Introduction

James Patrick Holding has written a persuasive apologetic piece entitled The Impossible Faith which argues that the rise and success of Christianity would have impossible if there had not been some astounding event to convince the populace of its irrefutable truth. Holding discusses many features of Christianity which were at odds with the cultural and social norms of the ancient world from whence the religion sprang. He argues that Christianity had a tremendous number of disadvantages to overcome as many of its aspects and teachings were alien to its intended converts. But, as we all know, Christianity did win converts and eventually rose to prominence, becoming the world's most adhered to religion. According to Holding, there is only one explanation for this: "...the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death." And you know what? I agree with him. So, apparently, the only question left to ask is: how soon can I get baptized? 

Well, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Perhaps I can raise one or two reasons for skepticism. Let's give it a shot. 

Holding subtitled The Impossible Faith "...How Not to Start an Ancient Religion". Many of his points follow this basic line of logic: If you were starting an ancient religion, you definitely wouldn't incorporate feature x, but Christianity did. For example, Christianity centers around a man and (worse yet) a God who was crucified. Crucifixion was a shameful and degrading death that would've struck the Romans as an inconceivable fate for a God. So why go so radically against the grain? Unless, of course, the crucifixion was historical and therefore unavoidable. The logic here is sound and makes for a solid case against Christ-mythers. But what about those skeptics (which I imagine make up the majority) who hold to existence of a historical Jesus? I, for instance, suppose that Jesus was a revolutionary itinerant preacher and faith healer who gathered a following, then gained the enmity of the Jewish elite, and eventually was crucified for political reasons. So maybe the apostles wouldn't have written the story that way if they were able to just sit down and dream up a religion, but they didn't have that option. Because that's how things actually happened. Naturally, Holding agrees with me on that count, and that's not really his point. However, much of Holding's paper takes the incredulous tone of "why in the heck would someone design a ancient religion like this?" And my answer to all such queries would be that it wasn't designed--it evolved.

But let's get back to Holding's thesis. Namely, that Christianity could not have survived if there was no resurrection. Earlier, I said I agreed with Holding on this point. That seems to be paint me into a pretty tight corner as a skeptic. But I didn't say I agreed that there must have been a supernatural resurrection. And that makes all the difference. So let's take a look at some alternatives. But first, it might be prudent to lay out the resurrection appearances so that I can refer to them by number, since after all, those are what I have to account for.

The Appearances

1. Appearance to Mary Magdalene (and other women?). (Matt 28:9-10, Mark 16:9, John 20:14-17)

2. Appearance to Peter. (Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5)

3. Appearance to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:15-31)

4a. Appearance to the eleven disciples. (Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23)

4b. Appearance to the eleven disciples on a mountain. (Matt 28:16-20)

4c. Appearance to the eleven disciples before ascension (Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:36-49, Acts 1:6-9)

5. Appearance to Thomas and the disciples (John 20:26-29)

6. Appearance to Peter, Thomas and two other disciples at Sea of Tiberius. (John 21:1-23)

7. Appearances over the course of 40 days. (Acts 1:3)

8. Appearance to "more than 500". (1 Corinthians 15:16)

Note: The reason I have divided appearance #4 into three sub appearances is that they do not appear to be distinct. The ascension is only mentioned in Mark, Luke and Acts. But in Mark no location is given for the ascension. Luke only tells us that it was outside Jerusalem "as far as Bethany". Acts in the most specific, informing us that the ascension took place on "Mount Olivet, which is near Jerusalem". The only other person who mentions a mountain is Matt, although he doesn't speak of the ascension and that mountain is located in Galilee so it cannot be Olivet. However, since the appearance in Matt ends that gospel, and seeing as how Mark and Luke both have Jesus appearing to the eleven and then apparently proceeding directly to the ascension, it is tempting to fold Matt in with their accounts. Perhaps there was some confusion between the author of Matthews and the author of Acts as to the location of the mountain. Another discrepancy arises in that Matt clearly describes his appearance to the eleven on a mountain, while Luke's appearance is in Jerusalem. Mark, again, provides no location. But John, in his description of the appearance to the eleven locates them in a room (presumably in Jerusalem). To reconcile this discrepancy, one can imagine that Matt simply condensed his account by omitting the Jerusalem appearance and perhaps incorporating some of what was said into the appearance before ascension. Thus, I consider appearances #4 a, b, and c to be all of a piece. 

Now then, on to the naturalistic alternatives: 

Naturalistic Alternatives 

A. The Survival Scenario: 

Jesus survived the crucifixion in a near death, comatose state. Lying in the tomb, he was able to recover consciousness and roll away the stone. After a a short period of time (40 days?) among the disciples, Jesus' body gave in to its weakened condition and he finally did "give up the ghost". This could, in theory, account for all the appearances although I would still be inclined to view #7, and #8 as later invention (more on this to come). One might object that the authorities surely would've seized Jesus and finished the job if he was seen up and about. But, barring #7 and #8, Jesus only appears to his inner circle and so could have been in hiding.

B. The Hallucination Scenario:

Mary Magdalene had "seven demons" cast out of her by Jesus (Mark 16:9). Mental illness was often equated with demon possession is ancient times, so Mary could've been psychologically unbalanced to start with. Then, in a highly charged emotional state, she had a delusional episode when visiting Jesus' empty tomb. She proceeded to tell the disciples of her "encounter" with Jesus. The disciples were understandably skeptical, but once this seed was planted it began to germinate. Perhaps two of the disciples, on the road to Emmaus, began to discuss amongst themselves the possibility of a resurrected Jesus. They were struck with the revelation that "only a resurrection could vindicate Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death." Since these men had given up their professions to follow Jesus and had come to view him as the messiah, they certainly had an interest in such a thing coming to pass. And after all, Magdalene had "seen" him, so why not they? Thus, putting their heads together, they contrived the story of Jesus appearing on the road to take back to the disciples as further "proof" of the resurrection and a way to continue their ministry. The other disciples would be eager to believe such a tale. They might very well have then expected an appearance among the themselves to be the next logical step. Inevitably, discussion would take place about what Jesus would say and do when he appeared. Even though he did not then appear, they went on to preach a resurrection based on the earlier "appearances".  In the course of preaching, they began to incorporate the expected and discussed "appearance to the eleven" into their teachings as if it had actually happened. Indeed, they might've even come to believe this themselves on some level. In this scenario, appearance #2 would be early invention and #5- #8 would be later invention.  

C. The Conspiracy Scenario:

The disciples had given up their mundane lives and dedicated themselves to a man they believed was the messiah. So, no doubt, Jesus' ignominious death came as a severe blow. In a desperate attempt to salvage something of their shattered faith, some of the disciples had a brainstorm and realized that "only a resurrection could vindicate Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death." Therefore, they conspired to steal away his body, creating an empty tomb which could be used as a springboard for preaching a resurrection. If not all of the eleven were involved from the start (as seems unlikely) the others could be brought in on the deception later, perhaps after some of the resurrection rumors had already begun to circulate. In this scenario, appearances #1-#4 would be early invention, while #5-#8 would be later invention. 

Mix n' Match :

Of course, it is possible to mix and match some of the above scenarios, or imagine variations on the details. For instance, perhaps the disciples who hatched the conspiracy in C, were the two from the road to Emmaus in B. And their creation of the empty tomb in C precipitated Mary's delusion in B. The combined strength of their two appearance stories would make for a powerful witness to the rest of the disciples. Have fun creating your own scenarios.

Some Possible Objections

1. What about the empty tomb? 

This is really only an objection to scenario B. In A, Jesus himself would have moved the stone, which couldn't have been unmanageable as Joseph of Arimathea is described as rolling it into place by himself (Matt 27:60, Mark 15:46). And Jesus would have an easier time yet, as all he had to do was knock it over so that he could escape. In scenario C, obviously the conspiring disciples would have moved the stone. But consider scenario B. Sure, the empty tomb may have triggered Mary's delusion, but how did it get to be empty in the first place? There are various possibilities. Grave robbing was not exactly uncommon in antiquity. So the simplest suggestion is that grave robbers did strike and, of course, moved the stone. Another possibility along these lines is that Joseph realized the potential for grave robbing, and so decided to surreptitiously move the body to an undisclosed location. Admittedly, it would be a little odd for Joseph not to replace the stone if this were the case, it's not out of the bounds of reason to suppose he forgot in his haste (especially since he would've had his hands full). Before Joseph could confide in anyone about the new burial location, the resurrection stories would have started circulating, at which point Joseph might've decided to keep quiet and see where things would go. But even if Joseph replaced the stone, Mary (and whomever her companions were) might've moved it. After all, they were going to have to move the stone (or else get someone to move it) in order to anoint him (Mark 16:1-3). Supposing they did move it and the resulting empty tomb triggered Mary's delusion, it would be easy for the account to get switched around a bit such that the stone was already moved when they arrived on the scene. Indeed, it is possible that this was a calculated lie on the part of Mary and her companions lest anyone accuse them of some wrong doing with regards to the body.  

2. What about the guards? 

This objection applies to all three scenarios. Wouldn't the guards have stopped Jesus from escaping in A, and anyone from removing the body in B and C? For starters, I consider it dubious that guards were even present. The only account of guards appears in Matthew, and the scene in which the guards are appointed reports a conversation that the author would not be privy too. I suppose it is possible that an insider leaked the story of appointment, but this scene definitely raises a red flag. Also, it is somewhat suspicious that Matthew reports the story of the guards having been bribed by Jewish officials to keep quiet about the resurrection (another conversation which Matthew has no apparent way of knowing about). This could easily be viewed as a contrived excuse for why the guards Matthew alleges to have been present at the tomb are not around to corroborate the resurrection. And even if guards were posted, this still doesn't eliminate any of the scenarios. For the guards were not posted until sometime on Saturday (Matt 27:62) leaving the tomb unguarded for all of Friday and an undetermined portion of Saturday. This would have been ample time for either Jesus to escape or for his body to be removed. And even if that unguarded window was not taken advantage of, the guards were apparently not above bribery. Thus, the disciples could've bribed the guards as easily as the Jewish officials--especially if they had Joseph of Arimathea's wealth at their disposal. 

3. Wouldn't Mary's companions have said something? 

This is another objection to scenario B (which is probably the most unwieldy). If Mary was spinning a hallucinatory tale, wouldn't one of the women have spoken up with the truth? Maybe not. In Mark and John's accounts Jesus seems to appear to Mary alone--or at least she seems to report to the disciples alone. If this were the case, it would answer the objection. And if the other women were present at the telling, it is possible that they would've kept silent for fear of contradicting their friend and openly embarrassing her. Perhaps they planned to reveal the truth at a more opportune time, but by then the disciples had begun to run with the resurrection idea. Further still, even if the women were present and flatly called Mary out on her falseness, the initial report may still have planted the necessary seeds in the disciples heads. Later on, of course, the women's denial of Mary's story would simply be omitted. 

4. What about the angels? 

All of the gospels report some encounter with an angel or angels. How is this explained? For scenario B, the angel(s) could've been part of Mary's delusion. For A or C they would've been later invention. Which brings us to our next objection. 

5. What's all this later invention stuff?

Perhaps it appears that quite a lot is being written off as later invention. But this is certainly possible as all the NT documents were written at least a couple of decades after Jesus' death when the early Christian movement was trying to get off the ground and a little invention might boost the cause. Plus, I only classified as later invention appearances which have a solitary source (with the exception of the angels which I will get to momentarily). Let's quickly consider the list, along with my reasoning:

• Appearances #5 & #6 are found only in John. John is widely considered to have been written later than the other gospels and appears to speak to a different audience than the synoptics. Most likely, by the time John was written, Christianity's path had been irrevocably forged away from Judaism and into the world of the Gentiles. Appearance #5 looks suspiciously like a rejoinder to those who would have been questioning the faith.  

• Appearance #7 is found only in Acts and is quite vague. This single line in Acts does not necessarily entail any more appearances than have already been reported. And even if it did, there are no specific details which one could cross-check. 

• Appearance #8 is found only in 1 Corinthians and is also lacking in specificity. A second-hand report of over 500 anonymous witnesses, being sent to men in Greece (who were too far from Palestine to verify the account) is not particularly compelling. 

• The accounts of the angel(s) raise doubts because they are significantly different from gospel to gospel and enormously elaborated in Matthew. Mark describes simply a young man in a white robe sitting and waiting in the tomb. Matthew has an angel descending from heaven, rolling aside the stone (which is already rolled aside in the other three gospels), sitting upon the stone and cowing the guards (who also appear only in Matthew) with his raiment "white as snow" and "appearance like lightning". Luke mentions two angels specifically, who wear "dazzling apparel" and are received submissively by Mary and her companions. John has two angels appearing to Mary after Peter and another disciple have examined the empty tomb. The story changes too much to not raise the suspicion that it is rooted in fiction. 

6. Aren't all these scenarios highly improbable?

In a word: yes. But there is another option which is also highly improbable--a supernatural resurrection. So any way we slice it, we are looking at a highly improbable occurrence. I would argue that any of the naturalistic alternatives are more probable than a supernatural resurrection. This line of reasoning is taken up here. 

Holding's Factors

The bulk of Holding's article consists of 16 "factors" which are described as "places where Christianity 'did the wrong thing' in order to be a successful religion." Of course, since Holding and I agree that only a resurrection could overcome these disadvantageous factors, I don't have much to argue with here. But, if the resurrection has a naturalistic explanation instead of a supernatural one, then some of Holding's points must be considered. I will only highlight the factors that are relevant to my naturalistic alternatives. I have no significant disagreement with any of the factors I do not list. 

Factor #2 -- Neither Here No There: Or, A Man from Galilee??

I agree with the main thrust of this item, which is that people in ancient times would be prejudiced against savior from a backwoods place like Nazareth. Of course, according to the birth narratives, Jesus was born in Bethlehem--future birth place of the Messiah according the OT prophecy. But, Holding notes, "Placing Jesus' birth story in the a suspicious context where a charge of illegitimacy would be all too obvious to make would compound the problems as well." This is a consideration, but if the early church was trying to advance the claim that Jesus was God incarnate (yet were saddled with the historical existence of Jesus' human mother) then I don't see that they had much choice. As well, the "birth narrative" first appears in Matthew, who always takes great pains to align Jesus with OT prophecies. Of course, the fulfillment of this prophecy would have only held significance for the Jews--Matthew's target audience. Thus, it is interesting to note that in John, the latest gospel which is directed to vastly more Gentile audience, the birth narrative is omitted.  

Factor #7 -- Stepping Into History

This is probably the biggest obstacle to naturalistic explanations. Not that I stand in direct opposition to Holding on this point. He says "Let's put it this way: If you wanted to start a new religion with new and wild claims involved, do you claim, at any point, to have connections that you don't have?" This is a generally sound argument, and as usual, my answer would be that the gospel authors took care to not mention connections that weren't (at some level) genuine. But, as a skeptic, I can't wash away all the connections that easily. For instance, Holding writes, "The NT claims countless touch-points that could go under this list. An earthquake, a darkness at midday, the temple curtain torn in two, an execution, all at Passover (with the attendant crowds numbering in the millions), people falling out of a house speaking in tongues at Pentecost (another "millions attend" event) -- all in a small city and culture where word would spread fast. Healings of illnesses and dysfunctions, even reversals of death, in highly public places. A truimphal entry into Jerusalem in blatant fulfillment of Messianic prophecy."

Some of these events may have occurred and merely been exaggerated (i.e. speaking of tongues at Pentecost), but I am skeptical that others (especially the earthquake and darkness at midday) happened at all. But wouldn't the disciples be "called out" for preaching such things? Undoubtedly--by some anyway. But after a couple of decades, memories can get fuzzy. And memory is a malleable agent, prone to suggestion to start with. Those inclined to believe might actually start "remembering" the earthquake and the darkness. Better yet, they might start merging these fictional events with actual earthquakes or eclipses which occurred at "about that time". (Note: Admittedly, I am completely ignorant of the seismic and astronomical record of Jerusalem, so this last point might not hold water). 

Yet, even if some people accepted these events uncritically and others were duped by fuzzy memories, there must have remained a large contingent of skeptics, right? Assuredly, this was so. And I imagine that this was one of the prime reasons that the Jews largely rejected the faith, and why Christianity's ultimate success lay with the Gentiles. The Gentiles would have certainly had their share of skeptics as well, but it would have been much more difficult for the average Gentile to invalidate a claim from a far away land, several decades in the past. After all, fantastic claims from distant lands were not exactly uncommon, and I doubt if the average Gentile could spare the expense to thoroughly investigate these matters. And then, we must factor in a certain degree of gullibility. This is not a desperate skeptical plea asserting "They was stupid!". To the contrary, I don't think people in ancient times were any stupider than people today. But that is precisely my point. In today's scientifically enlightened society, almost every individual has access to the resources of mass media, the internet, public libraries, etc. Yet obvious charlatans using recycled carnival tricks such as Benny Hinn, John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, and Peter Popoff (all who have been demonstrably debunked) have national platforms, best selling books, and legions of adoring followers. Can we then doubt that such things occurred in an ancient world, with high illiteracy and little science? 

Factor #10 -- No Class!

The idea here is that Christianity was at a disadvantage because it ignored class distinctions, which was a radical message in the ancient world. Again, no major disagreement. But, near the end of this item, Holding contends, "A merely human Jesus could not have met this demand [for popular support] and must have provided convincing proofs of his power and authority to maintain a following, and for a movement to have started and survived well beyond him.". The brackets are mine. I don't particularly disagree with this, but I would like to point out that what is a "convincing proof" for one is not necessarily a "convincing proof" for another. As an example of this principle, I refer back to the hucksters listed above who are undeniably convincing to many. But, once again, Holding and I are in agreement that Christianity would not have lived on long after Jesus had there not been a resurrection of some kind or another. 

Factor #11 -- Don't Rely on Women!

Since women were generally considered "bad witnesses" in the ancient world, Holding argues that, "it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus." I can't help but think Holding is right again and that there must have been unavoidable historical reasons for the women witnesses. For scenarios A & B this causes no trouble. For scenario C we have a small problem because, while Mary and her companions would still be the first to discover the empty tomb after the disciples had removed the body, we must wonder at the inclusion of the appearance. One possibility is that once rumors of resurrection appearances started floating around, Mary was caught up in the hoopla and began reporting a visitation of her own. The disciples could hardly upbraid her for this invention and would likely have been forced to support it. An appearance account established so early could not then have been omitted by the gospel writers even if they wished otherwise. 

Factor #13 -- You Can't Keep A Secret

Holding points out that the culture of the ancient Mediterranean was "group-oriented" where "people continually mind each other's business." Thus, privacy was unexpected and gossip was widespread. I have no doubt that this was the case. But Holding fails to make the case that people would treat the information gleaned critically. He says, "The empty tomb would be checked. Matthew's story of resurrected saints would be checked out. Lazarus would be sought out for questioning." Sure--by some. But I have a hard time believing every person (or even the majority) would turn into Hercule Poirot when confronted with such claims. If people actually behaved that way, I suspect our past (and present) would be littered with far fewer tales of the supernatural. As well, while the tight knit nature of ancient communities may have resulted in rapid transmission of information, how effectively did this information travel between communities and over the passage of time? Would a potential convert living in Thessalonica circa 51 AD really be privy to the skepticism being bandied about in Jerusalem a couple of decades earlier?

Conclusion

The rise of Christianity from the crushing defeat of the cross is an amazing story. If an Ancient Las Vegas had existed, and its bookies were taking odds on Christianity becoming the world's premier religion, anyone betting on Christianity would've cleaned out the house. Credulity is stretched to the limit if we suppose that nothing extraordinary whatsoever happened after Jesus' death. But is a supernatural resurrection the only possibility left open to us? As I have indicated in the preceding, it is not. There are at least three distinct scenarios which would also explain the preached resurrection appearances. The scenarios are, admittedly, improbable. But what must be decided is whether they are more improbable than a supernatural resurrection. To aid us in doing so, I will defer for a moment to that venerable old skeptic, David Hume. He said:  

"When any one tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle."

On these grounds, I reject the miracle of the resurrection. Christianity is not the Impossible Faith, but the Improbable Faith. And sometimes, just sometimes, Vegas is wrong.

See JP and Kyle debate here.