Dan Cohn-Sherbock, a well-known rabbi of Reform Judaism, and Jewish theologian has given some of his reasons for rejecting the resurrection of Jesus. He says:
“As a Jew and a rabbi, I could be convinced of Jesus’ resurrection, but I would set very high standards of what is required. It would not be enough to have a subjective experience of Jesus. If I heard voices or had a visionary experience of Jesus, this would not be enough. Let me sketch the kind of experience that would be necessary. If Jesus appeared by hosts of angels trailing clouds of glory and announcing all for His Messiah ship to see, this would be compelling. But it would have to take place in public domain. Such an event would have to be witnessed by multitudes, photographed, recorded on video cameras, shown on television, and announced in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Jesus appearance would have to be a global event, televised on CNN, and other forms of the world’s media. Further, if as a consequence of his arrival, all the prophecies recorded in scripture were fulfilled; the ingathering of the exiles, the rebuilding of the Temple, the resurrection of all those who died, the advent of the days of the Messiah, final judgment-I would without a doubt embrace the Christian message and become a follower of the risen Christ.”-Gavin D’ Costa, Resurrection Reconsidered, pgs, 198-199.
The comments by Rabbi Cohn-Sherbock demonstrate the attitude among many in the modern world today. He also raises some objections based on another traditional role of the Messiah in Judaism. However, there is not one messianic expectation in Judaism. Also, whether or not certain passages are clearly Messianic depend upon what the preconceived idea of the reader. What do they believe the Messiah is supposed to do? If a traditional Jewish person says the Messiah cannot suffer and die, how would we expect them to interpret the Messianic passages? It is also quite obvious that Cohn-Sherbock has unrealistic explications for the evidence for the resurrection. If I applied the same criteria to the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, we could never know that happened as well. After all, even if the giving of the Torah was witnessed by multitudes (they saw Moses after he received it), it is the past and the only reason we know it was witnessed by people is because it was written in the Torah itself. Hence, we have to rely on written documents that record the event.
So the giving of the Torah and the resurrection of Jesus should be treated the same way anything else would in antiquity. Of course, the resurrection took place in the public domain. As Paul says, the events were “not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26). But even though the events were done in public, it is in the past. Gary Habermas writes:
“The occurrence of past events can usually be discovered (within a certain probability) by a careful investigation of the facts. These former events are only accessible by a study of the available historical evidence. Although the historian usually did not personally participate in what he is studying (assuming he wasn’t originally there), he can inspect the relevant data such as the eyewitnesses, written documents, and various other records, structures, and archaeological finds. Upon such confirmation the historian must build his case. Such tools comprise the working principles of historical research. “- Gary Habermas, “Appendix One: Historiography,” in The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO: College, 1996), 270.
Rabbi Cohn-Sherbock needs to realize that his expectations for evidence for the resurrection of Jesus would not hold up for the central event in Judaism which was the giving of the Torah. Hence, we need to be consistent in what we we consider to be evidence for something in the past. I guess Sherbock will have to wait for the return of Jesus. I will be praying for him.
Below is the link to the full article. This article presents several major discrepancies between the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. One of the biggest is the day on which Jesus was arrested and crucified. The Synoptics say these events all occurred the day of Passover, after the Passover Meal had been eaten, while the Gospel of John says that these events occurred on the Day of Preparation for the Passover. This discrepancy, in the eyes of Jews, cannot be reconciled. The idea that God would inspire an author to write a book that would be considered part of his Holy Word, and yet make such a major mistake, is simply inconceivable to Jews.
https://outreachjudaism.org/resurrection-evidence/
Here is an excerpt from OutreachJudaism.org that explains very well why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah:
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
(I Corinthians15:17)
In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this astounding claim. Because of the importance of this topic, I have dedicated an entire segment on the audio recording,Confused Texts and Testimonies, to this subject.
Bear in mind that Christianity is not the only religion to have declared that its savior or demigod was resurrected from the grave. The story of a deity who defeated the grip of death is one of the most common themes embedded in the plethora of religions that have emerged since time immemorial. Your question, therefore, should be expanded even more widely because the claim of a divine savior who is born of a virgin, suffers a brutal death, and ascends to heaven was widespread among pagan and Gnostic religions during the first century (this was especially true for the regions around Tarsus, Paul’s hometown). Mythologies throughout the Roman Empire and beyond contained popular beliefs that notable mortals and god-men were born of virgins and returned from the dead. See accounts of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha.
The question for the Jewish people is simple. Should we accept the numerous claims made by widespread religions of miraculous resurrections from the dead simply because their zealous defenders promoted them? Claims of biased followers need to be particularly scrutinized, especially if they are the only claims that exist.
Since the belief in Jesus’ resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, we should certainly examine the credibility of this story. What is the evidence for the belief that Jesus rose from the grave? Aside from the accounts in the New Testament, there is no independent supportive documentation, nor is there any circumstantial evidence. There is not even one contemporaneous historian who mentions one word about Jesus’ resurrection. The entire claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament texts. Moreover, it was the creators and defenders of Christianity who promoted the stories of the resurrection. Their biased testimony must therefore be examined more carefully. Is this testimony reliable? As a seeker of truth, you are the judge.
Obviously, a judge must be impartial, and objectively weigh all of the relevant evidence. Realize this is not a routine case; your relationship with God is at stake. As an individual examining the case for the resurrection, you should not be swayed by conjecture or hearsay, but demand clear proof.
If you were the judge presiding over a murder case, you would want to be absolutely certain before convicting the defendant. If the prosecutor called his key witnesses, but each told a different story, his case would be very shaky. The defense attorney would argue for the acquittal of his client by demonstrating the weakness of the prosecutor’s case. He would impeach the state’s witnesses by showing how their accounts are contradictory.
The resurrection narratives in the Gospels may be convincing testimony for people who have not read them very carefully. As a responsible judge, though, you can’t be satisfied with just a casual examination of the evidence, especially if biased witnesses gave the testimony. The stories told in the New Testament, and the passion narratives in particular, are so inconsistent, that the resurrection story collapses under careful scrutiny. The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists are so unreliable, that they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls.
I have prepared the following three-part study to help you critically evaluate the case of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. This analysis consists of the crucial date of the crucifixion and the events that allegedly followed the resurrection.
Study the CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION CHART, which maps out the vast number of widespread inconsistencies in the Passion Narratives throughout the four Gospels and the letters of Paul. Let’s begin this examination of the resurrection stories by studying the date of the crucifixion as told by the four Gospels.
Rabbi Cohn-Sherbock’s comments are interesting. I believe all of his requirements will one day be met. Matthew 24:30 says: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
But CNN won’t have time to report it, and we won’t be sitting by our TV’s watching the evening news after it happens. We’ll probably all still be on our knees before the Messiah. I suspect I’ll stay in the position for quite some time.
The Rabbi’s perspective is reasonable, given the fact that the resurrection ranks right alongside Sinai, the appearance of Krishna to Arjuna, an angel with Muhammad in the cave and Joseph Smith finding the gold tablets in a field. Yes, let’s be consistent.
How does resurrection ranks right alongside a those other appearances? Could you back your claim using Bayesian probability, to show that resurrection given background data ranks alongside others?
How does it NOT rank along with other “amazing stories”? I once memorized Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Then, I came to realize the “evidence” was no greater for the resurrection (or any other biblical “miracle”) than for any of those other stories from any other religion. Each religion simply chooses which story to believe and defend. What does this leave the Christian? Learning to show compassion, do justice and love kindness rather than “prove” things that can never be proved.
Answering a question with a question is not answering how does resurrection ranks right alongside those other appearances? You cannot simply shift the burden of proof by claiming, “why not”. You have to give reasons.
Could you use Bayesian probability to calculate the probability of other appearances given their background information and show that it is similar to resurrection?
I guess you’ve not understanding me. Why don’t you believe in those other “miracles”? Because, like the story of a palestinian heretic rabbi walking out of the grave, each one of these stories is hearsay without evidence. If you choose to believe one story over the others, that’s your choice. But quite unconvincing.