Historical Evidence from the Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ (Part 1)

As the annual celebration of Christ’s resurrection returns to the calendar, it is vital to be reminded of its truth and the evidences supporting it. The resurrection is the single most important fact of the Christian faith, for without it there would be no reason to remember a man who died on a cross two thousand years ago (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

When considering the historical viability of this glorious event, it must be remembered that the evidence derives from ancient sources and therefore must be interpreted by the standards of its time. When modern readers speak of a “historical event,” they often envision contemporary historiographical methods that rely upon written documentation. However, the ancient world emphasized eyewitness testimony as the foundation of historical inquiry. David Aune explains:

From Herodotus (died ca. 420 B.C.) to Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. A.D. 330-395), ancient historians preferred oral over written sources. Access to sources was through the eyes and ears, for “eyes are surer witnesses than ears,” meaning that direct experience is preferable to hearsay (Heraclitus, quoted in Polybius 12.27.1). Ancient writers often claimed to be eyewitnesses of the events they described. Personal visual knowledge, i.e., eyewitness evidence (autopsia), was thought the most reliable historical source (Herodotus 2.99; Polybius 12.27.1; 20.12.8; Lucian, History 47). Polybius thought that historians should be “men of affairs” who actually participated in the events they narrated (3.4.13; 12.25g.1; 12.28.1-5)….

Hearing was also indispensable for historical research. First, the historian could hear about events through interviewing eyewitnesses (Polybius 4.2.2). Second, he could obtain oral information from reliable authorities, usually by traveling to the scene (Herodotus 2.52; Polybius 3.48.12; 4.38.11; 10.11.4). Third, he could listen to and evaluate popular traditions. Fourth, he could read and compare accounts written by those who were eyewitnesses (since ancients read aloud, written accounts were “heard”; cf. Polybius 28.4.8; 38.4.8). ¹⁾David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, The Westminster Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1987), pp. 81-82

Indeed, the English word history derives from the Greek historia (‘ιστορια’), which in classical Greek was defined as: “Here [in Theophrastus 371-287 BC] ‘ιστορια is information resting on methodical and scientific research.” ²⁾Friedrich Büchsel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley) WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1964-1976) Vol. 3, p. 392 “Scientific research” in this ancient sense was achieved through direct observation and hands-on inquiry, rather than the evaluation of documents as in modern historiography.

Herodotus (484–425 B.C.), often called the “father of history,” provides a case study illustrating how ancient historians operated. He wrote, “In the wish to get the best information that I could on these matters, I made a voyage to Tyre in Phoenicia… I visited the temple… In a conversation which I held with the priest, I inquired… These researches show plainly” (Herodotus, Histories 2.44).³⁾Herodotus, Histories (Trans. George Rawlinson), Alfred A. Knopf (New York, NY:1997), p. 146 Here, Herodotus reports traveling to the location, conducting an on-site investigation, and personally cross-examining an eyewitness. He further records, “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 researches. What follows rests on the accounts given me by the Egyptians, which I shall now repeat, adding thereto some particulars which fell under my own notice” (Herodotus, Histories 2.99).⁴⁾ Herodotus, Histories (Trans. George Rawlinson), Alfred A. Knopf (New York, NY:1997), p. 171 He explicitly distinguishes his firsthand observations from secondary reports. Describing the Egyptian Labyrinth, he adds: “and what I say concerning them is from my own observation; of the underground chambers I can only speak from report… Thus it is from hearsay only that I can speak of the lower chambers. The upper chambers, however, I saw with my own eyes” (Herodotus, Histories 2.148).⁵⁾ Herodotus, Histories (Trans. George Rawlinson), Alfred A. Knopf (New York, NY:1997), p. 203 Clearly, Herodotus expected his readers to place greater confidence in his eyewitness testimony than in hearsay.

This same emphasis is reflected in the apostolic writings. John, for example, affirmed, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24).

The apostle Paul likewise demonstrates this ancient historia in his use of the term in Galatians 1:18: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” The verb “to see” is translated from the Greek historesai (‘ἱστορῆσαι’, Aorist Active Infinitive of historeō), meaning to “visit for the purpose of coming to know someone or something[.]”⁶⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 383 Josephus employs the same word when he writes of Lot’s wife being “too intently inquisitive” to see what would become of Sodom (Josephus, Antiquities 1.203;⁷⁾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. 65 cf. Genesis 19:26).

In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul indicates that he spent fifteen days in Jerusalem for the express purpose of cross-examining Peter and James to compare their experiences as eyewitnesses of the risen Lord—likely to verify the consistency of their testimonies with his own. Moreover, Paul names identifiable individuals who could be consulted by others wishing to investigate the claims of the resurrection, a key indicator of verifiable eyewitness tradition.

He further describes these appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8:

“For I delivered [παρέδωκα] unto you first of all that which I also received [παρέλαβον], how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: ⁵ and that he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of Cephas, then [seen is an implied verb] of the twelve: ⁶ after that, he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. ⁷ After that, he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of James; then [seen is an implied verb] of all the apostles. ⁸ And last of all he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of me also, as of one born out of due time.”

Paul establishes a chain of multiple eyewitnesses—Cephas (Peter), the twelve, over five hundred brethren at once, James, all the apostles, and finally himself. It was Peter and James whom Paul personally interviewed (Galatians 1:18–19). As with Herodotus, Paul traveled specifically to verify and cross-examine eyewitness testimony, and, likewise, his own firsthand encounter with the risen Lord (Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–10; 26:12–18) served as the ultimate corroboration. Thus, when Paul “delivered” the report of the resurrection to the Corinthians, he was not merely transmitting oral tradition; rather, he confirmed it through his own empirical observation. This exemplifies historia in its ancient, evidentiary sense.

This passage in 1 Corinthians 15 has been commented on by numerous scholars as presenting some of the strongest evidence available for any event of ancient history. Hans von Campenhausen affirms regarding this passage, “This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text.”⁸⁾Hans von Campenhausen, “The Events of Easter and the Empty tomb,” Tradition and Life in the Church, Fortress Press (Philadelphia, PA: 1968), p. 44 Josh and Sean McDowell similarly express, “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.”⁹⁾Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection, Regal (Ventura, CA: 2009), p. 196 Norman Anderson further observes, “In these words he put his whole credibility at stake; for what he wrote, was in effect, an implicit invitation to any who doubted his statement to put it to the test, since the majority of five hundred witnesses were still available to be questioned. And in the ancient world it would not have been a terribly difficult task to contact some of them.”¹⁰⁾Norman Anderson, Jesus Christ: The Witness of History, Inter-Varsity Press (Downers Grove, IL: 1985), p. 121 Richard Bauckham likewise notes, “Paul thus takes for granted the continuing accessibility and role of the eyewitnesses, even extending to a very large number of minor eyewitnesses as well as to such prominent persons as the Twelve and James.”¹¹⁾Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Second Edition), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 308

Luke, who was the traveling companion of the apostle Paul, likewise reflects the investigative approach of ancient historians. The “we” sections of Acts begin incidentally in Troas and end in Philippi (Acts 16:10–16); they resume again in Philippi as Paul departs for Jerusalem (20:6–21:18), continuing through Paul’s two-year imprisonment in Caesarea before the final journey from Caesarea to Rome (27:1–28:16). This itinerary afforded Luke opportunity to interview individuals in the very regions where Christ’s ministry occurred, including James, Mary, Philip, and other key eyewitnesses.

Another significant term in ancient historia is the Greek word αὐτόπτης (autoptēs), from which the modern English term “autopsy” derives. The lexicon defines it as a word that “combines αυτος with the stem οπ—, means ‘seeing, or having seen something for oneself,’ ‘eyewitness’[.]”¹²⁾Wilhelm Michaelis, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley) WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1964-1976), Vol. 3, p. 373 Luke employs a form of this word in the introduction to his two-volume history—the Gospel of Luke and Acts:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered [παρεδοσαν] them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses [αὐτόπται], and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed (Luke 1:1-4).

As Wilhelm Michaelis observes, in this brief prologue “he makes it plain in what sense eye-witness, and hence the historicity of the events, is to be understood.”¹³⁾Wilhelm Michaelis, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed. Gerhard Kittel; trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley) WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 1964-1976) Vol. 5, p. 348

Luke records, “And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him” (Acts 21:8). Luke’s mention of Philip by name is significant, as he had previously introduced him to his readers (Acts 6:5–6; 8:4–40). He identifies him as “one of the seven” to distinguish the deacon Philip from the apostle of the same name (Acts 6:3–5). Literarily, this episode functions with irony: Paul now lodges with Philip, though Paul had earlier participated in the martyrdom of Philip’s companion Stephen (Acts 7:58). The persecution instigated by Paul had initiated Philip’s evangelistic mission (Acts 8:1, 5–40), which explains his current residence in Caesarea rather than Jerusalem. This meeting also unites Paul’s Gentile companions with Jewish leaders of the early church. The Gentile entourage included “Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus” (Acts 20:4). These men met Philip (Acts 21:8), Agabus of Judea (Acts 21:10), and James (Acts 21:18), allowing ample opportunity to cross-examine eyewitnesses and to confirm that the consistent message proclaimed across all regions of Christianity was grounded in authentic testimony.

Luke’s detailed chronology also serves to defend Paul against the false accusations presented in court. His narrative situates Paul and his companions in Caesarea for “many days” (Acts 21:10), then in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17), meeting James the next day (21:18), entering the temple the following day (21:26), with “seven days almost ended” (21:27). Such a brief timeline leaves no opportunity for the alleged insurrection (Acts 24:2–6). When Paul later testifies in Caesarea that he had arrived in Jerusalem only twelve days earlier (Acts 24:11), numerous witnesses were present to corroborate his statement. Luke’s inclusion of specific names such as Philip strengthens the credibility of Paul’s defense by identifying verifiable eyewitnesses—evidence sufficient for presentation in a formal legal case.

Another notable example of Luke naming an eyewitness for readers to investigate appears in Acts 21:16: “There went with us also certain of the disciples of Cæsarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.” The name “Mnason” (Μνήσων) is Greek, corresponding to Jewish adaptations such as “Jason” (Acts 17:5) or its Roman equivalent “Nason.” The name resembles Semitic names such as “Menahem” (2 Kings 15:14; Mishnah, Hagigah 2.2 [200 B.C.–A.D. 10];¹⁴⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 213 Eduyoth 7.8 [A.D. 10-80];¹⁵⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 435 Yoma 4.4 [A.D. 140-165])¹⁶⁾The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 167 or “Manasseh” (Genesis 41:51). or “Manasseh” (Genesis 41:51). An inscription later identifies a Rabbi in Rome named Μν(ι)ασεας.¹⁷⁾Corpus inscriptionum Judaicarum (ed. Jean-Baptiste Frey), Ponticio Istituto di Archeologa Cristiana (Rome: 1936), Vol. 1, p. 372 §508 Mnason was likely a Hellenistic Jew from Cyprus, like Barnabas (Acts 4:36), who had been dispersed during Paul’s persecution of the believers, similar to Philip (Acts 8:1; 11:19–20). As Craig Keener explains, “Mnason’s name probably appears here not simply because of his hospitality but because he is said to be an ‘old’ disciple—that is, like Philip, a potential informant for Luke’s history of the early Christian mission…. Luke wants his audience to understand that many witnesses from the early days remained.”¹⁸⁾Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary:15:1-23:35, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 3, p. 3111 Cleon Rogers similarly notes regarding the phrase “an old disciple,” “It may mean that he was a disciple from Pentecost, the beginning of the church.”¹⁹⁾Cleon L. Rogers Jr., Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, Zondervan Publishing House (Grand Rapids, MI: 1998), p. 288 Yet considering that 120 believers were gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:13–14) and that over 500 eyewitnesses of the risen Christ are mentioned by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6), there is no reason to restrict the term “an old disciple” from referring to one who had personally known and followed Christ during His earthly ministry.

Luke’s presence with Paul during the journey to Jerusalem, together with his two-year stay in the region, afforded him ample opportunity to interview key eyewitnesses. Craig Keener comments on this aspect of Luke’s historical reliability:

The detail of this section attests to its literary importance for Luke but also is possible because Luke’s source (in my view, his own travel journal) is more detailed here. Given the appearance of “we” directly before (Acts 21:15-18) and after (27:1) the trial scene, Luke probably remained in Judea near Paul during this period….

(Luke’s silence about his activities in the interim is not significant; he always remains in the background of the action, mentioning his presence only with respect to the travels.) In addition to caring for Paul, Luke could have been researching his first volume (Luke 1:3), although—if geographical details tell us anything—he probably spent much more time in urban Judea than in rural Galilee or other scenes of Jesus’s public ministry.²⁰⁾Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary:15:1-23:35, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 3, p. 3160

Over a century earlier, James Smith reached similar conclusions:

St. Luke, as usual, is entirely silent respecting his own proceedings. There are, however, the strongest reasons for believing that, during the two years of St. Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea, he composed his Gospel.

There are several indications in that work which tend to prove that it was written in Judea. In the first place, he tells us in his preface that his object was to give an account ‘of the things which had been accomplished among us’ (περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων), showing that he was then writing in the scene of the events. In the next place, his descriptions are those of a person familiar with the localities, and who was upon the spot at the time of writing; thus, in relating the triumphal entry of our Lord into Jerusalem, he informs us of the exact place where the attendant multitudes burst into Hosannas,—it was on ‘the descent of the Mount of Olives’ (Luke xix. 37), a circumstance only noticed by him. The last proof of the Judean origin of the Gospel is the manner in which he makes use of the national denomination, ‘the Jews,’ as compared with the use he makes of it in Acts. A person writing in the country does not think of giving the national denomination to its inhabitants, except in cases where it is unavoidable; but writing out of it he very naturally does. Now in the Gospel St. Luke only uses the word ‘Jew’ five times, and that in cases where he could not help it,—namely, ‘the King of the Jews,’ ‘the elders of the Jews,’ ‘a city of the Jews;’ but he never uses it when speaking of the people in general. In the Acts, on the other hand, it is used no less than eighty-two times.

I infer from these indications that St. Luke’s Gospel was written in Judea; but if so, it must have been written before he quitted it with St. Paul on his voyage to Rome, for there is no later period to which its composition can be referred. It was therefore written between A.D. 58 and A.D. 60, under circumstances of all others the most favorable for historical investigation, of the spot where the transactions took place, and with constant opportunities of intercourse with those chiefly engaged in them. …every means of information at that time in the possession of living witnesses must have been accessible.²¹⁾James Smith, The Voyage ad Shipwreck of St. Paul (Fourth Edition) Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI: 1880, 1978), p. 13-14

Another factor worth noting is that the nativity account reported in Luke’s Gospel is clearly presented from Mary’s perspective, indicating that Luke either obtained the information directly from Mary herself or, if she had passed away by the time of his presence in Judea, from her surviving family members. James, “the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19), identified as a son of Mary (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 24:10; Josephus, Antiquities 20.200),²²⁾ 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. 656 or other relatives of Christ, could have been the source for the early chapters of Luke’s Gospel. Likewise, the early chapters of Acts, preceding the “we” sections that indicate Luke’s personal participation, would have drawn upon Judean sources available during his two-year stay in the region. These early chapters include explicit references to eyewitness testimony (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 13:30–31).

Luke identifies numerous eyewitnesses by name, allowing interested individuals to trace and verify their accounts. In Acts, we find Peter (Acts 1–15), James the apostle (Acts 1:13; 12:2), John (Acts 1:13; 3:1–4:31; 8:14–25), the Twelve (Acts 1:13), Matthias (Acts 1:23–26), Barsabas surnamed Justus (Acts 1:23), James the Lord’s brother (Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; 21:18–25), the other brothers of the Lord (Acts 1:14; cf. Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14), and “the women” (Acts 1:14), likely referring to “Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them” (Luke 24:10). Other named individuals include Mnason (Acts 21:16) and Barnabas (Acts 4:36–37; 9:27; 11:22–26, 30; 12:25–15:39), who was likely a witness of the resurrection, being called an apostle (Acts 14:14; 1 Corinthians 9:6).

Additional figures mentioned in Acts who may have served as witnesses to the resurrection or early events of the church include Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–10), John Mark (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37–39), Mary the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), Judas surnamed Barsabas (Acts 15:22–34), Silas (Acts 15:22–18:5), Stephen (Acts 6:5–8:1), Philip the evangelist (Acts 6:5–6; 8:4–40; 21:8–9), Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas (Acts 6:5). It is evident that Luke diligently investigated and interviewed as many witnesses as possible to compose a reliable historical record, as stated in the introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1–4).

The mention of specific names provides a trail for inquirers to trace and verify those witnesses who were still living, consistent with Paul’s assertion that “above five hundred brethren” had seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 15:6). Yet, the Gospels also contain numerous unnamed individuals. According to Richard Bauckham’s analysis of names in the Gospels,²³⁾ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Second Edition), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 56-66 Matthew includes 36 anonymous individuals (such as “a centurion” or “a leper”), 33 named individuals, and 6 or more related to named persons (e.g., Peter’s mother-in-law, the sisters of Jesus); Mark lists 34 anonymous, 33 named, and 5 or more related individuals; Luke records 54 anonymous, 44 named, and 5 or more related individuals; and John identifies 15 anonymous, 20 named, and 6 or more related individuals. While many unnamed figures may have been omitted simply due to narrative irrelevance, there were likely deliberate reasons for some who remained anonymous.

For instance, Lazarus is not mentioned in any Gospel until John, the latest of the canonical accounts. John 12:9–11 records:

“Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.”

Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are unnamed in Matthew and Mark, while Luke names only Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42). Only John includes Lazarus, likely omitting his name in earlier accounts for his protection, since the Jewish leaders sought to kill him.

It is also possible that John’s Gospel, originally published in Ephesus (according to Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1;²⁴⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 414 3.3.4;²⁵⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 416 Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved? 42;²⁶⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 2, p. 603 Eusebius, History of the Church 3.1.1;²⁷⁾ Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 107 Polycrates fragment cited in Eusebius, History of the Church 3.31.3;²⁸⁾ Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 141 5.24.2-3)²⁹⁾Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 231 names Mary, Martha, and Lazarus because they may have fled persecution in Jerusalem and settled in Ephesus, which had a large Jewish population (Josephus, Against Apion 2.39;³⁰⁾ 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. 962 Antiquities 14.224ff.;³¹⁾ 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. 471 16.167-168, 172-173)³²⁾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. 537 and a strong Christian community (Acts 19). Their testimony could have preceded Paul’s arrival, perhaps contributing to the fruitfulness of his ministry there.

Richard Bauckham has observed, “I suggest that we need to recover the sense in which the Gospels are testimony. This does not mean that they are testimony rather than history. It means that the kind of historiography they are is testimony…. We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality.”³³⁾Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Second Edition), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 5 Bauckham’s clarification regarding “testimony” and “history” reflects the fact that, to ancient historians, these were not distinct concepts. For them, history was grounded in testimony—either their own eyewitness experience, which held the highest authority, or the interrogation of other firsthand witnesses.

Mark also wrote his Gospel, according to the earliest tradition, from the testimony of the apostle Peter (Papias, Fragments 6;³⁴⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 155 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1;³⁵⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 414 3.10.5;³⁶⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 425 Clement of Alexandria, Fragments from Cassiodorus 1;³⁷⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 2, p. 573 Fragments from the Hypotyposes 4³⁸⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 2, p. 579 Eusebius, History of the Church 2.15.1).³⁹⁾ Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 88 His record of the women as the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection is significant in its emphasis on the eyewitness testimony. Note the text as Mark presents it:

Mark 15:40-41, 47

⁴⁰ There were also women looking on [θεωροῦσαι—present, active, participle: θεωρεω] afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; ⁴¹ (who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem…. ⁴⁷ And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld [ἐθεώρουν—imperfect, active, indicative:  θεωρεω] where he was laid.

Mark 16:1, 4-7

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him…. ⁴ And when they looked [ἀναβλέψασαι—aorist, active, participle: αναβλεπω], they saw [θεωροῦσιν—present, active, indicative: θεωρεω] that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. ⁵ And entering into the sepulchre, they saw [εἶδον—aorist, active, indicative: ειδον] a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. ⁶ And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold [ἴδε—aorist, active, imperative: ειδον] the place where they laid him. ⁷ But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see [ὄψεσθε—future, middle, indicative: ‘οραω] him, as he said unto you.

The Greek verbs emphasize what these eyewitnesses “saw.” The term θεωρέω is defined as “be a spectator, look at, observe, perceive, see (w. physical eyes)”⁴⁰⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 360 The verb ἀναβλέπω means “look up” or “gain sight…of blind persons, who were formerly able to see, regain sight[.]”⁴¹⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 50 This suggests that the women initially looked downward in grief until they raised their eyes and perceived what was before them. The verb εἶδον means “of perception by sight see, perceive.”⁴²⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 220 The verb ὁράω conveys “see, catch sight of, notice of sense perception[.]”⁴³⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 577

In this passage, Mark employs seven verbs of seeing, using four distinct Greek terms to emphasize that the women truly saw these events as eyewitnesses. Six of the verbs appear in the active voice, stressing their deliberate engagement in observation. The verb θεωρέω occurs three times, carrying the stronger nuance of “to observe.” In 15:47, it appears in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous observation of the tomb’s location “where he was laid,” ensuring they could not have mistakenly gone to the wrong sepulchre three days later. The reference to “many other women” (15:41) shows that more than those named witnessed where Jesus was laid. In 16:5, the phrase “entering into the sepulchre, they saw” demonstrates their focused attention on the angel who announced Christ’s resurrection. The angel’s command in 16:6, “behold,” in the imperative mood, urges them to actively look at the place where His body had been. They were also commanded to “go” and “tell” (16:7) what they had witnessed and heard. The naming of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome implies they were still alive and well known for publicly affirming their eyewitness testimony. These women observed every detail of the event from beginning to end.

The emphasis on named individuals in the Gospels and Acts indicates that they were well known within the early Christian community and identified as authoritative eyewitnesses. Mark’s Gospel aligns with this principle. This is particularly evident in Mark 15:21: “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross” (cf. Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26). An ossuary discovered in the Kidron Valley by E. L. Sukenik in 1941 bears the Greek inscription “Alexander (son of) Simon” and, on the lid in Hebrew, “Alexander QRNYT [Cyrenian].” Craig Evans remarks on this find: “From an apologetic perspective, it may also lend important support to the probability that the passion narrative (as well as Easter?) rests upon eyewitness testimony.”⁴⁴⁾Craig A. Evans, “Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simon of Cyrene: Assessing the Literary and Archaeological Evidence,” in Jesus and Archaeology (ed. James H. Charlesworth), William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2006), p. 340 Since Mark is regarded as Peter’s interpreter and composed his Gospel in Rome, it is likely that he included the names of Simon’s sons because the Roman church knew them personally. Paul’s reference in Romans 16:13, “Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord,” suggests that Rufus, son of Simon, was among the believers in Rome and had shared his eyewitness testimony with the saints there.

All this constitutes internal evidence confirming the historical reality of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses. As Craig S. Keener observes, “But Jesus’ early followers did not simply adopt the resurrection doctrine wholesale from Judaism without adaptation: traditional Jewish expectation was a collective, future resurrection. The notion of an individual’s bodily resurrection fulfilled in history would therefore not arise without additional factors (such as the experience of the disciples) to explain it.”⁴⁵⁾Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2009, 2012), p. 339 George Eldon Ladd likewise notes, “Those scholars who are unable to believe in an actual resurrection of Jesus admit that the disciples believed it.”⁴⁶⁾George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans (Grand Rapids, MI: 1974), p. 320 Indeed, they believed it because they were eyewitnesses of this historical event (2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1; Acts 1:3; 2:32; John 19:35). John Ankerburg and John Weldon write, “The fact that the apostles constantly appealed to such eyewitness testimony is all the more believable in light of their own unique Jewish heritage. No religion has ever stressed the importance of truth or truthful testimony more than the Jewish religion.”⁴⁷⁾John Ankerburg and John Weldon, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, Harvest House (Eugene, OR: 1996), p. 20

The Jewish faith placed the utmost emphasis on truthful witness, especially in judicial contexts requiring corroboration by multiple eyewitnesses (Exodus 20:16; 23:1; Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 5:20; 17:6; 19:15; Proverbs 6:19; 14:5; 19:5, 9; 24:28; Luke 3:14; Josephus, Antiquities 3.92;⁴⁸⁾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. 120 Philo, The Special Laws 4.42, 44;⁴⁹⁾The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition, (Trans. C. D. Yonge) Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, MA: 1997), p. 620 Sibylline Oracles 1.177;⁵⁰⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 339 2.58, 64, 68-69;⁵¹⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 346 Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 11.12;⁵²⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 319 44.6;⁵³⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 358 Ahiqar 132-134;⁵⁴⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 503 Odes of Solomon 20.6;⁵⁵⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 753 The Sentence of the Syriac Menander 144, 178-179;⁵⁶⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 596-597 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 1.7;⁵⁷⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 574 Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QS col. 7.3-4;⁵⁸⁾The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (Trans. Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook), HarperCollins Publishers (New York, NY: 1996, 2005), p. 126 4Q158 Frag 7-8.2;⁵⁹⁾ The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (Trans. Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook), HarperCollins Publishers (New York, NY: 1996, 2005), p. 228 Mishnah, Makkoth 1.3⁶⁰⁾The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 401 These sources collectively demonstrate that those raised under Jewish law would have regarded truthful testimony as a sacred duty. As David wrote in Psalm 15:4, “He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.” The eyewitnesses of the resurrection maintained their testimony to the point of martyrdom, having nothing to gain and everything to lose, including their lives. They truly “sware to their own hurt” in bearing witness to the resurrection they had personally seen.

“Historical Evidence From the Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ (Part 2)”