Blog

The resurrection of Jesus is the most crucial event for Christianity. According to The Bible, it was every bit as essential to pay for our sins as his crucifixion was (see Romans 4:25). Moreover, Jesus claimed to be God in places like Mark 14:60-64, John 8:58, and John 10:30, so if Jesus weren’t God, then his claim to be God would be blasphemous as Caiaphas took it to be at Jesus’ trial. ^[1]To see an exposition of the Markan passage, check out my video presentation “The High Christology Of Mark’s Gospel” on YouTube at around 57 minutes in. If Jesus weren’t truly God, then the true God would never have raised Jesus from the dead, for to do so would be to raise a heretic and a blasphemer whose resurrection would serve as confirmation to those he duped. If Jesus were who the Sanhedrin took him to be, Jesus would have stayed dead. However, if after making the kinds of claims Jesus made, He rose from the dead, then this means that God evidentially didn’t agree with Caiaphas’ verdict. Jesus is indeed The Son Of Man who will sit at His right hand, come on the clouds of heaven (a job fit only for deity per Daniel 7:13-14 and the ugaritic Baal literature), and will be worshipped by people of all nations (again in Daniel 7). If Jesus rose from the dead, then God The Father put his stamp of approval on Jesus’ ministry and teachings, including his claims to be divine. Epistemologically, this leads us into indirect justification for many theological truths. For example, is The Old Testament the inspired word of God? Jesus certainly thought so, for he quoted from it many times (see Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:28, among many other examples). If Jesus is God, as His resurrection demonstrates, then we can affirm the inspiration and authority of The Old Testament too because Jesus does. This means we can affirm what the Old Testament teaches such as that there was a historical Adam and Eve ^[2]provided our exegesis takes us to that conclusion, and I believe it does. Despite being a Theistic Evolutionist, I am not of the opinion that the Adam and Eve account is pure myth told for the … Continue reading, that there was a massive flood following the birth of angel-human hybrid giants ^[3]See my article “Genesis 6: The Nephilim – Descendents Of Cain, Neanderthals, Ancient Kings, Or Angel-Human Hybrids” for an exegetical treatment of this., that angels and demons are real, that there was a person in history named Moses who lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, and so on and so forth. Consequently, we can believe the teachings of Jesus Himself such that there is a Heaven and Hell, and there will be a bodily resurrection unto eternal life for those who believe in Him. There is a popular saying among Christian Apologists that goes “I don’t believe in Jesus because I believe The Bible. I believe The Bible because I believe in Jesus.” For me, this is certainly the case.

But how do we know Jesus rose from the dead? In this article, I will be treating the gospel authors as eyewitnesses whose testimony will be scrutinized to determine whether they were telling the truth. First, I will give evidence demonstrating that the gospels even are eyewitness testimony to begin with, and then I will examine the possibilities of why these men wrote down what they wrote down. I will give external and internal evidence that the disciples Matthew, Peter, and John are behind the gospels that bear their names. I will also briefly defend the earliness of their writings. After it is established that the men who walked, talked, and ate with Jesus are the ones who wrote these down, I will then examine the possible explanations behind their claims that they personally saw a man rise from the dead.

Evidence For Traditional Authorship – The Manuscript Evidence

In his book, “The Case For Jesus: The Bibical and Historical Evidence For Christ” biblical scholar Brant Pitre goes into manuscript evidence to show that the idea of “Anonymous Authorship” for the gospels is nothing but a scholarly myth. There isn’t a single extant manuscript for any of the gospels that are left anonymous. From the early second century down to the fifth century, every single manuscript of the gospels unanimously attribute the writings to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That’s right! EVERY! SINGLE! ONE! Below is a table taken from Pitre’s book.

Gospel Title	Earliest Greek Manuscript	Date
Gospel According To Matthew	Papyrus 4	2nd Century
Gospel According To Matthew	Papyrus 62	2nd Century
According To Matthew	Codex Sinaiticus	4th Century
According To Matthew	Codex Vaticanus	4th Century
[Go]spel According To Mat[th]e[w]	Codex Washingtonianus	4th-5th Century
Gospel According To Matthew	Codex Alexandrinus	5th Century
Gospel According To Matthew	Codex Ephraemi	5th Century
Gospel According to Matthew	Codex Bezae	5th century
According to Mark	Codex Sinaiticus	4th Century
According To Mark	Codex Vaticanus	4th Century
Gospel According To Mark	Codex Washingtonianus	4th-5th Century
[Gosp]el According To Mark	Codex Alexandrinus	5th Century
Gospel According To Mar(k) [End]	Codex Ephraemi	5th Century
Gospel According To Mark	Codex Bezae	5th Century
Gospel According To Luke	Papyrus 75	2nd-3rd Century
According To Luke	Codex Sinaiticus	4th Century
According To Luke	Codex Vaticanus	4th Century
Gospel According To Luke	Codex Washingtonianus	4th-5th Century
Gospel According To Luke	Codex Alexandrinus	5th Century
Gospel According To Luke	Codex Bezae	5th Century
Gospel According To [J]ohn	Papyrus 66	Late 2nd Century
Gospel According To John	Papyrus 75	2nd-3rd Century
According To John	Codex Sinaiticus	4th Century
According To John	Codex Vaticanus	4th Century
According To John [End]	Codex Washingtonianus	4th-5th Century
Gospel According To John [End]	Codex Alexandrius	5th Century
Gospel According To John	Codex Bezae	5th Century

About this manuscript evidence, Pitre writes “First, there is a striking absence of any anonymous gospel manuscripts. That’s because they don’t exist. Not even one. The reason this is so significant is that one of the most basic rules in the study of New Testament manuscripts (a practice known as textual criticism) is that you go back to the earliest and best Greek copies to see what they actually say. When it comes to the titles of the gospels, not only the earliest and best manuscripts, but all of the ancient manuscripts – without exception, in every language — attribute the four gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.“ ^[4]Brant Pitre, “The Case For Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence For Christ”, page 17, Crown Publishing, February 2nd 2016. Emphasis in original. Pitre goes on to say that “Second, notice that there is some variation in the form of the titles (for example, some of the later manuscripts omit the word ‘gospel’). However, as New Testament scholar Michael Bird notes, there is ‘absolute uniformity’ in the authors to whom each of the books is attributed. One reason this is so important is because some scholars will claim that the Greek Manuscripts support the idea that the tiltes of the gospels were added later.” ^[5]From Brant Pitre, “The Case For Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence For Christ”, page 17, Crown Publishing, February 2nd 2016. Emphasis in original.

Pitre quotes Ehrman as saying

“Because our surviving Greek manuscripts provide such a wide variety of (different) titles for the Gospels, textual scholars have long realized that their familiar names (e.g., ‘The Gospel according to Matthew’) do not go back to a single ‘original’ title, but were added later by scribes.” ^[6]Ehrman, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet”, 248-49n1

Look back at the chart showing the titles of the earliest Greek manuscripts. Where is the “wide variety” of titles that Dr. Ehrman speaks of? The only that differs in the titles is the wording. Some say “Gospel Of Matthew”, some say “According To Matthew”, some just say “The Gospel According To Matthew”. But is “wide variety” really meaningful? Despite varying titles, they are still attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in every single manuscript we possess! According to the basic rules of textual criticism, then, if anything is original in the titles, it is the names of the authors. ^[7]See Papyrus 75, Codex Washingtoninaus, Codex Alexadrinus, Codex Bezae. The shorter form appears in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Gathercole, “The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest … Continue reading They are at least as original as any other part of the Gospels for which we have unanimous manuscript evidence. The best explanation is that the four gospels were written by the men the church has traditionally ascribed them to.

Not convinced yet? Well, This evidence is even more power when you compare the gospel manuscript evidence with that from the book of Hebrews. Brant Pitre has a second chart in his book showing the manuscript evidence for authorship of Hebrews, and unlike with the gospels, there are a variety of authorial attributions here.

Title/Subscript	Greek Manuscript	Date
To The Hebrews	Papyrus 64	2nd Century
To The Hebrews	Codex Sinaiticus	4th Century
To The Hebrews	Codex Vaticanus	4th Century
To The Hebrews, Written From Rome	Codex Alexandrius	5th Century
To The Hebrews, Written From Italy	Codex Porphyrainus	9th Century
To The Hebrews, Written From Italy By Timothy	Miniscule 1739	10th Century
To The Hebrews, Written from Rome By Paul To Those In Jerusalem	Miniscule 81	11th Century
To The Hebrews, Written In Hebrew From Italy Anonymously By Timothy	Miniscule 104	11th Century

This is what actual anonymous authorship looks like. Actual anonymous doctrines don’t merely lack the identification of the author in the works (like the gospels), but there are conflicting traditions on who the authors were. In the case of Hebrews, some scribes attributed the work to Paul, others to Timothy, but most chose not to name an author at all because they simply didn’t know who wrote it. If the authors of the gospels were truly as unknown as skeptics like Ehrman would have us believe, why doesn’t the manuscript evidence mirror that of the book of Hebrews? The best explanation is that everyone knew who wrote the four gospels.

Evidence For Traditional Authorship – Logical Arguments

The anonymous gospel theory strains credulity. Erik Manning puts it well in one of his blog posts on IsJesusAlive.com. He writes

“The biggest problem with the anonymous gospel theory is it lacks plausibility. Consider this scenario: You have a book floating around the Roman Empire without a title for nearly a century. But somehow, at some time, it ends up being associated with the same author repeatedly — in fact, every single time. We have 0 traces of disagreement. And this didn’t just happen once — it happened four different times, throughout the vast Roman Empire. Somehow, by sheer luck, Christians living in Africa, Rome, Syria, and so forth attributed these gospels to the same four guys. All this without the help of email, text, social media, or Google.

If the anonymous gospel theory were correct, we’d expect to see at least some disagreement over who wrote what. But we have no contradictory titles. We don’t have a ‘Gospel According to Mark’ attributed to someone like Peter, Andrew, Simon the Zealot, Bartholemew, or whomever.” ^[8]Erik Manning, Manuscript Evidence Proves The Gospels Were Not Anonymous”, December 15, 2020 — https://isjesusalive.com/manuscript-evidence-proves-the-gospels-were-not-anonymous/

Another logical problem facing those who deny traditional authorship is the odd choice of names attached to the gospels. Think about it; the four gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Think about these names for a second. Think about who these people are. Mark and Luke were not among the 12 disciples of Jesus. According to church history, Mark wrote his gospel after having gotten his information about Jesus from Peter ^[9]Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60-130) writes, “And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact … Continue reading Luke was a gentile doctor who met Paul sometime during his missionary journey. He wasn’t an eyewitness himself, but rather, got his information from those who were (Luke 1:1-4). Why invent non-eyewitnesses who were relatively obscure figures in the church to be your forged authors? Matthew was one of The Twelve, but he was a former tax collector. Why is this a problem? Because all scholars, theologians, and preachers are pretty much in agreement that the gospel of Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. This is why he so often quotes The Old Testament along with saying something like “This happened to fulfill the scripture that says…” (e.g 1:23, 2:6, 2:15, 2:18). Why would you write a gospel meant to be an apologetic work to a Jewish audience, and say that a former tax collector was the one who wrote the thing!? Do you have any idea how much Jews hated tax collectors? Preacher and YouTuber Brandon Robbins has an excellent video showing just how much of a scoundrel Matthew would have been seen to be in that culture. Click here to watch it. John is the only name that makes sense. John was one of The Twelve and he was but a simple fisherman with no checkered past. But for the others, this simply doesn’t make any sense.

You and your friends are writing gospels and you want to put names on them to give them authority, so you choose two-non eyewitnesses and a former tax collector for Rome as your pseudonyms? Think about the later gnostic gospels which date to the second, third, and fourth centuries. These gospels have names such as Peter, Mary, Thomas, and Phillip attached to them. The gnostics clearly wanted their heretical writings to carry weight in the early church, so they chose names of some of the most respectable disciples. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Mark’s gospel to be directly attributed to Peter than to say “Yeah, well, this non-eyewitness Mark guy wrote it. But be assured he got his information from an apostle; it was Peter!” The gnostic gospel of Peter just says “Yeah, Peter wrote this thing.” I think the best explanation is that these four men really were the ones who wrote these gospels. There was no motive to ascribe authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John other than to tell the truth concerning authorship.

The evidence for the traditional authorship of the gospels is plenteous and overwhelming. To keep this article from being too lengthy, I won’t go into all of it here. For a much more thorough defense of gospel authorship, check out my blog post “The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels – Part 2: The Case For Traditional Authorship”. In this article, which is part of an 11-part “blog book” defending the historical reliability of the gospels, I go into evidence for traditional authorship from the patristics (that’s scholar-talk for “writings of the early church fathers”), as well as internal evidences; by this I mean features of the text that are in-line with traditional authorship, such as Matthew being a very financially themed gospel and Luke using medical terminology consistent with what we would expect from a book written by a doctor. I also refute some arguments against traditional authorship from skeptical scholars.

But I think I have said enough here to firmly establish that the four gospels are eyewitness testimonies. Matthew, John, and Peter (through Mark), were the ones who were there to see everything Jesus said and did. And Luke, while not being an eyewitness himself, assures us that he consulted eyewitnesses.

The Case For Early Dating

Not only are the gospels eyewitness accounts, but they are early records as well. The book of Acts records the missionary journeys of Paul starting from his conversion in chapter 9. Before this, the book heavily focuses on Peter. Both of these men are clearly major figures in the early church, and yet their deaths at the hands of Nero aren’t recorded. Acts ends like a canceled TV show. It ends with him in house arrest in Rome awaiting trial before Caesar. Why aren’t these significant events recorded? The best explanation is that the book of Acts was written before Paul died in A.D 66. Possibly no later than A.D 60. Given this date, we can count backwards to date the gospels. Regardless of who wrote Luke, scholars are well in agreement that whoever it was also wrote Acts. This is because of how the beginning of both books are worded. Luke 1:1-4 says “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (NIV, emphasis mine in bold) In Acts 1:1-3, we read “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.” (NIV, emphasis mine in bold). The author of Acts says he had written a “former book”. This “former book” was written to a person named Theophilus, which recorded “all that Jesus began to do and to teach”. The description of this book sounds a lot like the Gospel Of Luke which was also addressed to a Theophilus and which was a biography of Jesus. Luke is probably the book the author of Acts has in mind. If this is the case, then Luke must precede Acts at least by a year or two, placing the dating of Luke’s gospel in the late 50s.

All scholars believe there is some interdependence among the synoptic gospels. Most scholars think Luke used Matthew and Mark for some of his material. ^[10]Although certainly not for all of Luke’s material. Luke includes plenty of content that is not absent in Mark, some that are only shared between him and Matthew, and some unique to Luke’s gospel … Continue reading. This would mean that Mark and Matthew would need to be written even earlier. Realistically, Mark and Matthew were probably written several years before Luke, placing Matthew in the early 50s and Mark in the late 40s. I mean, it’s certainly possible that Mark could have written his gospel in 58, and Matthew in 59, and then comes Luke right after (so we have gospels coming out every year like they were Marvel movies), but it seems to me more likely that Mark and Matthew circulated around the ancient world a bit before Luke put pen to papyrus. Let’s put Mark at 50 and Matthew at 55.

Since Jesus’ ministry spanned 28-30 or 30-33 A.D, this places Mark (widely believed to be the first gospel written) at 20 years after the events he describes! It’s only 25 years after the events Matthew describes, and 30 years for Luke!

This is incredibly early, especially by ancient standards. The biographies of Alexander The Great were written by Arien and Plutarch and were written 400 years after he lived, yet historians still consider these good sources to consult to learn about this Greek King of Macedon.

What The Eyewitnesses Described

So we’ve established from historical evidence that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were penned by the men whose names are attached to them. Matthew was written by the tax collector Matthew, Son of Alpheus. Mark was written by Mark who Papias said got his information from Peter ^[11]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 Luke the physician, and John the son of Zebedee. Three out of the four men are eyewitnesses. Now, we have to look at what they eyewitnesses said they saw pertaining to Jesus’ death and what came after. This is as simple as opening up the gospels and reading them.

Detail 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

All four gospels tell us that Jesus died by crucifixion. The death of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-41, Luke 23:26-49, and John 19. And you might be interested to know that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is attested to by secular authors as well such as Josephus (Antiquities of The Jews book 15), Tacitus (Annals 15.3.3), Mara-Bar Sarapion, Lucian Of Samosata (The Passing Of Peregrinus). The Babylonian Talmud also made mention of Jesus being crucified (Sanhedrin 43:a). Therefore, Jesus’ death on the cross is multiply, multiply, multiply attested. Paul in his epistles also attests to the death of Jesus by crucifixion (e.g 1 Corinthians 15:3). We have at minimum 7 independent sources. This is why no one and I mean NO ONE in New Testament scholarship doubts that Jesus’ crucifixion actually happened. To believe that 5 independent non-Christian sources in addition to the synoptic gospels, John, and Paul could all independently make up the same fictional event and treat it like historical fact is so improbable that if it happened, it would probably be more miraculous than Jesus’ resurrection.

Of course, I am not running a minimal facts argument for Jesus’ resurrection, so neither scholarly nose count nor the criteria of authenticity will be of much use here. I merely bring this up in an attempt to show those who would deny Jesus’ very existence and fancy themselves “rational critical thinkers” to realize that in reality, they are affirming something quite unreasonable. Jesus’ existence and death on a cross is indisputable. Whatever facts you may want to dispute in this overall case, this should not be one of them.

The agnostic historian Bart Ehrman states that “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. “. ^[12]A Brief Introduction to the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman 2008 ISBN 0-19-536934-3 page 136 The highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” ^[13]See John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145; see also 154, 196, 201. Like Ehrman, Crossan is not a Christian. Yet both Ehrman and Crossan agree that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical fact. Gerd Ludemann, an atheist historian said: “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is an indisputable fact.” ^[14]Dr. Gerd Ludemann, “The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry”, 2004, page 50.

Detail 2: The Tomb Was Empty The Following Sunday Morning

All four gospels attest that the tomb was empty the following Sunday morning. The tomb was discovered empty by women who met angels who said that Jesus was not in the tomb but had risen. (See Matthew 28:1-15, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-13). We read in all four accounts that the tomb was empty, that there was some level of surprise on the part of the women, and that the women were told to go tell the male disciples that Jesus had risen. In Luke 24:6-7, one of the angels at the tomb reminds the women that Jesus had predicted that this would happen; “that the Son Of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” (Luke 24:6-7). The women remembered these words (Luke 24:8).

Detail 3: Jesus’ Postmortem Appearance To Mary

In John 20:11-18, we read “Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, ‘Woman, why are you crying?’ ‘They have taken my Lord away,’ she said, ‘and I don’t know where they have put him.’ At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

He asked her, ‘Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?’ Thinking he was the gardener, she said, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, ‘Rabboni!’ (which means ‘Teacher’).

Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’

Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: ‘I have seen the Lord!’ And she told them that he had said these things to her.”

Detail 4: Jesus’ Postmortem Appearances To The Other Women

Matthew 28:9-10 says “But Jesus met them, saying, ‘Greetings!’ They came to him, held on to his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there.’ (NET Bible translation)

Detail 5: Jesus’ Appearance To The Disciples On The Road To Emmaus

In Luke 24:13-35, we read of two disciples of Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus. Jesus comes up alongside of them and joins them in their conversation. Jesus asks them why they’re acting so sad. One of them sarcastically asks if he’s the only person who didn’t know what happened recently. Jesus decides to play dumb and goes “What happened?” After which they tell them that Jesus got himself crucified and implied that their messianic hopes were dashed. They have a meal and Jesus miraculously opens their eyes. Because for some reason, they didn’t initially recognize him. Then Jesus vanishes.

Detail 6: Jesus’ Resurrection Appearances Were Of A Physical Nature

The eyewitnesses describe Jesus doing and saying things that caused them to believe that what they were seeing wasn’t a mere ghost, but an embodied person. In Luke 24:36-37 we read that they indeed thought that they saw a ghost at first, but in verses 38-39, Jesus invited his disciples to touch his hands and feet, saying that a ghost (or demon depending on your translation) does not have flesh and bones. To double down on the proof that he really was physically alive he asked them if they had anything to eat. The disciples gave Jesus a piece of fish and Jesus proceeded to chow down. (Luke 24:41-43).

In John 20, we read that Thomas was not with the others when the aforementioned postmortem appearance occurred (verse 4). In verse 25, we read that the disciples come to Thomas and tell him that they have seen the risen Jesus. However, Thomas is highly skeptical and says that he would not believe unless he was able to put his fingers in Jesus’ crucifixion wounds. In verses 26-27, we read that Jesus shows up and invites Thomas to do just that to which Thomas cries out “My Lord and my God!” (verse 28) And notice how Jesus doesn’t rebuke Thomas for calling him God. That is Jesus implicitly putting his stamp of approval on Thomas’ exclamation. But I digress. Notice how physical these postmortem appearances are. Notice how detailed the eyewitness accounts are. This will be important later on in this article.

In John’s gospel, we read that Jesus appeared to his disciples and ate fish with them again. This is in John 21:1-14. Jesus had long extended conversations with his disciples, they touched him, they ate with him. They ate with the risen Jesus not just once, but twice!

Why Did These Jewish Men Report This? – The McGrewian Trilemma

So we have so far established that these testimonies are coming from eyewitnesses. But why did they write what, for many, appears to be a pretty wild story? A rabbi coming back from the dead? After 3 days of being dead? We have to give an explanation as to why Matthew, Peter, and John said they saw these things. Dr. Lydia McGrew offers three explanations that I’ve taken and formulated into a syllogism. I call it “The McGrewian Trilemma” because it’s named after Lydia McGrew (No duh, right?).

1: The Gospel Eyewitnesses were either lying, they were mistaken, or they were telling the truth.

2: The Gospel Eyewitnesses were not lying or mistaken.

3: Therefore, they were telling the truth.

This is a logically valid syllogism. The conclusion follows from the premises by the logical form Disjunctive Syllogism. In order for the conclusion to be valid, we must establish that both premises are true. So let’s examine each premise.

Premise 1 is indisputable. It’s merely a list of the possible explanations pertaining to why the disciples/gospel authors wrote what they wrote. One can hardly call a list of possibilities false! One could object that perhaps the list isn’t exhaustive. However, I can’t think of any other options besides these three. If the skeptic can think of one, he’s welcome to add it to the list and then we can consider it when we come to premise 2. But that the disciples were liars, deceived, or speaking the truth seem to be the only options on the table. Some skeptics have thought they have come up with a fourth alternative, but what they actually proposed was just a naturalistic theory that falls under the “lying” or “mistaken” categories.

Were They Lying?

This option is probably the weakest of all three options in my humble opinion. The idea that these Jewish men just decided to make up a story about their rabbi being risen from the dead and saying and doing all these things is implausible on its face. For one thing, why would the disciples even be motivated to start a new religion anyway? As Dr. Frank Turek says “Contrary to what some skeptics may think, the New Testament writers didn’t create the Resurrection—the Resurrection created the New Testament writers. In other words, the New Testament documents didn’t give us the Resurrection. The Resurrection gave us the New Testament documents! There would be no New Testament unless the Resurrection had occurred. Observant Jews would never have invented that.” ^[15]Dr. Frank Turek, “Christianity Is True Even If Some Of The Bible Isn’t”, March 30th 2018, https://crossexamined.org/christianity-is-true-even-if-some-of-the-bible-isnt/ Why does Turek say that? Because “Why would Jewish believers in Yahweh—people who thought they were God’s ‘chosen people’ for two thousand years—invent a Resurrection story that would get them excommunicated from the ‘chosen people’ club, and then beaten, tortured and murdered?” ^[16]ibid.

Frank Turek makes a good point. The disciples already had a religion they belonged to. They were special. They were God’s chosen people. Why write books where your rabbi claims to be Yahweh, then got himself killed, and rose from the dead, basically starting a new religion? ^[17]although if they’re right, it isn’t a new religion per see, it’s Judaism fulfilled.

Now, I would like to zero in on the “beaten, tortured, and killed” part of the Turek quote. What does he mean by that? Historical evidence shows that the disciples all died brutal martyr’s death.

Let us look at Peter’s Martyrdom. Although it is likely that Peter’s speech about wanting to be crucified upside down may have been a legend that developed later ^[18]See Sean McDowell’s article “Was Peter Crucified Upside Down?”, October 22nd 2015 https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-peter-crucified-upside-down the evidence that he did die in this way is strong.

Clement Of Rome (AD 95) writing to the Corinthians, Clement reminds the church of the recent Apostles’ martyrdoms. He notes:

“But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. 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.” ^[19]Clement of Rome, First Clement, Chapter V.

Tertullian, in his De Præscriptione 36, says: “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John”. (Emphasis mine) In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross“. (Emphasis mine)

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church (165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” ^[20]in Eusebius, Church History II.25

Although Clement and Dionysus simply say that Peter suffered Martyrdom, Tertullian specifically says that Peter’s martyrdom was by crucifixion.

Listen to Jesus’ words to Peter in John 21:18-19

“Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

Then in verse 19, John tells us that Jesus said these things to indicate the way in which Peter would die. Now, whether or not you believe Jesus predicted Peter’s death ahead of time is beside the point. The argument I am making here is that John’s gospel seems to describe Peter dying in a way that sounds a lot like crucifixion. Crucified victims had to stretch out their limbs in order for the soldiers to nail their hands and feet to their crosses. If Peter did not die in this way, then it’s unlikely that John would include it in his gospel. Even if you think John retroactively put this in Jesus’ mouth, nevertheless John attests to Peter’s martyrdom.

Peter’s martyrdom is multiply attested by four independent sources. Two of which date back as early as the 90s, approximately 30 years after the point in which most scholars date Peter’s death.

Matthew died by martyrdom as well. According to the fifth-century Hieronymian Martyrology, Matthew was martyred in the town of Tarrium, Persia. Other medieval apostolic lists name Matthew as a martyr as well. For instance, the entry for Matthew in the Breviarium Apostolorum (c. AD 600) says: “He first preached the gospel in Judea, and after that in Macedonia, and he suffered martyrdom in Persia.” The sources on Matthew’s death in particular aren’t as strong as that for Peter, and there are some sources that conflict on exactly how he died. Yet despite some sources disagreeing on exactly how Matthew died, it’s almost unanimous that he was martyred in some way or another. I think we can be confident, therefore, that Matthew did suffer martyrdom even if we don’t know the exact method his persecutors used to kill him. Moreover, at the bare minimum, we can be sure that Matthew was at least willing to be martyred, as all scholars recognize the hostility the early church faced. This is no more potent than in Nero Caesar’s persecution of the church in the late 60s (according to writers like Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus). Whether Matthew died in any of the ways the sources report him as dying, Matthew at least had to have known he was playing with fire. Yet he boldly preached the gospel of Jesus anyway! This also goes for John, who most likely died of old age on the Island of Patmos after writing the book of Revelation. Although he wasn’t killed, given the early hostility the church faced, he was undoubtedly in danger of being killed! And if nothing else, he was still exiled!

Why would they die for a lie? Why would the disciples be killed for something they knew wasn’t true? Why would Peter make up tall tales, give them to mark, and then go be crucified upside down for spreading those tall tales around the Roman world? Why would Matthew make up tall tales and then go get himself killed? Why would John put his life at constant risk culminating in him dying of old age all alone on a remote desert island at best or an ancient Guantanamo Bay at worst? ^[21]There is debate over exactly what Patmos was like at the time John was exiled. Karen Engle wrote an article about it on the Logos website called “Where Is The Island Of Patmos and What’s … Continue reading.

People can die for a lie that they think is the truth, but no one will die for a lie that they know is a lie. This is why “mistaken” is the option skeptics most often go with, because most skeptics recognize this. Some skeptics, however, still try to preserve the lying option. One objection goes something like “Just because they died for their beliefs doesn’t mean that their beliefs are true! Think of the terrorists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11! They were dying for their belief in jihad. Does this prove Islam is true?” This objection misunderstands the evidential value of the disciples’ martyrdom. For one thing, I’m not saying that their martyr deaths prove Jesus rose from the dead. All I’m arguing is the modest claim that they weren’t lying about it. Their martyrdoms prove that they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead rather than being bald face liars. They could be sincerely mistaken, but they at least believed their own words. If they didn’t, then they would have recanted under the pressure. Moreover, there is a big difference between the apostles of the first century and people who die for their beliefs today. People who die for their beliefs today die for what they believe is true, but didn’t really see with their own eyes. Even if I were some day martyred for Jesus, while I think my worldview has a solid rational evidential foundation, I did not put my finger in Jesus’ scars. ^[22]And this is why Jesus says “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” in John 20:29. Jesus was not endorsing blind faith here. … Continue reading

Another objection is that the martyrdoms of the disciples aren’t really evidence that they weren’t lying, because people commit crimes all the time in spite of the fact that they risk 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 people will commit crimes and risk punishment only if there’s some reward they think they will get which outweighs the risk. For example, if a pickpocket steals someone’s wallet, the reward of being $100 richer outweighs the risk of getting arrested for petty theft. So did the disciples have a reward that outweighed the risk of getting killed as martyrs? Well, yes, if what they were preaching was true! (Matthew 19:29). However, under the assumption that Christianity is false and the disciples knew it was false, what reward did they stand to gain? In his book, “Cold Case Christianity”, former homicide detective J. Warner Wallace notes that in his experience as a homicide detective, there are 3 main motives for someone to commit a murder or any other crime. (1) Money, (2) Power, (3) Sex. ^[23]J. Warner Wallace, “Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims Of The Gospels”, Chapter 8, page 266, 2023, David C. Cook. These three are the broad categories under which motives to do something illegal fall under. If the disciples were willing to risk punishment and the hope of eternal life was not the reward they stood to gain, then one of these other three had to have been the motive.

Let’s examine that first possibility. The disciples didn’t seem to get rich off of preaching the gospel. Looking at the historical evidence, they don’t appear to be a bunch of middle eastern Joel Osteens. As J. Warner Wallace writes “There are many ancient accounts describing the lives of the apostles following the period recorded in the book of Acts. Local believers in a variety of ancient communities wrote about the activities of the individual disciples as they preached the gospel across the region. None of these texts describe any of the disciples as men who possessed material wealth. The disciples repeatedly appear as men who were chased from location to location, continually abandoning whatever property they owned and vacating whatever homes they were borrowing. The disciples were accustomed to living in this manner; they decided to leave their homes and families when they first began to follow Jesus. Peter acknowledged as much when he told Jesus, ‘Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You’ (Luke 18:28). The disciples rejected all material wealth, believing the gospel provided eternal life, something of far more value. Paul described their impoverished financial condition many times, reminding his readers the apostles were ‘both hungry and thirsty, and [were poorly clothed, and [were) roughly treated, and [were] homeless’ (1 Cor. 4:11). The apostles lived ‘as unknown yet well! known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful yet alway rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things’ (2 Cor 6:9-10). If the disciples and apostles were lying for financial gain, their lies didn’t seem to working. Those who watched Paul closely knew he was dedicated to spiritual life rather th material gain; he ‘coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes’ (Acts 20:33).” ^[24]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.

Well, what about power? Given the huge institution that is The Vatican with its Popes and bishops, you might think the disciples wanted to start a religion to gain power or influence. However, even a casual reading of the book of Acts depicts the disciples as not expecting to have positions of power. They certainly didn’t end up getting those positions. Besides, why would they need to invent a resurrection of Jesus if that’s what they wanted? Couldn’t they have pursued religious education and moved up the ranks to become well-respected Pharisees? Perhaps even to the level of a Sanhedrin member? And if they were hoping for military power, the fact that their messiah was killed on the cross and seemingly never even tried to defy the Romans should have given it away that Jesus’ view of being the messiah wasn’t to be a political conqueror. What? Did they just decide “Yeah, our Messiah’s dead. But maybe we can get enough political power if we just say he’s alive?” Or they could have sold themselves out to Rome and become Tax Collectors with cushy jobs. If power or accolades were their motivation, this is a weird way of trying to go about gaining it. Being a Christian would not afford one the potential for positions of influence until the reign of Emperor Constantine centuries after the apostles all died.

What about sex? I don’t know about you, but I just don’t have a mental image of Peter walking down a dirt road with two sexy ladies in each arm. If he looked anything like Shohar Issac, he probably could have gotten some female attention that way ^[25]He is a very handsome man. No homo., but for preaching the gospel, it doesn’t seem like that would have worked. Trust me. I don’t exactly have women throwing themselves at me because they find a man having an Christian Apologetics blog a huge turn on. Plus, we all know Matthew only had eyes for Mary Magdalene. Ok, I’m done with references to The Chosen. I promise. But jokes aside, the disciples preached the gospel for decades. If they wanted to amass harems, it wouldn’t take too long to realize that this was a poor strategy. They would have abandoned the strategy and moved on to something else.

So, it doesn’t appear that money, power, or sex were the driving forces for them to perpetuate the so-called resurrection lie. They had no motive to lie. And with beatings, tortures, and martyrdom being the penalties, I have a very hard time believing that the disciples would continue to preach. They had everything to lose, and nothing to gain. At least not anything earthly. They must have sincerely believed what they were preaching.

Were They Mistaken?

Not many defend the lying option anymore today. Most skeptical scholars and skeptical lay men realize the absurdity of the gospel authors making up lies and then dying for those lies. That they sincerely believed what they were preaching is certain. However, what if they were sincerely mistaken? Could they have seen and heard things and simply misinterpreted what was happening? There are several theories as to how the disciples could have been mistaken. I’ll address these from the most plausible to the least plausible.

The Hallucination Theory

By far and away the most popular naturalistic theory today is The Hallucination Theory. There are variations of this theory, but what they all have in common is that the postmortem appearances of Jesus to the disciples were hallucinations. The disciples could have been so in grief at the death of their leader, that they imagined they saw him alive from the dead, not unlike how a grieving widow might see the “ghost” of her husband for a moment to tell her that he’s doing ok in the afterlife. Then he leaves for Heaven. The disciples could have seen something like this and falsely concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead. Were the appearances of Jesus just hallucinations?

The problems with any version of hallucination are manifold. And the problems that afflict the theory on a Minimal Facts approach become absolutely intractable on a Maximal Data Approach like what I’m presenting here.

The gospels tell us that Jesus appeared to multiple groups of people on multiple different occasions. Jesus appeared indoors and outdoors, to hard hearted people like Thomas and softhearted people like Mary.

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

Are ALL of these people going to experience the same hallucination of the risen Jesus? Hallucinations are products of an individual’s mind. They’re like dreams in this way. Imagine you rolled over in the middle of the night and woke up your spouse saying “Honey, you’ve got to come join me in this great dream I’m having. There’s a fine resort, a beach, and there’s even an amusement park nearby. Let’s both go back to sleep. We’ll have the same dream, and we’ll save so much money by not having to go on an actual vacation together.” It would be nice if we could do that, but we can’t. Why? Because dreams are products of an individual’s mind. They can’t be shared experiences. For even one group of people at one time to have the exact same hallucination would be fantastically improbable!

In their book “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus” ^[26] Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, “The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus”, pages 105-106, Kregel, Gary Habermas and Mike Licona tell of Navy Seals who were enduring through Hell week. At one point, the seals reported starting having hallucinations one night while they were paddling in a raft at night. They all hallucinated at the same time, BUT they did not have the same hallucination. They had different hallucinations. One of them said he saw an octopus come out of the water and wave at him. Another said he saw a train coming towards them on the water. Another said he saw a wall that they would crash into if they persisted in paddling. When the octopus, the train, and the wall were pointed out to the rest of the group, no one saw any of the things except the one who pointed the thing out. They were all hallucinating, but they were having different hallucinations. So, even if on the off chance, all of the disciples were in the frame of mind to hallucinate, it’s still unlikely that they’d have the SAME hallucination at the SAME time. Like the Navy Seals, they’d likely all have different hallucinations, perhaps only one of them being Jesus.

But it isn’t just one time that the disciples saw the risen Jesus. It was multiple times. Once they saw him when Thomas was absent (Luke 24:36-43), then they saw him later again when Thomas was with them (John 20:24-29), and then again while they were fishing on the Sea of Galilee (John 21:2, 2). He also appeared to them on a mountain (Matthew 28:16, 17). Now, one group hallucination is improbable at it is, but are you seriously going to expect me to believe that this group of men had the same hallucination (bereavement induced or otherwise) again and again and again and again? There is just no record of this kind of thing in the psychological literature! A grieving widow may see the “ghost” of her dead husband for a brief moment. Maybe she’ll even hear him speak “I’m ok. I will always love you. You’re strong. You can make it without me.” ^[27]On my worldview, I can’t rule out all of these examples of being vertical experiences of disembodied loved ones coming to tell their family members that they’re going to be ok. Since the soul … Continue reading But there’s no record of every member of the family seeing him at the same time, on multiple different occasions. Oh, and by the way, the body is missing from the tomb.

But it gets even worse than that, for the gospels tell us that the disciples saw Jesus ate fish with them on not just one, but two occasions. This is recorded in Luke 24:36-37 and John 21:10-14. Jesus talked with his disciples at length. The conversation between the risen Jesus and the disciples in John 21 is an example. So, what the skeptic of Christianity is asking us to believe is that the disciples not only had MULTIPLE GROUP hallucinations, but multiple group MULTI-SENSORY hallucinations. They not only SAW Jesus, they FELT his body, and they HEARD him speak. So, they were allegedly hallucinating the risen Jesus all at the same, and three of their five senses were fooling them. Are you kidding me? This is not the least bit plausible.

Give me one example of a bereavement hallucination where Grandpa shows up not just to Grandma, but to the whole family on multiple occasions, speaks at length, you reach out and feel his arm and it feels solid, and Grandpa eats a meal from Long John Silver. Oh, and Grandpa’s body is gone from the tomb. Is there anything like this in the psychological literature, Mr. Skeptic? Am I missing something?

In conclusion, the Hallucination theory is pathetic. It can’t explain hardly any of the details of the testimony that the eyewitnesses sincerely believed and wrote down. Maybe a grief hallucination could account for individual postmortem appearances like that to Mary Magdalene, but it certainly cannot account for the multitude of group appearances with such specific details as Jesus talking and eating with his disciples and inviting them to feel his hands and feet, specifically to check that he is not a ghost (Luke 24:39).

Excursus: The Legendary Embellishment Theory

Now, liberal scholars like Dale Allison will try to say that these highly detailed accounts of the risen Jesus which I have used to discredit the Hallucination Theory above are later legendary inventions, ^[28]Dale Allison, “The Resurrection Of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemic, History and that the best material we really have is the appearances in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed which dates 2-5 years after the death of Jesus by most scholars. ^[29]For evidence that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an early creed, see my blog post “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 5: Fact (3) – The Postmortem Appearances To The Disciples” The problem with this view is that we saw above that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses and that they date extremely early (by ancient historical standards) to the events they recount. We already ruled out that the apostles are not lying. Some might try to argue that 20-30 years is enough time for the details to have become fuzzy. But as I have written elsewhere, this was an “impact event” that would have left indelible marks on the disciples’ memory. Put briefly, I don’t remember anything at all about September 11th 2015. But I vividly remember September 11th, 2001. The more significant the event, the more the memories stick out to you, and ergo, the larger the number of details you remember. A man who claimed to be God coming back from the dead isn’t the kind of the day you’d ever forget! This goes for good and bad memories. So it is extremely doubtful that 20-30 years after the event, they would have forgotten the details and just fabricated details like Jesus eating fish. Not to mention that there is a great deal of evidence not discussed in this article (It’s in my 11-part “Blog Book” on Gospel Reliability) that shows the gospel authors were committed to telling the truth. Everywhere they can be verified, they are proven right. Unless skeptics can undermine the case for traditional authorship and make a case for late dating, then I don’t think the idea of Jesus eating fish and having conversations with his apostles can be dismissed as later legendary development. If the gospels came from thirdhand, fourth-hand, or fifth-hand sources written 60-100 years after the event, then sure. I could buy that. But such is not the case. We are getting these highly specific details straight from the horses’ mouths only a couple of decades after the event. And, we already know that they’re not lying. They must either be mistaken or telling the truth.

The GroupThink Theory

Some skeptics have considered that perhaps the disciples were so in anticipation of Jesus’ return from the dead that they talked themselves into believing it. One day they went to the tomb and John was like “Peter, I think I see Jesus, over there! Do you see him?” and Peter was like “Oh, yeah! I think I see him too!” and they kind of talked themselves into it. Well, this couldn’t be the case either. Why? Because you have to be in anticipation that you’re going to experience something like that. You have to be primed for it. They weren’t! There are four reasons why the groupthink theory is untenable.

1: Jesus died. Jews weren’t expecting a dying messiah, but a messiah who would be a conquering warrior king, one who would throw off the yoke of Rome. ^[30]The Jews of the first century got their prophecies mixed up. Jesus will indeed get rid of all the evil in the world, He will overthrow Israel’s oppressors, but He’ll do this in His second coming. … Continue reading

2: According to the Old Testament (which Jews call the “Tanakh”), anyone hung on a tree was under God’s curse. This is mentioned in Deuteronomy 21:23. Since Roman crosses were made out of wood, they were technically trees, so people would often times speak of the crucified as “being hung on a tree”. And since this was in the minds of Jews, the way in which Jesus died would have only served to convince the disciples that Caiaphas and the others were right in condemning Jesus as a blasphemer and a heretic.

3: Given what the Jews believed about the bodily resurrection, no one would have been anticipating Jesus’ return. Second Temple Jews generally fell into two camps; those who believed the dead would be raised from the dead bodily, and those who believed no one would get an afterlife. These were the parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees respectively. The latter didn’t expect anyone at any time to rise from the dead, and the former believed that all people would rise from the dead at the end of the world (some to eternal life, others to shame and everlasting punishment as Daniel 12:2 says), but neither party expected any isolated person to get out of their grave right smack dab in the middle of human history.

4: And if that weren’t enough, consider that Luke 24:11 tells us that when the women came and testified to Jesus’ resurrection, we are explicitly told that they did not believe them. Luke says “Their words were like idle nonsense to them.” And Thomas was so skeptical that he not only disbelieved the women, but he also disbelieved his fellow male disciples when they, after seeing the risen Jesus with their own eyes, told Thomas that Jesus had indeed risen. Thomas only believed when he saw Jesus appear to him. This is where Thomas got his infamous nickname “Doubting Thomas”.

As you can see, the disciples were not expecting that Jesus would rise from the dead. In fact, they had every predisposition to the contrary. And yet, they all believed they saw Jesus alive after His death!

The Swoon Theory

Some skeptics have tried to adequately account for all of the details in the gospels by saying that maybe Jesus didn’t really die in the first place. Maybe he merely fainted on the cross and then the cool, damp air of the tomb sort of roused him around into consciousness. Jesus then left the tomb, came to his disciples, and presented Himself to them. Since they presumed he was dead, it’s only natural that they should infer that Jesus came back to life, right? So, we don’t have a miraculous resurrection, simply a fortuitous resuscitation. This would explain the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances. It would explain the physicality of the resurrection appearances since Jesus never really died. He was standing right there. Of course, they’d be able to feel him. And Jesus would certainly be able to eat fish. People who escape death by a hair’s breadth can still eat. Ask anyone who’s ever woken up in a hospital. This theory goes by two names; sometimes it’s called “The Apparent Death Theory”, but I prefer to refer to it by its other name; “The Swoon Theory”. Can this theory explain how the gospel authors might have been mistaken?

I don’t think it can. There are several problems with it. The following descriptions are very graphic; reader’s discretion is advised.

First of all, given the nature of pre-crucifixion scourging, and of the crucifixion itself, it is extremely unlikely that a crucifixion victim could walk away alive.

When a to-be-crucified person was scourged, they would be given 40 lashes. History tells us that the Roman 40 lashes were from a whip of braided leather thongs, with metal balls, broken pieces of sheep bone, broken glass, and basically anything sharp that would cut a person. These sharp pieces of sheep bone, metal, and broken glass were woven into the braided leather thongs. When the whip would strike the flesh, these would cause deep bruises and the flesh would be cut severely. You can easily imagine how shredded a person’s back would be after being slashed in 40 different places with multiple blades! ^[31]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 give a … Continue reading

According to Dr. Alexander Methrell, the cuts and force of the beating could shred the back so much that the spine of the victim was sometimes exposed! ^[32]See Dr. Alexander Methrell’s interview with Lee Strobel in “The Case For Christ”, chapter 11, page 195, published by Zondervan The whipping would have gone all the way down the shoulders to the back, and the back of the legs. One physician who has studied Roman beatings said: “As the flogging continued the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh.” ^[33]Lumpkin R: The physical suffering of Christ. J Med. Assoc Ala 1978,47:8-10,47. Eusebius, a third-century historian, described scourging with the following words: “The sufferer’s veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were open to exposure.”

The pre-crucifixion scourging was so horrific that the white of the spine was sometimes exposed (according to both Dr. Alexander Methrell and The Journal Of American Medical Association, March edition from 1986), and that the condemned victim’s veins, muscles, sinews, and bowels would become visible from the outside! This is the type of horrific beating that Jesus endured!

The result of such a hellish beating would mean that Jesus would very likely go into Hypovolemic shock. ^[34]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 Hypovolemic shock is caused by severe blood loss. It causes four symptoms to occur. First, the heart races in a desperate attempt to replace all the blood that was lost, second, the blood pressure plummets bringing about fainting or collapsing, third, urine production in the kidneys comes to an end to preserve what little liquid is left in the body, and fourth, the person has an overwhelming thirst come over them.

When you read the gospel accounts of Jesus’ execution, these symptoms are evident in Jesus. At one point, Jesus falls while carrying his cross, and Simon of Cyrene is forced to help Jesus carry his cross the rest of the way (Matthew 27:32). Later, when Jesus was on the cross, He said “I thirst”, and then a Roman soldier dipped a sponge in vinegar and stuck it up to Jesus’ mouth for him to drink (see John 19:28-29). Jesus was in critical condition even before He was crucified!

Jesus then carried His cross to the site of the crucifixion, and the Romans nailed Him to it.

Now, how does crucifixion kill its victims? Scientific experiments have been done on volunteers to test what the effects of hanging on a cross would have. These were controlled circumstances, so there was no real danger of these people being harmed. While these volunteers were hanging on the cross, they would mention having difficulty breathing. They would have to push up and down in order to breathe. Eventually, they’d get too exhausted to push up and down anymore, so the scientist would take the person down off the cross at the volunteer’s request. ^[35]Some of these experiments were shown on camera on the History Channel documentary called “Crucifixion”. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210802/

What these experiments showed was that crucifixion victims die from suffocation. Once Jesus was hanging vertically, the weight of his body and the position of his arms put great stress on the diaphragm, and would put his chest in an inhaled position. So in order to exhale, Jesus would have had to push up on his feet and take a breath, but each time he did this he’d be pushing on the nail in his feet tearing the muscle until it locked against the tarsal bones in his feet (not to mention he’d be scraping his back against the coarse wood of the cross). Finally, with the pressure on his chest eased he’d be able to exhale. He would push up to exhale and then come back down to inhale. Then go up to exhale, and then come back down to inhale. Over, and over, and over. But eventually, exhaustion would take over and he could no longer push himself up to breathe. He would just sag there and die of asphyxiation. The Roman soldiers would have noticed when a person was dead once he stopped pushing up. And look, you can’t fake the inability to breathe for very long.

In fact, when the Romans wanted to speed up death, they’d break the legs of the people on the crosses with a massive club. Then they wouldn’t be able to push up to breathe, and death would come quickly. However, they didn’t do this to Jesus because they saw that He was already dead, but just to make sure, they drove a spear through him. It punctured both his heart and his lungs. The gospel of John tells us that when he did that, blood and water gushed out (John 19:34). John himself claims to be an eyewitness of this water and blood gushing (“The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.” – John 19:35). This single fact proves that not only was Jesus dead, but it also tells us what He died of; heart failure, due to shock and constriction of the heart detected by the presence of fluid in the pericardium. In this instance, the heart has ceased beating. This brought about an accumulation of fluid in Jesus’ heart, which is called “pericardial effusion”. In addition to this, it also brought about a collection of fluid in the lungs, which is called “pleural effusion”. These two fluids cannot be present if the person’s heart is still beating.

This theory fails because:

Jesus couldn’t survive this whole ordeal.

1: Jesus was in hypovolemic shock from the pre-crucifixion scourging alone! Jesus was in critical condition even on his way to the cross, so he would have bled out quickly.

2: But if bleeding out didn’t kill him, He would have eventually died of suffocation.

3: If neither of those two things got him, we can be sure Jesus’ was dead because (A) you can’t survive a spear jab to the heart and (B) that spear jab revealed Jesus’ heart and lungs collected pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, which isn’t possible if the heart is still beating.

But let’s suppose the impossible did occur. Let’s suppose that against all odds, Jesus somehow survived the aforementioned Hell on Earth. Non-Christian David Strauss explains that “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.” ^[36]Strauss, David. The Life of Jesus for the People. Volume One, Second Edition. London: Williams and Norgate. 1879. 412. Gary Habermas comments, “Every once in a while, the swoon theory appears again. But it has not really been very popular since Strauss’s devastating critique in 1835. By the turn of the century, it was declared to be only a curiosity of the past.” ^[37]Habermas, Gary. “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection.” Trinity Journal 22NS (2001) 190.

The Wrong Tomb Theory

This theory posits that when the women visited the tomb that first Easter morning, they found the tomb empty, but it was some other tomb that hadn’t previously been used. There had never been a body inside that tomb to begin with. The women mistakenly infer that Jesus rose from the dead, they go tell this to the disciples, they believe the women, and then they run around the Roman world preaching that Jesus had risen. The whole thing was just a big mistake.

This theory is honestly laughably bad. I had a hard time even typing the above paragraph without rolling my eyes. Do skeptics really think Mary and the Twelve were that stupid? That they just forgot where Jesus’ tomb was, saw some random tomb empty, and decided to go on grand missionary journeys preaching that Jesus arose based on this? Look, just because ancient peoples didn’t have smartphones doesn’t mean they were imbecils. This theory requires us to believe that the disciples had the IQ of a snail.

Not only this, but it contradicts the accounts of their eyewitness testimony. Mary Magdalene’s first thought upon seeing the empty tomb was that someone had stolen the body (John 20:13, 15). It wasn’t until she realized that the man in front of her wasn’t the gardener that she was convinced Jesus had risen. When the women told the disciples that Jesus rose from the dead, they didn’t believe her at first. (see Luke 24:11). Thomas didn’t even believe the testimony of the women OR his fellow male disciples! Not until he was able to put his finger in Jesus’ hands and side did he believe! (John 20:24-29) No one believed Jesus rose simply because of an empty grave! No one! Everyone was convinced on the basis of the appearances!

The Removed Body Theory

This one is very similar to the previous one. This theory was first proposed by Joseph Klausner in 1922 and he said that Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’ body in his tomb temporarily. He had to put Jesus in his own tomb because it was a late Friday, the Passover Sabbath was coming, and they had to get Jesus buried before sundown in order to stay in line with Torah (Deuteronomy 21:23). But the next day, Joseph relocated the corpse to the criminals’ common graveyard. Unaware of the displacement of the body, the disciples upon finding the tomb empty inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead.

Dr. William Lane Craig explains why this theory fails. He writes “The displaced body hypothesis has narrow explanatory scope. It tries to explain the empty tomb but says nothing about the postmortem appearances and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Independent hypotheses must be adopted to explain the full scope of the evidence. …Klausner’s hypothesis has no explanatory power with regard to either the appearances or the origin of the Christian faith. As for the empty tomb, the hypothesis faces an obvious problem: Since Joseph and any servants with him knew what they had done with the corpse, the theory is at a loss to explain why the disciples’ error wasn’t corrected once they began to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection—unless, that is, one resorts to contrived conjectures to save the day, such as Joseph and his servants’ sudden deaths!” ^[38]Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (p. 317). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance theory is a psychological theory that explains the discomfort that people feel when they hold two conflicting beliefs or values at the same time when one is confronted with outside information that conflicts with their existing beliefs they can either modify their beliefs or find a way to justify their current beliefs. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (or CDT) was developed by psychologist Leon Fester in the 1950s.

The theory in a nutshell says that the disciples of Jesus so strongly believed that Jesus was the promised messiah that they had to find some way to reconcile his defeat on a cross with this belief. “Jesus is the messiah, but he was crucified. How can this be? He-he must not really be dead! Yeah, that’s it! He is risen!” And the argument is usually bolstered by saying that the apostles searched the Old Testament scriptures to make sense of it. When they did, they found passages like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 which speak of a suffering servant who ends up getting killed, but is ultimately vindicated by God. It’s sort of like how the Millerites came up with the theory of Investigative Judgment to reduce the dissonance felt by the fact that Christ did not return at the time the Baptist preacher William Miller predicted he would (i.e in 1844).

There are numerous problems with this theory. However, to keep this article from being longer than it already is, I’ll just give reasons why I think it fails and I’ll link to a video you can go to in order to learn about additional problems.

As I thought about this theory, I tried to figure out how multiple groups of people can dissonance their way into having multiple multi-sensory postmortem appearances of Jesus on various different occasions. Don’t forget about the empty tomb! Can cognitive dissonance somehow get rid of dead bodies? Any theory that is going to explain Christianity’s origins must explain the historical facts that after Jesus died, his tomb was empty, his followers believed they saw him alive (and they didn’t just see him, but they saw him doing things, saying things, being touched). And although not brought up as part of my case here, if the skeptic needs me too, I can bring in the conversions of Paul and James. ^[39]see my article “The Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection – Part 6: Facts (4) and (5) The Postmortem Appearances To Paul and James” One was a very anti-Christian pharisee and the other was at least a non-believer. Any theory that can’t account for all of the historical facts must be rejected. Cognitive Dissonance just doesn’t explain these things.

There’s more that could be said about this theory, but again, to keep the numbers next to that coffee cup from becoming larger than they’ll already be, I’ll just leave it at this. Erik Manning of Testify has made a great video responding to this theory. Click here to watch it.

The Final Two Theories Too Silly To Talk About

There are two more naturalistic theories that I enjoy talking about, but have decided not to in this article. I have discussed these elsewhere, but this article is already longer than I intended. These are what I call “The Twin Theory” and “The Alien Theory” respectively. Usually, I bring these up to “cover all the bases” and also because they’re so ridiculous that it’s just fun to talk about them. However, the people who seriously propose these theories are extremely few in number. And I can only recall the former being endorsed by a single debate opponent of Dr. William Lane Craig one time! If you are a proponent of these theories, I’d be happy to knock them down in the comment section, but I really don’t want the little coffee cup at the top to say this article will take 100 minutes to read. Soooo….let’s move on.

The Ghost Jesus Theory

This theory isn’t a naturalistic theory, but rather, a supernaturalistic theory. This theory says that the disciples really did see Jesus, but that he hadn’t been physically raised from the dead. Rather, he was a spirit. In his Credo Course on the resurrection of Jesus, Gary Habermas whimsically referred to this theory as “Jedi Jesus”, referencing the “force ghosts” of Yoda, Anakin, and Obi Wan that Luke saw at the end of the original Star Wars trilogy.

This theory fails because it doesn’t match up with the specific details of the eyewitness accounts. First, we have the report of the empty tomb. That’s a fact that needs to be accounted for. The Ghost Jesus theory has inadequate explanatory scope. If Jesus’ body were still dead, and what the disciples saw was just his spirit, then the tomb should still be occupied. Second, the eyewitnesses reporting Jesus doing very physical things like eating fish, just once, but twice (Luke 24:42-43, John 21)! Outside of the Bleach anime, I don’t know of any accounts of ghosts eating physical things. The disciples didn’t merely see an image of Jesus standing there, but they reached out and touched him (John 20:26-27)! Ghosts don’t eat fish! Ghosts can’t be touched! If Jesus were a ghost, his hand would have just passed right through him!

They Were Telling The Truth

We have examined the possibility that the gospel authors were lying and found that that wasn’t the reason they reported what they reported. We also examined a plethora of possible ways the gospel authors could have been mistaken about what they observed. We saw that none of these naturalistic theories adequately account for the details of their testimony. So it would seem that both premises in The McGrewian Trilemma are true.

1: The Gospel Eyewitnesses were either lying, they were mistaken, or they were telling the truth.

2: The Gospel Eyewitnesses were not lying or mistaken.

3: Therefore, they were telling the truth.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. He is risen! He is risen indeed!