I attempted to summarize the first 5 pages of pages of Sir Norman Anderson’s book,
The Evidence for the Resurrection, but there was too much that I wanted to put into the summary and it was taking too much time, so I have quoted this portion of the book. Very briefly, I will mention that this is the introduction to the rest of the book that gives a much deeper look into evidence contained primarily within the written documents of six of the New Testament writers, and includes supporting information about the primitive church at that time.
I have used bold lettering to emphasis what I believe are key points.
"[p. 1]
Easter is not primarily a comfort, but a challenge.
Its message is either the supreme fact in history or else a gigantic hoax. This seems to have been realized in the days of the early Church. On the one side there was a little company of men and women who turned the world upside down by their passionate proclamation of that miracle which had transformed their lives: on the other, those who vehemently denounced the whole story as arrant blasphemy. We ourselves find it hard to see the issue so clear-cut, for ours is a tolerant age and one suspicious of all fanaticism. Most people have not the slightest desire to attack the Easter message; and yet they only half believe it. To them it is a beautiful story, full of spiritual meaning: why worry, then, whether it is literal fact?
But we miss the point. Either it is infinitely more than a beautiful story, or else it is infinitely less. If it is true, then it is the supreme fact of history; and to fail to adjust one's life to its implications means irreparable loss. But if it is not true, if Christ be not risen, then the whole of Christianity is a fraud, foisted on the world by a company of consummate liars, or, at best, deluded simpletons. St. Paul himself realized this when he wrote, 'If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching meaningless, and your faith worthless. More, we ourselves are found to be false witnesses'.[
l]
So that is the issue, and it is vital for us to come to a decision about it one way or the other But how can we, when it all happened so long ago?
How can we sift the evidence?
[p. 2]
This is not really quite so impracticable as it sounds, for there are at least two ways of setting about it. We can examine the historical evidence and try to determine whether it is contemporary, honest and convincing, and whether it is susceptible to any naturalistic interpretation. Alternatively, or in addition, we can apply the test of experience, and put the risen Christ to the proof in our own lives and those of others. In this paper we are primarily concerned with the first of these alternatives.
On what documents, then, is the Easter story based? Primarily, on the written testimony of six witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter), supported by the testimony of the whole primitive Church.
Now it is not sufficiently realized what strides modern research has made in determining the date and authorship of these written records. In the nineteenth century a number of unbelievers, equipped with considerable scholarship, made the most strenuous efforts to prove that the Gospels were written in the middle of the second century, A.D. (or about a hundred years after the events described), when legend and imagination could have played their part. But this attempt has failed, crushed under the weight of historical proof which grows in strength with the passage of the years.
The written testimony, then, is extraordinarily early. Let us concentrate attention on three examples.
(1) Paul, in the fifteenth chapter of his Epistle to the Corinthians,[
2] gives a detailed list of several resurrection appearances. Now there is scarcely a scholar who has doubted the genuineness of 1 Corinthians, and its date is generally accepted as about 56 A.D. But the apostle writes that he had not only previously given his readers this information orally
[p. 3]
(i.e., in 49 A.D..), but had himself 'received' it. presumably from those who were apostles before him.[3] This may take us back to 40 A.D. or to within some ten years of the crucifixion.
(2) Mark, in his Gospel, gives us another account of the resurrection appearances, preceded by the story of the empty tomb. Now it is generally accepted that Mark's Gospel represents Peter's oral teaching, and that it was written at a very early date. Some modern scholars believe that an Aramaic version was in existence as early as 44 A.D.
(3) Luke is our third witness, and he adds considerably to our knowledge both of the visit to the tomb and of the subsequent appearances, as well as providing the fullest account we have of the early apostolic preaching. And not only have the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles been widely accepted as the genuine composition of Luke, the 'beloved physician', but Sir William Ramsay and others have shown how minutely accurate an historian he was.
Such, then, are our first three witnesses, selected because their testimony is such as no unbiased critic can disregard, either from the point of view of authorship or early date. But we must also remember the testimony of Matthew, John and Peter, equally authoritative as we believe it to be.
Now what of this evidence? It is certainly extremely early, much of it going back to the very first decade of the Christian era.
This means it is contemporary, and must be accepted, at the least,[4] as substantially the record of eye-witnesses. How, then, can we avoid its implications? A number of different
[p. 4]
attempts have been made, the leading examples of which we shall now briefly examine.
The most radical theory of all is to dismiss the whole story as deliberate invention. But there is scarcely a single intelligent critic who would go so far. The adverse evidence is overwhelming.
Think, first, of the number of witnesses. Paul tells us that in 56 A.D. the majority of some 500 original witnesses were still alive; and we must remember that most of the early records went out, as it were, with the collective authority of the primitive Church. Think, too, of the character of the witnesses. Not only did they give the world the highest moral and ethical teaching it has ever known, but they lived it out, as even their opponents were forced to admit. Again, think of the phenomenal change which these men underwent because of this alleged invention. Is it conceivable that a deliberate lie would change a company of cowards into heroes, and inspire them to a life of sacrifice, often ending only in martyrdom? Surely psychology teaches that nothing makes a man more prone to cowardice than a lie which preys on his conscience? Is it likely, moreover, that even in disillusionment or agony not a single one of these conspirators would ever have divulged the secret?
Others would use a somewhat kinder term and describe the accounts as legends. But this is equally impossible, for we have already seen that the records were too early to allow time for their growth: 'legends' put in circulation and recorded by the original eye-witnesses are scarcely distinguishable from deliberate inventions. But besides the reasons we have already seen for rejecting this suggestion, the intrinsic evidence of the stories themselves emphatically contradicts the theory. Such episodes as legend-mongers could scarcely resist describing (such as the scene of
[p. 5]
the resurrection itself, or an appearance of Christ to confound His enemies) are conspicuous by their absence - as is also any attempt to describe His appearance to James and others. What forger, moreover, would depict the first appearance as being granted to Mary Magdalene, a woman of no great standing in the Church? Would he not rather give this honour to Peter, or to John the beloved, or to Mary the Lord's own mother? Who, too, can read the story of the walk to Emmaus, or of the appearance to the Magdalene, or of Peter and John running to the tomb, without being profoundly conscious that these are no legends? The accounts are too dignified and restrained, the details too true to life. Finally, both these theories break down hopelessly before the fact of the empty tomb.
Very few scholars have any use for the above theories. On the contrary, the only rationalistic interpretations of any weight are such as admit the sincerity of the records but try to explain them without recourse to the miraculous. All such attempts, moreover, are characterized by a sharp distinction between the records of the visits to the tomb and the records of the actual appearances: first the former are explained in a variety of ingenious ways, and then the latter are regarded as psychological or psychic phenomena."
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_resurrection_anderson.html
