As the celebration of Christ’s resurrection approaches once again, it is beneficial to revisit the historical foundations that sustain the reality of this monumental event. Although evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ has been presented in previous articles,1)Heath Henning, Eye-Witness Evidence for the Resurrection, May 11, 20019; https://truthwatchers.com/eye-witness-christ-resurrection/ , 2)Heath Henning, Reasons to Believe the Resurrection (Prat 1), March 27, 2016; https://truthwatchers.com/reasons-believe-christs-resurrection/ , 3)Heath Henning, Reasons to Believe the Resurrection (Part 2), March 27, 2016; https://truthwatchers.com/reasons-believe-resurrection-christ-part-2/ this most significant moment in human history warrants continual reexamination and reflection.
The first matter to address in any historical analysis is the philosophy underlying the study of history itself. How can an event that occurred nearly two thousand years ago be known with confidence today? It may surprise many to learn that no universally established method exists for investigating ancient historical events. Historians often employ subjective methodologies when analyzing the fragmentary documents and archaeological remains available from past eras. Furthermore, every historian approaches the evidence carrying certain presuppositions that inevitably influence the assessment of historical claims.
This raises an important question: how should history be investigated? Fundamentally, historical inquiry functions in a manner analogous to the presentation of evidence within a court of law. In legal proceedings, a jury reconstructs the most plausible sequence of past events in order to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent. Such conclusions are not established with the absolute certainty associated with mathematical or scientific proofs; rather, they are determined according to the standard of evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
What, then, provides historians—or juries—with sufficient grounds for such certainty? Michael Licona has proposed five important criteria for historical investigation,4)For his full discussion on the method of historical investigation see Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 107-130 pwhich together provide a useful framework for evaluating historical claims.
The first criterion is explanatory scope, defined as “the quantity of facts accounted for by a hypothesis. The hypothesis that includes the most relevant data has the greatest explanatory scope.”5)Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 109 The second criterion is explanatory power. As Licona explains, “[t]he hypothesis that explains the data with the least amount of effort, vagueness and ambiguity has greater explanatory power.”6) Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 109
The third criterion is plausibility. A historical hypothesis “must be implied to a greater degree and by a greater variety of accepted truths (or background knowledge) than other hypothesis. In other words, this criterion assesses whether other areas known with confidence suggest a certain hypothesis.”7) Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 110
Fourth, historians must consider whether a proposed explanation is overly ad hoc—that is, whether it relies upon excessive speculation or imagination in order to explain the evidence. Licona notes that the preferred hypothesis employs the least “amount of imagination in order to account for the available data. A hypothesis possessing an ad hoc component has the opposite problem of one lacking explanatory power.”8) Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 110 In this respect, historical analysis seeks to interpret the available evidence as simply and coherently as possible, consistent with the principle commonly known as Occam’s Razor.
The fifth criterion is illumination, referring to the extent to which a hypothesis “provides a possible solution to other problems without confusing other areas held with confidence.”9) Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 111 This final criterion is especially significant because it evaluates how effectively a conclusion explains related historical and circumstantial evidence.
Another important issue in evaluating the resurrection concerns whether miracles may legitimately be examined within historical inquiry. As previously noted, historians are often guided by philosophical presuppositions, and these presuppositions frequently manifest themselves in anti-supernatural assumptions. Many secular historians dismiss miracles outright—not because of inadequate evidence, but because they have already concluded that miracles are impossible.
Consequently, it is relatively uncommon to encounter scholars willing to approach the subject without such philosophical bias. Nevertheless, those who have done so with intellectual honesty have occasionally acknowledged the historical credibility of the resurrection accounts. Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, for example, wrote:
“Thus according to my opinion, the resurrection belongs to the category of the truly real and effective occurrences, for without a fact of history there is no act of true faith.”10)Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish Perspective, SPCK (London: 1983), p. 92
Lapide later remarked:
“In regard to the future resurrection of the dead, I am and remain a Pharisee. Concerning the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday, I was for decades a Sadducee. I am no longer a Sadducee.”11)Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, (trans. W.C. Lines) Augsburg (Minneapolis, MN: 2002), p. 125
Although Lapide never embraced Christianity, he nevertheless acknowledged the historical validity of Christ’s resurrection.
A similar development may be observed in the reflections of atheist philosopher Antony Flew. Earlier in his career, Flew admitted, “Certainly given some belief about God, the occurrence of the resurrection does become enormously more likely.”12)T. Miethe and A. Flew, Does God Exist, HarperSanFrancisco (San Francisco, CA: 1991), p. 39 At the time, however, Flew’s atheistic presuppositions prevented him from accepting the possibility of miracles. Later in life, after reconsidering the evidence for the existence of God, Flew adopted a general theistic perspective, though without adherence to a specific religion. This philosophical shift enabled him to reevaluate the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection.
In a discussion with Gary Habermas, Flew stated:
“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence of most other supposedly miraculous events.”13)A. Flew and G. Habermas. “My pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary R. Habermas,” Philosophia Christi, 6 (2004), p. 209
Notably, Flew’s conclusion reflects several of the historical criteria discussed above, particularly explanatory scope and explanatory power.
As in a court of law, historical investigation ultimately depends upon eyewitness testimony.14)see Heath Henning, Eye-Witness Evidence for the Resurrection, May 11, 20019; https://truthwatchers.com/eye-witness-christ-resurrection/ N. T. Wright has observed:
“Had the tomb been empty, with no other unusual occurrences, no one would have said that Jesus was the Messiah or the lord of the world…. No one, in particular, would have developed so quickly and consistently a radical and reshaped version of the Jewish hope for the resurrection of the body. The empty tomb is by itself insufficient to account for the subsequent evidence.”15)N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 689
Indeed, the historicity of Christ’s resurrection rests primarily upon the eyewitness accounts recorded within the New Testament. The sheer quantity and diversity of these appearances provide compelling historical support for the resurrection narrative. According to the biblical record, the risen Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:14), then to the women returning from the tomb (Matt. 28:9–10), to Peter later that day (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–33), to the apostles apart from Thomas (Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–24), and later to the apostles with Thomas present (John 20:26–29).
He subsequently appeared to seven disciples by the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1–23), to more than five hundred believers at one time (1 Cor. 15:6), to James (1 Cor. 15:7), and again to the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:14–20; Luke 24:33–52; Acts 1:3–12). Additional appearances are recorded at the ascension (Acts 1:3–12), to Stephen (Acts 7:55), to Paul on the Damascus road (Acts 9:3–6; 1 Cor. 15:8), to Paul in the temple (Acts 22:17–21; 23:11), and finally to John on the island of Patmos (Rev. 1:10–19).
The qualitative evidence provided by these eye-witnesses is further strengthened by the fact that many of them were still available for examination during the first generation of the gospel’s spread throughout the Roman Empire (1 Corinthians 15:6). The credibility of these witnesses is also confirmed by the unlikelihood of their selection. If the apostles had conspired to fabricate a story, they would almost certainly have avoided including details that would weaken their claims within their own cultural context. Yet the gospel accounts are marked by precisely such embarrassing details, most notably the testimony of women.
Not only were women presented as the first witnesses to the resurrection, but specifically Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:14), a former demoniac (Luke 8:2), whose testimony would have been readily dismissed by many Jewish leaders of the period. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of their levity and boldness of their sex.” (Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 4.219)16)in older citations of Josephus it may also be referenced as book. 4, chapter 8, paragraph 15; see The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 156 Other ancient sources confirm the same cultural attitude. “The Jews say: We have a law, that a woman’s evidence is not to be received.”17)The Gospel of Nicodemus, chap. 7; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 8, p. 419
Likewise, the second-century critic Celsus mocked Christianity for relying upon the testimony of “half-frantic women[,]”18)Origen Against Celsus, bk. 2, chap. 59; Anti-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 4, p. 455 and “certain women as ignorant as themselves[.]”19)Origen Against Celsus, bk. 3, chap. 55; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 4, p. 486 He further ridiculed Christianity by stating, “Only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.”20)Origen Against Celsus, bk. 3, chap. 49; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 4, p. 484 If the apostles had been inventing a religion for propagation within the first-century world, they would have chosen more socially acceptable and authoritative witnesses, such as Joseph of Arimathæa (Matthew 27:57–60; Mark 15:43–46; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38) or Nicodemus (John 19:39–40), rather than women whose testimony was widely regarded as unreliable.
Additional embarrassing details further reinforce the authenticity of the gospel narratives. Matthew, for example, was a tax collector and yet authored the Gospel directed primarily toward a Jewish audience (Matthew 9:9; 10:3). Tax collectors were despised within Jewish society, and Christ Himself was criticized for associating with them (Matthew 9:10–11; 11:19; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:29–30; 7:34). Philo, a first-century Jewish writer, records the common perception of such officials:
“Capito is the collector of the imperial revenues in Judea, and on some account or other he is very hostile to the nation of the country; for having come thither a poor man, and having amassed riches of every imaginable description by plunder and extortion[.]” (Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius, 199)21) in The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged New Updated Version (Trans. C. D. Yonge), (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 775
Philo’s remarks demonstrate that publicans were widely viewed as traitors who enriched themselves through exploitation while serving the Roman Empire. The Mishnah further illustrates the severity of this disdain: “If a tax-collector entered a house [all that is within it] becomes uncleans[.]” (M. Tohoth 7.6)22)in The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 726
Matthew also records the resurrection of saints who appeared in Jerusalem following Christ’s resurrection (Matthew 27:52–53). This passage has proven difficult even for conservative scholars, leading some to reinterpret it symbolically rather than literally. Michael Licona, for example, argues that the passage should be understood as “a poetic device”23) Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 553; see his full discussion of this text in pp. 548-553 involving apocalyptic “special effects[.]”24) Licona uses the term “special effects” in Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 552 Yet Matthew alone records this event in a Gospel written to Jews living in Judea, many of whom would have been in a position to verify or challenge the report. The very difficulty of the account, combined with its local verifiability, provides further evidence for the sincerity of Matthew’s testimony.
Another significant example is Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36–45; Mark 14:32; Luke 22:39–46). In the ancient world, martyrs were expected to face death courageously and defiantly. As Licona observes, “However, the accounts of Jesus’ martyrdom differ significantly from the others…. Given the embracing nature of these comments of despair, they are unlikely to be inventions of the early church.” 25)Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 289 Numerous historical examples illustrate the bravery typically associated with martyrdom. Licona cites the seven Jewish brothers in 2 Maccabees 7, Eleazar in 4 Maccabees 6:1–30, Stephen in Acts 6:8–7:60, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Hanina ben Taradion, and Polycarp.26)See Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 286-289 One may also add Ignatius of Antioch, who eagerly anticipated martyrdom, writing:
“suffer me to become food for the wild beast… let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts… [that] I may be found a sacrifice [to God].”27)Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, chapt. 4; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 75; also quoted by Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.28.4; in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 557; also cited by Eusebius, Church History, 3.36.11; in Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p.147
Likewise, the Syriac martyr accounts from the first and second centuries preserve descriptions of believers enduring prolonged torture with remarkable steadfastness.28)see these account recorded in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 8, pp. 676-701 Against this cultural backdrop, the Gospel descriptions of Christ’s agony in Gethsemane would hardly have been invented by later Christians seeking to portray Jesus as a heroic martyr. Rather, they bear the marks of historical authenticity.
Other embarrassing details further support the reliability of the New Testament accounts. Peter denied Christ out of fear (Matthew 26:35, 75; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:34, 61). Thomas doubted the testimony of his fellow disciples (John 20:24–28). James, the half-brother of Jesus, was initially skeptical of Christ’s ministry (John 7:3–5; Acts 1:14). One of the most striking admissions occurs in Matthew’s account of the resurrection appearances, where even after seeing the risen Christ, “some doubted” (Matthew 28:16–17). N. T. Wright describes this statement as the “strongest mark of authenticity[.]”29)N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 643
Similarly, the prominence of the apostle Paul, formerly a violent persecutor of Christians, would not have served as flattering propaganda if his history had been fabricated (Acts 22:4; 26:11; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13, 23). The willingness of the New Testament writers to preserve such embarrassing details demonstrates their commitment to honesty rather than propaganda, thereby strengthening the historical credibility of their testimony.
Equally significant is the early date of these resurrection reports. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:6 refers to more than five hundred witnesses to the risen Christ. Scholars commonly recognize this passage as part of an early Christian creed formulated within only a few years of the crucifixion. Josh and Sean McDowell remark, “This statement is as strong evidence as anyone could hope to find for something that happened 2,000 years ago.”30)Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection, Regal (Ventura, CA: 2009), p. 196 William Lane Craig likewise concludes that “it is nearly indisputable that this appearance took place.”31)William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, Wipf and Stok Publishers (Eugene, OR: 2000), p. 94-95 C. H. Dodd further observes, “there can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact that most of the five hundred are still alive, unless Paul is saying, in effect, ‘the witnesses are there to be questioned.’”32)C. H. Dodd, “The Appearance of the Risen Christ: A Study in the Form Criticism of the Gospel,” in More New Testament Studies, University of Manchester Press (Manchester, UK: 1968), p. 128
Furthermore, the fact that these documents explicitly claim to have been written by eye-witnesses should be taken seriously and evaluated at face value (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1; Acts 1:3; 2:32; John 19:35). Such claims place the New Testament writings within an unprecedentedly early historical framework. Paul himself declared that the gospel was preached “to the Jew first” (Romans 1:16), indicating that the earliest proclamation of Christ’s death and resurrection emerged directly within the very environment where the events had allegedly occurred.
Contrary to the assumptions of many modern critical scholars who argue that Mark was the earliest written Gospel, the historical testimony of the early church consistently identifies Matthew as the first Gospel composed. Papias (A.D. 60–130) wrote, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language[.]”33)Papais, Fragments of Papias, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 155 Likewise, Eusebius, the earliest major church historian, records that Pantaenus, before leading the catechetical school in Alexandria around A.D. 180, traveled as a missionary to India:
“where he appears to have found that Matthew’s gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew’s account in the actual Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus’s mission.”34)Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), pp. 213-214
John’s Gospel, by contrast, is widely regarded by scholars as the latest of the four canonical Gospels. Yet internal evidence strongly suggests that it too was composed earlier than many critical scholars allow. One relevant passage states, “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool” (John 5:2). The verb “is” is a present indicative in Greek, implying that Jerusalem and its structures remained intact at the time of writing. Since the city was destroyed in A.D. 70, this detail suggests a pre-destruction composition.
Further evidence may be found in 1 John 2:12–14. In this passage John first states that he “writes” (present active indicative) unto the “children,” “fathers,” and “young men,” but then shifts to the aorist tense, declaring, “I have written” unto the “fathers” and “young men.” This abrupt tense change has perplexed commentators for centuries, yet it is plausibly explained if John is referring back to his Gospel, which may have been written decades earlier. In such a case, the “children” could not be addressed in the past tense because they were not yet part of the Christian community at the earlier date.35)The Critical Greek Text alters the second reference to “children” into an aorist active indicative in order to create symmetry within the passage. However, this emendation contradicts the common textual critical principle that the more difficult reading is generally preferable. The reading preserved in the Textus Receptus maintains the unexpected asymmetry and therefore better explains the origin of the alternate readings. For a fuller discussion see Heath Henning,”Textus Receptus in the Early Church Fathers,” June 9, 2018; https://truthwatchers.com/textus-receptus-in-the-early-church-fathers/ Such evidence collectively suggests that the four Gospels were likely composed within the period of approximately A.D. 38–65.
Moreover, the Jerusalem church maintained oversight concerning the doctrinal faithfulness of missionary laborers (Acts 8:14; 11:1–3; 15:1–2; 21:17–25). This demonstrates that the message proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire was not a later theological development detached from its origins, but rather remained rooted in the historical claims surrounding Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection as proclaimed in Jerusalem itself.
Since the apostles had nothing worldly to gain from dedicating their lives to proclaiming the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the burden of explanation falls heavily upon the skeptic. Why would these men willingly endure suffering, persecution, and death for a message that was culturally offensive and socially disadvantageous? N. T. Wright observes:
“The immediate conclusion is clear. Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to be false. Many believed that the dead were non-existent; outside Judaism, nobody believed in resurrection.”36) N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 35
The apostles did not pursue power or prestige. Peter himself rejected the notion of authoritarian lordship over believers (1 Peter 5:3). Neither did they seek financial gain from ministry (1 Peter 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). Rather, they labored with their own hands to support themselves (1 Corinthians 4:12; Acts 18:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:9) and even expended their personal resources for the benefit of others (2 Corinthians 12:15). They likewise instructed church leaders to avoid covetousness and dishonest gain (1 Timothy 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7). Instead of acquiring wealth or influence, they endured persecution, suffering, imprisonment, and eventual martyrdom for preaching Christ’s resurrection (1 Corinthians 4:12; 2 Corinthians 11:23–33). If the resurrection were knowingly false, their behavior becomes exceedingly difficult to explain.
Additional questions confront the skeptic. Why is Jesus Christ remembered uniquely among the many thousands crucified under Pontius Pilate? More broadly, how many crucified figures from antiquity can the average person even name? One might mention Peter, but he is remembered only because of his association with Christ. Another example might be Spartacus, yet after his crucifixion his movement disappeared. This was precisely the Roman intention behind crucifixion—to terrorize followers into abandoning all public association with the condemned individual.
Why, then, did the followers of Jesus behave differently? Rather than fleeing into obscurity, they became increasingly bold in proclaiming their allegiance to a crucified Messiah, even under the threat of suffering the same fate themselves. The scandal of worshiping a crucified man was repeatedly mocked by Christianity’s opponents. Justin Martyr wrote:
“For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal Godl[.]”37)Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13.4; in The Ante-Nicene Father, (ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson) Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1896, Fifth Printing, 2012) Vol. 6, p. 166-167
Similarly, Arnobius records the accusations of pagan critics:
“because you both allege that one born as men are, and put to death on the cross, which is a disgraceful punishment even for worthless men, was God[.]”38)Arnobius, “Against the Heathens” 1.36; in The Ante-Nicene Father, (ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson) Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1896, Fifth Printing, 2012) Vol. 6, p. 422
Lactantius likewise asked:
“Why was it by the cross especially? Why by an infamous kind of punishment, which may appear unworthy even of a man if he is free, although guilty?”39)Lactantius, “The Divine Institutes, 4.26.29; in The Ante-Nicene Father, (ed. Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson) Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1896, Fifth Printing, 2012) Vol. 7, p. 128
Clearly, the central proclamation of Christianity—Christ crucified—was viewed as offensive and irrational within the ancient world (1 Corinthians 1:18). Yet while countless crucified criminals vanished from historical memory, Jesus Christ became the most influential figure in human history. The question naturally follows: what made Him different?
Equally significant is the question of how the concept of Christ’s resurrection originated. Jewish expectation anticipated a general resurrection at the end of the age, not the resurrection of an individual in the middle of history (Matthew 16:21–22; 20:17–19; Mark 8:31–32; 10:32–34; Luke 9:22; 18:31–34; John 11:24; Acts 1:6). Pagans, meanwhile, often regarded bodily resurrection with disgust or ridicule (Acts 17:32). As N. T. Wright explains:
“Nobody in the pagan world of Jesus’ day and thereafter actually claimed that somebody had been truly dead and then come to be truly, and bodily, alive once more.”40)N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 76
He further notes:
“Paul’s views on resurrection remain rooted firmly in Judaism—which is hardly surprising, because no pagans known to us ever imagined that resurrection could or would really take place, let alone offered any developed framework of thought on the subject.”41) N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 272
Following Christ’s resurrection, however, the apostles proclaimed that these events fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Acts 3:18; 17:2–3; 26:22–23). They appealed repeatedly to the Hebrew Scriptures in defense of this claim, including Psalm 16:8–11 in Acts 2:25–32, Psalm 118:22 in Acts 4:10–11, Psalm 2:1–2 in Acts 4:25–28, Isaiah 53:7–8 in Acts 8:32–35, and Isaiah 55:3 together with Psalm 16:10 in Acts 13:33–37. What, then, transformed their understanding so suddenly and radically?
Even the earliest enemies of Christianity acknowledged the empty tomb, though they attempted to explain it differently. The Jewish leaders claimed that the disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:13). This accusation persisted well into the second century. Justin Martyr records a dispute with Trypho the Jew, who alleged:
“you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.”42)Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chap. 108; The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, Vol. 1, p. 253
Likewise, the fifth-century Jewish text Toledoth Yeshu continued to claim that the disciples stole Christ’s body. Yet such explanations raise additional difficulties. John 20:7 records that the apostles found the napkin “that was about his head” folded separately within the tomb. Grave robbers attempting to steal a body under threat of discovery would scarcely be expected to pause in order to fold burial garments neatly before fleeing the scene.
As the preceding evidence demonstrates, the cumulative historical case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is exceptionally strong. The convergence of eye-witness testimony, the transformation of the disciples, the early proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem itself, the conversion of hostile witnesses, and the radical reorientation of Jewish religious practice collectively establish a historical phenomenon that demands explanation. The resurrection hypothesis possesses explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, and coherence unmatched by competing naturalistic alternatives.
The ancient Roman and Greek world also contained numerous hero cults in which the tombs of the dead were venerated. Even among the Jews of Israel, the tombs of Old Testament saints were revered, as evidenced in the first-century Jewish text The Lives of the Prophets.43)in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 379-399 The cultural environment therefore posed no obstacle to the veneration of the grave of a deceased religious figure, and there would have been no necessity to fabricate accounts of bodily resurrection. Had Christ remained in the tomb, one would naturally expect His burial place to have become a cultic shrine. As N. T. Wright observes, “The graves of heroes played an important part in their post-mortem cult; nobody supposed such graves were empty.”44)N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 57
Yet the testimony of the earliest Christians consistently proclaimed that the tomb was empty because Christ had physically risen from the dead. Significantly, this report appears to have reached even the imperial authorities in Rome. An archaeological inscription discovered near Nazareth records the following decree:
“Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity… If any man lay information that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing or other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted…. Let it be absolutely forbidden for any one to disturb them. In case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulture.”45)C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents, Harper & Row (New York, NY: Rev. ed. 1987), p. 15
The severity of this decree is noteworthy. Why would such an extreme penalty concerning tomb violations be directed toward the relatively insignificant region of Nazareth unless connected in some manner to the widespread reports concerning Jesus Christ and the empty tomb associated with Him?
The ancient conception of historiography also strongly favored primary testimony, especially eye-witness evidence. The Greek historian Herodotus (484–425 B.C.) distinguished carefully between what he had personally observed and what he had received from secondary sources:
“Thus far I have spoken of Egypt from my own observation, relating what I myself saw, the ideas that I formed, and the results of my own research. What follows rests on the accounts given to me by the Egyptians, which I shall now repeat, adding thereto some particular which fell under my own notice.” (Histories 2.99)46)Herodotus, Histories (Trans. George Rawlinson), Alfred A. Knopf (New York, NY:1997), p. 171
This same expectation is evident within Jewish historiography. Josephus criticized historians who wrote about events they neither witnessed nor properly investigated from reliable sources:
“they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to written about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them[.]” (Against Apion 1.45)47)Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 940
This historical expectation highlights the importance of the Jewish witnesses living in Jerusalem during the time of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. These individuals were in the best possible position to evaluate the apostolic claims. The rapid growth of Christianity within Jerusalem itself therefore carries tremendous evidential significance. Shortly after the resurrection proclamation began, approximately 3,000 Jews converted (Acts 2:41). Soon afterward, another 5,000 believed (Acts 4:4). Even “a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7). These were members of the very religious establishment that had previously sought Christ’s death (John 11:53, 57; 19:6, 15). Saul of Tarsus, a fierce persecutor of Christians, likewise converted after claiming to have encountered the risen Christ (Acts 9:26–27; 1 Corinthians 15:9).
Such transformations were not superficial. These converts altered foundational aspects of Jewish belief and practice. They moved from strict Jewish monotheism to Trinitarian Christianity, and from viewing Jesus as an executed criminal to confessing Him as the risen Lord and Son of God. C. F. D. Moule therefore rightly concluded:
“the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church… remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.”48)C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the new Testament: An Inquiry Into the Implication of Certain Features of the New Testament, SCM Press (London: 1967), Vol. 1, p. 13
Equally remarkable is the radical transformation of Jewish religious practice among the earliest Christians. Practices deeply embedded within Jewish identity—including sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath observance—were fundamentally reoriented around the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the clearest examples is the transition from Sabbath worship to gathering on Sunday, “the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10).
This change cannot be overstated. Violating the Sabbath under Mosaic Law carried the death penalty (Numbers 15:32–36). The Gospels repeatedly demonstrate the severity with which Sabbath observance was enforced (Matthew 12:1–14; Mark 2:1–6; Luke 6:6–11; John 5:2–18). Historical records further indicate that many Jews were willing to die rather than violate the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:29–37). Why then would devout Jews abruptly begin worshiping on Sunday unless they believed a monumental event had occurred on that day?49)For more details about the Sabbath transitioning to worship of Christ on Sunday, see Heath Henning, “Sabbath to Sunday: How the Resurrection Transformed Worship,” April 6, 2026; https://truthwatchers.com/sabbath-to-sunday-how-the-resurrection-transformed-worship/
Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early second century, explained this transformation:
“For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace…. If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death[.]”50)Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 62
Other Christian ordinances likewise centered explicitly upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Baptism, though having antecedents within Jewish purification rituals, was immediately redefined within Christianity as a symbolic participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5; Colossians 2:12). Likewise, the Lord’s Supper was instituted “in remembrance” of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24–25) and proclaimed His death “till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26).
J. P. Moreland summarizes the significance of these practices:
“They came together regularly to have a celebration meal for one reason: to remember that Jesus had been publicly slaughtered in a grotesque and humiliating way…. They celebrated his execution because they were convinced that they had seen him alive from the tomb.”51)J. P. Moreland, interview with Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 1998), p. 342
The cumulative historical evidence is therefore extraordinarily compelling. Michael Licona, after evaluating the resurrection hypothesis against multiple naturalistic alternatives, concluded that the resurrection explanation “is not only superior to the competing hypotheses examined, it outdistances them by a significant margin.”52)Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, InterVarsity Press (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 606
Numerous scholars have reached similar conclusions. Lord Darling stated that “there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”53)Lord Darling, as cited by Michale Green, Man Alive, InterVarsity Press, (Downers Grove Ill.: 1968), p. 54 Ron Rhodes writes, “The resurrection of Christ is perhaps the best-attested historical event of ancient times.”54)Ron Rhodes, The Complete Book of Bible Answers, Harvest House (Eugene OR: 1997), p. 114 Thomas Arnold similarly affirmed:
“I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”55)Thomas Arnold, Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears, and Its Close: Sermons, Nabu Press, 2011, (originally published by G. Woodfall and Son, 1842), p. 324
Timothy Keller likewise concluded that “the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact much more fully attested to than most other events of ancient history we take for granted.”56)Timothy Keller, Reasons For God, Dutton (New York, NY, 2008), p. 210
Josh McDowell’s courtroom analogy is especially illustrative. Commenting on the more than 500 witnesses mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6, he observes:
“If each of these 500 people were to testify in a courtroom for only six minutes each, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand eyewitness testimony. Add to this the testimony of the many other eyewitnesses and you could well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.”57)Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection, Regal (Ventura, CA: 2009), p. 196
Indeed, when evaluated according to the normal standards employed in historical investigation, the resurrection of Jesus Christ stands as one of the most well-attested events of the ancient world. No historically informed and intellectually honest jury could reasonably dismiss the overwhelming cumulative evidence supporting the claim that Jesus Christ truly rose bodily from the dead.
References