Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
A Former Spy Evaluates the Reliability of the Claim
Before I even start, in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, I remind you that I am a priest of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.
But I am also a former spy. For four years after 9/11 I worked as an Arabic linguist at the Top Secret National Security Agency. I was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Civilian Service Medal for service in Iraq in 2004 while working there.
I will examine the claim the Apostles made that Jesus rose from the dead using the same criteria that the intelligence community uses for assessing the reliability of human intelligence sources. And it is important to keep in mind that how reliable and accurate a claim is has nothing to do with whether it is ultimately true.
I will tell you right now that I will not be concluding that an intelligence assessment of the available information means you should believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is probably, or even likely, true. An intelligence assessment will actually be telling you otherwise.
If the Resurrection of Jesus is not true, Christianity is not True
Before we assess the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus, let’s visit just how crucial and central this belief is to Christianity. In 1st Corinthians 15:14-19, St. Paul states:
If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless. ... If we have hope in Christ for this life only, we of all people are the most to be pitied.
Nothing matches the sheer audacity of Christian claims, nor does any other religion depend so entirely on its truth claims as does Christianity. In short, to paraphrase St. Paul, if Jesus was not God and was not raised from the dead, then Christianity is a farce.
Believe Because We have Seen
As a person of faith, who has dedicated his life to the proposition that Jesus was, in fact, God and was raised from the dead, but who also has experience as an top secret intelligence officer, I am intrigued by the degree to which the very earliest sources for belief in the resurrection do not present it so much as an article of faith, but rather as something to be
accepted based on reliable witness testimony.
It starts with the other apostles when they tell Thomas about it:
We have seen the Lord![1]
They do not tell Thomas Jesus has been raised from the dead and so he should believe that doctrine as well. They tell him that they have SEEN him.
The fact of his actual death prior to resurrection is also presented in John as something to be accepted not as a point of faith, but because it is established by reliable witness testimony:
When they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one soldier thrust his spear into his side and immediately there flowed out blood and water. An eyewitness has testified, and his testimony is true. He knows that he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe.[2]
The Gospel Message is continually grounded in the claim that it is reliable because of the sources that testify to it. St. Paul describes in detail the people who serve as official witnesses of Jesus having been raised from the dead:
He appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve. After that he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.[3]
Dr. Keith Yandell, with whom I had the distinct privilege of studying in his class “Philosophy of Religion” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, argued in his scholarship that, at a minimum, religious experience does constitute epistemological evidence for the object that was experienced. In other words, if someone has a vision of God, it does not prove God’s existence. But it is still evidence that cannot be dismissed merely because the object of the experience is supernatural.[4]
And so, what do the claims of the witness to Jesus’ resurrection mean? Dr. Yandell would assert that, at a minimum they certainly provide evidence, though not proof, that Jesus did rise from the dead.
The Reliability and Accuracy Assessment
In order to assess how reliable a human source of intelligence is, I remind you that NATO countries use what is termed the Admiralty Code. I will show you the letters and their definitions again so you can understand what the possible grades are. First, the source is assigned a letter based on their reliability. Here is a description of the letter grade:[5]
A - Completely reliable: No doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of complete reliability.
B - Usually reliable: Minor doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency; has a history of valid information most of the time.
C - Fairly reliable: Doubt of authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past.
D - Not usually reliable: Significant doubt about authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency but has provided valid information in the past.
E - Unreliable: Lacking in authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency; history of invalid information.
F - Reliability cannot be judged: No basis exists for evaluating the reliability of the source.
Notice here, the letters should not be considered “letter grades” as if it were a grade in school. This is strictly a ruling on how reliable a source is based on past performance.
Arguably, a source termed “E” is to be trusted less than one with an “F,” since the “E” source has previously demonstrated unreliability! And there is theoretically nothing preventing a human source, whose past performance has earned them an “A,” from either intentionally or
inadvertently passing on false information.
The F source is presumably brand new and we do not yet have any basis for assessing their reliability. Even though it has an “F,” it might be entirely true. We just do not have any reason to trust it yet.
Next the actual information presented by the source is itself assessed for its accuracy, based on factors such as its confirmation by other sources, reasonableness, and consistency with other intelligence:[6]
1 - Confirmed by other sources: Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; Consistent with other information on the subject.
2 - Probably True: Not confirmed; logical in itself; consistent with other information on the subject.
3 - Possibly True: Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; agrees with some other information
on the subject.
4 - Doubtful: Not confirmed; possible but not logical; no other information on the subject.
5 - Improbable: Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicted by other information on the subject.
6 - Truth cannot be judged: No basis exists for evaluating the validity of the information.
Similarly with the reliability letters, note that number 6 here is simply a score assigned with no way to yet evaluate the information, whereas with 5 we presumably have other information which implies the data we are currently studying is probably not correct.
It must again be stated that a piece of information assigned what might be termed a “bad grade” could still be completely true. If a pathological liar tells you that it’s raining, I wouldn’t dismiss him despite the rain drops!
Should We Believe This?
In order to properly assess the overall veracity and reliability of the Apostles, we need to assess other claims they have made, apart from the Resurrection, and be able to either verify or refute them. But here’s the problem. We do not have any other claims they have made.
One might here protest, saying that any and all historical details found in the Bible constitute
apostolic claims. But this would be quite unfair. I mean, no one would imagine dismissing claims by the Roman historian Tacitus because we found an inaccuracy in the writings of the Roman historian Livy. In the same way, dismissing a claim found in the Gospel of Matthew because of an inaccuracy found in the book of Exodus would be ludicrous.
Perhaps one would then claim that an inaccuracy at least in the New Testament itself should constitute other testimony to assess the overall reliability of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection. I would still here push back and point out that much less than half of the New Testament was written by people whom Church Tradition claims were original witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. St. Paul claims himself to be a witness to the Resurrected Jesus, but his claim is to have seen the Resurrected Jesus years later on the road to Damascus.
Further, to hold any potential inconsistency found in the Gospel of Matthew against the claim of Matthew himself to have seen the risen Jesus means first accepting at face value the traditional attribution of that book to the Apostle Matthew, something those who would deny the resurrection are equally disinclined to accept.
No Basis Exists...
It would be tempting, as some scholars have done, to claim that the negative portrayal the New Testament makes, at times, about the Apostles themselves constitutes a secondary proof of their veracity. As the argument goes, who would paint themselves in such a bad light who was not otherwise telling you the whole truth? But to do so, I would have to be inconsistent on my earlier assertion that the overall text of the New Testament is not a source of further witness testimony.
And so, in the final analysis, lacking any substantial source of other claims the Apostles have made apart from the Resurrection of Jesus, I am forced to give them an Admiralty Grade of:
F - Reliability cannot be judged: No basis exists for evaluating the reliability of the source
But remember, a grade of “F” sounds bad only because it is the worst grade you can get in school. In the Admiralty Code, it is arguably a better grade than an “E.”
Improbable and Illogical
Next we turn to the question of the accuracy of the Apostles’ claim. The grade I must assign, while wearing the hat of a spy, is:
5 - Improbable: Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicted by other information on the subject
I would defend this grade as follows. The Resurrection of Jesus has certainly not ever been objectively confirmed by any source other than the New Testament. The Resurrection of Jesus is simultaneously both “not logical” and also “contradicted by other information on the subject “simply by the fact that no one has ever satisfactorily demonstrated that anyone resurrected from the dead.
Doubts and Impossibilities
As a spy, I’ve given the reliability and accuracy of the Apostles’ claim to have seen the risen Lord a very low grade. But I want to remind you, the Admiralty Code ultimately does not assess whether a thing is true. It only assesses whether, based on the past performance of the source and the overall nature of the claim, it ought to be embraced as true.
We are left, just as St. Thomas was, with the question of whether to believe other people when they say that they saw the resurrected Jesus.
The Apostles tell us Jesus
rose from the dead. But intelligence analysis would tell us that we should not
accept their testimony as reliable or credible or accurate.
But Christian theologians recognized this fact early in Church history. The early Christian writer Tertullian[7] (155-240AD) famously wrote:
And the Son of God died: it is credible because it is unfitting.
And having been buried he rose from the dead. It is certain, since it is impossible.
et mortuus est dei filius: credibile est, quia ineptum est.
et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.[8]
After Jesus reportedly appeared to St. Thomas and that apostle finally believed, the Apostles tell us that Jesus said, “You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”[9]
And so here we are. I could tell you that the fact that the Apostles died for their belief must count for something. But recent history tells us that people of many religions will die or even, sadly, kill for their faith.
Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
I profess the doctrine that he did. I try to live my life as if he did.
But on a human level, I do not know.
I cannot actually know.
I can only believe.
Or even just hope.
St. Paul wrote that “three things abide, faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13).
And so it would seem, from the way St. Paul ranked the three, that hope is greater even than faith. But greater still than faith and hope—is love. I must love, and frequently it’s very difficult, if I am to follow Jesus.
In the final analysis, believing the testimony of ancient Apostles that they saw the risen Jesus is not a compelling choice based on how the intelligence community would assess the reliability of the witnesses or their testimony. But yet, as these apostles travelled throughout their known world sharing this testimony, people believed them. And as the men and women who came to believe shared their belief, even after all the apostles had died out, mostly by martyrdom for their convictions, people continued to believe.
If a study of all this through intelligence analysis proves anything, it is that some intangible factor must account for belief in the Resurrection of Jesus being accepted and spreading the way it did. The early Christian writer Tertullian, quoted earlier above, wrote how the Romans themselves noticed that “something else.”
See, they say, how they love each other.
vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant.[10]
It is love that animates that testimony. It is love that receives it. And that is because, it was Love that died on the Cross and rose again from the dead.
I do not believe in the Resurrection because it is logical, sensible, or rational. I believe it because, somehow, through the collective love of the generations of Christians who have lived for it and died for it, it is as if—I have witnessed it myself.
And so, despite not having seen the risen Lord with my physical eyes, as St. Peter did, this Easter (or as we Orthodox call it, Pascha and this year we will celebrate it a week later than other Christians), I give voice, having seen with the eyes of my heart, to the two thousand year old proclamation:
Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
________________________________
[1]John 20:25.
[2]John 19:33-35.
[3]1 Cor 15:5-7.
[4]Keith Yandell, The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Cambridge University
Press, 1994).
[5]US Army Field Manual 2-22.3, p. B1.
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf
[6]US Army Field Manual 2-22.3, p. 2.
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf
[7] You will perhaps notice that I did not give Tertullian the title “Saint.”
Despite his significant usefulness as a witness to early Christian thought, he
left the mainstream (Catholic) Church to join a breakaway group called the
Montanists.
[8]Tertullian, De Carne Christi 5.
[9] John 20:29.
[10]Tertullian, Apologeticus pro Christianis 38.
No comments:
Post a Comment