I was asked to respond to this article by Ewdard Babinski.

In responding to anyone, I of course want to know something about the author. In Babinski’s case, the information is sparse, almost non-existent. He apparently claims to be an “independent researcher”, whatever that is. He also apparently claims to be an agnostic, but his writings betray his vehement and open hostility towards Christianity. He categorizes Christian apologists from “the lowliest to the most scholarly (N.T. Wright).” Not sure where I fall on that spectrum.

I’m not going to address every point that Babinski makes because there is a fatal flaw inherent in all of his arguments. Babinski offers 5 “missing” items that allegedly refute the claim for the “missing” body (corpse) of Jesus. Babinski’s fatal weakness is his reliance on “arguments from silence” which is a fatal logical fallacy as explained below.

In item 1, Babinski asserts that “what is “missing” is an uncontested answer to the question of whether the earliest resurrection teachings allowed (or disallowed) that Jesus could have left physical remains on earth.”

Babinski is making the mistake of what is known as an argument from silence fallacy. Evan Minton explains here what an argument from silence is, “An argument from silence is made when someone bases their conclusion on a lack of evidence, or when someone tries to make an assertion based on what a person, book, historical document, or what have you does not say. This is logically fallacious because you can only make conclusions on the presence of evidence, not the absence of evidence. And you can only make inferences based on what a person, book, historical document, or what have you does say rather than what it does not say.” Minton does a credible job of refuting Babinski’s faulty logic.

In item 2, Babinski focuses on the gospel of Mark. Yes, while most scholars believe it is the earliest gospel, not all do . . . in fact, some believe that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Dr. John Oakes, a Christian apologist, addresses this subject here. As Oaks says, “The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel.” Focusing on Mark’s ending, Babinski is correct that some of the earlist manuscripts do not include verses 16:9-20. Douglas O’Donnell, PhD with degrees from Wheaton College, Wheaton Graduate School, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the University of Aberdeen) deals with the ending of Mark’s gospel here. O’Donnell argues, “First, Mark’s ending forces us to trust in Jesus’s authoritative word. If Jesus repeatedly said that he would rise from the dead (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), then that authoritative word should suffice. If Jesus promised that he would rise, and if he guarantees resurrection life to all who lose their lives for his sake (see Mark 8:34–9:1), then we can take him at his word. Unlike Thomas, we are not to doubt the testimony of Jesus even if we ourselves have not seen his resurrected body. If we can trust anything, we can trust the sure foundation of our Lord’s word (see Matt. 7:24–27).”

More importantly—and something that Babinski ignores—1 Thessalonians was written some 20 years after the Resurrection of Christ, well before Mark. It is believed to be Paul’s earliest writing and predates all the gospels. In 1:10 and 4:14 are explicit references to Christ’s resurrection from the dead. Even if Mark is the first gospel, it is quite clear that early church’s belief in the Resurrection of Christ long predates the gospel of Mark.

In missing item 3, Babinski is once again using the fallacy of an argument from silence when he asserts, “Paul does not mention the bodily ascension of Jesus (see MISSING ITEM #1). Neither does Mark nor Matthew. In fact Matthew has the resurrected Jesus say, “I am with you always.”” and “what is “missing” is uncontested evidence that the tale of the “bodily ascension” of Jesus was being told early on.”

In missing item 4, Babinski falls back yet again on the argument from silence fallacy when he asserts “what is “missing” is an uncontested tale of meeting with the resurrected Jesus in the earliest Gospel.”

In item 5, as expected, Babinski predictably again falls back on an argument from silence. In addition, he brings out the “Jesus was a legend” argument. Was Jesus a legend? Babinski asserts that the resurrection of Jesus is nothing more than a fairy-tale legend, ascribed to him by later generations of Christians. But legends take generations to develop. Even skeptical scholars admit that the gospels were written in the First Century while eyewitnesses were still alive and could refute any falsehood. There was insufficient time for a legend to develop. The Jesus of the gospels cannot be a legend. As William Lane Craig said, “One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis…is that the time gap between Jesus’ death and the writing of the Gospels is just too short for this to have happened.” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed., Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008, 399)

LogicCheck addresses the argument from silence here asserting “Diving into the realm of logic, imagine concluding that a secret doesn’t exist simply because it’s not been shared, or a discovery remains undiscovered due to lack of evidence. This intriguing yet flawed reasoning, where silence or absence of proof is misconstrued as evidence, can mislead us in various fields, from science to law, and even our daily life. Remember, the lack of evidence isn’t always evidence of absence – it’s a captivating puzzle that challenges us to look beyond the silence.” Indeed. Babinski would do well to heed the challenge to “look beyond the silence” instead of merely falsely concluding something.

Babinski refers to early Christians “being entertained by ever new and fabulous tales of Jesus’ infancy, youth and adulthood churned out by their fellows and incorporated into additional “Gospels”.” Yes, there were such writings, now known as the gnostic gospels. They contained ludicrous tales of spurious miracles performed by Jesus, even as a boy. But they were quickly and universally rejected by the early church as forgeries. (These spurious “lost” gnostic gospels are faithfully trotted out every Easter by skeptics and proclaimed “hidden” by the church, but in fact are well known and were unanimously rejected by the early church as forgeries.)

Agnostics, which Babinski claims to be one of, are supposed to be open to arguments both for and against the faith. However, Babinski is apparently not interested in arguments for Christianity, only arguments against it. Short of the work of the Holy Spirit in his heart, no amount of evidence will convince him.

When we apply the principle of Occam’s Razor to the competing theories that seek to explain the empty tomb, we are seeking the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions (Occan’s Razor is a well-known and accepted philosophical principle that the simplest explanation is to be preferred. Occam’s Razor is foundational to modern science). All other theories aside from Resurrection have multiple innate assumptions. For example the popular “stolen body” theory necessitates numerous assumptions:

• The entire Roman guard force (a minimum of 3 and perhaps as many as 10-16) fell asleep when the penalty was death.
• The disciples were able to quietly move a 1-2 ton stone.
• None of the guards were awakened by a 1-2 ton stone moving in their vicinity.
• Rome never investigated a breached Imperial Seal.
• The disciples became fearless for what they knew was a lie.
• The disciples were willing to die for what they knew was a lie.
• The resurrection appearances were imagined.
• Saul of Tarsus and James (the brother of Jesus) both spontaneously converted for no apparent reason.
• The early Jerusalem church, composed entirely of Jews, inexplicably changed their day of worship from Saturday (observed for more than a thousand years) to Sunday.
• James, the half-brother of Jesus who originally thought Jesus was insane, inexplicably became an avid follower and leader of the Jerusalem church.

In contrast, the Resurrection Theory has only one assumption: that miracles are possible (i.e., the supernatural exists). According to William Lane Craig: “Once one gives up the prejudice against miracles, it’s hard to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts.” The Resurrection is the only explanation that accommodates all the known facts without any other underlying assumptions. All the other theories offered to explain the empty tomb contain multiple underlying assumptions. The Resurrection Theory is the simplest and most logical explanation by far, and thus the preferred one.

If Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, we had better pay close attention to everything he said, including his claim to deity . . . and especially to his staggering claim in John 11:25-26. We also need to heed his claim that everyone will ultimately be resurrected by him back to bodily life when he returns – some to eternal life and some to divine judgment.