History / New Testament Studies • Christianity • Advanced
Historical Case for the Resurrection
Primary question: Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus the best historical explanation of the data surrounding his death and its aftermath?
Argument map
Click any node to inspect it. Expand branches to go deeper.
Common mistakes
Don't say
Treating the argument as requiring inerrancy or a fully harmonized Gospel chronology.
Instead
Present it as resting only on minimal facts granted across the scholarly spectrum, independent of any inerrancy doctrine.
Don't say
Claiming the argument amounts to mathematical proof.
Instead
Frame it as an inference to the best explanation, which even proponents like Licona describe as probabilistic, not deductive.
Don't say
Dismissing Hume's argument as simply refuted.
Instead
Acknowledge the Hume debate is ongoing among philosophers and represents the strongest philosophical objection to the whole project.
What would change my mind? — Christian position
Discovery of a credible, independently corroborated ordinary explanation covering all the minimal facts equally well, or evidence undermining the early dating of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, would weaken confidence in the resurrection as the best explanation.
What would change my mind? — Skeptical position
A demonstrated, well-documented case of comparable group hallucination phenomena, or evidence the creed and Gospel resurrection material developed much later than currently thought, would strengthen the case for a naturalistic account.
Why does this matter?
This argument matters because it is the central historical case Christian apologetics offers for the truth of the resurrection, and therefore for the truth of Christianity as a whole; its assessment sits at the intersection of ancient history, philosophy of religion, and epistemology of testimony, and both defenders and critics recognize that how one evaluates it depends heavily on background views about miracles and the reliability of ancient testimony.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
The Resurrection of the Son of God — N.T. Wright
A massive historical-critical case for the resurrection situated within Second Temple Jewish resurrection belief.
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach — Michael Licona
Applies explicit historiographical method to compare hypotheses about the resurrection.
How Jesus Became God — Bart Ehrman
A leading skeptical historian's account of the rise of resurrection and divinity beliefs about Jesus.
The Resurrection of God Incarnate — Richard Swinburne
A Bayesian, cumulative-case philosophical argument for the resurrection.
The Historical Jesus: Five Views — Various (ed. James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy)
Presents a spectrum of scholarly positions, useful for calibrating where the resurrection debate sits within wider historical Jesus studies.