Resurrection-shaped dent in history?

[cloudyday2]

I recently watched the documentary "Life of Christ" hosted by John Dickson. In one episode he says that there is a resurrection-shaped dent in the historical record.

What do you guys think about this supposed dent? I don't see it.

 

[bhsmte]

I recently watched the documentary "Life of Christ" hosted by John Dickson. In one episode he says that there is a resurrection-shaped dent in the historical record.

What do you guys think about this supposed dent? I don't see it.

What exactly, was he referring to, by using the term; "dent"?

 

[cloudyday2]

What exactly, was he referring to, by using the term; "dent"?

I hope I'm not misquoting him, but I believe that is the word he used.

I think he meant that the Resurrection left clues in the historical record that suggest it was a real event. This would be analogous to a dent on a car that suggests an impact event.

As I recall, he argued that the "Empty Tomb" must have been a reality - even though the disciples might have hid the body as naysayers claimed. He also mentioned that women were the first witnesses and this would not have been an ideal characteristic for a fabrication due to the low standing of women.

I see more of a smudge on the paint that might have many explanations as opposed to a dent.

 

[bhsmte]

I hope I'm not misquoting him, but I believe that is the word he used.

I think he meant that the Resurrection left clues in the historical record that suggest it was a real event. This would be analogous to a dent on a car that suggests an impact event.

As I recall, he argued that the "Empty Tomb" must have been a reality - even though the disciples might have hid the body as naysayers claimed. He also mentioned that women were the first witnesses and this would not have been an ideal characteristic for a fabrication due to the low standing of women.

I see more of a smudge on the paint that might have many explanations as opposed to a dent.

I have read a lot of works/opinions from NT historians and few view the claim of a resurrection, as a credible historical event. In fact, historians as a matter of course, don't touch miracle claims, as having historical credibility. Hence, this is where the faith comes in.

Historians are tasked with determining what likely happened in the past and they utilize the historical method in performing this task. Some historians will adhere to the method more strictly than others, but even a very liberal approach to applying the method, have significant trouble with miracle claims. Since miracles, are the least likely explanation of a past event, relying on anonymous authors writing down stories decades later, doesn't hold up well to the historical method.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There were other messianic movements, like Judas the Galilean or Bar Kohba. They did not result in a new branch of Second Temple Judaism arising. Something was different with the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Similarly, Judaism has always claimed that the Apostles stole the body, never that the tomb had not been empty. This is telling.

While I agree with @bhsmte that miraculous claims are hard to verify, the claim here seems simply that the tomb was found empty. This seems plausible, as it could explain, even on secular terms, how a tradition of bodily resurrection of Jesus could have begun. It need not be miraculous as such, although it lends itself to that faith-based determination. The tradition of resurrection was certainly present about 50 - 70 years later when everyone agrees the gospels would have already been written.

You cannot historically verify the resurrection, which is a one-time miraculous event that even christian writers acknowledge is impossible to prove by such means. A lesser claim of the finding of Jesus' tomb empty is far easier, as it explains the rise of Christianity, with supportive pronouncements from its Jewish enemies. That I think, can be fairly asserted, about as well as claims like Alexander visting Siwa or the Pythia's pronouncements on Croeses, which are likewise based on literary sources only that mix the mundane and the miraculous narratives. It is all about how much you trust your sources, and for the historical Jesus, the gospels are our most extensive sources.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I hope I'm not misquoting him, but I believe that is the word he used.

I think he meant that the Resurrection left clues in the historical record that suggest it was a real event. This would be analogous to a dent on a car that suggests an impact event.

As I recall, he argued that the "Empty Tomb" must have been a reality - even though the disciples might have hid the body as naysayers claimed. He also mentioned that women were the first witnesses and this would not have been an ideal characteristic for a fabrication due to the low standing of women.

I see more of a smudge on the paint that might have many explanations as opposed to a dent.

Jesus' first advent may be more of a smudge on the paint of history than a dent. And I suppose that, like when we leave our car in the grocery store parking lot, some people will deem the issue to be one where we have to look really closely to see whether the smudge is just the remnants of some bird droppings, or [lo and behold] someone actually DID ding our car with the door of their own car. (Either way, man, I hate it when that happens! Because both instances are out of my control.) ...it's the same with the historicity of Jesus within the Christian faith.

 

[apogee]

Admittedly by modern standards of forensic investigation, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so far lost in antiquity, as to be beyond any systematic verification.

It is not so much a dent, as a hardly noticeable scratch, on the first-class carriage of the immense train wreck that has ripped through two millennia of human history, transforming and driving social, political and historical change, at a rate and on a scale unprecedented by any other period of human existence.

It's just a scratch, but I just hope the owners of the train are fully insured.