Customer Reviews

Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Let's say you wanted to read a book length skeptical treatment on the resurrection of Jesus. Which one should you read? Which one do you recommend? There are several of them to choose from. If you follow the advice of Christian apologists Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona who wrote: "Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler," [The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 14], then I have a good suggestion on the skeptical side of the fence. This book by Kris D. Komarnitsky.

Komarnitsky begins by presupposing Jesus existed and that I Corinthians 15:3-7 is not a later Christian interpolation. (p. 8). Then author focuses on the discovery of the empty tomb tradition. This tradition is "unique in that it is not itself a supernatural event and so any associated bias is not a factor, and it is a tradition upon which the resurrection of Jesus stands or falls." (p. 4). What happened between the time Jesus was crucified and the traditions expressed by Paul in I Corinthians 15:3-7, which is the mysterious "black box" skematic represented on the cover? Komarnitsky argues from the literary evidence itself that the discovered empty tomb is "plausibly a legend." Then he takes the reader through the questions that must be answered in order to get to Paul's expressed traditions in I Corinthians 15:3-7 "without a discovered empty tomb." (p. 9)

In Chapter One, "The Discovery of an Empty Tomb, Fact or Fiction?," Komarnitsky offers three lines of literary evidence that the empty tomb is a fiction: 1) Paul's silence about it; 2) The ending of Mark; and 3) The Jewish charge of a stolen body. He does an excellent job here and offers a few new insights on these topics.

Chapter Two: An Obscure Burial
Chapter Three: The Belief Jesus Died for Our Sins and Was Raised
Chapter Four: The Appearance Traditions
Chapter Five: Raised on the Third Day
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Meaning.

Appendix: Myth Growth Rates.

I think Komarnitsky's book is a great introduction to this topic, especially if you haven't read anything on it before. Even though I know quite a bit about the topic, I learned enough by reading his book that I recommend it even for people who are more acquainted with the topic. The author is well-read. He thinks well. He writes well. He argues well. He'll make you think.

For many, the validity of Christianity hinges on Jesus' bodily resurrection, but this belief is increasingly challenged by the enlightenment and modern New Testament scholarship. Modern scholarship understands the passion and empty tomb narratives as relatively later literary embellishments added to prior collections of Jesus' sayings. A counter argument is that Christianity could not possibly have so rapidly spread over the Roman world without a belief in bodily resurrection. A key piece of evidence offered that such a resurrection understanding did exist from the earliest days is 1 Cor. 15:3-7, Paul's reference to a formal tradition of death and resurrection that he received and passed on, a tradition that therefore would have existed within only a few years of Jesus' death.
Is there a way in which the modern understanding of the empty tomb stories can be acknowledged, and yet somehow still reasonably explain the early origins of the death and resurrection traditions Paul received and passed on to others? The author speaks to this question as a layman to laymen, yet he has a detailed understanding of the relevant current scholarship, and a precisely reasoned approach to the subject. He starts with a case for why the empty tomb narratives are late and mythical in character, and then leads the reader through discussions of 1st century burial practices, cognitive dissonance reduction and the belief that Jesus died for our sins, and Hellenistic understandings of bodily assumption. The etiology of each segment of Paul's creedal formula; `...died...for our sins...was buried...raised...on third day...according to the Scriptures...', is considered, as the author seeks to show an alternate path to the genesis of Paul's formula.
If a rational consideration of the origins and development of earliest Christian resurrection beliefs is of interest, then this is a book for you.

Peter Kane
Purdue University, Retired
April 22, 2009

I'm more impressed by the author's detailed research into this topic than the arguments themselves, there's no doubt the arguments are sound but the best and most favorable arguments are simple, direct, and explain the most. Compared with the arguments from the christian side, I can only split the score 50/50, and I'm not a believer.

You'll find when the author presents his arguments, it's presented very laboriously in great detail, but that also makes it very drawn out even though he's already made his point, this diverts the attention away from the main argument and is counter-productive to the points the author tries to make, which are really quite simple. This leaves the reader wonder if this book was intended for a lay person or a scholar.

As a warning, the reader can easily get lost reading the (oftentimes way way too) detailed presentations as the author makes his points, make sure you have a good cup of coffee next to you before you begin. :)

In Komarnitsky's third chapter, "The Belief That Jesus Died for Our Sins and Was Raised," he ventures onto my home turf--psychology--and his treatment of the the subject is impressive. I found the chapter opening a bit hard to follow, but persistence paid off in spades.

Komarnitsky pulls together the work of historians and psychologists and tells story after story of apocalyptic cults that find ways to sustain their beliefs despite radical disappointments (a messianic figure betrays trust, an end-of-the-world date comes and goes, aliens fail to appear). Social psychologist Leon Festinger's work on cognitive dissonance provides a theoretical framework for understanding an otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon. For anyone who is interested in how apocalyptic beliefs are sustained, whether in a Christian context or not, I recommend this thorough, well-documented overview.

Although the Christian resurrection story is shrouded in mythos, making it hard to know what actually happened in history, modern examples and cognitive dissonance theory offer a compelling possible scenario. Without resorting to any form of supernaturalism, drawing just on what we know about human behavior, Komarnitsky offers a sufficient explanation for the resurrection story at the heart of Christian orthodoxy.

Valerie Tarico, Ph.D.
Author: The Dark Side - How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth

To be upfront about this review, the author is an acquaintance of mine but I like the book, irrespective of our friendship.

Many people of faith have questions about their religious traditions. Some prefer to ignore any questions they have, choosing ignorance over doubt. If you are a person who insists in knowing something about how your religious traditions have developed, this book is a good choice. Komarnitsky has compiled a considerable amount of research concerning the story of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. He makes a good case that the tomb traditions found in Mark constitute legend. The information about burial practice in the first century can be helpful to anyone trying to get a feel for that culture.

His description of competing Jewish and early Christian competing apologetics is a worthwhile line of investigation.

His discussion of cognitive dissonance in Chapter 3 is well worth the cost of the book. Thinking people always seem to be troubled by conflicting points of view that they try to hold together in their minds. The mental discomfort from that is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is an initiator for some people to move from strongly held beliefs to new insight but as he demonstrates, it can also be a motivation for ingenious, if incorrect, explanations that reduce the dissonance pressures. It can be shown that Christian apologetics is based on a response to cognitive dissonance.

One of the common statements I have heard over the years concerns how Jesus must have been from God, how else can we explain the durability of the Christian church? This is, of course, an argument from ignorance. That is; if it isn't from God, what else could it be? Well, lots of things. Komarnitsky provides considerable information that explains how just the right concepts at just the right societal time can meet the needs of humanity and provide a viable and useful philosophy of life which may be very durable.

The book provides an explanation that allows thinking people to explore their faith traditions and it provides solid evidence that can alleviate the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. It shows how hallucinations, wishful thinking and self-delusion can all contribute to our body of religious traditions.

This book is very readable and the extensive references found in the endnotes can be used for further study. This is well researched book that can be used in a study group or as a beginning for a personal quest to investigate Christian traditions.

First I want to say that I was initially captured by the title of this unique piece of research and interpretation. But regarding the body of the work itself, Kormarnitsky, who is an agnostic about God and afterlife, has written a fascinating account that appeals to the contemporary mind and experience that seeks to explain mythos in rational and immanential terms rather than in transcendental categories.

He has taken a theory from social psychology, Festinger's explanation of cognitive dissonance, and effectively and plausibly applied it to the greatest "black box" mystery of history, namely the stories of the resurrection of Jesus and the related beliefs.

Remaining fully cognizant of cultural and historical context, Komarnitsky has painstakingly looked in great detail at the research, rather comprehensively covering the spectrum from conservative to liberal. He has addressed every phrase in the Pauline foundational statement of beliefs and traditions found in 1 Cor 15:3-7: died, buried, raised, third day, appeared. And for each category he has deftly considered a range of interpretations before drawing his own conclusions.

Komarnitsky accomplishes his task in the spirit of the free exchange of ideas and in the context of acknowledging the central role that the Christian faith has and continues to play in all things important to humankind; that role is promoting a world-view of empathy for one another as we all stand equal before God, an insight shared by all major religions, using various forms of the golden rule: treat others as you wish to be treated.

Whether or not you agree with Komarnitsky's conclusions, in the first five chapters your thinker will become a better thinker, in the final chapter your heart will become a bigger heart, and putting them together you will see life with more perceptive eyes.

E H Stecker, M.Div., M.A.
Psychologist, private practice
Pennsylvania

Two things I appreciate greatly about this book: an even-handed treatment of all major perspectives on the resurrection--traditional and modern, conservative and liberal--and an irenic style and tone that match the balanced discussion. This is more remarkable since Komarnitsky is examining one of the most emotionally charged questions in Christianity: is the gospel story of an empty tomb on Easter morning historical; and if not, how did the story come to be?

The author presents and defends his view that the empty tomb story is fictional, a legend that developed some time after Jesus' death. He then carefully examines the implications of that conclusion--spending a great deal of time on the earliest mention of the resurrection in the New Testament, I Cor. 15:3-7. Here Paul says that he was taught that Jesus died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and appeared to many people.

Why would the phrase "on the third day" be a part of the doctrinal formula decades before the first gospel was written? How far back in Christian teaching does it go? Why did the phrase exist at all if it was not based on the story of an empty tomb?

Komarnitsky's answers are well-documented and carefully considered, and his central thesis is intriguing. Highly recommended.

Rev. Chuck Jones
Atlanta, Georgia

Getting into this sort of thing is kind-of like a championship boxing match. The title doesn't change hands on a draw. The challenger has to actually win.

Komarnitsky never delivers the knockout punch in Doubting Jesus' Resurrection--nor could he. It was not his intention to do so. What he does is show a very plausible alternative explanation for the Empty Tomb that doesn't involve an actual resurrection. He does this while granting certain basal assumptions of the Christian believer.

But "plausible" amounts at best to a draw in the debate over the historical Jesus. To show how something might have happened is not the same thing as showing how it did happen. What ought to give the believer pause is that the author managed to exhibit a perfectly credible scenario that doesn't appeal to unseen and unprovable entities. It won't do that because the believer neither needs to see God nor have him proven. God's existence is taken as a given, the starting point of the discussion. That is something the non-believer needs to recognize. The believer will not accept the burden of proof simply because God is unseen and untestable.

The real damage this kind of work does to the Faith is in that it demonstrates that the one who does not share the believer's convictions need not. One who doesn't start from a position of faith is not inclined in the direction of faith and would thus find Komarnitsky's analysis at least as likely as the supernatural alternative. In short, it shows that doubting the Resurrection is a reasonable and honest--an honorable--posture.

For Christians who insist there's no excuse for not believing, that unbelief must be met with ultimate judgment, this is intolerable. It's intolerable because we all intuitively understand that it would be unjust to punish someone for holding a reasonable and honest opinion. Desperate attempts will therefore have to be made to show that doubt of Jesus' rising from the dead is not, in fact, a reasonably and honestly held opinion.

The last few years of my Christian life were spent in just such a search for a convincing, countervailing argument: a rationale that could justify a hard line against unbelief of fundamental teachings like the Resurrection and all it implied. But I could not succeed. I'm not aware of anyone who has. At the very least, Komarnitsky had helped to show how unlikely it is that anyone ever will.

I will not repeat the comments made by the previous six reviewers. I generally agree with them all. Suffice it to say that I too find Komarnitsky's book a well-balanced, well researched and an exceptionally well presented treatise, not only on the resurrection story and its origins, but in its comparisons to similar legends/myths.

Although those beginning their study of the Historical Jesus or Christian Origins will find the book especially helpful, it will also, in my view, be informative and useful to both theological and historical scholars.

Komarnitsky, an admitted agnostic, presents his arguments in such a way that they should garner respect for one's position of uncertainty from both atheists and those of faith. I especially appreciate Kormarnistky's use of the term "plausible" to describe his conclusions. Many other writers could take a lesson from this approach and recognize that conclusions, especially those involving history-and even more so those involving the interplay between faith and history-can only represent degrees of plausibility, and often can only be expressed as being simply "more plausible than not" or vice versa!

This book may be described with one or more of the following adjectives: excellent, fantastic, superb. These adjectives apply to Kris' work in several senses: First, Kris' book is an honest, objective, and thoughtful attempt to explain the origins of Christianity. It is not angry or unduly biased by ideology. Second, the book is very concise (a mere 151 pages excluding the index, references, and bibliography) but at the same time it is packed with numerous references, extensive quotations, and overall shows that the author has examined voluminous material concerning that about which he writes. Third, I believe that the positions laid out in the book are mostly correct and represent the most probable explanations available for Christian origins. However, the views that I disagree with in the book do not affect the book's main conclusion: the rise and spread of early Christianity is completely explicable (and best explained) in non-supernatural terms.

However, I do think that the book could be improved slightly. Kris never addresses the question, "Why would the disciples be willing to die for something about which they had little evidence?" Of course this question is completely illegitimate (as I will show) but nevertheless it is a widespread myth that Kris should have addressed (perhaps he could launch a companion site or blog to answer questions like these).

The question "Why would they die..." is not legitimate for many reasons: first, there is no solid evidence that any of the disciples were martyred for their belief in the resurrection, much less any evidence that they were given a chance to recant. As Kenneth Daniels says in his book Why I Believed:

"[T]he assertion that Jesus' disciples died for their faith has no historical foundation; it is mere hearsay, as Bart Ehrman informs us:

"'And an earlier point that Bill made was that the disciples were all willing to die for their faith. I didn't hear one piece of evidence for that. I hear that claim a lot, but having read every Christian source from the first five hundred years of Christianity, I'd like him to tell us what the piece of evidence is that the disciples died for their belief in the resurrection (Craig and Ehrman 2006, 28-29).'

"What Erhman is saying is that we have no historical grounding for the martyrdom of even one of Jesus' disciples. All details regarding their manner of dying emerge years later in accounts that are far removed from the actual events. Even if it could be proven historically that some of the earliest disciples were martyred, we would still be unable to look into their minds and know they died specifically for their belief in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Latter Day Saints believe he was martyred for his unwavering conviction that God revealed himself through golden tablets that Smith had discovered in 1830. Many non-Mormons believe he was killed because he was a criminal. If the facts are so readily disputed for a relatively recent and well-documented event like Joseph Smith's death, how can we say with any confidence how or why Jesus' disciples perished, let alone what was in their minds when they died?"


Another point that Kris does not address is the claim that the resurrection hypothesis is simpler than all secular explanations of the facts surrounding Jesus' death. This claim is commonly made by William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas, and I would imagine that they would make the same point to Kris if ever they engaged him in debate: Isn't the single hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection simpler (and therefore more likely to be true) than Kris' multi-hypothesis explanation of the origins of Christianity (Kris' hypothesis requires numerous hypotheses, such as grief hallucinations to the individual appearances of Jesus after his death, plus postulating that Paul's report of an appearance to the 500 is a fringe legend and not at all factual, and so on)?

Of course Kris could easily counter this question: Occam's razor (the principle of simplicity) states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most probably correct. But all things are not equal in this instance: Each of Kris' hypotheses occurs with relatively high frequency (people exaggerate, hallucinate, etc. all the time) while resurrections either never occur or occur on a mind-bogglingly low basis (so low that we know of no other cases). So even the conjunction of all of Kris' hypotheses together is a lot more likely than the resurrection. The only way that a Christian could get out of this is if he could successfully show that Kris' hypothesis was less likely than the existence of a miracle-working God of the sort who would actually want to raise Jesus from the dead. Any takers on that one?

P.S. Kris has commented on my blog that,

"I purposely did not make in my book a comparison of the plausibility of my hypothesis to the resurrection hypotheses, or for that matter to the various other non-traditional hypotheses, because when I've seen others (on both sides of this issue) attempt to do so, it looks to me like a fruitless attempt to objectively measure something that is largely subjective."

I suppose we'll have to disagree on that one. I think that the resurrection can be deemed highly improbable on the grounds that resurrections do not occur today, and what is true about the present is almost certainly true about the past (this is standard inductive reasoning).

On the contrary, the explanations Kris presents are of such a kind that happen very frequently (every kind of explanation he presents is one that has been directly observed dozens if not hundreds of times over) so that even the combination of all his explanations put together is still more likely than a resurrection.