The Historical Evidence For The Ressurection (Updated T)

The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection
/u/nericat13
I. INTRODUCTION 3
II. THE HISTORICAL FACTS 4

A. Jesus’ death by crucifixion 4
B. The sincere belief of the disciples in Jesus' post-mortem appearances 4
1. The post-mortem appearances 5
a. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and its roots in the early Jerusalem Church 6
b. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and its dating 2-3 years after the death of Jesus. 7
c. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 -- conveyed by Paul 9
d. Conclusion on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 10
e. The appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 10
f. 1 Corinthians 15:8 -- Jesus’ appearance to Paul 12
g. Other appearances outside of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 12
2. The sincere belief of Jesus’ disciples 13
a. Persecution by the Jews 13
b. Persecution under Nero 14
c. Apostolic and early Church fathers: the hardships and suffering of Jesus’
disciples 14
d. Tremendous missionary efforts 16
3. Paul’s exposition on the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15 17
4. Conclusion: the disciples’ sincere belief in Jesus’ post mortem appearances18
C. Jesus’ empty tomb 19
D. The origin of the Christian faith 28
III. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS 30

A. Conspiracy 31
B. Hallucination 34
C. Resurrection 39
References 42
I. INTRODUCTION
Christianity is a religion that is deeply rooted in history, and at its heart is

the resurrection -- an event proclaimed by Jesus’ disciples shortly after his death,
who claimed that he appeared to them. The resurrection is the bedrock of the
Christian faith. If the resurrection did not happen, then Christianity is false.
Likewise, if the resurrection did happen, then Christianity is true. As St. Paul
wrote to the Christian community at Corinth some 2,000 years ago: “And if C hrist
has not been raised, our p reaching is worthless, and s o is your f aith” ( 1 Cor
15:14). As a result, whether or not the resurrection happened should concern
every Christian and every seeker of truth.
However, to this, someone might say “This is an event that supposedly

happened some 2,000 years ago, how can we be sure that it did or did not
happen?”. The answer to this of course is that we cannot know with certainty if
the resurrection did or did not happen. As it is with many things when it comes to
history, we are talking about probabilities. With that said, by examining the
historical evidence we have available to us and weighing the possible
explanations for a given set of historical facts, we can come to a conclusion --
assuming that the evidence points solidly in one direction -- that an event very
likely happened (high probability) and dub it “the best explanation of the
evidence”. So while we cannot say with certainty that the resurrection did or did
not happen, we can arrive at a conclusion as to what likely happened, and as I
will argue in this series of posts, what very likely did happen was that Jesus rose
from the dead.
Catering to a skeptical audience, we will not assume the reliability of the

gospels for this argument. In fact, the argument to be presented will work even if
we view the gospels with skepticism. This is possible because we will work with
four events that are recognized by the majority of scholars as historical, and put
forward evidence and historical reasoning to establish their historicity. These
events are (1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, (2) the sincere belief of the disciples in
Jesus’ post-mortem (after-death) appearances, (3) that Jesus’ tomb was found
empty shortly after his burial and (4) the emergence of resurrection belief among
Jesus’ disciples, which will be referred to later as “The Origin of the Christian
Faith”. After providing the evidence for the above four events and establishing
their historicity, we can then examine the possible explanations for the above
four facts: (a) conspiracy, (b) hallucination or (c) resurrection -- weigh the merits
of the above explanations, and come to a conclusion as to what explanation best
accounts for the evidence.
Before I lay out the historical evidence, I would just want to point out that
the evidence for the resurrection has been recognized by Christians and
non-Christians alike as potent and impressive. Frank Morrison, an English writer
and atheist, and inspired by the liberal biblical criticism of his time, set out to write
a book to disprove the gospel accounts. After examining the gospels critically, he
ended up converting to Christianity. His book, “Who Moved the Stone”, ended up
arguing for the historicity of the resurrection and is now a classic apologetic work.
Leading Catholic Thomist philosopher Edward Feser and Canadian polymath
Allister McGrath (theologian, historian, scientist and public intellectual) both
noted how the evidence for the resurrection played a significant role in their
conversion to Christianity from atheism.[1] After surveying the historical evidence,
Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide also came to recognize the historicity of the
resurrection saying: "I accept the resurrection of Jesus not as an invention of the
community of disciples, but as an historical event".[2] One more example would
be Anthony Flew, one of the most influential atheist philosophers in the 20th
century and convert to deism in 2004 (particularly, to the God of Aristotle). Prior
to his death in 2010, Flew had been studying Christianity and he ended up
developing a profound respect for the religion, saying: “I think that the Christian
religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honoured and
respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is
nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class
intellectual like St. Paul...If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this
is the one to beat”.[3] On the resurrection in particular, Flew commented: “The
evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other
With all that said, let
religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity”.[4]
us proceed to examining the historical evidence.
II. ESTABLISHING THE FACTS
A. Jesus’ death by crucifixion
Jesus’ death by crucifixion is strongly supported by a number of Christian

and non-Christian sources. When it comes to Christian sources, the four gospels,
Acts and the New Testament epistles all mention Jesus’ death and crucifixion. As
for non-Christian sources, historians Josephus (Jewish) and Tacitus (pagan) both
report that Jesus was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate.[5] In the end, Jesus’
death by crucifixion is recognized by virtually all scholars. As agnostic scholar
John Dominic Crossan notes: “J esus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is
as sure as anything historical can ever be”.[6]

B. The sincere belief of the disciples in Jesus' post-mortem appearances
In discussing the historicity of the disciples’ sincere belief in Jesus’ post

mortem appearances, I will discuss the evidence for (1) the post-mortem
appearances of Jesus, (2) the sincere belief of Jesus' disciples in these
appearances and (3) Paul’s exposition in 1 Corinthians 15 regarding the reality of
the resurrection, followed by a conclusion. The evidence for the above three
points combine to form a very strong case for the disciple’s sincere belief in
Jesus’ post mortem appearances -- so much so that there is a virtual consensus
among scholars (even skeptical ones) that the disciples did not lie about their
“resurrection experiences” but experienced them, and genuinely came to believe
in their authenticity.[7]
1. The post-mortem appearances

Following Jesus’ death, many of his followers, as individuals and in
groups, had experiences wherein Jesus appeared to them.[8] This is
supported by a number of Christian sources: Matthew, Luke, John, Acts
and 1 Corinthians.[9] The earliest and most valuable of these sources is the
appearance tradition found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, but for the purposes of
completeness I will include verse 8 in the quotation below (Pauline
additions are italicized):
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also

received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the
Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in
accordance with the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one
time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen
asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the Apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
When it comes to the above verses, scholars recognize that Paul is

passing on tradition. This is because Paul himself says as much in the first
half of 1 Corinthians 15:3. In doing so, Paul uses the words “delivered”
(paredoka) and “received” (parelabon), which were k nown technical words
in rabbinical circles and Hellenistic schools during Paul’s day for the
receiving and handing on of tradition.[10]
The reason 1 Corinthians 15 is our most valuable source for Jesus'

post mortem appearances is its origin in the Jerusalem church (which was
the first “headquarters” of the early Church) and its very early dating, 2-3
years after the death of Jesus. Furthermore, the value of the tradition is
enhanced because it comes to us from Paul, who knew other
eyewitnesses and was deep within the Christian movement.
In the discussion of the post-mortem appearances below, let us

examine the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition (Jerusalem origin, 2-3 year dating
and its being conveyed by Paul), Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:8,
other appearance traditions in the gospels and end with a conclusion on
the post-mortem appearances.
a. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and its roots in the early Jerusalem Church

It is widely held among scholars that the tradition in 1
Corinthians 15:3-7 finds its roots in the early Jerusalem Church.[11]
There are a number of reasons behind this position.
When it comes to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, virtually all scholars

agree that these verses contain a primitive Christian creed that finds its
roots in the Jerusalem Church.[12] This is because a) the verses are
written in stylistic form, which aids in memorization, b) there are traces
of Aramaic in these verses, the language of the Jerusalem church and
c) the verses display many non-Pauline characteristics. These include,
“for our sins”, “according to the Scriptures”, “he has been raised”, “on
the third day”, “he was seen”, and “by the Twelve”.[13]
As for 1 Corinthians 15:6-7, some scholars also include these

verses in the creed while others believe that Paul is further listing other
early traditions he received.[14] In any case, there is widespread
agreement among scholars that the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:6-7
also finds its roots in the Jerusalem Church. There are a number of
reasons for this widespread agreement. One, there is good evidence
that 1 Corinthians 15:6-7 is also a part of the creed.[15] Two, Paul’s
information gathering trip to Jerusalem three years after his conversion
is the most likely period when he received these traditions.[16] As Paul
says in Galatians 1:15-19, he goes to Jerusalem three years after his
conversion experience to visit Peter and gather information: “But when
God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by His
grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him
among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood, nor
did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I
went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Only after three
years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with
him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James,
The term Paul uses to describe what he did
the Lord’s brother”.[17]
during his trip to Jerusalem, “historesai” (which is translated to “confer”
in English in the above quoted passage), literally means “to visit and
get information”.[18] Whatever information Paul sought to obtain by
visiting Peter, the leader of the apostles, after his conversion
experience, it almost certainly had to do with Jesus and the Christian
movement. In addition to meeting Peter during this trip, it must be
noted that Paul also mentions meeting James, the same apostle and
leader in the Christian movement who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians
15:7. Three, right after listing the appearance traditions in 1
Corinthians 15:3-7, Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:9-11 that his
preachings are in line with those of the apostles: “For I am the least of
the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because
I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I
am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder
than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what
you believed”. I n verse 11, Paul refers to the apostles (“they”, and the
apostles together with himself, “we”) and states that they preach the
same message. This points towards a Jerusalem origin for the
traditions and Paul’s unity with the Jerusalem Church. Four, Paul held
tradition in high regard and had ample opportunity to receive and verify
tradition from leaders and members of the Jerusalem Church. Paul’s
high regard for tradition is evident throughout his writings. He stresses
the importance of holding firmly to tradition (1 Corinthians 11:2,
Philippians 4:9 and 2 Thess 2:15) and is even careful in distinguishing
his opinion from tradition (1 Cor 7:10-13). Paul even describes himself
back when he was a Pharisee as being “extremely zealous” in the
traditions of his fathers (Galatians 1:14). Paul also had many
opportunities to receive and verify tradition from leaders and members
of the Jerusalem Church. In addition to his initial trip to Jerusalem, we
know from his own letters and Acts that Paul spent considerable time
with Barnabas and Silas (Acts 11:25-30; 12:25-16:40; 15:40-17:14;
18:5-11), leaders in the early Christian movement who were among the
Jerusalem Christians. We also know that he met Peter when he visited
Antioch (Gal 2:11), and that he visited Jerusalem at least two more
times, one of them being to attend the first Church council of
Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-29 and Gal 2:1-10). Paul’s high regard
for tradition and his familiarity with leaders and members of the
Jerusalem church highly guarantee that the traditions in 1 Corinthians
15:3-7 come from and are in line with the early Jerusalem church. As
scholar Michael Licona said on Paul: “his constant interaction with
these leaders in and outside of Jerusalem coupled with his high regard
for tradition virtually guarantees that the details of the traditions in 1
Corinthians 15:3-7 are precisely in line with what the Jerusalem
leadership was preaching”.[19] For all of the above reasons, it is widely
held among scholars that the traditions in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 stem
from the Jerusalem Church.
b. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and its dating 2-3 years after the death of
Jesus.
As for the dating of the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition, it is also
widely held among scholars to date within 2-3 years after the death of
Jesus.[20] This 2-3 year dating period is supported by two “markers”
which point towards such an early dating.
The first marker is Paul’s initial trip to Jerusalem. The reason

why scholars date 1 Corinthians 15 tradition no later than 5 years after
the death of Jesus is because, as mentioned earlier, the most likely
period where Paul received this tradition was when he went to
Jerusalem three years after his conversion to visit Peter and gather
information. As a result, the tradition must be dated before Paul's trip to
Jerusalem. Assuming the majority view that Jesus died in 30 AD and
that Paul converted in 32 or 33 AD, then Paul's trip to Jerusalem would
be placed, at the latest, at 36 AD. Since the tradition must have been
in circulation prior to Paul's trip to Jerusalem, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
must date within 5 years after the death of Jesus. It must also be noted
that if Paul did not receive the tradition during his initial trip to
Jerusalem, as held by the vast majority of scholars, then the next likely
place where he received the tradition would be immediately after his
conversion experience in Damascus, 2-3 years after the death of
Jesus (even earlier!).[21]
The second marker is Paul’s conversion. The reason why the 1

Corinthians 15 tradition dates within 2-3 years after the death of Jesus
is because Jesus' post mortem appearances had already taken root in
the Christian community by the time Paul converted in 32 or 33 A.D.
This is precisely why Paul was persecuting the early Christian
movement, their proclamation of a risen Christ. As stated by agnostic
scholar and co-founder of the radical Jesus seminar Robert Funk: “The
conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root
by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that
Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or
three years at most”.[22] Due to this, the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition must
be dated before this time -- within 2-3 years after the death of Jesus.
Furthermore, according to the New Testament texts, Jesus' post
mortem appearances took place over a period of forty days almost
immediately after his death, with the exception of Jesus' appearance to
Paul, which is the only appearance to take place outside of and after
this period. This would make Jesus’ appearance to Paul the last. It is
no surprise then that after Paul conveys the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition,
he ends by mentioning Jesus’ appearance to him saying: "Last of all,
as to one untimely born...", indicating that Jesus’ appearance to him
followed all others. In the end, the evidence firmly points towards the
elements in the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition dating within 2-3 years after
the death of Jesus. As stated by prominent atheist scholar Gerd
Ludemann: “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two
years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…the
formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor.15.3-8 falls

into the time between 30 and 33 CE”.[23]
c. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 -- conveyed by Paul

The value of the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is further
enhanced by the fact that it comes to us from Paul, who personally
knew other eyewitnesses and was deep within the Christian
movement.[24] This means that Paul had the opportunity to verify these
traditions and inquire further about the events behind them.
Related to this point of Paul knowing other eyewitnesses and

being deep within the Christian movement is Paul’s knowledge of most
of the 500 brothers who had witnessed Jesus appear to them on one
occasion in 1 Corinthians 15:6, as still being alive. In 1 Corinthians
15:6, Paul comments that most of the 500 brothers who saw Jesus
appear to them on one occasion are still alive some 25 years after the
supposed event (1 Corinthians was written between 53-57 A.D.) --
“most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep”. As
scholar Richard Bauckham notes: “The explicitness of this detail --
which looks like one that Paul has added to the traditional form --
shows that he intends it to be a kind of authentication: if anyone wishes
to check this tradition, a very large number of eyewitnesses are still
alive and can be seen and heard”.[25] Scholar C.H. Dodd similarly
comments: “There can hardly be any purpose in mentioning the fact
[that most of the 500 are still alive] unless Paul is saying, in effect, ‘The
witnesses are there to be questioned”.[26] In addition to Paul’s use of an
authentication, Paul knowing that most of the 500 brothers are still
alive is also an example of “in-group knowledge”, or knowledge that is
known to members of a group. A good analogy of this would be a
young professional several years out of college knowing that most of
his batchmates have gotten married, though some still have not gotten
married. The young professional is aware of this information because
he is in touch with his high school batch and everyone in the group is
interested in such information (it is a subject of importance and
relevance to the group). If a member in the batch proposes or is
proposed to, information of that proposal will spread within the group.
Similarly, when the marriage actually happens, knowledge of this
information will spread within the group as well. In the same way that
this young professional knows of how many of his batchmates are
married and not married, Paul knows that most of the 500 brothers
who had seen the risen Jesus on one occasion, were still alive some
25 years later -- due to his being a member of the Christian movement.
The subject of how many eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still
alive was an important subject within the early Church not only
because they knew each other in friendship, but also because the
death of eyewitnesses had important implications for the early Church.
It meant, particularly, a decrease in capacity to provide firsthand
testimony about Jesus and his resurrection, and also an increase in
urgency to put into writing what they knew about him.
d. Conclusion on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

In conclusion, the strength of the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition -- its
Jerusalem origin, the 2-3 year dating of the elements in the tradition
and the fact that it comes to us from Paul, who knew other
eyewitnesses and was deep within the Christian movement -- is very
impressive. As leading scholar N.T. Wright rightly put it, 1 Corinthians
15:3-7 is ”the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at
liberty to tamper”. It is “unalterable Christian bedrock”.[27]
e. The appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

According to the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, Jesus
appeared to many people, as individuals and in groups.
He appeared to Cephas. In addition to being mentioned in the 1

Corinthians 15 tradition, the appearance to Cephas (or Peter), is also
mentioned in a tradition embedded in the account of Jesus’
appearance to two disciples on the road to Emmaus -- Luke 24:34 --
“The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon!”. It is also
vouched for by Paul himself, who personally met Peter and stayed with
him for over two weeks.
Then to the Twelve.[28] This refers to the original group of 12

disciples who had been chosen by Jesus during his ministry minus
Judas, whose death did not affect the group’s formal title. Besides
being mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition, this group
appearance is also attested to in the gospels of Luke and John (Luke
24:36-42 and John 20:19-20). It is also vouched for by Paul, who had
personal contact with at least some members of the Twelve (e.g. Peter
and John) as he himself states in Galatians 1:18 and Galatians 2:9.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one

time. In addition to being mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition,
this appearance to an impressive group of people is vouched for by
Paul who knew other eyewitnesses and was deep within the Christian
movement. As mentioned earlier, Paul’s comment on the tradition,
“most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep”, serves
to underscore its reliability and is also a display of “in-group
knowledge”.
Then he appeared to James. This is one of the most amazing

appearances of all. What makes this appearance so amazing is that
James and the other brothers of Jesus (cousins, see footnote 29) were
skeptical of Jesus, his claims about himself, and his ministry (Mark
3:20-34, Mark 6:1-4 and John 7:2-9).[29] As stated succinctly in John
7:5: “For even his own brothers did not believe in him”. This strongly
satisfies one particular criterion of historicity -- the criterion of
embarrassment. The accounts in Mark and John of Jesus’ own
brothers not believing in him are embarrassing details that are not
flattering to Jesus. As a result, the likelihood of their historicity is high.
In any case, after the resurrection, we see James suddenly assuming
a key role in the early Church, as leader of the church in Jerusalem
(Acts 21:18). Paul also notes James’ importance in the Church in his
letters, saying that he is one of the “three pillars” of the Jerusalem
church (Gal 2:9). Paul’s mention of Jesus’ brothers in 1 Corinthians 9:5
also suggests that at least some of Jesus’ brothers (and at most, all of
them) became believers. Jesus’ brothers in general are also mentioned
in Acts 1:12-14 as being found praying with the apostles and other
followers of Jesus after the resurrection. Outside of the New
Testament, we also have testimony from two early Church fathers,
Hegesippus and Eusebius, that two other brothers of Jesus, Simon
and Judas (who are mentioned in Mark 6:1-3), became Christians.[30]
As a result, we have strong evidence for the conversion of James and
at least some of Jesus’ other brothers from skeptics to followers of
Jesus. In closing, the appearance to James, in addition to being
mentioned in the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition, is also vouched by Paul
who met James personally. For the above reasons, the majority of
scholars recognize the historicity of the appearance to and conversion
of James.[31]
Then to all the apostles. This refers to an appearance or a

series of appearances to a group of Jesus’ followers in a sense other
than the Twelve. Once again, this appearance is vouched for by Paul
who was deep within the Christian movement and knew many of its
leaders and members.
f. 1 Corinthians 15:8 -- Jesus’ appearance to Paul

Like the appearance to James, the appearance to Paul is one of
the most amazing appearances of all. What makes this appearance so
amazing is that Paul, a devout Jew and respected Pharisee, was a
fierce enemy of the early Church. As Paul himself admits in his letters,
he strongly persecuted the early Christian movement (Galatians 1:23).
Acts also recounts the first persecution of Christians by the Jews and
Paul’s involvement in it (Acts 8:1-4 and Acts 9:1-2).
According to Paul, he converted to Christianity because Jesus

appeared to him. As he testifies in 1 Corinthians 15:8: “Last of all, as to
one untimely born, he appeared also to me.'' An account of Paul’s
conversion experience along the road to Damascus is also recounted
in Acts (Acts 9:1-19).[32]
Looking at the way Paul lived the rest of his life, the strength
and authenticity of his faith is also evident. He left his position as a
respected Jewish leader due to what he perceived to be an authentic
appearance of Jesus to join what was then a small, persecuted and
controversial movement -- early Christianity. After joining the
movement, Paul would endure great suffering and persecution (1
Corinthians 15:30-32, 2 Corinthians 4:8-12; 6:3-10; 11:23-28; 12:5-10,
etc), and work tirelessly to promote the gospel. Eventually, he would
die a martyr's death during the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64
A.D.
In the end, the conversion of Paul, a respected Pharisee and

fierce enemy of the early church to Christianity is a historical fact that is
recognized by virtually all scholars. The appearance to Paul is likewise
historically undisputed.[33]
g. Other appearances outside of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Besides the appearances mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8,
the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, as well as Acts, record other
appearances of Jesus to his followers. These include an appearance
to women disciples (Matt 28:9 and John 20:11-17), an appearance to
two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-31),
an appearance to the apostles with Thomas (John 20:24-29), an
appearance to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee (Mark 16:7;
Matthew 28:16 and John 21), an appearance to seven disciples on the
Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-13) and an appearance near Bethany prior
to his assumption (Luke 24:50-51 and Acts 1:1-10). Lastly, although
not an appearance account, Acts begins with a summary of what
happened after Jesus’ death -- that Jesus “presented himself” to his
apostles, “gave [them] many convincing proofs that he was alive” and
“spoke to them about the kingdom of God” -- and that all of this
occurred over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3).
2. The sincere belief of Jesus’ disciples

Jesus’ disciples also displayed a sincere belief in their resurrection
experiences. This is evidenced by the fact that they suffered serious hardship
and persecution, and in some cases, martyrdom for their beliefs.[34] As liberal
scholar E.P. Sanders put it himself, when it came to the disciples and Jesus’
resurrection: “they believed this, they lived it, and they died for it”.[35]
In the sections below, we will examine the two persecutions

experienced by the first generation of Christians (one by the Jews and
another by the Romans under Nero), as well as the martyrdoms that occured
during these events. Then, we will also look into the suffering the first
generation of Christians endured as attested to by the apostolic and early
Church fathers.
a. Persecution by the Jews

Acts 9:1-3 mentions how the murder of Stephen, the first Christian
martyr, marked the beginning of a great persecution against the early
Christian movement by the Jews:
“On that day [the day Stephen was stoned] a great
persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and
all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply
for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from
house to house, he dragged off both men and women and
put them in prison”.
This persecution by the Jews was also mentioned by Paul himself,
who admits his own participation in it in his letter to the Galatians:
“For you have heard of my previous way of life in
Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and
tried to destroy it” (Gal 1:13).
As a result of this persecution, the early Christian movement
suffered greatly.
Acts mentions how the apostles of Jesus were persecuted (e.g.

beaten, flogged, imprisoned, driven out of towns, etc) for preaching a
resurrected Christ (Acts 4:1-3; 5:33-42; 13:48-51; 14:19-20, etc) -- a
message that was met with strong hostility and controversy by many
Jews. Ironically, after converting to Christianity, Paul would become
subject to persecution from his fellow Jews, and in his letters, he would
recount the sufferings he endured (2 Corinthians 11:24-31). Lastly, we
also have testimony from Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of
Alexandria that James the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem
church, was martyred by the Sanhedrin.[36]
b. Persecution under Nero
Then, three decades after the persecution of Christians by the Jews

began, Emperor Nero leads another terrible persecution against the early
Christian movement, blaming them for a fire that broke out in Rome. As
Roman senator and historian Tacitus reports in his Annals:
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a
class hated for their abominations [cannibalism for the eucharist
and incest for the practice of calling fellow Christians “brothers and
sisters in Christ”][37], called Christians by the populace. Christus,
from whom the name has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty
during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators,
Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked
for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source
of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become
popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded
guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was
convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred
against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.
Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and
perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames
and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had
expired (Annals, X V.44).
This brutal persecution of Christians by Nero resulted in the

martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, as recorded by several Christian writers --
Clement of Rome, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian and Origen.[38]
c. Apostolic and early Church fathers: the hardships and suffering

of Jesus’ disciples
Having discussed so far the persecutions of Christians by the Jews

and by the Romans under Emperor Nero, let us now examine writings
from the apostolic and early church fathers on the suffering the first
generation of Christians experienced.
Clement (ca. 30-100), the bishop of Rome and a second generation

Christian who knew the apostles (he was even ordained by Peter)[39],
reports the sufferings Peter and Paul endured in their lives, as well as their
martyrdoms:
“[L]et us take the noble examples of our own generation.

Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto
death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter,
who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two
but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to
the glorious place which was his due. Through jealousy and
strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; seven
times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he
was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the
noble fame of his faith, he taught righteousness to all the
world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he
gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from
the world and was taken up into the Holy Place, the greatest
example of endurance”.[40]
Polycarp (ca. 69-155), the bishop of Turkey and a second

generation Christian who was instructed by the apostles as well[41], urges
the Philippian church in a letter to practice “unlimited endurance”, as the
Christians before (e.g. Paul, the apostles, and others) and among them
have exercised:
I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about

righteousness and to exercise unlimited endurance, like that
which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed
Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus but also in others from your
congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the
apostles. Be assured that all these did not run in vain but
with faith and righteousness, and that they are now in the
place due them with the Lord, with whom they also suffered.
For they did not love the present world but the one who died

on our behalf and was raised by God for our sakes.[42]
Ignatius (ca. 35-108 AD), bishop of Antioch and a second

generation Christian, also notes that the disciples of Jesus did not fear
death as a result of their resurrection experiences. As he says in his letter
to the church in Turkey (where Polycarp was bishop): “And when [Jesus]
came to those with Peter, he said to them: ‘Take, handle me and see that I
am not a bodiless demon’. And immediately they handled him and
believed, having known his flesh and blood. Because of this they also
despised death [like Jesus did]; but beyond death they were found”.[43] As
scholar Gary Habermas notes, the Greek word for “despised” which
Iraneus uses above is better translated as “cared nothing for” or
“disregarded”.[44]
It is also worth noting (since they are mentioned already) that the
two individuals just quoted above, Polycarp and Ignatius, were themselves
martyred during the third persecution of Christians by Rome under
Emperor Trajan.[45] Ignatius’ above quoted letter to the church in Turkey
was written, literally, en route to his martyrdom in Rome. Although neither
Polycarp nor Ignatius are first generation Christians (they are second
generation Christians), the strength of their convictions reflects well on the
witness of the first generation of Christians who preceded them in terms of
the testimony that they gave and the way that they lived their life.
Origen (ca. 184-253 AD), an early church father, also notes in his
Contra Celsum the danger the disciples assumed in preaching the gospel
and their fearless disposition in doing so: “But clear and unmistakable
proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking of His disciples, who devoted
themselves to the teaching of a doctrine which was attended with danger
to human life…[the disciples] not only prepared others to despise death,

but were themselves the first to manifest their disregard for its terrors”.[46]
Origen, later in the same work, also notes: “Jesus, who has both once
risen Himself, and led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so
thoroughly persuaded them of its truth, that they show to all men by their
sufferings how they are able to laugh at all the troubles of life, beholding
the life eternal and the resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in both
word and deed”.[47]
In the end, the disciples publicly proclaimed a risen Christ, despite

the danger it entailed for themselves. This is very strong evidence that
they genuinely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to
them. As stated by scholar Licona: “After Jesus’ death, the disciples
endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The
strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus
had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it.
They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen

Christ.”[48]
d. Tremendous missionary efforts

In addition to the suffering experienced by Jesus’ disciples as a
result of their missionary efforts, and the persecutions targeted at them,
they also spent tremendous amounts of effort in propagating the gospel.
The esteemed academician Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J. noted the
impressiveness of the early Church in this regard: “[after the death of
Jesus] the early Church organized herself into a missionary community
that not only went beyond the boundaries of Israel but also to the very
frontiers of the Roman Empire...With a crucified Messiah as her head, the
early Church formed one of the most dynamically expansive communities
in history”. [49]
Looking at Paul and his letters, for example, we know that
his missionary journeys took him to portions of the Middle East, Europe
and Asia. This exemplifies how seriously the early church took its
missionary work, at a time where traveling was much more arduous and
dangerous than it is today too.
From the point of view of a Christian believer, the tremendous

missionary efforts of the disciples also call to mind the Great Commission,
where Jesus, in an appearance to the Eleven in Galilee, calls them to
spread the gospel to “all nations” (Matt 28:16-20).
3. Paul’s exposition on the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15
In addition to discussing Jesus’ post mortem appearances and the

sincere faith of Jesus’ apostles, let us examine the exposition Paul puts
forward in 1 Corinthians 15 in order to stress the reality of the resurrection
to the Christians at Corinth. In doing so, Paul also shows that he and the
apostles are trustworthy witnesses.
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain
and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be
misrepresenting God because we testified of God that he
raised Christ...
If the dead are not raised at all…why am I in peril every

hour? I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in
Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if,
humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the
dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we
die”. (1 Corinthians 15:14-15; 30)
The most trustworthy witness, as dictated by law and common

sense, is one who has nothing to gain and everything to lose. In the above
verses, Paul shows that he and the apostles are credible witnesses of this
sort.
First, Paul says that if Christ had not been raised, then his
preaching and those of the apostles are in vain. That is to say that all of
their missionary efforts would be worthless. Likewise, if Christ had not
been raised, then the faith of their Christian audience would also be
worthless.
Second, and even worse, Paul says that if Christ had not been
raised, then he and the apostles would be guilty of misrepresenting God.
Assuming deliberate misrepresentation, they would be guilty of a lie of
such immense gravity, saying that God raised Jesus from the dead when
He did not do so, that it would make any earnest Jew tremble -- not only
out of love for not wanting to offend God but also out of fear of His
judgement, and the serious jeopardy it would put one’s salvation in.
Assuming non-deliberate misrepresentation, they would still be making a
grave mistake, spreading falsehood about Jesus and God and leading
others into serious religious error.
Third, Paul also asks why he and the apostles (who are in the same
situation as he is) would expose themselves to so much danger just to
proclaim the gospel -- if Christ had not been raised? Why would they
proclaim a risen Christ when doing so opened themselves up to
persecution and controversy? Why would they travel great distances with
all the risks and dangers it entailed? As Paul said, his proclaiming a risen
Christ put him constantly in danger -- “I am in peril every hour”.
In laying out the above arguments, Paul shows that his testimony
and those of the apostles are true and genuine. Why, afterall, would they
be testifying that Christ had risen if they had nothing to gain and
everything to lose by doing so? The resurrection really did happen, and
this is what Paul is trying to get across.
4. Conclusion: the sincere belief of the disciples in Jesus' post-mortem

appearances
For all of the above reasons, that the disciples of Jesus had
experiences (however they are explained) that convinced them that they
had seen the risen Jesus is recognized by virtually all scholars. As atheist
scholar Bart Ehrman states:
“Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever

speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is
a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some
of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised

from the dead soon after his execution”.[50]
At heist Gerd Ludemann also comments:

“It may be taken as historically certain that the disciples had
experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to

them as the risen Christ”.[51]
Liberal scholar and member of the Jesus Seminar E.P. Sanders also
notes:
“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection

experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was
that gave rise to the experiences I do not know”.[52]
Liberal scholar Paula Fredrickson comments:
"I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised
Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic
evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that
that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see
the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw.
But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen

something”.[53]
C. Jesus’ empty tomb
That Jesus’ tomb was found empty shortly after his death is recognized by
the majority of scholars.[54] There are multiple arguments that support this event’s
historicity.
The first argument is that Jesus’ burial in a tomb is attested to in multiple

independent sources. First, the empty tomb is implied in Paul’s letters.[55] If you
recall, Paul conveys a very early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, and in verse 4
Jesus’ empty tomb is implied: “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third
day in accordance with the Scriptures”. When the above tradition states that
Jesus “was buried” and that he “was raised”, it implies an empty tomb. There are
four arguments supporting this conclusion. One, as scholar Wright noted, the
mention here of “buried then raised” no more needs to be amplified than one
would need to amplify the statement “I walked down the street” with the
qualification “on my feet”.[56] Two, the expression “on the third day'' implies an
empty tomb. As Craig notes: “since no one actually saw Jesus rise from the
dead, why did the early disciples proclaim that he had been raised ‘on the third
day’? Why not on the seventh day? The most likely answer is that it was on the
third day that the women discovered the tomb of Jesus empty; and so naturally,
the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day”. [57] Three, the disciples and
Paul certainly believed that Jesus’ grave was empty, since Jewish belief in the
resurrection was physical and bodily. As Earle Ellis comments: "It is very unlikely
that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between
ressurection and physical, 'grave-emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis
(resurrection) without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a
‘square circle’”.[58] This coheres perfectly with an empty tomb. Four, there is a
remarkable correspondence between the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition, the gospel
narratives and the sermon in Acts 13:28-31. As seen in the chart below, the four
elements of died-buried-raised-appeared are all present, and the second line of
the tradition corresponds with the account of the burial in a tomb.
1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Acts 13:28-31 Mark 15:37-16:7
Christ died… Though they could charge And Jesus uttered a loud
him with nothing deserving cry and breathed his last.
death, yet they asked
Pilate to have him killed.
he was buried… They took him down from And he [Joseph] bought a
the tree and laid him in a linen shroud, and taking
tomb him down, wrapped him in
the linen shroud and laid
him in a tomb.
he was raised… But God raised him from He has risen, he is not
the dead… here; see the place where
they laid him.
he appeared... ...and for many days he But go, tell his disciples
appeared to those who and Peter that he is going
came up with him from before you to Galilee; there
Galilee to Jerusalem, who you will see him.
are now his witnesses to
the people.
This is further compelling evidence that the burial mentioned in the 1

Corinthians 15 tradition refers to the event in the gospels that is Jesus’ burial in a
tomb. In addition to Paul’s letters, the empty tomb is also attested in Mark’s early
passion source. It is widely held among scholars that Mark drew upon an earlier
source in composing his passion narratives.[59] The primary reason for this is
because Mark’s Gospel, which is held to be the earliest written, consists of short
anecdotal stories about Jesus strung like “pearls on a string” (as Craig puts it) but
when we get to the final week of Jesus’ life we get a continuous narrative of
events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread until the
empty tomb. According to prominent scholar James Dunn: "The most obvious
explanation of this feature is that the framework was early on fixed within the
tradition process and remained so throughout the transition to written Gospels.
This suggests in turn a tradition rooted in the memory of the participants and put
into that framework by them".[60] Scholars also agree that this source is very
early, ranging between 30 A.D. - 60 A.D., though it is held by many scholars that
this source is to be dated no later than the 40s.[61] The earliness of the
pre-Markan passion source aside, there are also strong indicators that it
originated in Jerusalem due to its familiarity with the topography of Jerusalem
and surrounding areas, the naming of individuals who were a part of the
Jerusalem church, the semitisms (traces of Aramaic) and its knowledge of the
Hebrew Bible.[62] In any case, although a reconstruction of this early passion
source cannot be accomplished with certainty, it is highly likely that the empty
tomb in Mark was a part of it. There are a number of reasons why the empty
tomb account is a part of Markan’s early passion source. One, it is hard to
believe that the early passion source would end with Jesus’ death and defeat
with no mention of the empty tomb or resurrection. As scholar Wilckens rightly
noted, the passion story would be incomplete without victory in the end.[63]
Furthermore, the disciples proclaimed the resurrection shortly after Jesus' death
in 30 AD. Whatever historical occurrences caused the early Christians to
proclaim a risen Christ, be it the empty tomb, resurrection experiences, or both,
must have been mentioned in this early passion source at least to some degree
-- because whatever they were, they were already being told. Two, if the empty
tomb narrative was included in the passion source, then there would be a
remarkable correspondence between the early Christian creed in 1 Corinthians
15:3-5 and Mark 15:37-16:7 -- Jesus died, was buried, rose and appeared -- all
of these elements would be present in both accounts (including Jesus’
appearance, which is mentioned as a future event in Mark 16:7). Given that the 1
Corinthians 15 creed is foundational, it would make great sense for the four
element formula of died-buried-rose-appeared to be present in the early passion
source as well. Three, Mark’s account of the discovery of the empty tomb is
simple and unadorned. It is not colored by apologetical or theological
developments that one would expect from a later legend. As atheist scholar
Bultmann notes: “Mark’s presentation is extremely reserved, in so far as the
resurrection and the appearance of the risen Lord are not recounted”.[64] Nauck,
another scholar, also observes that many theological motifs that might be
expected are lacking in the story (the only theological motif being present
according to Nauck is “the crucified is risen”).[65] This suggests that the empty
tomb narrative is not a later legend but an old tradition. For all of the above
reasons, it is highly probable that the empty tomb narrative was a part of Mark’s
early passion source. It must be noted that even if the passion source ended
prior to the empty tomb, the tomb narrative would still be attested to by Mark. In
addition to Mark, the empty tomb is also attested to in the other remaining
gospels -- Matthew Luke and John. Although Matthew and Luke are said to have
used Mark as one of their sources in composing their gospels, their gospels
contain independent traditions that presuppose the empty tomb (Matt 27:62-66;
28:11-15 and Luke 16:1-8; 24:13-15).[66] John on the other hand, is generally held
to be seperate from the synoptic gospels (i.e. Mark, Matthew and Luke), so his
attestation to the empty tomb is independent. However, John also contains
independent traditions which presuppose the empty tomb as well (John 20:1-10;
11-18). In addition to the 4 gospels, the empty tomb is also attested to in Acts
(Acts 13:28-31; 2:29-32; 13:36-37).[67] In the end, the empty tomb of Jesus
strongly satisfies the historical criterion of multiple attestation.
The second argument is that there is strong evidence that Jesus’ burial in
a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is historical. There are six arguments supporting
this event’s historicity. One, Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is
multiply attested. The event is mentioned in all 4 gospels, that is at least
attestation in two independent sources -- Mark (early passion source) and John.
Two, if the burial story were invented, it would be odd for a Christian fabricator to
invent a fictional character and give him a name (Joseph), a place of birth in
Judea (Arimathea), then claim that he was a member of a high profile group like
the Sanhedrin (which was the Jewish leadership). This oddity is further enhanced
if the fabricator was Mark because providing names is not standard fare in Mark’s
gospel -- so the provision of a name was something that could easily have been
avoided. However, Mark does provide a name. This suggests that Joseph of
Arimathea belongs to historical memory like other names in Mark (e.g. John the
Baptist, Peter, Andrew, James, John, Judas, James the brother of Jesus, Mary
the mother of Jesus, Herod Antipas and Pilate). In any case, by providing a name
and place of birth to Joseph’s character, and placing him in the Jewish
Sanhedrin, the hypothetical Christian fabricator makes his burial narrative much
easier to falsify (and on the positive end, confirm). This is especially true for the
Jewish leaders and critics of Christianity, who had every motive to disprove any
fabricated Christian claims and tarnish the reputation of the early Church. Two, it
is highly unlikely that Mark would invent a member of the Sanhedrin, portray him
as doing a kindness to Jesus, and give him the honor of burying Jesus. The early
Church had an animosity towards the Jewish leadership for engineering the
death of their leader, and this is evident in the passion narratives. As a result,
any Christian invention would likely not end up giving credit to the Sadhedrin. As
noted by critical scholar Raymond Brown: “That the burial was done by Joseph of
Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation from nothing of a
Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the
hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for
the death of Jesus...While high probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the
basic pre-Gospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not be plausibly
be deemed historical”.[68] Three, the naming of Joseph of Arimathea strongly
suggests that the burial place of Jesus was well-known. As scholar Catchpole
comments: "It is extremely difficult to believe that the recollection of his
(Joseph's) name would persist in connection with something he had done, while
at the same time the location where he had done it remained unknown. It is
easier to associate a known agent of burial with a known place of burial, and
therefore to be open to the possibility that there was indeed a specific tomb
available for visiting shortly after Jesus' death".[69]
Four, Mark’s burial narrative is
simple and unadorned. It can be described as told “matter of factly”. As stated by
scholar Bornkamm: “The report of Jesus' funeral is concise, unemotional and
without any bias”. [70]
This argues against the account being a later legend. Five,
the burial account in the gospels accords well with archaeological and historical
evidence regarding 1st century Jewish burial practices. As noted by Jew and
renowned archaeologist, Jodi Magness, who is particularly an expert on 1st
century Jewish burial practices (Magness herself affirms the historicity of Jesus’
entombment by Joseph): “[T]he Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from
the cross and burial accord well with archaeological evidence and with Jewish
law. The source(s) of these accounts were familiar with the manner in which
wealthy Jews [like Joseph of Arimathea] living in Jerusalem during the time of
Jesus disposed of their dead”.[71] Sixth, there are no competing burial traditions. If
the burial narrative in the gospels were a later legend, we should expect other
accounts or attestations of how Jesus was actually buried. However, all of our
sources affirm that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. In the
light of the evidence for Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, liberal scholar
John A.T. Robinson concludes that the Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “one of the
earliest and best attested facts about Jesus.”[72]
The third argument is that Mark’s account of the empty tomb is simple and
lacks legendary development. Mark’s account is straightforward and
unembellished by apologetic or theological motifs that are likely to characterize a
later legendary account. In Mark’s account, the resurrection is not witnessed or
described, there is no description of the risen Jesus, no reflection on Jesus’
triumph over sin and death and no use of Christological titles. Some critics might
stumble at the presence of an angel but as Craig notes, there is no reason to
think that the tradition ever lacked an angel.[73] Furthermore, according to Craig,
the angel may be chosen to be excised, to appease those with skeptical palettes,
as a purely literary figure which provides the interpretation of an empty tomb. In
any case, to appreciate how restrained Mark’s account is, one has only to read
the Gospel of Peter, which describes Jesus’ triumphant exit from the tomb,
supported by angels, followed by a talking cross, and witnessed by guards and
the Jewish leadership.[74] Another forgery would be The Ascension of Isaiah 3:16,
in which Jesus emerges out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels
Michael and Gabriel. These are what real legends look like. The simplicity of
Mark’s account is evidence that the empty tomb account is not a later legend, but
an old tradition.
The fourth argument is that the phrase “the first day of the week” reflects
ancient tradition. According to Mark, the empty tomb was discovered by women
“on the first day of the week”. As shown by the primitive 1 Corinthians 15
tradition, the earliest Christians proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection “on the third day”.
As E.L. Bode notes, if the empty tomb story were a late legend, it would almost
certainly have been formulated in terms of the accepted and widely spread third
day motif.[75] The fact that Mark uses “on the first day of the week” confirms that
this tradition is very old. This fact is confirmed by the linguistic character of the
phrase being discussed. As Craig explains: “although ‘the first day of the week’ is
very awkward in the Greek (te mia ton sabbaton), employing a cardinal instead of
an ordinal number and ‘Sabbath’ for ‘week’, the phrase when translated back into
Aramaic is perfectly natural”.[76]
This impressive semitism, linked to the day in the
week of the discovery of the empty tomb, is strong evidence that the empty tomb
tradition is not a late-developing legend but a very old tradition. It also
strengthens the argument that the empty tomb is implied in the 1 Corinthians 15
tradition when it says that Jesus rose “on the third day”. This is because the third
day after Jesus’ death was the first day of the week -- Sunday (Jesus died on a
Friday). The sabbath, or the Jewish worship and rest day, took place on a
Saturday. So Sunday, being the first day after it, was the “first day of the week”.
The fifth argument is that the empty tomb, only in unison with the
post-mortem appearances, could have produced resurrection belief. Jewish
beliefs on the resurrection, despite the variety of views on the matter, agreed on
a single point -- that the resurrection was a physical and bodily phenomenon.[77]
Therefore, resurrection belief presupposes an empty tomb. Without confirmation
that the tomb was empty, realistic sightings of Jesus would have been classified
as hallucinations or visions, which, as scholar Wright notes, were well-known
enough in the ancient world.[78] Furthermore, if we are talking about interpreting
an appearance of Jesus, with no confirmation of an empty tomb, as some sort of
vindication of his personhood or identity, this very likely would have been
interpreted as spiritual assumption. As critical scholar Dave Alison explains:
"[P]erceived encounters with a postmortem Jesus would not,

by themselves, have supplied such reason [belief in resurrection].
For there was more than one way for Jews to speak about
postmortem vindication and to interpret the presence of one dead.
Given the widespread dualism of the time, we would expect Jesus'
disciples to think in terms of the triumph of his soul or spirit and to
imagine his resurrection, like that of everyone else dead and
buried, as still belonging to the immediate future [The Jews believe
that everyone would be raised by God on the last day, they call this
the “general resurrection”].
The ascent of a soul to heaven and its vindication were not
the same as resurrection of the dead. As already observed, the
Testament of Job relates that its hero's soul was taken to heaven
immediately after his death, while his body was being prepared for
burial (52:20-12). The story of Moses' end in Deut. Rab. 11:10 is
similar, and in later church history we find that when people see the
souls of saints, they speak of ascension, not resurrection. The first
Christians, to the contrary, did something else. They proclaimed
that an individual had already been raised from the dead, that the
general resurrection had begun (1 Cor 15:23). Why? One good
answer to the riddle is that they believed his tomb was empty. If

there is another good answer, I have yet to stumble across it".[79]
On the other hand, if there were no post-mortem appearances and only an

empty tomb, this would not produce resurrection belief either. It would have been
interpreted, of course, as evidence of grave robbing. However, with an empty
tomb and appearances of a seemingly alive Jesus, we have a strong and
coherent reason for the emergence of resurrection belief in the initial Christian
community. However, as I will argue later, in the section "Origin of the Christian
Faith”, an empty tomb and post mortem appearances would still not be sufficient
to produce resurrection belief -- if the post mortem appearances were
hallucinations or visions.
The sixth argument is that the resurrection was proclaimed in, and belief in
it flourished in Jerusalem -- the very city where Jesus was executed and buried.
This could not have been possible unless Jesus’ tomb was empty. The Jewish
leadership would have done everything in their power to produce Jesus’ body in
order to squash early Christian proclamation in the resurrection. As Paul Althus
notes, the resurrection “could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single
day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a
fact for all concerned...In Jerusalem, one could not think of the grave as empty
without being certain, without there being testimony, that it had been found
empty".[80] The fact that the resurrection was proclaimed, and belief in it flourished
in Jerusalem, is compelling evidence that the Jewish leadership was unable to
produce Jesus’ body, because his tomb was empty.
The seventh argument is that it is highly likely that the discovery of the
empty tomb by women is historical. There are three reasons supporting this
event’s historicity. One, if the empty tomb narrative was fabricated, it is much
more probable that more prominent disciples of Jesus would have been chosen
to make the discovery. However, instead of Peter or any of the other apostles
discovering the empty tomb, we have Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
James and other women. As scholar Allison comments: "That it should be these
devoted but humble and relatively insignificant followers who are given the credit
for the discovery in every gospel is historically impressive”.[81] Two, in Jewish
culture, women were viewed in a lowly light and occupied a low rung on the
social ladder. To illustrate this point, consider the following Jewish writings, which
show that women were held in low esteem -- so much so in fact that their
testimony was considered unreliable and inadmissible in a court of law (as per
the Jewish historian Josephus and the Talmud, with the latter source even
equating the testimony of a woman to a robber).
Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women.
(Talmud, Sotah 19a)
The world cannot exist without males and without females -- happy
is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are
females. (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the
levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give
testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is
probably that they may not speak truth, either out of hope or gain,
or fear of punishment (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.15).
Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid, also they are not
valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is
Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same
evidence as a woman (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8).
If the empty tomb were a Christian invention, it is extremely difficult to see

why they would have made women the primary witnesses. As scholar Wright
notes, the idea of making women primary witnesses to the empty tomb 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". However, Wright continues, "But to us as historians, this kind of thing is
gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up”. [82] If the
empty tomb narrative was created for apologetic purposes (i.e. proof of the
resurrection), men would have been made primary witnesses, since their
testimony was credible and would pose no unnecessary difficulties in
evangelization efforts. It must be noted that women were also viewed lowly in
Roman culture (though this low view of women was stronger in Jewish culture).
In fact, in the second century, the gospel accounts of the discovery of the empty
tomb was derided by pagan and fierce critic of Christianity, Celsus, who said that
the testimony of the event came from a “half-frantic woman” (referring to Mary
Magdalene, who as a witness, is portrayed most prominently among the
contingent of women in the gospels).[83] Three, if empty tomb narrative was
invented, it is difficult to understand why Mary Magdalene was made to feature
prominently as a witness, and even be made to be the first person whom Jesus
appeared to after his death in the gospels (John 20:11-18). Why would a
Christian fabricator feature Mary Magdalene prominently if, in addition to being a
woman, she was also believed to be previously demon-possessed -- needing to
be exorcised by Jesus during his ministry (Luke 8:1–2). Could they not pick
another person to inform the apostles about the empty tomb? Could they not
have chosen a more prominent apostle to receive the honor of Jesus’ first
appearance in the gospel accounts? The fact that Mary is featured prominently
suggests that she did indeed stand out in an actual event in history, and was, as
a result, remembered and recognized for it by the early church.[84]
The eight argument is that early Jewish polemics presuppose the empty
tomb. Matthew records that the response of the Jewish leadership to the early
Christian movement was that the disciples stole Jesus’ body (Matthew 28:13).
This accusation is further attested to in two more sources. The first of these
sources is Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. 155-170 AD). In this
Christian apologetic against Judaism, Justin captures the Jewish view of
Christianity through Trypho: “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 was risen from the
dead and ascended to heaven”.[85] The second source is Tertullian's De
Spectaculis (ca. 197-202 AD), in which he also states the Jewish accusation that
the disciples stole Jesus' body. Interestingly, Tertullian also mentions another
amusing theory circling around in Jewish circles during his time, that a gardener
stole Jesus’ body in order to protect his produce from visitors: “This is He whom
His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the
gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crows of
As amusing as the gardener theory is, a variant of it is also used in
visitants!".[86]
the 6th-11th century Jewish polemic, Toledot Yeshu, which aimed to defame
Jesus.[87] In the end, the fact that all early Jewish polemics presuppose the
empty tomb provide significant support for the event’s historicity.
All in all, the above 8 arguments come together to form a potent case for
the historicity of the empty tomb and it is for this reason that its historicity is
granted by the majority of scholars.
As noted by critical scholar James Dunn:

“As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points
firmly to the conclusion that Jesus’ tomb was found empty and that its
emptiness was a factor in the first Christians’ belief in the resurrection of
Jesus”.[88]

Non-religious Jew Geza Vermes comments:
"In the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the
only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of
the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike - and
even the disciples themselves - are simply interpretations of the one
disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last
respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty
tomb”.[89]

Atheist historian and classicist Michael Grant comments:
“[T]he evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion

that the tomb was indeed found empty”.[90]
D. The origin of the Christian faith
The emergence of belief in Jesus’ resurrection within the Christian

community must also be explained, since it differed radically from Jewish
resurrection belief. Although Christians may point to Jesus' resurrection as an
event in history, as the origin of the disciples’ resurrection belief, critics must
explain how belief in Jesus’ resurrection emerged among the disciples given their
Jewish worldview.
As mentioned earlier, Jesus’ resurrection differed from Jewish resurrection

belief radically. Explaining Jewish resurrection belief, Craig says: “In Jewish
thought, the resurrection always occurred (1) at the end of the world, not within
The Jews
history, and (2) concerned all people, not just an isolated individual”.[91]
referred to this future resurrection event by God at the end of the world and to all
people as the “general resurrection”. Jesus' resurrection, in contrast to this belief,
occurred within history and to one person. In this sense, Jesus’ resurrection was
conceptually, a dramatic departure from Jewish belief.
When it comes to the first point, of Jewish belief in the resurrection as

occurring at the end of the world, this is seen in the gospels themselves. In John
11, Jesus assures Martha that Lazarus would rise again and Martha responded
by saying “I know he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day”. Hearing
Jesus’ words, Martha was thinking about the general resurrection -- little did she
know that Jesus was going to raise him up then and there. In Mark 9, after Jesus’
transfiguration, he foretells his own resurrection, but his words flew over the
heads of his disciples who did not (yet) understand what he was saying:
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders
not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had
risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves,
discussing what “rising from the dead” meant. And they asked him,
“Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
The disciples here were rightfully confused because the general

resurrection was an event that would happen at the end of history. Yet, Jesus
was telling them not to tell anyone what they had just seen (e.g. his
transfiguration) until he had risen from the dead. The disciples were wondering
how they could even tell anyone of their witness to Jesus’ transfiguration if they
would be dead until the general resurrection. The fact that they were thinking of
the general resurrection in the light of Jesus’ statements is confirmed by their
proceeding question to Jesus: “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah
must come first?”. In Judaism, the prophet Elijah is said to have been assumed
bodily into heaven, where he would remain until his return prior to Judgement
Day. The disciples could not grasp the idea of a resurrection occurring within
history and prior to the end of the world -- because such a concept simply did not
exist in Judaism. As noted by prominent scholar Joachim Jeremias: “Ancient
Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history.
Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection
of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always
concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late
Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to glory as an event of history”.[92]
As for the second point, in Jewish thought, resurrection always referred to

a future event that pertained to all people. They had no conception of the
resurrection of an isolated individual. As noted by another major scholar, Ulrich
Wilckens: “For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an
individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end
time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of
the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the
Messiah, who was raised in advance as “First of those raised by God” (1 Cor.

15:20).[93] In the above quote, Wilckens also observes that there was no
connection between the individual believer’s resurrection and the Messiah’s prior
resurrection in ancient Judaism -- because there existed no belief in the
Messiah’s prior resurrection at all. This is why we find no similar cases to those
of the disciples for Jesus. As noted by scholar Wright, the followers of Jewish
messianic movements around the time of Jesus had followers who were strongly
committed to the cause but in no case did we hear from any of these groups,
following the execution of their leader, that he had been raised from the dead and
that he really was the Messiah after all -- again, because was no connection
between the Messiah and the phenomenon of resurrection in ancient Judaism.[94]
Wright invites us to suppose that the disciples were convinced, despite his
execution and on other grounds, that Jesus was the Messiah: “This would not
have led the early disciples to say he had been raised from the dead. A change
in the meaning of “Messiah”, yes (since nobody in the first century supposed that
the Messiah would die at the hands of pagans); but not an assertion of his
resurrection. No second-Temple Jewish texts speak of the Messiah being raised
from the dead. Nobody would have thought of saying, “I believe that so-and-so
really was the Messiah; therefore he must have been raised from the dead”.[95]
In the end, Jesus’ resurrection within the worldview of Judaism was a

completely foreign concept. As Canadian polymath Allister Mcgrath comments:
“The sheer oddness of the Christian proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus in
human history, at a definite time and place, is all too easily overlooked by
modern critics, even though it was obvious at the time. The unthinkable appeared
to have happened, and for that very reason demanded careful attention. Far from
merely fitting into the popular expectations of the pattern of resurrection, what
happened to Jesus actually contradicted it. The sheer novelty of the Christian
position at the time has been obscured by two thousand years' experience of the
Christian understanding of the resurrection – yet at the time it was wild:
As a result, belief in Jesus’ resurrection begs the
unorthodox and radical”.[96]
question -- from where did this belief come from? Is a combination of an empty
tomb and realistic hallucinations of Jesus enough to produce resurrection belief.
As Craig compellingly argues, the answer is no.
“The answer is no, since hallucinations, as projections of the mind, can

contain nothing new. Therefore, given the current Jewish beliefs about life after
death, the disciples, were they to project hallucinations of Jesus, would have
seen Jesus in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom, where the souls of the righteous
dead were believed to abide until the resurrection. And such visions would not
have caused belief in Jesus’ resurrection. At the most, it would have only led the
disciples to say Jesus had been translated or assumed into heaven, not raised
from the dead. In the Old Testament, figures such as Enoch (Genesis
5:24;Hebrews 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-18) were portrayed as not having

died but as having been translated (bodily assumed) directly into heaven”.[97]
The disciples, seeing an empty tomb and realistic hallucinations of Jesus,

would have concluded that he had been bodily assumed into heaven, from where
he appeared to them. They would not have concluded that a resurrection
occurred within history, prior to the end of the world, and to one person -- since
that idea was completely unheard of within their Jewish worldview. It seems then
that on this point, critics are left with an unsolved puzzle.
III. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS
After establishing the historicity of the above 4 events: Jesus’ death by

crucifixion, the disciple’s sincere belief in Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, the
empty tomb and the origin of the Christian faith, we can now proceed towards
examining the possible explanations for the above facts: conspiracy,
hallucination or resurrection.
A. Conspiracy
According to the conspiracy hypothesis, Jesus’ disciples stole his body
from the tomb and lied about their resurrection experiences. This view finds
no support in contemporary scholarship.[98]
One, the conspiracy hypothesis entails that the disciples fabricated a

lie (the resurrection of Jesus) that was conceptually foreign within their Jewish
worldview. How likely is it that the disciples would have invented the idea of a
ressurection of a single individual within history and prior to the end of the
world? It is much more likely that the disciples would fabricate a lie that was
known within their Jewish worldview (e.g. visions, spiritual assumption or
bodily assumption) because it was a conceivable occurence to them and their
fellow Jews. The fact that the disciples proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection
suggests that they witnessed something (such as an empty tomb),
experienced something (such as post-mortem appearances of Jesus), or
both, which genuinely convinced them that Jesus rose from the dead. In any
case, in the points to follow below, I will assume that such a radical lie was
able to be conceived on the part of the disciples.
Two, the idea of a conspiracy response by the apostles after the

execution of Jesus being started and sustained is highly implausible (this
argument will overlap with the succeeding arguments against the conspiracy
theory, but a detailed examination of how implausible a conspiracy is -- how
it could have started and how it could have been maintained -- is important).
First let us consider three background facts that make a conspiracy response
highly implausible. One, given Jesus’ public humiliation and execution by the
Romans, a response of conspiracy was highly unlikely. Jesus’ death by
crucifixion should have signaled the beginning of the end of his movement
and confirmed that he was not the Messiah -- since the idea of a Messiah
killed by pagans (i.e. the Romans) ran completely counter to Jewish
Messianic expectations. As noted by scholar Wright, “a first-century Jew,
faced with the crucifixion of a would-be messiah, or even of a prophet who
had led a significant following, would not normally conclude that this person
was the Messiah and that the kingdom had come. He or she would normally
conclude that he was not and that it had not”.[99] In his book, “Jesus and the
Victory of God”, Wright discusses other perceived and claimed Messianic
movements around the time of Jesus (which were armed movements against
Rome) and notes that all of them faded away after the death of their leaders
(the fact that the Christian movement did not follow this otherwise unanimous
trend is historically remarkable). As scholar Wright notes regarding the
followers of Judas the Galilean, Simon, Athronges, Eleazar ben Deinaus and
Alexander, Menahem, Simon bar Giora and bar-Kochba after the death of
their leader, they were either “rounded up” by Rome or “melted away into the
undergrowth”.[100] Two, in the case of the disciples, a conspiracy response is
highly unlikely as well because planning one would mean that the disciples of
Jesus were willing to challenge those in power, the Jewish leadership, who
had just engineered the death of their leader, for a lie. By conspiring to
proclaim a risen Christ, the disciples would be putting themselves in the
center of controversy and danger, an action that would strongly go against
every human’s instinct for survival and self-preservation (especially after
witnessing the arrest, suffering and execution of their leader). Three, the
disciples were earnest, God-fearing Jews who would not tell a lie of such
immense gravity -- that God had raised Jesus from the dead when He did not
do so. From these three background facts, it is extremely difficult to see how
early Christianity could have gotten off the ground in the first place. If a
conspiracy occurred, then it must have started with one person, who had the
idea to proclaim a resurrection, steal Jesus’ body from the tomb and lie about
resurrection experiences. How could this person bring himself to suggest
something so outrageous? How could this person gather enough disciples to
buy into his conspiracy plan given the three background facts discussed
earlier? Moreover, if this person opened up about his conspiracy plans to
other disciples who he planned to include in his conspiracy group, then it
would only take one rejection to strike a serious blow against this conspiracy
plan -- since we would have a disciple who would know about the conspiracy
and be willing to blow the whistle to others and the Sadhedrin should it
actually happen. Multiple rejections on the other hand would certainly kill any
ideas of conspiracy. Furthermore, even assuming that a conspiracy effort
was able to launch (against all likelihood), it is still unlikely that the conspiracy
effort would have been sustained once persecution hit from the Jews. All it
would have took was one confession to deal a serious blow to the conspiracy,
giving the Jewish leadership (1) evidence to bring before those deceived by
the resurrection hoax and (2) increased morale to further crack down on the
movement and cause it to unravel. As the esteemed Blaise Pascal (who was
himself a devout Catholic) commented: "The apostles were either deceived or
deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a
man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain
them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act?
The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to
the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and
conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all
the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to
change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under
these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures
and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out" (Pensees,
322). To illustrate how hard it is for conspiracy to hold together, the Watergate
scandal, in which former U.S. President Nixon and his aides employed dirty
tactics on the opposing political party in order to secure re-election and tried
covering up the evidence, only lasted a few weeks under external pressure.
As special counsel to President Nixon during the Watergate scandal Chuck
Colson testifies: “I know how impossible it is for a group of people, even some
of the most powerful in the world, to maintain a lie. The Watergate cover-up
lasted only a few weeks before the first conspirator broke and turned state’s
evidence”.[101]
Looking back at history, the earliest Christians proclaimed a
risen Christ boldy, in the light of the three background facts discussed earlier
and later on, in the face of enemy persecution. There is zero evidence that
any Christian confessed that the resurrection was a lie. On the contrary, the
evidence points towards enduring and unwavering faith, which is why it is
recognized in scholarship that the disciples genuinely believed that Jesus
appeared to them. The fact that Paul was unable to crush the early Christian
movement despite his best efforts, and even converted later on is a testament
to this. All of this strongly argues against the Christian movement being a
conspiracy and points towards other hypotheses which stem from genuine
belief on the part of Jesus’ disciples (hallucination or resurrection). If the
Christian movement were a conspiracy, it is extremely difficult to see how it
could have been launched in the first place and maintained in the face of
persecution.
Three, it would have been disrespectful for the disciples to move their
Rabbi from a tomb to a ditch, the location of which would have to remain
undiscovered and be forgotten if they were to maintain the resurrection story
that they were planning to proclaim. The love and respect that the disciples
had for Jesus would strongly argue against them doing this.
Four, if the disciples proclaimed that God raised Jesus from the dead
when He did not do so, then we would have to say that they were insincere,
non-God fearing Jews. However, the fact that they followed Jesus because
they thought that he was the Messiah suggests that they were earnest,
believing Jews. Furthermore, they preached the importance of loving God,
cultivating virtue and avoiding sin. Historical evidence also suggests that they
strove to live as they preached. This is evident when one looks at the content
of and teachings in the New Testament epistles (e.g. Paul’s letters, Hebrews,
etc). One striking and relevant fact to point out here is that the Christian life
was likened by the first generation of Christians as “a race” – signifying the
sacrifice, discipline and perseverance it entailed (Hebrews 12:1, 1 Corinthians
9:25-27, and 2 Timothy 4:7). In the same way, the earliest Christians also
compared themselves to an athlete, again referring to the discipline and
perseverance they would have to imbibe as a practicing Christian (in striving
to persist in the good, grow in virtue and avoid sin).
Five, the actions of the disciples strongly suggest that they genuinely
believed that Jesus appeared to them. If they lied, it would not make sense
for them to travel great distances proclaiming a risen Christ, suffer hardship
and persecution, and in some cases, even martyrdom. This strongly suggests
genuine belief that Jesus really did appear to them, not a conspiracy. As
liberal scholar E.P. Sanders comments on this point: "I do not regard
deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation. Many of the people in these lists
were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen
Lord, and several of them would die for their cause". [102]

Six, if the disciples conspired in proclaiming the resurrection, why did

they not do a better job in fabricating the passion narratives? Why are the
accounts of the empty tomb so restrained when they could have been
maximized for apologetic purposes? Why, for example, was the resurrection
not witnessed in the account of the empty tomb? Why is Jesus’ resurrected
body not described? Why are there embarrassing details in the discovery of
the tomb narrative -- why are the primary witnesses women? If the disciples
lied about the resurrection then they would have fabricated a much more
appealing account.
Seven, a conspiracy would not explain the conversion of James, from

skeptic to believer in Jesus.
Eight, a conspiracy would not explain the conversion of Paul, a

respected Pharisee and strong enemy of the early Church to Christianity.
B. Hallucination
According to the hallucination hypothesis, the resurrection appearances were
merely hallucinations on the part of the disciples. This theory enjoys the most
support among skeptical scholars today.
One, the hallucination theory does not account for the empty tomb. We
would have to assume that an individual stole the body of Jesus for some
reason. If it were a follower of Jesus or someone who held him in high regard,
it is difficult to see why he or she would have carried out such an action that
was disrespectful to Jesus – taking his body out of its resting place where it
could be visited by those who knew him and transferring his body somewhere
else. Such an action would also be inexplicable because if this person held
Jesus in high regard, he or she could simply visit his tomb like everyone else.
Furthermore, this hypothesis also faces difficulty because grave robbing was
a serious crime in the time of Jesus (tombs in antiquity were held in high
regard). The Nazareth inscription (dated 50 BC – 50 AD, though most likely at
the turn of the 1st century), which states that grave robbing is punishable by
death, is a testament to this.[103] The serious punishment that a person could
incur if he were caught stealing from any tomb should have been a serious
deterrent for any prospective tomb robber. On the other hand, if the person
who stole the body was not a follower of Jesus or did not hold Jesus in high
regard, then it is puzzling as to why he was so interested in robbing his
corpse which had no value, and risk serious punishment in attempting to do
so. A grave robber would have been interested in valuable goods interred
with a corpse, but not the corpse itself.
Two, we would have to posit a fantastic series of events wherein

multiple hallucinations of a seemingly alive Jesus occurred to his followers, as
individuals and in groups -- sincerely convincing them that he rose from the
dead and appeared to them. The group appearances in particular are
especially difficult to account for because hallucinations are private and
subjective experiences, no two people can see the exact same hallucination.
As clinical psychologist Garry Collins explains: ”Hallucinations are individual
occurrences. By their very nature only one person can see a given
hallucination at a time. They certainly are not something which can be seen
by a group of people...Since a hallucination exists only in this subjective,

personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it”.[104]
Another clinical
psychologist, Garry Sibcy, who has studied the possibility of group
hallucinations states: “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, that is, an event for which more than one person purportedly
shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no
external referent”.[105] I n response to this, skeptical scholars put forward the
explanation that although the disciples in these group appearances did not
see the same thing, they did experience individual hallucinations of Jesus in a
group (e.g. “shared hallucinatory fantasies” and mass hysteria for Ludemann,
“communal delusions” for Goulder, “non-veridical visions” and mass hysteria
for Ehrman, etc). In any case, the likeliness of such a fantastic series of
events happening is extremely low.
Three, the appearance traditions in the gospels pose more difficulties

for proponents of the hallucination theory. One, according to the gospels, the
appearances witnessed by the disciples were both auditory and physical. This
would make great sense since the appearances of Jesus genuinely
convinced the disciples that He had risen and appeared to them. It is difficult
to imagine how visual but non-auditory or auditory but non-visual
appearances of Jesus could have convinced the disciples that He had risen
and that what they saw before them was an actual, living encounter (“in the
flesh”). If one of these elements were missing, these appearances would
seem more like hallucinations or visions. However, if the appearances of
Jesus were visual and auditory, then we would have to raise the already high
improbability of the posited series of hallucinations even higher.
Hallucinations usually occur in a single mode (e.g. visual or auditory). As
noted by medical experts Laroi and Aleman in their book “Hallucinations: The
Science of Idiosyncratic Perception” (published by the American
Psychological Association), multimodal hallucinations in comparison are more
rare.[106] Two, in the gospel appearance traditions, Jesus would converse with
the disciples at length, something that would be practically impossible for a
hallucination to do. Three, most strikingly, the appearance traditions in the
gospels clearly portray Jesus’ appearances as physical and bodily. In these
accounts, Jesus offered his disciples to touch his risen body and eats a
broiled fish in their presence (Lk 24:36-43), some of the disciples grab hold of
his feet in worship (Matt 28:9-10), the disciple Thomas touches the wounds of
Jesus (Jn 20:24-29). In the end, in addition to being visual and auditory, the
appearances of Jesus in the gospels are also tangible, and Jesus lets his
disciples know it: “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and
see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).
These accounts accord well with Acts 1:1-3, which states that after Jesus’
death, he appeared to his disciples and provided “many convincing proofs
that he was alive”. In the end, the problem with these previous two points,
conversing at length and displaying clear physicality, is that they cannot be
accounted for by hallucinations. Four, according to the New Testament texts,
the appearances of Jesus were diverse. They happened to men and women
of different ages, to individuals of different personalities and state of minds,
and occurred indoors and outdoors. The variety in individuals and
circumstances increase the unlikelihood of our posited series of hallucinations
even higher.
Four, it is highly unlikely that hallucinations of Jesus, even with an

empty tomb, would have produced resurrection belief. The idea of Jesus’
resurrection was a completely foreign concept within Jewish thought. As
mentioned earlier, if the disciples discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty and
experienced “seemingly alive” hallucinations of him, they would have
concluded that he was bodily assumed into heaven. The concept of a
resurrection to an isolated individual within history and prior to the end of the
world simply did not exist within Judaism. As a result, it is highly unlikely that
they would have conceived of and settled on such an interpretation.
Moreover, as Craig also notes, hallucinations are projections of one’s mind so
hallucination projections by the disciples could not have contained something
new in the first place. In any case, in proceeding to the points below, I will
assume that Jesus’ resurrection, despite being an unheard of concept within
Judaism, could have at least come to mind on the part of the disciples and
therefore, could have potentially become established as an interpretation of
what they had seen and experienced.
Five, skepticism and discernment on the part of the disciples would
have greatly diminished the possibility of the disciples attributing
hallucinations of Jesus as resurrection. If the disciples approached the
extraordinary appearances of Jesus they saw before their eyes with
skepticism and discernment (e.g. assessing what they were seeing critically,
attempting to converse with the appearance at length to determine its nature
or meaning, or if the idea of resurrection came to mind, deciding to touch the
appearance -- any, or any combination of the three) then the chances of them
attributing hallucinations as resurrection decreases greatly. There are three
reasons why the disciples almost certainly approached the resurrection
appearances with skepticism and discernment. One, doubt, skepticism and
curiosity are all part of the human condition, we have always had it as a
species. On the issue of doubt and skepticism in particular, there are multiple
passages in the Old and New Testament about them. Focusing on the New
Testament alone, doubt and disbelief are found during Jesus’ ministry (Mk
5:35-42; 9:24-25, Matt 13:54-57; 14:22-31, Jn 6:32-68; 7:5) during the empty
tomb and resurrection accounts (Lk 24:9-11, Lk 24:40-43, Jn 20:24-28, Matt
28:16-17) and during the post-Easter missionary efforts regarding the
resurrection and others (Gal 1:18-20, 1 Cor 1:22-23, Acts 17:31-32). The
above verses show that doubt and skepticism have always been with us, and
that even ancient people knew the difference between the ordinary and the
extraordinary (and were skeptical and discerning of the latter). If the disciples
witnessed an appearance of a seemingly alive Jesus before their eyes, it is
almost certain that they would have tried to understand the nature and
meaning of the appearance through their rational faculties, and possibly, if the
radical idea of Jesus’ resurrection came to them, through their physical tools
as well (reaching out and touching the appearance of Jesus). Two, as just
stated, the gospels themselves attest that there was skepticism on the part of
Jesus’ disciples regarding the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances.
Three, the fact that the disciples proclaimed resurrection strongly implies
discernment. The fact that the early Church unanimously proclaimed that
Jesus rose from the dead, despite such an interpretation being a foreign
concept within Judaism, and over other known possibilities such as
hallucinations, visions, spiritual and bodily assumption, indicates that they had
very good reasons for specifically proclaiming resurrection. For all of the
above reasons, it is almost certain that the disciples would have viewed their
resurrection experiences with skepticism and discernment. The fact that
resurrection was the explanation they unanimously settled on, passing their
skepticism and discernment -- points towards the possibility that they truly did
encounter the risen Jesus.
Six, it is extremely difficult to see how genuine belief in group

resurrection appearances arose among Jesus’ disciples. First, let us consider
the possibility of a group hallucination occuring. If one of Jesus’ disciples
started having a hallucination of Jesus and told others near him about what
he was seeing, do you think that the other disciples would have begun to see
a hallucination of Jesus as well? Of course not. In all likelihood, the other
disciples would have seen nothing, and the first disciple would have been
alone in his hallucination.[107] Second, let us grant that a group of disciples,
somehow, managed to experience multiple hallucinations of Jesus as a
collective. If this happened, how could the individuals in the group not realize
the discrepancies in what they were seeing and what others were seeing? If
you considered or believed that you were experiencing an extraordinary
phenomenon as a group, you would be aware of how the other people in the
group reacted and responded to what you were seeing -- because you would
view yourselves as possible or actual collective witnesses. This would
especially be the case when it comes to an extraordinary and possibly
supernatural appearance from Jesus. In any case, there are many ways
through which the disciples could have realized that there was a discrepancy
between what they were seeing and what others were seeing during in such a
situation. One, if the hallucinations of Jesus that these individuals were
seeing were not located in the same spot in the room or vicinity, or if the
hallucination of Jesus moved and those who saw a moving hallucination
reacted accordingly, then this would have provided a good opportunity for
individuals in the group to realize that they were not seeing the same thing
(as they saw the actions of others and compared it to what they were seeing).
Two, if Jesus spoke to some people but not to others in these individual
hallucinations, and those who Jesus spoke to responded back, would not
those whom Jesus did not speak to notice the obvious discrepancy in what
was happening? Furthermore, among those who responded back to Jesus,
would they not realize the obvious disconnect in their responses, since
individual hallucinations of Jesus would not have said the same thing to each
person? Three, if a group of disciples experienced individual hallucinations of
Jesus, it is highly likely that these individual hallucinations would not have
ended at the same time. If one person in the group's hallucination ended, and
he saw others around him still seeing Jesus, he would realize that they never
saw the same thing as a group in the first place. Others in the group whose
hallucinations would end before others would also follow in this realization. In
the end, if individuals in the group realized that there were discrepancies in
what they saw and what others were seeing, they would not have proclaimed
resurrection (because a resurrection appearance would have to be physical
and bodily, objective and “real in the world”) but something else (e.g.
hallucinations after a tragic grave robbery or visions of Jesus in heaven --
bodily assumption). In addition to the above difficulties with group
appearances, it is also highly likely that individuals in the group would have
asked each other afterwards if they really saw the same thing and assess
their experiences together. Discussing, comparing and assessing
experiences with each other after collectively witnessing something
extraordinary (again, especially after an extraordinary and possibly
supernatural appearance of Jesus) would be completely natural and
expected. If the disciples did so, however, then it is again highly unlikely that
they would have proclaimed resurrection since they would realize through
discussion that they did not experience the same thing (e.g. differences in the
appearance of Jesus, what he did, what he said, etc). This would prove to
them that the appearance they witnessed was not a resurrection but
something else. In the end, it is both highly improbable and implausible that
belief in group resurrection appearances could have emerged from
hallucinations among the disciples. This strongly argues against
hallucinations being the catalyst behind the early Christian ressurection
proclamation.
Seven, a hallucination would not easily explain the conversion of

James, from skeptic to believer in Jesus. First, we would have to add James
to the posited multiple series of hallucinations among the disciples, increasing
the already high improbability of this hypothetical. Second, since James was
skeptical of Jesus during his ministry, he would have viewed the appearance
of Jesus before his eyes with an especially critical eye. Furthermore, if he
heard stories from family members or Jesus’ disciples that Jesus rose from
the dead and was appearing among them, then it is very likely that he would
have made sure that what he was seeing before him was truly his risen
brother, likely by touching him.
Eight, a hallucination would not easily explain the conversion of Paul, a

Pharisee and strong enemy of the early Church to Christianity. First, we
would have to add Paul to the posited series of hallucinations among the
disciples and James, increasing the already high improbability of this
hypothetical further. The improbability of this happening is enhanced by the
fact that Paul was (1) not a follower or relative of Jesus, so he would have
been much less susceptible to a hallucination of Jesus due to a lack of a
fraternal or familial connection, and (2) as noted by scholar Stendahl Paul
was “a very happy and successful Jew...He experiences no troubles no
problems, no qualms of conscience, no feelings of shortcomings…”. [108] Paul
was a respected figure in Jewish circles. He fervently persecuted Christianity
because he saw the group as a heresy and an affront to God whom he loved.
It is very difficult to imagine what could have even triggered a hallucination for
Paul in the first place. Second, as a devout Jew and strong enemy of
Christianity, a mere hallucination would not be enough to convince Paul. In all
likelihood, he would have been even more skeptical than James, and his
sharp intellect would have helped him discern if his experience was again, a
product of the mind or an authentic encounter with Jesus. In the end, the fact
that the appearance Paul witnessed convinced him that it was an authentic
encounter with the risen Jesus is certainly impressive.
C. Resurrection
Jesus rose from the dead, as the earliest Christians proclaimed.
The resurrection hypothesis fits in seamlessly with the evidence. It

faces no problems or difficulties unlike the conspiracy and hallucination
hypotheses.
● It best explains why Christianity grew impressively and did not fade
away after the death of Jesus.
● It explains the empty tomb and post mortem appearances with zero
difficulties.
● It explains why the account of the discovery of the empty tomb is
restrained and contains embarrassing elements.
● It best explains why the disciples specifically proclaimed resurrection
despite it being a foreign concept within Judaism, and over other
known explanations that would have cohered with an empty tomb (e.g.
visions and bodily assumption).
● It coheres perfectly with the appearance accounts in the gospels.
● It coheres with the sincere Jewish faith of the disciples
● It best explains why the disciples willingly endangered themselves by
publicly proclaiming a risen Christ, why they endured hardship and
persecution, and in some cases, suffered martyrdom for their beliefs.
● It best explains the conversion of James from skeptic to believer in
Jesus.
● It best explains the conversion of Paul, a respected Pharisee and
strong enemy of the early Church to Christianity.
The resurrection hypothesis, posing no difficulties and best explaining the

historical facts, is without question, the “best explanation for the evidence”.
The resurrection hypothesis only requires two presuppositions, (1) that God
exists and that (2) He revealed himself to the Jewish people. And so, by
raising Jesus from the dead, God confirms Jesus’ ministry, and his claims
about his identity like a “divine stamp of approval” -- that He is indeed, His
Son in the flesh (John 1:1-5; 14):
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.

3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that
has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
References
1. In his conversion account in “Faith and Reason: Philosophers Explain Their Turn
to Catholicism”, Edward Feser states that the historical evidence for the
resurrection, particularly as presented by Christian philosopher William Lane
Craig, played a significant role in his conversion to Christianity. Allister McGrath,
in an article in Christianity Today, noted the same: “My early concern was to get
straight what Christians believed, and why they believed it. How does the
Resurrection fit into the web of Christian beliefs? How does it fit into the overall
scheme of the Christian faith? After several years of wrestling with these issues, I
came down firmly on the side of Christian orthodoxy. I became, and remain, a
dedicated and convinced defender of traditional Christian theology. Having
persuaded myself of its merits, I was more than happy to try to persuade others
as well”.
2. Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective.
3. Flew and Varghese, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist
Changed His Mind”, pgs. 185–186
4. Habermas, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with
Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew” (2004).
5. Josephus mentions Jesus’ crucifixion in his Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of s tartling
deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to
him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians,
so named from him, are not extinct at this day". Tacitus’ also mentions Jesus’
crucifixion in his Annals XV.44: "Consequently, to get rid of the report [the rumor
among the Roman population that the great fire in Rome was ordered by Nero so
that he could rebuild the city to his liking], Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the
most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians
by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the
extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our
procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked
for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but
even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the
world find their center and become popular”.
6. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, pg. 145
7. “I reiterate that historians may conclude that subsequent to Jesus’ execution, a
number of his followers had experiences, in individual and group settings, that
convinced them Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them in
some manner. This conclusion is granted by nearly unanimous consensus of
modern scholars and may therefore be added to our ‘historical bedrock’” (Licona,
The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 372).
8. It is interesting to note that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus combine
ordinary and supernatural elements. For example, Jesus eats a fish and has long
conversations with his disciples and so is clearly present in the physical and
ordinary way. However, at the same time, Jesus also freely appears in locked
rooms. In addition to this, the disciples also noticed something different about
Jesus. This is why in a number of the appearance traditions, the gospel authors
note that the disciples did not recognize Jesus immediately (Lk 24:28-32, Jn
20:14-16 and Jn 21:4-8). That Jesus was somehow different was again observed
by his disciples in In John 21:12, though they struggled to express this difference
“None of them dared ask, Who are you? They knew it was the Lord”.
Commenting on this passage, scholar Wright says that it “only makes sense if
Jesus is, as well as the same, somehow different...Somehow he had passed
through death and into a strange new world where nobody had ever been
before...His body was no longer subject to decay and death. What might that
have been like?” (John for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 11-21, pg. 161). Wright
suggests that while the resurrection body of Jesus was unquestionably physical
we must also think of it as being, in some obscure way, transphysical.
9. Mark ends abruptly with the discovery of the empty tomb by women disciples.
However, an appearance of Jesus is mentioned as a future event in Mark 16:7. If
one were to include this, the post-mortem appearances would be attested to in all
4 gospels.
10. “The vocabulary of handing on a receiving was used in the ancient world by
philosophical schools...and rabbinic circles to designate important traditions that
were carefully passed down from teacher to student” (Meier, The Circle of the
Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?).
Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul also uses the same vocabulary in conveying the
Last Supper tradition. As he states in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26: “For I received
from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night
when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, a nd when he had given thanks, he
broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of
me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the
new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of
me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
s a result, if Paul’s traditions are very old, then so
Lord’s death until he comes”. A
must the early passion source.
11. As stated by esteemed scholar Larry Hurtado: “It is widely accepted, however,
that the tradition Paul recites in 15:1-7 must go back to the Jerusalem Church”
(Lord Jesus Christ, pg. 168).
12. Licona,The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 318.
13. Kirk MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus” (2006).
14. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 319:
“Differences of opinion also exist over whether 15:5b-7 is part of the same
tradition or that Paul has combined two or more traditions”.
15. MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus”
(2006).
16. Turner in his paper, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Corinthians
15:1-11”, notes that most scholars hold that Paul received the tradition in
Jerusalem. To illustrate how widely held this position is, even atheist scholar
John Dominic Crossan (who has a reputation for being radical) affirms this: “Paul
wrote to the Corinthians from Ephesus in the early 50s C.E. But he says in 1
Corinthians 15:3 that ‘I handed on to you as of first importance which I in turn
received.’ The most likely source and time for his reception of that tradition would
have been Jerusalem in the early 30s when, according to Galatians 1:18, he
went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days”
(Crossan, E xcavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, pg. 254).
17. Licona speculates what probably occurred to Paul after his conversion: “Paul’s
conversion experience had turned his world down. He was now convinced he
had experienced a personal encounter with the risen Christ, and it now forced
him to rethink everything he had learned and thought about the Messiah, Jewish
praxis, and theological matters including atonement, the kingdom of God,
eschatology and even the nature of God. He had spoken about his new views of
Jesus in the synagogues and debated with his Jewish countrymen [at Damascus
after his conversion as stated in Acts]. But Paul had much work ahead of him. He
would study these matters through an intensive examination of the Scriptures in
order to make sense of what he now regarded as reality. Emerging from his
three-year sabbatical in Arabia, we can imagine Paul wanting to complete his
task by interviewing one or more of the people who had traveled with Jesus.
There were no better sources for Paul than the Jerusalem apostles. There he
would talk with Peter and learn about Jesus’ teachings. He would ask him what it
was like to travel with Jesus. He would have the heavy theological discussions
he so much valued during which he would share and hone his findings. This, I
admit, is mere speculation. However, from what we appear to know about Paul, it
may not be very far from what actually occurred” (The Resurrection of Jesus: A
New Historiographical Approach, pgs. 230-231).
18. Kirk MacGregor, “1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus” (2006).
19. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 232
20. On the issue of 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 being dated within 2-3 years after the death
of Jesus, scholar Michael Licona surveys scholarly opinions on the matter in his
book, “The Resurrection of Jesus A New Historiographical Approach” (pg. ). He
finds that most scholars date 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 within 2-3 years after the
death of Jesus. Impressively, those who affirmed a 2-3 year dating included
Robert Funk and most members of the Jesus Seminar. Licona also finds that
other scholars date the tradition “a few years” after the death of Jesus or within 5
years after the death of Jesus. He also notes that other scholars talk about how
early the tradition is in general such as Ulrich Wilckens, who says that the
tradition “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive
Christianity” or Joachim Jeremias who calls it “the earliest tradition of all”. He also
mentions James Dunn, a major scholar who even dates the tradition within
months after the death of Jesus. As for scholars who disagreed with a dating
within 5 years after the death of Jesus, Licona only found one, Marxen, who
called the tradition “ancient”.
21. Turner in his paper, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Creed in 1 Corinthians
15:1-11”, examines the three possible locations where Paul received the 1
Corinthians 15 tradition: Damascus, Jerusalem or Antioch. He notes that
Jerusalem is the most likely place where Paul received the tradition followed by
Damascus, with “a number of scholars” arguing this latter position. As for Antioch
being the location, 13 years after Paul’s conversion, Turner notes that only “a few
scholars” would exclusively argue this position.
22. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, pg. 466.
23. Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, pgs. 171-172.
24. “ The credibility of this tradition is enhanced…because in the case of Paul we
have the testimony of an eye-witness who knew many of the other eyewitnesses”
(Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, 490).
25. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, pg. 308
26. Dodd, More New Testament Studies, pg. 128
27. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 319
28. It is worth noting that the appearance to the Twelve is the best attested
appearance of Jesus (three independent sources: 1 Corinthians, Luke and John).
As scholar Catchpole comments, the appearance to the Twelve is “in fact the
best attested to of all the appearances, and cannot be easily set aside as
dependent...The appearance to the group is a central feature of early Christian
ressurection claims”. Scholar Theissen and Merz, The Historical Jesus, pg. 496:
"There is no doubt that it really happened”.
29. In ancient Aramaic, there was no distinct word for cousins or close family
members, and this wider usage was common during Jesus’ time. The brothers of
Jesus mentioned in the gospels were his cousins, and this is attested to by the
gospels themselves and the early Church fathers. To begin our discussion, let us
look into Matthew’s mention of the “brothers" and "sisters” of Jesus (though only
the brothers are named) in Matthew 13:53-57:
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their
synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom
and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?
Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph,
Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man
get all these things?” And they took offense at him.
Matthew names James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as Jesus’ brothers.

However, the gospels also mention that two of these brothers were Jesus’
cousins. Matthew notes that James and Joseph were sons of “another Mary”,
who was also present at Jesus’ entombment by Joseph of Arimathea. John
identifies this Mary as “Mary the Wife of Clopas”. See the quotes below:
Many women were there [at the cross], watching from a distance.
They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them
were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the
mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matt 27:55-56).
Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed
it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big
stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary were sitting there opposite the tomb (Matt 27:59-61).
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (John 19:25).
As seen in the above verses, the gospels identify two of Jesus’ brothers,
James and Joseph, as sons of Mary, the wife of Clopas. Moreover, John 19:25 is
further proof that the gospel writers used adelphos (brother) and adelphi (sister)
broadly, because it is highly unlikely that Mary would have had another sister
named Mary: “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister,
Mary the wife of Clopas...”. However, this would not be surprising if Mary were a
cousin. It is also possible that “sister” may have been used because the two are
(as we shall see later) sisters in law.
Outside of the New Testament we also have evidence from the early
Church fathers regarding “Jesus’ brothers”, illuminating this issue further. One,
Hegesippus and Eusebius attest that James and Simon (another one the 4
“brothers of Jesus” in Matt 13:53-57) were cousins of Jesus, and state that
Simon was the “son of Clopas”. They also say that Simon succeeded James as
leader of the Jerusalem Church because he was also a cousin of the Lord. Two,
Hegesippus attests that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. This means that
Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary the mother of James, Joseph and Simon
were sisters in law. Three, Hegesippus also calls Judas (another one the 4
“brothers of Jesus” in Matt 13:53-57) a “so-called brethren” of the Lord and says
that he lived a long time, surviving the Roman persecution under the reign of
Domitian. See the quotes below:
“After James the Just had suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the
Lord, Simeon (Simon), his cousin, the son of Clopas was appointed
bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin of the
Lord” (Church History 4.22.4).
“After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which

immediately followed, the story goes that those of the Apostles and of the
disciples of the Lord who were still alive came together from every place
with those who were, humanly speaking, of the family of the Lord, for
many of them were then still alive, and they all took counsel together as to
whom they ought to adjudge worthy to succeed James, and all
unanimously decided that Simeon, son of Clopas, whom the scripture of
the Gospel also mentions, was worthy of the throne of the diocese there.
He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus relates that
Clopas was the brother of Joseph” (Church History 3.11-12).
The same writer says that other grandsons of one of the so-called
brethren of the Savior named Judas survived to the same reign after they
had given in the time of Domitian the testimony already recorded of them
in behalf of the faith in Christ. He writes thus: “They came therefore and
presided over every church as witnesses belonging to the Lord’s family…
(Church history 3.32.1-6).
In the end, the gospels and the early Church fathers identify the
“brothers of Jesus”, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas as his cousins.
With at least three of them -- James, Simon and Joseph, as being sons of
Cleopas (the brother of Joseph) and Mary.
Lastly, the fact that Jesus entrusts Mary, his mother, to John at the cross
(John 19:25-27), is also evidence that he was the only child because if Jesus had
siblings, then this action would have been extremely disrespectful.
30. See quotes by Eusebius and Hegesippus in footnote 28 above.

ccording to Licona, the majority of critical scholars who have commented on
31. A
the appearance to and conversion of James recognize its historicity (The
Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 461). Licona also
observes that there is “significant heterogeneity” within this group that includes
“atheists, agnostics, cynics, revisionists, moderates and conservatives”.
However, Licona observes that although the group of scholars who grant the
historicity of James is impressive, it is also small. For this reason, Licona
classifies the conversion of James as a “second-order fact”.
32. According to scholars, Paul’s appearance to Jesus was different from the others
because it occurred after Jesus’ ascension into heaven.
33. “Perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers
had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. In
particular, virtually all scholars recognize Paul’s testimony that he had an
experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus...” (Licona
and Habermas, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 74).
34. Licona highlights an important point on the martyrdoms among the the apostles:
“Moreover, there is an important difference between the martyred apostles and
those who die for their beliefs today [e.g. muslim terrorists]. Modern martyrs act
solely out of their trust in beliefs passed along to them by others. The apostles
died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen
Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples
of Jesus suffered and were willing to die for what they knew to be either true or
false” (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 371).
On the issue of martyrdoms, I also want to add that Acts attests to the martyrdom
of James the Greater by Herod (Acts 12:2) while Revelation mentions the
martyrdom of Antipas (Rev 2:13). I could not incorporate these martyrdoms in the
flow of argument earlier so I will mention them here.
35. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280.

36. As testified by Josephus: “Therefore, understanding the situation [that the
Sadducees are tougher than other Jews in judging others] Ananas recognized an
opportunity because Festus had died and [his replacement] Albinus was still on
his way. He assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought forth James the
brother of Jesus who was called Christ and some others as lawbreakers. Having
accused them, he delivered them to be stoned.
Licona commenting on this says: “Josephus reports that James was executed for
being a lawbreaker, this could mean that James was executed for crimes he
committed such as robbery or murder. However, in the New Testament,
Christians were often regarded as lawbreakers by the Jewish authorities because
they were perceived as promoting ideas that were contrary to Jewish law (Acts
6:13; 18:13; 21:28). Darrel Bock asks, “What Law was it James broke, given his
reputation within Christian circles as a Jewish-Christian leader who was careful
about keeping the Law? It would seem likely that the Law had to relate to his
christological allegiances and a charge of blasphemy. This would fit the fact that
he was stoned, which was the penalty for such a crime, and parallels how
Stephen was handled as well”.
Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria give similar testimonies (though Clement

corroborates Josephus in saying that the Jews were emboldened to kill James
due to the death of Festus), but quoting Hegesippus since he lived much closer
to the time event: “James, the brother of the Lord” had been known for a long
time as a pious man and was highly regarded by the people. Indeed, some
became Christians in spite of the Jewish authorities because of James’ testimony
concerning Jesus. Therefore, many of the Jewish leaders came to James and
asked him to lead the people away from Jesus. They encouraged him to stand at
the temple pinnacle so that all may see and hear him, for many were present at
that time celebrating the Passover. They took him to the pinnacle and asked him
what he thought of Jesus. But he confessed that Jesus is the Son of Man who
will come in judgement. As a result of this confession, a number believed in
Christ. The Jewish leaders then threw James off the pinnacle. But James did not
die from the fall. So, they began to stone him, at which point James prayed for
forgiveness. Hearing Jame’s prayer, one of the priests told them to stop. But a
fuller took one of his clubs and hit James in the head, killing him. James was
buried on that spot. And immediately afterward, Vespasian besieged the city”.
ackgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson, pgs. 504-596.

37. Ferguson, B
38. Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15: “That Paul is beheaded has been written in their own
blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the
archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the
lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained the blood of the
rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.
Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship when in Rome he
springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom”. The other attestations mentioned
have been lost to history but Eusebius, who had access to these sources during
his time, notes that the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul were attested to in their
writings (Habermas and Licona, The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus, 59).
39. As early church father Irenaeus (ca. 130-202 AD) says about Clement: “Clement
was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and
had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the
apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for
there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the
brothers at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the
Corinthians” (Against Heresies, 3.3.3). Tertullian (ca. 155-220 AD), another early
church father, says of Clement: “For this is the manner in which the apostolic
churches transmit their registers: as the church of Symrna, which records that
Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes
Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (The Prescription
Against Heretics, 32).
In addition to attesting to the sufferings and martyrdoms of Peter and Paul,

Clement also says, in a letter to the Corinthian church, that the disciples were
fully assured by Jesus’ resurrection: “Therefore, having received orders and
complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and
believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching
the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come” (First Clement 42:3).
This is very valuable testimony coming from someone who personally knew the
apostles. Clement’s testimony that the disciples received “complete certainty”
supports the statement in Acts 1:3 that Jesus appeared to his disciples and gave
“many convincing proofs that he was alive”. It also coheres with the evidence we
examined for the disciples’ sincere belief in Jesus’ post-mortem appearances:
the hardships and persecution they endured, and in some cases, the martyrdoms
they suffered for preaching a risen Christ.
40. First Clement 5:2-7

41. Irenaeus on Polycarp: “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles,
and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in
Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also in my early youth,
for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously
and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the
things which he had learned from the apostles” (Against Heresies, 3.3.4). Take
note that Irenaeus says that he met Polycarp during his youth. Furthermore,
Iraeneaus also mentions Polycarp in a letter to Florinus, “When I was still a boy I
saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp, when you had high status at the imperial
court and wanted to gain his favor. I remember events from those days more
clearly than those that happened recently...so that I can even picture the place
where the blessed Polycarp sat and conversed, his comings and goings, his
character, his personal appearance, his discourses to the crowds, and how he
reported his discussions with John and others who had seen the Lord. He
recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and his miracles and
his teaching -- things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses of the
Word of life and reported in full harmony with Scripture” (Irenaeus, To Florinus,
cited by fourth-century church historian Eusebius). The early church father
Tertullian also states that Polycarp was ordained by John (The Prescription
Against Heretics, 32).
42. Polycarp, To the Philippians 9:2
43. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 3:2
44. Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 57
45. Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 57
46. Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.56
47. Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.77
he Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 366.
48. Licona, T
49. Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, God So Loved the World: Clues to Our Transcendent
Destiny from the Revelation of Jesus, pg. 165
50. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. pgs. 230-231.
51. Ludemann, What Really Happened? pg. 80
52. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus.
53. ABC, Interview in The Search for Jesus w/ Peter Jennings (June 26, 2000)
54. In his 2004 survey of scholarship on the empty tomb, Habermas records that
roughly 75 percent of scholars favor one or more arguments for the empty tomb,
while 25 percent favor one or more arguments against it (Habermas included
scholars who appear to be leaning in either direction even with an absence of a
direct statement for their own position). Interestingly, Habermas also notes that
listings among scholars on issues position are divided along theological “party
lines”. Commenting on this, scholar Licona notes: “This may indicate that
scholars are allowing their horizons to exert excessive influence on their
historical work -- an observation that does not surprise us in our investigation of
the resurrection of Jesus” (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical
Approach, pg. 462). Although there is a respectable number of scholars who
dissent against the empty tomb, Licona classifies it as a “second order fact” due
to the moderate majority in favor of the empty tomb, as well as the small but
noteworthy group of scholars who recognize the historicity of the empty tomb but
argue for a natural explanation for it in their works.
55. The reason why the empty tomb is not explicitly stated in the 1 Corinthians 15
tradition is because it is a “summary statement” communicating the reality of the
resurrection as an event in history. This is why the specifics of the events such
as how Jesus died, how he was buried, the discovery of the empty tomb or
details on the appearances are not laid out. Elaboration of the events would be
carried out by the apostles. As stated by major scholar Martin Hengel notes: "A
Jew or Gentile God-fearer, hearing this formal, extremely abbreviated report for
the first time, would have difficulty understanding it; at the least a number of
questions would certainly occur to him, which Paul could only answer through the
narration and explanation of events. Without clarifying delineation, the whole
thing would surely sound enigmatic to ancient ears, even absurd” (Begrabnis, pg.
127). S cholar Allison also notes: “ 1 Cor 15:3-8 must be a summary of traditional
narratives that were told in fuller forms elsewhere” (Resurrecting Jesus, pg. 235).
56. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 321
57. Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, pg. 225
58. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, p. 273
raig in a Youtube video entitled “Pre-Markan Source and the Resurrection of
59. C
Jesus”: “Most scholars today agree with this [that Mark had a source he used].
Any reconstruction of this source is controversial, and not widely accepted…
That Mark was using and relied upon a pre-Markan passion story is one that is
widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is
probably based upon eyewitness testimony”.
60. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, pg. 765-766.
auckham notes that many scholars date the early passion source, at the latest,
61. B
in the 40s (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243).
It is also worth noting the views of scholar Pesch, who dates the early passion
source within 7 years after the death of Jesus, because his reasons for this
dating are interesting. In the early passion source, the high priest Caiphas is not
mentioned by name, he is simply referred to as “the high priest” (this happens in
a passion narrative that is replete with names, while in Mark’s gospel, the naming
of individuals is not standard fare). This implies, nearly necessitates even
according to Pesch, that Caiaphas was still the high priest when the pre-Markan
story was formulated -- since back then, there would have been no need to
mention his name (much like one could refer to “the President” today as a matter
of familiarity, with everyone knowing who the President was). Since Caiaphas
was the high priest from 18-37 A.D., Mark’s early passion source must be dated
within 7 years after the death of Jesus. Pesch also notes that this familiarity with
Caiaphas in the early passion source is also found with Pontius Pilate -- who is
referred to as “Pilate”, with his title of governor not being stated. If Pesch is
correct, then the value of this early passion source as historical evidence is
extremely valuable (similar to the 1 Corinthians 15 tradition as discussed in this
post).
62. Scholar Rudolph Pesch, an expert on the gospel of Mark in particular, notes
these reasons in his Das Markusevangelium for the early passion source
originating in Jerusalem. Blogger Michael Kok of “The Jesus Memoirs” briefly
goes over his views in a post entitled “A Passion Narrative from the Jerusalem
Church”.
63. Wilckens, Auferstehung, pg. 61: “The passion story could not have ended with
the death and burial of Jesus without assurance of victory; the discovery of the
empty tomb by the women was part of the passion story”.
64. Bultmann, History, pg. 309
65. There is also more evidence from word usage and variances in the accounts that
the empty tomb is multiply attested.
As Craig says when it comes to word usage: “In general, only 35 of Matthew’s
136 words in the empty tomb are found in Mark’s 138 words. Similarly, only 16 of
Luke’s 123 words are found in Mark’s account. Moreover, Matthew and Luke
have only a dozen words in common, which shows the independence of their
traditions”.
As scholar Stein says on the variances in the empty tomb accounts: “T he very
variation in the different narratives of the empty tomb, which are in one sense
embarrassing, argues that these accounts stem from separate and independent
traditions, all of which witness to the tomb's being empty” (Was the Tomb Really
Empty?).
66. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, pg. 320
cts 13:28-31 mentions Jesus’ burial in a tomb and implies its emptiness after
67. A
his resurrection.
Acts 2:29-32 says that God raised Jesus from the dead and that his body “did not
decay”. The mention of Jesus’ body “not decaying” implies an empty grave
because the reason why Jesus’ body did not decay is because he was raised up
-- no longer being dead but alive and leaving an empty tomb behind him. There is
also a possible parallel in the verses in question between King David being
buried in a tomb and Jesus being buried in a tomb.
In Acts 13:36-37, King David is again related to Jesus. In these verses, King
David is mentioned to have been buried, and his body is said to have suffered
decay. However, in contrast to David, the verses state that the “one whom God
raised from the dead [Jesus] did not see decay”. Like the previous passage in
Acts, the mention of Jesus’ body not decaying implies an empty grave because
the reason why Jesus’ body did not decay is because he was raised up -- no
longer being dead but alive and leaving an empty tomb behind him.
68. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1240-41

einforcing this point by Catchpole, other scholars
69. Catchpole, Resurrection, 199. R
put forward other reasons why the location of Jesus’ tomb must have been
known. These reasons are (1) the Crucifixion was a public event and (2) Jesus
was a religious sensation whose Crucifixion would have been watched by many,
and whose death and resulting burial would have been the subject of street
gossip. As noted by prominent scholars Brown and Allison:
Brown, The Death of the Messiah, pg. 14: “It is inconceivable that they showed
no concern about what happened to Jesus after his arrest...The crucifixion itself
was public, and nothing suggests that the burial was secret.
Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 362: "There is, finally, a general presumption that
probably favors Mark's tradition about Joseph of Arimathea. Crucifixions were
public events. Intended as deterrents, they were set up to call attention to
themselves. Surely it was not otherwise with Jesus: he was publicly displayed as
crucified in order "to deter resistance or revolt." When one adds that Jesus was
surely some sort of religious sensation whose fate would have been of interest
not just to sympathizers, that his torture would even have been of entertainment
value to some, it is hard to imagine that there was no cloud of witnesses. That
the Gospels say there were passersby is no reason to think that there were not. It
is instead quite likely that people, friendly, hostile, and indifferent, witnessed
Jesus' end and its immediate aftermath, and that his crucifixion and burial
became immediately the stuff of street gossip, so that anyone who wanted to
learn what happened could just have asked around. Crossan says that those
who knew did not care and that those who cared did not know. My guess is that
most everyone knew whether they cared or not”.
70. Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, 168

71. Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus,
pg. 171
72. Robinson, The Human Face of God, 1973
73. Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg. 367 Bode, Easter, pg. 161
74. Gospel of Peter 8:35-42 Craig,
75. Bode, Easter, pg. 161
76. Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg. 366
77. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, pg. 324: "Within Judaism was a variety of
eschatological beliefs and so no "norm"; but when Jews in the Holy Land spoke
of resurrection, they were, from everything we know, thinking about corpses and
bones, graves and ossuaries”.
78. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 686: “Sightings of an apparently
alive Jesus, by themselves [without an empty tomb], would have been classified
as visions or hallucinations, which were well known enough in the real world”.
Wright, Surprised by Hope, 69: “If the disciples had simply seen, or thought they
had seen, someone they took to be Jesus, that would not by itself have
generated the stories we have. Everyone in the ancient world took it for granted
that people sometimes had strange experiences involving encounters with the
dead, particularly the recently deceased. They knew at least as much as we do
about such visions, about ghosts and dreams (elsewhere, Wright specifically
states that “ancient literature is full of it”) -- and the fact that such things often
occurred within the context of bereavement or grief . They had language for this,
and it wasn't "resurrection".
79. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters,
pg. 325
80. Althaus, Die Wahrheit des kirchlichen Ostergaluens, pgs. 25-26
81. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters,
pg. 326
82. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 207. T he strength of this
argument however cannot be understated. Listing other prominent scholars on
the issue:
Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel, pg. 127: “[On the empty
tomb] The status of women in the ancient world was such that a story fabricated
as proof or apology would not be based on the testimony of women”.
James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 832-833: “Mary has the honour of reporting
the empty tomb to the other disciples — apostola apostolorum. Yet, as is well
known, in Middle Eastern society of the time women were not regarded as
reliable witnesses… Why then attribute such testimony to women — unless that
was what was remembered as being the case? In contrast, can it be seriously
argued that such a story would be contrived in the cities and/or village
communities of first-century Palestine, a story which would have to stand up
before public incredulity and prejudice?”
C. F. D. Moule, The Significance of the Message of the Resurrection for Faith in

Jesus Christ, pg. 9: “…it is difficult to explain how a story that grew up late and
took shape merely in accord with the supposed demands of apologetic came to
be framed in terms almost exclusively of women witnesses, who, as such, were
notoriously invalid witnesses according to Jewish principles of evidence. The
later and the more fictitious the story, the harder it is to explain why the apostles
are not brought to the forefront as witnesses.”
83. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, pg. 327

84. Atheist scholar Bart Ehrman, also notes the impressiveness of Mary Magdalene’s
prominence and presence at the empty tomb in different independent sources,
falling in line with the likelihood that she did stand out in an actual event in history
(i.e. informing the apostles about the empty tomb and witnessing an appearance
of Jesus as the gospels attest), and was as a result remembered for it: “As a
historian, I am struck by a certain consistency among otherwise independent
witnesses in placing Mary Magdalene both at the cross and at the tomb on the
third day. If this is not a historical datum but something that a Christian storyteller
just made up and then passed along to others, how is it that this specific bit of
information has found its way into accounts that otherwise did not make use of
one another? Mary’s presence at the cross is found in Mark (and in Luke and
Matthew, which used Mark) and also in John, which is independent of Mark.
More significant still, all of our early Gospels—not just John and Mark (with
Matthew and Luke as well) but also the Gospel of Peter, which appears to be
independent of all of them—indicate that it was Mary Magdalene who discovered
Jesus’ empty tomb. How did all of these independent accounts happen to name
exactly the same person in this role? It seems hard to believe that this just
happened by a way of a fluke of storytelling. It seems much more likely that, at
least with the traditions involving the empty tomb, we are dealing with something
actually rooted in history” (P eter, Paul & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of
Jesus in History & Legend).
85. Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 108
86. Tertullian, De Spectaculis, chapter 30
87. “Diligent search was made and he [Jesus] was not found in the grave where he
had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him
into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the
garden” - Toledot Yeshu quoted by Butt, “The Case of The Empty Tomb”, par. 4.
Retrieved from:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=896
88. Dunn, Jesus, The Evidence, pg. 68
89. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, pg. 41
90. Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, pg. 176\
91. Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg.
129
92. Jeremias, Die alteste Schicht der Oseruberlieferung, pg. 194
93. Wilckens, Auferstehung, Themen der Theologie 4, pg. 131
94. Wright, videotaped lecture presented at Asbury Theological Seminary,
November 1999.
95. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 25.
96. McGrath, The Resurrection (bethinking.org), par. 4
97. Craig, The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, pg.
132.
Scholar Dunn on the impressiveness of the disciples proclaiming resurrection

and not translation says: “For them to have understood that they were seeing the
crucified Jesus as risen from the dead rather than as (simply!) translated or
glorified was quite extraordinary. That it led them to the conclusion that God had
raised Jesus from the dead, that Jesus had been raised as the beginning of the
end-time general resurrection of the dead, was exceptional and unprecedented
(In Grateful Dialogue, pg. 321-322).
98. “Today, however, this explanation [the conspiracy hypothesis] has been
completely given up by modern scholarship”. (Craig, Reasonable Faith, pg. 371)
99. Wright, Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of
Jesus as a Historical Problem. Retrieved from:
http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/christian-origins-and-the-resurrection-of-jesu
s-the-resurrection-of-jesus-as-a-historical-problem/
100. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pg. 110
101. Colson, How Now Shall We Live?, pgs. 275-276.
102. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
103. The Nazareth Inscription (Edict from an unnamed Caesar): “It is my decision
[concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made them for the religious
observances of parents, or children, or household members—that these remain
undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally charges that another person has
destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has
moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places,
committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones,
against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done]
concerning the gods in human religious observances, even more so will it be
obligatory to treat with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely
not to allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if [someone
does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under the title of
tomb-breaker”.
104. Habermas, Hallucination Theories to Explain Jesus’ Resurrection
(bethinking.org), par. 48
105. Habermas attained this testimony through personal correspondence with
Sibcy at the request of Licona, who was doing research on hallucinations (The
Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, pg. 484).
106. Licona cites Aleman and Laroi: “Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic
Perception” saying that hallucinations can be experienced in a number of modes
such as auditory, visual, olfactory, kinesthetic, etc -- but that these were usually
experienced in a single mode. Multimodal or compound hallucinations are more
rare.
107. Michael Licona, in a web article entitled “Are the New Testament Gospels
historically reliable accounts of Jesus?”, relates the experiences his friends at the
U.S. Navy told him regarding hallucinations. This shows, among other things,
that hallucinations are not “contagious”. If an individual experienced a
hallucination and told others about it, in all likelihood, be alone in it and his
friends would not see anything. Retrieved from:
https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testame
nt/licona-major-statement/
“Years ago, I lived in Virginia Beach. Since half of the Navy SEALS are
stationed in that area, I had the privilege of meeting many of them and
even befriended several. SEALS are some of the most impressive people
I’ve ever met. Their physical abilities and mental toughness are truly
enviable and go beyond what I would have thought to be humanly
possible.
There are several steps candidates must successfully complete prior to

becoming a SEAL. One of the first steps is to complete “Hell Week.” This
week begins on a Sunday evening and end Saturday morning. During that
week, candidates are subjected to conditions that test their physical and
mental toughness to their outermost edges. Most do not make it through
the week and drop out. Candidates get only about 3–5 hours of sleep
during the entire week — not every night but the entire week. Due to the
sleep deprivation, a significant number of the candidates experience
hallucinations during the week. Many told me they had experienced a
hallucination during an exercise called “Around the World” in which small
teams in rafts row to a buoy in the ocean, then return. The team finishing
first gets to sit out the next race and rest.
One SEAL told me he thought he saw an octopus come to the surface and
wave at him. Another told me he thought he saw a train coming toward
them. When he warned the others of the approaching train, they told him
there are no trains running on the Pacific Ocean! But they were unable to
convince him. So, he rolled out of the raft to avoid being hit by the train.
Another SEAL told me about a guy who was in his raft who began
swatting his paddle at something in the air. When asked what he was
doing, he answered he was trying to hit the dolphins that were jumping
over their raft! What’s of interest is that no one else saw the octopus or the
train or the dolphins. They were all in the same frame of mind. And many
of them were experiencing hallucinations. Yet, pointing out what one was
seeing did not lead others to see the same things. That’s because
hallucinations are private experiences in the mind of an individual. They
are neither contagious nor collective. And some people are not prone to
hallucinate”.
108. Stendahl, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles, pgs. 12-13

The Historical Evidence For The Ressurection (Updated T)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Historical Evidence For The Ressurection (Updated T)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection

II. THE HISTORICAL FACTS 4

III. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIONS 30

Christianity is a religion that is deeply rooted in history, and at its heart is

However, to this, someone might say “This is an event that supposedly

Catering to a skeptical audience, we will not assume the reliability of the

II. ESTABLISHING THE FACTS

A. Jesus’ death by crucifixion

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is strongly supported by a number of Christian

B. The sincere belief of the disciples in Jesus' post-mortem appearances

In discussing the historicity of the disciples’ sincere belief in Jesus’ post

1. The post-mortem appearances

3 ​For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also

When it comes to the above verses, scholars recognize that Paul is

The reason 1 Corinthians 15 is our most valuable source for Jesus'

In the discussion of the post-mortem appearances below, let us

a. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and its roots in the early Jerusalem Church

When it comes to 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, virtually all scholars

As for 1 Corinthians 15:6-7, some scholars also include these

The first marker is Paul’s initial trip to Jerusalem. The reason

The second marker is Paul’s conversion. The reason why the 1

c. 1 ​Corinthians​ 15:3-7 -- conveyed by Paul

Related to this point of Paul knowing other eyewitnesses and

d. Conclusion on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

e. The appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

He appeared to Cephas. ​In addition to being mentioned in the 1

Then to the Twelve.​[28] This refers to the original group of 12

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one

Then he appeared to James. ​This is one of the most amazing

Then to all the apostles. ​This refers to an appearance or a

f. 1 Corinthians 15:8 -- Jesus’ appearance to Paul

According to Paul, he converted to Christianity because Jesus

In the end, ​the conversion of Paul, a respected Pharisee and

g. Other appearances outside of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

2. The sincere belief of Jesus’ disciples

In the sections below, we will examine the two persecutions

a. Persecution by the Jews

Acts mentions how the apostles of Jesus were persecuted (e.g.

b. Persecution under Nero

Then, three decades after the persecution of Christians by the Jews

This brutal persecution of Christians by Nero resulted in the

c. Apostolic and early Church fathers: the hardships and suffering

Having discussed so far the persecutions of Christians by the Jews

Clement (ca. 30-100), the bishop of Rome and a second generation

“[L]et us take the noble examples of our own generation.

Polycarp (ca. 69-155), the bishop of Turkey and a second

I urge all of you, therefore, to obey the teaching about

Ignatius (ca. 35-108 AD), bishop of Antioch and a second

In the end, the disciples publicly proclaimed a risen Christ, despite

d. Tremendous missionary efforts

From the point of view of a Christian believer, the tremendous

3. Paul’s exposition on the resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15

In addition to discussing Jesus’ post mortem appearances and the

If the dead are not raised at all​…why am I in peril every

The most trustworthy witness, as dictated by law and common

4. Conclusion: the sincere belief of the disciples in Jesus' post-mortem

“​Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever

At​ heist Gerd Ludemann also comments:

“That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection

Liberal scholar Paula Fredrickson comments:

C. Jesus’ empty tomb

The first argument is that Jesus’ burial in a tomb is attested to in multiple

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 Acts 13:28-31 Mark 15:37-16:7

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also

c. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 -- conveyed by Paul

He appeared to Cephas. In addition to being mentioned in the 1

Then to the Twelve.[28] This refers to the original group of 12

Then he appeared to James. This is one of the most amazing

Then to all the apostles. This refers to an appearance or a

In the end, the conversion of Paul, a respected Pharisee and

If the dead are not raised at all…why am I in peril every

“Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever

At heist Gerd Ludemann also comments:

As noted by critical scholar James Dunn:

The resurrection hypothesis fits in seamlessly with the evidence. It

2 He was with God in the beginning.

35. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, pg 280.

ackgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson, pgs. 504-596.