Blog

Introduction: In this essay, I will present a somewhat different structured way of defending the resurrection of Jesus via the Acronym A.L.I.V.E, which I have seen several Christian Apologists do, such as Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy, Erik Manning of Testify, and even Timothy McGrew, all of whom I am indebted to for learning about the structure of this argument. The letters of the acronym stand for (A)ppearances To The Disciples, (L)ow Status Of Women, (I)mmediate Proclamation, (V)oluntary Sufferings Of The Disciples, and (E)mpty Tomb. This essay will use the gospels as eyewitness testimony after I give a brief defense of the traditional authorship of the gospels. I will also employ some of Paul’s letters, and I will be making use of the criteria of authenticity. It might feel to many of my readers that what I’m doing is a blend between The Maximal Data Approach and The Minimal Facts Approach. But I assure you that this is not a Minimalist case. Scholarly consensus will not determine what arguments I use, and I will be defending the general reliability of the gospels as credible eyewitness testimonies. A Maximalist case only cares about the strength of historical evidence and logic, and not how many scholars agree with these points. At the end of the essay, I will have a chart showing multiple different explanations, and we will see which theory can adequately account for all of the facts.

Preliminary Issue: The Gospels Were Written By Apostles Or Associates Of Apostles

The External Evidence For All Four Gospels:

The historical support for the traditional authors of the Gospels is rooted in a consistent, early, and geographically widespread tradition. The external evidence—the testimony of early Church Fathers—is arguably the strongest pillar. Papias (c. A.D. 60–130), who sought information directly from those who knew the Apostles, affirmed the identity of Mark and Matthew. ^[1]See Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers … Continue reading. Similarly, Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180), who personally knew Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), explicitly confirms all four traditional authors. ^[2]Irenaeus as quoted in Eusebius, Church History, V.8.2, and Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James … Continue reading

This unanimous testimony is striking because the Early Church had no motivation to invent the specific authors they chose. In his book The Historical Reliability Of The Gospels, New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg writes “That two of the four Gospels were attributed to individuals as comparatively obscure in early Christianity as Mark and Luke also inspires confidence in the tradition. John Mark was a companion of both Peter and Paul but best known for having ‘defected’ from the Pauline mission (cf. Acts 13:13 with 15:37). Luke was Paul’s ‘beloved physician’ (Col. 4:14 AV) and travel companion throughout those portions of Acts written in the first person plural, but is known by name in the New Testament only from brief references in the closing greetings of three of Paul’s letters (see esp. 2 Tim. 4:11 and Phlm. 24). Even Matthew, though one of the twelve apostles (also known as Levi, a converted tax-collector), would not have been a natural choice for someone falsely ascribing authorship to a Christian authority, given his ignominious background as a Jew who had worked for the hated Roman invaders. Only John, son of Zebedee, and one of the inner core of three closest associates of Jesus (along with his brother, James, and Peter) makes sense as a candidate for pseudonymous attribution, though a good case can be made for the accuracy of this tradition as well.” ^[3]Craig L. Blomberg. “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.”, IVP Academic, 2008

The Internal Case for Mark: Peter’s Interpreter

The unanimous tradition holds that Mark was the secretary or “interpreter” for the Apostle Peter. Internal evidence in the Gospel of Mark confirms this Petrine influence. Mark’s account names Peter before mentioning any of the other apostles, and Mark ends his gospel, concluding with a specific instruction for the women to go and tell Peter and the disciples (Mark 16:7)— when an ancient author mentioned a person at the very beginning and end of a narrative, more often than not, the person mentioned in the narrative was the same person who wrote it. This narrative technique is known as inclusio. ^[4]Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.

Furthermore, Mark’s writing style possesses vivid, unnecessary details often associated with a primary witness. He includes the Aramaic “Talitha Koum” (Mark 5:41), describes Jesus’s facial expressions (Mark 3:5), and notes Jesus’s weariness (Mark 4:38). These are hallmarks of a direct, detailed report from an observer, which Peter was.

Crucially, Mark consistently omits or softens details that are embarrassing to Peter. For example, while Matthew 14:22-23 calls Peter a doubter and a “man of little faith”, Mark 6:45-52, which records the same event, omits Peter’s involvement altogether. Luke 5 records Jesus’ miracle of the catching of the fish, in which Peter doubts Jesus’ wisdom. Yet Mark’s parallel account omits Peter’s cynicism altogether. This selective kindness toward Peter is exactly what we would expect from a faithful companion recounting his mentor’s testimony, painting him in the kindest possible light.

At this point, one might object that not all of Peter’s embarrassing moments have been omitted. For example, in Mark 8, Jesus predicts his sufferings and death, and Peter vows not to allow it to happen. (Mark 8:31-32), to which Jesus calls Peter Satan (Mark 8:33). True, but it remains the case that Mark omits far more embarrassing moments of Peter than the other gospels do. Moreover, on the position that Mark is the author of the gospel of Mark and got his information from Peter, it would be all the more surprising should this be an invented conversation between Jesus and Peter. According to the criterion of embarrassment, this is more likely than not to be a historical conversation. I’m not saying inclusion of embarassing details is a mark against this argument. It would be hard for Peter to omit himself from this occasion anyway, given that the context is Jesus’ renaming of him and declaring that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against the church. But far more often, if possible, the author either omits the incident or says something like “One of the disciples.”

The Internal Case for Matthew and Luke: Apostles and Companions

For the Apostle Matthew, internal evidence centers on his unique perspective as a former tax collector. His Gospel features meticulous financial and numerical details, such as the exact amount of Judas’s betrayal (Matthew 26:15), which reflects a publican’s eye for precise records, and the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:23-35).

A common objection to Matthean authorship is that Matthew couldn’t have written the gospel ascribed to him because Matthew refers to himself in the third person (see Matthew 9:9-13). However, this was a common narrative convention for authors in that era, often used to lend objective weight to their accounts. Craig Blomberg notes that “ancient parallels can be adduced for one writer referring to himself in the third person and first-person plural, as well as the ordinary first-person singular (Jackson 1999).” ^[5]Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, [InterVarsity Press, 2001], pp. 37-38

The New Testament scholar Craig Keener cites several examples of this in “John, Jesus, and History, Volume 2”. On the seventeenth page of this work, he cites Thucydides (who lived from 460-395 B.C) and his work The Peloponnesian War 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1 as an example. Other instances of this which are worth bringing up are the Greek historian and philosopher Xenophon’s work Anabasis 2.5.41; 3.1.4-6 and Julius Caesar’s works Gallic War 1.7; 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.11 and Civil War 1.1.

For Luke, his authorship is intrinsically tied to the book of Acts. Luke opens his gospel with an address to “Most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-4), and in Acts 1:1, the author also addresses Theophilus and refers to a “former treatise” (KJV) in which he recorded everything that Jesus said and did. The most logical inference is that whoever wrote the book of Acts wrote Luke as well, such that any indication of authorship or reliability for one book has implications for the other. The “we” sections in Acts (e.g., Acts 16:10-17) clearly indicate that the author was an eyewitness to certain events, traveling personally alongside Paul. The fact that Luke’s Gospel is addressed to Theophilus and is consistently dated near the death of Paul (before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70), makes it a reliable, high-value historical document written by a direct associate of the Apostles.

The Internal Case for John: The Beloved Disciple

John’s Gospel is unique in that the author identifies himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20). He is frequently referred to as “the other disciple” or simply the one “who also went in with Peter” (John 20:3-8).

The details in John’s Gospel are those of an insider, intimately familiar with Jewish customs and geography. He notes the exact time events occurred (e.g., “about the tenth hour,” John 1:39) and the number of specific items, such as the 153 fish caught (John 21:11). These precise, eyewitness elements solidify the traditional claim that the author was not some distant figure, but the beloved Apostle himself.

One of the main objections to Johannine authorship is that John was an uneducated fisherman, according to the gospels. How could an uneducated fisherman even know how to read and write never mind produce a gospel as beautifully written as the gospel of John? ^[6]See Bart Ehrman, “Was John the Son of Zebedee Capable of Writing a Gospel?” The Bart Ehrman Blog, August 21, 2017. URL: … Continue reading There are two responses to this; the first is that it assumes that John never learned how to read and write during his lifetime. This seems like quite an unreasonable assumption. People pick up new skills as they go through life. That was no less true back then than it is now. Why think that John didn’t apply himself and learn to read? If we go with the scholarly consensus that John was written sometime in the 90s, John would have had quite ample time not only to learn how to read and write, but to learn how to write in really sophisticated ways. Secondly, even if John were illiterate, it was not an uncommon practice for people to hire scribes to write for them while they, the author, dictated what they wanted to say to the scribe.

To my first point, skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says, “Could an adult who was uneducated in this way eventually learn to write? Possibly, but we have precisely zero evidence of anything like adult education in the ancient world. And no evidence either, at all, of people being trained in a school setting to write in a second language.” ^[7]Bart Ehrman, “Was John the Son of Zebedee Capable of Writing a Gospel?” on The Bart Ehrman Blog, URL: https://ehrmanblog.org/was-john-the-son-of-zebedee-capable-of-writing-a-gospel/ However, this isn’t a very good argument. Sure, they didn’t have public schools and universities like we do today, but the idea that John could have learned to read and write doesn’t depend on such a supposition. All John would need would be to find some individual who could read and write who would personally train him one on one, maybe like what we see in The Chosen when Mary Magdalene teaches Ramah to read Hebrew. And as a traveling evangelist who would have developed relationships with the people he discipled, is it really far-fetched to think that he couldn’t find a literate individual to teach him how to read and write? It could be a convert who might teach him out of gratitude for telling him about Christ. If Ehrman’s best response to this is that there was no evidence of “public schools and universities like we do today”, then we can have confidence that John’s lack of literacy (which we’re honestly just assuming for the sake of the argument) would not at all be a barrier to him writing a gospel. And in light of all the positive evidence in favor of traditional authorship from the patristics and internal evidence, I think we should conclude that John did indeed write the gospel that bears his name.

Much more can and has been said about the case for and against the traditional authorship of the gospels. For readers wanting a more thorough and in-depth treatment, I recommend my essay “The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels – Part 2: The Case For Traditional Authorship.” ^[8]This is part of an 11 part blog essay series in which I make an in-depth case for the high reliability of the canonical gospels. You can see links to all of the post by clicking here. –> … Continue reading

With the traditional authorship firmly established, we can be certain that these men were on the scene when they reported the sayings and doings of Jesus. Given this, we can be certain in a direct way that “the disciples claimed that Jesus appeared to him alive after his death”.

A – Appearances To The Disciples

The gospel eyewitnesses claimed that Jesus died on a cross due to Roman crucifixion, a historical fact that is corroborated by secular historians such as Flavius Josephus, ^[9]Flavius Josephus, “Antiquities Of The Jews”, 18.3.3 Cornelius Tacitus ^[10]Cornelius Tacitus, “Annals”, 15:44, Mara-Bar Sarapion ^[11]British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658, and Lucian Of Samosata ^[12]Lucian of Samosata, from the book The Passing Peregrinus, as well as by the apostle Paul in his epistles (e.g 1 Corinthians 15:3). In all, we have at least 7 independent sources that attest to the crucifixion of Jesus, which means the death of Jesus is a historical fact that is multiply, multiply, multiply attested! When an event is mentioned in two or more independent sources, historians are confident that the event really occurred as it would be unlikely for multiple independent authors to all independently fabricate the same event. Paul Maier, retired distinguished professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, said, “Many facts in the ancient world are established on one source. Two or three sources often make an event impregnable.” ^[13]Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 197. Two sources? You can’t beat it. That’s how source material works in ancient history. This, then, makes the position of the know-nothing neckbeard atheists known as Christ Mythicism as credible of a hypothesis as The Flat Earth is to science!

After Jesus died, the gospel eyewitnesses report seeing him on multiple occasions. And they didn’t just see him once, they saw him as a group on multiple different occasions.

The list of postmortem appearances are as follows;

1. Mary Magdalene: John 20:11–18
2. Women leaving the tomb: Matthew 28:8–10
3. Emmaus disciples: Luke 24:13–35
4. Simon Peter: Luke 24:34 (see also 1 Corinthians 15:5)
5. Disciples without Thomas: Luke 24:36–43
6. Disciples with Thomas: John 20:24–29
7. Disciples at the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias): John 21:1, 2
8. Disciples on a mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16, 17
9. Disciples: Luke 24:50–52

Here are the full quotations for the specific passages you requested, presented in your numbered list style.

A* – Full Biblical Quotations of Post-Resurrection Appearances

All of the quotations below are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

1. Mary Magdalene: John 20:11–18

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

2. Women leaving the tomb: Matthew 28:8–10

So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

3. Emmaus disciples: Luke 24:13–35

That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself drew near and went with them, but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early this morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some 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.” And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going, and he acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

4. Simon Peter: Luke 24:34 (see also 1 Corinthians 15:5)

Luke 24:34 (from the preceding passage, quoting the disciples in Jerusalem): saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

1 Corinthians 15:5: and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

5. Disciples without Thomas: Luke 24:36–43 (and John 20:19–23)

Since I combined the appearance to the disciples without Thomas with the Luke passage, I will provide the Luke passage (which includes the demonstration that Jesus is not a ghost) and the most relevant John passage (which includes the breathing of the Holy Spirit).

Luke’s Account (Physicality of the Appearance)

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and terrified, and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They offered him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

John’s Account (The Sending and the Spirit)

John 20:19–23: On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

6. Disciples with Thomas: John 20:24–29

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

7. Disciples at the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias): John 21:1, 2 (as an introduction to the full scene)

After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he revealed himself in this way. Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples were together.

(Note: The full, detailed account of the fishing miracle, charcoal fire breakfast, and the restoration of Peter follows in verses 3–19.)

8. Disciples on a mountain in Galilee: Matthew 28:16, 17 (as an introduction to the Great Commission)

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted.

(Note: Verses 18–20 contain the Great Commission, where Jesus claims “all authority in heaven and on earth” and commands them to “make disciples of all nations.”)

9. Disciples: Luke 24:50–52 (The Ascension)

Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Although some readers may have found it a slog to go through all of these, I provided the full quotations of these passages for a very good reason. And that is because in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, the details matter. Vague, non-descript appearances of Jesus just simply won’t do, as I point out in my blog post “‘He Appeared’ – The Problem Of Vagueness With Minimal Facts”. Thankfully, the appearances in the gospels are full of rich details, and this can help us determine whether the disciples were rational when they claimed that the risen Jesus appeared to them. This is something we don’t get just from the early creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15 by itself.

So, we know that Matthew, Mark (who got his info from Peter), Luke, and John wrote these accounts, thus they were eyewitnesses to these things. The next question we must ask is; why did they claim they saw and heard (and felt) Jesus saying and doing all of these things after his death? The first option is that they were simply lying about it. After all, people lie all the time. And if you’re good at it, you can come up with some wild tales. That doesn’t mean it happened. The thing is; I think the possibility that the disciples were lying about everything they saw is probably the least plausible explanation that there is. However, given that one of the historical facts of our acronym connects to this very point, I’d be jumping ahead if I gave the response here. For now, let’s assume they were sincere and examine other options, then we’ll circle back to the possibility of the disciples being deceivers. Let’s just assume they were deceived themselves, honestly mistaken.

The Hallucination Hypothesis?

The most popular explanation to account for the postmortem appearances is The Hallucination Hypothesis. The disciples thought they saw the risen Jesus because they all hallucinated Him. Sometimes this is explained as the disciples having “grief” hallucinations because their master whom they loved dearly, was brutally killed. This seems plausible at first as we all know of examples where someone might hallucinate the ghost of a recently deceased loved one coming to tell them that everything is all right, and that they’re going to Heaven to be with God or something. ^[14]I myself do not think all examples of these ghostly final farewells are necessarily non-veridical. As a Christian who believes in a Heaven and also substance dualism, it doesn’t seem impossible … Continue reading Why couldn’t Jesus appearing to the disciples be like when Grandpa shows up to tell Grandma a final farewell?

The problem with this explanation is that hallucinations are projections of peoples’ individual minds. Often they’re induced by drugs, sleep deprivation, mental illness, or a combination of the three. Given that they are subjective projections invented by the person’s brain, it becomes problematic when you start saying that entire groups had hallucinations of the exact same thing all at the exact same time! Jesus appeared to all twelve disciples on the same occasion, not just once, but multiple times. These are multiple group appearances. Jesus appeared to hard-hearted people like Peter (Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:4) and soft-hearted people like Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18). Jesus appeared to individuals and multiple groups (Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24: 36-43, John 20:19-20, John 21), Moreover, in several of these group appearances, Jesus would say things, and He would do very physical things like eat fish and have the disciples reach out and touch him to confirm that he isn’t a ghost, “For a ghost does not have flesh and bone as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39, cf. John 21:10-14). The disciples would not only have to simultaneously hallucinate seeing Jesus all at the same time, but they would also have to all hallucinate him audibly uttering the same sentences! They would have to hallucinate Jesus all asking for fish, and then, since their brains are all simultaneously producing this mass visual and audible hallucination, they would all agree that he was asking for fish. One of the disciples would then have to get some fish for Jesus (who isn’t really there), hand it to him, and somehow the hallucinated Jesus would have to grab the very tangible fish. But wait, no one is really there, so wouldn’t the fish just fall to the ground? Or maybe they all hallucinated the fish too, not only in Luke 24’s account but in John 21’s as well. The risen Jesus, according to Luke and John ate fish with his disciples on two different occasions. So this polymodal group hallucination in which a hallucination can manipulate real physical objects, would have to occur not once, but twice. And to make matters worse, there’s the empty tomb of Jesus to account for. I know I haven’t defended the empty tomb yet (that’s the E in our A.L.I.V.E acronym), but you will see that it is a historical fact that is in need of explanation. The Hallucination theory was designed to account for the postmortem appearances, which it utterly fails to do, but it doesn’t even try to account for the empty tomb!

This hypothesis simply stretches the bounds of plausibility. The idea that the appearances of the risen Jesus were simply hallucinations is not just implausible; it’s impossible! What we have here are not vague appearances of someone or something off in the distance that sort of looks like Jesus, and as a result of mass hysteria, everyone gets worked up into a frenzy, claiming “Jesus is risen!” This is not anything at all like the so-called group appearances of Jesus’ mother Mary at Zeitoun in 1968-1971. In this instance, you had one person point it out, and a lot of other people fell into the groupthink. In this instance, many people saw a feminine figure made of light on top of an Orthodox church, but she never said anything, she never got up close to anyone, she never said “Peace be with you. I am Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus.” She didn’t travel to a nearby restaurant to chow down with some Catholics in a group meal. Some people couldn’t see anything at all, and others just saw a blob of light. The resurrection appearances of Jesus as recorded by the eyewitnesses are unmistakable. Jesus does identify himself. He does get up close – close enough to grab and touch! He does appear to multiple groups who all know “This is Jesus!” He walks and talks with them just as he did before his death. He isn’t some masculine figure on a rooftop far away who shows up only at specific times of day and just moves around mysteriously like some sort of specter.

The reason I compare Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the Marian Apparitions of Zeitoun is because (1) Skeptics like Alex O’ Conner have used this instance to try to cast doubt on the resurrection, (2) Roman Catholics like Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity have boldly stated that the evidence for Mary at Zeitoun is better than the evidence for Jesus in Israel! Hence, Bertuzzi argues, if you think the resurrection happened, you should think Mary appeared in Zeitoun, and you should not only become a Christian, but a Catholic as well. Neither of these men are correct. ^[15]For a good analysis of both the Zeitoun incident as well as a rebuttal to Cameron Bertuzzi, and a more in depth discussion about how the evidence for the resurrection compares with Zeitoun, see Gavin … Continue reading

The Swoon Hypothesis?

Well, if Hallucinations can’t account for the appearances, maybe The Swoon Theory can. What is The Swoon Theory? This theory states that Jesus never really died on the cross. He was crucified on a cross, yes, but it failed to kill him. He was knocked unconscious and later, the cool damp air of the tomb sort of roused him around into consciousness. Later, Jesus showed up to his disciples and others, alive, not because he rose from the dead, but because he merely survived. This would seem to account for the fact of the empty tomb (which we’ve yet to examine), as well as the various group appearances as well as the physical nature of the group appearances. After all, Jesus is really truly there! Of course he can reached out and be touched! Of course, he can have meals with his disciples!

There are two major problems with The Swoon Theory; (1) It’s medically impossible for Jesus to have survived, (2) It presents an illogical scenario even if Jesus could have survived.

Severe Pre-Crucifixion Trauma (Scourging): The Roman scourging involved 40 lashes from a whip (flagrum) fitted with bone and metal pieces. This inflicted deep lacerations, often exposing muscle, sinew, and sometimes even the spine, as noted by ancient historians like Eusebius and medical analysis (e.g., JAMA). ^[16]GotQuestions.org says “Deuteronomy 25:3 states that a criminal should not receive more than forty lashes. In order to avoid possibly accidentally breaking this command, the Jews would only … Continue reading ^[17]See Dr. Alexander Methrell’s interview with Lee Strobel in “The Case For Christ”, chapter 11, page 195, published by Zondervan ^[18]Lumpkin R: The physical suffering of Christ. J Med. Assoc Ala 1978,47:8-10,47.

The severe, deep trauma from the Roman scourging (up to 40 lashes with bone-tipped whips) put Jesus into hypovolemic shock (massive blood loss), which explains his collapse while carrying the cross (Matthew 27:32) and his overwhelming thirst on the cross (John 19:28). This critical condition alone makes survival highly improbable.

Death by Asphyxiation and Shock: Crucifixion causes death primarily through asphyxiation (suffocation), as the body’s weight prevents exhalation. The victim must push up on their feet—bearing excruciating pain on the nailed hands and feet—to take a single breath, as controlled experiments have shown. ^[19]Some of these experiments were shown on camera on the History Channel documentary called “Crucifixion”. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210802/

Had blood loss not been fatal, Jesus would have died of exhaustion and asphyxiation when He could no longer push Himself up to breathe. The Roman guards, skilled executioners, would not have been fooled by a mere “swoon.”

The Decisive Spear Thrust: The Roman soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs (the usual method to hasten death) because they judged Him already dead. To confirm, a soldier drove a spear into His side (John 19:34).

The spear thrust was fatal, puncturing the pericardium and the lung. The eyewitness testimony of “blood and water” (John 19:34) indicates that two distinct fluids—blood and a watery fluid—exited the wound. Modern medical opinion, as published in JAMA, links this to pericardial effusion (fluid around the heart) and pleural effusion (fluid around the lungs), which are post-mortem accumulations caused by heart failure stemming from shock and stress. These fluids cannot accumulate in this way if the heart is still beating, proving Jesus was dead. ^[20]No, I’m not a trained medical professional. I’m getting all of this information primarily from three sources; Doctor Alexander Methrell, from his interview with Lee Strobel in The Case For … Continue reading

Finally, given the medical evidence above, if Jesus had somehow survived the hellish beating he went through, it is extremely unlikely that when he did appear to his disciples, he would have driven them to the conclusion that Jesus had risen from the dead. The German theologian David Strauss, who wasn’t a Christian, famously dismantled the Swoon Theory in 1835, using this exact argument. He said that it is “It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment… could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry.” ^[21]Strauss, David. The Life of Jesus for the People. Volume One, Second Edition. London: Williams and Norgate. 1879. 412. If Jesus had somehow had the physical strength to remove the stone covering his tomb, fight off the guards, and then walk all the way to where the disciples were, groaning and yelling with every step he took due to how sore his feet were from being pierced, and then he appeared to his disciples in this condition, more likely than not, the disciples would have been relieved that Jesus survived, and would have tried to get him a doctor. This would be like if I had a friend who was in a horrible car accident, but he showed up at my house two days later in a wheel chair, two leg casts, one arm casts, and an eye patch, and I stupidly exclaim, “You’ve risen from the dead! Hallelujah! A miracle has occurred!” The Swoon Theory is as dead as it claims Jesus wasn’t!

At the end of this essay, I have a chart inspired by Michael Jones’ and Tim McGrew’s own charts when they defend the resurrection with the A.L.I.V.E Acronym. I will only consider 3 naturalistic hypotheses because (1) these are really the only ones I take seriously, (2) to keep this essay from being longer than it needs to be, finally (3) while readers on computers will have no problem, the chart will be a little hard to read on mobile devices as it is. To see how I respond to various other theories, see my treatment in the blog essay “The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels – Part 9: The Resurrection Of Jesus”.

L – Low Status Of Women

All four gospels feature women as the first to discover Jesus’ empty tomb. Moreover, in the gospel of John, Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene, who then goes and tells the 11 disciples that Jesus has risen. This serves as good historical evidence that the gospel eyewitnesses were telling the truth because in the patriarchal society of Second Temple Judaism, neither women nor their testmony were regarded very highly.

Talmud Sotah 19a says “Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women“! The Talmud also contains a rabbinic saying that goes like this: “Blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female”! And according to the Jewish historian Josephus, their testimony was considered so untrustworthy that they weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law! Josephus wrote: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.” (Antiquities, 4.8.15). Yet another entry of the Talmud says “Wherever the Torah accepts the testimony of one witness, it follows the majority of persons, so that two women against one man is identical with two men against one man. But there are some who declare that wherever a competent witness came first, even a hundred women are regarded as equal to one witness … but when it is a woman who came first, then two women against one man is like half-and-half.” (Talmud, b.Mas. Sotah 31b).

Women were (A) second-class citizens, and (B) considered to be so untrustworthy that they couldn’t even stand as witnesses in a court of law! Given this, it is remarkable that all four gospels are unanimous in claiming that the first people to discover Jesus’ empty tomb, and even to see Him risen from the dead, are women! If the gospel authors were lying about what happened, they could have told the resurrection story any way they darn well pleased! Rather than having women be the first ones on the scene, they could have made male disciples like Peter or John be the first ones to discover the empty tomb. As New Testament scholar N.T Wright says, “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 have 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.” ^[22]N. T. Wright, in “There is a God” (2007), p. 207 I should note at this point that we already have reason to doubt the “Conspiracy Hypothesis”. If the gospel authors wouldn’t make this up, why would they make up the rest of their accounts which include numerous postmortem appearances? But without more evidence, the Conspiracy Hypothesis admittedly remains on the table, as human nature does permit people to lie about some things and not others. at the very least, we have reason to think they were telling the truth here on the basis of the criterion of embarrassment.

The most common way I’ve seen skeptics respond to this argument is to say that we shouldn’t be surprised to see women so highly regarded in The New Testament, such that Jesus would choose to appear to them first. The early church highly regarded women, which was countercultural at the time (See, for example, Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28). Advocates of this counterargument include the YouTube atheist Paulogia as well as agnostic New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman. ^[23]See William Lane Craig, The Reasonable Faith Podcast, “A YouTube Objection To The Resurrection, PART 2” … Continue reading Ehrman also writes “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly of work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” ^[24]In “How Jesus Became God”.

I have never found this counterargument compelling, for it assumes that the purpose of the gospels was just to be Christian literature that was read by churches every Sunday service, rather than being writings to persuade. The gospels were not meant just for nice little devotionals in the private and church life of believers. The gospels were meant to be read by unbelievers as well as by believers, and their message was proclaimed in the hopes that people would convert. The apostle John explicitly tells us this at the very end of his gospel when he writes “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31, NIV, emphasis mine in bold). Well, you might say, that’s John. How do we know the other gospels were trying to persuade an unbelieving audience? Well, in Matthew’s case, he repeatedly cites Old Testament prophesies and its pretty much a scholarly consensus that he was writing to a Jewish audience. But more than that, think about the word “Gospel”. Pastor Brandon Robbins explains, “A stone dating to AD 9 was discovered at Priene, an ancient Greek city in western Turkey, bearing an inscription that described the birth of Emperor Augustus as euangelion—the same word the angel of the Lord uses when pronouncing the birth of Jesus to the shepherds in Luke 2. Euangelion is a declaration of ‘good news,’ a proclamation that people’s lives will be better because of a certain event or circumstance. Rome used this word when referring to the influence of the emperor and his empire. Christians used it to refer to Jesus and his coming kingdom.” ^[25]Robbins, Brandon. The Forgotten Teachings of Jesus: Rediscovering the Bible with The Chosen: Season One (p. 26). David C Cook. Kindle Edition. In its cultural context, to “proclaim the gospel” was to proclaim the kingship of Jesus and what he did to secure a better life for those who would swear allegience to Him. ^[26]See Matthew Bates, “Salvation By Allegience Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and The Gospel Of Jesus The King”. March 14th 2017, Baker Academic. It is no wonder, then, that the biographies of Jesus were not biographies of a nice rabbi who did miracles. It was, from the perspective of many, political propaganda. ^[27]See my essay “Evangelism: Non-Violent Conquest Warfare” in which I also talk about saving faith as allegience, as Matthew Bates does in his book cited in the previous footnote, and how … Continue reading If this is the case, surely you’d want to put your best foot forward and not make up details that might elicit scoffing and laughter.

There are other reasons why this objection doesn’t work. For example, even if we would expect women to be the first ones at the tomb because women were the ones annointed dead bodies (a cultural reason), this doesn’t make it any less awkward to a skeptical audience of the first few centuries that women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb and the risen Jesus. So we might expect, if the gospel authors really needed women at the tomb for the reason Ehrman says, that they would have had some men accompany the women. Why would they do that? Well, the tomb was sealed with a big heavy stone. The narrative explanation for the men going along would be so they could roll the stone away. Then, when they found the tomb empty, and saw the risen Jesus, the risen Jesus congratulated them all (both men and women) for their great faith. So men and women were both the first ones on the scene. Problem solved, and later skeptics like Celsus who actually used the women as an argument against Origen, would never even have a chance to get off the ground! ^[28]Celsus said “But who saw this? A hysterical female (6$gynē parakopē$) as you admit, and perhaps one other person, both deluded by his sorcery, or else so wretched with grief at his failure … Continue reading Or, they could have told the story where the empty tomb didn’t feature until after various postmortem appearances. After Jesus appeared to his disciples alive, he could have taken them to the tomb, gestured toward it and said something like “Do you see the place where I laid? That was where death held me prison. But lo, behold. I, Jesus Christ, have ripped the bars of death’s prison wide open! Truly truly I tell you, if you believe, you will come out of your graves as I have.” If they were just making it up, why not tell the stories this way?

In conclusion, there just isn’t any reason to think that the low status of women doesn’t lend credibility to the resurrection accounts in the gospels. The criterion of embarrassment certainly does apply. Hence, we can be certain as historians that the tomb of Jesus really was empty that first Easter morning and that women like Mary Magdalene experienced what they perceived as a postmortem appearance of the risen Jesus.

So what accounts for this historical fact. Well, I think The Conspiracy Hypothesis fails here. People don’t lie and make up embarrassing details that would hurt the case they’re trying to make. The Hallucination Hypothesis also doesn’t work because it wouldn’t empty a tomb of its corpse. Maybe Mary Magdalene by herself could have had a grief hallucination of the risen Jesus, but when combined with the evidence of all the appearances to the males, it just falls apart. Well, what about The Swoon Theory? It’s honestly just irrelevant. If Jesus couldn’t have survived crucifixion, then it wouldn’t have resulted in Mary thinking she saw Jesus after finding his tomb empty.

I – Immediate Proclamation

All of the first and second century evidence indicates that the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead began in Jerusalem. Jesus’ resurrection was first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is according to the early sermon summary in Acts 27 and Tactitus’ independent report that Christianity got its start in Judea (the region the city of Jerusalem existed in). ^[29]“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from … Continue reading Given that both the book of Acts and Tacitus independently report that Christianity got its start in this part of the world, it is multiply attested and therefore is a historical fact. Moreover, The disciples stayed at Jerusalem (cf. Galatians 2:1, 9) even when the church came under heavy persecution (Acts 12).

How does this help a case for the resurrection?

Jacques Saurin (1677–1730) was primarily a Huguenot Pastor and one of the most celebrated Pulpit Orators of his time. He wrote that the apostles proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus “at Pentecost, when Jerusalem expected the spread of the report, and endeavoured prevent it; while the eyes of their enemies were yet sparkling with rage and madness, while Calvary was yet dyed with the blood they had spilt there. 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 till people had been less attentive to their dispositions?” ^[30]Jacques Saurin, Sermons, trans. Robert Robinson (London: T. Tegg and Son, 1836), 4:266. (Note: The volume and page number can vary slightly based on the edition.. Dr. Timothy McGrew explains it well; “In some places, at some times, the report of a miracle might be allowed to pass without examination – particularly if it was very distant from the place where it is proclaimed. But in the case of the resurrection, proclaimed boldly upon the spot in Jerusalem, the enemies of Christianity had means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the account if they could.” ^[31]Dr. Timothy McGrew, “06: The Resurrection Of Jesus”, April 18th 2012, –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0&t=1s. This lecture was the final lecture in a free online … Continue reading

If the tomb of Jesus were not empty, the enemies of Christianity could have plucked the body out of the tomb and paraded it down the streets of Jerusalem for all to see. If they had done that, Christianity would have died before it even began. But it didn’t die, it spread out from Jerusalem all over the world. The best explanation for why it didn’t die is because they didn’t exhume the body. The best explanation for why they didn’t exhume the body was that there was no body to be exhumed. The tomb was empty.

Does this relate to the appearances in any way? Yes, for the gospel eyewitnesses codified their claim to see Christ risen even before they provided the details in the books they wrote. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV) says “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

The vast majority of scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) believe that this is an early creed that pre-dates the writing of the gospels, and, in fact, was likely formulated just 2-5 years after the death of Jesus! A few reasons for this are briefly stated;

1: Paul’s language of “For what I received, I passed onto you” was typical rabbinic language for passing on sacred oral tradition. This implies that Paul got this language from someone else, and now is passing it on. Most scholars date the writing of 1 Corinthians to 55 A.D, so if Paul is saying within 1 Corinthians that he had previously given them this information, then what he is citing must predate the letter itself, and go back even earlier.

2: The mnemonic structure; there are elements of the way the passage reads that are brief and repetitive. If this were an early church creed, it would make sense that it would be designed to be easily memorized. Repetitious phrases such as “He appeared” and “and that”.

3: Parallellism.

Paul most likely got the creed from Peter and James during his fact-finding mission that he recounts in Galatians 1:18-19, which would mean this creed goes back to eyewitnesses of the resurrection. That this is when Paul received this creed is plausible from the fact that Peter and James are two individuals explicitly named, plus Paul’s use of “historieasi” which indicates they were talking about recent events.

Therefore, the creed goes back to within only a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This list of appearances is so early that anyone skeptical about them could question the witnesses to see if the creed were accurate. If these people did not see Jesus as the creed claims, then the cat would be out of the bag and Christianity would be discredited. Many scholars have noted that Paul’s mentioning of many of the witnesses still being alive is most likely a challenge from Paul to question these witnesses, as if Paul were essentially saying “Don’t believe me? Go talk to them yourselves! Go ask them yourselves!” It has been argued that “checking it out for themselves” would have been very difficult for people living in Corinth, ^[32]But see my responses to such an argument in my blog post “Did Long Distance Make Paul’s Witness List Unfalsifiable?” where I give three lines of response to this objection. For my … Continue reading however, it would not have been hard to check out from ground zero. Especially the appearance to the 500. It would be difficult to pull that off right in the very heart of Jerusalem!

Dr. Tim McGrew explains it well; “You remember the Jim Jones calls, the crazies who went off and drank the Kool-Aid which is where we get ‘Kool-Aid drinker’ as an expression? Where’d they go…anybody remember it wasn’t New York City. Guiana. That’s right. Way down in South America, far, far far away from prying eyes. That’s where they built their cult. But Christians walked right up to the face of the people who had procured the crucifixion of Jesus and said ‘You crucified your Messiah!’ Now these people are either insane or they are completely convinced that they are right and that Jesus has been vindicated by God! Would not they have waited if they were caning until the fury of the Jews had been appeased? Till judges and public officers had been changed (which, in Roman society, happened). You didn’t like the current people in power around? Well, a few years they’ll roll over. Even Pilate himself gets kicked out just a few years after the crucifixion. Till people had been less attentive to their dispositions. Sure that would have been the way to do it if you were an imposter, if you were fabricating a story.” ^[33]Dr. Timothy McGrew, “06: The Resurrection Of Jesus”, April 18th 2012, –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHofTmolbi0&t=1s. This lecture was the final lecture in a free online … Continue reading

What hypothesis can account for this historical fact? Well, if Jesus rose from the dead, then it makes perfect sense. The disciples were standing on the truth and the truth cannot be falsified. However, the conspiracy hypothesis makes little sense of this as this isn’t how people inventing a cult tend to behave. They usually tend to cover their tracks by getting away from the area where they can most easily be disproven (like Jim Jones and his followers). Both the Hallucination Theory and Swoon Theory failed because the authorities could have plucked Jesus’ body out of the tomb and disproved the resurrection.

V – Voluntary Sufferings Of The Disciples

The sincerity of the original apostles is affirmed by their unwavering willingness to suffer and die for their resurrection message. The core of this argument is not that their martyrdoms prove the resurrection is true, but that they prove the disciples sincerely believed it was true—they were not lying. And this is especially important because if the resurrection were a lie, then the apostles were the ones who created the lie! People may die for a lie they think is the truth, but they will not die for a lie they know is a lie.

*The Attested Martyrdom of Peter
The willingness of the apostles to die for their message is most powerfully attested by the martyrdom of Peter. Early independent sources strongly affirm his execution: Clement of Rome (c. AD 95) and Dionysius of Corinth (c. 165–174) both attest to Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. Tertullian (c. 197–220) explicitly specifies that Peter’s death was a crucifixion (in De Præscriptione and Scorpiace). ^[34]Clement of Rome, First Clement, Chapter V. ^[35]in Eusebius, Church History II.25 Furthermore, the Gospel of John (John 21:18–19) alludes to Peter’s death by crucifixion (stretching out his hands), showing a contemporary attestation of the manner of his martyrdom. ^[36]See Sean McDowell’s article “Was Peter Crucified Upside Down?”, October 22nd 2015 https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-peter-crucified-upside-down Whether or not every apostle’s death is as well attested as Peter’s (like Matthew’s, which is confirmed as a martyrdom by sources like the Breviarium Apostolorum [c. AD 600] despite conflicting details), the historical evidence is overwhelming that the apostles faced constant, life-threatening hostility from both Jewish and Roman authorities. This environment proves they were, at the very least, willing to die for their claims.

*The Lack of Earthly Motive
It has been argued that we Christian Apologists put too much stock in the sufferings and martyrdoms of the apostles, for people break the law all the time in spite of the risk of punishment. So as long as the disciples thought they could get away with it, they would preach the gospel even if the Jews and Rome would penalize them if they got caught. The problem with this argument is that if the apostles were lying, they would have needed a motivation to offset the severe risk of persecution, torture, and death. In his book “Cold Case Christianity”, former detective J. Warner Wallace has said that in his experience as a homicide detective, people usually break the law for motives that fall under three categories: Money, Power, or Sex. ^[37]See J. Warner Wallace, “Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims Of The Gospels”, Chapter 8, page 266, 2023, David C. Cook. However, the apostles gained none of these from their alleged lie:

Money: Ancient accounts describe the apostles as continually traveling, homeless, and impoverished. Paul noted they were “hungry and thirsty… roughly treated, and homeless” (1 Cor. 4:11), and “poor yet making many rich” (2 Cor. 6:9-10). They explicitly rejected material gain. ^[38]J. Warner Wallace, “Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims Of The Gospels (Updated and Expanded Edition)”, pages 267-268, David C. Cook, 2023.

Power: Preaching a crucified Messiah did not afford them political power or high religious status; it put them at odds with both Rome and the Sanhedrin. They could have pursued safe, respected positions (like the Pharisees or Roman Tax Collectors) but instead chose a path that only brought persecution.

Sex: The rigorous, ascetic lifestyle of a traveling apostle, constantly facing danger, was hardly a path to amassing harems.

Lacking any earthly motive, and facing terrible physical penalties, the disciples could only have continued preaching because they sincerely believed their message was true. They had everything to lose and only an eternal reward to gain if the Resurrection was real.

E – Empty Tomb

Some of the evidences we have looked at already have already given us ample historical grounds for affirming the empty tomb as a historical fact, such as (1) The criterion of embarassment with women being the ones to discover the tomb empty in all four gospels, and (2) The immediate proclamation of the resurrection in Jerusalem making the resurrection easily disprovable if the body were still in the tomb.

However, there are some other reasons to believe that Jesus’ empty tomb is a historical fact that I would like to talk about in this section.

In Matthew 28:11-15 (ESV), we read, “While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, ‘Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’ ‘So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.”

What we have here is a cover story from the Jewish leadership to try to account for Jesus’ missing body. This is significant because one of the criteria of authenticity is the criterion of enemy attestation which says that, in a nut shell, your enemies aren’t going to say things that make you look good, help your cause, bolster your argument, etc. especially if it comes at their own expense. It’s like the criterion of embarrassment, but in reverse. People don’t make up lies about themselves that make them look bad or get them into trouble, but your enemies won’t make up lies to make you look good or to get you out of trouble.

Now, at first, this may seem like an odd claim. How do we have enemy attestation here? This is coming from the gospel of Matthew, a rather friendly source. Sure, the ones in the narrative are enemies, but they’re not the ones writing the book either. However, this overlooks the fact that Matthew appears to be including this narrative because he feels like he needs to. If the Jewish leaders were not spreading the lie “The disciples stole the body”, Matthew includes this narrative to say “I know what you’ve heard, and it’s not true. They paid the guards to say that.” The most natural inference is that Matthew is responding to a charge that enemies of Christianity at the time were actually making. Moreover, it is against human nature to defend oneself against charges no one is making of them. Imagine if your pastor stood up one Sunday morning and said “I’m here to tell you that I did NOT have sex with Bob’s wife last night!” You would probably look at him funny and go “We never said you did.” People just don’t do this except in cartoons where overly anxious characters do a bad job of hiding their secrets, and its played off for comedy. Unless Matthew were trying to set the record straight, this brief narrative serves no purpose. In fact, it could possibly shoot Matthew in the foot as he’s basically giving his audience he’s trying to persuade a free naturalistic theory to appeal to. A naturalistic theory that, in light of the evidence of their sufferings and martyrdoms alone, we know can’t be the case. If the disciples stole the body and then lied about the resurrection, they would not die for they know is a lie. Thus, we can be fairly certain for these reasons that the Jews really were spreading this story around.

This is significant because if the opponents of the gospel were telling people the disciples stole the body, that is an implicit admission that Jesus’ tomb was empty! If a child shows up to school with the excuse that the dog ate his homework, that logically entails that he doesn’t have homework to turn in.

Finally, most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke used a lot of material from Mark. This is known as the Synoptic Problem. And there is some evidence of dependent usage between the synotpics. However, the synoptic problem is often depicted as if Matthew and Luke just took a copy of Mark, stampd their name on it, and called it a day. Things aren’t quite so simple. Anyone who has, for example, done a study on the argument from Undesigned Coincidences will know that there is plenty of unique material in each of the gospels as well, even when they tell some of the same stories! In instances where we have ver batim copying, we don’t have independent attestation among the synoptics. That said, as I just said, this wasn’t always the case. Matthew is clearly working with an independent source ^[39]Either his own memory or someone he consulted, since I have both defended traditional authorship and am assuming it for the rest of the article, for he includes the story of the guard at the tomb, which is unique to his gospel. Neither Mark nor Luke mention a guard at the tomb, so one would be hard pressed to make a case that Luke and Matthew are copying Mark here. Luke also has an independent source, because he tells the story of two disciples visiting the tomb to check out Mary Magdalene’s report. This is not found in Mark or Matthew. And everyone agrees that the gospel of John is independent from all of the synoptics given how different John is from the other 3. So, in this case, the empty tomb is reported in 4 independent sources. Remember from earlier in this essay that I quoted Paul Maier as saying that most historical incidents are confirmed on the basis of only one source, and if you can find two independent sources, that makes an event impregnable. Regarding the discovery of the empty tomb, we have, not just two independent
sources, but four!

You have another source when you consider the early Pauline creed cited in 1 Corinthians 15. Now, some may object “Wait a minute! Paul never mentions the empty tomb in 1 Corinthians 15!” This is a half truth. While the empty tomb is not explicitly mentioned in the creed, it is implicitly mentioned. Dr. William Lane Craig explains that “The old tradition cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5 implies the fact of the empty tomb. For any first century Jew, to say that of a dead man ‘that he was buried and that he was raised’ is to imply that a vacant grave was left behind.” ^[40]William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection Of Jesus”, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/ Adding the Pauline creed to the 4 gospels, we have a total of 5 independent sources attesting that Jesus’ tomb was found empty. What are the odds that 5 independent sources would all make up the same lie?

The Conspiracy Hypothesis fails because if the disciples had stolen the body, they would have known better than anyone that Jesus really hadn’t risen from the dead. And if that were the case, they would not have been willing to suffer and die as martyrs for preaching the gospel. The Hallucination Hypothesis fails to account for this historical fact because, even if we posit the absurdity of multiple group, multi-sensory hallucinations that last for long periods of time, hallucinations don’t have the power to get a corpse out of a grave! The Swoon Hypothesis fails because, even if we assume that the medically impossible happened (that Jesus survived the hellish beating he endured), he would have been so weak that he would have been lucky to stand up, never mind move the massive stone covering his tomb from the inside! But if Jesus had been risen from the dead, then it makes good sense that the tomb would be emptied.

Comparing Competing Explanations

Below is a historical chart detailing the historical facts and how each of the three most plausible naturalistic alternatives compares in explanatory power and scope to The Resurrection Hypothesis.

Historical Fact (A.L.I.V.E. Data)	Resurrection Hypothesis (Best Fit)	Conspiracy Hypothesis (Fails)	Hallucination Hypothesis (Fails)	Swoon Hypothesis (Fails)
Appearances	Easily Explained	Unexplained; disciples would know they fabricated the story.	Fails to account for group/mass appearances. Fails to account for the multiple, multi-sensory hallucinations.	Medically Impossible: Jesus couldn’t have survived the hellish beating of crucifixion. Illogical: Even if Jesus had survived, he would have been extremely beat up, and would not have evoked rejoicing that Christ had risen from the dead..
Low Status of Women	Easily Explained	Unexplained; a conspiracy would have chosen more credible male witnesses.	Unexplained; irrelevant to individual psychological states.	Unexplained; irrelevant.
Immediate Proclamation	Easily Explained	Unexplained; Proclaiming a fabricated story in the hostile city where the body was is reckless.	Unexplained; the authorities could easily produce the dead body.	Unexplained; the authorities could easily produce the recovering body.
Voluntary Sufferings	Easily Explained	Unexplained; people do not willingly suffer and die for a known lie.	Possible: Sincerity doesn’t mean they were right. Someone can be sincerely mistaken.	Unexplained; why suffer for a naturally recovered, then missing, person?
Empty Tomb	Easily Explained	Fails to explain the disciples’ sincere belief that they rose from the dead. If they stole the body, they would know Jesus wasn’t raised and wouldn’t die for saying He was raised.	Unexplained; hallucinations do not physically empty tombs.	Unexplained: If Jesus somehow survived the hellish beating; it’s absurd to think he would have been in good enough shape to remove the stone covering his tomb.
Overall Explanatory Scope	Excellent: Accounts for ALL facts.	Poor: Fails to account for multiple facts.	Poor: Fails to account for group appearances and empty tomb.	Poor: Fails to account for appearances and the disciples’ transformation.

Conclusion

On the basis of the historical evidence, I am convinced that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Jesus Christ is A.L.I.VE! And this is the cornerstone of my faith. Jesus claimed to God (see Mark 14:61-64, John 8:58, John 10:30). If Jesus were just a mere man, then Jesus would be the heretic and blasphemer that the Sanhedrin made Him out to be. If that were the case, God (The Father) would never have resurrected Jesus from the dead because God would know that in so doing, he would be vindicating Jesus’ ministry! Jesus would have stayed dead. But the historical evidence shows that Jesus has been raised from the dead, which means that He is God The Son. And what implications does this have? It means we can trust the Old Testament on the basis of His authority. Who would be in a better position to know whether The Old Testament was divinely inspired and authoritative than the very God who breathed those scriptures out (2 Timothy 3:16)? There’s a saying that goes “I don’t believe in Jesus because I believe The Bible, I believe The Bible because I believe in Jesus.” And that is true of me. ^[41]See my essay “My Theological Epistemology Explained” for a more in-depth discussion. We can believe in angels and demons because Jesus did. Ultimately, it means that if we give our allegiance to Jesus, we will have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son. That whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” – John 3:16

Will you give allegiance to the risen King Jesus? If you’re still not convinced and you have questions, I’d be more than happy to have a conversation with you in the comment section below.

I will end this lengthy essay with a quote from one of my favorite hymns on the resurrection of Jesus;

Up from the grave He arose,
With a mighty triumph o’er His foes,
He arose a Victor from the dark domain,
And He lives forever,
With His saints to reign.
He arose! He arose!
Hallelujah! Christ arose! ^[42]“Up From The Grave He Arose”, a hymn by Robert Lowry, written in 1874.