The Resurrection of Jesus

The Resurrection Of Jesus
Contents
Part 1: The Resurrection Case
Introduction And Method.............................................................................................4

Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion Just Outside Jerusalem.........................................6
Objection: Jesus wasn’t dead after crucifixion and the accounts even attest that He
wasn’t on the cross long.............................................................................................8
Fact 2: Jesus Was Buried In A Nearby Tomb...........................................................10
Objection: The Romans wouldn’t bury the crucified; they would be left to rot as an
example to others then thrown in a mass grave........................................................14
Objection: Joseph of Arimathea never existed and was a literary invention to place
Jesus in the tomb and the town of Arimathea has never been found........................15
Objection: The accounts are incorrect when they claim the stone at Jesus’ tomb was
round........................................................................................................................ 16
Fact 3: The Disciples Believed They Saw Jesus Appear After His Death.................17
Fact 4: Skeptics Believed They Saw Jesus Appear After His Death.........................24
Fact 5: To The Surrounding World, The Gospel Message Was Unexpected And Off-
putting....................................................................................................................... 25
Fact 6: The Belief Of Resurrection Originated With The Resurrection Appearances
And Was Not A Prior Held Expectation Or Belief......................................................27
Objection: There are other resurrections in the Bible................................................29
Fact 7: Woman Were Considered As Inferior, As Unreliable Witnesses And As
Discrediting Of Testimony In The Ancient World.......................................................30
Objection: The accounts contradict over the number of women who found the empty
tomb......................................................................................................................... 33
Objection: They had no choice but to say the women were the witnesses because
the Disciples had fled to Galilee................................................................................35
Fact 8: The Witnesses Immediately Proclaimed In Jerusalem That The Resurrection
Had Occurred........................................................................................................... 35
Fact 9: Jesus’ Tomb Was Found Empty...................................................................37
Objection: The empty tomb was the wrong tomb......................................................38
Objection: Jesus’ body was displaced, likely lost or accidentally moved...................39
Fact 10: The Disciples And Witnesses Voluntarily Suffered And Died......................40
Objection: People die for their faith all the time and this doesn’t make the belief true.
An example would be Muslim martyrs and this doesn’t make Islam true..................45
Objection: They knew it was false but were willing to die for a noble lie....................45
1
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 46
Part 2: Opposing Theories
General Theories......................................................................................................48
The Conspiracy Theory............................................................................................48
The Hallucination Theory..........................................................................................52
The Mythic Theory....................................................................................................60
Scholars’ Theories....................................................................................................62
Bart Ehrman’s Theory...............................................................................................62
Gerd Lüdemann’s Theory.........................................................................................67
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 70
Part 3: General Objections To The Resurrection
Miracles are improbable so are always the least likely explanation..........................71

It is not reasonable to believe a miracle claim...........................................................74
If you accept the resurrection, why don’t you believe miracle claims of other
religions?.................................................................................................................. 75
The resurrection theory is unfalsifiable.....................................................................79
We cannot accept the resurrection theory because the facts are restricted to the
historical Jesus and the events are restricted to time and space..............................80
Why don’t all historians accept the resurrection when they agree on the facts?.......81
Extraordinary claims or events require extraordinary evidence, the evidence is not
good enough and there is no physical evidence for the resurrection........................81
Explaining events supernaturally removes all explanatory power because a
supernatural explanation can be given for any event................................................82
Many writers do not mention the miraculous events involved, which they would have
had they occurred.....................................................................................................82
Testimony isn’t enough to believe in something as amazing as the resurrection......83
Reliability of testimony decreases over time.............................................................84
The Disciples taught that Jesus was spiritually vindicated, not physically resurrected
and had internal visions, not physical experiences...................................................84
The accounts contradict with each other on whether Jesus died before or after the
Passover meal.......................................................................................................... 92
The accounts contradict on what time Jesus was crucified.......................................95
The Biblical account is unreliable because it takes aim at the Jews and paints
Pontius Pilate in a favourable light............................................................................97
2
The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrian was a myth because it contains historical
errors...................................................................................................................... 101
The accounts are false because the release of Barabbas was a fabrication...........104
It isn’t a literal resurrection of Jesus’ body because He has a new, glorified body. .106
The accounts contradict on how many angels or men were at the tomb.................107
Most Christians don’t believe in the resurrection or Christianity because they
examined the evidence...........................................................................................108
People testified that they saw Elvis after his death and had no reason to lie. Why
shouldn’t we believe them?.....................................................................................109
References............................................................................................................ 110
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................110
3
Part 1: The Resurrection Case
Introduction And Method
The most important event for Christianity and in human history is the resurrection.
The simple equation is if it actually occurred, then Christianity is true and if it did not,
then Christianity is false. New Testament writers like Paul tell us that the resurrection
is the foundation and basis of Christianity, where without it, Christianity is baseless.
14. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also
empty. 15. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified
of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not
rise. 16. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17. And if Christ is not
risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18. Then also those who have fallen
asleep in Christ have perished. 19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are
of all men the most pitiable.
1 Corinthians 15:14-19 (NKJV) a
The amount of evidence for the resurrection is far more than the evidence for any
other miracle claim. To refute it, the skeptic has to falsify the resurrection theory and
offer a better explanation for the evidence. They cannot reject all the evidence if it
points towards the resurrection being the most likely explanation just because they
have set their standard of evidence unreasonably high where it could never be
satisfied. Most importantly, before we view the evidence for the resurrection, we
cannot presuppose naturalism or supernaturalism.
To show that the resurrection occurred, we have to prove it like any other historical
fact from the past and the burden of proof is on us making the claim. We need to
show that the resurrection theory best fits the data and other theories cannot; the
most popular alternatives being the conspiracy theory, hallucination theory and
mythic theory. However, if someone can present a best explanation of the data, an
opponent cannot dismiss the theory without presenting a better explanation as well
as explaining why the resurrection theory is insufficient or incorrect in explaining the
evidence, otherwise all historical investigation is invalid.
David Hackett Fischer tells us this in his book Historians’ Fallacies. The burden of
proof in history is always on the one making the claim but the burden is also on the
one making the rebuttal or the opposing claim. 1 In short, if someone is to say an
explanation is the best, they must demonstrate it, and if someone is to say an
explanation is not the best, they must demonstrate a better one. Of course, someone
could stay agnostic regarding an explanation without accepting any but this would not
a
This document is using the New King James Version for Bible passages as it is the most popular
translation but does not necessarily recognise this as the best translation and does not support it
as legitimate. There are instances of biased translations, minor translation errors and Protestant
translations such as this reject the Deuterocanon as Scripture, which is an error (see the document
The Deuterocanon). None of the Bible passages involved in this document are affected by the
translation.
4
constitute an objective argument or have any weight against the person giving the
best explanation. To evaluate a claim, it must have explanatory scope, explanatory
power, plausibility and be illuminating without being ad hoc, i.e. non evidenced
assumptions.
While scientific and philosophical arguments for God, a arguments establishing the
reliability of the New Testament b and arguments demonstrating miracles are logically
possible c are all advantageous for putting forward a resurrection case, none are
essential. We do not need to first demonstrate the existence of God because while
the resurrection necessitates belief in God, the circumstances surrounding the
resurrection might make God inevitable because a miracle necessitates a
supernatural intervention from a source that can supersede or ground the natural
laws and such an outside agent must be outside the realm of influence, hence
outside space and time.
Moreover, the resurrection affirms that Christ was who he claimed He was and that
His Church and therefore Scripture are legitimate; given the true God would have to
be that outside source to resurrect Jesus and glorify His body, the true God would
also be affirming the Church and Scripture and hence, the true God would be the
Christian God. Furthermore, Jesus Himself predicted and affirmed this as the
explanation for what happened and the most qualified person to explain what and
how it happened would be Jesus, should we agree it did happen.
So, we can reach the conclusion without presupposing God and make the case for
the resurrection without assuming the New Testament is inspired or even reliable
because if the most reasonable explanation necessitates the supernatural or a
miracle, then we do not need to establish a miracle is possible. Additionally, one way
to prove miracles are possible and have happened would be to take the best
evidenced miracle and use that as a means to establish the miracles have happened
and can happen. As the resurrection is best evidenced miracle, we can suggest the
resurrection evidence can also prove miracles can happen rather than have to make
a separate case for miracles.
We will argue the case for the resurrection based on ten well attested facts, agreed
to by the vast consensus of or all scholars, without assuming the New Testament is
inspired or even reliable so that the foundations of the argument are not disputable.
While we will not assume the New Testament is inspired, this does not mean we
cannot deduce historical facts from the text, just as while we do not assume the
Qur’an is inspired, we can still learn from Surah 5:116-117 that Christians proclaimed
the divinity of Jesus in the 7th century. Let’s look at the resurrection theory concerning
the evidence and then compare it with common competing theories which attempt to
explain the data.
a
See the document Does God Exist as well as various other proofs and formulations of these
arguments given by recommended apologists such as Trent Horn.
b
See the document The Reliability of the New Testament.
c
See the document Are Miracles Logically Possible?
5
Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion Just Outside Jerusalem
As a result of the many independent Christian, Jewish and Roman sources

concerning Jesus’ death by crucifixion, the scholarly consensus is unanimous and
definite that Jesus died by crucifixion. Obviously, this includes non-Christian
scholars, many of whom doubt the general historicity of the New Testament. Some of
the secular attestation of Jesus’ death by crucifixion that we can survey comes from
Tacitus, who is regarded as the greatest Roman historian and he was also the
proconsul of Asia from A.D. 112-113. Here, he is writing around A.D. 100 regarding
the great fire of A.D. 64 when Nero was emperor. He documented: “Hence to
suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with most
exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their
enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate,
procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius”. 2 Tacitus’ explains the means by which
Jesus was put to death was “the most extreme penalty”, which was crucifixion.
Tacitus is a very reliable source. Ronald Syme, who is one of the most highly
regarded Tacitus scholars, says: “the prime quality of Cornelius Tacitus is distrust. It
was needed if a man were to write about the Caesars.” 3 Michael Grant writes that
Tacitus “was careful to contrast what had been handed down orally with the literary
tradition… There is no doubt that [Tacitus] took a great deal of care in selecting his
material.” 4 Herbert Benario tells us that Tacitus “chose judiciously among his
sources, totally dependent upon none, and very often, at crucial points, ignored the
consensus of his predecessors to impose his own viewpoint and his own judgment.” 5
All Tacitean scholars support Tacitus’ reliability and integrity. Examples of other
scholars include Arnaldo Momigliano, 6 Ronald Martin, 7 Guy Chilver, 8 Donald
Dudley, 9 Rhiannon Ash 10 and Ronald Mellor. 11
Another example of secular historical attestation of Jesus’ crucifixion is Josephus,

who was born in A.D. 37 to the highly respected priest Matthias in Jerusalem, 12 so
would have known about Jesus from the Church at its inception. Moreover, when he
was young, Josephus was very pious in his Jewish faith and interested in spiritual
matters. 13 He wrote: a “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be
lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, 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. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at
the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
a
Translations of Josephus by William Whiston are considered to be inadequate. Whiston was
using a defective Greek text and also took some liberties in his translations for some parts.
However, there are few alternatives. This is mainly due to the popularity of Whiston’s translation. It
was first published in 1737 and has been available in the public domain for a long time. Its
common usage was enhanced further when it was republished in modern English in the 21st
century. As it is the most readily available, it is the most popular translation and is mistakenly taken
as a modern scholarly translation. In this document, when possible, more accurate and sound
translations have been cited. One recommended translation that we have used is by John Barclay.
Nevertheless, the passages used in this document are not affected in meaning or substance by
Whiston’s translation.
6
concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this
day.” 14
Josephus is a Jewish Historian, not a Christian, and scholars agree that this passage
has been interpolated. 15 This was probably done by a later Christian scribe.
However, this doesn’t mean the entire passage is fraudulent. The vast majority of
scholars believe it is simply doctored and all scholars of note hold that the passage is
an original once we take out the later interpolations. There are many internal
consistencies in this passage, including particular phrases such as “those that loved
him” that match the writing of Josephus. It is self explanatory that for interpolation to
occur, there needed to be an original and when reading the text, it appears as if the
scribe interacted with Josephus, such as the original “there was about this time
Jesus, a wise man” and the scribe’s “if it be lawful to call him a man”.
This theory was confirmed by further evidence discovered in 1971, as an Arabic

version of this passage was discovered as a quote in the 10th century writings of
Agapius of Hierapolis: “At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And
his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from
among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him
to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon
his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and
that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the
prophets have recounted wonders.” 16 The original uninterpolated passage is what
was found in the Arabic text.
The non-Christian Syriac Stoic philosopher Mara bar-Serapion records Jesus’ death
in reference to the killing of various wise persons in a letter from prison before his
execution. Even those whose wrote specifically to oppose Christianity, including the
Greek satirist Lucian and critic Celsus, a presuppose the crucifixion death of Jesus
happened in their writings. For instance, Lucian, who adds that this event took place
in Palestine, writes in The Passing of Peregrinus: “The Christians, you know, worship
a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and
was crucified on that account. …from the moment that they are converted, and deny
the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” 17 The
consensus of all historical scholars who teach in the field of teaches classics, ancient
history, New Testament, early Christianity or other such areas is totally unanimous
that Jesus was crucified.
All the most prominent atheist and skeptical scholars in such fields hold to this fact:
 Gerd Lüdemann says: “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of

crucifixion is indisputable.” 18
 E. P. Sanders includes Jesus’ crucifixion as one of the “almost indisputable
facts” about Jesus’ life. 19
 Skeptic John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus seminar holds that there is not
the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.”
a
The writings of Celsus are only preserved as quotes in Origen of Alexandria’s Contra Celsum,
which is a treatise in reply to Celsus. In this, Origen quotes Celsus and responds to his claims.
7
Crossan says that “That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything
historical can ever be.” 20
 Another member of the Jesus seminar, Marcus Borg, says that Jesus’
execution is the “most certain fact about the historical Jesus.” 21
 Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide says that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is
“historically certain.” 22
 Jewish convert Paula Fredriksen writes: “The single most solid fact about
Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or
around Passover in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political
insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.” 23
 Bart Ehrman, the most renowned scholar in related fields and the most
recognisable and authoritative skeptical New Testament scholar in the world
at present, writes: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was
crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” 24 He
presents 11 independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, which is
exemplary for ancient history. We can clearly see there is no question among
historians of Jesus’ death by crucifixion.
Objection: Jesus wasn’t dead after crucifixion and the accounts even attest
that He wasn’t on the cross long.
Some major proponents of this argument are Duncan Derrett, 25 Lloyd and Lloyd
Davies 26 and Barbara Thiering, who suggests this hidden meaning is in the text,
accessible to be solved by experts, which she took herself to be. Thiering also
suggests that Jesus Himself “may well have been involved in the making of the fourth
gospel”, 27 although, as Craig Evans writes, “I am not aware of a single competent
scholar on the planet who agrees with Thiering’s conclusions.” 28 “Most scholars have
ignored Barbara Thiering’s work because it is so subjective and idiosyncratic.” 29
Aside from the many sources attesting that Jesus did in fact die from the crucifixion,
we know a lot about crucifixion from recent history and Roman crucifixion was
particularly emphatic with a rigorous three step process. It started with a scourging or
flogging, 30 otherwise known as a half death, as the subject would be half dead by the
end. This was using a flagrum, otherwise known as a flagellum, which was like a
leather rope or whip with rope with metal balls, bones, and metal spikes. Records
show that people were beaten until their veins, arteries and bones were exposed and
their intestines had spilled out. This is recorded in the Martyrdom of Polycarp: “All the
martyrdoms, …who can fail to admire their nobleness of mind, and their patience,
with that love towards their Lord which they displayed?— who, when they were so
torn with scourges, that the frame of their bodies, even to the very inward veins and
arteries, was laid open, still patiently endured, while even those that stood by pitied
and bewailed them.” 31 All of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 32 Livy, 33 Philo 34 and
Josephus 35 report the torture of people via whips or fire prior to crucifixion and
Lucian reports an instance of a man being whipped, his eyes being put out and
tongue being cut out before crucifixion. 36
8
The second part was nailing the subject to a cross until he had finished gasping for
breath and we know quite a lot about the science of this stage. When someone
hangs with their arms above their head, without nails necessarily, the weight of the
body pulls down on the muscles surrounding the lungs; the intercostal, pectoral and
deltoid muscles. This constricts the lungs and the subject begins asphyxiating. As a
man loses consciousness when hanging this way in twelve minutes, the only way to
relieve this and avoid a very quick death is to push up, possible if the feet are tied or
nailed. You still cannot do this for long though without serious effort to counteract
gravity pulling you down. Moreover, soldiers would often break people’s ankles so
they could not push back up, showing they were familiar with how these crucifixions
worked anatomically. They didn’t do this with Jesus but they did deliver a death blow
by stabbing Him through the chest, consistent with the other ancient accounts of
stabbing victims following crucifixion.
This death blow was delivered via either stabbing through the heart as we
established, crushing of the head, burning or feeding to animals. The account of the
death blow in the gospels sheds further light on what happened because the medical
literature tells us how blood leaves the body with water, from the sack around the
heart called the pericardium, when stabbed through the heart through the side in
such a scenario, as described in the New Testament accounts such as John 19:34.
34. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and
water came out.
John 19:34 (NKJV)
Cardio-thoracic surgeon Dr. Antony de Bono writes: “Jesus had a haemothorax,

which in the stillness of the dead body, had separated out as they do into two layers:
the heavier red cells below and the light watery plasma above. The haemothorax was
the result of the savage flagellation. The withdrawal of the spear would have been
followed first by the red cells (blood), then by the lighter plasma (water). The body of
Jesus had been hanging on the cross, dead, for some time. Obviously the fluid must
have accumulated during life by a bleeding into the chest cavity, almost certainly due
to the savage flagellation. It is well known that blood in these circumstances in a still
dead body starts to separate out, to sediment, the heavier red cells sinking to the
bottom leaving a much lighter, straw colored fluid, the plasma above. When a hole is
made by the spear, the red cells, which John describes as blood, gushes out first,
followed by the plasma, which John saw as water.” 37 There was no way a person
could survive Roman crucifixion.
Sometimes, skeptics raise the point that Jesus wasn’t on the cross long.
44. Pilate marveled that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he
asked him if He had been dead for some time.
Mark 15:44 (NKJV)
Bearing in mind the treatment of Jesus prior to His crucifixion, such as being beaten
three times, it is no surprise He wasn’t on as long as usual. He was on the cross
around six hours, which is far too long to survive such a process, as we established.
9
This is before even taking into consideration the death blow. Pilate may have been
surprised because sometimes people were on the cross for days.
There is also an obvious error to the survival theory as pertaining to subsequent

appearances. If Jesus survived this process somehow, He would be in such a state
or shape as to be weakened beyond belief and seriously injured, even after days.
Mistaking the weakest state you’ve ever seen someone, who still has open wounds,
with having a glorified body is unimaginable. The Disciples would simply think He
was alive; they would never think He was resurrected.
Fact 2: Jesus Was Buried In A Nearby Tomb
For the empty tomb, we have multiple attestations by early sources, such as by Mark
from Mark 15:42-16:8 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, for which the Creed within is
dated to within 3 years of Jesus’ death by all scholars, no matter how liberal. Some
scholars even date it within months.
3. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, 4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures, 5. and that He was seen by Cephas, then
by the twelve. 6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of
whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7. After
that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8. Then last of all He was seen
by me also, as by one born out of due time.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NKJV)
The word used in the Creed is thaptó (θάπτω), which, as Dale Allison notes, means
“‘bury’ and would hardly be used of the unceremonious dumping of a criminal into an
unmarked trench as dog food: that was not a burial but its denial, Now whether or not
1 Cor 15:4 summarizes an early form of the story about Joseph of Arimathea, ‘it
would be strange,’ as Barnabas Lindars observed, ‘to include this detail in the
statement if the burial of Jesus was in fact unknown.’” 38
The early passion narrative in Mark’s Gospel also corroborates this account.
46. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen,
and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of
the tomb.
Mark 15:46 (NKJV)
And furthermore, as Bart Ehrman explains: “It is widely thought… the Gospel of John
did not rely on the other three Gospels for its information”, 39 so the Gospel of John is
another independent source.
40. Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices,
as the custom of the Jews is to bury.
John 19:40 (NKJV)
10
This is also bolstered by the early sermons in Acts, which are also early, independent
sources.
29. Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him
down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.
Acts 13:29 (NKJV)
There are also no alternate narratives in existence as to another occurrence. Why

would we ever suggest an alternate narrative when it has no support instead of a
narrative which every source is independently unanimous on?
Josephus also tells us that victims of crucifixion would receive a proper burial: “Nay,
they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without
burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they
took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the
going down of the sun.” 40
Jewish law demanded that even foreigners and criminals had to be buried, as we see
in Deuteronomy.
23. “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you
hang him on a tree, 23. his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall
surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God
is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 (NKJV)
This can also be seen in the writings of Josephus. In his work ‘Against Apion’, he tells
us: “However, there are other things which our legislator ordained for us beforehand,
which of necessity we ought to do in common to all men; as to afford fire, and water,
and food to such as want it; to show them the roads; not to let any one lie unburied.
He also would have us treat those that are esteemed our enemies with moderation;
for he doth not allow us to set their country on fire, nor permit us to cut down those
trees that bear fruit; nay, further, he forbids us to spoil those that have been slain in
war. He hath also provided for such as are taken captive, that they may not be
injured, and especially that the women may not be abused. …Thus hath our lawgiver
contrived to teach us an equitable conduct every way, by using us to such laws as
instruct us therein; while at the same time he hath ordained that such as break these
laws should be punished, without the allowance of any excuse whatsoever.” 41 He
elsewhere writes that “the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that
they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before
the going down of the sun.” 42
Dale Allison writes: “And then there is Sem. [Semahot] 2.11, which says that the days
of mourning were counted ‘from the time that [the relatives of a victim executed by
the government] despaired in their appeal [to obtain the body from the authorities for
burial] but [had] not [given up hope] of stealing it.’ This ruling, whose content is
consistent with an origin in the early Roman period, implies that the relatives of
11
executed criminals were accustomed to ask for the remains of a loved one.” 43 We
also know Pilate himself allowed the Jewish people to keep their customs, having
previously relented to the Jews over such incidents as the Roman shields at Herod’s
palace 44 and creating graven images. 45
We also have archaeological evidence for this. In 1968, an ossuary was found
containing the burial remains of a Jewish man called Yehohanan Ben Ha’galgol,
containing a seven inch nail driven through both his feet. His legs were also crushed,
confirming the practice of breaking the victim’s legs so they couldn’t push back up
and survive longer. Nevertheless, he received an honourable burial and his remains
were placed in a bone box. Some skeptics, like John Dominic Crossan, object that
this is a one-off instance, but archaeologist Jodi Magness strongly contests this,
writing: “Crossan’s assumption that we should have the physical (archaeological)
remains of additional crucified victims is erroneous for several reasons” and she
gives three. Aside from one exception, not one undisturbed tomb in Jerusalem has
ever been discovered and excavated by archaeologists. Most of the tombs would
have belonged to the wealthy elites who would have had the power and influence to
avoid crucifixion and the nail in Johanan’s heel was only preserved by a fluke, as she
writes: “…the means by which victims were affixed to crosses usually leave no
discernable traces in the physical remains or archaeological record.” 46
Most importantly, we would not expect to find such evidence often because most
crucifixion victims weren’t even nailed anyway, hence the remains would be
unrecognisable as those from a crucifixion and even when nails were used, they
were often pulled out following the crucifixion as they were prized. 47 As Byron
McCane writes: “If there had not been a knot strategically located in the wood of
Yehohanan's cross, the soldiers would have easily pulled the nail out of the cross. It
never would have been buried with Yehohanan, and we would never have known
that he had been crucified …it is surprising that we have identified even one.” 48
In the last decade, another victim was found, in the Abba cave, where someone had
been beheaded following crucifixion and had a nail through their wrist; likely to be the
remains of the last Hasmonean king. 49 Josephus and Cassius Dio support this death
too, as Josephus writes he was beheaded 50 and Cassius Dio that he was crucified
then killed, 51 matching the description from the cave. Crucifixion victims were
definitely allowed to be buried and were buried according to Jewish custom, fitting
with the Gospel accounts.
Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea is attested to by multiple, independent early

sources and Mark’s source material for the passion narrative is probably based on
eyewitness testimony and is dated to within 7 years of Jesus’ crucifixion by scholars
such as Rudolph Pesch. 52
43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for
the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the
body of Jesus.
Mark 15:43 (NKJV)
12
Paul also quotes this from an old Christian Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. We know
that the burial involving Joseph of Arimathea is what is being described by Paul
because the event order and process is identical.
Paul Barnett writes: “Careful consideration of the texts of Mark and John indicate that
neither of these Gospels is dependent on the other. Yet they have a number of
incidents in common: for example …the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathea.” 53
Bart Ehrman, who was initially skeptical of the empty tomb, remarks that “the earliest
accounts we have are unanimous in saying that Jesus was in fact buried by this
fellow, Joseph of Arimathea”. 54
John Robinson of Cambridge writes that the burial of Jesus is “one of the earliest and
best-attested facts about Jesus.” 55
The burial of Jesus also meets the criterion of embarrassment, as they had to admit
they could not afford their own tomb to bury Jesus and had to instead use the tomb
of a member of the court who just executed Him. The evidence for Jesus’ burial is
overwhelming and only a few skeptical scholars in the Jesus seminar deny the burial
account of Jesus. Furthermore, it would be incredible for the Jews to admit the tomb
was empty, which we will cover later, if there had never been a burial.
The only supporting evidence that Jesus could have possibly been left on the cross
then dumped in a mass grave are some Roman sources which do not specify the
practice in Judea and contradict all our expectations of what the practice in Judea
was. Meanwhile, the evidence supporting a burial is:
 Roman sources say crucified victims could be buried.

 Jewish sources say crucified victims must be buried.
 Remains of two crucified victims show they could be properly buried.
 Rome allowed the Jews to continue their sacred rituals and customs.
 The burial of Jesus is multiply attested.
 The burial of Jesus fits with descriptions of standard Jewish burial practices.
 There is no reason for the Gospels to make up the entombment story.
 The Gospel story doesn’t hinge on this and would be risky to invent.
 Pilate had a valid reason to allow the bodies to be removed.
 Pilate had a history of granting the Jewish people their wishes despite
originally relenting.
 There are no competing early traditions.
There is no reason to doubt the Biblical sources whatsoever and it is very highly
probable that Jesus was buried by Joseph.
13
Objection: The Romans wouldn’t bury the crucified. They would be left to rot
as an example to others then thrown in a mass grave.
There is evidence for this claim, cited by Bart Ehrman. 56 Many sources tells us that
bodies were left on the crosses, such as Horace; “You shall not therefore feed the
carrion crows on the cross”, 57 an ancient inscription; “The murderer was ‘hung …
alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey’”, 58 Artemidorus; “…a crucified man is
raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds” 59 and Juvenal; “The
vulture flies to its young bringing pieces of carrion, Morsels from dead cattle or dogs,
or from crucifixions…” 60 Ehrman adds; “…there is a bit of gallows humour in the
Satyricon of Petronius, a one-time advisor to the emperor Nero, about a crucified
victim being left for days on the cross (chaps. 11-12).” 61
We also have multiple sources who attest to criminals being put in mass graves at
this time, including Diodorus; “…amongst all the Greeks it was the general law that
temple-robbers should be cast forth without burial”, 62 Dio Chrysostom; “I believe,
traitors are denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace whatever of a
wicked man”, 63 Tacitus; “…anyone who was legally condemned and executed
‘forfeited his estate and was debarred from burial’” 64 and Suetonius; “one of his
captives begged for a burial, to which Octavian replied, ‘The birds will soon settle that
question.’” 65
The issue with these sources is that they do not shed any light on Roman execution
processes in Judea during peacetime and since all provinces were governed
according to local rules, 66 we cannot posit this as evidence for all of Rome. As R.
Larry Overstreet documents: “Generally speaking, Roman law allowed the local law
of each province to be exercised without much interference.” 67 Wolfgang Kunkel
says: “…local administration, the administration of justice as between the natives of
the provinces, and many other tasks were in general simply left to the political organs
of the subject people.” 68 Laws and procedures varied from province to province.
Prior to the events of the Jewish war, all the evidence suggests burial seemed to be
the custom in Judea. For example, at one point, as Philo transcribes, the Jews
“appealed to Pilate to redress the infringement of their traditions caused by the
shields and not to disturb the customs which throughout all the preceding ages had
been safeguarded without disturbance by kings and by emperors.” 69 He adds:
“Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed”. The
Jews even wrote a letter to Tiberius, who sided with them on this issue: “And those
who were in power in our nation... wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius... for
immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter,
reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented
audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the
shields.” 70 It is clear that each province operated on different rules, otherwise they
would not have written to Tiberius.
Josephus adds more weight to this in writing of creating idols and graven images:
“He should rather have admired the magnanimity and moderation of the Romans in
not requiring their subjects to violate their national laws…” 45 He writes elsewhere
14
that they “…have trained our courage, not with a view to waging war for self-
aggrandizement, but in order to preserve our laws.” 71 Additionally, he adds: “there is
not a Jew so distant from his country, so much in awe of a cruel despot, but has
more fear of the Law than of him.” 72 In another work, he tells us: “The Roman
procurators who succeeded Agrippa I kept the peace “by abstaining from all
interference with the customs of the country…” 73 As Jewish rituals and customs were
allowed to continue, we have no reason to expect the custom of burying criminals
would be impeded by Rome. The Romans, at least during the time of peaceful
occupation, allowed the Jews to maintain their practices.
Someone might further object that because Jesus was so contentious, He wouldn’t
have received this treatment but this is ad hoc considering all the evidence to the
contrary. Furthermore, even if it was true, this might just explain a passage from John
where Joseph secretly asks for the body, so it still doesn’t contradict Jesus’ burial.
38. After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of
the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave
him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus.
John 19:38 (NKJV)
As archaeologist Jodi Magness states: “The Mishnah attaches no stigma to

crucifixion by the Roman authorities and does not prohibit victims of crucifixion from
being buried with their families. In contrast, felons who were executed for violating
Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs or burial grounds: ‘And they did not
bury [the felon] in the burial grounds of his ancestors, But there were two graveyards
made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled,
and one for those who were stoned or burned’ (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5).” 46 While
the Mishnah doesn’t cover all of 1st century Judea, this is still additional evidence for
the time. More secondary evidence from across Rome comes from Quintilian: “As for
those who die on the cross, the executioner does not forbid the burying of those who
have been pierced.” 74 This supports the piercing seen in John 19:34.
34. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and
water came out.
John 19:34 (NKJV)
Should the governor allow it, which seems highly likely from the sources, we can only
conclude that the idea Jesus would be thrown into a mass grave is not a reasonable
assumption.
Objection: Joseph of Arimathea never existed and was a literary invention to

place Jesus in the tomb. Also, the town of Arimathea has never been found.
Ignoring the multiple independent sources attesting to him burying Jesus, as a rich
man and member of the Jewish Sanhedrin who crucified Jesus, Joseph is an unlikely
invention. The Sanhedrin was in effect a Jewish high court comprising of 70 of the
leading men of Judaism presiding in Jerusalem. Joseph is the very last person you
15
would expect to do this given the condemnation of the Sanhedrian that sealed Jesus’
fate at the cross. As Raymond Brown explains, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very
probable” as it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a
Jewish Sanhedrist who gives Jesus fair treatment, 75 especially given they had
engineered the death of Jesus. Dale Allison even says that this “goes against the
tendency of the passion traditions” and that the Gospel authors have to go out of
their way to point out Joseph was an exception to explain this occurrence. He also
states that there is no reason for the early Church to fabricate the tomb story, 76 as
the Gospel story could have worked without it.
Dale Allison asks: “Are we to believe that Christians who acknowledge the
humiliation of crucifixion were somehow unable to allow that Jesus was denied a
decent burial, as though the latter were so more dreadful than the former?” 77 There
would be no reason to hide a shameful burial and this would have only fit with their
theme, as J. Spencer Kennard explains: “If Christianity had fashioned the
entombment on the basis of prophecy it would have left the body [Isaiah 53:9] with
the corpses of other criminals”. 78 There would be absolutely no issue with admitting
this fact should it have happened.
As far as Arimathea goes, we haven’t found hundreds and hundreds of cities

described in ancient sources, including the huge and important capital of Akkad.
Furthermore, Arimathea might just be a variant pronunciation of Ramatha, a city
found in the writings of Josephus. 79 Richard Carrier presents a theory that Arimathea
can be translated as ‘best Disciple town’; ari is a prefix of best, math being Disciple,
mathétés, and aia is a suffix of place. 80 This is a laughable fringe theory without a
shred of historical data, only promoted by Jesus mythicists. It is speculation at very
best and an etymological fallacy at worst; like translating Boston as ‘boss town’.
David Pack promotes similar ideas in claiming that Britain and America are
prophesised in the Bible using this same flawed theory, saying that some landmarks
and locations, such as Danube, Doncaster and Dan-Sower, could have been derived
from the name Dan. 81 Furthermore, there is no evidence elsewhere in the Bible in
the texts of fake, invented towns.
Objection: The accounts are incorrect when they claim the stone at Jesus’
tomb was round.
46. Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he
laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against
the door of the tomb.
Mark 15:46 (NKJV)
Archaeologist Amos Kloner states the following: “Of the more than 900 burial caves
from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known
to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.” 82 These tombs belonged to the
wealthiest, even royal, families in the area. It is extremely unlikely Joseph of
Arimathea would have such a tomb. Most tombs from this time period had a cork-
shaped stone used to seal them, more square in shape.
16
However, this objection is picky to assert because large objects can be described to
roll away, not necessarily just round ones. Dale Allison writes: “Kloner suggests that
προσxυλίω and äποκυλίω could refer to rolling or moving an unrounded object. This
seems plausible; cf. Josh 10:18 LXX; 2 Kgs 9:33 LXX; Diodorus Siculus 17.68.2.” 83
The passages he cites here show that other objects were described as being rolled.
18. So Joshua said, “Roll large stones against the mouth of the cave, and set men
by it to guard them.
Joshua 10:18 (NKJV)
33. Then he said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down, and some of her
blood spattered on the wall and on the horses; and he trampled her underfoot.
2 Kings 9:33 (NKJV)
And in Diodorus; “but when he was about half-way through the hard part, they
suddenly attacked him and rolled down from above huge boulders, which falling
suddenly upon the massed ranks of the Macedonians killed many of them.”
Even people are described as rolling in the New Testament texts. Archaeologist
Shimon Gibson writes: “…from my own (back-breaking) experience in archaeological
excavations with the opening of stone doors of tombs, it is clear to me that even a
rectangular or square stone had to be ‘rolled’ in and out of position when a tomb was
being closed or opened. There are hundreds of examples of tombs from this period in
the Jerusalem area, with small entrances sealed with rectangular or square doors.” 84
The accounts also suggest the stone was not circular but rather a boulder.
2. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended
from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Matthew 28:2 (NKJV)
Amos Kloner notes: “In Matthew 28 an angel sits on the stone after ‘rolling’ it back. If
the stone had been rolled back between two walls, as was the case with Second
Temple period round stones, it would have been impossible to sit on it. Indeed, it
would be difficult to sit on the edge of a disk-shaped stone even if it had been pulled
back from the tomb entrance. A square blocking stone would make a much better
perch.” 82
Fact 3: The Disciples Believed They Saw Jesus Appear After His Death
It is almost unanimous among scholars that after Jesus died, His disciples claimed
that He appeared to them alive.
Bart Ehrman writes: “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at
some later time insisted that… he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he
had been raised from the dead.” 85 Ehrman also writes elsewhere: “It is a historical
17
fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the
dead soon after his execution.” 86 Ehrman has always been consistent on this fact,
telling us: “It is undisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he
had been raised from the dead, and that something had to have happened to make
them think so. Our earliest records are consistent on this point.” 87
In an interview with Peter Jennings’ ABC documentary “The Search for Jesus”, Paula
Fredriksen said: “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.” 88
Gerd Lüdemann writes: “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the
disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the
risen Christ.” 89
E. P. Sanders tells us: “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. “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. Moreover, a calculated deception should have produced great unanimity.
Instead, there seem to have been competitors: ‘I saw him first!’ ‘No! I did.’ Paul’s
tradition that 500 people saw Jesus at the same time has led some people to suggest
that Jesus’ followers suffered mass hysteria. But mass hysteria does not explain the
other traditions.” He adds: “Finally we know that after his death his followers
experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but
transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they
died for it.”” 90
Even Richard Carrier concedes this fact and says: “I think it more probable that Peter
and James, and certainly Paul, maybe several others, saw something that inspired
their faith… I think it most likely that others had these visions earlier than Paul, and
that Paul's letters give more or less a correct version of his own experiences (such as
his persecution of the early believers)”. 91
The unanimity is due to multiple attestation among various sources, including Paul’s
epistles, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke and Acts and Josephus. There is seemingly no
way to explain the rapid and sudden rise of Christianity if this did not happen.
Something had to happen so that the disciples could start the world’s largest religion
from essentially nothing. Other Messianic movements fell apart after the death of
their leader, such as the movement of Simon bar Kokhba.
So, if we don’t accept the New Testament is reliable, how do we know the
testimonies are reliable and they are not simply making the appearances up? First of
all, before we can evaluate whether eyewitness testimony is unreliable, we can’t
discount them due to the bias or beliefs of the authors. Every source had biases but
18
when we analyse the Gospels, they have all the indicators of Greco-Roman
biography and they should be considered as such. We can’t single them out because
of miracle reports either because, aside from Thucydides, all the ancient historians
do the same, including Tacitus, Suetonius and Herodotus, who is known as the
‘father of history’. Jews who had been in the holocaust writing about the death camps
obviously have bias but is irrelevant; these biases are unavoidable and incidental. If
the authors really did witness the risen Jesus then of course they would believe it.
We cannot have a methodology by which their writings cannot be considered.
Eyewitness testimony is unreliable in various scenarios. For instance, when events

happen quickly or over a few seconds, it is hard to retain memory of an event. When
people go out seeking something, for example Bigfoot, they can fool themselves into
thinking they have found something. When participants are all strangers, it is hard to
retain memories afterwards as you were around unfamiliar people. Unreliable
testimony also occurs when it involves a person of a different race. Lastly, it is hard
to retain memory when there is a weapon involved, because everyone present is
focused on the weapon. With the resurrection, there was obviously no weapon
involved and the disciples are intimately familiar with Jesus.
that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8. Then last of all He was seen
by me also, as by one born out of due time.
41. not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate
and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
Acts 10:41 (NKJV)
36. Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and
said to them, “Peace to you.” 37. But they were terrified and frightened, and
supposed they had seen a spirit. 38. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled?
And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39. Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I
Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I
have.” 40. When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41. But
while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any
food here?” 42. So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43.
And He took it and ate in their presence. 44. Then He said to them, “These are the
words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning
Me.” 45. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the
Scriptures. 46. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary
for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47. and that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem. 48. And you are witnesses of these things. 49. Behold, I
19
send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you
are endued with power from on high.”
Luke 24:36-49 (NKJV)
The disciples certainly did not expect Jesus to be raised from the dead and it is even
reported repeatedly that they misunderstood the Scriptures and what Jesus had
claimed. They did not expect Him to come back.
31. And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three
days rise again. 32. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and
began to rebuke Him.
Mark 8:31-32 (NKJV)
21. From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to
Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and
be killed, and be raised the third day. 22. Then Peter took Him aside and began to
rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” 23. But
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for
you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Matthew 16:21-23 (NKJV)
10. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other
women with them, who told these things to the apostles. 11. And their words seemed
to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them.
6. Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You
at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
Acts 1:6 (NKJV)
9. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
John 20:9 (NKJV)
24. Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus
came. 25. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”So he
said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into
the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26. And after
eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27. Then He said
to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand
here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28. And Thomas
answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29. Jesus said to him, “Thomas,
because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not
seen and yet have believed.”
John 20:24-29 (NKJV)
In the reports, the events do not happen quickly or over a few seconds. Jesus eats
20
with them and engages in conversations, as we have seen in Acts 10 and Luke 24 as
well as John.
1. After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of
Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself: 2. Simon Peter, Thomas called the
Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His
disciples were together. 3. Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.”They said
to him, “We are going with you also.” They went out and immediately got into the
boat, and that night they caught nothing. 4. But when the morning had now come,
Jesus stood on the shore; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5. Then
Jesus said to them, “Children, have you any food?”They answered Him, “No.” 6. And
He said to them, “Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.”
So they cast, and now they were not able to draw it in because of the multitude of
fish. 7. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” Now
when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment (for he had
removed it), and plunged into the sea. 8. But the other disciples came in the little boat
(for they were not far from land, but about two hundred cubits), dragging the net with
fish. 9. Then, as soon as they had come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and
fish laid on it, and bread. 10. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you
have just caught.” 11. Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large
fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not
broken. 12. Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples
dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. 13. Jesus then came
and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. 14. This is now the third
time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.
John 21:1-14 (NKJV)
As the events were prolonged, this cannot account for why the testimony would be
unreliable. Even if someone discounts the Gospels and Acts as unreliable, we still
have earlier Creeds and oral sermons preserved too, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Acts
2:32 and Acts 10:34-43, which preserves the following sermon.
34. Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no
partiality. 35. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is
accepted by Him. 36. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching
peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37. that word you know, which was
proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which
John preached: 38. how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and
with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the
devil, for God was with Him. 39. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both
in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40.
Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41. not to all the
people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with
Him after He arose from the dead. 42. And He commanded us to preach to the
people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living
and the dead. 43. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever
believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”
Acts 10:34-43 (NKJV)
21
Clement of Rome and Polycarp also write about Jesus’ appearances to the disciples.
The Creed provided by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, a list of witnesses Jesus was said to
have appeared to, is dated to within three years of Pentecost, delivered to the church
in Corinth several years before Paul’s writing in 55 AD and received by Paul even
earlier than that, either when he visited the Apostles in Jerusalem or possibly even at
his conversion.
that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
The reasons for this dating are overwhelming. Factors demonstrating its legitimacy
as a very early source include the mnemonic structure with parallelism, it being less
than 50 words and it being an early Creed for new Christians, so easy to learn and
memorise. This was so that the largely illiterate audience would remember and could
pass it on, which was why Jesus often taught in parables with a memorable structure.
The statement “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received” is a
Rabbinic statement of a teacher passing something on to his students that he was
taught, meaning it came from the disciples themselves very early on before they
could teach it to Paul. Peter is also called Cephas, which was an early name for him
and only later on was he called Peter, seen in Matthew 16:18. As the scholars
conclude, this language in the Creedal statement is definitively early apostolic
preaching.
Furthermore, it has an independent tradition not dependent on the Gospels, such as

the appearance to James and the independent appearance to Peter. Scholars date
the Creed to within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion, likely no earlier than Paul’s visit
to Jerusalem in 36 AD in Galatians 1:18. Skeptical scholars agree. This is because
Paul had his Damascus experience two or three years later before going into Arabia
alone for three years, then going to Jerusalem and spending 15 days with Peter and
meeting James. This means the Gospel they discussed and he received was likely at
most 6 years after the original sources, who circulated Creeds almost immediately
following the crucifixion and hence at most a few years until before Paul had his
experience. Gerald O’Collins says he does not know of a single New Testament
scholar who dates the Creed past the mid 40s. 92
 James Dunn, one of the most influential and renowned historical Jesus
scholars ever, states: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was
formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” 93 He teaches that the
latest that this form could have been memorised was six months after Jesus’
crucifixion.
 Michael Goulder writes that it “goes back at least to what Paul was taught
when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion”. 94
22
 Ulrich Wilckens writes that the Creed “indubitably goes back to the oldest
phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” 95
 Gerd Lüdemann tells us “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the
first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus.” 96
 Paul Barnett says “within two or three years of the First Easter.” 97
 Richard Burridge and Graham Gould state it is “from only a few years after
Jesus’ death.” 98
 Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar place the Creed within two or three years
at most: “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.” 99
 Richard Hays puts it “within about three years after Jesus was crucified in
Jerusalem.” 100
 Alexander Wedderburn maintains that “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’
here …most probably in the first half of the 30s.” 101
 Some scholars, such as Walter Kasper, even feel the Creed was in use as
early 30 AD. 102
C. H. Dodd notes that the speeches in Acts seem very early because they lack
influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary, contain a high degree of semitism,
likely original Aramaic, and they lack resemblance to the original written elements of
Acts and Luke. 103
The Arabic version of Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum also records the following:
“They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was
alive”. 16
The resurrection accounts for this because if Jesus did rise from the dead, reporting
physical appearances is completely coherent. As N. T. Wright notes, in the ancient
world, visions of the deceased are not evidence that the person is alive, but evidence
that they are dead. We can clearly see in ancient pagan and Jewish texts regarding
apparitions. 104
Furthermore, when it comes to the 500, most of these witnesses were still alive at the
time and could be questioned. 105 The multiple appearances are also given in a
chronological order, which meant for Paul they are grounded in history. 106 As Trent
Horn said in a 2022 debate: “Paul says that he knew that people were involved. He
said some of them are still alive. You can go and talk to them. He says it happened at
once. And Paul had a lot of credibility on the line here. In his second letter to the
Corinthians, Paul talks about super apostles, people who were his enemies, who
were trying to discredit him. He had people who were enemies, and he had people in
Corinth who were denying the resurrection even happened at all. And he issued a
challenge to go and check this out. And in the early Christian community, people
were tight-knit, knew one another. Travel was frequent to go to Jerusalem for
Passover, for example. So Paul threw down the gauntlet to check these facts. And
actually, his technique in doing that mirrors what Josephus does in the antiquities
23
about the historical events of the Jewish war. He says, go, if you don’t believe me.
Go and check it out yourself.” 107
Moreover, this was not a later invention as it appears in the earlier accounts at the
time in which the witnesses would still be alive but does not appear in the later
accounts. 108 This was likely because the writers of the later accounts could not
personally verify this testimony or it wasn’t particularly significant to their audience.
Some scholars also think the appearance to the 500 is the appearance in Galilee
detailed in Matthew 28:16-18. 109
Fact 4: Skeptics Believed They Saw Jesus Appear After His Death
James and the brothers of Jesus, such as Jude, were not His followers before, during
and immediately after His crucifixion until the appearances. Once again, this is
almost unanimously accepted among scholars, including Betz, Conzelmann, Craig,
Derret, Ehrman, Funk, Hoover, Kee, Koester, Ladd, Lorenzen, Lüdemann, Meier,
Oden, Osborne, Pannenberg, Sanders, Spong, Struhlmacher and Wedderburn. 110
5. For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

John 7:5 (NKJV)
31. Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him,
calling Him. 32. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look,
Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” 33. But He answered
them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” 34. And He looked around in a
circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!
35. For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
Mark 3:31-35 (NKJV)
All scholars accept that Paul was an enemy of the Church originally and a later
convert. 111 This is because we can develop a rough chronology of Paul’s life based
on biographical comments made throughout his writings added together with the
dating of his writings. Based on the chronology that is accepted by everybody familiar
with the field, Paul started out as a persecutor of Christians soon after Jesus’ death,
within 2 years. Paul admits being a persecutor himself and cites an early Creed in
Galatians.
22. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23.
But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith
which he once tried to destroy.”
Galatians 1:22-23 (NKJV)
If we add the account in Acts, we have three sources, so multiple attestations, and it
meets the criterion of embarrassment as Paul reports himself that he was once the
enemy, in the wrong and a persecutor. He also spent 15 days with Peter as we
discussed earlier and, as Bart Ehrman says, eyewitness testimony and testimony in
general cannot get much better than a skeptic and enemy reversing all his views
24
upon a tangible personal experience for which he knows if it is true or false as well as
spending time and verifying the experience with others who were close to Jesus and
witnessed themselves.
James was likewise a skeptic convert to Christianity following Jesus’ appearance to

him. Shortly after the appearance, he became a leading spokesman of the early
Church, as we can see in Acts 15:1-21 and 21:17-26. It is clear when we read the
early material of Paul and the writings of Josephus that the leader of the Jerusalem
church was James.
19. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:19 (NKJV)
9. and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10. They
desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was
eager to do. 11. Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face,
because he was to be blamed; 12. for before certain men came from James, he
would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:9-12 (NKJV)
7. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

1 Corinthians 15:7 (NKJV)
This is backed up by Josephus, who documents: “so he assembled the sanhedrim of

judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose
name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be
stoned”. 112 As we saw before in John 7:5 and Mark 3:31-35, all evidence suggests
James did not believe Jesus was the Christ during His ministry and no early Christian
would dare accuse a prominent leader such as James by falsely claiming he was
once Jesus’ enemy. 113 James also was not listed as present at the cross in John
19:25-27 and Jesus chose to surrender His mother over to a disciple, which would
also suggest James and His brothers were not followers.
The resurrection hypothesis explains appearances to skeptics because it is obvious

why skeptics would change their worldview if they saw the risen Jesus.
Fact 5: To The Surrounding World, The Gospel Message Was

Unexpected And Off-putting
To the ancient world, a culture that thrived on honour and status, the message of
Jesus dying then rising for our sins was repulsive. Critics of Christianity always
referred to the death of Jesus as shameful and the idea of God dying on a cross as
ludicrous. David deSilva concurs with this, telling us that Christianity was founded on
25
a premise that should have failed the moment it began in such a culture. 114 The
Christians were preaching to the gentiles to worship a Jewish man shamefully
executed on the cross. Jews were also looked down upon in Roman culture and
even further, He was a carpenter, also looked down upon, as we see in the writings
of Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero, who calls it vulgar and compares it to
slavery. 115 Additionally to this, they preached physical resurrection, which was
detested by most pagans in this Roman culture, who thought that death was an
escape from the bad material universe into the spiritual realm. Christians also placed
high ethical demands upon new converts, putting pay to popular occurrences such as
temple prostitution and affairs. Morality was radically challenged by Christians and as
David deSilva writes: “The message about this Christ was incompatible with the most
deeply rooted religious ideology of the Gentile world, as well as the more recent
message propagated in Roman imperial ideology.” 116
There was a bitter dispute between Christian teaching and the culture. This can be
seen through what opponents of Christianity said, such as Celsus, who wrote around
A.D. 177: “if Jesus had really wished to manifest his divine power, he ought to have
shown himself to those who ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him,
and to all without reservation.” 117 He writes later that “…he ought accordingly to have
at once disappeared from the cross.” 118 Celsus mocked Christians for believing in a
God when He could not beat the Romans or escape from the cross. Justin Martyr
responded to similar attacks in which pagans were calling Christians mad for putting
a crucified man next to the eternal God: “For they proclaim our madness to consist in
this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal
God, the Creator of all”. 119 The Jews also thought the Gospel message was
embarrassing as the supposed Messiah was crucified and murdered by the Roman
enemy. The Messiah was expected to be a conqueror who would defeat Rome and
restore the kingdom of Israel and to follow Jesus would be to give up on this idea.
Added to this, Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee, areas looked down upon by the
Jews.
46. And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip
said to him, “Come and see.”
John 1:46 (NKJV)
41. Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Will the Christ come out of
Galilee?
John 7:41 (NKJV)
The supposed true identity of His father was also not known to the Jews, which they
were suspicious of.
41. You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of
fornication; we have one Father—God.”
John 8:41 (NKJV)
Everything that Christians stood for worked against them and was contrary to what
the cultures of the time stood for. In short, they had to have good evidence and truly
26
believe Jesus had been raised because the odds were completely against them on
every front. However, the resurrection would explain this because if they knew it was
true through the resurrection, then they would not have any regard for odds and
earthly consequences, they would only care about serving the Lord. They preached
this embarrassing and dangerous message because it was true.
Fact 6: The Belief Of Resurrection Originated With The Resurrection

Appearances And Was Not A Prior Held Expectation Or Belief
The Christian belief of God and the Messiah is unlike anything seen in the ancient
world. Unlike the Jews, the Christian believed that the Messiah was Jesus, who died
and was physically resurrected. This was unlike anything second-temple Jews were
thinking of in relation to the Messiah. They instead believed the Messiah would be a
conqueror who restored the rule of Israel. No one thought the Messiah, God in the
flesh, would come, die and save us from our sins. Many laymen attempt to say that
this belief was copied from paganism but all these comparisons are patently false. a
This claim is also not supported by any New Testament scholarship.
One glaring reason for this being false before even investigating comparisons is that
the pagans did not believe you could come back from death. From Homer to Plato,
all ancient pagans agreed that death was the end. Aeschylus said: “Once a man has
died, and the dust has soaked up his blood, there is no resurrection.” 120 Callimachus
wrote a dialogue in which one person asks a soul in hades if there was a way out: “O
Charidas, what of the word below? “Much darkness.” And what of the upward way?
“A lie.”” 121 In the Iliad and Odyssey, the theme is also obvious; once you are dead,
you stay dead indefinitely. For instance, in the Iliad, when Priam mourns the death of
his son Hector, Achilles tells her: “Lamenting for your son will do you no good at all.
You will be dead yourself before you bring him back to life.” 122 In the Odyssey,
Odysseus journeys to the underworld and engages with dead spirits but even though
they desire it, none of them have any chance at returning from the underworld: “…as
soon as a spirit leaves the white bones, and the ghost, like a dream, flutters off and is
gone”. 123
Pinder, Plato and Cicero argued that although the body would die, the soul was
immortal, so while there was a kind of heaven they could hope for, it wasn’t a bodily
resurrection but a purely spiritual existence in a purely spiritual realm. They would
have actually been disappointed by a bodily resurrection because the pagans sought
liberation from physical existence. N. T. Wright tells us: “…neither in Plato nor in the
major alternatives just mentioned do we find any suggestion that resurrection, the
return to bodily life of the dead person, was either desirable or possible.” 124
One of the few tales involving a return to bodily life in the ancient pagan world is the
story of Hercules’ rescue of Alcestis from the underworld but this can’t be seen as
similar to Christian belief (i.e. an eternal physical existence). Alcestis was only
resuscitation; the bringing back to a mortal existence only to die again rather than
coming back in a transformed, glorified body never to die again. Celsus and other
a
See the document Was Jesus A Copy Of Other Gods And Figures?
27
pagan critics dismissed these stories as impossible and fiction. 125 Pagans didn’t take
these stories seriously or have them as core doctrine; they were something to poke
fun at.
Even in Egypt, as N. T. Wright says: “There was no eschatology, no apocalypse, no

collective cataclysm, because there was no crisis. Death was life.” 126 Death was just
a continuation, a next step in the next world. Cult beliefs simply did not include this,
as Stanley Porter writes: “…bodily resurrection is not a part of such cults and their
beliefs.” 127
While there was a variety of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife, ranging from people
such as Philo, who agreed with Plato that heaven would be a disembodied existence,
to the Sadducees, who thought there was no afterlife at all and when we die, we rot
in the grave and our existence ends. The majority of the Jews held to the Pharisaic
idea that at the end of time, God would resurrect His saints into an eternal, physical
existence 128 based on Daniel 12:2-3 and 12:13, LXX Job 19:26 and 42:17, LXX
Isaiah 26:19, LXX Hosea 13:14, 1 Enoch 51, 62:13-15 and 91:10, The Apocalypse of
Moses, Shemoneh Esre, Biblical Antiquities (Pseudo-Philo), 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the
Babylonian Talmud in Sanhedrian 90-91 and many other texts. 129
2. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to
everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3. Those who are wise
shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to
righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.
Daniel 12:2-3 (NKJV)
13. “But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your
inheritance at the end of the days.”
Daniel 12:13 (NKJV)
Christian belief differs from this in many different ways. To explain how this
happened is difficult because Christian writers made resurrection their central theme,
as opposed to Jewish works from that area and era, which never mention
resurrection, let alone have it as a central and defining theme, as Paul says.
14. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
The Jews also did not know what resurrection would be like. In the little Jewish
writing we have on it, there is dispute over whether it would be like a shining star, as
Daniel said, or a body like we currently have. Unlike the Jews, the Christians claimed
to know exactly what the resurrected body would be like, based on what they
believed had happened to Jesus, not from what they had read from the Old
Testament. Christians like Matthew and Paul constantly appealed to the Old
Testament to demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfilment of the law yet they never
appealed to the Old Testament to describe the resurrected body. If they were rifling
through the Old Testament to support the idea of a resurrected Messiah, why
wouldn’t they use the Old Testament and describe Jesus along the same lines as
28
Daniel? This defies the whole point of using the Old Testament to give the story
legitimacy in the first place so there is absolutely no evidence or reason to think this
is what happened.
The resurrection of the dead is also a two stage process. The resurrection happened
to Jesus in advance contrary to all God’s people at the end of time. The only people
to ever suggest something like this were the Christians. Saints who had previously
died, like the early prophets, were said to have been vindicated by God and would be
resurrected with all God’s people at the end of time. No one ever claimed it had
already happened to anyone. The Christians would never use resurrection as a way
to describe the vindication of a martyr because no Jew had ever done this in the
past. This story of one man in the middle of time being resurrected is completely
incompatible with Jewish expectations as well as pagan beliefs and expectations.
Finally, the Christians claimed that Jesus was the Messiah specifically because of
His resurrection. No Jews expected this because none of them ever imagined the
Messiah would die; let alone a shameful and humiliating death such as this, let alone
by the Roman enemy. This idea should have dispelled hope that He was the Messiah
instantaneously, like other supposed Messiahs from that time. Of the several
Messianic movements before and after the time of Jesus, almost all ended with the
death of the alleged Messiah, such as Simon bar Giora, and no one ever took this as
proof that they were. People took this as proof that they weren’t the Messiah and the
movements always either disbanded and crumbled or simply replaced them with a
new Messiah. Christians even had a likely candidate for this, James, who was even
the leader of the early Church, but as Josephus reported, no one ever called him the
Messiah. 111 Christianity is nothing like any other Messianic movement of the time or
prior.
Something had to occur to cause this radical new belief and give the Disciples a new
perspective and new information would need to be introduced. They wouldn’t have
been able to suddenly invent a physical, bodily resurrection in a glorified transformed
body then ascension if they had a vision or even simply saw Jesus back as normal.
They saw the glorified body of Jesus, which is also why they didn’t always
immediately recognise Him.
If the resurrection actually occurred, this would easily account for why this belief took
shape; it was simply a truthful report of what actually happened. We cannot suggest
that this belief would have simply arisen from nothing. If we cannot establish a
possible train of thought whereupon the result would be belief in the resurrection,
then it would be hugely improbable and we are simply operating solely on hindsight.
Objection: There are other resurrections in the Bible.
This is simply mistaking terms as the other alleged resurrections in the Bible weren’t
the same as what we see with Jesus and were never defined as resurrections; they
are better described as resuscitations, where upon coming back to life, the person
continues life in that mortal body. As Brant Pitre writes: “First, when the Jewish
29
disciples of Jesus spoke about his resurrection, they were not claiming that he had
simply come back to ordinary earthly life. This is what we would call “resuscitation.”
Think here of the prophet Elijah raising the widow's son from the dead (i Kings 17:17-
24); or of Jesus bringing Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter back to life (see Matthew
9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56); or of Jesus raising his friend Lazarus from the
dead after he had been "four days" in the tomb (John 11:38-44). In all of these cases,
the person is miraculously brought back to life. Eventually, however, each one of
them—the widow's son, Jairus's daughter, and Lazarus—would die again.” 130
To the Jews, resurrection was specifically coming back in a glorified body and when
the Christians discuss the resurrection of Jesus, they mean He was resurrected in a
glorified body never to die again, not what resurrection necessarily means in the
modern use of the word which is being applied to other places in the Bible here. An
authentic resurrection as defined by Christianity and the wider culture at the time is
never seen elsewhere of anyone else and only the Christians said this only about
Jesus.
Fact 7: Woman Were Considered As Inferior, As Unreliable Witnesses

And As Discrediting Of Testimony In The Ancient World.
It was well established in the ancient world that the testimony of women was not to
be trusted. They even had half the say of a man in court. Josephus, for instance,
writes: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and
boldness of their sex”. 131 The Talmud echoes this principle: “Although in certain
cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., to testify to the death of someone’s
husband, in the majority of cases her testimony is not valid.” 132 Rabbi Eleazar said:
“The words of the Torah should be burned rather than entrusted to women”. 133 Other
sources such as Plutarch, 134 Suetonius 135 and Minucius Felix 136 also demonstrate
this view. Richard Bauckham provides evidence that in the Greco-Roman world,
women were regarded as “gullible in religious matters and especially prone to
superstitious fantasy and excessive in religious practices.” 137 It was very clear that
women were held to be less trustworthy and their testimony was not to be trusted.
What is significant about this fact is that it was women who where the witnesses to
the empty tomb.
1. Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2. And behold, there was a
great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and
rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3. His countenance was like
lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4. And the guards shook for fear of him,
and became like dead men. 5. But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do
not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6. He is not here; for
He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7. And go quickly
and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before
you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.” 8. So they went out
quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9.
And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So
30
they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10. Then Jesus said to
them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will
see Me.”
1. Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. 2. Very early in the
morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.
3. And they said among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone from the door of
the tomb for us?” 4. But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been
rolled away—for it was very large. 5. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man
clothed in a long white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed.6. But he
said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.
He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7. But go, tell His
disciples—and Peter—that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see
Him, as He said to you.” 8. So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they
trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Mark 16:1-8 (NKJV)
1. Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other
women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2.
But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 3. Then they went in and did not
find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4. And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed
about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments. 5. Then, as they
were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, “Why do you seek
the living among the dead? 6. He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke
to you when He was still in Galilee, 7. saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into
the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ ” 8. And they
remembered His words. 9. Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things
to the eleven and to all the rest. 10. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the
mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the
apostles. 11. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe
them. 12. But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen
cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had
happened.
Luke 24:1-12 (NKJV)
1. Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was
still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2. Then she
ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said
to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where
they have laid Him.” 3. Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were
going to the tomb. 4. So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter
and came to the tomb first. 5. And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen
cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. 6. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and
went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7. and the handkerchief
that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in
a place by itself. 8. Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also;
31
and he saw and believed. 9. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must
rise again from the dead. 10. Then the disciples went away again to their own
homes. 11. But Mary stood outside by the tomb weeping, and as she wept she
stooped down and looked into the tomb. 12. And she saw two angels in white sitting,
one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13. Then
they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they
have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” 14. Now
when she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did
not know that it was Jesus. 15. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?
Whom are you seeking?” She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said to Him, “Sir, if
You have carried Him away, tell me where You have laid Him, and I will take Him
away.” 16. Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him, “Rabboni!” (which
is to say, Teacher). 17. Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet
ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to
My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” 18. Mary Magdalene
came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken
these things to her.
John 20:1-18 (NKJV)
This fact was embarrassing and compromising for the early Church. They admit they
didn’t even trust the testimony of the women in Luke 24:10-11 and all the early
sermons and epistles skip over the fact that the women were the first to discover the
tomb, seen in 1 Corinthians 15, Luke 24:34, Acts 2:22-36, Acts 10:28-47, Acts 17:22-
35 and Acts 26:2-23. They tended to stay quiet on this information to strengthen their
early case. However, when they wrote down the accounts of what happened, they
had to include the women because they could not leave this fact out as it played such
a key role.
The Gospels claim that the women were an intricate part of the revelation of God as
the first witnesses of the resurrection, which, for an ancient writer, is not something
you would ever invent. Celsus even uses this to argue against the legitimacy of
Christianity: “That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead
he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were
pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some
other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion”. 125
N. T. Wright comments on this: “As historians we are obliged to comment that if

these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years
later, they would never had had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is,
from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical
audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the
foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would
never, never have made this up.” 138
We can also see that for God, the idea of women being less reliable is false.
11. For there is no partiality with God.

Romans 2:11 (NKJV)
32
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither
male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The resurrection theory can obviously explain why we see this in the sources; it was
written because it was true.
Objection: The accounts contradict over the number of women who found the
empty tomb.
Skeptics argue the Gospels are inconsistent and the women at the tomb cannot be
established reliably.
1. After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Matthew 28:1 (NKJV)
1. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and
Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
Mark 16:1 (NKJV)
10. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with
them who told this to the apostles.
Luke 24:10 (NKJV)
1. Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to
the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
John 20:1 (NKJV)
This is a serious overestimation. No Gospel account claims that only the women they
listed visited the tomb. This means that by default, there is no contradiction.
Furthermore, the differences can be explained by the ancient literary practice of
spotlighting. Take for instance John. In the very next verse we see him reporting
other women were there implicitly.
2. Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus
loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do
not know where they have laid Him.”
John 20:2 (NKJV)
It is obvious that Mary wouldn’t refer to herself as “we”. The reason he initially only
mentioned Mary was spotlighting, in view of his audience and style. Mike Licona
describes this: “When an author focuses attention on a person so that the person's
involvement in a scene is clearly described, whereas mention of others who were
likewise involved is neglected, the author has shined his literary spotlight on that
person. Think of a theatrical performance. During an act in which several are
33
simultaneously on the stage, the lights go out and a spotlight shines on a particular
actor. Others are present but are unseen. In literary spotlighting, the author only
mentions one of the people present but knows of the others.” 139
This can be seen in other ancient writings, such as Plutarch, who reports the same
events differently in different biographies due to spotlighting. For instance, in Life of
Cicero, he writes that Crassus, Marcellus and Motellus visit Cicero at night regarding
an urgent matter: “there came to the house of Cicero at midnight men who were the
leading and most powerful Romans, Marcus Crassus, Marcus Marcellus, and Scipio
Motellus; and knocking at the door and summoning the doorkeeper.” 140 However, in
Life of Crassus, he doesn’t mention the other two at all, only Crassus: “Cicero says
that Crassus came to him by night with a letter which gave details of the affair of
Catiline, and felt that he was at last establishing the fact of a conspiracy.” 141
Later in the same section of Life of Crassus, Marcellinus and Domitius ask Pompey if
he was going to run for consulship: “Marcellinus and Domitius asked Pompey if he
was going to be a candidate for the consulship… Crassus said, more modestly, when
the question was put to him, that if it was for the interest of the city, he would be a
candidate for the office.” 142 In Life of Pompey, only Marcellinus is mentioned: “…
Marcellinus rose in the assembly and asked Pompey and Crassus whether they were
going to be candidates for the consulship” 143
A third example is in Life of Antony, where Octavius, Pansa and Hirtius were sent to
drive Antony out of Italy: “Antony, persuaded the senate to vote him a public enemy,
to send to Caesar the fasces and other insignia of a praetor, and to dispatch Pansa
and Hirtius to drive Antony out of Italy” 144 Meanwhile, in Life of Brutus, Octavius is
spotlighted as the only one: “For Octavius Caesar had been strengthened by the
senate against Antony, and after ejecting his rival from Italy, was himself now an
object of fear”. 145
Each of these examples is the same author writing each event differently in order to
spotlight the relevant details. We see this all throughout the Gospel and it does not
mean there are contradictions, just like Plutarch’s writings do not. The author is fully
aware of who was there and they are choosing to put emphasis on certain people
and don’t feel it necessary to mention others. This doesn’t mean they weren’t there.
John does this elsewhere in John 19:25, where he doesn’t list Peter at the cross
despite mentioning him one verse later.
25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26. When Jesus therefore saw His mother,
and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold
your son!”
Luke does the same by only mentioning Peter running to the tomb even though John
says it was Peter and another Disciple.
34
12. But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths
lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.
Luke 24:12 (NKJV)
3. Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.
John 20:3 (NKJV)
This is before Luke later shows he did know there were others with Peter.
24. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the
women had said; but Him they did not see.”
Luke 24:24 (NKJV)
It is self explanatory that the authors were spotlighting in the accounts of the women
finding the tomb just like they did elsewhere. There was no obligation for them to
disclose every single person involved in every single incident related to Jesus and
they never claimed to do this. An additional possible reason for the authors
mentioning only the people they included was them being careful to only name
people they knew from primary sources. They didn’t want to be erroneous in their
accounts, only using witnesses they could personally verify, possibly only ones in
their communities, to be historically accurate. This was as well as telling the story
with relevance to their audience in mind.
Objection: They had no choice but to say the women were the witnesses
because the Disciples had fled to Galilee.
There are no reports of the Disciples fleeing Jerusalem for Galilee and since it was
Sabbath, there is a good reason to assume they stayed in Jerusalem. 146
Nevertheless, even if they had fled, it still wouldn’t have to be the women who were
written as the eyewitnesses. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus would have both
been more suitable candidates for discovering the empty tomb.
Fact 8: The Witnesses Immediately Proclaimed In Jerusalem That The

Resurrection Had Occurred
Very few scholars deny that the Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem as the
evidence is overwhelming that Jerusalem was the home base and that the
proclamation happened very early on. We can see this in Paul, Tacitus and with the
development of early Christian Creeds, as we covered with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
earlier. Tacitus says the following: “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 Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…” 2
35
Paul mentions in Galatians 2 that the Apostles are still preaching in Jerusalem. If
Paul had said this falsely, it would be easily disproven and the Christian narrative
would have been falsified.
1. Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also
took Titus with me.
9. and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of
fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
This is important because when we consider the importance of time and you proclaim
a miracle, that fact can have a huge impact. James Saurin said that the Apostles
proclaimed the resurrection at Pentecost: “…they re-echoed their testimony in a-
singular manner at Pentecost, when Jerusalem expected the spread of the report,
and endeavoured to prevent it; while the eyes of their enemies were yet sparkling
with rage and madness, and while Calvary was yet dyed with the blood they had spilt
there. Do impostors take such measures? Would not they have waited till the fury of
the Jews had been appeased, till judges, and public officers, had been changed, and
fill people had been fess attentive to their depositions?” 156
If the evidence was not favourable to the early Church, it would make sense for them
to go elsewhere. This is something we often see with cults attempting to shield the
members from refutations. This occurred with figures such as Jim Jones and even
Joseph Smith, who lead his people away from New York. In the case of the Disciples,
they walked right up to the Sanhedrin who had killed Jesus, and one of whom’s tomb
Jesus had just been buried in, and said that He had been resurrected. This
necessitates that the Disciples were either deluded or absolutely convinced that they
were correct. Obviously the resurrection theory explains this occurence with the least
difficulty because if they genuinely had seen a resurrection, they would know they
had all the evidence and God on their side so would be immediate and bold in their
proclamation of the resurrection.
As Gary Habermas said in his debate with Antony Flew: “…the fact that it happened
in Jerusalem is one more reason …for the burial. If I proclaimed that there’s a local
holy man and he died and he’s been buried in your town here and I say hey, funny
thing, it’s three days later, the grave is empty, go see for yourself, if I said this
happened in Monterrey, I imagine most of you won’t go. If I said it happened in
Rome, I imagine most of you won’t go. If I say this happened in Tokyo, I imagine
most of you won’t go but if I said it’s at the end of your street, or it’s five blocks away,
I imagine some people are going to check this thing out. So, Jerusalem is the last
place the empty tomb should have been proclaimed; unless it was empty because
any number of people could have taken a Sunday afternoon stroll and gotten there
easily enough. And so, that’s the last place to proclaim the message; the fact it was
proclaimed in the city is one more reason to think [the tomb was empty]. There are
checks and balances in this town; people can tell if their proclamation was true. And
36
nobody disputes the fact that the earliest preaching was in Jerusalem.” 157 Moreover,
we also have no evidence from opponents boasting of any follower of Jesus
recanting or staying quiet, which we would strongly expect to find should it have
happened as it is strong evidence against the resurrection account which they were
desperate to disprove.
Fact 9: Jesus’ Tomb Was Found Empty
Skeptical scholar Jacob Kremer writes: “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the
reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” 147 This is for good
reason; the evidence is overwhelming, as we will demonstrate. Even skeptical
scholar Géza Vermes, who maintains we should stay agnostic on explaining the
resurrection data, rejects all alternate explanations to the empty tomb. He lays out
the six possible hypotheses for what happened. 148 They are as follows:
 Someone other than the Disciples took Jesus’ body.

 The Disciples took His body.
 The wrong tomb was visited and discovered empty.
 Jesus was not dead and emerged from the tomb.
 Jesus survived and went to India (the Ahmadiyya Muslim claim) or Rome
where He married, divorced and had children (Barbara Thiering’s theory).
 There was a spiritual resurrection.
These theories are in addition to blind acceptance or rejection which he rejects

outright. 149 After considering these six theories, Vermes determines not a single one
“stands up to stringent scrutiny”. 150
Not all scholars accept the empty tomb though and one of the most prominent among
them is John Dominic Crossan, who believes that rather than being buried in a tomb,
He was thrown in a trench for dogs to eat because the Romans would not have
allowed a proper burial for criminals. In addition to all our evidence previously
presented for the burial, including the writings of Josephus and the archaeological
evidence from 1968 telling us that criminals would have been buried, skeptical
scholar Dale Allison sheds more light on why Crossan is mistaken in this theory by
telling us the word in the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15 for bury, etaphē, means to
‘entomb’ and usually means to properly bury. This means the earliest sources
disprove Crossan’s argument. 151 It is definitive that crucifixion victims were given
proper burials.
The Romans had no issue allowing this practice or any other Jewish practices they
disagreed with, even including temple worship, which they despised because it was a
rejection of the Roman Gods, Jews conducting their own trials, Jews having their
own temple guards and the keeping of the Sabbath. The guards are unlikely to be an
embellishment. The reason this detail was included in Matthew’s account was
because the stolen body theory had recently been popularised and hence the detail
becomes relevant to include. When the resurrection accounts were already causing
disruption and forcing opponents to come up with alternate explanations, why would
37
Matthew sabotage all the credibility of the accounts by falsely claiming guards were
present, which would have been easily disproven?
We must also remember from earlier that Jesus’ burial has multiple early attestations
and fulfils the criterion of embarrassment, as the authors had to admit that Jesus was
buried in the tomb of a Sanhedrin member as they couldn’t afford their own, which
was a very dishonouring statement for His followers as the Sanhedrin had just
murdered Him. Crossan’s theory is ahistorical.
Even more remarkable to Jesus burial is the name of the member whose tomb Jesus
was buried in is given in the accounts; Joseph of Arimathea. Crucially, this means the
tomb was public knowledge and its whereabouts were known, so the public and the
enemies of the Christians could have falsified the claims of the Disciples at any point.
This would have falsified the entire resurrection and stopped the entire movement
immediately, yet no-one was able to do this despite plenty motivation. As William
Lane Craig says in regard to the empty tomb: “If we deny the resurrection of Jesus,
we are left with an inexplicable mystery.” 152
Additionally, there is good evidence for the site of Jesus’ tomb because after Jesus’
resurrection, the tomb became a pilgrimage site. The emperor Hadrian then built a
temple on top of the site to discourage Christians from going there but this only
helped to mark where the tomb was. When the temple was identified by Constantine
in the 4th century, he built a church that people can visit today, located outside the old
walls of Jerusalem. Even skeptical scholars say this is good evidence for the location
of Jesus’ tomb.
Objection: The empty tomb was the wrong tomb.
This theory was first proposed by Kirsopp Lake in 1907, where he speculates that the
women lost their way, happened upon an empty tomb and encountered a caretaker,
who said “You’re looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here.” He then claims the
women were then unnerved and fearful which caused them to flee. 153 This eventually
resulted in the developing of the empty tomb theory following the ‘visions’ of the
Disciples, which according to Lake came before the empty tomb discovery, which is
inaccurate. This theory was never popular on the scholarly level but it is a common
thought on the popular level among those who seek to explain the empty tomb.
The explanation lacks explanatory scope as it does not explain the appearances and
some other theory would have to be paired with it, which is why the theory also has
no explanatory power. It is totally baseless in explaining the origin of the resurrection
belief as by itself, it would not explain how people came to believe Jesus had risen
from the dead. Moreover, the theory doesn’t even explain the empty tomb, the real
tomb’s location was known to the Christians and opponents. This would still be where
it was and Jesus’ body would be in it so the mistake would have been quickly
realised. Joseph of Arimathea, upon hearing Jesus was risen, would not visit the
wrong tomb when it was his own tomb and given Matthew’s reports of guards, the
tomb was very clearly marked.
38
This also means this theory is implausible, even discounting the implausibility of the
necessary hallucination addition, which we will investigate later. It is totally ad hoc as
it treats the evidence completely selectively and arbitrarily, which can be seen with
his characterisation of the angel’s words ascribed in Lake’s theory to a tomb
caretaker: “You’re looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here.” This completely
passes over the “He is risen!” The women’s unnerving and fear which Lake exploits
in his theory also presupposes the encounter with the angel so it would be ignoring
some evidence while accepting other evidence based on nothing more than
selectivity.
Objection: Jesus’ body was displaced, likely lost or accidentally moved.
It is not common to find Jewish interactions with the resurrection evidence but one
example is Joseph Klausner’s hypothesis of 1922 which proposes that Joseph of
Arimathea buried Jesus temporarily due to the lateness of the hour and the proximity
of his tomb before later moving the body to a criminal’s graveyard. Unaware of this,
the Disciples inferred Jesus had risen. 154 Popular authors have referred to this theory
despite it having never been defended by a scholar. Aside from us earlier disproving
the idea that Jesus was given this treatment as oppose to burial, this theory has
many other shortcomings.
It has little, if any, explanatory scope, explaining nothing aside from the empty tomb
detail. The theory does not refer to the appearances or even the origin of the belief,
which it ascribes to the Disciples in an ad hoc fashion. Klausner’s theory is also ad
hoc in presuming Joseph’s motives and activities with no evidence whatsoever. It has
no explanatory power and faces a huge obstacle at this point of the theory. Joseph
and any servants with him knew what had been done to the corpse so why wouldn’t
they correct the proclamation of the Disciples in Jerusalem? This is especially glaring
given the stakes and given that Joseph was a Sanhedrin member. It is simply lunacy
to suggest this could have happened, unless you were to suggest something as
crazy as the idea that Joseph and all his servants all died right after the moving! If
this had been the case, the early Jewish responses to the Disciples claims would
have been very simple and very different but instead, they presupposed the empty
tomb and alleged conspiracy. It is simply not a plausible theory.
Furthermore, according to the Jewish sources, the graveyard was only 50 to 600
yards away from where Jesus was crucified and as we saw referenced in Josephus,
it was not the correct practice for the Jew Joseph to put Jesus in a graveyard; He
was to be buried. A final nail in the coffin for this theory is that Jewish law didn’t even
allow for the moving of a body after burial, as we see in the tractate Semahot: “We
may not transfer a dead body or bones from one place of honour to another, or from
a place of shame to a place of honour, and needless to say from a place of honour to
a place of shame; but within [the dead person’s] property it is permissible [to transfer]
even from a place of honour to a place of shame, because it is to his honour.” 155
39
Fact 10: The Disciples And Witnesses Voluntarily Suffered And Died
Multiple Christian and non-Christian sources testify that the early witnesses were
persecuted and martyred for their faith.
Tacitus transcribes: “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
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.” 2
Suetonius writes: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus [a common Roman mispronunciation of Christ or Christos], he expelled
them from Rome.” 158
In Josephus’ Antiquities, we even read how James was to be executed: “…so he

assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus,
who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his
companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of
the law, he delivered them to be stoned” 159 This lawbreaking is highly likely to be
blasphemy, which was considered breaking of the law in regard to many other
Christians, seen in Acts 6:13, 18:13 and 21:28. Darrell 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.” 160
The vast majority of scholars think this Josephus passage is legitimate 161 and this
includes John Meier. 162 He gives us multiple reasons to think this passage is
legitimate.
 It appears in all manuscripts of Antiquities of the Jews “without any notable

variation”. 163
 The text refers to James in a passing and blasé manner as Josephus is more
interested in the criminal activity of Ananus. 164
 The words “who was called Christ” are neutral and used only to distinguish
Jesus from other figures. 165
40
 The account differs slightly from other Christian accounts of James’ execution
by Hegesippus and Clement, which we would not expect if it was a Christian
invention as they would make the accounts reflect each other. Josephus’
account is also much shorter and blunt than the Christian accounts. 166
A sixth reason for the legitimacy of this passage is given by Hershel Shanks and Ben
Witherington, who add that the text has no hints of positivity or negativity to
Christianity of Jesus. 167 There is also no evidence of tampering by Christians. 168
Additionally, as Meier touched upon, James’ martyrdom is also reported by Christian
sources such as Hegesippus 169 and Clement of Alexandria, 170 whose writings are
preserved in fragments in Eusebius of Caesarea.
Pliny the Younger also attests to terrible treatment of the Christians in a letter with
the emperor Trajan discussing many different political topics from 110 AD. Pliny
writes: “The whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of
meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses
a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any
wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their
word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it
was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an
ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after
the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden
political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth,
with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses:
but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition. I
therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel.” 171
Paul also tells us about intense persecution.
24. I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the
afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
Colossians 1:24 (NKJV)
16. I say again, let no one think me a fool. If otherwise, at least receive me as a fool,
that I also may boast a little. 17. What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but
as it were, foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. 18. Seeing that many boast
according to the flesh, I also will boast. 19. For you put up with fools gladly, since you
yourselves are wise! 20. For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one
devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the
face. 21. To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone
is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also. Suffering for Christ 22. Are they Hebrews?
So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23.
Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more
abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24.
From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25. Three times I was
beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a
day I have been in the deep; 26. in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of
robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city,
41
in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27. in
weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in
cold and nakedness— 28. besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my
deep concern for all the churches. 29. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is
made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? 30. If I must boast, I will boast in
the things which concern my infirmity. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32. In Damascus the
governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a
garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33. but I was let down in a basket through a window
in the wall, and escaped from his hands.
12. I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all
things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer
need.
Philippians 4:12 (NKJV)
N. T. Wright notes that 2 Corinthians was written as a response to the Corinthians

who asked Paul to provide some evidence of good fortune to show God was on his
side. Ancient people believed, like some people still believe today, that suffering
persecution is punishment from God but from 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6, Paul responds
with the opposite.
Clement of Rome tell us in an epistle that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome for
proclaiming their faith: “Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own
generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the
church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the
illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but
numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the
place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient
endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and
stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation
due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the
extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he
removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a
striking example of patience.” 172 There is extensive documentation of the martyrdom
of Paul, attested to in the writings of Polycarp, 173 Tertullian, 174 Eusebius of Caesarea
175
and Dionysius of Corinth. 176 a Tertullian reports that Paul was beheaded while the
others simply say martyred. Acts also documents how the witnesses were
persecuted and many times almost were martyred.
40. And they agreed with him, and when they had called for the apostles and beaten
them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let
them go.
Acts 5:40 (NKJV)
a
The writings of Dionysus of Corinth regarding the martyrdom of Paul are preserved in Eusebius of
Caesarea’s Church History.
42
1. Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose
against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout
the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Acts 8:1 (NKJV)
23. Now after many days were past, the Jews plotted to kill him. 24. But their plot
became known to Saul. And they watched the gates day and night, to kill him.
Acts 9:23-24 (NKJV)
19. serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to
me by the plotting of the Jews;
Acts 20:19 (NKJV)
12. And when it was day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves
under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
13. Now there were more than forty who had formed this conspiracy. 14. They came
to the chief priests and elders, and said, “We have bound ourselves under a great
oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul.
1. Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from
the church. 2. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3. And
because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.
Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. 4. So when he had arrested him,
he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him,
intending to bring him before the people after Passover. Peter Freed from Prison 5.
Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by
the church.
Acts 12:1-5 (NKJV)
44. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of
God. 45. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and
contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. 46. Then
Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God
should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy
of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47. For so the Lord has
commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for
salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 48. Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were
glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to
eternal life believed. 49. And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all
the region. 50. But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the
chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled
them from their region. 51. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them,
and came to Iconium.
43
5. And when a violent attempt was made by both the Gentiles and Jews, with their
rulers, to abuse and stone them, 6. they became aware of it and fled to Lystra and
Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding region.
Acts 14:5-6 (NKJV)
19. Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the
multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be
dead. 20. However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went
into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.
16. Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a
spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17.
This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, “These men are the servants of
the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation.” 18. And this she did for
many days. But Paul, greatly [a]annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command
you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And he came out that very hour.
19. But when her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul
and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities. 20. And they
brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly
trouble our city; 21. and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being
Romans, to receive or observe.” 22. Then the multitude rose up together against
them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten
with rods. 23. And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into
prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely. 24. Having received such a
charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.
30. And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and
dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. 31. Now as
they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander of the garrison that all
Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32. He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and
ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they
stopped beating Paul. 33. Then the commander came near and took him, and
commanded him to be bound with two chains; and he asked who he was and what
he had done.
Additionally to this, we have numerous ancient sources like Luke, Tertullian, John,
Dionysus of Corinth, Origen, Polycarp and Ignatius, all of whom attest that the
witnesses were willing to suffer continuously and go to their deaths for their Gospel
proclamation, which included the resurrection. This fact alone does not mean that
Jesus rose from the dead but it does mean that all the people who attested to it
genuinely believed he did, making it more difficult to explain.
44
Objection: People die for their faith all the time and this doesn’t make the belief
true. An example would be Muslim martyrs and this doesn’t make Islam true.
It is absolutely correct that someone’s willingness to die for a belief doesn’t make the
belief true but willingness to die for a belief does mean that the person firmly believes
and has no doubt that it’s true. The difference between modern ‘martyrdoms’ and the
martyrdoms of the witnesses is the witnesses knew for sure whether what they were
dying for was true or false. It wasn’t just a belief, it was something they had seen with
their own eyes and actually experienced.
If they were lying, they would know for sure and had nothing to gain. Liars make poor
martyrs and they certainly wouldn’t all die for a lie. If they were not certain, they
would not all be willing to die for it for the same reason. It is extremely rare for a
person to die for something they know to be false and the fact that none of the
martyrs recanted when they had the iron clad knowledge of the truth or falsehood of
the resurrection is very telling. When we compare this with Muslim martyrs, they die
for Islam because they fully believe that Islam is true but they don’t know for certain
that Islam is true. They are dying for something false when they do not know it is
false and wrongly believe it is true. The Christians had primary evidence with their
experience whereas the martyrs in this scenario have secondary knowledge.
If the resurrection did occur, then the willingness of the witnesses to suffer and die is
self explanatory; they knew for a fact it was true and would never deny God.
Objection: They knew it was false but were willing to die for a noble lie.
This wouldn’t make sense to the apostles. Their confidence in the message was
based on Jesus being who He said He was and His resurrection. If they are lying
about the resurrection, then there would be nothing noble about the message and
hence nothing even remotely noble enough to die for. Furthermore, Jesus’ teachings
had already been documented and didn’t require the resurrection to be available.
There was also the Old Testament to show people morals and virtue so there wasn’t
anything noble about the lie that wasn’t already taught or available to people
somewhere.
Dying for this reason would also entail they didn’t believe Christianity in the first
place, even when Jesus was alive, because they would be abandoning all their
previous beliefs and belief in God for beliefs they knew were false, as they didn’t
expect the outcome of Jesus’ death or the resurrection. Lying isn’t noble and goes
against the teachings of Christ so they weren’t being noble. They wouldn’t even
believe themselves the message that they were supposedly dying in sin for other
people to believe in. If they believed the original teachings in the first place were true
and thought they were noble, they wouldn’t go against those teachings when there
was no reason to abandon them at this point. They could have taught these
teachings anyway while remaining noble and without martyrdom. If it was the case
that they didn’t believe in Christianity in the first place, then what was so noble and
worth defending to the death? This theory is totally internally inconsistent.
45
This also doesn’t explain why James and Paul became Christians. They didn’t think
the message was noble, let alone worth dying for. They only believed in Christianity
and that Christianity was a noble message because they saw the risen Jesus. It
wasn’t the other way around.
Conclusion.
Only the resurrection theory can account for all the data. Going by the historical
method from earlier, as defined by such books as Justifying Historical Description by
Behan McCullagh in 1984 and Acts of God? by Tor Egil Førland in 2008, we can say
that the resurrection theory is the only one with explanatory scope, as it can explain
all the facts, explanatory power, as it explains all the facts with the least amount of
effort, and it provides illumination, as it can provide information for other areas of
history, such as the sudden and dramatic rise of Christianity from next to nothing and
the suddenly popular belief in bodily resurrection. Bart Ehrman says that if Jesus had
died and no one believed a resurrection, then there wouldn’t have been a new
religion. 180 This means three of the criteria that historians use when evaluating a
hypothesis are already fulfilled better than any other hypothesis, as McCullagh
agrees.
So, does it fulfil the other two pieces of criteria? Behan McCullagh thinks not, as he
writes: “This hypothesis is of greater explanatory scope and power than other
hypotheses which try to account for the relevant evidence, but is less plausible and
more ad hoc than they are.” 177 Dr. Travis Campbell is one of the people who have
responded to this, asking why the resurrection theory is ad hoc. According to even
McCullagh himself, to be ad hoc is to introduce a number of new suppositions into a
hypothesis that are not already implied in existing knowledge. The resurrection as a
theory is implied in existing knowledge and it isn’t unrelated to the evidence because
it was the reported reason for the evidence from the people themselves. We cannot
discount the theory that they told the truth about what happened as ad hoc when it
also fits the evidence. Nothing new is brought into the equation by this explanation.
Even if someone is to reject this reason for why this assumption isn’t ad hoc, the
resurrection theory only adds one extra assumption at most, that God exists, which
itself isn’t really ad hoc given that premise is necessitated by the resurrection
accounts and is by far the least ad hoc of the theories. Unless God is impossible,
which has never been proven, it is superior to the other theories, which all include
impossibilities and slim improbabilities that are completely ad hoc to be suggested.
Campbell wrote this in his response: “…it is difficult to see why the resurrection
hypothesis is extraordinarily ad hoc. It requires only one new supposition; that God
exists. Surely rival hypotheses require many new suppositions.” 178 Even more
importantly, the resurrection hypothesis does not introduce any new suppositions if
you are a theist. Because we cannot presuppose that God exists or God does not
exist going into the evaluation of the evidence, it is not ad hoc to posit this
explanation.
46
For a theory to be plausible, all the areas of the theory must be known with some
degree of confidence and other areas must suggest the same theory. So, if other
things suggest the same conclusion, then the theory is plausible. As there are other
arguments to infer theism, it cannot be seen as implausible. William Lane Craig
expands upon this point: “It should be noted, too, that scientific hypotheses regularly
include the supposition of the existence of new entities, such as quarks, strings,
gravitons, black holes and the like, without those theories being characterised as ad
hoc.” He continues: “…the origin of the Christian faith is not ad hoc because those
events took place, as we have seen, in the context of and as the climax to Jesus’
own unparalleled life, ministry, and personal claims, with which a supernatural
hypothesis readily fits.” 179
Even on minimal evidence, if facts surrounding a case necessitated it and the

explanation is coherent, we could posit aliens as an explanation for an event
because their existence is at least plausible, despite arguments for their existence
being completely probabilistic, which would be a less likely version of the teleological
argument with God. Unlike for God, we don’t have any arguments that necessitate
the existence of aliens but we still see their existence as plausible.
This means that the resurrection is the only theory that can explain all the data with
explanatory scope, explanatory power while refraining from being ad hoc and
implausible and it provides illumination for why Christianity suddenly became the
biggest movement ever seen in the history of mankind immediately after Jesus’
appearances among people who rejected Christianity and hated the message. We
can conclude that the most rational, reasonable and best explanation is that Jesus
rose from the dead.
47
Part 2: Opposing Theories
When testing opposing explanations to the resurrection, we must test them on all the
historical facts that we have established. These are the appearances to the disciples,
appearances to skeptics, the Gospel message itself, women finding the empty tomb,
the immediate proclamation in Jerusalem, the existence of the empty tomb and
voluntary suffering of Disciples and witnesses. As we established earlier, a theory
must better explain the data and have explanatory scope, explanatory power,
plausibility, be the least ad hoc and be illuminating in regard to these facts.
General Theories
There are three main general theories opposing the resurrection explanation. As
individual explanations, all the general opposing theories are rejected by most
scholars as inadequate but they remain the most popular explanations of the facts.
The Conspiracy Theory
This theory holds that the disciples made up the story of Jesus rising from the dead.
This is the oldest opposing theory to the resurrection evidence, having originated
from opponents of Christianity in the 1st century. Even aside from investigating each
individual fact as we will in light of this theory, it doesn’t make much sense. To
theorise that a group of people who knew Christianity was false would conspire while
possessing the knowledge that they had literally nothing to gain aside from
persecution and death is absurd, especially given that prior to the resurrection
accounts, they were hiding away in fear.
As we have seen, the scholarly literature is unanimous that the disciples actually saw
something due to the nature and reliability of the claims we covered earlier. It would
also be hard to explain how the Christians could hold together such an elaborate and
radical conspiracy with over 500 people involved, most of whom were still alive at the
time and could be questioned. 181
6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater
part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
The multiple appearances in which the appearance to the 500 is mentioned are also
given in a chronological order, which for Paul grounds them in history. 182 To keep a
conspiracy among 500 people would be exceptionally difficult given that even Judas
had betrayed them earlier.
If someone objects that the appearance to the 500 is not plausible in comparison to
the others or is less plausible, then they would be granting one appearance in
comparison to another when the appearance itself would be equally likely; location or
audience wouldn’t affect the logistics of the actual appearance. The large crowd is no
48
issue because Jesus spoke to huge crowds on other occasions, including one about
ten times the size at the feeding of the 5,000. It is also not out of place among the
other appearance accounts because we would expect or at least understand the
reason for an appearance to a huge number at once to go alongside appearances to
particular people, covering all bases. It is hard to conceive of another possible
category of appearance; there are small numbers and large numbers, followers and
skeptics, indoor and outdoor and so on, all of which are covered.
Even though it seems like a colossally unlikely stretch, we must tentatively accept
that the conspiracy theory can account for the appearances when we are only
assessing the appearances with no other data, despite the colossal unlikeliness.
In terms of appearances to skeptics, why would James and Paul have lied? The early
Church was a small, persecuted and hated minority with a Messiah who was
shamefully crucified as a criminal and too poor to afford their own tomb. Jesus had
just dishonoured the family and James was opposed to Him so why would James
suddenly feel the need to make up an appearance and decide now, having
previously had plenty opportunity to spend time with Jesus, to proclaim He is Lord
after he had already denied Him openly?
Paul also had no reason to do such a thing. He was already very highly regarded and
powerful, bringing himself into public attention while persecuting the Church.
4. though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If someone else thinks they
have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5. circumcised on the
eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in
regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6. as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for
righteousness based on the law, faultless.
Philippians 3:4-6 (NKJV)
Why would he have the urge to leave all this and join the persecuted minority he
hated so passionately? A sudden conversion to something that he hated only to lose
everything he had when he knew it was a lie would defy logic.
As we covered earlier, it is obvious that knowing the opposition the Gospel message
would have, no group of conspirators would have ever made it their core doctrine. If
you make up a story and message to gain a following, or even to gain anything at all,
you would make up something appealing which works to your advantage. You
certainly wouldn’t make up something that would get you killed.
In terms of the resurrection itself, the Christians would never come up with this story
and if somehow they did, it would be to justify or prove their beliefs, in which case we
would expect them to utilise and constantly fall back upon the Old Testament to
demonstrate their case, in order to appeal to the audience they were trying to
persuade. Because they didn’t do this, we can say comfortably that the whole reason
they would invent this for their conspiracy was not their reason for telling this story.
Furthermore, even if against all odds one person did come up with this misplaced
idea as well as convince the other Disciples it was true, also inconceivable, they
49
would still have to steal the body, induce group hallucinations to others while
coincidentally, rely on either genuine or even more improbably conspiratorial
hallucinations for skeptics, in which case they would know they were wrong and
hence would have no reason at all to all suffer or die through persecution and torture.
When it comes to the testimony of women, the conspiracy theory fails completely
because, as we showed earlier, it is like the authors shooting themselves in the foot
to use women to give the story credibility. For ones who made up such an elaborate
and airtight story, this would be a foreseeably monumentous blunder. As Mike Licona
says: “…even if the disciples had all fled Jerusalem, Joseph of Arimathea or
Nicodemus may have been better candidates than women for discovering the empty
tomb.” 183
The conspiracy theory has no hope in explaining the early proclamation in

Jerusalem. If you are an imposter, you do not go right up to the people who just killed
your leader; you go elsewhere if you want to maintain the miracle. Proclaiming it in
Jerusalem, where they have the evidence, motive and the means to completely
debunk your claim would be the most nonsensical approach if the Disciples were
conspirators. In order to account for the empty tomb, the conspiracy theory posits
that the disciples stole the body. This argument was even addressed by Matthew in
Matthew 28:13-15 as it was the most common Jewish polemic.
13. saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we
slept.’ 14. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make
you secure.” 15. So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this
saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Matthew is bold enough to mention this potentially doubt-inducing theory because he

knew it was unsupported. Justin Martyr transcribes this Jewish objection in his
dialogue with Trypho: “one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his
disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from
the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and
ascended to heaven.” 184 This informs us further that the body could not be found. It
was already accepted the body was no longer in the tomb as the tomb had to be
empty in order for it to be stolen. If the Sanhedrin still had the body, they could have
produced the body and proven that the tomb wasn’t empty but the Christians never
had to respond to this charge.
If the body had been stolen, who would have done it? Rome wouldn’t have because
they didn’t care initially and it became an inconvenience and disadvantage not to
have the body later on. As Gerd Lüdemann writes: “The release of Jesus’ body and
its removal from the cross might also have suited Pilate, because this would a priori
avoid unrest among the large number of visitors for the festival.” 185 The rioting that
resulted from the proclamation of the resurrection was a significant issue to Rome, as
Suetonius tells us: “Since the Jews constantly made riots at the instigation of
Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” 186 Meanwhile, Jewish leaders certainly
wouldn’t have stolen the body because they wanted Jesus shamed, crucified, buried
50
and forgotten. They certainly didn’t want to start then facilitate an explosion in the
belief He was resurrected. Furthermore, if they had stolen the body, they would have
produced it to disprove what the Christians proclaimed.
As far as the Christians are concerned, their leader had just been crucified and their
movement shamed, causing them to disperse. They were in constant fear of the
punishment the Jewish authorities would seek after them so to steal the body right
from the tomb of one of the Sanhedrin before preaching He was raised right to the
people who they were in danger from would be incredible.
Secondly, in the hypothetical situation they had stolen the body, the likelihood they
would report that the Jewish leaders said they stole the body is low. The last thing
they would do is spread the rumour they had actually done it.
13. saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we
slept.’ 14. And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make
you secure.” 15. So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this
saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Similarly, if they had stolen the body, they would not have recorded, to their shame
and dishonour, that they didn’t believe the original reports of the women or that they
didn’t believe that Jesus would rise. Later Christians would not have attacked the
integrity of their leaders reporting these facts and the Disciples wouldn’t have
shamed themselves in admitting them either. The whole point of a conspiracy is to
devise a story that is believable and beneficial.
Additionally, where could they have taken the body? It was Passover so the city was
flooded with pilgrims. It would be nearly impossible to complete the conspiracy of
stealing then hiding the body without being caught, especially given the attention that
was on them and Jesus and especially getting it out of the Sanhedrin section of town.
For this theory to work, we need to assume that despite being in fear for their lives,
they decided and succeeded to steal the body from the Sanhedrin tomb, fake the
resurrection despite no prior expectation of a resurrection and far easier ways out of
the supposed theological problems they were facing, get the body out of the
Sanhedrin section of town and hide it indefinitely and permanently in an overcrowded
city. The theory simply cannot rationally account for the facts.
One of the most glaring issues with the conspiracy theory is when it comes to
explaining the voluntary suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses, especially when
they had supposedly stolen the body and knew the entirety of Christianity and the
accounts were false. They had absolutely nothing to gain and were constantly facing
persecution. They also didn’t become wealthy, as we see in 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 as
well as in 2 Thessalonians and Acts.
6. Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

51
8. nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night
and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,
2 Thessalonians 3:8 (NKJV)
17. “Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation,
Acts 24:17 (NKJV)
If the Apostles were insane wanted to consolidate a cult, their actions also weren’t
coherent either. It would make sense to gather the followers and remove them from
society but instead, they stayed in populated cities and left their new churches to go
and start more churches in other cities across many regions. This left followers open
to corruption, which is what happened, leading the Apostles to revisit the churches.
Unless it was an elaborate plan to get martyred, there is nothing to gain from
enacting this conspiracy, nor could there ever conceivably be. The only thing they
could possibly have had to gain from their ministry would be the sharing of the
Gospel message and salvation, which makes no sense with the conspiracy theory.
In conclusion, while it could possibly account for appearances to the Disciples, the
conspiracy theory fails to account for appearances to skeptics, the Gospel message,
the origin of resurrection belief, the empty tomb or women finding it, the early
proclamation in Jerusalem, and the voluntary suffering and martyrdom of the
witnesses. So, while is has some explanatory scope, it does not have explanatory
power, it is ad hoc, implausible and provides no illumination for why Christianity
suddenly and dramatically exploded from a small group in a small backwater
province of Rome into the huge movement it became among the very people who
hated and rejected it after the death of Jesus.
The Hallucination Theory
This theory maintains that after Jesus died, the Disciples had hallucinations that
Jesus had risen from the dead and this caused them to believe He was alive again.
The hallucination theory fails regarding the appearances to the disciples because
even in the early Creed, the appearances are in group settings. Hallucinations are
private occurrences within the mind of an individual and have no external reality,
much like dreams. Two people can’t be together in a dream or false reality. Since
hallucinations are false, sensory perceptions in the mind of an individual, groups
experiencing them are exceptionally rare. They are so rare that there is next to no
scientific literature on this phenomenon.
In his book The Resurrection of Jesus, Mike Licona documents an email from Gary
Habermas’ correspondence with psychologist Dr. Gary Sibcy in 2009, in which Sibcy
says: “I have surveyed the professional literature (peer-reviewed journal articles and
books) written by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other relevant healthcare
professionals during the past two decades and have yet to find a single documented
case of a group hallucination, an event for which more than one person purportedly
52
shared in a visual or other sensory perception where there was clearly no referent.”
187
In their peer-reviewed work on hallucinations, Andre Aléman and Frank Larøi find
that hallucinations most often manifest in one sensory mode and multimode
hallucinations are exceptionally rare. 188 When Mike Licona emailed Frank Larøi
inquiring on why they did not cover such hallucinations, Larøi responded that they
had “wished to mention collective hallucinations” but were unable due to the “very
little [scientific] documentation on this topic”. 189 a
There are multiple different modes of hallucinations:
 Auditory hallucinations, where you think you hear something that you didn’t
hear.
 Olfactory hallucinations, where you think you smell something that you didn’t
smell.
 Gustatory hallucinations, where you think you taste something that you didn’t
taste.
 Kinesthetic hallucinations, where you think you experience motion when you
didn’t experience motion. For example when you fall in dreams.
 Tactile hallucinations, where you feel a sense of touch when you haven’t
touched anything. For example, when you think your phone has vibrated but it
didn’t really because no one loves you.
The majority of single mode hallucinations are brought about due to schizophrenia or
drugs. Benjamin Rolland writes: “Hallucinations are complex misperceptions, that
principally occur in schizophrenia or after intoxication induced by three main classes
of drugs: psychostimulants, psychedelics, and dissociative anesthetics.” 190 For the
most part, hallucinations are experienced in a single mode although if someone is
schizophrenic or high on drugs, they can experience more than one mode.
In our early reports, such as Acts 10:34-43, we see that the experiences are not a
single mode, as they are multi-sensory and over a period of time.
7. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting Me?’ 8. So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am
Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9. “And those who were with me
indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who
spoke to me.
Acts 22:7-9 (NKJV)
12. “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission
from the chief priests, 13. at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from
heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me.
14. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and
saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard
a
This is included in Mike Licona’s book as a footnote.
53
for you to kick against the goads.’ 15. So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I
am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have
appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the
things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17. I will
deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send
you, 18. to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance
among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
The people most likely to experience a hallucination are senior adults who are
bereaving the loss of a loved one and even then, only 7% of those are visual. With
that in mind, consider the following. The early reports indicate that not 7% but 100%
of the disciples experienced appearances of the risen Jesus, through multiple modes,
for an extended amount of time, in a group setting on multiple occasions. When we
keep adding remote improbabilities on top of each other with more and more people,
it becomes absurd. Furthermore, if we were this skeptical, we could falsify most
events in history by positing repeated group hallucinations; it would not be
reasonable or the most probable explanation.
Hallucinations through the power of suggestion can sometimes happen. For instance,
with people in a lifeboat, one may think they see a ship and this results in all the
passengers thinking they see a ship. Some of the very little literature on group
hallucinations can be seen in this area. Authors Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones
theorise that if there is an expectation, emotional excitement and people having been
informed beforehand, then a group hallucination maybe is possible although even
then what is reported by each individual will very likely vary. Zusne and Jones
conclude their work by saying: “The final answer to these questions has not been
obtained yet”, meaning a scientific explanation has yet to explain collective
hallucinations. 191 In 2015, Gary Habermas and Joseph Bergeron completed a survey
of the literature in PubMed on collective hallucinations and could not find a single
occurrence of a collective hallucination where a group of people saw the same thing
that wasn’t there. 192 Given there has been no instance of a recorded group
hallucination in history, it seems more ad hoc and less plausible to posit multiple
group hallucinations in a short proximity, or even at all, in comparison to an actual
appearance, especially with the other facts in the equation.
Even hallucinations involving just two people are exceptionally rare, often falling
under the category of folie à deux, meaning madness shared by two. This is a
particular type of contagious hysteria where the symptoms of a delusional belief, and
sometimes hallucinations, are transmitted from one person to another. This has
manifested in the past as one person thinking people are after them causing another
suggestible person, usually a close friend or family member, to believe it too. a
Even if a scientific explanation could account for group hallucinations, the

resurrection does not fit the three criteria. Expectation and excitement were
completely absent. As we already covered, they did not expect Jesus to rise from the
a
For an example of this, see the case of Sabina and Ursula Eriksson.
54
dead as ancient Jews did not expect the resurrection until the end of the world. It
would be more likely they would be frustrated at spending their life following an
apparently failed Messiah. As for excitement, this was not the case as the accounts
tell us that the disciples were running for their lives after Jesus was crucified.
31. Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this
night, for it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be
scattered.’ 32. But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee.” 33. Peter
answered and said to Him, “Even if all are made to stumble because of You, I will
never be made to stumble.” 34. Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this
night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35. Peter said to Him,
“Even if I have to die with You, I will not deny You!” And so said all the disciples.
56. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then
all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
Matthew 26:56 (NKJV)
19. On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together,
with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among
them and said, “Peace be with you!”
John 20:19 (NKJV)
They even doubted the reports of the women.
11. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them.
Luke 24:11 (NKJV)
Rather than being excited, when they first saw Jesus, they were frightened.
37. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38.
And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your
hearts?
Additionally, the reports do not vary. All of them report a bodily resurrection of Jesus
where He looks like Himself but also slightly different, as seen in 1 Corinthians 15,
Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20-21. His body also has new powers it did not have
before. William Lane Craig states: “…the fact remains that there is not a single
instance in the casebooks exhibiting the diversity involved in the postmortem
appearances of Jesus.” 193
The biggest issue with the hallucination theory here is we still have to account for the
early Christians preaching a bodily resurrection rather than a spiritual appearance.
The first Christians were very familiar with visions.
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named
Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her
55
name was Elizabeth. 6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7. But they had no child,
because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years. 8. So it
was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, 9.
according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went
into the temple of the Lord. 10. And the whole multitude of the people was praying
outside at the hour of incense. 11. Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him,
standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12. And when Zacharias saw him,
he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13. But the angel said to him, “Do not be
afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a
son, and you shall call his name John. 14. And you will have joy and gladness, and
many will rejoice at his birth. 15. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even
from his mother’s womb. 16. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the
Lord their God. 17. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn
the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the
just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” 18. And Zacharias said to the
angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in
years.” 19. And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the
presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings. 20.
But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take
place, because you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.”
21. And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he lingered so long in the
temple. 22. But when he came out, he could not speak to them; and they perceived
that he had seen a vision in the temple, for he beckoned to them and remained
speechless. 23. So it was, as soon as the days of his service were completed, that
he departed to his own house.
Luke 1:5-23 (NKJV)
20. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared
to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary
your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:20 (NKJV)
13. Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph
in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and
stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
Matthew 2:13 (NKJV)
19. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have
nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream
because of Him.”
10. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and to him the
Lord said in a vision, “Ananias.”And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11. So the Lord said
to him, “Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas
for one called Saul of Tarsus, for behold, he is praying. 12. And in a vision he has
56
seen a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him, so that he might
receive his sight.” 13. Then Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about
this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem. 14. And here he
has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15. But the
Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before
Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16. For I will show him how many things he
must suffer for My name’s sake.”
Acts 9:10-16 (NKJV)
3. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming
in and saying to him, “Cornelius!” 4. And when he observed him, he was afraid, and
said, “What is it, lord?”So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up
for a memorial before God. 5. Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose
surname is Peter. 6. He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.
He will tell you what you must do.”
Acts 10:3-6 (NKJV)
9. The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up
on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10. Then he became very hungry and
wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11. and saw heaven
opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him
and let down to the earth. 12. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth,
wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13. And a voice came to him, “Rise,
Peter; kill and eat.” 14. But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything
common or unclean.” 15. And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What
God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16. This was done three times. And
the object was taken up into heaven again. Summoned to Caesarea 17. Now while
Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the
men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and
stood before the gate.
Acts 10:9-17 (NKJV)
9. Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak,
and do not keep silent; 10. for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you;
for I have many people in this city.”
Acts 18:9-10 (NKJV)
1. It is [a]doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and

revelations of the Lord: 2. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether
in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—
such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3. And I know such a man—whether
in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4. how he was caught up
into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5. Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. 6.
For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I
refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from
me. 7. And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the
revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me,
57
lest I be exalted above measure. 8. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord
three times that it might depart from me. 9. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient
for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will
rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10.
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in
distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
14. When she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her gladness she did not open
the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter stood before the gate. 15. But they
said to her, “You are beside yourself!” Yet she kept insisting that it was so. So they
said, “It is his angel.”
They never once interpreted appearances of Christ as visions and if it had been a
vision, they would have called it a vision, like they did on all the other occasions.
They would never have said bodily resurrection unless they meant it, especially Paul,
who as a Shammaite Pharisee would have never come up with this; it went against
everything he believed. Additionally, if they did see him in a vision, it would more
likely be as an exalted man in heaven, not the creator Himself who used His divine
power to raise Himself from the dead. The hallucination theory clearly fails to explain
the appearances to the disciples.
It is even harder to explain the appearances to skeptics and when it comes to this,
the hallucination theory further multiplies its assumptions and further lacks
reasonability, especially with Paul who hated Jesus and the Christian Church and
couldn’t have been grieving Jesus.
Given he was not at the crucifixion and was not a follower, it is unlikely James was
grieving but it is possible. He obviously did not believe Jesus would rise from the
dead or expected any kind of return when he did not believe that He was Lord. This
is discounting the fact that a dying and rising Messiah was not remotely a part of
second-temple Judaism beliefs. Mike Licona writes that James and his brothers
“would have regarded their dead brother as a heretic rather than rush to Jerusalem
and be caught up in such group ecstasy… it seems more likely that Jesus' execution
as a criminal and a blasphemer would have supported their continued unbelief rather
than their conversion”. 194
The plausibility of Paul having a hallucination is far lower than even James because
hallucinations usually happen for people who are expecting them and grieving. A
mere vision would not have caused his sudden and dramatic conversion. If Paul had
had a vision, he would have simply moved on.
Many skeptics suggest Paul’s hallucinations came from guilt but there is no evidence
Paul suffered from guilt before his conversion and there is no theme of this running
through his writings. Moreover, as Gary Habermas and Mike Licona tell us, Paul
does not fit the profile of someone who would experience a conversion psychosis
according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5. 195
58
He was successful in his life and this is clear in his writings. He experienced no
troubles, issues with his conscience or feelings of shortcoming. This is all assuming
it’s even appropriate to psychoanalyse someone without having intimate knowledge
of them, let alone a historical figure who we have no personal knowledge of. It is
difficult enough even for psychiatrists to psychoanalyse patients in front of them, let
alone lay people psychoanalysing historical figures. This explanation is totally ad hoc,
lacks plausibility and has no explanatory power.
Many skeptics ask how Paul could know it was Jesus who appeared to him but this
objection is flawed because the appearance of Jesus to Paul was so miraculous and
wondrous that it was unquestionable that the figure was God in the flesh. A light from
heaven flashed around Paul, knocking him to the ground before Jesus reveals
Himself. The original objection actually helps our case because without prior
knowledge of Jesus, if it was just a hallucination, there isn’t anyone to hallucinate or
imagine. It would be impossible for Paul’s cognitive faculties to create a hallucination
of Jesus when there is no Jesus in Paul’s cognitive faculties.
As we covered earlier, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of
history but the hallucination grants this occurred, so there is no issue there. However,
the hallucination theory cannot account for the invention of the Gospel message,
which would be totally inconceivable to invent after just a hallucination, let alone for
everyone accept it and have their lives changed. The theory also can’t explain why
they would preach such a humiliating message for the time. It would not win them
converts should the resurrection be false. If it was just a hallucination or vision, they
wouldn’t even preach the message of a bodily resurrection. They would instead
preach spiritual vindication which, as we established earlier, they were familiar with.
We must also fail the hallucination theory when it comes to the story of the women at
the tomb. While it is conceivable that someone had an unfamiliar vision or dream that
the women found the tomb, they were not expecting it and multiple different sources
report the same fact so it would be ad hoc to suggest they could have had a vision
when transmitting this fact and the slim probability shrinks further considering the
number of independent sources we can survey that report it. Furthermore, since this
was such an embarrassing fact, if there was any doubt that it actually happened, they
would not included it because at the time it only damaged their position. A vision or a
dream certainly wouldn’t cut it. It is reported because they absolutely knew it to be
completely true and therefore integral to report.
If someone thought they had a vision in which Jesus was vindicated by God and was
in heaven, this would not mean He was physically raised, let alone that He was the
Messiah. They would have simply dispelled this as a vision or spiritual vindication, so
the idea of the resurrection could not originate in this way. No one would believe in a
new idea of the bodily resurrection based on a hallucination. No one thought a bodily
resurrection would happen or even thought it was possible at all so they could not
have expected it either, which is hugely important to hallucinations.
As the hallucination theory fails to account for the appearances to the Disciples, we
cannot say it caused the immediate proclamation in Jerusalem although we will give
59
the theory a pass on this fact by discounting the reasoning from earlier as to why the
appearances to the Disciples could not have been hallucinations. As we are judging
the possibility of this fact alone, it is conceivable that a hallucination could lead to the
proclamation in Jerusalem.
Unless the entire population of Jerusalem hallucinated that the body was not there or
hallucinated the burial itself, then the hallucination theory cannot explain the empty
tomb. In reality, those proposing the hallucination theory don’t even attempt to
explain the empty tomb and usually need to pair it with another theory, making it
even more unlikely. This means the hallucination theory cannot explain the fact of the
empty tomb.
If the witnesses hallucinated the entire event, it is possible that they would be willing
to suffer persecution and die but it would have to be a wild hallucination to give them
this level of certainty and as we already established, the likelihood of hallucinations to
the witnesses was already low enough. Nevertheless, as it is remotely possible, we
must conclude that the hallucination hypothesis can explain this fact.
While unlikely, the theory could possibly account for the early proclamation in
Jerusalem and the voluntary suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses but it utterly
fails to account for appearances to the Disciples, appearances to skeptics, the
Gospel message, the origin of resurrection belief, women finding the empty tomb and
the empty tomb itself. The hallucination hypothesis provides little explanatory scope,
it does not have explanatory power, it is massively ad hoc, ridiculously implausible
and provides no illumination for why Christianity very quickly became the most
popular belief of the entire Roman empire suddenly after the death of Jesus among
people who hated and rejected Him up until and during His crucifixion.
In conclusion, the hallucination theory can only barely survive on only some of the
facts if some pretty miraculous hallucinations are posited; multiple mode, extended
time, taking place in group settings and on multiple occasions. Such hallucination
events have never before been seen in the entirety of human history and what’s
more, they had to be so realistic that they were worth suffering and dying for in the
case of both followers and skeptics.
The Mythic Theory
This theory posits that all the events and miracle claims of Jesus were made up at a
later time and were not held by early eyewitnesses.
As the reports of appearances can be dated very early, they could not have been
made up at a later date, so the mythic theory cannot account for the reports of
appearances to the disciples. The mythic theory also fails to account for appearances
to skeptics because Paul was very early on writing and quoting a Creed about his
own conversion. Also, mentioning that James was an early skeptic would not have
been invented as no Christian would dishonour, shame or lie about one of their own
60
leaders in presenting what would be a damaging, negative account if it did not occur.
This idea is supported by skeptical scholars such as Gerd Lüdemann. 196
The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of history and was preached
very early, so the mythic theory cannot account for this or the Gospel message,
which was embarrassing, dangerous and disadvantageous at the time. It also fails to
explain these facts for the same reasons the conspiracy theory does.
As we know from evidences like the Creed, the belief of a physical, bodily
resurrection of the Messiah was not something Christians made up long after the
Disciples, so the mythic theory cannot explain the historical origins of the resurrection
belief. This belief was there from the very start, as even Josephus reports, 197 which
can be seen in an uninterpolated Arabic version quoted in the 10 th century by
Agapios of Hierapolis in Kitab al-‘Unwan: “At this time there was a wise man who was
called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And
many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his
disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to
them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the
Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” 16
It would have made far more sense for the Christians to consolidate and say that
Jesus ascended and by following His teachings, you can too. Inventing this story of
resurrection was completely repelling to all in the culture at that time.
When the authors supposedly had all the freedom to form whichever narrative they
liked, claiming women were the first to witness the resurrection and women were the
ones who discovered the empty tomb is not reasonable to assume on the mythic
theory. To the ancient world, this fact undermined the entire story because of how
women were viewed in terms of their reliability in testimony, so inventing this would
be obscene. This means the mythic theory in this instance is absurd to suggest.
As we know the resurrection was proclaimed early on, almost immediately after the
appearances, it is impossible for the mythic theory to explain. As we already covered,
the Creed from 1 Corinthians is dated to within 3 years of Pentecost so Christians in
Jerusalem at that time were proclaiming the resurrection. It is impossible for the
mythic theory to account for this evidence. This pitfall is again the case when it
comes to the voluntary suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses because this is well
attested to and there is not a single source that challenges that the witnesses were
persecuted or martyred.
Some have tried to argue the empty tomb was a later addition as it was not included
in the Creed Paul included in Corinthians. Firstly, we explained the reason for this
earlier. The early sermons and epistles skip over the fact because it damaged their
early case to admit women were the ones who found the empty tomb. Regardless,
the Creed is clear in what happened, “that he was buried” then “that he was raised on
the third day in accordance with the Scriptures”. It is pretty glaringly obvious that
what was buried is what was raised, so the tomb must have been empty. As N. T.
61
Wright says: “The fact that the empty tomb itself, so prominent in the gospel
accounts, does not appear to be specifically mentioned in this passage, is not
significant; the mention hereof “buried and raised” no more needs to be amplified in
that way than one would need to amplify the statement, “I walked down the street”
with the qualification "on my feet.”” 198 What’s more, the empty tomb is mentioned in
Mark’s early account and even more importantly, this argument from silence is
irrelevant as it just ignores all the other evidence we already provided for the empty
tomb. This conclusively proves the mythic theory cannot explain the empty tomb
either.
The mythic theory fails as an explanation because we only argued from established
facts that we know are early and could not have been made up. The theory fails to
account for every single one. The long list includes the appearances to the Disciples,
appearances to skeptics, the Gospel message itself, the origin of resurrection belief,
women finding the empty tomb, the early proclamation in Jerusalem, the voluntary
suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses and the empty tomb. It offers no
explanatory scope for the vast amount of evidence, it does not have any explanatory
power, it is completely ad hoc and implausible and provides no illumination for why
Christianity even exists at all, let alone why it spread so rapidly among people who
rejected Jesus.
Scholars’ Theories.
While we have looked at the most popular and general theories, scholars do not use
these when opposing the resurrection and instead usually use a blend of them.
These theories are more complex so require specific attention. There are many
theories which have been suggested a but the two most prominent advanced theories
are presented by Bart Ehrman and Gerd Lüdemann.
Bart Ehrman’s Theory.
This argument is essentially as follows.
1. The disciples believed so strongly that Jesus was the Messiah that upon His
death, they could not let go of this belief.
2. Because of this, they still preached He was the messiah and was vindicated
by God in heaven.
3. They also started saying He was resurrected and was coming back soon to
establish the Jewish messianic kingdom.
4. Jesus’ body had decomposed by the time the Christians started proclaiming
His resurrection so nobody could check if the body was still there.
5. Then, people started having visions; some were made up and some were
real.
a
Some theories of scholars are heavily focused on one of the general opposing theory areas we
have covered, so haven’t been addressed in this section. All the key individual parts of the theories
of other scholars can be found elsewhere in the document where they were included at more fitting
points.
62
It must be stressed that while he doesn’t believe this theory is what occurred and this
isn’t his biggest objection to the resurrection, a Ehrman argues this theory as a
hypothetical theory for the sake of giving a theory that would still be more probable
than the resurrection, hence attempting to falsify the resurrection hypothesis as the
best explanation.
Ehrman presented one framing of his theory in a 2006 debate with William Lane
Craig: “The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that
they turned to their scriptures to try to make sense of it. They had believed Jesus
was the Messiah but then He got crucified so He couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew
prior to Christianity thought that the Messiah was to be crucified… the Messiah would
be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge; He would be a figure of grandeur
and power, not somebody who’d be squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How
could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned
to their scriptures to try and understand it and they found passages that refer to the
Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53
and Psalm 22 and Psalm 69, the one who is punished or who is killed is also
vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the
Righteous One and that God must have vindicated Him and so Christians came to
think of Jesus as one who, even though He had been crucified, came to be exalted to
heaven; much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How then is Jesus
the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming
back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; He’s a spiritual
Messiah. That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in
their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the
resurrection. But if Jesus was exalted, He’s no longer dead and so Christians started
circulating the story of His resurrection. It wasn’t three days later they started
circulating that story, it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years
later, they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to
check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew He’d been raised from the
dead started having visions of Him; others told stories of these visions of Him,
including Paul. Stories of these visions circulated; some of them were actual visions,
like Paul, others of them were stories of visions, like the 500 who apparently saw
Him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and
eventually, we got the Gospels of the New Testament, written 30, 40, 50, 60 years
later.” 199
Let’s compare this theory to the evidence we covered and see if it is a better fit than
the resurrection theory. Ehrman’s theory hinges on the idea that the origins of
resurrection belief stem from a simpler belief that Jesus was exalted to heaven, upon
which it also somehow follows that He was resurrected. As we have already
demonstrated when covering the belief’s origins, this doesn’t fly. Bad joke? Okay.
The Jews never expected, never taught or believed the saints who were exalted to
heaven were somehow also resurrected and alive again. The resurrection was seen
to be solely an event that would happen at the end of time to everyone at once. Not a
a
Also see page 71 for the objection “Miracles are improbable so are always the least likely
explanation.”
63
single person ever described a dead relative or a saint as having already been
resurrected.
The Christians also did not use this language to talk about other dead saints such as
John the Baptist or Elijah. Only the Christians said this only happened to Jesus. The
Christians also didn’t describe the resurrection of Jesus as is seen in the Old
Testament, which was the apparent source according to Ehrman’s theory. Jesus was
not shining like a star as Daniel wrote but He is described in a completely new way.
The argument that the Disciples stole this idea from the surrounding culture never
gets off the ground; it is simply untenable as an explanation.
Additionally, it is debateable whether the Christians thought Jesus would come back
in their lifetime or if they were using Jewish apocalyptic language to describe a
coming judgement on Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD. When speaking of Jesus’
return, they said He was going to come back to fulfil Jewish Messianic expectations
and establish the earthly ruling throne of David over Rome. It is clear that the
Christians changed their beliefs.
19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. teaching them to observe all
things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the age.” Amen.
16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17. For God did not send
His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be
saved.
John 3:16-17 (NKJV)
25. who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our
justification.
Romans 4:25 (NKJV)
2. through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and
rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Romans 5:2 (NKJV)
12. in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
Ephesians 3:12 (NKJV)
22. in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and
above reproach in His sight—
14. how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered
Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God? 15. And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by
64
means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant,
that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16. For
where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while
the testator lives. 18. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without
blood. 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to
the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop,
and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20. saying, “This is the blood of
the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21. Then likewise he sprinkled with
blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22. And according to the
law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is
no remission. 23. Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the
heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these. 24. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with
hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us; 25. not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26. He then would
have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end
of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 9:14-26 (NKJV)
18. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring
us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
1 Peter 3:18 (NKJV)
They now held that Jesus was meant to establish a spiritual kingdom of love and
mercy in which Christ would work through the Church to redeem creation.
When it comes to the empty tomb explanation, decomposition is completely irrelevant

because the bones would have remained. If a skeptic asks how bones could be
identified, this only shows it would have only been easier for the authorities and
enemies to show Jesus stayed dead and stayed in the tomb but nevertheless, it was
public knowledge where the tomb was and tombs were not used for multiple people
as we can see from archaeology. Ehrman even concedes this, possibly without
realising, in the very same debate when he references the women watching from afar
in Mark 15:47, so they knew where the tomb was.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the tomb was obviously in the Sanhedrin
section of town so they could have pulled the remains or later bones out at any time
and provided witnesses to oppose the empty tomb witnesses. We never see this as
something the Christians ever needed to respond to, even centuries later. The
evidence clearly indicates the tomb was found empty. Ehrman sometimes claims the
idea of the women finding the empty tomb was a mythic invention. We’ve already
covered how the mythic theory fails in the area and Ehrman is being ad hoc here.
Ehrman claims that there is no early evidence that the Disciples suffered and died for
their belief. However, as we have already shown, there is plenty of early evidence;
Paul mentions persecutions, Josephus says James was martyred, Clement notes
65
Paul and Peter were both martyred and many other sources also attest to the
suffering and martyrdom of witnesses, as listed earlier.
Ehrman never addresses the issue of the early proclamation in Jerusalem or the idea
of the Gospel message itself and in previous debates, he doesn’t seem to grasp the
issue of the early proclamation, a so we do not know how he would try to explain this.
As an explanation needs to best explain all the data with explanatory scope,
explanatory power and illumination while not being ad hoc or implausible and he has
not demonstrated how his theory could do so with this fact, we have to conclude here
that the resurrection better explains this detail although to be fair to Ehrman, he has
not attempted to address this, so we will leave this out of our final assessment of his
theory.
In this theory, Bart Ehrman accepts that Paul had to experience something that
would cause his conversion but simply asserts that it must be a vision. When
addressing the hallucination theory before, we explained how this was absolutely out
of the question and totally ad hoc. Paul would have been the least likely to
experience a hallucination of Jesus for various reasons and as we added
improbability to improbability in examining the possibilities concerning this, it became
clear that it would require a miracle in itself!
For the appearances to the Disciples, this theory employs a mixture of the conspiracy
and hallucination theory, which is very telling. Different theories have to be given for
different aspects of the story because the theories on their own fail overall, even
though having two theories together makes the chances of the theory being true far,
far slimmer. Nevertheless, Ehrman sees combining theories as necessary to get out
of the problems each individual theory causes him. Firstly, Ehrman gives no tangible
reason why the appearance to the 500 should be discounted, which is odd given
most of the 500 were still alive according to the Creed. He agrees that the Creed in 1
Corinthians 15 that mentions this is very early so he is simply presupposing the event
couldn’t happen because 500 people could not experience Him at once. While
someone may object they were not named, if no one claimed to be one of the
majority of the 500 still living then it would be clear that the account is false and
because people must have claimed to be part of the 500, they would be available for
testimony.
Additionally, the detail of some of the 500 dying seems only necessary if the story is
accurate because if it was made up, why would you reduce the number of available
witnesses who had supposedly experienced the miracle? It would have been very
difficult for the Christians to make this up in a Creed intended for all to memorise
without any evidence to back it up and without the testimony of many, if not all, of the
500 who were still alive. Seemingly, the only reason why we should discount this
appearance apriori is if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, making this argument
circular. Despite the odds being infinitesimal, as it is remotely possible that the
appearances to witnesses were inventions we will allow this explanation to pass.
a
See Bart Ehrman’s 2015 debate with Tim McGrew on Premier Christian Radio.
66
To be charitable to Ehrman, he laid out his theory briefly and he doesn’t hold that it
was what happened. It also isn’t his biggest objection to the resurrection and after his
2006 debate with Craig in which he presented this framing of the argument, he
dropped the use of an alternative hypothesis at all and no longer uses an opposing
theory in his criticism of the resurrection hypothesis. However this argument,
especially this framing of the argument, needed to be addressed because it is
commonly used to attempt to refute the resurrection. While it could possible account
for the appearances to the disciples, Ehrman’s theory fails to account for the origin of
resurrection belief, the empty tomb, women finding the empty tomb, the voluntary
suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses and appearances to skeptics.
Gerd Lüdemann’s Theory
A more detailed scholarly theory is given by Gerd Lüdemann in his book The
Resurrection of Christ. It is argued similarly to Ehrman’s theory but interacts with
more information and goes into more detail with its explanations and reasoning.
Lüdemann first suggests that Peter suffered a terrible amount of grief and was the
first to hallucinate an appearance of Jesus. 200 Through the power of suggestion, he
led the remaining disciples into experiencing their own hallucinations. 201 They then
lead a group of about 500 in mass ecstasy that resulted in them partaking in an
experience. 202 He argues that James and his brothers were caught up in the mass
ecstasy 203 and later on, Paul had become disenchanted with the beliefs about the
God of Judaism and secretly became attracted to the loving God of Christianity. 204
According to Ludeman, Paul was suffering a mental war within himself, wrestling
“against his subconscious but all-consuming needs for acceptance and self-
importance,” and projected these “onto the Christians so as to justify attacking them
all the most savagely.” 205 Paul then fled from his painful internal war into the safety of
hallucinations, coming out believing God had told him to minister to the gentiles as a
Christian. 206 This meant he had to agree with the rest of the disciples that their
visions meant that Jesus was physically resurrected. 207 He then speculates that later
Christians made up the story of the empty tomb and that narratives were created to
combat Christians claiming Jesus was only symbolically resurrected, which is what
became known to us as the Gospels. 208 According to Lüdemann, this is how
Christianity began.
A quick side note here is after reading this theory, it’s easier to understand why not
all scholars accept the resurrection in spite of accepting the historical facts we
presented. a Even when they accept all the individual pieces, or most of them, they
cannot put it together. When they do, they become Christian and then, some skeptics
discount them for being Christian but this would be a circular argument.
1. Give us a secular historian that accepts Jesus’ resurrection.

2. If they believed the resurrection occurred, they would be a Christian.
3. That’s a Christian historian, so they are unreliable. (Return to 1)
a
Also see page 81 for the objection “Why don’t all historians accept the resurrection when they
agree on the facts?”
67
Asking for a secular historian affirming the resurrection is like asking for a married
bachelor. If a secular historian accepts the resurrection, they are no longer a secular
historian.
Returning to addressing the theory, immediately when looking at it, we see many
glaring issues that we have already addressed, starting with all the evidence for the
empty tomb. It is very surprising that Lüdemann thinks the discovery of the tomb by
women was a later embellishment when all the evidence points to it being true but he
gives no reason for this view. Elsewhere, Lüdemann accepts facts based on the
criterion of embarrassment, such as Peter denying Jesus three times 209 and the
skepticism of James. 203 If he accepts that the Gospel writers would not make up
facts that are embarrassing, shameful or disadvantageous in some places, he has no
reason to reject the empty tomb and every reason to accept it. He is simply being
inconsistent and ahistorical.
The most shocking part of Lüdemann’s theory is his attempted psychoanalysis of

Paul, which is far-reaching, unscientific and ad hoc. As William Lane Craig said in
response to Lüdemann: “Psychoanalysis is notoriously difficult even when the patient
is seated in front of you, but it is virtually impossible with historical figures.” 210 Martin
Hengel says that Lüdemann “does not recognize these limits on the historian. Here
he gets into the realm of psychological explanations, for which no verification is really
possible… Moreover the sources are far too limited for such psychologizing
analyses.” 211 Historian Michael Goulder also attempts to use extensive social
sciences to explain the appearances, arguing Paul’s emotional state caused him to
hallucinate 212 but often carelessly uses the data. 213
Lüdemann also adds that following his experience, Paul “was eager–of course
subconsciously–to assume that exalted position”, 206 so had a Christ complex,
ironically, as well as being a competitive overachiever and internalising his guilt.
Even Dale Allison comments that “while Lüdemann’s story fits the facts, the facts do
not demand it”, 214 in other words, it is ad hoc. Lüdemann is also forced to interpret
Romans 7 in terms of Paul’s pre-Christian experience, which, according to Hans
Kessler, is rejected by “almost all expositors” since the late 1920’s. 215
There simply is nowhere near enough information to suggest Paul was troubled by
guilt before his conversion and nowhere in his writings do we see this theme. This
explanation is completely ad hoc, just as it would be ad hoc to posit Hitler committed
his atrocities due to personal, private doubts over his anti-Semitic views. In his letters
after his conversion, there is no indication he is suffering from guilt regarding his sin
and projecting his negative emotions onto Christians. We have far more evidence to
the contrary, that Paul and Pharisees like him didn’t experience struggles in standing
against Christians.
As scholar Krister Stendahl says: “Contrast Paul, a very happy and successful Jew,
one who can, even when he thinks about it from his Christian perspective, say in his
Epistle to the Philippians “as to the righteousness under the law (I was) blameless”
(Phil. 3: 6). That is what he says. He experiences no troubles, no problems, no
68
qualms of conscience, no feelings of shortcomings. He is a star pupil, the student to
get the thousand dollar graduate, scholarship in Gamaliel’s Seminary.” Stendahl
continues: “Nowhere in Paul's writings is there any indication that he had any
difficulties in fulfilling what he as a Jew understood to be the requirements of the
law.” 216 Paul was the man and the scholar chosen to root out Christianity having
studied under the number one teacher, Gamaliel.
As established earlier, in the ancient world, visions of the deceased are not evidence
that the person is alive, but evidence that they are dead. As James Dunn asks: “Why
did they conclude it was Jesus risen from the dead?–Why not simply visions of the
dead man–Why not visions “fleshed out” with the apparatus of apocalyptic
expectation, coming on the clouds of glory and the like …? Why draw the astonishing
conclusion that the eschatological resurrection had already taken place in the case of
a single individual separate from and prior to the general resurrection?” 217
As Gary Habermas and Mike Licona explain, Paul does not fit the profile of someone
who is likely to experience a conversion psychosis according to Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5. 195 There is absolutely no evidence to
suggest this was even possible; it is a completely unfounded speculation and cannot
be taken seriously as a theory. As well as being ad hoc, it lacks plausibility and has
no explanatory power. The same can be said of James. There is absolutely no
reason to assume the death of Jesus would suddenly convince James that he was
Lord. Surely, if anything, it would just confirm what James had believed, that He was
not.
Lüdemann argues that the belief in physical resurrection comes from the Disciples
and Paul experiencing the hallucinations of Christ and the context of their culture. He
says that they said it was bodily resurrection because that was the only way they
could understand the appearances. This is once again completely baseless because,
as we have already seen, the witnesses were not ignorant of visions of other people
who had died and never reported those as bodily resurrections. For instance, when
the servant girl reported seeing Peter at the gate, they instead said it was his angel,
not Peter being physically resurrected or present.
14. When she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her gladness she did not open
the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter stood before the gate. 15. But they
said to her, “You are beside yourself!” Yet she kept insisting that it was so. So they
said, “It is his angel.”
They did not, as Lüdemann claims, need to thrust bodily resurrection onto what
happened with Jesus. Even Lüdemann himself acknowledges that bodily resurrection
was the earliest Christian belief: “we have no sound way to place the symbolic
interpretation of Jesus' resurrection within the context of earliest Christian
resurrection belief.” 208 Because of this, the position that the Disciples were in the
condition to hallucinate a physical resurrection is lacking. Even if Peter was grief
stricken and talked the others into taking part in his hallucination, there would be no
reason to expect they would all then hallucinate and experience the same thing. It is
69
almost impossible for one person to talk a second person into hallucinating the same
event, let alone all of them or the 500. These would be incredible odds, slimmer than
could possibly be imagined, and even then, they would all have to infer a physical
resurrection from this. As we established before, none of the conditions for group
hallucinations are even met anyway before we jump into this fanciful speculation and
Lüdemann’s theory is just ignorant of what little medical literature there is on the topic
to suggest this as a possibility.
As Lüdemann’s theory follows the same logic as the hallucination theory when it
comes to other three facts, arguing for hallucination and mass hysteria, we will
assess it identically as we did when we covered these three areas in the hallucination
hypothesis. We must fail Lüdemann’s theory on the Gospel message and give the
theory a tentative pass on both the early proclamation in Jerusalem and the voluntary
suffering and martyrdom of the witnesses. His excessively ad hoc theory could
possibly account for the early proclamation in Jerusalem and the voluntary suffering
and martyrdom of the witnesses but it absolutely cannot account for the empty tomb
and the women finding it, appearances to skeptics, the origin of resurrection belief or
the appearances to the Disciples.
Conclusion.
Skeptical theories of scholars fail to provide a satisfying or more reasonable

explanation for the facts than the resurrection theory. When the basic theories by
themselves cannot explain the evidence, mixing them will not improve the
explanatory power, scope, plausibility, illumination or making them less ad hoc. In
fact, it just multiples the improbability. The issue is that skeptics believe positing a
theory with even the tiniest ounce of possibility trumps the resurrection theory by
default a but if these theories are not possible according to the method and the facts
necessitate that a miraculous event is the most fitting, reasonable and likely
explanation, then this naturalistic presupposition is false. Methodological neutrality
requires that we do not accept a more ad hoc, less explanatory and less appropriate
theory just because it conforms to our preconceived worldview. Only one theory
satisfies all the data and no others even come close.
Part 3: General Objections To The Resurrection
Objection: Miracles are improbable so are always the least likely explanation.
This is Bart Ehrman’s primary objection in regard to the resurrection. He framed it as

follows in his debate with William Lane Craig in 2006: “What are miracles? Miracles
are not impossible; I won’t say they are impossible. You might think they are
impossible; if you do think so then you’re going to agree with my argument even
more than I would agree with my argument. I’m just going to say that miracles are so
highly improbable that they are the least possible occurrence in any given instance.
a
Also see page 71 for the objection “Miracles are improbable so are always the least likely
explanation.”
70
They violate the way nature actually works. They are so highly improbable; their
probability is infinitesimally remote that we call them miracles. No one on the face of
this earth can walk on lukewarm water. What are the chances that one of us can do
it? Well, none of us can, so let’s say the chances are one in ten billion. Suppose
somebody can; well then it’s a chance of one in ten billion but the fact is none of us
can. What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen but if it did
happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are not only that Jesus’ body
came back to life but He came back to life never to die again; that’s a violation of
what naturally happens. Every day, time after time, millions of times a year, what are
the chances of it happening? It would be a miracle. In other words, it would be so
highly improbable that we cannot account for it by natural means. A theologian may
claim that it’s true and to argue with the theologian we would have to argue on
theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians
can only establish what probably happened in the past and by definition, a miracle is
the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical
research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition,
it probably didn’t.” 218
This is by far the most popular objection to the resurrection argument, wherein
miracles are always the most improbable explanation, so we should not accept the
resurrection theory above any other. Firstly, we must point out that Ehrman isn’t
actually addressing the evidence here and the facts we presented on their own aren’t
miraculous. His argument is essentially as follows.
Premise 1: The Resurrection is a miracle.

Premise 2: Miracles, by definition, are the least probable thing that could happen and
what is most improbable should be dismissed a priori.
Conclusion: Therefore we must dismiss the resurrection a priori, so it cannot be a
competing theory.
This is effectively the same as David Hume’s argument for the impossibility of
miracles, a although Ehrman rejects Hume’s argument. Ehrman is rather saying
miracles can’t be demonstrated through history. However, when we look at the
argument, the only difference is rather than impossibility, it is improbability. The same
logic and same problems that apply to Hume’s argument apply to this argument too,
referencing violations of the laws of nature and the uniform experience that people
have not been raised from the dead.
Pieter Craffert gives an objection along these lines, stating: “It is not against the
acceptance of supernaturalism as such, but the special pleading for one instance in
history.” 219 This objection has also been presented by Craffert elsewhere in
collaboration with Pieter J. J. Botha, 220 by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan
221
and by Barnabas Lindars. 222 Michael Goulder also asserts that Ockham’s razor
dismisses the resurrection hypothesis as any naturalistic explanation is more
probable. Similar arguments are also found in the works of John Meier, 223 Alexander
Wedderburn 224 and Géza Vermes. 225
a
See the document Are Miracles Logically Possible?
71
As a quick side note, using this argument or falling back on it without presenting an
alternate explanation is effectively a concession that the resurrection is the best
explanation of the facts and no other explanation is capable, because this objection
is only necessary if another explanation cannot better account for the facts. Because
of this, answering this objection should satisfy an opponents’ rejection of the
resurrection and if we can demonstrate miracles to be logically possible and defuse
the idea that we should reject them as an explanation apriori, they should accept the
resurrection.
We must first ask; if Christianity was true, would this event have happened more than
once? The answer is no. This argument is totally irrelevant because either way, this
event would only happen once whether Christianity is true or false. Skeptics are often
dismissive of binding universal statements such as “everything that begins to exist
has a cause”, so why not be skeptical of another given binding universal statement
when we are presented with a reasonable counterexample?
Like Hume, Ehrman argues in a circle that miracles probably cannot happen because
human experience tells us miracles cannot happen, which means all reports of
miracles are false and miracles cannot happen. We already established it is wrong to
presuppose naturalism or any other worldview and more importantly, it is also wrong
to presuppose a miracle must be the least probable by default in all circumstances
before investigating the claims. Evidence can clearly favour the theory a resurrection
has happened, as we have shown, more than any other possible theory. The
evidence we can investigate can change the probability of a miracle from remote to
most likely.
Take for example this analogy. Let’s say 1,000 doctors are present and medically
confirm the life of a man prior to death, the man dying and being dead for two days,
then his life again after the two days, all while under surveillance of the 1,000
doctors. Ehrman holds that by definition, a non miraculous explanation is always
more likely so would it be more reasonable to assume in this scenario to prefer the
explanation that all their reality is a simulation and the events never happened or
reality doesn’t exist? Perhaps as a better explanation, we should conclude all we
know about the naturalistic sciences is incorrect? How about all 1,000 had separate
but identical multi-modal extended hallucinations? Obviously, none of these would be
more reasonable because the evidence changes the parameters of possibility, like
the resurrection case, where it is the most reasonable, plausible and least ad hoc
explanation as oppose to all the other explanations of the evidence, which fail.
Some people do not outright give this objection and evaluate the evidence while
bearing in mind prior probability and background knowledge of uniform experience.
Upon evaluation of the evidence, they then suggest that no amount of that evidence
could overcome the prior probability. This suffers from the same circular conclusions
we already covered but in addition, if this was true, then we must determine that any
event in history that occurred only once never has enough evidence to support belief
in that event. This is because that event would have the same prior probability issues
before it occurred. This means we would have to reject events such as Hannibal
crossing the Swiss Alps, which has far less evidence than the resurrection theory.
72
This would also lead to an infinite regress, as every event that has ever happened
occurred for a first time but if that first time was illegitimate and we cannot believe
that first time happened, then the second time becomes the first time and so on, so
that we cannot have reasonable belief in any event in the entirety of history.
The claim that the resurrection is a theological claim rather than a historical claim is
also self defeating. Ehrman claims that the historian cannot say whether the
resurrection is probable or not because that is a theological claim and outside the
scope of what a historian can say. If this is the case, then he cannot claim that the
resurrection is improbable because this is making a theological claim. He cannot
claim the resurrection is the least probable because, by his own words, a historian
cannot say whether the resurrection is probable or not. The prior probability
argument presupposes God does not exist or at least could never perform miracles
because if He could possibly do this, then the prior probability would not be low,
especially given Jesus’ predictions specifically about this.
Ehrman also presupposes historians cannot evaluate miracle claims. This is an

unfounded claim. There is no reason why a historian could not evaluate evidence
and hypotheses just because it may infer something that is philosophically opposed
to their prior held belief of naturalism. Ehrman never backs up this claim because it is
not agreed upon by historians. Take David Hackett Fischer, who we cited at the start
of our case. Fischer says: “specific canons of historical proof are neither widely
observed nor generally agreed upon.” 226 Thomas Haskell writes that history, “unlike
English and Philosophy, lacks even the possibility of defining a single canon familiar
to all practitioners.” 227 Even skeptical historians such as Gerd Lüdemann 228 think we
can evaluate miracle claims.
Another objection raised is we might not yet know the best explanation for the
resurrection but we can't assume there will be a better explanation in future with no
evidence. If we did this, it would undermine all scientific and historical investigation
because we would never be able to infer to the best explanation. Furthermore, there
wouldn’t ever be a best explanation because there could always hypothetically be a
better one and we would never know whether a better explanation exists. This
methodology would mean we could never know anything ever. If someone would
regularly hold that the best explanation is what we should believe but raises this
objection only for the resurrection, then their argument is just special pleading.
Objection: It is not reasonable to believe a miracle claim.
To evaluate whether a miraculous claim is reasonable to believe, we need to ask

three questions to test it out.
Question One: Does the belief contradict an established fact about the subject
in question?
If we see a claim that somebody physically rose from the dead yet their body is still in
a grave, then it contradicts an established fact about the subject and is impossible.
73
This question is not to say that the resurrection contradicts the scientific fact that
dead people stay dead; this isn’t a fact about the subject, Jesus, it’s a fact about
human beings in general and our uniform experience. The resurrection actually
requires this fact to be true in order to be a miracle, otherwise it wouldn’t even be
significant at all. The word miracle comes from the Greek for “sign”, so if God is to
make a sign, it would have to be different or irregular from the world around us.
Uniformity of the laws of nature does not provide evidence against miracles; they are
necessary for a miracle to be possible. For a miracle to break the laws of nature,
there needs to be laws of nature. To say a miracle can’t happen because it does not
conform to those laws, the very laws it must necessarily break to be a miracle, makes
no sense.
An assumption that something cannot be true because of uniform experience isn’t

warranted either. For example, for over 1,500 years in Europe, people thought swans
were always white before testimony from Australia told us of black swans in 1697.
For those 15 centuries, the phrase “black swan” was even used as an expression to
mean impossible. Even though you might need a little more evidence for the black
swan, sincere and reliable testimony means that uniform experience is negated
somewhat. If those people in England who heard the testimony had followed the logic
that something cannot be true because of uniform experience, they would have
concluded black swans do not exist.
Question Two: Is there a lack of evidence we would expect if the event did
occur?
For example, if Jesus was said to appear to Josephus and Josephus did not mention
it, it would be unreasonable to believe He appeared to Josephus. What we see with
the resurrection is exactly as we would expect. The people who Jesus was said to
have appeared to claimed He appeared to them and told people what happened.
Some people believed them and some didn’t. Communication resulted in the
establishing of communities of believers and churches, the literate people among
them wrote about the resurrection and non-Christian historians who were aware of
these people and had a reason to write about them referenced them and their beliefs.
There is no evidence missing that we would expect if the resurrection happened.
Question Three: Can the evidence or circumstances of the event be as easily

account for or more easily accounted for by a usual explanation?
If it can be as easily or more easily accounted for, then it is unreasonable to believe

in the unusual event. As we have already shown, all possible competing hypotheses
for the evidence and circumstances of the resurrection fail.
Whereas for example in Islam, when Muhammad received poetic recitations from an
angel, it passes the first two questions but a regular explanation can account for the
facts, such incorrectly attributing his subconscious thoughts to an angel or the voice
of God. It could also be more easily explained as deception.
74
Objections: If you accept the resurrection, why don’t you believe miracle
claims of other religions?
This is an attempt at a reductio ad absurdum by saying that if we accept the

resurrection is true then other miracle claims also have to be true. Bart Ehrman is
one person who gives this argument. 229
Firstly, it doesn’t follow that by accepting one miracle claim, we would have to accept
all. They all have different levels of evidence and we need to look at the evidence on
a case by case basis. If there are claims, we can investigate them. We cannot accept
or reject other miracle claims a priori.
Secondly, Christianity doesn’t necessitate that other miracles and supernatural

occurances aren’t possible and they wouldn’t falsify Christianity unless they directly
opposed Christian theology or falsified the Christian worldview. Other miraculous
events only confirm the Christian belief there are supernatural powers at work. This
objection doesn’t help the naturalist. It would have no ramification on the Christian
worldview as it is expected that God acts in the lives of many people. 230
Thirdly, regardless of the content, any other claim would not affect the legitimacy of
the resurrection argument. The evidence we presented doesn’t change or become
any more or less convincing based on separate cases so if the evidence for that
separate case really does lead to something else that we previously assumed was
false, it doesn’t mean our original example is invalid; it just means the separate
example would be true too and logically follow. Additionally, if one person is being
inconsistent and accepting one miracle on less evidence while rejecting another on
more evidence, it doesn’t affect the legitimacy of the miracle claim.
There are some common examples of such miracles that we would supposedly be
forced to accept are raised by David Hume and Ehrman. Many of these additional
miracles can be found to be lacking in evidence and even have contrary evidence to
counteract them. Tim McGrew has addressed Hume’s examples of miracles we
would supposedly have to accept 231 and we can look at some popular ones now.
Example One: The temple of Delphi.
Our first example is from the writings of Herodotus, 50 years after the event, who tells
us of miracles at the temple of Delphi, including a whole town seeing resurrected a
fish, which is all attested to by eyewitnesses. Nothing in independent writings
contradict or refute these claims. As with every ancient historian or author
documenting events, including Suetonius and Tacitus, who was one of the most
rigorous and reliable historians, we find miracle claims. With this account in
Herodotus, it does not compare to the resurrection because there aren’t multiple
independent sources, there aren’t any skeptics involved, there aren’t any opponents
in the people Herodotus is writing for or reporting it to, the claim is made to a friendly
audience who don’t suffer as a result of holding this belief, they don’t immediately
a
In this instance, the word “resurrection” is to mean resuscitation, as it was not expected the fish
would not die again or had glorified bodies.
75
proclaim it in a hostile environment where there is the means to debunk the claim
and it isn’t falsifiable and there was no physical evidence to support the claim.
Even if we accept the facts, which aren’t grounded, the explanation that the fish really
were all resurrected is ad hoc as we cannot establish that the fish were all dead then
alive again and it is implausible because there isn’t any reason the fish would be
resurrected, despite the explanation having explanatory scope, power and
illumination. If we test whether it is reasonable to believe in, we find while the belief
does not contradict an established fact about the subject, there a lack of evidence we
would expect if the event did occur, such as multiple attestation given the whole town
saw it and physical evidence and immediate proclamation based on this sighting. The
event can also be better explained by a usual explanation. Either the account was
legendary or if it did happen, was overblown, which would explain the lack of
reaction, such as some fish appearing dead when not really dead or one person
being mistaken and leading on the town, who wouldn’t all have seen the whole event
because they wouldn’t have been looking initially when they didn’t know the event
would take place.
Example Two: Emperor Vespasian.
Multiple sources report miracles of the emperor Vespasian, namely Tacitus,

Suetonius and Cassius Dio. Tacitus reports: “One of the common people of
Alexandria, well known for his loss of sight, threw himself before Vespasian's knees,
praying him with groans to cure his blindness, being so directed by the god Serapis,
whom this most superstitious of nations worships before all others; and he besought
the emperor to deign to moisten his cheeks and eyes with his spittle. Another, whose
hand was useless, prompted by the same god, begged Caesar to step and trample
on it. Vespasian at first ridiculed these appeals and treated them with scorn; then,
when the men persisted, he began at one moment to fear the discredit of failure, at
another to be inspired with hopes of success by the appeals of the suppliants and the
flattery of his courtiers: finally, he directed the physicians to give their opinion as to
whether such blindness and infirmity could be overcome by human aid. Their reply
treated the two cases differently: they said that in the first the power of sight had not
been completely eaten away and it would return if the obstacles were removed; in the
other, the joints had slipped and become displaced, but they could be restored if a
healing pressure were applied to them. Such perhaps was the wish of the gods, and
it might be that the emperor had been chosen for this divine service; in any case, if a
cure were obtained, the glory would be Caesar's, but in the event of failure, ridicule
would fall only on the poor suppliants. So Vespasian, believing that his good fortune
was capable of anything and that nothing was any longer incredible, with a smiling
countenance, and amid intense excitement on the part of the bystanders, did as he
was asked to do. The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone
for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood
brings no reward.” 232
Suetonius writes: “Vespasian, the new emperor, having been raised unexpectedly
from a low estate, wanted something which might clothe him with divine majesty and
authority. This, likewise, was now added. A poor man who was blind, and another
76
who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal,
imploring him to heal them, and saying that they were admonished in a dream by the
god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one
by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he
vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the
thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the
experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt
publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with
success in both cases.” 233
Similarly, Cassius Dio tells us: “Vespasian himself healed two persons, one having a
withered hand, the other being blind, who had come to him because of a vision seen
in dreams; he cured the one by stepping on his hand and the other by spitting upon
his eyes.” 234
There was even a doctor on site to verify the miracle. However, John Meier says the
following in pointing out the fatal flaw in this account: “Suetonius and Tacitus seem to
tell the whole story with a twinkle in their eyes and smiles on their lips, an attitude
probably shared by Vespasian. The whole event looks like a 1st-century equivalent of
a ‘photo opportunity’ staged by Vespasian’s P.R. team to give the new emperor
divine legitimacy.” 235 The new emperor, who did not belong to the rightful line of
emperors of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero, needed to demonstrate
his legitimacy to add to his military successes. We see this reported by all the
historical sources that have been cited. As expected given this information, Tacitus
writes; “Such perhaps was the wish of the gods, and it might be that the emperor had
been chosen for this divine service”, Suetonius precedes the account with
“Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an
unexpected and still new-made emperor” and Cassius continues the account by
writing; “Heaven was thus magnifying him”.
All the reports of this were made among friends, favourable sources, with every
motivation to invent this story at the time and maintain it afterward, to keep the line as
appearing legitimate, as well as to get converts by copying the Christian miracle
accounts in Mark 8:23. There are no hostile sources, no method by which we can
falsify the claim and conspiracy is clearly the best explanation, with explanatory
scope, power, plausibility while refraining from being ad hoc and providing
illumination for the rest of the narrative. It is unreasonable to believe this miracle
because while the belief does not contradict an established fact about the subject,
the subject being the blind man, there a lack of evidence we would expect if the
event did occur, such as hostile testimony and acceptance of this fact as well as the
wider acceptance of Vespasian by the Roman people. Finally, as we have shown,
the event can obviously be better explained by a usual explanation.
As well presenting Vespasian as an example, Bart Ehrman gives numerous more

examples of other miracle accounts which we much supposedly accept if we also
accept the resurrection. These are Muhammad, Apollonius of Tyana, Honi the Circle-
Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa. 236 According to Ehrman, if someone accepts the
resurrection, they must also accept these but they are red herrings because they
77
have negligible evidence in comparison to the resurrection; certainly not enough
evidence to satisfy the historical method or reasonability tests.
Example Three: Muhammad.
Miracle claims involving Muhammad first appear much, much later than the Qur’an,
which does not report any miracles by Muhammad. It must also be pointed out that a
supernatural origin to the Qur’an also wouldn’t pose a problem for the Christian
worldview.
Example Four: Apollonius of Tyana.
Regarding Apollonius, the origin of the stories about him is extremely weak. There is
only one source written 125 years after Apollonius’ death and the author,
Philostratus, was paid to write this by a pagan empress Julia Domna because she
was tired of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire and wanted to draw
attention to Apollonius to justify the building of a temple to compete with Christianity.
There are also many clear and unavoidable historical errors in the accounts which
falsify the stories.
Example Five: Honi the Circle-Drawer.
Onias, who is known as Honi the Circle-Drawer, is mentioned by Josephus: “Now

there was one, whose name was Onias, a righteous man he was, and beloved of
God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat,
and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain.” 237 Three centuries
later, the story is reported in the Jerusalem Talmud, where the story is more detailed.
First, Honi prays for rain and when it doesn’t come, he draws a circle and stands
inside of it, promising not to leave until it rained. When a few drops came, he said it
was not what he prayed for and when it rained heavily, he again denied it, saying he
had prayed for “rain of good will, blessing and graciousness”, at which point it rained
normally. 238 While Josephus placed Honi in the first century B.C., the Jerusalem
Talmud claims he was from the sixth century B.C., which is a huge discrepancy for
Ehrman to overcome in claiming this event is comparable.
Even if we accept this narrative despite the clear issues with the account, when we
test it, it doesn’t pass our three step test of whether a miracle is reasonable to
accept. The miracle doesn’t contradict a known fact about Onias and there isn’t a
lack of evidence that we would expect if it occurred but the evidence or circumstance
can be more easily accounted for by a regular explanation. It is more likely that it
rained by a coincidence or the regular answering of a prayer, which wouldn’t require
some kind of miracle.
Example Six: Hanina ben Dosa.
Hanina ben Dosa is from the 1st century A.D. and he is mentioned in both the
Mishnah 239 and the Talmud. 240 This means the first report of ben Dosa’s miracles
78
come 150 years after the events apparently happened, which pales in comparison to
the resurrection accounts.
Now that we have addressed these common examples, it must now be said that it is
abundantly clear that miracles are well attested worldwide. According to a 2006 Pew
Forum report, approximately 200,000,000 Pentecostal Christians from the USA,
Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, India, the Philippines and
South Korea claim to have witnessed miraculous healings. This isn’t counting other
kinds of Christians from those countries. 241 Edmond Tang tells us: “All Christian
churches in China practice some form of healing… In fact, according to some
surveys, 90% of new believers cite healing as a reason for their conversion. This is
especially true in the countryside where medical facilities are often inadequate or
non-existent.” 242
In his two volume work on miracles, Craig Keener tells us: “It is no longer plausible to
tout “uniform human experience” as a basis for denying miracles, as in the traditional
modern argument. Hundreds of millions of claims would have to be satisfactorily
explained in nonsupernatural terms for this appeal to succeed; while many may be so
explained, one cannot adopt the conclusion of uniformity as a premise without
investigating all of them.” 243 Those who reject miracles are not doing so on the basis
of lack of evidence.
Objection: The resurrection theory is unfalsifiable.
The resurrection is not falsifiable. There are two types of defeater; an undercutting
defeater, which gives us a good reason to believe a given belief, and a rebutting
defeater, which proves definitively that the belief is false. For instance, if Lloyd claims
to have a Ferrari in his garage, an undercutting defeater would be to say Lloyd is
very poor and cannot afford a Ferrari. This doesn’t definitively prove he doesn’t have
a Ferrari but it makes it far less probable. A rebutting defeater would be to open the
garage and there’s no Ferrari, in which case it proves the statement is false and
Lloyd does not have a Ferrari in the garage, which he doesn’t. Lloyd actually doesn’t
have a Ferrari.
Obviously an alternate theory that better fits the evidence and explains it more
satisfactorily would undercut the resurrection theory but a major undercutting
defeater would be a letter from one of the Apostles recanting their testimony.
Examples of rebutting defeaters for the resurrection would be the falsification of a
crucial historical fact presented or new physical evidence that makes the resurrection
impossible.
Additionally, even though the resurrection is falsifiable, this objection doesn’t matter
regardless because a belief doesn’t necessarily have to be falsifiable. If the only
beliefs that we can believe must be falsifiable, that is self refuting because that belief
itself isn’t falsifiable.
79
Objection: We cannot accept the resurrection theory because the facts are
restricted to the historical Jesus and the events are restricted to time and
space.
This objection is effectively a weaker and stranger version of Ehrman’s theory and it
comes from probably the most renowned historical Jesus scholar in the world, John
Meier, who strangely chose to end his extensive studies and documentation of the
life of Jesus with the crucifixion and burial, without any regard for Jesus’ final fate 244
or the resurrection evidence, despite his willingness to consider the historicity of
Jesus’ miracles and refusal to rule them out before consideration.
Meier states the following: “By the Jesus of history I mean the Jesus whom we can
‘recover’ and examine using the scientific tools of modern historical research.” 245 a
Jesus from “a reasonably complete record of public works and deeds” 246 or “a
reasonably complete biographical portrait” 247 as oppose to the real Jesus, who is “a
modern abstraction and construct.” 245 This distinction is given in the opening lines of
Meier’s opening volume: “The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus is
not the historical Jesus.” 248 Accordingly, the resurrection is by definition off-limits due
to the restrictive definition of the historical Jesus. For Meier, neither of these are the
true Jesus, a third differentiation, who he holds is “everything he… ever thought,
experienced, did, and said.” 248 As William Lane Craig argues in dealing with Meier’s
issues: “Since even this is not a living, flesh-and-blood person but a description, one
cannot help but wonder what has happened to the actual person Jesus of Nazareth.”
249
The issue is any conclusion we draw about what Meier would call “the real Jesus” of
modern day comes from historical evidence from what Meier calls “the historical
Jesus”, in effect making them indistinguishable in the resurrection case. None of the
historical evidence presented is disputed by Meier. The resurrection explanation that
we have presented is only based on what can be historically established and doesn’t
affect any historical evidence, so the explanation is legitimate as it provides
explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility and illumination without being ad
hoc.
Objection: Why don’t all historians accept the resurrection when they agree on
the facts?
People have varying reasons for rejecting the resurrection but some prominent ones
are a prior commitment to naturalism, unsettling implications and other objections to
Christianity making it difficult to accept, which for such people make the resurrection
hypothesis out of the question before even investigating it. The resurrection theory
passes the historical method, giving explanatory scope, explanatory power,
plausibility, it is the least ad hoc and provides illumination. The belief doesn’t
contradict an established fact about the subject in question, there isn’t a lack of
evidence we would expect if the event did occur and the evidence or circumstances
of the event are not more easily accounted for by a usual explanation so there is no
80
reason to reject it. The burden of proof would be on the person who rejects it to come
up with a better fitting explanation that fits all the evidence, as we discussed earlier.
Aside from this, we can also show naturalism as a worldview is incoherent, as Alvin
Plantinga has done, a because it undermines the cognitive faculties required to affirm
it. Also, Naturalism as a worldview affirms things we know intrinsically to be morally
wrong. If our only objective purpose on naturalism is to survive as a species and
pass on DNA, rape is objectively right on the naturalistic worldview because it would
be the method by which the most reproduction occurs and the species becomes as
high in number as possible, due to rape producing the maximum number of sexual
encounters as there no consent to limit the number.
Objection: Extraordinary claims or events require extraordinary evidence, the

evidence is not good enough and there is no physical evidence for the
resurrection.
Ignoring the subjective notion of calling a claim “extraordinary”, as the facts and
evidence can narrow down the possibilities as we have seen, there is no evidence
we would expect to have that we do not have and what evidence we do have points
towards the resurrection as the most reasonable conclusion. Furthermore, it isn’t
extraordinary to suggest either of the two individual explanations that he was dead
before and alive afterwards.
Riding an elephant across the Swiss Alps is an event that would be an extraordinary
claim on the face of it but the only evidence we have for Hannibal is a claim by a
Roman historian decades after it happened and some later Roman artefacts, such as
coins. Yet, despite this, no major historian doubts this event occurred even though
there is wide disagreement over important aspects of the story, such as which route
Hannibal took. When we gather the evidence for the resurrection, there is only one
possibility that satisfies both the historical method and questions we use to evaluate
such claims.
When we are told the evidence for the resurrection isn’t enough to warrant belief, we
must always ask what evidence would be good enough and if they cannot give a way
for us to prove it, then they are admitting it is preset into their beliefs that there is no
methodology or proof that could demonstrate the resurrection and satisfy their
standard of evidence. If there are no conditions that would satisfy their standard of
evidence, then the standard is meaningless and non-existent.
We also see it said sometimes that while they don’t know what evidence would
convince them, God would know since He is all knowing. But if the person
themselves doesn’t know what kind of evidence would be enough to convince them,
how do we know any evidence would be sufficient? If there isn’t any evidence that
would be sufficient, which is a possibility in this scenario, to say God would know
would be like saying while we don’t know how to draw a square circle, since God is
all knowing, He would know how to draw a square circle. This is logically impossible
a
See the document The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
81
by definition. It is simply unreasonable to assert God would definitely know when that
knowledge might not exist and it might be logically impossible for Him to know
because we don’t have any evidence that this possible evidence or knowledge does
exist.
Objection: Explaining events supernaturally removes all explanatory power

because a supernatural explanation can be given for any event.
If this was true, then the claim that the universe exists without a cause would be
invalid too because we could posit that for everything that occurs; everything that
occurs is causeless and hence the explanation is not reached. However, we can and
do rule out such explanations if they are ad hoc, as we covered before. An
explanation has to fulfil all the criteria to be legitimate. If a supernatural explanation is
the most reasonable for a specific case and fulfils all the criteria, then it is not wrong
to posit it.
Objection: Many writers do not mention the miraculous events involved, which
they would have had they occurred.
An argument from silence is a fallacious argument and a form of an argument from

ignorance where if something mentioned in a historical document is not mentioned in
another historical document, it is assumed to be false. The argument from silence is
not when there are zero sources for something; it is when we dismiss a source that
does record an event because another did not.
For example, the fallacy could be used to say the following. Josephus mentions how
Herod Archelaus slaughtered several Jews in the temple and cancelled Passover,
yet no other source mentions this horrific event. Therefore, Josephus simply
fabricated the whole event to make the descendants of Herod look evil, whom he
didn’t like. This shows us the problem with this methodology. Just because Tacitus or
the Gospel writers didn’t mention this event, it doesn’t mean Josephus made it up.
The silence of another doesn’t prove Josephus fabricated it because they can
obviously have reasons for not mentioning it. Yet for some reason, according to
skeptics, even though this is a logical fallacy, it seems perfectly reasonable to
conclude events about Jesus were fabricated using arguments from silence.
Another good example can be seen with the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.
This was one of the biggest and most devastating disasters from the ancient Roman
Empire. Two cities, Pompeii and Herculaneum, were completely destroyed in the
eruption. The death toll estimated by scholars is between 16,000 and 60,000. Many
of these people were of the wealthy and educated upper class and the eruption
would have been seen by many more people, estimated around 250,000. How many
sources do we have to report this event? Well, only one and it isn’t even
contemporary. It was written 30 years after and not in a book of history but in a
private letter, from Pliny the Younger to Tacitus. The only reason the event was
noted was incidentally, because Pliny the Younger’s uncle died in the eruption. If his
82
uncle did not die in the event, we may have ended up with zero sources about it and
remember, this eruption would have affected far more people than the deeds of
Jesus, who primarily spoke to uneducated, poor people in a small backwater
province of Rome. There are many other examples.
 There is no Carthaginian source or contemporary source that mentions

Hannibal.
 There are no sources for Alexander the Great until over 300 years later.
 We have no sources mentioning Tiberius until Tacitus 80 years later, which
was later than John mentioned Jesus at the same time.
 Josephus was the only source for the suicide of 1,000 soldiers to avoid
capture after the siege of Masada and he was a biased source at that, as he
was a traitor.
 Marco Polo never mentioned the great wall in his documentation of China.
 Ulysses S. Grant wrote a diary of the American Civil War without mentioning
the emancipation proclamation.
As you can see, we can find more recent sources omitting much larger details but
this doesn’t mean the authors don’t think such people existed or such things
happened. Obviously, for example, Ulysses S. Grant knew that the emancipation
proclamation happened but he didn’t include it in his diary for an unknown reason.
There are many factors that prevent people from recording events, let alone ones
they don’t believe in or ones that don’t pertain to the writer’s audience, wishes or
cultural context.
Objection: Testimony isn’t enough to believe in something as amazing as the

resurrection.
This might be true by itself but testimony can be proven to be reliable and then it can
sometimes be believed. When reliable testimony is paired with known facts, it can be
seen as legitimate. We can also establish historical facts through testimony alone
and these historical facts can prove an event occurred, in this case they can
necessitate that the resurrection is the best explanation.
The resurrection argument does not rely on the trustworthiness of independent

witnesses any more than any other historical investigation and the case does not rely
on a singular person to establish the facts and then the explanation. It relies on many
people.
Objection: Reliability of testimony decreases over time.
Firstly, the Gospels were not written too long after the resurrection accounts but it
isn’t necessarily true that the reliability of testimony decreases over time anyway.
This is especially true for a big event, occurrence or experience. For example, a 2005
study of elderly Danes asking what it was like the day Denmark was liberated from
the Nazis found that the vast majority got small details right, such as the weather that
83
day, because it was seared into their memories. This is known in psychology as a
flashbulb memory. 250 Given the resurrection was such a dramatic and life changing
event, there is no reason to expect the testimonies would get any weaker in time.
Objection: The Disciples taught that Jesus was spiritually vindicated, not
physically resurrected and had internal visions, not physical experiences.
Skeptical scholars such as Dale Martin, Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh
present this argument and other figures to at least partially support this include
Richard Carrier and John Dominic Crossan, wherein the earliest Christian records
given to us by Paul actually teach Jesus was only spiritually vindicated in heaven and
not bodily raised. The theory argues that according to Paul, the appearance he
received was exactly the same as to the Disciples.
that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8. Then last of all He was
seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
Then, according to Acts, this was nothing more than a spiritual vision of light that only
Paul himself could understand.
3. As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around

him from heaven. 4. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him,
“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5. And he said, “Who are You,
Lord?”Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you
to kick against the goads.” 6. So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do
You want me to do?”Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you
will be told what you must do.” 7. And the men who journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.
Acts 9:3-7 (NKJV)
The theory concludes by asserting that since Paul, our earliest source, says all the
appearances were the same, this means all the other Disciples experienced Jesus in
the same way as him. The physical appearances were only made up later but the
original, real appearances were early and visions. They never experienced the
physical, bodily-risen Jesus.
There are many, many problems with this explanation. Whatever Paul is speaking of
in his experience, this doesn’t mean the other appearances to the Apostles were
internal visions too. At no point does Paul say that the appearances were all the
same. The Creed he cites is not about what each person saw, it’s about who was
doing the seeing. There isn’t even a slight implication that each appearance was the
84
same. As William Lane Craig writes: “In including himself in the list, Paul in no sense
implies that the forgoing appearances were the same sort of appearances as the one
to him. He is concerned here, not with the how of the appearances, but with who
appeared.” 251 The Creed is a simple list, not a descriptive account and tells us
nothing of how each witness experienced the event. If someone says they have
spoken to another person on the phone then lists others who have spoken to that
person on the phone, it does not entail they have spoken about the same thing, let
alone had an identical appearance. It is pure conjecture, completely ad hoc and
based on no evidence to suggest somehow that every appearance was exactly the
same.
Additionally, skeptics who consider Acts a late work cannot interpret 1 Corinthians 15
through Acts 9, which they require for this theory. This completely blows apart their
entire explanation. If this account in Acts was early, then all the rest of Jesus’
appearances in Luke 24 and Acts were early Christian writings too; writings that
absolutely confirm the appearances were physical and a bodily resurrection.
6. Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to
restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7. He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times
or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8. But you will receive power when
the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9. After he said this, he was taken
up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10. They were looking
intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white
stood beside them. 11. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking
into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come
back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Acts 1:6-11 (NKJV)
27. because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your
holy one see decay.
Acts 2:27 (NKJV)
41. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already
chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Acts 10:41 (NKJV)
Many of the speeches that teach physical resurrection in Acts seem to be early
because they lack influence from Pauline theology or vocabulary, contain a high
degree of semitism and lack resemblance to the original written elements of Acts and
Luke. 103 If skeptics want to argue Acts should be used to give us the teachings of the
first Christians, they cannot simply ignore the parts of Acts that clearly demonstrate it
was a physical bodily resurrection. When we look at the experiences of Paul in Acts,
we don’t see that he experienced an internal vision.
3. As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him
from heaven. 4. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul,
Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5. And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”Then the
85
Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against
the goads.” 6. So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to
do?”Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what
you must do.” 7. And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a
voice but seeing no one.
Acts 9:3-7 (NKJV)
6. Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to
restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7. He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times
or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8. But you will receive power when
the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9. After he said this, he was taken
up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10. They were looking
intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white
stood beside them. 11. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking
into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come
back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Acts 1:6-11 (NKJV)
12. “While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission
from the chief priests, 13. at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from
heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me.
14. And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and
saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard
for you to kick against the goads.’ 15. So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I
am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16. But rise and stand on your feet; for I have
appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the
things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17. I will
deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send
you, 18. to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance
among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’ 19. “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was
not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20. but declared first to those in Damascus
and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles,
that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.
All three accounts agree that Paul’s companions experienced something as well. In
Acts 9, we learn they heard something. In Acts 22, they saw a light. Finally, in Acts
26, they fell to the ground and afterwards Paul was temporarily blinded.
8. Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one.
But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9. And he was three
days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Acts 9:8-9 (NKJV)
This clearly has to be an external appearance to cause blindness. So why doesn’t

Luke record the appearances the same way as the others experienced Jesus? Well,
86
this firstly presupposes Luke was making it up as he went along to be able to choose,
which is bringing in biased beliefs before evaluating the evidence. Secondly, it
doesn’t fit with the narrative. Of course He should appear to Paul in this way; He was
first resurrected then appeared to the Disciples before ascending to heaven then
appearing to Paul in a heavenly light. This perfectly matches with the other
appearances in conjunction with the chronology. When we look at Paul’s own words
about this event, it is very clear that Paul taught a physical resurrection of Jesus.
the third day according to the Scriptures,
As we pointed out earlier, the Creed he cites says that Jesus was buried then raised,
which necessitates what was buried is what was raised. If it was simply ascension or
spiritual, why even mention the burial? All through 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is talking
about the resurrection of the dead specifically.
21. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
The Greek here for resurrection, anastasis (ἀνάστασις), specifically means a raising
up or rising, like in a seat and from the dead, not a transition to a spiritual existence.
At no point in time was this word ever used to mean a disembodied existence.
42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised
in incorruption. 43. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness,
it is raised in power.
Notice how our body is corruptible, or perishable. Skeptics often focus on verses 44-
50 and try to assert that Paul is teaching the resurrection only means we are
spiritually raised.
44. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and
there is a spiritual body. 45. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living
being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46. However, the spiritual is not
first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47. The first man was of the earth,
made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48. As was the man of dust,
so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are
those who are heavenly. 49. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
Firstly, this ignores the immediate context of what Paul says prior and right after.
87
51. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed
— 52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will
sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. 54. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has
put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is
swallowed up in victory.” 55. “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is
your victory?”
Here, it is clear Paul is teaching that our physical bodies will the resurrected and
changed and death will be defeated; not be the end of physical existence so why
would he be talking in different terms anywhere else, let alone in the same passage?
Let’s look at what these individual words and phrases mean rather than
superimposing our own cultural understanding of words and phrases like ‘natural’,
‘spiritual’ and ‘flesh and blood’ onto another culture.
Paul uses the word for natural, psuchikos (ψυχικός), only one other time outside of
this passage, in 1 Corinthians 2:14.
14. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Here, it is not used to contrast physical and spiritual beings; rather he is contrasting
people who live by their sinful desires with people who live by heavenly desires. He
obviously isn’t suggesting some men are spiritual and physical, all men are physical.
Richard Hays writes: “The term psychic [psuchikos] is difficult to translate properly; it
refers to human beings living in their natural state apart from the Spirit of God and
therefore unenlightened and blind to the truth. They don’t ‘get it.’” 252
In The Resurrection of Jesus, Mike Licona documents 846 uses of the word
psuchikos between 8 B.C. and A.D. 3 and has not found one use of the word where it
means physical or material. 253 The word simply does not mean material body. It is
meant to mean an unenlightened person. So why would it suddenly mean something
totally different, against the context, in 1 Corinthians 15?
The word it is contrasted with, spiritual, pneumatikos (πνευματικός), does sometimes

mean immaterial but unlike psuchikos, it has a variety of meanings;
 Relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man.

 That which possesses the nature of the rational soul.
 Belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God.
 Belonging to the Divine Spirit.
 Of God the Holy Spirit.
 Someone who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God.
 Related to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing.
88
Paul uses this word outside of this passage more than 10 times and it only means
immaterial once, in a passage from Ephesians.
12. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of
evil in the heavenly realms.
Everywhere else, he uses it in the context of spiritual maturity, wisdom, gifts,

blessings, food and drink and understanding.
1. Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such
a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
13. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which
the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1. Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:

11. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your
material things?
3. all ate the same spiritual food, 4. and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
9. For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you,
and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding;
Given the context, as well as the word natural referring to unenlightened, it is self
evident this verse is meant to contrast unenlightened with enlightened.
44. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body,
and there is a spiritual body.
As Mike Licona writes: “…when employing the terms “natural” and “spiritual” Paul is
not referring to the substance of the old and new bodies but rather their mode of
existence... he is saying that our current body is buried with all of its “natural” or “this-
worldly” appetites and weaknesses but is raised and transformed into a new body
with spiritual appetites and qualities.” 254
89
Now that we understand these words, the verses become clear. It cannot mean that
Jesus is just some spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:44 as these words are routed in the
previous two words; pneumatikon (πνευματικόή) from psuchikos and, in 1
Corinthians 15:45, pneuma (πνεῦμα) and psuchēn (ψυχὴν).
45. And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam
became a life-giving spirit.
In addition to this, no author ever used the words psuchikos and pneumatikos to
constrast physical and material, eliminating the possibility Paul is contrasting that
here.
In verse 50, Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
However, this doesn’t mean heaven is spiritual and not a physical resurrection.
Again, we can’t view words and phrases through our own cultural context. To the
people who wrote it, this phrase, sarx kai haima (σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα), was an expression
of human nature. This is held by the vast majority of scholars. This phrase is a bit
like today when we describe people as cold-blooded, say our blood is boiling, call
someone red-blooded or even describe a family member as our own flesh and blood.
This description is completely irrelevant to biological make up and is actually referring
to the state of their mind or personality. The phrase always seems to mean human
nature and mortality in the New Testament, not simply having a physical body.
17. Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh
and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
16. to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not
immediately confer with flesh and blood,
12. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of
wickedness in the heavenly places.
14. Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself
likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the
power of death, that is, the devil,
Hebrews 2:14 (NKJV)
90
We also find the same in Sirach 14:18 and 17:31 as well as early Jewish literature
such as Berakoth 28b, Mishnah Nazir 9.5 and Mishnah Sotah 8.1. N. T. Wright
concurres with this, writing that “Ever since the second century doubters have used
this clause to question whether Paul really believed in the resurrection of the body. In
fact, the second half of verse 50 already explains, in Hebraic parallelism with the first
half, more or less what he means, as Paul’s regular use of “flesh” would itself
indicate: ‘flesh and blood’ is a way of referring to ordinary, corruptible, decaying,
human existence. It does not simply mean, as it has so often been taken to mean,
‘physical humanity’ in the normal modern sense, but ‘the present physical humanity
(as opposed to the future one), which is subject to decay and death.’” 255 Scholars
also point out that verse 53 is nothing more than a restating of verse 50.
50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.
53. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with
immortality.
1 Corinthians 15:53 (NIV)
It is abundantly clear that our present mortal bodies must be changed and
transformed to immortal bodies, just like with Jesus. The surrounding and linguical
context is undeniable. Anything else is reading presupposition and assumptions back
into the text which is why even Gerd Lüdemann accepts the earliest belief of the
Christians was a physical resurrection: “…we have no sound way to place the
symbolic interpretation of Jesus' resurrection within the context of earliest Christian
resurrection belief.” 208
For one example outside of Paul, in Luke 24, Jesus clearly shows us that he is
physically present and specifically says he is not a spirit. He completes actions only
someone who is physically, bodily present could do, such as eating.
36. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said
to them, “Peace be with you.” 37. They were startled and frightened, thinking they
saw a ghost. 38. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in
your minds? 39. 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.” 40. When he had said this,
he showed them his hands and feet. 41. And while they still did not believe it
because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?”
42. They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43. and he took it and ate it in their
presence.
91
Objection: The accounts contradict with each other on whether Jesus died
before or after the Passover meal.
Firstly, we must note that this doesn’t affect the facts and evidence presented for the
resurrection but it is important to defend the reliability of the accounts specifically for
claims related to the resurrection. a Bart Ehrman often uses this example to show the
unreliability of the Gospels, using his famous line “it depends what Gospel you read”
but this objection is very poor.
The first supposed contradiction regarding the day and time of death of Jesus is
whether it was before or after the Passover meal. There are a lot of issues in
assuming this. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear that the last supper was the
Passover meal before Jesus was arrested and crucified the next day, which is Friday,
however, it is it is alleged that John’s Gospel tells us Jesus died before the Passover
meal but if we look at the full context of John’s account, we can see he is in
agreement with the synoptic Gospels that Jesus died on Friday and the last supper
was Thursday.
Chapters 13-17 entail lengthy instructions given from Jesus to the Disciples at the
last supper and in chapter 18, they go to the Garden of Gethsemane. When we look
at how chapter 13 begins, it is very insightful.
1. Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come
that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were
in the world, He loved them to the end. 2. And [a] supper being ended, the devil
having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him,
John 13:1-2 (NKJV) [a] during supper
1. It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for
him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the
world, he loved them to the end. 2. The evening meal was in progress, and the devil
had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus.
John 13:1-2 (NIV)
1. Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come
that He would depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in
the world, He loved them to the end. 2. And during supper, the devil having already
put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him,
John 13:1-2 (NASB)
Just prior to describing the meal, we see that it is just before Passover and the
following verse uses the language “during”. It seems most likely that the meal
described as “during” was the meal just previously described as “before”. Craig
Blomberg writes: “Verses 1-2 would thus describe the depth of the love Jesus
already had for his disciples before the Passover. Such love led him to see his
mission through to the end, culminating in the Last Supper”. 256
a
The reliability of the New Testament is general and expanded upon further can be seen in the
document The Reliability of the New Testament.
92
Moreover, the word Passover, pascha (πάσχα), did not exclusively mean the
Passover meal but also to the Passover week, for a weeklong celebration, and this is
how John uses the term throughout his Gospel; referring to the entire festival of
Passover, not just the opening meal.
13. Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
John 2:13 (NKJV)
4. Now the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near.

John 6:4 (NKJV)
55. And the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went from the country up to
Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves.
John 11:55 (NKJV)
This is also consistent with what we see in chapter 13.
29. For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to
him, “Buy those things we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the
poor.
John 13:29 (NKJV)
It would be odd if Judas was going out to buy perishable food for the supper 24 hours
too early. This was typically done the day of the meal and it makes more sense to
think Judas was buying provisions used throughout the week, not specifically food for
the meal the next day.
Buying alms for the poor would also be unlikely on any given random night but on
Passover, almsgiving was explicitly commanded. 257 Additionally, in Antiquities,
Josephus even tells us that the temple gates were left open so that the poor could
gather and receive alms. 258 This suspicion towards Judas only makes sense in this
context. Moreover, the word John uses, heorté (ἑορτή), typically refers to the full
festival, not the opening meal, as in Mark 14:1, Luke 2:41, Luke 22:1 and John 2:23.
Now, let’s examine verses used to show that John reported Jesus died after the
Passover meal.
28. Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning.
But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but
that they might eat the Passover.
John 18:28 (NKJV)
Here, the priests would not enter Pilate’s headquarters because they would be
defiled and could not eat the Passover. Once we investigate this, the claim that this
proves it was after the Passover meal doesn’t make sense. In Leviticus 15:5-11, we
see that defilement that occurred during daylight hours would expire during sunset.
93
10. And whoever touches anything that was under him shall be unclean until the
evening. And whoever carries such things shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in
water and be unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:10 (NKJV)
The priests didn’t have to worry about defilement if what they were concerned about
was the initial Passover meal on Thursday night. However, if they didn’t want to be
defiled for a Passover meal that happened on Friday midday, called the Hagigah,
that would make sense. This fear of being defiled actually proves that John is saying
Jesus was crucified on Friday.
2 Chronicles also tells us that later offerings and meals during the Passover week
could also be called the Passover.
7. Then Josiah gave the lay people lambs and young goats from the flock, all for
Passover offerings for all who were present, to the number of thirty thousand, as well
as three thousand cattle; these were from the king’s possessions. 8. And his leaders
gave willingly to the people, to the priests, and to the Levites. Hilkiah, Zechariah, and
Jehiel, rulers of the house of God, gave to the priests for the Passover offerings two
thousand six hundred from the flock, and three hundred cattle. 9. Also Conaniah, his
brothers Shemaiah and Nethanel, and Hashabiah and Jeiel and Jozabad, chief of the
Levites, gave to the Levites for Passover offerings five thousand from the flock and
five hundred cattle.
2 Chronicles 35:7-9 (NKJV)
Craig Blomberg writes: “It is true that the later meals are not singled out apart from
the initial Passover dinner, but, if John has already narrated this first meal, readers
would understand that it could not be included again.” 259
Another example for this objection given is John 19:14.
14. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And
he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
John 19:14 (NKJV)
It is not clear here whether John is talking about a day of preparation for the
Passover meal or a day of preparation for the Passover week but the standard Greek
word for the Day of Preparation, paraskeué (Παρασκευὴ), was used to refer to
Friday, as Saturday was the day of the Sabbath and the Jews were preparing for it
on Friday. This means John was probably noting that it was Friday on the Passover
week; that is, the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath during the Passover week. This
is actually exactly the same as the rest of the Gospels and other works.
62. On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and
Pharisees gathered together to Pilate,
94
42. Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the
day before the Sabbath,
Mark 15:42 (NKJV)
54. That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near.
Luke 23:54 (NKJV)
In the Didache, we read: “Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation
(Friday).” 160 In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, we see the same: “His pursuers then,
along with horsemen, and taking the youth with them, went forth at supper-time on
the day of the preparation…” 261
Furthermore, if we read past verse 14, elsewhere we read that it was the day of
preparation, meaning the day before the Sabbath, meaning Friday.
31. Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not
remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews
asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
John 19:31 (NKJV)
42. So there they laid Jesus, because of the Jews’ Preparation Day, for the tomb
was nearby.
John 19:42 (NKJV)
This all shows that the obvious explanation for what John was referring to in 19:14
was the preparation day, on Friday, for the Sabbath, during the Passover week, not
the preparation for the Passover meal.
Objection: The accounts contradict on what time Jesus was crucified.
The synoptic Gospels are clear that at around 9AM, the third hour, Jesus was
crucified.
25. Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.
Mark 15:25 (NKJV)
At 12PM, the sixth hour, darkness fell over the land.
25. Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.
33. Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour.
Mark 15:33 (NKJV)
44. Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until
the ninth hour.
95
Luke 23:44 (NKJV)
Then Jesus died at about 9PM, the ninth hour.
46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
34. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Mark 15:34 (NKJV)
However, in John we read that Jesus wasn’t crucified until after the sixth hour, about
12PM, as Jesus is still before Pilate.
14. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And
he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
John 19:14 (NKJV)
One common response is to suggest that John is using the Roman system of
timekeeping, counting from midnight instead of from dawn whereas the Jewish
timekeeping system counts from 6AM, but this idea is flawed because the trial of
Jesus occurred in many stages and this started once the day began, agreed upon by
all four Gospels, which is hugely improbable to have all happened within an hour.
John is probably referring to around noon, which would allow enough time for the
events described to unfold. So, why does Mark say it happened 3 hours earlier?
Craig Blomberg proposes that both Mark and John are speaking of time in quarters
and with an ancient understanding of time, both would be understood to be claiming
roughly morning or midday. 262
In this objection, what we are doing is imposing the timekeeping of our culture on
their culture. As they didn’t have any precise method of timekeeping, ancient people
were very flexible, knowing what time is was just based on tracking the sun was
complicated, and an hour could mean a large span of time. Brandon O’Brien and E.
Randolph Richards note that time keeping outside Western culture is never precise
and is always generally an estimate; Greeks were more interested in aspects rather
than timing. 263 Gerald Borchert observed “this same phenomenon as a missionary
among people who do not wear watches and for whom a designated meeting time of
10:00 am means some time in the middle of the day, and it can actually take place
not in the morning but in the early afternoon.” 264
James Ermatinger says: “Modern time is often characterized by both a unit of length
and a point in time. An hour is composed of 60 minutes or a day is 24 hours, these
are lengths in time. Saying that it is 3:30 is a point in time. The ancients did not use
either term precisely; rather they saw time as duration, a short time, or a long time, or
no time.” He also notes that the sixth hour was about noon 265 and John Bury tells us
the sixth hour was around 11AM our time. 266
96
Units such as the third or sixth hour could mean any time around that point in the day
and you could round to the third hour all morning, for example. Flavio Conti says: “…
the Romans did not give time or, to be more precise, the measurement of time—the
absolute and authoritative value that we grant it today.” 267
With 3 exceptions in total, the hours used to refer to the time in the Gospels are the
third, sixth and ninth hour, meaning they tended to round to one of those hours rather
than worry about exact timing. Craig Blomberg says: “When one recognizes that the
widespread lack of precise time keeping devices in the ancient world led to the
practice of dividing the day into fourths so that people often did not worry about
speaking any more specifically than this, it becomes plausible to interpret Mark’s
‘third hour’ to mean anytime between 9AM and noon. John’s ‘about the sixth hour’
will also then refer to sometime before midday, perhaps within an hour or so.” 262
The message was clear; it was probably around midmorning when Jesus was
sentenced to be crucified. Mark rounds down to the third hour and John rounds up to
the sixth hour. While it could be a contradiction if it were written in our day, it isn’t a
contradiction when it was written in theirs.
Objection: The Biblical account is unreliable because it takes aim at the Jews
and paints Pontius Pilate in a favourable light.
Skeptics claim that the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate, is portrayed in a
neutral or positive light. For instance, he finds no guilt in Jesus and seeks to set Him
free.
4. So Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no fault in this Man.”
Luke 23:4 (NKJV)
9. But Pilate answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release to you the King of
the Jews?”
Mark 15:9 (NKJV)
Then, the Sanhedrin demand Jesus be executed.
13. So they cried out again, “Crucify Him!”

Mark 15:13 (NKJV)
Skeptics also argue Pilate seems weak and gives in to the pressure of the Jewish
leaders.
15. So Pilate, wanting to gratify the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he
delivered Jesus, after he had scourged Him, to be crucified.
Mark 15:15 (NKJV)
97
According to some skeptics, 268 Pilate is a ruthless leader outside the Gospels,
showing no mercy to the Jewish people, citing sources such as Josephus 269 and
Philo. 270 This however is cherry picking sources because when we read through
Josephus and Philo in context, as well as the Gospels, we get the same picture of
Pilate. When using Josephus, skeptics name three events which supposedly show
Pilate to be a brutal and ruthless leader; the bringing of images of Caesar into
Jerusalem, which was forbidden by the Jews, building an aqueduct with temple funds
and attacking the Samaritans.
When it comes to Pilate’s bringing images, this backfires on the skeptic. Josephus
says Pilate did this in order to abolish the Jewish law: “But now Pilate, the procurator
of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem: to take their winter quarters
there; in order to abolish the Jewish laws.” However, this isn’t the full story. In
response to this, many Jews then marched to Pilate in Cesarea to demand the
removal of the images and when Pilate denied their request and they refused to
leave, he surrounded them with soldiers, ready to kill them if necessary. Rather than
leave, the Jews then put themselves at Pilate’s mercy as oppose to abandoning their
sacred law: “But they throw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare,
and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their
laws should be transgressed.” Pilate then gave in and removed the images of
Caesar: “Upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep
their laws inviolable: and presently commanded the images to be carried back from
Jerusalem to Cesarea.” No one died and Pilate, who initially opposed the demands,
relents. 271 This mirrors what we see in the Gospels; Pilate opposes their request,
doesn’t want to kill anyone and then later gives in to their demands.
In the aqueduct saga, the money used was seen as sacred and couldn’t be used for
a purpose like this. Once again, Jews protested, Pilate told them to disperse and they
did not listen. Pilate then sent soldiers disguised as civilians into the crowd and when
given a signal, they would attack the people: “So he habited a great number of his
soldiers in their habit; who carried daggers under their garments; and sent them to a
place where they might surround them.” Several people died and the crowd then
dispersed. This isn’t as straightforward as it seems though, as Josephus reports: “he
gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on. Who laid upon
them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them; and equally punished
those that were tumultuous, and those that wore not. Nor did they spare them in the
least.” 272
Yet again, it appears Pilate was not brutal or ruthless and didn’t want anyone to be
killed. He was intending to create chaos to disperse the crowd and must have been
clear in his orders not to be brutal, let alone kill, if that is what Josephus said
disobeyed his orders. Craig Evans also notes that Pilate didn’t raid the temple and as
he didn’t have free access to the funds; it would have instead come from working
with the Jewish leaders. 273
The final event given is the attack on the Samaritans, not Jews, who gathered on
Mount Gerizim, armed, to search for ancient artefacts on the mountain. Pilate sent a
unit to disperse them and a small battle broke out which eventually lead to the
98
Samaritans fleeing. The Romans captured some of them and put the leaders to
death: “Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders
and those who were most influential among the fugitives.” 274 Following this, he
Samaritans then sent an embassy to the governor of Syria accusing Pilate of murder
and violence: “…the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius… who was now
governor of Syria; and accused Pilate of the murder of those that wore killed. For that
they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans; but to escape the
violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Varcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs
of Judea; and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the Emperor to the
accusations of the Jews.” 275 Despite some skeptics claiming Pilate was removed
from his role after this incident, he was not. He was ordered back to Rome to answer
the accusations. This never materialised as Tiberius died before the trial took place
and Pilate simply never returned to Judea, which wasn’t too significant considering
his reign had already been longer than most governors of that region.
Aside from showing us nothing regarding particular brutality in the sources, this event
was not directed towards the Jews and even may suggest some Sanhedrin influence,
as Mount Gerizim used to have a Samaritan temple, which the Jews destroyed in the
second century B.C. The Jews may have took the Samaritan actions as an attempt to
reclaim or rebuild what was once theirs and given the lack of motivation Rome had to
interfere with their actions at an insignificant place to them, this could have been the
reason Pilate sent a unit to disperse them. Even if this was not the case, the armed
Samaritans could have been seen as a potential rebellion threat, especially given
there were many other similarly attempted rebellions, 276 so sending a small unit was
not an unordinary occurrence.
In the writings of Philo, we see a similar incident to when Pilate placed images of
Caesar in Jerusalem, this time placing Roman shields on Herod’s palace which
caused the Jewish population to protest. Pilate refused to remove them and made
excuses so the Jews wrote to Tiberius, who was angered by this and ordered Pilate
to remove the shields, ending the incident. 277 This affair does not demonstrate
Pilate’s ruthlessness at all and could actually explain why Pilate allowed the Jews
their way in the future, for fear of a second disciplining from Tiberius. This can even
be seen in John 19:12, which was the final straw for Pilate, resulting in his
compliance.
13. When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at
a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14. It was the
day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said
to the Jews. 15. But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief
priests answered. 16. Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the
soldiers took charge of Jesus.
This dynamic is exactly what we see in the letter: “But this last sentence exasperated
him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an
embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of
99
his governments.” 278 Tiberius was also very volatile at this point in time, as he had
just uncovered a coup by a man called Sejanus and was going after anyone
connected to him. Pilate seemed in fear of losing favour with Tiberius.
However, skeptics do highlight once part of the letter in particular, which describes
Pilate as “exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of ferocious passions…”
279
Additionally, “…in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his
rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of
people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most
grievous inhumanly” 278 Brian McGing notes this must be viewed in context, with the
motives and biases of the letter: “Philo’s story must be viewed in context for a proper
understanding of the episode. It comes as part of a letter sent by Julius Agrippa to
the emperor Gaius, in an attempt to persuade him not to go ahead with his
sacrilegious plan to set up a statue of Zeus in the temple at Jerusalem. Agrippa tries
to show how reasonable and favorably disposed towards the Jews Caligula’s
predecessors had been, and to that end has a rhetorical purpose in playing down the
importance of the golden shields: the emperor need only consider the crisis that
arose out of that trifling affair to realize what the effect of his present plan will be. He
also has a rhetorical purpose in blackening Pilate, to create an artistic foil for the
benign Tiberius, who is being held up as a shining example for Caligula…” 280
Helen Bond agrees with this, writing: “In accordance with this overriding theological
framework the characters within the story tend to become stereotyped…” 281 She
adds: “Historically, Pilate may have been of a harsh, unyielding disposition, or at
least may have appeared so in the Jewish eyes, yet Philo’s description of him is
doubtless exaggerated in accordance with his own theological rhetoric.” 282
Furthermore, what we actually see in the recorded history does not support the
interpretation of this text as a genuine account rather than an exaggeration of his
character in pleading to Tiberius. Even considering there is probably truth in the
claims of Pilate’s anger, this is consistent with what we see in the Gospels and the
amount of anger and lack of compassion we see in Pilate outside of the Gospels
matches what we see in the Gospels. He didn’t care for the Jewish law and
sometimes mocked it but sought to avoid unnecessary conflict and maintain his
position as governor.
The Pilate we see in extra-Biblical sources seems consistent with the Pilate of the
Gospels. He relents to the demands of the Jewish people, he seems to want to keep
bloodshed to a minimum and there are implications of potential cooperation with the
Jewish leaders. Additionally to this point, the high priest Caiaphas, who was
appointed under Pilate’s predecessor, retained his role for the entire duration of
Pilate’s reign, implying a peaceful time period and little conflict, or even cooperation,
with the Jewish leaders. 276 Furthermore, the recorded incidents shown are the only
written out, over a span of 10 years that Pilate was leader. If Pilate was really a brutal
and ruthless leader, we wouldn’t expect the four most notable instances of his
brutality to be giving in to Jewish retaliation, ordering to cause chaos to disperse a
crowd, responding to a group of armed men on a mountain and changing a previous
action after orders of Tiberius to settle the Jewish crowds. To claim he was brutal and
ruthless is simply ahistorical and there is no evidence.
100
Objection: The trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrian was a myth because it
contains historical errors.
This objection alleges the following points prove the trial was a fabrication:
 The Jews had no power to arrest Jesus because this was Rome’s power.
 His trial happened at night when the Sanhedrin were forbidden to hold them.
 Trials could only be held in the temple, not the house of the high priest.
 Trials could not be held during Passover week.
 The priests would not have spit on or hit Jesus.
 There was a 24 hour waiting period before someone could be sentenced.
 Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was probably during the Feast of Tabernacles,
because palm trees were not in bloom in the spring.
 The charge of blasphemy doesn’t make sense because Jesus only claimed to
be the Messiah; it was only blasphemous to claim to be God.
As Rome did not interfere and legislate over all the provinces due to the sheer size of
the empire and the practicality of doing so, several local authorities were left in play
and we cannot discount the likelihood of the Sanhedrin being one of those
authorities. In Josephus, we see reports of another man who was arrested and
chastised before being turned over to the Roman authorities, 283 proving this
precedent.
The next five claims are all invalid because these are from the Mishnah Sanhedrin,
which dates to a decade short of 200 years after the trial of Jesus. There is no
evidence these rules were active any time close to the trial of Jesus and the absolute
earliest this could have possibly even been codified was after the destruction of the
temple in 70 AD, well after Jesus was crucified. What’s more is even all that time
after, the Sanhedrin didn’t keep these rules in a strict sense and Josephus also holds
to this, reporting incidents, such as the execution of James, where the Jewish
leaders took advantage of loopholes to execute their plans and desires. 111 Robert
Stein writes: “With regard to the legal prescriptions found in the tractate Sanhedrin it
needs to be pointed out that these rules were written down after A.D. 200, and it is
unclear whether they reflect rules that actually existed in Jesus' day or whether they
reflect an idealized description of what such laws should have been like. Second,
some of the rules found in this tractate conflict with Josephus's description of how
things were in the first century.” 284 This view has also been expounded upon by
scholars such as Anthony Harvey 285 and William Wilson. 286
When addressing the palm three objection, this is totally erroneous. Palm leaves
don’t bloom; palm flowers bloom. This happens once a year. The branches were
available for use all year round. There also wasn’t a rule that would mean Jesus
could only use branches during the Feast of Tabernacles so there is no reason at all
to assume any errors here.
101
The last claim is the most egregious. While Jesus’ response to being asked if He was
Messiah was not blasphemy, his answer also claims much more. a
61. But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying
to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62. Jesus said, “I am. And you
will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the
clouds of heaven.” 63. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further
need do we have of witnesses? 64. You have heard the blasphemy! What do you
think?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. 65. Then some began
to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, “Prophesy!”
And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.
Mark 14:61-62 (NKJV)
Jesus is alluding to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 to argue He is divine, 287 sitting at the
right hand of the Father, from Psalm 110, and as a divine being from Daniel 7.
1. The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your
footstool.”
Psalm 110:1 (NKJV)
13. “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they
brought Him near before Him. 14. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a
kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is
an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which
shall not be destroyed.
Daniel 7:13-14 (NKJV)
Only God could ride the clouds in the Hebrew Bible, yet Jesus claimed this of
Himself, in addition to being the Messiah.
26. “There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, Who rides the heavens to help you,
And in His excellency on the clouds.
Deuteronomy 33:26 (NKJV)
33. To Him who rides on the heaven of heavens, which were of old! Indeed, He
sends out His voice, a mighty voice.
Psalm 68:33 (NKJV)
3. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds
His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind,
Psalm 104:3 (NKJV)
a
Additionally, there are many, many instances of Jesus claiming to be God, it being claimed of
Him and Him performing actions that only God can perform throughout the Gospels and Scripture.
It was also the unanimous belief of the Church fathers that Jesus was God and it is inconceivable
to suggest any belief that was unanimous or the vast majority belief among the early Christians
was not the legitimate teaching of Christ and the Apostles, unless we were to suggest they were
the most ineffective communicators ever. The teachings of Christ were very well preserved
throughout the early Church.
102
Bart Ehrman is scholar who claims Jesus did not make claims to divinity in the
synoptic gospels but when questioned by Brant Pitre, he conceded that he makes a
divine claim here. Pitre articulated it as such: “My question is about the charge of
blasphemy in Mark, in particular Mark 14. …I thought I heard you [Bart Ehrman]
saying Jesus doesn’t claim to be divine in the earlier Gospels, in particular, the
Gospel of Mark and yet we were just looking at the account of the trial before
Caiaphas where Caiaphas asks him “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?”
and He says “I AM, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of
Power, and coming with the clouds of glory” and then they charge Him with
blasphemy. He’s quoting there Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. So, my question is, I just
want to be clear, is Jesus claiming to be divine there? If He’s not, then why do they
charge Him with blasphemy in the context of a question about His identity? …He
quotes Psalm 110 which is the one psalm in the Old Testament that says “before the
daystar, I have begotten you”. So isn’t implicit pre-existence there? My main question
is is He making a divine claim there and if not, why the blasphemy charge?” After
explaining his position’s confusion over where the blasphemy is in his response,
Ehrman conceded: “…When Jesus said “you will see the Son of Man”, Mark requires
you to think Jesus is the Son of Man, the high priest knows that He thinks that and so
the high priest thinks He’s claiming to be the Son of Man and so he calls that
blasphemy. So, is it a divine claim? Well, yeah, kind of. I mean, it is, yeah, kind of”.
288
Ehrman in his writing also concedes that the title “Son of Man” is a divine title: “In
[Jesus’] view, society, with all of its conventions, was soon to come to a screeching
halt, when the Son of Man arrived from heaven in judgment on the earth.” 289
The aim following this was to get Jesus executed but the Romans wouldn’t have
cared should some man claim to be God, so they highlighted His claim to be the
Messianic King.
12. From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you
let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks
against Caesar.”
John 19:12 (NKJV)
This does not provide a problem for the narrative and there are therefore no mythical
elements to the trial.
Objection: The accounts are false because the release of Barabbas was a
fabrication.
This objection mainly asserts three points. First, no other source mentions Pilate
allowing the custom of releasing one prisoner at Passover. Second, the Romans
would never allow the release of someone arrested for insurrection and murder and
third, the name Barabbas literally means “son of the father”, meaning he is most
likely a literary invention as a contrast to Jesus being the Son of God the Father
103
where the Jews ask for the sinful son of the father to be released and the righteous
one condemned.
As Craig Evans says, this line of reasoning “smacks of scholarly bias” 290 because
this is simply an argument from silence. We wouldn’t expect this custom to be
attested anywhere else because Rome didn’t have one ruler setting all the laws. As
we discussed earlier, the laws and governance of each province was left up to the
procurator or governor. Evans notes several other events involving practices seen
throughout the Roman Empire similar to this:
 A papyrus from 85 AD quotes a Roman governor over Egypt, saying “You

were worthy of scourging …but I give you to the crowds.”
 Pliny the Younger in a letter to Trajan mentions a group of people released
from prison: “It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon
their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely
enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at
liberty without authority”. 291
 An inscription in Ephesus from 441 AD mentions a decision of a proconsul to
release prisoners because of the outcries of the people. 292
 Josephus tells us that Herod Archelaus released several prisoners to
appease his fellow Jews: “…by so much did they more highly commend him,
and made application to him for the grant of what they desired. Some made a
clamor that he would ease them of some of their annual payments; but others
desired him to release those that were put into prison by Herod, who were
many, and had been put there at several times”. 293
 Likewise, he tells us that when Albinus left his office over Judea, he released
all prisoners that were not worthy of death: “But as to those who had been put
into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed
them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was
filled with robbers.” 294
Finally, in the later Mishnah, there might be a reference to this practice: “one whom
the governing body promised to release from prison on the night of Passover” 295 This
could very well link to the practice as detailed in the Gospels.
6. Now at the feast he was accustomed to releasing one prisoner to them, whomever
they requested.
Mark 15:6 (NKJV)
Knowing the cultural context and having seen evidence of similar occurrences, it is
very reasonable to assume this was legitimate and, as previously established, it
would be foolish to argue from silence, which is a fallacy. Rules could even be bent
for social and political convenience, which brings us to addressing the second point,
that the Romans would never allow the release of someone arrested for insurrection
and murder.
104
In Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, we read: “Men spoke of him because, after his soldiers
had mutinied and killed two men of praetorian rank, Galba and Cosconius, he
censured them only so far as to call them ‘citizens’ when he addressed them, instead
of ‘soldiers’, and then gave each man a thousand drachmas and much allotted land
in Italy.” 296 These men were not punished according to the regular punishments.
In Josephus’ work on his own life, we read: “I made this request to Titus, that my
family might have their liberty. I had also the Holy Books by Titus's concession.” This
begging to Caesar Titus to let his acquaintances off worked: “Nor was it long after
that I asked of him the life of my brother, and of fifty friends with him: and was not
denied.” He concludes the account with the following: “by the permission of Titus;
where there were a great multitude of captive women and children; I got all those that
I remembered as among my own friends and acquaintance, to be set free, being in
number about one hundred and ninety.” Josephus also describes persuading Titus to
take down three men condemned to crucifixion who were already on the crosses: “…
as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my
former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my
eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken
down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two
of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.” 297 Many of
these people, who Josephus petitioned for, were being punished because of their
involvement in the Jewish War and for the same reason as Barabbas, insurrection,
yet their penalties were completely reversed in some instances here. The claim that
the Romans would never reverse a penalty for this is patently false. Given Pilate’s
appeasing of his people in the past and the regular release of people given the
demands of a crowd, and further considering how Rome probably no longer
considered Barabbas a threat, it is invalid to claim this disproves the account.
While the name Barabbas does mean “son of the father”, to suggest someone is
mythical and hence the story is mythical because of the meaning of a name they
could have easily been given is ludicrous. On a Jewish ossuary, we have found the
name Barsabbas, 298 which means “son of the elder”. Abba, which means father, was
also a proper name in use 299 and sometimes, Jews went by their surname, like
Barnabas or Barsabbas. It is a stretch to suggest he would be mythical based on his
name given it is conceivable a man could very well have the surname Barabbas.
Mike Licona, who studied the various spellings and uses of names in the writings of
Plutarch, writes: “…ancient authors could select different components of a person's
name to provide.” 300 It also does not follow that because there are vague similarities
between two people, one does not exist.
Besides the weak case for Barabbas being a falsified person and this being a
falsified event, it is unthinkable that the writers would jeopardise a truthful account
with an unnecessary fabrication like Barabbas. They didn’t need this event in the
slightest and the only reasonable explanation, especially given the evidence in
response to this objection, is that they reported it because it was true.
105
Objection: It isn’t a literal resurrection of Jesus’ body because He has a new,
glorified body.
This objection comes from renowned scholar Dale Allison in his book Resurrecting
Jesus. 301 He asserts that if spatio-temporal necessity is a necessary condition of
identity over time, the discontinuity caused by the dissolution of the mortal body
would mean the literal resurrection would be at most a duplication of the original body
due to what happened to the mortal body.
The first issue with this is that Jesus’ body wasn’t totally destroyed, so there is no
spatio-temporal discontinuity to prevent the continuity of His identity. It was clearly
the same body in the tomb that was raised, hence the empty tomb which Allison
accepts, and even if it had been destroyed, the remnants of that body would not be
out of that existence and there isn’t a stage in which a body becomes beyond God’s
glorification, otherwise people burned to death wouldn’t be able to be resurrected;
Allison is simply presupposing that the soul can’t exist independent of the person
after the destruction of the material body, which is odd given Allison is a dualist.
Finally, it can be argued that spatio-temporal continuity is not a necessary condition
of physical identity over time. This topic is very controversial, so it is far from granted
that God couldn’t recreate a destroyed object with the same identity. For instance,
Trenton Merricks argues that there are no informative, necessary and sufficient
conditions of identity over time. 302
In Jewish belief, the main object of resurrection was the bones, which was why
bones were preserved in ossuaries and skeletal remains can last for millions and
millions of years. Allison’s reservations are completely flat and have absolutely no
effect on the evidence. Allison himself even says: “I believe, rightly or wrongly, in a
future existence free from the constraints of material corporeality as we have hitherto
known them.” 303 This is in effect a self admission that his theological biases are the
only objection he can offer to the resurrection.
Objection: The accounts contradict on how many angels or men were at the
tomb.
Skeptics assert that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies over how many angels or
men were at the tomb. Mark says it was a man, Matthew says it was an angel, Luke
says it was two men and John says it was two angels.
5. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a long white robe sitting
on the right side; and they were alarmed.
Mark 16:5 (NKJV)
2. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended
from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Matthew 28:2 (NKJV)
106
4. And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men
stood by them in shining garments.
Luke 24:4 (NKJV)
12. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet,
where the body of Jesus had lain.
John 20:12 (NKJV)
The number differences are easily resolved as, once again, this is an example of
spotlighting by the authors. a To recap, we can see an example of this from the
writings of Plutarch regarding the assassination of Julius Caesar. In his account of
Caesar’s life, he notes that many of the conspirators were left wounded in the
process 304 while in Life of Brutus, he only mentions Brutus was wounded due to
spotlighting. 305
There are many more examples of this occurrence, such as a group or just Cicero
being saved 306 and the perpetrator of the deaths of Gias and Hortensius. 307 The
Gospel authors didn’t claim there was only one angel; they just focused on one in
their writing. There is no reason to think that they claimed there weren’t two or that
they didn’t personally believe there were two. They were likely just spotlighting the
angel who spoke because they didn’t see it necessary for their audience to mention
both.
In regard to the discrepancy between them being angels or men, this can also be
resolved, by reading on in the text. Later in Luke’s account, he refers to them as
angels.
23. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a
vision of angels who said He was alive.
Luke 24:23 (NKJV)
Mark describes the man in his account as in a white robe and delivering revelation.
Angels are often described as being dressed in white and appearing at random to
deliver revelation in the New Testament, such as such as Mark 9:2-3, Acts 1:10,
Daniel 7:9 and 2 Enoch 1:4-11, and other ancient Jewish writing 308 and can also be
described as appearing as men, such as Acts 10:30.
30. So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth
hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Acts 10:30 (NKJV)
Matthew and John also described the angels as being dressed in white.
Skeptics also take issue with where the angel was in Matthew’s account compared to
the others but it is implied in Matthew 28:6 that the angel moved from sitting on top of
a
For the earlier explanation of spotlighting, see page 33 for the objection “The accounts contradict
over the number of women who found the empty tomb.”
107
a stone to inside the tomb and one of the angels was speaking from inside the empty
tomb.
Another frequent objection is whether the angels were sitting or standing but the
Greek word used in Luke 24:4, epestēsan (στησαν), can mean to appear or be
present, not necessarily to stand. Even if he did mean stand, it is conceivable that at
one point they were sitting and at another point they were standing, implied even in
the movement we see in Matthew 28:6.
A final objection relating to the accounts of the angels is that the angels said things
different to the women in each Gospel but exact wording was not necessary in the
ancient cultural context; authors were expected to paraphrase and summarise. 309
This also cannot be counted as an unreliable form of transmission either because the
whole point was so that the author could best pass on the meaning of what was said
to his particular audience and given we have multiple versions and a fuller context,
we can more easily determine what was meant at the time. This can be seen in
Plutarch’s work, where he differs in what he reports a piece of graffiti said between
accounts, 310 paraphrasing what it said to get the message across in the different
contexts.
Objection: Most Christians don’t believe in the resurrection or Christianity

because they examined the evidence.
This can also be said of people who believe in gravity, that dinosaurs existed or that
man walked on the moon. People usually believe all of these things are true before
they see the evidence; this doesn’t make these beliefs any less true. Additionally, if
every Christian in the world had come to believe the resurrection through a careful
examination of the facts rather than presuppositions, would it make the resurrection
true or any truer? Obviously not. This is just the genetic fallacy, where a belief is
rejected because of how it originates for the person believing it. Just because we
might learn the earth is round from a comic, it doesn’t mean the earth isn’t round. It
isn’t any more or less true based on who does or doesn’t believe it for what reasons;
it would be true or false regardless of whether that person even exists.
This objection also disregards even the possibility that these Christians came to
believe the resurrection was true because they knew Christianity was true already
from other valid method, such as personal experience. It is true that someone else’s
personal experience can’t be evidence for others but it can be evidence for them and
hence necessitates the resurrection is true. Nevertheless, even if they come to
believe the resurrection is true because they flipped a coin, it doesn’t change the
evidence for the resurrection of make it any less false, just like flipping a coin to
determine the earth is round doesn’t mean the earth isn’t round.
Objection: People testified that they saw Elvis after his death and had no
reason to lie. Why shouldn’t we believe them?
108
The evidence for sightings of Elvis is very poor. For instance, the first Elvis sighting
was the day he died in Memphis, Tennessee, where someone claimed to see him at
an airport getting on a plane to Buenos Aires. This claim can be proven false
because at that time, Memphis airport had no international flights. Such sightings
don’t come from people who knew Elvis and the interactions are extremely brief as
oppose to the sightings from people who knew Jesus and had lengthy interactions
with Him.
The short answer is there is always an easy explanation for Elvis sightings. We
shouldn’t take the claims to be true as they have no explanatory scope or power
because there is nothing to explain. There is no plausibility because he is dead, the
claims are ad hoc because there’s no reason to assume he’s still alive and it provides
no illumination because there is nothing else that this fact would explain.
It is not reasonable to believe because it contradicts an established fact about the

subject, namely that Elvis’ body is buried and remains in the cemetery. There is a
lack of evidence we would expect if the event did occur because there are no photos
or physical evidence from any of the many sightings. Finally, the evidence is far more
easily accounted for by a usual explanation; mistaken identity or in some cases,
deception.
Assuming we could validate he had died in this scenario, if we could establish

credible testimony of Presley himself rather than vague stories, if there was
appearances to those who are skeptical, an empty coffin, other physical evidence we
might expect such as photos and no better explanation of the circumstances about
Elvis, then it would be reasonable to believe he had risen from the dead.
References
1. Fisher, David Hackett, 1970, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought,
New York: Harper & Row, page 3.
2. Tacitus, Cornelius, The Annals of Tacitus, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1939, book 15.44.
3. Syme, Ronald, 1958, Tacitus: Volume 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press, page 398.
4. Tacitus, Cornelius; Grant, Michael, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Baltimore, Maryland:
Penguin Books, 1959, pages 18-20.
5. Benario, Herbert W., 1975, An Introduction to Tacitus, Athens, Georgia: University of
Georgia Press, page 87.
6. Momigliano, Arnaldo D., 1992, The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography,
Berkeley: University of California Press, pages 111-112.
7. Martin, Ronald H., 1981, Tacitus, Berkeley: University of California Press, page 211.
8. Chilver, G. E. F., 1980, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, page 24.
9. Dudley, Donald R., 1968, The World of Tacitus, London: Secker & Warburg, page 29.
10. Ash, Rhiannon, 2006, Tacitus, London: Bloomsbury Academic, page 63.
11. Mellor, Ronald J., 1993, Tacitus, New York, London: Routledge, pages 20, 31-32, 45.
109
12. Josephus, Flavius; translated Barclay, John M. G., Flavius Josephus: Translation and
Commentary, Volume 9: Life of Josephus, Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2001, Life of Josephus
1.5, 1.7.
Commentary, Volume 9: Life of Josephus, Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2001, Life of Josephus
1.9-12.
14. Josephus, Flavius; translated Whiston, William, The Works of Flavius Josephus, New
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, Antiquities of the Jews 18.63.
15. Evans, Craig A., 2004, The Historical Jesus: Volume 4, New York, London: Routledge,
pages 390-391; Thackeray, Henry St. John, 1929, Josephus: The Man and Historian, New
York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, pages 136-149.
16. Pines, Shlomo, 1971, An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its
implications, Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
17. Lucian of Samosata; translated Fowler, H. W.; F. G., The Works of Lucian of Samosata,
1905, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
18. Lüdemann, Gerd, 1995, What Really Happened To Jesus?, Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, page 17.
19. Sanders, E. P., 1985, Jesus and Judaism, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, page 11.
20. Crossan, John Dominic, 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, page 145.
21. Borg, Marcus J., Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings and Relevance of a Religious
Revolutionary, San Francisco: HarperOne, page 179.
22. Lapide, Pinchas, 1983, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, Minneapolis:
Augsburg, page 32.
23. Fredriksen, Paula, 2000, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, New York: Vintage Books,
pages 7-8.
24. Ehrman, Bart D., 2007, Misquoting Jesus, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, page 162.
25. Price, Robert M.; Lowder, Jeffery Jay, 2005, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave,
New York: Prometheus Books, pages 394, 399.
26. Davies, M. Lloyd; Davies, T. A. Lloyd, 1991, Resurrection or Resuscitation?, Journal of
the Royal College of Physicians of London, volume 25, April, page 168.
27. Thiering, Barbara E., 1993, Jesus The Man, London: Corgi, page 21.
28. Evans, Craig A., 2008, Fabricating Jesus, Westmont: InterVarsity Press, page 207.
29. Evans, Craig A.; Wright, N. T., 2008, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, page 3.
30. Hengel, Martin, 1977, Crucifixion, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, page 29.
31. New Advent, Martyrdom of Polycarp [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm, chapter 2.
32. Dionysius of Halicarnassus; translated Cary, Earnest; Spelman Edward, The Roman
antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, book 5,
chapter 51.3
33. Livy; translated Moore, Frank Gardner, Livy: History of Rome, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1988, 22.13.9.
34. Philo of Alexandria; translated van der Horst, Pieter Willem, 2003, Flaccus, Leiden; Brill,
chapters 65-85.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, The Wars of the Jews 5.449.
36. Lucian of Samosata, translated Fowler, Henry William; Fowler, Francis George, 1905, The
Works of Lucian of Samosata, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, Piscator chapter 2.
37. Hattrup, Kathleen N., Aleteia, 2019, A doctor on why “blood and water” gushed from
Jesus’ heart [Online], https://aleteia.org/2019/06/22/a-doctor-on-why-blood-and-water-
gushed-from-jesus-heart/.
38. Allison, Dale C., 2005, Resurrecting Jesus, New York: T & T Clark, pages 353-354.
110
39. Ehrman, Bart D., 2014, How Jesus Became God, New York: HarperOne, pages 94-98.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, The Wars of the Jews 4.317.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, Against Apion 2.211.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, The Wars of the Jews 4.5.2.
43. Allison, Dale C., 2005, Resurrecting Jesus, New York: T & T Clark, page 360.
44. Philo of Alexandria; translated Smallwood, E. Mary, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad
Gaium, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961, page 300.
46. Magness, Jodi, Biblical Archaeology Society Library, 2006, What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look
Like? [Online], https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/32/1/7.
48. McCane, Byron R., 2003, Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus,
Horsham: Trinity Press International, page 107.
49. Elitzur, Yoel, 2013, The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal
Regarding Abba’s Identity, Israel Exploration Journal, volume 63, number 1, pages 83-102;
Bock, Darrell L.; Komoszewski, J. Ed, 2019, Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History:
Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pages 237-
240.
51. Lucius Cassius Dio, translated Cary, Earnest; Foster, Herbert Baldwin, 1914, Dio's
Roman history, London: William Heinemann, chapter 49.22.
52. Pesch, Rudolph J., 1979, Das Markusevangelium, Darmstadt: Scientific Book Society,
page 171.
53. Barnett, Paul W., 2001, Jesus and the Logic of History, Westmont: InterVarsity Press
Academic, pages 104-105.
54. Ehrman, Bart D., From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, lecture 4:
“Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus”.
55. Robinson, John A. T, 1973, The Human Face of God, Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
page 131.
57. Quintus Horatius Flaccus; translated Mayer, Roland, 2010, Horace Epistles Book I,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, book 1, chapter, 16.48.
58. Hengel, Martin, 1977, Crucifixion, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, page 76.
59. Artemidorus, translated Harris-McCoy, Daniel E., 2012, Oneirocritica, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, chapter 2.53.
60. Decimus Junius Juvenalis; translated Green, Peter, 1974, The Sixteen Satires, London:
Penguin Classics, chapter 14.77-78.
61. Ehrman, Bart D., 2014, How Jesus Became God, New York: HarperOne, page 159.
62. Diodorus Siculus, Perseus, Library [Online], https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?
doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0084%3Abook%3D16%3Achapter%3D25, book 16,
chapter 25.2.
63. Dio Chrysostom; translated Cohoon, James Wilfred; Crosby, Henry Lamar, 1961,
Discourses XXXI - XXXVI., Volume 3, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, chapter 31.85.
64. Tacitus, Cornelius, The Annals of Tacitus, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1939, book 6.29.
65. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, translated Graves, Robert, 1957, The Twelve Caesars,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Augustus, chapter 13.
66. Karaman, Elif Hilal, 2018, Ephesian Women in Greco-Roman and Early Christian
Perspective, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pages 50-51; du Plessis, Paul J.; Ando, Clifford; Tuori,
111
Kaius, 2016, The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, page 131; Oudshoorn, Carolien, 2007, The Relationship between Roman and Local
Law in the Babatha and Salome Komaise Archives, Leiden: E. J. Brill.
67. Overstreet, R. Larry, 1978, Roman Law and the Trial of Christ, Bibliotheca Sacra, volume
135, number 540, page 325.
68. Kunkel, Wolfgang, 1973, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History,
Toronto: Oxford University Press, page 40.
Gaium, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961, page 303-305.
Commentary, Volume 1B: Judean War 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008, Jewish Wars 2.220.
74. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus; Siculus, Titus Calpurnius; translated Spalding, Georg Ludwig;
Dussault, Jean Joseph François; Lemaire, Nicolas Eloi, a 2011, Declamationes Maiores Et
Minores, Charleston: Nabu Press, chapter 6.9.
75. Brown, Raymond E., 1999, The Death of the Messiah, from Gethsemane to the Grave,
volume 2, New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, pages 1240-1241.
78. Kennard Jr, J. Spencer, 1955, The Burial of Jesus, The Society of Biblical Literature,
Journal of Biblical Literature, volume 74, number 4, pages 227-238.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, Antiquities of the Jews 13.4.9.
80. Carrier, Richard C., 2014, On the Historicity of Jesus, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press,
page 439.
81. Pack, David C., 2009, America and Britain in Prophecy, Bloomington: Author Solutions,
pages 94-95.
82. Kloner, Amos, Biblical Archaeology Society Library, 1999, Did a Rolling Stone Close
Jesus’ Tomb? [Online], https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/25/5/1.
84. Gibson, Shimon, 2010, The Final Days of Jesus, New York: HarperOne, page 157.
85. Ehrman, Bart D., 1999, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, page 230.
86. Ehrman, Bart D., 2008, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings, New York: Oxford University Press, page 234.
88. Religious Studies, 2014, The Search for Jesus [Video], YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aFZxIn2OxY, 1:25:02.
89. Lüdemann, Gerd, 1995, What Really Happened To Jesus?, Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, page 80.
90. Sanders, E. P., 1993, The Historical Figure of Jesus, London: Allen Lane; New York:
Penguin Press, pages 279-280.
91. Carrier, Richard C., Internet Infidels, 2000, Craig’s Empty Tomb & Habermas on Visions
(1999, 2005) [Online], https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4e.html.
92. O’Collins, Gerald G., 1978, What are they saying about the Resurrection?, New York:
Paulist Press, page 112.
a
This is a Latin translation completed in the 18th century and reproduced and published in 2011.
112
93. Dunn, James D. G., 2003, Jesus Remembered, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
pages 854-855.
94. D’Costa, Gavin, 2014, Resurrection Reconsidered, New York: Oneworld Academic, page
48.
95. Wilckens, Ulrich, 1978, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: an Historical
Examination and Explanation, Atlanta: John Knox Press, page 2.
96. Lüdemann, Gerd, 2004, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry, Amherst:
Prometheus Books, page 38.
97. Barnett, Paul W., 1999, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, Westmont: InterVarsity
Press Academic, page 181.
98. A. Burridge, Richard; Gould, Graham, 2004, Jesus Now and Then, Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans, page 46.
99. Funk, Robert W.; The Jesus Seminar, 1998, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the
Authentic Deeds of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, page 466.
100. Hays, Richard B., 1997, First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for
Teaching and Preaching, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, page 255.
101. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M., Beyond Resurrection, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
pages 113-114.
102. Kasper, Walter, 2011, Jesus the Christ, London: Continuum, page 125.
103. Dodd, Charles H., 1936, Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, New York: Harper,
pages 19-27.
104. Keener, Craig S., 2003, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, volume 2, page 1169.
105. Barnett, Paul W., 1994, The Truth About Jesus: The Challenge of Evidence, Sydney:
Aquila Press, page 7; Lüdemann, Gerd, 2004, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry,
Amherst: Prometheus Books, page 41; Catchpole, David R., 2002 ‘Resurrection People:
Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the Gospels, Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing,
page 152.
Press Academic, page 183; Byrskog, Samuel, 2002, Story as History – History as Story,
Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 227; Peter F. Carnley, 2011, The Structure of Resurrection Belief,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, page 228; Craig, William Lane, 1989, Assessing the New
Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Edwin Mellen
Press Ltd, pages 33-34; Witherington III, Ben, 2006, Matthew, Macon: Smyth & Helwys
Publishing, page 274; Wright, N. T., 2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, page 326.
107. Horn, Trent, Catholic Answers, 2022, DEBATE: Did Jesus Rise Bodily From the Dead?
(with Pinecreek) [Online], https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/debate-did-jesus-rise-bodily-
from-the-dead-with-pinecreek.
108. Licona, Michael R., 2010, The Resurrection of Jesus, Nottingham: InterVarsity Press
Academic, page 320.
109. Craig, William Lane, 1989, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of
the Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Edwin Mellen Press Ltd, pages 57-63; Wright, N. T.,
2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, page 325.
110. Habermas, Gary R., 2003, The Risen Jesus and the Future Hope, Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishing, pages 22, 44.
111. Habermas, Gary R.; Licona, Michael R., 2004, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, page 74.
Prometheus Books, page 81-83; Licona, Michael R., 2010, The Resurrection of Jesus,
Nottingham: InterVarsity Press Academic, pages 440-460.
113
114. deSilva, David A., 2000, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament
Culture, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, page 51.
115. Cicero, Marcus Tullius; translated Miller, Walter, 1928, Cicero De officiis, London:
Heinemann, book 1, chapter 11.2
116. deSilva, David A., 2000, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament
Culture, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, page 46.
117. Origen of Alexandria, New Advent, Contra Celsum [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm, book 2, chapter 67.
119. Justin Martyr, New Advent, The First Apology [Online],
120. Aeschylus; translated Lattimore, Richmond, 1953, Oresteia: Agamemnon, the Libation
bearers, the Eumenides, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Eumenides 647f.
121. Callimachus, Attalus, Epigrams [Online], http://www.attalus.org/poetry/callimachus2.html,
poem 13.
122. Homer; translated Fagles, Robert; Knox, Bernard, 1998, The Iliad, London: Penguin
Classics, chapter 24.549-551.
123. Homer; translated Robert Fitzgerald, 1990, The Odyssey, New York: Vintage Books,
chapter 11:220-222.
124. Wright, N. T., 2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
page 53.
page 39.
127. Porter, Stanley E., 1999, Resurrection: The Greeks and the New Testament, Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, page 74.
128. Sacred Texts, The Sibylline Oracles [Online], translated Terry, Milton Spenser, The
Sibylline Oracles: Translated From the Greek Into English Blank Verse by Milton S. Terry
(1899), Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009,
https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib06.htm, book 4.179-192; Sefaria, Vayikra Rabbah
[Online], https://www.sefaria.org/Vayikra_Rabbah.14, 14:5; 14:9; Josephus, Flavius;
translated Barclay, John M. G., Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 1B:
Judean War 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008, 2.163; Josephus, Flavius; translated Whiston,
William, The Works of Flavius Josephus, New York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo,
1895, The Wars of the Jews 3:37; Sefaria, Mishnah Sanhedrin [Online], translated Steinsaltz,
Adil Even-Israel, The William Davidson Talmud,
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.10.1, 10.1; Sefaria, Mishnah Sotah [Online],
translated Steinsaltz, Adil Even-Israel, The William Davidson Talmud,
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sotah.9.15, 9.15; Sefaria, Berakoth 60b [Online], translated
Steinsaltz, Adil Even-Israel, The William Davidson Talmud,
https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.60b.
pages 146-206.
130. Pitre, Brant J., 2016, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ,
Portland: Image.
132. Sefaria, Mishnah Rosh Hashanah [Online], translated Steinsaltz, Adil Even-Israel, The
William Davidson Talmud, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah.1.8, 1.8.
114
133. Schwartzmann, Julia, 2020, A Late Nineteenth-Century Rabbinic Critique of the Status of
Women in Judaism, Modern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, volume 40,
number 3, pages 259-284.
134. Plutarch; translated Babbitt, Frank Cole, De Pythiae oraculis, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press; London: William Heinemann, section 25.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Augustus, chapter 44.
136. Marcus Minucius Felix, New Advent, Octavius [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm, chapters 8-9.
137. Bauckham, Richard J., 2002, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the
Gospels, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, pages 270-271.
page 207.
139. Licona, Michael R., Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?, New York: Oxford
140. Plutarch, translated Perrin, Bernadotte, Plutarch’s Lives, London: W. Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Cicero 15.1.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Crassus 15.1-2
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Crassus 15.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Pompey 51.5.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Antony 17.1.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Brutus 27.1.
146. Bauckham, Richard J., 2002, Gospel Women, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
page 258; Wedderburn, Alexander J. M., Beyond Resurrection, Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, pages 58-60.
147. Kremer, Jacob, 1977, Die Osterevangelien, Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk;
Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, pages 49-50.
148. Vermes, Géza, 2008, The Resurrection: History and Myth, New York: Crown Publishing
Group, pages 142-148.
Group, page 141.
Group, page 148.
152. Craig, William Lane, 1994, Reasonable Faith, Wheaton: Crossway Books, page 377.
153. Kirsopp L. Lake, 1907, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,
London, Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's Sons, pages 251-252.
154. Klausner, Joseph G., 1964, Jesus of Nazareth, Boston: Beacon Press, pages 62-80.
155. Sefaria, Tractate Semachot [Online], translated Cohen, Abraham, The Minor Tractates of
the Talmud, London: Soncino Press, 1965, https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Semachot.13.7,
13.7.
156. Saurin, Jacques, 1836, Sermons of the Rev. James Saurin, London: Richard Baynes;
Thomas Tegg & Son, volume 1, page 314.
157. The Veritas Forum, 2012, Jesus’ Resurrection: Atheist, Antony Flew, and Theist, Gary
Habermas, Dialogue [Video], YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVb3Xvny8-k,
0:20:36.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Claudius, chapter 25.
115
160. Bock, Darrell L., 1998, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus
in Mark 14:53-65, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, page 196.
161. Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gohei, 1989, Josephus, the Bible and History, Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, page 434; Dunn, James D. G., 2003, Christianity in the Making: Vol. 1,
Jesus Remembered, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, page 141; Green, Joel B.;
McKnight, Scott; Marshall, I. Howard, 1992, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, page 364; Meier, John P., 2007, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus: Volume 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale
University Press city, page 66; Shanks, Hershel; Witherington III, Ben, 2003, The Brother of
Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, page 168; Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside
the New Testament: Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the historical Jesus): An
Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, page 83;
Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette B., 1999, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
London: SCM Press, page 65.
162. Meier, John P., 2007, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume 1: The
Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale University Press city, pages 57-59.
Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale University Press city, page 57;
Eusebius of Caesarea, New Advent, Church History [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm, book 2, chapter 23.22.
Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale University Press city, page 57-58.
165. Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette B., 1999, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
London: SCM Press, page 65; Van Voorst, Robert E., Jesus Outside the New Testament:
Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the historical Jesus): An Introduction to the
Ancient Evidence, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, page 84.
Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale University Press city, page 58-59.
167. Witherington III, Ben, 2003, The Brother of Jesus, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
page 169.
168. Wright, N. T., 2011, Who Was Jesus?, New York: HarperOne, page 354.
169. Eusebius of Caesarea, New Advent, Church History [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm, book 2, chapter 23.3-19.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm, book 2, chapter 9.1-3.
171. Pliny the Younger, translated Radice, Betty, 1969, The Letters of the Younger Pliny,
Harmondsworth; Baltimore: Penguin Books, letter 10.96-97.
172. Clement of Rome, New Advent, Letter to the Corinthians [Online],
173. Polycarp, New Advent, Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [Online],
174. Tertullian, New Advent, Scorpiace [Online],
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0318.htm, chapter 15; Eusebius of Caesarea, New
Advent, Church History [Online], https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm, book 2,
chapter 25.8.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, book 3, chapter 1.2-2.1.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm, book 2, chapter 25.8.
177. McCullagh, C. Behan, 1994, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge: Cambridge
116
178. Holding, Ed James Patrick, 2010, Defending The Resurrection, Maitland: Xulon Press,
page 292.
181. Barnett, Paul W., 1994, The Truth About Jesus: The Challenge of Evidence, Sydney:
Aquila Press, page 7; Lüdemann, Gerd, 2004, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historical Inquiry,
Amherst: Prometheus Books, page 41; Catchpole, David R., 2002 ‘Resurrection People:
Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the Gospels, Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing,
page 152.
Press Academic, page 183; Byrskog, Samuel, 2002, Story as History – History as Story,
Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 227; Carnley, Peter F., 2011, The Structure of Resurrection Belief,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, page 228; Craig, William Lane, 1989, Assessing the New
Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Edwin Mellen
Press Ltd, pages 33-34; Witherington III, Ben, 2006, Matthew, Macon: Smyth & Helwys
Publishing, page 274; Wright, N. T., 2003, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, page 326.
Academic, page 354.
184. Justin Martyr, New Advent, Dialogue with Trypho [Online],
185. Lüdemann, Gerd, 1994, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology,
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, page 44.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Claudius, chapter 25.
Academic, page 484.
188. Aléman, Andre; Larøi, Frank, 2008, Hallucinations: The Science of Idiosyncratic
Perception, Washington: American Psychological Association, pages 25-46.
190. Rolland, Benjamin; Jardri, Renaud; Amad, Ali; Thomas, Pierre; Cottencin, Olivier;
Bordet, Régis, 2014, Pharmacology of Hallucinations: Several Mechanisms for One Single
Symptom?, BioMed Research International, volume 2014, number 307106.
191. Zusne, Leonard; Jones, Warren H., 1982, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of
Extraordinary Phenomena of Behaviour and Experience, Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates,
pages 135-136.
192. Bergeron, Joseph W.; Habermas, Gary R., 2015, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical
Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter, Liberty Baptist Theological
Seminary, 402.
193. Craig, William Lane, 2000, Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, page 190.
Academic, page 517.
195. Habermas, Gary R.; Licona, Michael R., 2004, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, page 114.
Prometheus Books, pages 81-83.
page 321.
117
199. Bart D. Ehrman, 2016, Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection [Video], YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5_nJYSKyk, 0:36:00.
210. Craig, William Lane; Lüdemann, Gerd; Copan, Paul; Tacelli, Ronald K., Jesus’
Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Lüdemann,
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, page 50.
211. Hengel, Martin, 1997, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, page 342.
212. D’Costa, Gavin, 1996, The Impossibility of a Pluralist View of Religions, Religious
Studies, volume 32, number 2, pages 51-52.
Academic, page 483.
215. Kessler, Hans, 1985, Sucht den Lebenden nicht bei den Toten: Die Auferstehung Jesu
Christi, Düsseldorf: Patmos, page 423.
216. Stendahl, Krister O., 1976, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
pages 12-13.
217. Dunn, James D. G., 1998, Jesus and the Spirit, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
page 132.
218. Bart D. Ehrman, 2016, Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection [Video], YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5_nJYSKyk, 0:33:23.
219. Craffert, Pieter F., 2003, Crossan's Historical Jesus as Healer, Exorcist and Miracle
Worker, Religion and Theology, volume 10, number 3-4, pages 366-367; Craffert, Pieter F.,
1989, The Origins of Resurrection Faith: The Challenge of a Social-Scientific Approach, New
Testament Society of Southern Africa, Neotestamentica, volume 23, number 2, page 342.
220. Craffert, Pieter F.; Botha, Pieter J. J., 2005, Why Jesus could walk on the sea but he
could not read and write: Reflections on historicity and interpretation in historical Jesus
research, New Testament Society of Southern Africa, Neotestamentica, volume 39, number
1, page 21.
221. Borg, Marcus J.; Crossan, John Dominic, 2006, The Last Week; A Day-by-Day Account
of Jesus’s Final Week in Jerusalem, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, pages 218-19.
222. Lindars, Barnabas, 1986, Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection But No Empty Tomb,
Theology, volume 89, number 728, page 91.
118
223. Meier, John P., 2007, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Volume 2:
Mentor, Message and Miracles, New Haven: Yale University Press city, page 529.
224. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M., Beyond Resurrection, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
page 11.
Group, pages 141-148.
226. Fisher, David Hackett, 1970, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought,
New York: Harper & Row, page 62.
227. Haskell, Thomas L., 1990, Objectivity is not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter
Novick's That Noble Dream, Wiley, History and Theory, volume 29, number 2, page 153.
230. Twelftree, Graham H., 1999, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological
Study, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, page 43.
231. Craig, William Lane; Moreland, J. P., 2009, Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology,
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pages 637-659.
232. Tacitus, Cornelius; translated Moore, Clifford H., Tacitus: Histories, Books I-III,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925, volume 2, Histories 4.81.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Vespasian, chapter 7.
234. Lucius Cassius Dio, translated Cary, Earnest; Foster, Herbert Baldwin, 1914, Dio's
Roman history, London: William Heinemann, 66.8.
Roots of the Problem and the Person, New Haven: Yale University Press city, page 594.
Academic, page 178.
Academic, page 179.
240. Neusner, Jacob, 2005, The Law of Agriculture in the Mishnah and the Tosefta, Leiden:
E. J. Brill, page 53.
241. Pew Research, 2006, Spirit and Power – A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals [Online],
https://www.pewforum.org/2006/10/05/spirit-and-power/.
242. Tang, Edmond, 2005, Yellers’ and Healers Pentecostalism and the Study of Grassroots
Christianity in China, Asian and Pentecostal. The Charismatic Face of Christianity in Asia,
pages 467-486.
243. Keener, Craig S., 2011, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,
volume 2, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, pages 763-764.
119
250. Dorthe Berntsen; Dorthe K. Thomsen, 2005, Personal Memories for Remote Historical
Events: Accuracy and Clarity of Flashbulb Memories Related to World War II, J Exp Psychol
Gen, volume 134, number 2, pages 242-257.
251. Craig, William Lane, 1989, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of
the Resurrection of Jesus, New York: Edwin Mellen Press Ltd, pages 73-74.
252. Hays, Richard B., 1997, First Corinthians, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
page 46.
Academic, page 410.
page 359.
256. Blomberg, Craig L., 2007, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Westmont:
257. Sefaria, Mishnah Pesachim [Online], translated Steinsaltz, Adil Even-Israel, The William
Davidson Talmud, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Pesachim.10.1, 10:1.
260. Allen, G. C., 1903, The Didache: Or, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, London:
Astolat Press, 8.1.
261. New Advent, Martyrdom of Polycarp [Online],
263. O’Brien, Brandon J.; Richards, E. Randolph, 2012, Misreading Scripture with Western
Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, Westmont: InterVarsity
Press, pages 137-152.
264. Borchert, Gerald L., 2002, New American Commentary: John 12-21, Nashville: Holman
Reference, page 258.
265. Ermatinger, James W., 2015, The World of Ancient Rome, Santa Barbara: Greenwood,
page 713.
266. Bury, John B., 1893, A History Of The Roman Empire: From Its Foundation To The
Death Of Marcus Aurelius, 27 B.C. To 180 A.D., New York: Harper, page 633.
267. Conti, Flavio, 2003, A Profile of Ancient Rome, Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum,
page 209.
268. Still, James, Internet Infidels, 2021, The Problem with Jesus’ Arrest and Trial [Online],
https://infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_trial.html.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3-4.
270. Philo of Alexandria, translated by Smallwood, E. Mary, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad
Gaium, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961, pages 299-305.
120
276. McGing, Brian C., 1991, Pontius Pilate and the Sources, Catholic Biblical Association,
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, volume 53, number 3, pages 416-438.
Gaium, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961, pages 299-305.
280. McGing, Brian C., 1991, Pontius Pilate and the Sources, Catholic Biblical Association,
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, volume 53, number 3, pages 430-431.
281. Bond, Helen K., 1998 ‘Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, page 27.
282. Bond, Helen K., 1998 ‘Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, page 33.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.
284. Stein, Robert H., 1992, Luke: The New American Commentary, Nashville: B&H
Publishing Group, volume 24, pages 568-569.
285. Harvey, Anthony E., 1976, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel, London: SPCK,
page 61.
286. Wilson, William R., 1970, The Execution of Jesus: a Judicial, Literary and Historical
Investigation, New York: Scribner, page 11.
287. Bock, Darrell L., 1998, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge Against Jesus
in Mark 14:53-65, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, page 21; Evans, Craig A., 1995, Jesus and
His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies, Leiden; New York: E. J. Brill, page 414.
288. Seasoned Apologist, 2017, Bart Ehrman Stumbles On The Deity of Christ [Video],
YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EeO8zRtFus.
291. Pliny the Younger, The Letters of Pliny the Younger, New York: G. E. Stechert, 1936,
Epistle to Trajan 10.31
292. Deissmann, Gustav Adolf, 1965, Light from the Ancient East, Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, pages 269-270.
295. Sefaria, Mishnah Pesachim [Online], translated Steinsaltz, Adil Even-Israel, The William
Davidson Talmud, https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Pesachim.8.6, 8.6; Evans, Craig A.,
2008, Fabricating Jesus, Westmont: InterVarsity Press, page 173.
296. Plutarch, translated Perrin, Bernadotte, Plutarch’s Lives, London, W. Heinemann;
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Caesar 51.2.
York: John E. Beardsley, Auburn and Buffalo, 1895, section 75.
298. Sukenik, Eleazar L., 1947/2009, The Earliest Records of Christianity, Piscataway:
Gorgias Press, pages 351-365.
299. Evans, Craig A., 2003, Jesus and the Ossuaries, Waco: Baylor University Press, page
86.
300. Licona, Michael R., Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?, New York: Oxford
121
302. Merricks, Trenton, 1998, There Are No Criteria of Identity Over Time, Hoboken: Wiley,
pages 106-124.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Caesar 66.7.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Brutus 17.4.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Cato Minor 55.3; Cicero 39.1-2.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Brutus 28.1, Antony 22.4.
309. Saris, L. A., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric,
Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 6; Licona, Michael R., Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?,
New York: Oxford University Press, pages 11-12.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959-67, Caesar 62.4; Brutus 9.3.
Acknowledgements
This document draws from the excellent work of Trent Horn, Michael Jones and
Jimmy Akin, all of whom we recommend heavily on this topic through writing,
presentations and debates. Information is also used frequently used from Mike
Licona, N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig, David Wood, Brant Pitre, Gary Habermas,
Craig Evans, J. Warner Wallace, Richard Bauckham and Craig Blomberg as well as
valuable content from many other apologists and distinguished writers in various
fields.
122

The Resurrection of Jesus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Resurrection of Jesus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Resurrection Of Jesus

Part 1: The Resurrection Case

Introduction And Method.............................................................................................4

Part 2: Opposing Theories

Part 3: General Objections To The Resurrection

Miracles are improbable so are always the least likely explanation..........................71

Introduction And Method

As a result of the many independent Christian, Jewish and Roman sources

Another example of secular historical attestation of Jesus’ crucifixion is Josephus,

This theory was confirmed by further evidence discovered in 1971, as an Arabic

 Gerd Lüdemann says: “The fact of the death of Jesus as a consequence of

Cardio-thoracic surgeon Dr. Antony de Bono writes: “Jesus had a haemothorax,

There is also an obvious error to the survival theory as pertaining to subsequent

Fact 2: Jesus Was Buried In A Nearby Tomb

There are also no alternate narratives in existence as to another occurrence. Why

Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea is attested to by multiple, independent early

 Roman sources say crucified victims could be buried.

As archaeologist Jodi Magness states: “The Mishnah attaches no stigma to

Objection: Joseph of Arimathea never existed and was a literary invention to

As far as Arimathea goes, we haven’t found hundreds and hundreds of cities

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable in various scenarios. For instance, when events

Furthermore, it has an independent tradition not dependent on the Gospels, such as

5. For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

James was likewise a skeptic convert to Christianity following Jesus’ appearance to

7. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.

This is backed up by Josephus, who documents: “so he assembled the sanhedrim of

The resurrection hypothesis explains appearances to skeptics because it is obvious

Fact 5: To The Surrounding World, The Gospel Message Was

Fact 6: The Belief Of Resurrection Originated With The Resurrection

Even in Egypt, as N. T. Wright says: “There was no eschatology, no apocalypse, no

Objection: There are other resurrections in the Bible.

Fact 7: Woman Were Considered As Inferior, As Unreliable Witnesses

N. T. Wright comments on this: “As historians we are obliged to comment that if

11. For there is no partiality with God.

Fact 8: The Witnesses Immediately Proclaimed In Jerusalem That The

Fact 9: Jesus’ Tomb Was Found Empty

 Someone other than the Disciples took Jesus’ body.

These theories are in addition to blind acceptance or rejection which he rejects

Objection: The empty tomb was the wrong tomb.

Objection: Jesus’ body was displaced, likely lost or accidentally moved.

In Josephus’ Antiquities, we even read how James was to be executed: “…so he

 It appears in all manuscripts of Antiquities of the Jews “without any notable

Paul also tells us about intense persecution.

N. T. Wright notes that 2 Corinthians was written as a response to the Corinthians

Even on minimal evidence, if facts surrounding a case necessitated it and the

The Conspiracy Theory

The conspiracy theory has no hope in explaining the early proclamation in

Matthew is bold enough to mention this potentially doubt-inducing theory because he

6. Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

The Hallucination Theory

There are multiple different modes of hallucinations:

Even if a scientific explanation could account for group hallucinations, the

They even doubted the reports of the women.

1. It is [a]doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and

The Mythic Theory

Bart Ehrman’s Theory.

This argument is essentially as follows.

When it comes to the empty tomb explanation, decomposition is completely irrelevant

Gerd Lüdemann’s Theory

1. Give us a secular historian that accepts Jesus’ resurrection.

The most shocking part of Lüdemann’s theory is his attempted psychoanalysis of

Skeptical theories of scholars fail to provide a satisfying or more reasonable