正如我们在引言中所说，耶稣的复活是基督教的根基。 As we said in the introduction, the resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity.
若没有复活，基督教就完全是谎言和假宗教。 Without it, all of Christianity is a lie and a false religion.
但与大多数神迹的说法不同，基督徒声称复活有确凿的历史证据。 But unlike most miracle claims, Christians claim there is good historical evidence for the resurrection.
那么，这些证据是什么，我们又该如何运用呢？ So, what is this evidence, and how can we use it?
我们在引言中已经讨论了基本的哲学基础，指出了我们已经为上帝的存在提 供了自然神学论据，论证了新约文献的可靠性，并确立了神迹并非不可能。 We already went over the basic underlying philosophy in the introduction and pointed out that we already gave natural theology arguments for God's existence, argued the New Testament documents are reliable, and established that miracles are not impossible.
然而，如我们在引言中提到的，我们不会假设新约 文献都是受默示的，或者每个细节都准确无误。 However, as we noted in the introduction, we will not assume the New Testament documents are inspired or even accurate in every detail.
相反，我们只会根据大多数新约学者公认的事实 ，以及有充分证据推断为真实的事实来论证。 Instead, we will only argue from facts that are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars and have good evidence to infer they are true.
这意味着即使新约其余部分是虚构的，也不会证明这些事实是假的，因为即使许多 怀疑论的学者对整个新约的历史性持怀疑态度，但至少认同这些事实是真实的。 This means even if the rest of the New Testament is a fabrication, it will not show these facts are false, since even many skeptical scholars doubt the historicity of the entire New Testament but at least agree these facts are true.
现在，以此为基础，我们可以开始查看历史证据，看看是否能推断出复活的事实。 So now, with this as our underlying foundation, we can begin to look at the historical evidence and see if it infers a resurrection.
首先，关于耶稣之死有两个基本事实：几乎一致 公认耶稣是在耶路撒冷城外被钉十字架而死。 First, two underlying facts about the death of Jesus: It is almost unanimously agreed that Jesus died by crucifixion just outside of Jerusalem.
怀疑论学者约翰·多米尼克·克罗森说，这是历史上最确定的事实之一。 Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan says this is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
怀疑论学者桑德斯将此列为耶稣生平最无可争议的事实之一，因 此对历史学家来说，耶稣是否被钉十字架而死这一点毫无疑问。 Skeptical scholar E.P. Sanders lists this as one of the most indisputable facts about Jesus' life, so there is no question for historians whether or not Jesus died by crucifixion.
第二，普遍认同耶稣被安葬在附近的坟墓里。 Second, it is widely agreed that Jesus was buried in a nearby tomb.
这方面的证据相当充分。 The evidence for this is pretty overwhelming.
我们有保罗和马可等早期来源的多重证实，约瑟 夫也同意被钉十字架的人可以得到适当的安葬。 We have multiple attestations from early sources like Paul and Mark, and Josephus agrees that crucified victims were allowed to receive a proper burial.
犹太律法要求即使是外邦人和罪犯也必须被安葬。 Jewish law demanded that even foreigners and criminals had to be buried.
我们也有考古证据支持这一点。 We have archaeological evidence for this as well.
耶稣的埋葬记载也符合尴尬性标准，因为他们不得不承认无力提供自 己的坟墓安葬耶稣，而必须使用刚判处他死刑的公会成员的坟墓。 The burial account of Jesus also meets the criteria of embarrassment since they had to admit they could not afford their own tomb to bury Jesus but had to use the tomb of a member of the court who had just executed him.
支持耶稣被埋葬的事实实在太多了。 There are just too many facts which support the burial of Jesus.
只有耶稣研讨会中少数怀疑论学者否认这一点，但大多数学者并不否认。 Only a few skeptical scholars in the Jesus Seminar deny this, but the majority does not.
我们稍后会回来详细讨论这点，但即使这两个事实都是真的，耶稣仍可能只是死在坟墓里。 We’ll come back to this later and discuss it more, but both of these facts could still be true, and Jesus would still be dead in the grave.
真正的问题是，接下来发生了什么？ The real question is, what happened next?
是什么导致了后来的事件，使基督教从罗马帝国一个偏远的小省发展壮大？ What caused the events which followed and led to the rise of Christianity from a small backwater province in Rome?
为了解释耶稣被埋葬三天后发生的事，人们提出了各种各样的理论。 There have been a wide variety of theories that have been proposed in order to explain what took place three days after Jesus was buried.
在这个视频中，我们将探讨四个最普遍的主要理论，看看哪个最符合证据。 In this video, we’ll cover the four most popular and general theories to see which best fits the data.
第一个是神话理论。 The first theory is the mythic theory.
这可能是在普通怀疑论者中最流行的理论。 This is probably the most popular among layman skeptics.
这个理论认为所有关于耶稣的事迹和神迹都是后来编造的，并非来自早期目击者。 It argues that all the events and miracle claims of Jesus were made up at a later time and were not made up by early eyewitnesses.
门徒从未宣称耶稣从死里复活，这只是后来的基督徒编造的。 The disciples never claimed Jesus rose from the dead, and it was only made up by later Christians.
第二个理论类似于神话理论，但被称为阴谋论。 The second theory is like the mythic theory, but it is called the conspiracy theory.
历史证据表明，这可能是最早出现的质疑复活记载的对立理论。 Historical evidence suggests this is probably the earliest competing theory offered to challenge the resurrection account.
这个理论说门徒为了自己的利益，编造了耶稣从死里复活的故事，完全是在说谎。 It says that the disciples made up the story of Jesus rising from the dead and simply lied about it all for their own gain.
第三，我们要看幻觉理论，这个理论有很多变体，可能是怀疑论新约学者中最流行的。 Third, we'll look at the hallucination theory, which comes in many variations and is probably the most popular among skeptical New Testament scholars.
这个理论基本上说，耶稣死后，门徒悲痛欲绝，产生了耶 稣已从死里复活的幻觉或异象，这使他们认为他又活了。 It basically says that after Jesus died, the disciples were grief-stricken and had hallucinations or visions that Jesus had arisen from the dead, and that propelled them to think he was alive again.
最后，我们要将这些与复活理论进行比较，复活理论认为耶 稣确实从死里复活了，门徒相信是因为他们亲眼目睹了。 Finally, we'll compare these to the resurrection theory, which is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, and the disciples believed it because they witnessed it.
让我们来看看事实，看看这些理论中是否有能完全解释这些证据的。 So let's look at the facts and see if any of these theories can fully explain the data.
第一个几乎得到一致认可的事实是，耶稣死后，他的门徒说他又活着向他们显现。 The first piece is something that is accepted by almost unanimous scholarship, which is that after Jesus died, his disciples said he appeared to them again alive.
学者们对门徒相信这事发生过这一点几乎没有什么怀疑。 There is not a lot of doubt among scholars that the disciples believed this had happened.
巴特·厄尔曼说，我完全不怀疑一些门徒确实这样声称。 Bart Ehrman says, I don't doubt at all that some disciples claim this.
保罗在大约25年后写道，这就是他们所声称的，我不认为他在编造。 Paul, writing about 25 years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up.
桑德斯说，同样可以确定的是耶稣的门徒看见了他，虽然具体是以什么方式还不确定。 E.P. Sanders says, It is an equally secure fact that Jesus' disciples saw him, in what sense is not certain.
在他死后，他的跟随者看见了他。 After his death, his followers saw him.
这是因为包括约瑟夫在内的多个来源都有证实， 如果这事没有发生，就无法解释基督教的兴起。 The reason for this is because it has multiple attestations in various sources, including Josephus, and there is no way to explain the rise of Christianity if this did not happen.
一定发生了什么事，促使门徒从表面上的一无所有开始建立了世界上最大的宗教。 Something had to happen which compelled the disciples to begin the world's largest religion with seemingly nothing.
人们声称看到各种各样的事物，那么为什么我们要认真对待门徒的说法呢？ Well, people claim they see all sorts of things, so why should we take the claims of the disciples seriously?
我们怎么知道他们的见证是可靠的，而不是在编造这些显现呢？ How do we know their testimony is reliable and they were not simply making the appearances up?
在我们之前的系列中，我们已经确立了新约的记载很早 且可靠，所以有充分的证据表明他们的见证是可靠的。 Well, in our previous series, we've already established the New Testament is very early and reliable in what it reports, so there is plenty of evidence their testimony is reliable.
但撇开这一点不谈，我们至少应该评估什么情况下目击证人的证词是不可靠的。 But putting that aside, we should at least evaluate when eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
比如说，当事件发生得很快或只持续几秒钟时，很难保留对事件的记忆。 For instance, when events happen quickly or over a period of a few seconds, it is hard to retain memory of an event.
或者当人们刻意寻找想要找的东西时，比如那些极度渴 望找到大脚怪的人有时会欺骗自己，以为找到了什么。 Or when people go out looking for what they want to find, people that are desperately desiring to find Bigfoot will sometimes fool themselves into thinking they found something.
或者当参与者都是陌生人时，比如在银行抢劫案中，在陌生人中间很难保持记忆清晰。 Or when the participants are all strangers, like during a bank robbery, it is hard to retain memory when you are around unfamiliar people.
最后，如果涉及武器，也很难保持记忆清晰，因为每 个人都会把注意力集中在武器上而不是其他事物上。 And last, it is hard to retain memory if there was a weapon involved for the simple reason that everyone is focused on the weapon and not anything else.
然而，如果我们检视复活的记载，这些因素似乎都不存在。 However, if we examine the resurrection reports, none of these seem to be a factor.
显然没有武器涉及，也不是与陌生人在一起；门徒彼此熟 悉，他们也认识他们所见证的那位他们相信已复活的人。 There is certainly not a weapon involved, and it is not with strangers; the disciples are familiar with each other and who they are witnessing they believe had risen.
门徒也并不期待耶稣从死里复活。 The disciples were also not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead.
所有的记载都坦诚地记录了门徒误解了圣经和耶稣的话，他们并不期待他会回来。 All of the accounts embarrassingly report that the disciples had misunderstood the Scriptures and what Jesus had claimed, and they did not expect him to come back.
这些记载似乎不是短暂发生的，而是在一段时期内 ，耶稣与他们一同吃喝，交谈，或给他们指示。 The reports do not seem to happen quickly, but over a period of time where Jesus would eat and drink with them, engage in conversations, or give them instructions.
即使你认为福音书和使徒行传是后来的神话，我们仍然 保留着早期的信经和口传讲道，它们也记载了这些事。 Even if you could write off the Gospels and Acts as later myths, we still have preserved for us early creeds and oral sermons handed down which report these as well.
所以从表面上看，这些记载与产生不可靠证词的情况并不相符。 So the reports on the surface level do not match circumstances that create unreliable testimony.
正如桑德斯承认的，他们确实经历了某些事，这对阴谋论来说并不是个好兆头。 As E.P. Sanders admits, they definitely experienced something, which doesn't bode well for the conspiracy theory.
那么如果这些记载是后来编造的呢？ So what if these accounts were just made up at a later date?
这似乎被大多数学者否定，因为保罗在哥林多前书15章为我们保留 了一个早期信经，其中列出了据说耶稣向他们显现的见证人名单。 Well, this seems to be rejected by most scholars since Paul preserved for us an early creed in 1 Corinthians 15, which is a list of witnesses that Jesus was said to have appeared to.
这些人包括彼得、其他门徒、一次有五百多人、然后是雅各，之后是众使徒。 They include Peter, the rest of the disciples, a group of 500 at once, then James, and then all the apostles.
大多数学者认为这个见证人名单的信经可以追溯到五旬节后三年之内。 Most scholars believe this list of witnesses in the creed goes back to within three years of Pentecost.
支持这一点的理由简直无可辩驳。 The reasons for this are simply overwhelming.
它采用助记结构和平行句式，而且不到50个字。 It is formed in a mnemonic structure and with parallelism, and it is less than 50 words.
这一切似乎表明它是用来教导新信徒的早期信经，容易学习和记忆。 All this seems to mean it was an early creed for catechizing new Christians; it was something easy to learn and memorize.
保罗也对哥林多人说：「我当日所领受又传给你们的」。 Paul also says to the Corinthians, I delivered to you what I received.
这是拉比传授给学生的用语，所以这一定是很早 就从门徒那里传下来的，然后才能教给保罗。 This is a rabbinic statement for a teacher passing on something to his students, so it would have to have come from the disciples themselves very early on before they could teach it to Paul.
这个信经称彼得为矶法，而不是用他的名字彼得。 The creed also calls Peter Cephas and not by his name Peter.
矶法是他早期的称呼，后来才被称为彼得。 Cephas was an early name for him; only later on was he called Peter.
它有独立的传统，不依赖于福音书，比如向雅各显现和单独向彼得显现的记载。 It has an independent tradition that is not contingent on the Gospels, such as the appearance to James and the independent appearance to Peter.
杰罗博·科林斯说，他不知道有任何新约学者把这个信经的年代定在40年 代中期之后，所以所有证据都表明它很早，这也意味着显现的记载也很早。 Jerobo Collins says that he doesn't know of any New Testament scholar who dates the creed after the mid-40s, so all the evidence suggests it is very early, and this means the reports of appearances are very early on as well.
这就排除了神话理论。 And that rules out the mythic theory.
那么幻觉理论又如何？ What about the hallucination theory?
问题是这些显现是在群体场合发生的。 Well, the problem is the appearances happen in group settings.
即使在早期信经中，群体幻觉也是极其罕见的，因此几乎没有科学文献可以解释这种现象。 Even in the early creed, group hallucinations are exceptionally rare, and because of this, there is not a lot of scientific literature to explain them.
在与学者迈克·利科纳的私人邮件中，心理学家加里·西布西博士说，我调查 了过去二十年心理学家、精神病学家和其他相关医疗专业人士写的专业文献、 同行评议的期刊文章和著作，还没有找到一个有记录的群体幻觉案例——即多 人声称共同分享某种异象或其他感知，而这种感知明显没有对应实体的事件。 In a private email with scholar Mike Licona, psychologist Dr. Gary Sibsey says, I have surveyed the professional literature, peer-reviewed journal articles, and books written by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other relevant healthcare professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented case of a group hallucination—an event for which there is more than one person purportedly sharing in a vision or other sensory perceptions where there was clearly no referent.
所以几乎没有科学证据表明群体幻觉可能发生。 So there is not a lot of scientific evidence that group hallucinations can happen.
关于幻觉的同行评议研究也报告说，幻觉最常表现为单一感 官模式，如听觉或视觉，多重感官模式的幻觉极其罕见。 Peer-reviewed work on hallucinations also reports that they most often manifest in one sensory mode, such as auditory or visual, and that multi-mode hallucinations are exceptionally rare.
然而耶稣的显现至少包含这两个元素，这使得幻觉理论极不可能。 Yet the appearances of Jesus contain at least both of these elements, making the hallucination theory exceptionally improbable.
如果用幻觉来解释这些显现，你就不得不说所有门徒都同时产生了罕见的多重感官 幻觉，而且他们都一致认为耶稣在做某些事，比如吃喝并给他们完全相同的指示。 For an hallucination to explain the appearances, you would have to say that the disciples are all each having a rare multi-mode hallucination that they are all agreeing Jesus is doing certain things, like eating and drinking and giving them the exact same instructions.
这种情况需要发生多次，而不是仅仅一次。 This would need to have happened multiple times, not just once.
即使你认为福音书和使徒行传是后来的神话，我们仍然有哥林多前书15章保存 的早期信经和使徒行传保存的其他早期讲道，都记载了耶稣与门徒一同吃喝。 Even if you could write off the Gospels and Acts as later myths, we still have the early creed preserved in 1 Corinthians 15 and other early sermons preserved in Acts, which report that Jesus ate and drank with the disciples.
道德指出使徒行传中的讲道似乎很早，因为它们缺乏保罗神学或词汇的影响。 C.H. Dodd notes that speeches in Acts seem very early because they lack influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary.
它们包含大量闪米特语言特征，表明它们很可能最初是亚兰文，而且与使徒行传和路加福 音的原始写作特征不同，这意味着它们可能早于使徒行传，似乎是很早期的亚兰文讲道。 They contain a high degree of Semitism, meaning they were likely originally Aramaic, and they lack resemblance to the original written elements of Acts and Luke, meaning they likely predate Acts and seem to be very early Aramaic speeches.
所以这些记载很早，而且是在群体场合发生的，涉及多重感官，并持续一段时间。 So the reports are very early and appear in group settings, multi-sensory, and over a period of time.
具有这些特征的幻觉如此不可能，要发生一次就需要是个奇迹，更不用说发生多次了。 Hallucinations with these elements are so improbable it would have to be a miracle to cause one, let alone several.
但暗示的力量又如何呢？ But what about the power of suggestion?
有时一个人可以通过暗示的力量使周围的人产生相同的幻觉，比如救生艇 上的人，一个人以为看到远处有船，其他人也都以为看到了同一艘船。 Sometimes one person can cause others around them to hallucinate the same thing through the power of suggestion, such as people in a lifeboat where one thinks they see a ship in the distance and they all think they see the same ship.
在一项关于异常行为和体验现象的心理学研究中，祖斯和琼斯阅 读了为数不多的群体幻觉文献，并提出理论认为，如果有期待、 情绪兴奋，并且人们事先被告知，那么群体幻觉可能会发生。 In an anomalistic psychology study of extraordinary phenomena of behavior and experience, authors Zuse and Jones read some of the very little literature on group hallucinations and theorized that if there is an expectation, emotional excitement, and people having been informed beforehand, then a group hallucination may be possible.
人们也相信他们报告的内容会有所不同。 It is also believed they will vary in what is reported.
祖斯和琼斯引用了1917年的一个事件，7万人 声称目睹了一个公开的奇迹，但是报告各不相同。 Zuse and Jones cite an event from 1917 where 70,000 people said they witnessed a public miracle; however, the reports varied.
虽然据报道孩子们看到了圣母，但群众——至少其中很多人——目 睹了一个色彩现象，太阳呈现火盘形状，开始移动并接近地球。 Although the children reportedly saw the Virgin, the crowd—at least many of them—witnessed a color phenomenon in which the sun, in the shape of a fiery disc, began to move and approach the Earth.
然而，祖斯和琼斯也不得不承认这些问题尚未得到最终答 案，所以他们仍然认为科学解释还无法解释集体幻觉。 However, Zuse and Jones also had to conclude that the final answer to these questions has yet to be obtained, so they still maintain a scientific explanation has yet to explain collective hallucinations.
不过，即使他们能解释，有趣的是他们的标准并不符合复活显现的情况。 However, even if they could, it is interesting how their criteria doesn't fit the resurrection appearances.
显然没有期待和兴奋的情绪。 Expectation and excitement were definitely not present.
记载坦率地描述了门徒的怯懦，耶稣被钉十字架后他们都逃命去了。 The narratives embarrassingly portray the disciples as cowardly, running for their lives after Jesus was crucified.
他们甚至怀疑妇女们的报告，当他们第一次看见耶稣时，他 们都害怕了，这表明他们并不兴奋，也不明白发生了什么。 They even doubted the report of the women, and when they first saw Jesus, they were frightened, which shows they were not excited and didn't understand what was going on.
第二，有趣的是，如果耶稣的显现是幻觉，那么 它们就不符合报告之间会有很大差异的标准。 Second, it is interesting that if the appearances of Jesus were hallucinations, then they do not fit the criteria of varying drastically between reports.
所有人都报告耶稣是身体复活，他看起来像他自己 但又略有不同，他的身体有了以前没有的新能力。 All report a bodily resurrection of Jesus, where he looks sort of like himself but also slightly different, and his body has new powers that it did not have before.
正如威廉·莱恩·克雷格所说，事实是在案例记录中没 有一个案例显示出耶稣死后显现所涉及的那种多样性。 As William Lane Craig says, The fact remains that there is not a single instance in the case books exhibiting the diversity involved in the post-mortem appearances of Jesus.
但幻觉理论最大的问题是：即使你认为福音书不可靠，仍然 需要解释为什么早期基督徒传讲身体复活而不是灵性显现。 But the biggest problem with the hallucination theory is this: even if you discount the Gospels as unreliable, one still has to account for the early Christians preaching bodily resurrection and not a spiritual appearance.
最早的基督徒非常熟悉异象，并声称确实经历过一些异象。 The first Christians were very familiar with visions and claimed to actually have some.
在使徒行传12章，当使女在门口发现彼得时，她跑去 告诉众人，他们告诉她说她所见的不过是他的天使。 In Acts 12, when the servant girl finds Peter at the gate, she runs to tell everyone, and they tell her the appearance she had was just an angel.
所以基督徒清楚地明白什么是异象和属灵经历，但 他们从未将基督的显现解释为仅仅是属灵的异象。 So the Christians firmly understood what visions and spiritual experiences were, yet they never interpreted the appearances of Christ as just spiritual visions.
他们坚信这是身体的显现，这就是他们从一开始就 传讲的，就连怀疑论学者吕德曼也同意这一点。 They firmly believed it was a bodily appearance, and that is what they preached from the beginning, as even skeptical scholar Gerb Ludemann agrees.
所以，既然这些显现是在群体场合发生的，涉及多重感官，没有差异，从未被解释为属灵的 而总是被认为是物质的，而且人们对此既无期待也无兴奋，幻觉理论就无法解释这些显现。 So since the appearances were in group settings, multi-sensory, do not vary, were never interpreted to be spiritual but always physical, and there was no expectation or excitement for them, the hallucination theory cannot account for these appearances.
那么阴谋论又如何？ So what about the conspiracy theory?
虽然我们前面提到复活显现不符合使证词不可靠的因素，但要解释基督徒 如何能在超过500人参与的情况下维持如此激进的阴谋是很困难的。 Well, despite the early facts we mentioned about how the resurrection appearances do not match factors that make testimony unreliable, it would be hard to explain how the Christians could hold together such a radical conspiracy with over 500 people involved.
在基督被钉十字架之前，他们连犹大的背叛都无法阻止。 Before Christ was crucified, they couldn't even keep Judas from betraying them.
然而，如果我们只有显现本身而没有其他数据，我们不得不承认这 个理论至少可以暂时解释这些显现的报告，尽管这似乎有点牵强。 However, if all we have to go on is the appearances themselves and no other piece of data, we have to accept that this theory could at least tentatively account for the reports of appearances, even though it seems like a stretch.
所以我看不出为什么阴谋论不能解释这部分数据，特别是如果没有更多数据可供分析的话。 So I don't see any reason why the conspiracy theory could not account for this piece of data, especially if there was no more data to go over.
最后，复活理论可以解释这一点，因为如果耶稣确 实从死里复活，报告他身体的显现是完全合理的。 Finally, the resurrection theory can account for this since if Jesus did rise from the dead, reporting his physical appearance makes perfect sense.
下一个数据是向怀疑者显现。 The next piece of data is appearances to skeptics.
几乎一致公认，雅各和耶稣的兄弟们在他被钉十字架时并不是他的跟随者。 It is almost unanimously accepted that James and the brothers of Jesus were not his followers during his crucifixion.
也一致公认保罗最初是教会的敌人，后来才归信。 It is also unanimously accepted that Paul was an enemy of the Church originally and a later convert.
原因是保罗自己承认这点，并在加拉太书1:22-23引用了一个 早期信经：'那从前逼迫我们的，现在传扬他原先所破坏的真道。' The reason for this is Paul admits it himself and cites an early creed in Galatians 1:22-23: He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.
如果加上使徒行传的记载，我们就有多重证实，而且符合尴 尬性标准，因为保罗自己报告他曾是敌人，而且是错误的。 If we add the account in Acts, we have multiple attestations, and it meets the criteria of embarrassment since Paul reports it himself that he was once the enemy and was in the wrong.
雅各的归信也是如此。 The same goes for the conversion of James.
在保罗的早期材料中清楚表明，耶路撒冷教会的领袖正是耶稣的兄弟雅各。 It is clear in the early material of Paul that the leader of the Jerusalem Church was none other than James, the brother of Jesus.
然而，所有证据都表明，在耶稣传道期间，雅各并不相信他的兄弟是基督。 However, all the evidence suggests that James did not believe his brother was the Christ during Jesus' ministry.
福音书坦率地记载耶稣的兄弟们对他持怀疑态度。 The Gospels embarrassingly report that the brothers of Jesus were skeptical of him.
没有早期基督徒敢于通过声称教会的重要领袖曾是耶稣的敌人来攻击他。 No early Christian would dare attack a prominent leader in the Church by claiming he was once Jesus' enemy.
雅各也没有被列在十字架前的人中，耶稣将他的母亲托付给了他所爱的门徒。 James was also not listed as one present at the cross, and Jesus surrendered his mother over to the beloved disciple.
但如果他的兄弟们是基督徒的话，为什么不托付给他们呢？ But why not his own brothers if they were in the Christian ranks?
这就是为什么大多数学者接受雅各和他的兄弟们 最初是怀疑者，只是在钉十字架之后才归信。 This is why most scholars accept that James and his brothers were early skeptics and only converted after the crucifixion.
那么是什么使这些敌人变成了信徒呢？ So what happened that turned these enemies into believers?
神话理论很难解释这一点，因为保罗很早就写作并引用了关于他自己归信的信经。 Well, the mythic theory has a hard time explaining this since Paul was very early on writing and quoting a creed about his own conversion.
而且，提到雅各最初是怀疑者这一点不可能是编造的，因为没有基 督徒敢以这种可怕的方式去羞辱、玷污或诽谤他们自己的领袖。 Also, mentioning that James was an early skeptic would not have been made up, as no Christian would dare to dishonor, shame, or lie about one of their own leaders in such a terrible way.
所以这个事实不可能是后来编造的。 So this fact would not have been made up later on.
然而正如保罗和约瑟夫所记载的，雅各显然是耶路撒冷教会的早期领袖。 Yet it is clear James was the early leader of the Jerusalem Church, as Paul and Josephus record.
雅各和保罗会撒谎吗？ Could James and Paul have lied?
必须要问：他们究竟为什么要这样做？ The question must be asked: why on earth would they have done that?
早期教会是一个小规模、受迫害、被憎恨的少数群体，他们的弥赛 亚刚刚被羞辱地当作罪犯钉死，甚至穷到连自己的坟墓都买不起。 The early Church was a small, persecuted, and hated minority with a Messiah who was just shamefully crucified as a criminal and was too poor to even afford their own tomb.
耶稣已经让家族蒙羞，而雅各本来就反对他。 Jesus had dishonored the family, and James was already opposed to him.
如果没有任何好处，只有突然改变立场宣称他的兄弟是主所带来的 羞耻和耻辱，为什么雅各会突然觉得需要编造耶稣复活的显现？ Why would James suddenly feel the need to make up an appearance of Jesus' resurrection if there was nothing to gain and only shame and dishonor to suddenly reverse and proclaim his brother was Lord?
在他已经公开嘲笑过耶稣之后，做这样的事情毫无道理。 After he had already mocked him openly, to do such a thing would make no sense.
保罗也没有理由这样做。 Paul also had no reason to try this.
他正处于事业的巅峰，是一位正在崛起的杰出领袖，在逼迫教会的同时声名鹊起。 He was at the top of his game, a prominent leader on the rise, and making a name for himself while he persecuted the Church.
他事事顺遂，却突然有冲动要放弃这一切，加入他一直憎恨的受迫害的少数群体？ He had everything going for him, and suddenly he has an urge to leave all that and join the persecuted minority he had already hated?
如果他知道这是谎言，这样的突然归信本身就需要一个奇迹。 Such a sudden conversion he knew to be a lie would take a miracle in itself, if nothing else.
那么如果他们都产生了幻觉呢？ So what if they both hallucinated?
好吧，在这个理论中增加更多的幻觉开始使其假设倍增，缺乏简约性。 Well, adding more hallucinations to this theory begins to multiply its assumptions and causes it to lack parsimony.
这更难解释，因为他们都没有为耶稣的死而悲伤，特别是憎恨教会的保罗。 It is even harder to explain since neither of them were grieving that Jesus had died, especially Paul, who hated the Church.
雅各可能为他的兄弟悲伤，但他并不相信他是主，也从未期待或考虑过 身体复活，因为受死复活的弥赛亚并不是第二圣殿时期犹太教的信仰。 James may have been in grief for his brother, but he didn't believe he was the Lord and would never have expected or even considered a physical resurrection, since a dying and rising Messiah was not part of Second Temple Judaism beliefs.
正如学者迈克·利科纳所说，雅各和他的兄弟们会把他们死去 的兄弟视为异教徒，而不是急于赶到耶路撒冷参与群体狂热。 As scholar Mike Licona says, James and his brothers would have regarded their dead brother as a heretic rather than rush to Jerusalem and get caught up in the group ecstasy.
耶稣作为罪犯和亵渎者被处决，似乎更可能加深他们的不信，而不是导致他们归信。 It seems more likely that Jesus' execution as a criminal and a blasphemer would have supported their continual unbelief rather than their conversion.
保罗产生幻觉的可能性甚至比雅各更低。 The plausibility of Paul having a hallucination is even far lower than that of James.
幻觉作为保罗突然归信的原因是非常不可能的。 A hallucination would be very improbable as the cause of Paul’s sudden conversion.
然而，基督教理论可以轻易解释向怀疑者显现导致的归信。 However, the Christian theory can easily explain the conversion in appearance to skeptics.
如果耶稣真的复活并向他们显现，这足以导致他们奇迹般的归信。 If Jesus really did rise and appear to them, that would be enough to cause their miraculous conversion.
现在我们已经考察了显现，但这只是一半的工作， 因为我们今天不能亲自采访他们或进行心理分析。 Now we have surveyed the appearances, but that is only half the battle since we cannot interview them personally today or perform a psychoanalysis.
我们能做的是查看今天伴随这些显现的周边事实，看看哪个理论最合理。 What we can do is look at the surrounding facts that accompany these appearances for us today and see which theory is the most plausible for them.
所以现在是时候填补空白了。 So now it's time to fill in the gaps.
首先是福音对周围世界的期待。 First up is the expectation of the Gospel to the surrounding world.
耶稣为我们的罪死在十字架上的信息对我们来说可能听起来充满爱和温暖，但对古 代世界——一个以荣誉和地位为重的文化——这样的信息只会令人厌恶和恐怖。 The message of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins may sound loving and warm to us, but to the ancient world—a culture that thrived on honor and status—such a message would be nothing but disgusting and horrendous.
沃尔特·贝尔说，基督教的敌人总是带着强烈的恶意快感强调耶稣之死的耻辱。 Walter Baer said the enemies of Christianity always refer to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure.
一位神或神的儿子死在十字架上？ A God or Son of God dying on a cross?
这足以让这个新宗教付出代价。 That was enough to put paid to the new religion.
大卫·德·席尔瓦在他的著作中也指出同样的事：基 督教建立在一个从一开始就应该失败的前提之上。 David de Silva notes the same thing in his work: Christianity was founded on a premise that should have failed from the moment it began.
基督徒向外邦人传讲要敬拜一个被羞辱地钉死在十字架上的人。 The Christians preached to the Gentiles to worship a man that was shamefully executed on a cross.
不仅如此，他还是个犹太人，而罗马人向来看不起犹太人。 Not only that, but a Jew of all people, whom the Romans looked down upon.
更甚的是，他是个木匠，这也是一个被人看不起的职业。 But even more than that, a Jew who was a carpenter, which was also a position that was looked down upon.
西塞罗说这样的职业是粗俗的，并将其比作奴隶。 Cicero said that such an occupation was vulgar and compared it to slavery.
除此之外，他们向罗马世界传讲身体复活，而这被大多数异教徒所厌 恶，因为他们认为死亡的目的是逃离邪恶的物质世界，进入灵界。 On top of that, they preached physical resurrection to the Roman world, which was detested by most pagans who thought the purpose of death was to escape the evil material universe and make it to the spiritual realm.
然而基督徒教导犹太人的观念，即天国将是地上的 复兴和永恒的国度，这并不是异教徒所期望的。 Yet the Christians taught the Jewish idea that heaven would be the restoration and eternal kingdom on earth, which was not something pagans hoped for.
更重要的是，基督徒对新信徒提出了令大多数异 教徒震惊的道德要求：禁止庙妓甚至婚外情。 But even more, the Christians placed ethical demands on the new converts that would have shocked most pagans: no temple prostitution or even extramarital affairs.
基督徒对道德提出了根本性的挑战，这与大多数异教徒的观念背道而驰。 Morality was radically challenged by the Christians, which flew in the face of most pagans.
正如德·席尔瓦所指出的，关于基督的信息与外邦世界最根深蒂固 的宗教意识形态，以及罗马帝国最新传播的意识形态都不相容。 As de Silva notes, the message about this Christ was incompatible with the most deeply rooted religious ideology of the Gentile world, as well as with the most recent message propagated in the Roman imperial ideology.
这可以从像塞尔苏斯这样的基督教对手如何攻击基督教中看出来。 This is seen in how the Christian opponents, like Celsus, attacked Christianity.
他攻击基督徒崇拜一个连罗马人都打不过，甚至无法逃脱十字架的神。 He attacked Christians for worshipping a God who could not beat the Romans or even escape from the cross.
基督徒不得不回应这些攻击，因为异教徒认为他们把 一个被钉十字架的人与永恒的神相提并论是疯狂的。 Christians had to respond to these attacks because pagans were calling them mad for putting a crucified man next to the eternal God.
犹太人也认为基督的信息令人尴尬。 The Jews also thought the message of Christ was embarrassing.
他们所谓的弥赛亚竟然被罗马敌人羞辱地钉死了？ Their supposed Messiah was shamefully crucified and murdered by the Roman enemy?
弥赛亚本应该是一位征服者，会打败罗马并恢复以色列国。 The Messiah was expected to be a conqueror who would defeat Rome and restore the kingdom of Israel.
耶稣受辱蒙羞；跟随他就意味着要放弃犹太人对征服者弥赛亚和复兴以色列的崇拜。 Jesus was shamed and disgraced; to follow him was to give up on the Jewish idolization of a conquering Messiah and a restored Israel.
更重要的是，耶稣来自加利利，偏偏是拿撒勒——这些地方都被犹太人看不起。 On top of that, Jesus was from Galilee, and Nazareth of all places—areas which were looked down upon by the Jews.
他们不认识他的父亲，所以他有个可疑的家族历史，这是犹太人不愿忘记的。 His father was not known to them, so he had a shady family history, which the Jews were not keen to forget.
基督徒所坚持的一切都对他们不利。 Everything the Christians stood for was working against them.
他们最好有确凿的证据并真心相信耶稣已经复活，因为在各个方面形势都对他们极为不利。 They had better have good evidence and truly thought Jesus had been raised because the odds were completely against them on every front.
正如赖特所说，基督教诞生在一个其核心主张被认为是错误的世界里。 As N.T. Wright says, Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to be false.
既然如此，明知这种期待，福音不可能是任何一群阴谋者编造的核心教义。 This being so, knowing the expectation, the Gospel would have no group of conspirators ever have made up their core doctrine.
如果要编造一个信息来赢得追随者，你会编造一些吸引 人且对你有利的东西，而不是一些注定要失败的东西。 If you're going to make up a message to gain a following, you want to make up something that is appealing and will work to your advantage, not something that was expected to fail.
所以阴谋论无法解释为什么基督徒会编造这样的故事。 So the conspiracy theory cannot explain why the Christians would make up such a story.
幻觉理论也不能解释。 Neither can the hallucination theory.
如我们之前所说，耶稣被钉十字架几乎被所有学者公认 ，耶稣没有提倡轻松的道德负担这一事实也是如此。 As we said before, the crucifixion of Jesus is almost unanimously accepted by scholars, as well as the fact that Jesus didn't advocate light ethical loads.
所以除非耶路撒冷全体居民都对耶稣的钉十字架和信息 产生幻觉，否则这不可能是基督徒被愚弄而相信的事。 So unless the entire population of Jerusalem hallucinated Jesus' crucifixion and message, this would not be something that Christians were fooled into believing.
幻觉通常发生在悲伤的人身上，是一种心理安慰的方式。 Hallucinations also usually happen to grieving people as a psychological way to comfort themselves.
你不会产生会给你带来更多麻烦和痛苦的幻觉。 You would not hallucinate things to believe that would cause you more trouble and grief.
所以幻觉理论无法解释为什么门徒会用传讲一个极其尴尬的信息来赢得归信者。 So the hallucination theory cannot explain why the disciples would preach an utterly embarrassing message in a way to win converts.
而且，如我们已经指出的，早期教会的门徒知道什么是异象，但 他们传讲的是身体复活作为福音的一部分，而不是属灵的辩白。 And again, as we've already noted, the disciples in the early Church knew what visions were, yet they preached a physical resurrection as part of the Gospel, not a spiritual vindication.
对他们的外邦听众，甚至对那些直到末世才期待复活的犹太听 众来说，传讲灵性的升天比身体的归来和改变要容易得多。 It would have been easier for their Gentile audience and even Jewish audience—who didn't expect a resurrection to happen until the end of time—to preach a spiritual assumption over a physical return and transformation.
幻觉会推导出这种灵性升天的结论，而不是身体的复活。 Hallucinations would have inferred this, not a reanimation of the body.
既然我们知道钉十字架的信息很早就被传讲，神话理论也无法解释这一点。 Since we know crucifixion was preached early, the mythic theory cannot explain this either.
它会因与阴谋论相同的原因而失败。 It would also have failed for the same reasons the conspiracy theory does.
但这一切都完全符合复活理论。 But all this fits perfectly with the resurrection theory.
基督徒传讲这些是因为事情就是这样发生的，他 们传讲这个令人尴尬的信息是因为这是真实的。 This is what was preached by Christians because this is how it happened, and they preached this embarrassing message because it was true.
下一个要看的事实是古代世界妇女的低下地位。 The next fact to look at is the low status of women in the ancient world.
在古代世界，妇女的见证是不可信的，这是普遍认同的。 It is unanimously accepted that in the ancient world, the testimony of women was not to be trusted.
不要因妇女轻浮大胆的性别特征而接受她们的见证。 But let not the testimony of women be admitted on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.
妇女提供的任何证据都是无效的。 Any evidence which a woman gives is not valid to offer.
宁可让律法的话语被焚烧，也不要交给妇女。 Let the words of the law be burned rather than given to women.
我们还可以看到许多其他资料，都表明人们认为妇女比男人更不可信。 There is a whole host of other sources we could look at which shows women were believed to be less trustworthy than men.
古代世界很明确：妇女的见证是不可信的。 The ancient world was very clear: the testimony of women was not to be trusted.
现在想想这一点，再惊叹于福音书中妇女是空坟墓的首要见证人这一事实。 Now take that and marvel at the fact that in the Gospels, the women are the first and primary witnesses to the empty tomb.
这个事实对早期教会来说完全是尴尬的。 This fact was utterly embarrassing for the early Church.
首先，他们承认他们甚至不相信妇女的见证。 First, they admit they didn't even trust the testimony of the women.
然后使徒行传和书信中的所有早期讲道都略过了妇女最先发现坟墓的事实。 Then all the early sermons found in Acts and the epistles always skip over the fact that the women were the first to discover the tomb.
这并不与福音书矛盾，但他们倾向于对这件事保持沉默，以便更 好地阐述他们早期的论点，因为妇女不被认为是可靠的见证人。 That doesn't contradict the Gospels, but they tend to stay silent on this matter in order to make their early case because women were not deemed to be credible witnesses.
然而当他们记录事情发生的经过时，他们不能遗漏这个事 实，因为妇女在发现空坟墓中扮演了如此关键的角色。 Yet when they write down the accounts of how it happened, they cannot leave this fact out because they played such a key role in discovering the empty tomb.
这是一个严肃的说法，因为正如鲍克汉所说，在这些故事中，神 优先让妇女接受默示，从而使她们成为向男人传达默示的中介。 This is a serious claim because, as Richard Bauckham says, in these stories, women are given priority by God as recipients of revelation and thereby the role of mediators of that revelation to men.
福音书声称妇女是神默示的重要组成部分，是复活的首要目击见 证人，因此她们的见证在讲述如何发现空坟墓时是必不可少的。 The Gospels claim the women were an intricate part of the revelation of God and the first key eyewitnesses to the resurrection, thereby making their testimony necessary in telling how the empty tomb was found.
对古代作者来说，这不是你会编造的事情。 For an ancient writer, this was not something you would ever make up.
塞尔苏斯甚至用这点来试图诋毁基督教，声称整个空坟墓的论据都建立在妇女的见证上。 Celsus even used it to try to discredit Christianity, claiming the entire argument for the empty tomb rested on the testimony of women.
赖特说，作为历史学家，我们不得不评论说，如果这些故事是五年后编造的，更 不用说30、40或50年后了，他们绝不会让抹大拉的马利亚扮演这个角色。 N.T. Wright says, As historians, we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone 30, 40, or 50 years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role.
从基督教护教者想要向怀疑的听众解释耶稣确实从死里复活的 角度来看，把马利亚放在那里就像是搬起石头砸自己的脚。 To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot.
但对我们历史学家来说，这种事情就像金粉一样珍贵。 But to us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust.
早期基督徒绝对不会编造这种事。 The early Christians would never, never have made this up.
所以神话理论或阴谋论对此缺乏任何解释力。 So the mythic theory or the conspiracy theory lacks any explanatory power with this one.
正如利科纳所说，即使门徒逃离了耶路撒冷，亚利马太的约 瑟或尼哥底母也可能比妇女更适合作为发现空坟墓的人选。 As Mike Licona says, even if the disciples had fled Jerusalem, Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus may have been better candidates than women for discovering the empty tomb.
那么幻觉理论又如何？ What about the hallucination theory?
很难说幻觉理论是否能符合这一点。 It is difficult to say if the hallucination theory could fit with this one.
如果我们只有这个事实可以依据，我想你可以说有人做 了一个疯狂的梦，以为妇女比其他人先发现了空坟墓。 If all we have to go on is this fact, I suppose you could say someone had a crazy dream and thought women discovered the empty tomb before anyone else.
但为什么呢？ But why?
他们并没有期待这个，而且多个来源似乎都同意事情就是这样发生的。 They weren't expecting it, and multiple sources seem to agree this is how it happened.
而且，这是一个如此尴尬的事实，所有相关人员都会想 要确保它确实发生了，而不是一个梦或主观的异象。 Plus, it was such an embarrassing fact that everyone involved would have wanted to make sure it actually happened and that it was not a dream or a subjective vision.
所以为了公平起见，我们暂且让这一点通过。 So we'll allow this one to pass just to be fair.
但实际上没有理由解释为什么会产生这种幻觉， 因为这既不能带来安慰，也不是人们所期待的。 But there is really no reason why one would hallucinate this since it was not comforting or expected to happen.
但即使它缺乏解释力，我们也暂且让它通过，直到我们能评估空坟墓的证据。 But even though it lacks explanatory power, we'll allow it to tentatively pass until we can evaluate the evidence for the empty tomb.
最后，基督教理论在解释这点上没有问题，因为作者们是在报告事情发生的经过 ，当然，也因为神是不偏待人的，并且在基督里不分男女，我们都成为一了。 Finally, the Christian theory has no problem explaining this because the writers were reporting how it happened, and of course, because God is no respecter of persons, and there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ.
下一个事实：在耶路撒冷的即时宣告。 Next fact: the immediate proclamation in Jerusalem.
大多数学者不能否认复活最先是在耶路撒冷传讲的。 The majority of scholars cannot deny that the resurrection was first preached in Jerusalem.
所有证据都表明耶路撒冷是基地，而且很早就开始了，比如早期基督 教信经的发展，以及所有资料都表明耶路撒冷是基督教开始的地方。 All the evidence leads to Jerusalem as being the home base and happening very early on, such as the development of early Christian creeds and how all the sources suggest Jerusalem is where Christianity began.
卡西杜斯随口提到基督教始于犹大，从那里传播开来。 Cassidus mentions off the cuff that Christianity began in Judea and spread from there.
在保罗的一封早期书信中，他随口提到使徒们仍在耶路撒冷传道。 In one of Paul’s early epistles, he mentions off the cuff that the apostles are still preaching in Jerusalem.
现在，为什么这很重要？ Now, why does this matter?
当我们看到时间的重要性，以及你宣告神迹的时机时，这个事实能产生重大影响。 Well, when we look at the importance of time and when you proclaim a miracle, that fact can make a serious impact.
正如詹姆斯·西伦所说，使徒们在五旬节宣告复活时，耶路撒冷预料到这消息会传播并 试图阻止，当时他们仇敌的眼中仍闪烁着愤怒和疯狂，各各他仍染着他们所流的血。 As James Siren said, the apostles proclaimed the resurrection at Pentecost when Jerusalem expected the spread of the report and endeavored to prevent it, while the eyes of their enemies were yet sparkling with rage and madness, while Calvary was yet dyed with the blood they had spilt there.
骗子会采取这样的措施吗？ Do imposters take such measures?
他们难道不会等到犹太人的愤怒平息，等到法官和 官员更换，等到人们对他们的态度不那么关注吗？ Would they not have waited until the fury of the Jews had been appeased, until judges and public officers had been changed, and until people had been less attentive to their dispositions?
感谢观看。 Thank you for watching.
他们难道不会离开文明社会，或者去到一个不会被证明是错误的地方吗？ Would they not have taken them away from civilization or to a different area from the place where they could be disproven?
即使是摩门教，约瑟·斯密也带领他的人民离开了纽约。 Even with Mormonism, Joseph Smith led his people away from New York.
但门徒直接走到公会面前说：'你们把你们的弥赛亚钉在十字架上，他已经复活了。' But the disciples walked right up to the Sanhedrin and said, You crucified your Messiah, and he has been raised.
现在这些人要么是疯了，要么是完全确信他们是对的。 Now these people are either crazy or they are absolutely convinced they are right.
所以阴谋论根本无法解释这一点。 So the conspiracy theory has no hope of explaining this.
如果你是骗子，你会去西班牙或印度宣扬你的神迹，而不 是在耶路撒冷，那里的人有证据、动机和方法来揭穿你。 If you're an imposter, you go off to Spain or India and proclaim your miracle, not in Jerusalem, where they have the evidence, the motive, and the means to debunk you.
既然我们知道复活很早就在耶路撒冷宣讲了，很难说神话理论也能解释这一点。 Since we know the resurrection was proclaimed early on and it was in Jerusalem, it is hard to say that the mythic theory can explain this either.
这不是我们可以说会后来才发展出来的事情。 This was not something we can say would develop later.
如果哥林多前书15章的信经大约可以追溯到五 旬节后三年内，这意味着当时就有基督徒了。 If the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is roughly dated to within three years of Pentecost, that means there were Christians.
就在耶路撒冷，发展出这个信经，为基督徒设立了可以记忆的基本信仰。 Right there in Jerusalem, developing this, which set a foundational belief for Christians to be able to memorize.
所以没有理由认为这是后来或在远处发展出来的。 So there is no reason to think it was developed later on or far off elsewhere.
因此，神话理论也无法解释这个事实。 Therefore, the mythic theory cannot explain this fact either.
但幻觉理论又如何？ But what about the hallucination theory?
好吧，如果我们只有这个事实可以依据，我想一个奇迹 般的幻觉可能会说服门徒立即在耶路撒冷传讲复活。 Well, if all we have to go on is this fact, I suppose a miraculous hallucination could convince the disciples to preach the resurrection immediately in Jerusalem.
但这仍然值得怀疑，因为如我们之前讨论的，幻觉或异象 并不真正意味着身体复活，也不符合群体幻觉的特征。 But it is still doubtful because hallucinations or visions don't really imply a physical resurrection, nor do they fit with group hallucinations, as we discussed earlier.
然而，如果我们只有这一个事实，这种可能性是存在的。 However, it is possible if all we have is this fact alone.
所以为了避免遗漏什么，我们暂且让这一点通过。 So just in case we miss something, we'll allow this one to pass.
但复活理论最容易解释这一点，因为如果耶稣确实复活了，门徒当然有胆量宣讲复活。 But the resurrection theory explains this with the most ease because if Jesus was resurrected, of course the disciples had the boldness to proclaim the resurrection.
上帝会站在他们这边，所有证据都对他们有利。 God would have been on their side, and all the evidence would have been in their favor.
下一个事实：门徒和见证人的自愿受苦。 Next fact: the voluntary suffering of disciples and witnesses.
这是我们不能忽视的重要事实。 This is an important fact we cannot ignore.
来自基督教和非基督教来源的多重证实都证明， 复活基督的早期见证人因信仰而受迫害和殉道。 Multiple attestations from Christian and non-Christian sources testify that the early witnesses of the risen Christ were persecuted and martyred for their faith.
塔西佗和苏维托尼乌斯提到这些事件，约瑟夫也是，他甚至告诉 我们雅各如何因相信耶稣是复活的弥赛亚而在耶路撒冷殉道。 Tacitus and Suetonius mention events, and Josephus as well, who even tells us how James was martyred in Jerusalem for his belief that Jesus was the risen Messiah.
保罗也承认早期遭受了剧烈的迫害。 Paul also admits the intense persecution early on.
事实上，正如赖特等学者指出，哥林多后书是回应哥林多 人要求保罗提供一些好运的证据来表明上帝站在他这边。 In fact, as scholars like N.T. Wright note, 2 Corinthians was written as a response to the Corinthians who asked Paul to provide some evidence of good fortune to show God was on his side.
古代人相信，就像今天有些人仍然相信的那样，如果你遭受迫 害，这就是证明你正在受到上帝的惩罚，需要改变你的道路。 Ancient people believed, like some still do today, that if you were suffering persecution, it was evidence you were being punished by God and needed to turn from your ways.
保罗的回应恰恰相反。 Paul responded with the opposite.
尽管有文化规范，这是要挑战他们关于上帝如何做工的信念。 Despite the cultural norms, it was meant to challenge their beliefs about how God worked.
罗马的克莱门特后来的书信谈到保罗和彼得如何在罗马为信 仰殉道，使徒行传记录了早期见证人如何受迫害和被杀害。 A later epistle from Clement of Rome talked of how Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome for their faith, and Acts records how the early witnesses were persecuted and murdered.
这方面的证据有多重证实。 The evidence for this is multiply attested.
所以有些人可能会说，人们经常为信仰而死，基督徒有什么不同？ So what some people may say is, People die for their faith all the time; why are the Christians any different?
人们会也经常为虚假的事物而死，但他们不会为自己知道是假的事物而死。 People will and have often died for things that were false, but they don't tend to die for something they know to be false.
我们说的不是殉道的基督徒，而是殉道的基督教创始人。 We're not talking about Christians who were martyred, but the founders of Christianity who were martyred.
这些男女不仅仅是为信仰而死，而是为他们声称亲眼所见的事而死。 These men and women did not die just for faith, but for something they claimed to have seen with their own eyes.
殉道者这个词的根本含义是见证人。 The root meaning of the word martyr is witness.
随着时间推移，我们扩展了这个词的含义，用来指任何为信仰 而死的人，但最初它指的是某个事件的见证人，为真理而死。 Over time, we've expanded the word to mean anyone who dies for their beliefs, but originally it referred to someone who was a witness of an event and died for his truth.
门徒不仅仅是为他们的信仰而死；他们是为他们声称发生 过的事件而死，他们很清楚这些事是真实的还是编造的。 The disciples didn't just die for their beliefs; they died for events they claimed had happened and knew very well they were true or made up.
说谎者不会成为好的殉道者。 Liars make lousy martyrs.
当你没有什么可得的时候，编造或坚持一个不会给你带来任何好处的理论是没有意义的。 When you have nothing to gain, it doesn't make sense to make up or hold to a theory that is going to get you nothing.
使徒们从他们的新宗教中并没有得到很多好处； 他们不断面临来自犹太人的迫害和死亡威胁。 The apostles were not getting a whole lot out of their new religion; they were constantly facing persecution from the Jews and threats of death.
他们也没有因此而致富。 Nor did they become wealthy from what they were doing.
如果他们这样做是因为疯狂并想要建立邪教追随者，他们做了一些 毫无意义的事，比如在他们无法完全控制的其他地区建立教会。 If they were doing it because they were insane and wanted a cult following, they did some things that didn't make any sense, like establishing churches in other regions which they did not have total control over.
保罗从一个城市到另一个城市，培养信徒然后继续前行。 Paul moved from city to city, raising up believers and then moving on.
如果你试图建立一个邪教和一群受控制的人，你会像邪教那样做：聚集追随者 ，将他们从社会中隔离以免他们被现实拉走，并把他们紧紧控制以保持洗脑。 If you're trying to establish a cult and a controlled group of people, you do as cults do: you gather your followers, remove them from society where there's a threat they'll be pulled away by reality, and you keep them very close to keep them brainwashed.
使徒们没有这样做；他们留在人口稠密的城市，离开他们的新教会 去其他城市建立更多的教会，这使他们的追随者容易受到腐化。 The apostles didn't do that; they stayed in populated cities and left their new churches to go start more churches in other cities, which leaves your followers vulnerable to corruption.
如果我们读书信，这正是发生的事情。 If we read the epistles, that is exactly what happened.
使徒们不得不重访他们并不断写信纠正他们。 The apostles had to revisit them and write letters to correct them constantly.
所以除非这是一个精心策划的殉道计划，否则创立基督教似乎没有任何好处。 So it doesn't seem like there was anything to gain from starting Christianity unless it was an elaborate plan to be martyred.
因此，阴谋论在解释这一点上毫无希望。 Therefore, the conspiracy theory is hopeless in explaining this one.
神话理论也不成立，因为自愿受苦有多重证实，甚至来自世俗作者，而且没 有任何证据质疑门徒受迫害或许多人为他们所报告的真实事件而死的事实。 The mythic theory doesn't work either because the voluntary suffering has multiple attestations, even from secular authors, and there is nothing that challenges that the disciples were persecuted or that many of them died for the events they reported as true.
如果门徒把整件事都幻觉了，那么他们可能愿意带着它进入坟墓 ，但这必须是一个狂野的、奇迹般的幻觉才能完全说服他们。 If the disciples hallucinated the whole thing, then it is possible they would be willing to take it to the grave, but it would have to be a wild, miraculous hallucination to utterly convince them of it.
如我们所见，这样的幻觉是非常不可能的。 As we have seen, such hallucinations are very improbable.
但还是有一点点，一点点，一点点可能。 But it is slightly, slightly, slightly possible.
如果复活理论是真的，那么这个事实就完全说得通了。 If the resurrection theory is true, then this fact makes perfect sense.
门徒愿意受苦是因为耶稣复活了，否认人比否认他们亲眼见证的神要好。 The disciples were willing to suffer because Jesus was resurrected, and it was better to deny men than to deny God, whom they witnessed with their own eyes.
最后一个事实：空坟墓的存在。 Final fact: the existence of the empty tomb.
加里·哈伯马斯调查了学者们关于复活的著作， 发现75%的学者接受复活节早晨坟墓是空的。 Gary Habermas has surveyed the material written by scholars on the resurrection and has found that 75% of them accept the tomb was found empty on Easter morning.
例如，怀疑论学者雅各布·克拉默说，到目前为止，大多 数释经者都坚定地相信圣经关于空坟墓的陈述的可靠性。 For example, skeptical scholar Jacob Kramer says, By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.
这方面的证据简直是压倒性的。 The evidence for this is simply overwhelming.
然而，一些学者，如约翰·多米尼克·克罗森，认为耶稣并没有被埋在坟墓 里，而是被扔在沟里让狗吃掉，因为罗马人不会允许罪犯得到体面的埋葬。 However, some scholars, like John Dominic Crossan, do not think Jesus was buried in a tomb but rather thrown in a trench for dogs to eat, because the Romans would not have allowed a proper burial for criminals.
但这样的理论与大量证据相悖。 But such a theory flies in the face of a mountain of evidence.
首先，对身体复活持怀疑态度的戴尔·艾利森指出，哥林多前书15章 信经中的'埋葬'一词很少用于描述把罪犯扔在沟里让狗吃掉的情况。 First, Dale Allison, who is skeptical of physical resurrection, points out that the word in the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 for bury would rarely be used for dumping criminals in a trench for dogs to eat.
所以最早关于耶稣埋葬的记载与克罗森的论点不相符。 So the earliest account of the burial of Jesus would be incompatible with Crossan's argument.
我们也有多重证实表明被钉十字架的人都被埋葬 了，而且有两个不同的来源说耶稣被埋葬了。 We also have multiple attestations that crucified victims were buried, and two different sources say Jesus was buried.
我们有考古证据表明被钉十字架的人得到了适当的 埋葬，没有理由认为罗马人不会允许这种做法。 We have archaeological evidence that a crucified victim received a proper burial, and there is no reason to think the Romans would not have allowed this practice.
他们确实允许其他犹太习俗在耶路撒冷继续，比如圣殿敬拜 ，尽管他们讨厌这个，因为这意味着对罗马诸神的拒绝。 They were certainly okay with allowing other Jewish practices to go on in Jerusalem, such as temple worship, which they detested because it meant a rejection of Roman gods.
他们允许犹太人进行自己的审判，有自己的圣殿守卫，遵守安息日等等。 They allowed the Jews to conduct their own trials, have their own temple guards, keep the Sabbath, and so forth.
没有理由他们不会也允许这个，而且这符合考古和文献证据。 There is no reason they would not have allowed this as well, and it fits with archaeological and textual evidence.
耶稣的埋葬不仅有多重证实，而且符合尴尬性标准，因为他们说他 被埋在一个公会成员的坟墓里，这对他的追随者来说是耻辱的。 Jesus' burial not only has multiple attestations, but it meets the criteria of embarrassment since they say he was buried in the tomb of a Sanhedrin member, which would have been dishonoring for his followers.
这个群体刚刚杀害了他们的主，现在他们还需要从其中一个成员那里借用坟墓？ Such a group had just murdered their Lord, and now they needed to bum a tomb for him from one of its own members?
对公众来说，这看起来相当丢脸，而且他们提到他在亚利马太的约瑟的坟 墓里这一事实，意味着这个坟墓是公众所知的，其位置是众所周知的。 To the public, this would have looked pretty humiliating, and the fact that they mentioned he was in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea means the tomb was public knowledge and its whereabouts were known.
所以公众随时都知道这件事，如果坟墓不是空的，他们可以轻易地揭穿这个说法。 So the public at any time would have known about it and could have readily debunked it if the tomb was not empty.
但空坟墓的记载也很尴尬，因为是妇女发现的，我们已经讨论过这不是你会编造的事情。 But the account of the empty tomb is also embarrassing because it was discovered by women, and we've already discussed this is not something you would have made up.
马太也提到了一个对立理论，说门徒偷走了尸体。 Matthew also mentions the competing theory that the disciples stole the body.
这很奇怪，因为为什么马太要提到这个对立理论，这可能会在他试图转变的人中引起怀疑？ This is odd because why would Matthew want to mention the competing theory, which could possibly stir up doubt among the people he was trying to convert?
后来的殉道者游斯丁不得不回应这个理论，因为这是犹太人向人们讲 述的官方说法，这是一个有趣的承认，因为它表明尸体找不到了。 Justin Martyr, writing later, has to respond to this theory because it was the official story the Jews were telling people, which is an interesting admission because it says the body could not be found.
如果公会还有尸体，他们可以让外邦人把它拿出来，证明坟墓从未空过。 If the Sanhedrin still had the body, they could have had Gentiles bring it out for them and show the tomb was never empty.
但基督徒从未需要回应这个指控，所以双方都同意尸体不见了。 But the Christians never had to respond to this charge, so both sides agreed the body was missing.
最后，我们有拿撒勒碑文，这是在该地区发现的一块石头，上 面写着大约公元41年的帝国法令，说盗墓的惩罚是死刑。 Finally, we have the Nazareth Inscription, a stone found in the area that has written on it an imperial decree from around 41 AD, which says that the penalty for grave robbing was death.
这很有趣，因为对于罗马人惩罚盗窃来说这是非常严厉的。 This is interesting because it is very severe for how Romans punish thievery.
罗马人通常不会对偷窃给予如此重的惩罚，但这与基督教的兴起和苏维托尼乌斯告诉我 们的情况相符：在罗马，犹太人因克瑞斯图斯（基督的常见罗马误读）而发生骚乱。 The Romans would not normally give such a high penalty for stealing something, but this would make sense with the rise of Christianity and what Suetonius tells us: in Rome, there were riots among the Jews on account of Crestus, which was a common Roman mispronunciation of Christ.
最终，革老丢因此驱逐了所有犹太人。 Eventually, Claudius expelled all the Jews because of it.
如果一些罗马的犹太人在传讲基督复活并因此引起骚乱，而坟墓并 非空的，就没有必要颁布帝国法令，因为他们可以直接出示尸体。 If some Jews in Rome were preaching that Christ was resurrected and riots resulted from it, and the tomb was not empty, there would be no need for an imperial decree because they could just produce the body.
但因为唯一的替代解释是尸体被偷走了所以不见了，罗马 唯一的选择就是颁布法令来试图对抗尸体失踪的说法。 But because the only alternative explanation was that the body was missing because it was stolen, Rome's only option would be to issue a decree to try to combat the accounts of a missing body.
如果有尸体，罗马就可以直接用尸体平息骚乱，而不必间接承认尸体失踪了。 If there was a body, then Rome could have just dispelled the riots with the body and not have to indirectly admit the body went missing.
所以从各方面来看，尸体确实不见了。 So it appears that from all sides, the body was missing.
无论如何，没有证据表明空坟墓只是编造的，这就 是为什么今天大多数学者接受坟墓被发现是空的。 Either way, there is no evidence the empty tomb was just a fabrication, and this is why most scholars today accept the tomb was found empty.
所有证据都支持这一点。 All the evidence simply favors it.
那么如果尸体被偷了，是谁干的？ So if the body was stolen, who did it?
是罗马人吗？ Would Rome?
当然不是，因为他们不会在意这个。 Of course not, because they would not have cared.
那犹太领袖呢？ How about the Jewish leaders?
他们为什么要这样做？ Why would they?
他们想要耶稣被钉十字架，受辱，埋葬，然后被遗忘。 They wanted Jesus crucified, shamed, buried, and forgotten.
他们最不想要的就是有人怀疑他复活了。 The last thing they wanted was suspicion of him coming back to life.
当然，公会声称是门徒干的，但这不太可能。 Of course, the Sanhedrin claimed it was the disciples, but that is unlikely.
拉比刚被钉十字架，他们的运动已经分散并蒙羞。 The rabbi had just been crucified, and their movement was dispersed and shamed.
他们害怕犹太当局也会追捕他们。 They were in fear that Jewish authorities would come after them as well.
没有理由认为他们有能力偷走尸体并制造一个大骗局。 There is no reason to think they would have been in the position to steal a body and create a mass hoax.
第二，如果他们偷了尸体，没有理由认为他们会报 告犹太领袖正在传播的理论（如果这是真的话）。 Second, if they had stolen the body, there is little reason to think they would have reported the theory that Jewish leaders were spreading if it was true.
他们最不想要的就是帮助传播他们偷了尸体的谣言。 The last thing they would have wanted was to help spread the rumor they had stolen the body.
而且如果他们偷了尸体，他们就不会羞耻地报告他们不相信妇女们发现 空坟墓的见证，也不会尴尬地报告他们没有理解耶稣预言过他会复活。 And if they had stolen the body, they would not have reported to their shame and dishonor that they had not believed the reports of the women when they found the empty tomb, nor would they have embarrassingly reported that they had not understood that Jesus had predicted his rise.
这些都是非常尴尬和羞耻的报告。 These were very embarrassing and shameful things to report.
后来的基督徒不会编造这些并攻击他们领袖的荣誉 和权威，门徒们也不会，除非他们想要羞辱自己。 Later Christians would not have made this up and attacked the honor and authority of their leaders, nor would the disciples, unless they wanted to shame themselves.
最重要的是，他们会把尸体带到哪里去？ Most of all, where would they have taken the body?
一个经常被忽视的事实是，这是逾越节，城里挤满了朝圣者。 A common overlooked fact is that this was Passover, and the city was flooded with pilgrims.
他们会被看见，也会被抓住。 They would have been seen, and they would have been caught.
这很难实施，特别是要把尸体从城里的公会区域运出去。 It would have been very hard to pull off, especially getting the body out of the Sanhedrin section of town.
所以要让阴谋论成立，你需要假设门徒们虽然害怕丢掉性命，却 不知怎么决定偷走尸体并伪造复活，尽管他们都没有期待这个。 So for the conspiracy theory to work, you need to posit that the disciples were in fear for their lives, yet somehow decided to steal the body and fake a resurrection, even though none of them were expecting that.
然后他们设法把尸体从城里有坟墓的公会区域运出去，并在一个拥挤不堪的城市里藏起来。 Then they managed to get the body out of the Sanhedrin section of town, where the tombs were, and hide it in an overcrowded city.
整个理论变得极不可能。 The entire theory becomes overwhelmingly unlikely.
幻觉理论也行不通。 The hallucination theory doesn't work either.
整个耶路撒冷的人都产生幻觉了吗？ Did the entire population of Jerusalem hallucinate?
所以说坟墓并非真的被发现是空的这个理论也站不住脚。 So the theory that it was not really discovered empty fails as well.
那神话理论呢？ What about the mythic theory?
有些人试图声称空坟墓是后来编造的，因为它在保 罗在哥林多前书给我们的信经中没有特别提到。 Some have tried to claim the empty tomb was made up later because it is not specifically mentioned in the creed Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians.
这完全忽视了我们已经提供的大量证据，以及空坟墓 和身体复活在马可福音的早期受难叙述中都有提到。 Well, this just ignores the amount of evidence we already gave and that the empty tomb and physical resurrection are both mentioned in the early passion narrative found in Mark.
但最重要的是，它忽视了哥林多前书信经所说的内容。 But most of all, it overlooks what the creed in 1 Corinthians says.
信经说他被埋葬，又照圣经所说第三天复活了。 It states that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
他被埋葬又复活了；很明显，被埋葬的就是复活的，因此坟墓一定是空的。 He was buried and raised; it is pretty obvious that what was buried is what was raised, and therefore the tomb would have been empty.
正如N.T.赖特所说，空坟墓本身在福音书记载中如此突 出，但在这段经文中似乎没有特别提到这一事实并不重要。 As N.T. Wright says, The fact that the empty tomb itself, so prominent in the Gospel accounts, does not appear to be specifically mentioned in this passage is not significant.
这里提到的「埋葬」和「复活」不需要那样的详细说明，就像不需要 在「我走在街上」这句话后面加上「用我的脚」这样的限定一样。 The mention here of 'buried' and 'raised' need no more to be amplified in that way than one would need to amplify the statement 'I walk down the street' with the qualification 'on my feet.'
所以神话理论在这里也失败了。 So the mythic theory fails here as well.
但有一个理论能解释所有数据：就是耶稣被神复活并证实的理论。 But there is one theory that can account for all the data: it is the theory that Jesus was raised and vindicated by God.
没有其他理论能解释所有的数据。 No other theory out there can account for all the data.
神话理论失败是因为我们只从我们知道很早就有而且不可能是编造的事实来论证。 The mythic theory fails because we only argued from facts that we know are early and could not have been made up.
阴谋论无法解释门徒见证的质量、空坟墓，或者为什么怀疑者会加入一个受迫害的小群体。 The conspiracy theory could not account for the quality of the testimonies of the disciples, the empty tomb, or why skeptics would join a small, persecuted minority.
幻觉理论只有在你假设一些相当奇迹般的幻觉才能成立，这些幻觉导 致门徒改变想法，怀疑者归信，并提出没人期待或寻求的疯狂想法。 The hallucination theory could only work if you posit some pretty miraculous hallucinations to cause the disciples to change their ideas, skeptics to convert, and posit crazy ideas no one was expecting or looking for.
它必须假设如此疯狂的幻觉，以至于这本身就需要一个奇迹。 It has to posit such a wild hallucination that it would take a miracle itself.
只有被报告的理论能解释所有数据。 Only the theory that was reported can account for all the data.
因此，它具有解释范围，意味着它能以最少的努力解释所有数据。 Because of that, it has explanatory scope, meaning it can explain all the data with the least amount of effort.
它具有解释力，它也提供启发，这意味着它能解释历史 的其他领域，比如基督教的兴起和对身体复活的信仰。 It has explanatory power; it provides illumination as well, which means it can explain other areas of history, like the rise of Christianity and the belief in physical resurrection.
事实上，这意味着历史学家用来判断历史假设的标准中的三项都满足了。 In fact, this means three pieces of the criteria that historians use when judging a historical hypothesis are filled.
麦卡洛提出了衡量历史理论的标准，他承认复活假设在这三项上 比任何其他假设都更好，但声称它在其他两项标准上失败了。 Behan McCullough, who has outlined the criterion for weighing historical theories, accepts that the resurrection hypothesis meets these three things better than any other hypothesis, but claims it fails the other two pieces of criterion.
这个基督教假设比试图解释相关证据的其他假设具有更 大的解释范围和力量，但它比它们更不合理，更特设。 This Christian hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power than other hypotheses that try to account for the relevant evidence, but it is less plausible and more ad hoc than they are.
所以麦卡洛接受复活符合历史研究五项标准中的三项，但在其他两项上失败了。 So McCullough accepts the resurrection meets three out of five of the criteria for historical investigation but fails the other two.
然而，已经有人对此提出质疑。 However, there have been replies to challenge this.
特拉维斯·坎贝尔博士质问为什么复活理论是特设的。 Dr. Travis Campbell asks why the resurrection theory is ad hoc.
根据麦卡洛，特设意味着一个假设提出了许多现有知识中未暗示的新假设。 To be ad hoc, according to McCullough, means a number of new suppositions are made by a hypothesis that are not already implied in existing knowledge.
所以这个假设为了解释现有数据而增加了额外的假设。 So the hypothesis adds extra assumptions in order to explain the data that are not already present.
但坎贝尔博士指出，复活理论只增加了一个额外假设，而不是多个。 But Dr. Campbell points out that the resurrection theory only adds one extra assumption, not multiple.
很难理解为什么复活假设特别特设，它只需要一个新假设：神存在。 It is difficult to see why the resurrection hypothesis is extraordinarily ad hoc; it requires only one new supposition: that God exists.
当然，对立假设需要许多新的假设。 Surely rival hypotheses require many new suppositions.
幻觉理论要求我们说群体幻觉加上多重感官体验在多个场合发生， 而且它们如此强大以至于门徒为此赴死，传讲只会给他们带来贫穷 和动荡的事，还有整个城市疯狂的集体幻觉认为有一个空坟墓。 The hallucination theory requires us to say group hallucinations plus multi-sensory experiences happened on multiple occasions and that they were so powerful that the disciples took it to their death, preaching something that only brought them poverty and turmoil, as well as a crazy mass city hallucination that there was an empty tomb.
阴谋论要我们相信一群受惊的耶稣跟随者在拥挤的城市里秘密偷走尸体，编 造一个他们没有期待的、与犹太人弥赛亚期待不符的故事，为的是让自己被 杀，而且一些怀疑者毫无理由地决定加入他们这个贫穷、受迫害的运动。 The conspiracy theory wants us to believe a bunch of frightened followers of Jesus stole a body in secret in an overcrowded city to make up a story they were not expecting or that was not in line with Jewish messianic expectations in order to get themselves murdered, and that some of the skeptics decided to join their poor, persecuted movement for no reason at all.
神话理论期望我们为每个事实都相信一个额外的假设，认为这些都是后来 编造的，尽管有确凿证据表明这些事实很早就有而且不可能是编造的。 The mythic theory expects us to believe an extra assumption for each fact that it was actually made up later, in spite of hard evidence that these facts were very early and unlikely to have been made up.
复活理论只要我们增加神存在这一假设，这不是特设的。 The resurrection theory only wants us to add the assumption that God exists, which is not ad hoc.
如果我们将复活论证与我们已经提出的其他推断有神论的论证结合 起来，因为我们已经论证了有神论，复活假设就很难说是特设的。 If we combine the resurrection argument with other arguments we've already presented that infer theism, since we've already argued for theism, the resurrection hypothesis would hardly be ad hoc.
而且，对于已经是有神论者的人来说，复活假设甚至不需要 引入神存在的新假设，因为这已经包含在现有知识中了。 Moreover, for the person who is already a theist, the resurrection hypothesis does not even introduce the new supposition of God's existence, since that is already implied by existing knowledge.
所以不能仅仅因为它引入的假设数量就说复活假设是特设的。 So the resurrection hypothesis cannot be said to be ad hoc simply by virtue of the number of suppositions it introduces.
那么合理性呢？ What about plausibility?
如果其他领域被确信并暗示与你的理论相同的理论，那么这个历史理论就是合理的。 A historical theory is plausible if other areas are known with confidence and suggest the same theory yours is suggesting.
所以如果其他事物暗示与你的理论相同的结论，那就会使你的理论合理并与其他信念一致。 So if other things suggest the same conclusion as your theory, that would make your theory plausible and in line with other beliefs.
但正如我们已经提出的，如果我们有其他论据推断有神论，为什么复活理论会不合理呢？ But as we've already suggested, why would the resurrection theory not be plausible if we have other arguments to infer theism?
正如威廉·莱恩·克雷格所说，只有当自然主义者有充分理由认为神的存在 不合理或他对世界的干预不合理时，他才能合理地认为复活假设不合理。 As William Lane Craig says, only if the naturalist has good reasons to think that God's existence is implausible or his intervention in the world is implausible could he justifiably regard the resurrection hypothesis as implausible.
所以如果有人坚持认为自然主义是真实的，不给有神论 留任何可能性，那么他们就可以说复活理论不合理。 So if one insists on assuming naturalism is true and leaves no reason for theism as a possibility, then they can say the resurrection theory is implausible.
但这是从预设出发的论证，而不是对证据持开放态度，不管一个人对此有什么感受。 But that is arguing from a presupposition and not being open to evidence, regardless of how one feels about it.
我们可以说，结合其他论证，复活假设既不是特设 的，也不是不合理的，因为已经证明了神的存在。 We can say that in conjunction with other arguments, the resurrection hypothesis is not ad hoc, nor is it implausible, since it has already been shown that God exists.
因此，我们可以理解为什么安东尼·弗卢大胆地 说复活比任何其他神迹声称都有更多的证据。 Thus, we can see why Anthony Flew was bold enough to say the resurrection has more evidence than any other miracle claim.
复活是唯一能解释所有数据的理论，而且它能做到这一点的同时又不是特设的或不合理的。 The resurrection is the only theory that can explain all the data, and it can do so while not being ad hoc or implausible.
证据推断上帝在世界上行动使耶稣从死里复活，正如弗雷德里克森的保罗承认 的：他们一定看见了什么，而所有证据都支持他们所看见的是复活的救主。 The evidence infers that God has acted in the world to raise Jesus from the dead, as Paul of Frederickson admitted: they must have seen something, and all the evidence favors that what they saw was the risen Savior.