A Re aissa e i Jesus “tudies. Theology Today 45, no. 3 (October 1988): 280-292.
________. Hearing the Easter Stories Again. Living Pulpit 7, no. 1 (January/March 1998): 16-17. ATLA
________. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. The Christian Century 104, no. 13 (April 22 1987): 378-380.
________. Me & Jesus—The Journey Home: An Odyssey. The Fourth R 6, no. 4 (July/August 1993).
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/ 4R_Articles/Borg_bio/borg_bio.html (accessed July
21, 2012).
________. Post ode Re isio i g. The Christian Century 114, no. 31 (November 5, 1997): 1011,
1013. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).
________. The Historian, the Christian, and Jesus. Theology Today 52, no. 1 (April 1995): 6-16. ATLA
________. The Histo i al Jesus and Christian Preaching. The Christian Century 102, no. 26 (August
28/September 4, 1985): 764. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
July 21, 2012).
Craig, William Lane, and Bart Ehrman. Is There Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus?
Reasonable Faith. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-
resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman (accessed July 22, 2012).
Crossan, John Dominic. Almost the Whole Truth: An Odyssey. The Fourth R 6, no. 5
(September/October 1993). http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/
Crossan_bio/crossan_bio.html (accessed July 21, 2012).
________. “o e Theologi al Co lusio s f o M Resea h. The Living Pulpit 3, no. 1 (January-March
1994): 18-19. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).

________. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. The Christian Century 108, no. 37 (December
18/25 1991): 1194-1200. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21,
2012).
________. The O thodo U o thodo of Joh Do i i C ossa : A I te ie . I te ie Ja es
Halstead Cross Currents 45, no. 4 (Winter 1995/96): 520. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).
Dudrey, Russ. What the Writers Should Have Done Better: A Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Based
on Ancient Criticisms of the Resurrection Reports. Stone-Campbell Journal. 3, no. 1 (2000,
March 1): 55-78. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 20, 2012).
Funk, Robert W. The Coming Radical Reformation: Twenty-one Theses. The Fourth R 11, no. 4
(July/August 1998). http://westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/ 4R_Articles/Funk_Theses/
funk_theses.html (accessed July 20, 2012).
Habermas, Gary. Explaining Away the Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories.
Christian Research Journal. 23, no. 4 (January 1, 2001): 26-31. http://www.garyhabermas.com/
articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm (accessed July 20, 2012).
________. Resu e tio Resea h f o 5 to the P ese t: What a e C iti al “ hola s
“a i g? Journal of the Study of the Historical Jesus, 3, no. 2 (January 2005).
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3.2_2005/J_Study_Historical
_Jesus_3.2_2005.htm (accessed July 20, 2012).
________. The Late T e tieth-Ce tu Resu ge e of Natu alisti Respo ses to Jesus’
Resu e tio . Trinity Journal (Fall 2001). ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost
(accessed July 20, 2012).
Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2004.
Janosik, Daniel. John of Damascus: First Apologist to the Muslims. PhD diss., London School of
Theology, 2011. http://ses.mrooms3.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=5755 (accessed May 28,
2012).
Lennox, John C. Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target (Oxford: Lion Hudson,
2011), 187. Kindle edition.
Lowder, Jeffrey J. The Contemporary Debate on the Resurrection. Internet Infidels. http://
www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap4.html (accessed July 22,
2012).
Martin, Michael. The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991. http://
books.google.com/books?id=wWkC4dTmK0AC&printsec=frontcover&source=
gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=Resurrection&f=false (accessed July 20, 2012).
Mayers, Ronald B. Balanced Apologetics: Using Evidences and Presuppositions in Defense of the Faith
(Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1984), 8, http://books.google.com/
books?id=q9NhV42cayMC&source=gbs_navlinks_s (accessed July 27, 2012).

Spong, John S. A Call for a New Reformation. The Fourth R 11, no. 4 (July/August 1998).
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Spong_Theses/ spong_theses.html
(accessed July 20, 2012).
The God--Jesus Who Wasn't There [Full Film].flv. Video. Youtube, February 22, 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmhhZ-dex-k&feature=related (accessed June 4, 2012).
The Great Resurrection Debate (1 of 2) (William Lane Craig Vs John Shelby Spong). Video. Debate.
Youtube, April 19, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BTjAVNHWac&feature=related
(accessed June 18, 2012).
Willi o , Willia H. Mode Dist a tio s. The Christian Century 114, no. 31 (November 5, 1997):
1009-1011. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2012).

Apologetic Analysis And Refutation A Defense Of The Resurrection

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Apologetic Analysis And Refutation A Defense Of The Resurrection

Similar to Apologetic Analysis And Refutation A Defense Of The Resurrection (15)

More from Andrew Parish

More from Andrew Parish (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Apologetic Analysis And Refutation A Defense Of The Resurrection