"Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever"

Amici,

A worthwhile article (a vignette from a book) at The Federalist is worth review. It is titled, "Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever". (The 'ever' tacked on the end gives it a sort of adolescent quality, but still...)

Scott S. Powell is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design policy think tank in (what remains of burnt-out) Seattle, Washington. Non-Christian scientists call Intelligent Design "pseudo-science" but look what our "scientists" KNOW for certain, i.e. Covid, et al. Ask a "scientist" to please produce an actual virion of the Covid-19 virus and see what sort of reaction you get.

But whatever about that, Powell, probably a Protestant, details a concise review of the evidence here about the Resurrection being truly historical. So, at this Easter, while one can read a classically orthodox Catholic essay on Our Lord's Passion, as with Fr. Zuhlsdorf here at OnePeterFive, I think it is always interesting to read about certain Christian episodes from a Protestant perspective. It shows how close and how far, how familiar and unfamiliar, the difference Protestant denominations can be from Traditional Catholicism (Vatican II Catholicism is basically the Anglican Church speaking Italian, with lavender ruffles and flourishes).

For instance, this Powell article has some full-throated recognition of the significance of the report in First Corinthians about the witnesses to the Resurrection. I.e.:

The New Testament provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after the resurrection. In fact, Jesus made ten separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension into Heaven, over a period of 40 days. Some of those appearances were to individual disciples, some were to several disciples at the same time, and once even to 500 at one time.

Powell got this from First Corinthians, an epistle famous among Catholic apologists for defending the divine nature of the Most Holy Eucharist in the second-half of chapter 11.

It is from chapter 15 that Mr. Powell got his references above. I.e.:

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

This reference to Our Risen Lord appearing to St. Peter (Cephas) and then the Twelve leaves out the women. Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk.16:9, Jn. 20:15-17). He next appeared to: "Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them" (Mt. 28:9-10). But St. Paul doesn't mention that. Women's testimony had little worth in Semitic cultures. In the second chapter of the Quran, Al-Baqarah, verse 2:282 provides a basis for the rule that two women are the equivalent of one man in providing a witness testimony in financial situations. In some Muslim traditional cultures, even this is too much; they do not accept women's testimony at all, unless a man can testify along with them.

Alright, so aside from that, St. Paul, in this earliest written (spring of 56 A.D.; cool how they can know that) reference to the Resurrection (unless the "Hebrew" version of St. Matthew's gospel existed then) lists the men to whom Our Risen Lord appeared. St. Peter and the Apostles, naturally, but who were the 500? "A public appearance mentioned only here in the NT" is the note of a Catholic Study Bible I have. I've read other interesting commentaries in certain writers about who these 500 were and that they had been gathered for the purpose. The Catholic Study Bible's note (Curtis Mitch) only says: "For Paul, such a large group of eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of the Resurrection especially since some were still living and could verify the facts."

Yeah, but that's pretty basic. Mr Mitch is not a Classics scholar, alas. St. Paul was conversant with Classical Greek pagan literature. St. Paul would have known that in Athens, in the Periclean Age, the jury size for a man accused of a capital crime was 500. None of the writers recording Socrates trial detailed the jury size, probably because they assumed everyone would know. So, what St. Paul is saying is the he had enough witnesses to Christ's resurrection to satisfy the jury requirements of the Mediterranean world's famous city-state, Athens, in its heyday.

St. Paul, I believe, quotes from three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander (who seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides), and Aratus. St. Luke makes such quotes a couple of times in Acts. Whether these were direct quotes or just Shakespeare-like well-known commonly circulating phrases, they indicate some degree of familiarity with the Classics. St Paul in particular in his letters uses them to explain Christian teachings via the use of concepts from Greek philosophy. One scholar has noted that "1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Plato’s Protagoras 349c, in which Socrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole." 

If true, wow. This would tie St. Paul's 500 witnesses even closer to my idea that St. Paul was thinking of a jury trial of Socrates (as well as referring to an otherwise unrecording meeting).

The Protestant historian and New Testament scholar, Gary Habermas, has "dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus." 

I once listened to him explain on video how St. Paul stressed the importance of his testimony here in chapter 15 by using the phrase: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received...", as Mr Habermas says this was a sort ancient version of "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." This is a great insight and heightens (if any heightening is needed) the importance of St. Paul's testimony here. But what Mr. Habermas didn't say is that in chapter 11, about the Holy Eucharist,  St. Paul says, "23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...". This time St. Paul ups the ante. "For I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you." Just amazing the power of this oath that St. Paul offers. And yet Protestant scholars – or at least Mr. Habermas – miss it.

In any case, Mr. Powell's contention that the historicity of the Resurrection is on very firm footing, to put it mildly. But let's up the ante in a Catholic way, something you probably won't hear from a Vatican II trained cleric.

The Mass, the Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy, is above all a miracle, our participation in the actual Incarnation of Christ, made present to us so that as God Incarnated Himself into man, so man, through partaking of the Eucharist, can be Incarnated into God. This is the basic Christian message. It's why God didn't just declare, Allah-like, that an individual is saved upon uttering the Shahada ("I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.")

There has never been a formal Christian Shahada. Romans 10:13/Acts 2:21 are often quoted as a type of Shahada. They consist of the verse, "For all those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved", and they constitute the most Protestant verses in Scripture. In context, the Romans verse is embedded in: …12For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and gives richly to all who call on Him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach." The context of the second is in St. Peter's famous sermon to the crowds on Pentecost.

To be "saved", one has to be "born again of the water and the spirit" (St. John's gospel: 3:5, following on verse 3 about being born again). St. John and St. Paul both stress one has to be a "new creation in Christ" St. Paul's writings are full of these. For example:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation.)

•  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation.)
•  2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best;
• See also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
  
  

St. John wrote his gospel last of the four (all scholars, whether believers, agnostics, atheists, agree on that, even if they vary wildly in just when it was composed) and he knew that he had to emphasize the profundity of this Incarnational new creation theology, so he wrote out, very carefully, the sixth chapter of his gospel in which he reports Our Lord clearly saying that one must eat His flesh and drink is blood if one is to have God's life within him. And St. John also emphasized that Christ was not being metaphorical, as He let many – if not most – of His followers walk away.

But the point I wish to particularly stress about the Holy Eucharist is in relation to St. Paul's formal oath-giving testimony to the Resurrection: for the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament, meaning an oath, in itself. It is a blood oath, the most profound kind, wherein Catholic bishops and priests from that scene in 1 Corinthians 15 down to this day swear, and swear on the very Body and Blood of God, that "for I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you" that we saw the Risen Christ, met with Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not just the means of our salvation, but also a blood-oath we Historical Christians (Catholics, the 14 Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox) have been participating in for 2000 years. It is a witness of the most penetrating kind, with the most unfathomable consequences for our souls.

So, my friends, this might be worth a bit of reflection this Easter season, as we stand on the brink of horrible war, unprecedented global propaganda, and Deep State/Great Reset-generated civilizational collapse.

Christus vincit, 

Christus regnat, 

Christus imperat!

An Préachán