Not Just a Story: Why Every Attempt To Explain Away The Resurrection Breaks Down

I. Introduction

What really happened to Jesus Christ, the founder of the world’s largest religion? For over two thousand years, millions of people worldwide have proclaimed, “Christ is risen!” But what lies behind this declaration? The well-known atheist and former Christian Dan Barker explains his position: “I no longer believe it… the Jesus of history is not the Jesus of the New Testament. Some scholars believe the whole story is a myth, and others feel it is a legend based on some simple core facts that grew over time.”¹

So is it a legend, a deception, or a historical fact? And how can we find an answer to this question? If Jesus truly rose from the dead, it would mean that His message was true, pointing to the existence of a just God, our sinfulness, and our need for forgiveness. It is no surprise, then, that debates continue to rage among scholars on this issue. These debates can be distilled into another question: Can historians establish the truth of a miracle?

The central claim of skeptics such as Barker is that the facts do not support the event of the Resurrection, and that naturalistic explanations are more plausible. But is that really the case? I will show that this claim is far from the fact and demonstrate why the alternative explanations for the resurrection of Jesus fail for historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons.

II. How do we know anything about the past? (How historical science works) 

To understand why the resurrection is the best explanation for the historical data, we first need to understand how historians work to uncover the truth about the past. They use two key tools: the historical method and inference to the best explanation.

A. Historical method in a nutshell

To investigate past events, historians employ the historical method, which consists of a number of criteria. Of course, historical events are not empirically verifiable, but through certain reasonable analyses, we can arrive at a rational conclusion about events in history.

New Testament experts, Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, summarize the main criteria for establishing historical facts as follows:

1. Testimony attested to by multiple independent witnesses is usually considered stronger than the testimony of one witness.

2. Affirmation by a neutral or hostile source is usually considered stronger than affirmation from a friendly source, since it is not biased in favor of the person or position.

3. People usually do not make up details regarding a story that would tend to weaken their position.

4. Eyewitness testimony is usually considered stronger than testimony heard from a second- or third-hand source.

5. An early testimony from very close to the event in question is usually considered more reliable than one written down years after the event.²

These five criteria are based on common sense and are already applied in our everyday lives. For example, if a participants in a car accident admits in their testimony that they were drunk while driving, this increases the credibility of their account, as people are unlikely to invent details that undermine their position. We will apply these criteria to establish the facts about what happened with the historical Jesus.

B. How inference to the best explanation works

Having established the facts in the first place, historians can move to the second step and ask what best explains all these facts. This is where various alternative hypotheses come into play, attempting to tie all the available data together. To evaluate which hypothesis is the most plausible, historians use a second tool, which is called inference to the best explanation.

When determining the best explanation for the facts, historians also rely on common-sense criteria that we intuitively apply in our daily lives. For instance, we don’t try to explain a crime by invoking ten perpetrators if the data can be equally well explained by one. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig summarizes the main criteria historians use as follows:

1. The best explanation will have greater explanatory scope than other explanations. That is, it can account for more phenomena—it explains more of what we see.

2. The best explanation will have greater explanatory power than other explanations. That is, the theory makes what we see more likely—it fits the evidence better.

3. The best explanation will be more plausible than other explanations. That is, it will fit better with true background beliefs (what we already know about the world and the beliefs of people at the time the event occurred).

4. The best explanation will be less contrived than other explanations. That is, it will not require as many ad hoc hypotheses. (We will not need to accept additional ideas to justify our hypothesis.)

5. The best explanation will be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than other explanations. That is, it won’t conflict with as many accepted beliefs.

6. The best explanation will meet conditions 1–5 so much better than the others that there’s little chance that one of the other explanations will do better in meeting these conditions.³

I will demonstrate how it works in practice when analyzing various alternative explanations for the resurrection. Having understood how history works, we can now turn directly to the Easter events. Let’s begin by establishing the facts.

III. Why did anyone believe in the resurrection at all? (What facts do we have)  

So, what facts can be established using the historical method?

A. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion

This is an undeniable fact in New Testament biblical studies, because all our early sources confirm it. We have 4 biographies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John collected in the New Testament, along with various letters of the Apostle Paul. Paul also cites an extremely early source on the death and burial of Christ (an early oral confession of faith found in 1 Cor. 15:3-7), which most scholars date to within 5 years of Jesus’ crucifixion.⁴ Independent evidence for the death and burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea (member of the Sanhedrin) is also found in the extra-biblical sources such as the Gospel of Peter (apocryphal text), Josephus (Roman–Jewish historian) or Tacitus (Roman historian and politician). Thus we have a surprising number of independent sources about the death and burial of Jesus.⁵

Even skeptical New Testament scholars agree with the fact that Jesus died. John Dominic Crossan, a noted skeptic and also a member of the Jesus Seminar (a well-known group of skeptical biblical scholars), says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’s crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.”⁶ Skeptic Robert Miller (another member of the Jesus Seminar) remarks that “Jesus’s death by crucifixion  is as certain as anything in history can be”;⁷  Atheist Gerd Lüdemann writes, “Jesus’s death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable;”⁸ and Judaic scholar Pinchas Lapide notes that Jesus’s death by crucifixion is “historically certain.”⁹

B. The tomb was empty

The second fact, while not universally accepted by all scholars, is acknowledged by the vast majority due to compelling evidence in its favor. It would have been impossible for Christianity to originate in Jerusalem if Jesus’s body had still been in the tomb. His enemies from the Jewish religious leadership or Roman authorities could have simply retrieved the body and displayed it publicly, exposing any deception. Yet, there is not a single mention of this in Jewish, Roman, or any other texts. Moreover, among critics of Christianity, there is no attempt to use such an argument, even though they would have eagerly seized upon such evidence.

Furthermore, when we turn to the account of the empty tomb, women are presented as the primary witnesses. They are not only mentioned first but appear in all four Gospels, whereas men appear later and only in two of them. No one who wanted to be believed would make up a story that involved women as the first witnesses, because in both Jewish and Roman cultures, women were considered second-class citizens, and their testimonies were deemed dubious and less authoritative than those of men.¹⁰ This is not just speculation. Pagan thinkers of the time, like Celsus and Porphyry, tried to discredit the resurrection accounts precisely because the first witnesses were women. They attacked the women as “hysterical” and “of no account,” noting with disdain that one of them was even a prostitute (Mary Magdalene).¹¹

C. Very soon afterwards, a number of people had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus

This fact is almost unanimously recognized by scholars for several reasons.

1) The list of witnesses to the appearances of the risen Jesus, which Paul provides in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, confirms that such appearances indeed took place. Since ancient times lacked modern means of recording and transmitting information, and most people were illiterate, people typically relied on oral tradition for learning and passing on information to others. New Testament scholars note several instances of this oral tradition in the New Testament, such as confessions of faith, hymns, poetry, and so on. It is important to understand that this oral tradition must have existed before the New Testament texts were written, allowing the New Testament authors to incorporate it. Thus, we have the teachings of the earliest Christians, which predate the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is one of the earliest and most significant oral confessions used for teaching, memorization, and proclaiming the faith. It is a kind of formula that was easy to remember and pass on to others. It reads: “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.” The epistle itself was written around 55 AD, and Paul received this formula even earlier, likely from the disciples Peter and James during a visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion.¹² If so, Paul learned it within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion—and from the disciples themselves. Thus we have a source dated less than two decades after the event of Jesus’ resurrection, originating from the first disciples.¹³

And what does Paul say in verse 6 of the same chapter? He mentions five hundred witnesses who also saw Christ. Historically, it is highly unlikely that Paul simply invented the list of witnesses. Why? First, the readers of the epistle had the opportunity to verify whether these witnesses actually existed.

Second, the Corinthians themselves (the readers of the epistle) knew at least some—if not all—of the other “witnesses” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul states in verse 11: “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed,” referring to the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Christ (v. 3-8). In essence, Paul is saying: “I am telling you the same thing that, as you know, others have said: they claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.”¹⁴

Third, Paul took personal responsibility for the message he transmitted and cared about his reputation among the Corinthians. Any doubts about the truthfulness of his words would have cost him dearly. He would not have invented a list of supposed witnesses or circulated someone else’s list if he were not confident in its authenticity.¹⁵ Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends.¹⁶

2) The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. Historians consider sources to be independent if they were written without relying on each other. This can be determined by comparing writing styles or comparing how stories are described in different texts.¹⁷

This criterion clearly applies to the events of the appearance of Christ.For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”¹⁸

3) Despite all odds, the first disciples were firmly convinced of His resurrection. The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion:

(1) Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations were that the Messiah would be a triumphant, victorious figure who would deliver Israel from its enemies, restore the Davidic kingdom, and establish God’s rule on earth. Jesus did not fulfill these expectations, because instead of conquering Israel’s foes and reigning as king, he was arrested, condemned, and executed in a shameful manner, which contradicted the image of a victorious Messiah.¹⁹

(2) Jewish beliefs about the afterlife held that the general resurrection of the dead would occur only at the end of the world. No individual could rise to glory or immortality before that final resurrection. Jesus did not fulfill these beliefs, because according to Christian claims, he rose from the dead prior to the general resurrection, attaining glory and immortality, something that was completely outside the framework of traditional Jewish eschatology.²⁰

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. Such conviction demonstrates that they were not merely claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them for some personal gain. Neither Christian nor secular history contains any evidence to suggest the disciples’ testimony about Jesus was motivated by financial gain, sexual relationships, or the pursuit of power. In fact, their situation in these three areas only worsened because of their faith—they were persecuted and rejected, and Jesus’ high ethical standards rule out sexual immorality. So they genuinely believed it. Compare this boldness with their behavior during Jesus’ arrest and execution: they denied Him, abandoned Him, and then hid in fear. Yet later, they willingly put themselves in danger, publicly proclaiming the risen Christ. These facts are supported by numerous testimonies—both from early New Testament sources and from extra-biblical ones—which confirm that the disciples were willing to risk and even sacrifice everything for their faith in Christ.

Speaking of the New Testament, it is filled with such testimonies. In the Book of Acts, we see the martyrdom of Stephen, one of the first deacons of the early church (Acts 7:58–60), and the apostle James (Acts 12:2). Jesus Himself taught His followers that they would face suffering (Matt. 10:16–18). Suffering is a central theme in Paul’s epistles and throughout the rest of the New Testament (e.g., Phil. 1:29–30; Rev. 6:9).

Regarding extra-biblical evidence, Tacitus informs us that during Nero’s time, there were state-sponsored persecutions of Christians.²¹ While we lack definitive evidence about the fate of every apostle, we do have early testimonies about the deaths of some key early Christian figures (namely, the apostles Peter, Paul, James, and James, the brother of the Lord).²² Polycarp (Christian bishop of Smyrna, AD 69 – 155), referencing Paul and other apostles, states that they are “with the Lord, with whom they also suffered in the place which they have deserved.”²³

But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”²⁴

So, we have every reason to accept the sincerity of the faith of Christ’s first disciples. Every historian must explain the unexpected rise of the Christian church, and Christ’s resurrection perfectly explains this fact.

In summary, we have sources that meet historical criteria: they are early (written within the first and second generations after the events), multiple attested, traceable to eyewitnesses, supported by hostile confirmation (Paul and James, the Lord’s brother, because they were initially opposed to the Christian message), and contain embarrassing details that no one would invent (for example, Peter’s denial of Christ, which casts the church’s first leader in a bad light).

And we have three facts established purely on historical grounds: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) The tomb was empty; (3) Very soon afterwards, a number of people had experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.

Since these key historical facts are established through critical historical methods, skeptics cannot simply dismiss them by pointing to “contradictions” in the New Testament texts or its supposed “unreliability,” “legendary nature,” or other similar accusations. This is because we have concluded that the case for the resurrection can be argued historically—even based on a minimal set of accepted facts.

Having established what we know about those Easter events, we can now move to our second step: what is the best explanation for these facts?

IV. Why do some people not believe in the resurrection? (Analysis of alternative hypotheses)

So, having established the historical facts, we must now find the best explanation. I maintain that the best explanation for these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. This is the explanation that the eyewitnesses themselves expressed, and no other explanation comes close to accounting for the evidence. Of course, throughout history various alternative naturalistic explanations for the resurrection have been proposed. So let’s briefly review each of the main naturalistic hypotheses.

A. Legend Hypotheses

Could Jesus’s resurrection be nothing more than a late legend? As shown earlier, even skeptical scholars accept the facts of the existence, death, and certain experiences of appearances of the risen Christ by the first disciples. The New Testament stands up to historical criteria. Agnostic atheist, Bart Ehrman, writes: “It is indisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and something had to have happened to make them think so.”²⁵

 So, this hypothesis fails to explain any of the established facts and can confidently be rejected. It fails to meet the criteria of at least explanatory scope, explanatory power, and plausibility.

B. Conspiracy Hypothesis

Could the disciples have simply conspired, stolen the body, and then proclaimed the resurrection of Christ? This hypothesis cannot explain the sincere faith of the first disciples. No groups of people would be willing to sacrifice everything for what they knew is false and be sent to hell by God for being false witnesses. (Since the first disciples were Jews, they believed in the afterlife.) Moreover, while successful conspiracies do occur, they typically involve a small, tightly-knit group, operating in close contact over a short period, and without significant external pressure. The situation of the disciples was entirely different. These men and women were either involved in the greatest conspiracy of all time or were genuine eyewitnesses reporting events as they actually occurred.²⁶ Again, it fails to meet the criteria of at least explanatory power, and plausibility.

C. Hallucination Hypothesis

Is it plausible that the disciples simply experienced hallucinations? This hypothesis also faces a number of powerful objections. It is highly implausible that multiple people could simultaneously perceive the same thing if nothing corresponding existed outside their minds (since hallucinations are like dreams, they are an individual, non-transferable phenomenon).²⁷ Yet in the case of Jesus’ resurrection, three different groups (the women at the tomb, the apostles, a large group of over five hundred people) reported seeing him in different circumstances over a short period. Hallucinations provide little help here: studies show that most subjects of hallucinations are able to achieve insight that the experience is hallucinatory after the experience ended. For example, there was a study done  in which individuals were instructed to put on earphones and told “we are going to play the song White Christmas.” Some of them thought they heard White Christmas individually, but afterward, quite a number of them were able to realize that they didn’t hear anything. Indeed, among the 49% who had individual hallucinations, the majority (44%) were aware that the recording was not played. In other words, among those who initially thought they heard something, they were soon able to tell upon further reflection that they didn’t actually hear anything.²⁸

Moreover, people in the first century were well aware of hallucinations and commonly believed in ghosts and visions. As New Testament scholar N. T. Wright notes, “ancient literature—Jewish and pagan alike—is full of such things”.²⁹ (This means that disciples would most likely think that they saw this particular phenomenon, rather than a bodily resurrection.) Even if we imagine multiple collective hallucinations, each person would perceive vastly different details due to the intra-mental nature of such experiences. The disciples, therefore, would have readily identified these experiences as hallucinatory rather than believing they had seen Jesus’ resurrected body.

Thus, this hypothesis is refuted by the criteria of explanatory power, plausibility, and being disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.

D. Mistaken Identity Hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, the disciples simply confused Jesus with someone else, most likely His twin brother, whom they did not know. This idea is also highly problematic. It is implausible that the disciples—as well as James, his physical brother— who had spent at least a few years with Jesus and who were therefore familiar with his speech and behavior could have mistaken another person for him in a variety of circumstances.³⁰ If you have ever met families with twins, you know that parents or their relatives can tell them apart. Disciples could do the same. So, this hypothesis is refuted by the criteria of explanatory power and plausibility. Moreover, this idea is just ad hoc.

E. Escape Hypothesis

Another hypothesis is that Jesus was not on the cross at all, and someone else died in his place. Is this reasonable? It is highly improbable. The crucifixion was a public event and Jesus was a public figure. It is unlikely that all the enemies of Jesus, the disciples who knew Jesus intimately, as well as members of the public failed to recognize that it was not Jesus who was crucified.³¹ Thus, this hypothesis fails at least on the criterion of plausibility.

F. Swoon Hypothesis

Another hypothesis is that Jesus could have survived on the cross, then simply escaped from the tomb and appeared to His disciples. How realistic is this explanation? It is refuted by both medical facts and common sense. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, described crucifixion as “the most wretched of deaths,” and Paulus, a Roman Jurist, called it the “most severe punishment.”³² Crucifixion was the extreme penalty (according to Tacitus),³³ making it highly unreasonable to think that Jesus could have survived by natural means. Even if he had somehow survived, he would have been half-dead, still suffering from severe wounds. A severely injured, half-dead Jesus would not have been capable of convincing the disciples that he was the risen Lord of life.³⁴ Consequently, it also fails on the criteria of explanatory power, plausibility, and being disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.

V. Conclusion

Thus, our analysis of the historical facts and alternative hypotheses has shown that naturalistic explanations for the resurrection of Jesus fail for historical, philosophical, and scientific reasons.

Based on standard criteria of the historical method (such as multiple independent sources, hostile sources, embarrassing facts, and eyewitness testimony) we have demonstrated the truth of three facts: (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) the tomb was empty; and (3) very soon afterwards, a number of people had experiences they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus.

In the second stage, we analyzed all major naturalistic hypotheses (such as Legend, Conspiracy, Hallucination, Mistaken Identity, Escape, and the Swoon Hypothesis) and found that each faces insurmountable objections and fails to meet the criteria for the best explanation, such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, being less ad hoc, and being disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.

Thus, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is indeed the best explanation of the historical facts, which means that believing in the resurrection is reasonable.

Finally, in closing, I would just like to mention another way to know the resurrection, the experiential approach. You see, if Christ truly rose from the dead, as the evidence suggests, then that means Jesus is not just some ancient figure in history or a picture on stained glass. This means that He is alive today and can be known through experience. For me, Christianity ceased to be just a religion or rules of life when I gave my life to Christ and experienced spiritual rebirth in my own life. For me, God became a living reality. As a teenager who suffered from severe depression and contemplated suicide, I decided to explore the evidence for Christianity. Thus began my research into the resurrection of Christ. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, and therefore He could change my life. This is exactly what happened, which is why I am sharing these testimony with you today. And I will just tell you that if you are looking for a meaning, a purpose in life, then look not only at the historical evidence, but also take the New Testament and begin to read it, asking yourself if it can be true. God is able to shed light on this matter in a much more real way than I can.

---

Notes

[1] Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2008), chap. 16.

[2] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 40.

[3] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 244-245.

[4] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2017), 362.

[5] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 303-318.

[6] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1991), 375.

[7] Bernard Brandon Scott, ed. Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008), 14.

[8] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2004), 50.

[9] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, trans. Wilhelm Linss (London: SPCK, 1983), 32.

[10] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 69-74.

[11] Porphyry, Against the Christians: Fragments, §64, and Macarius, Apocriticus II: 14, quoted in Nancy R. Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Can Save Men from Themselves (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2023), chap. 7.

[12] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 227.

[13] Gary R. Habermas, Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO.: College Press, 1996), 152-157.

[14] Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 46-65.

[15] Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2003), 74.

[16] William Lane Craig, “Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis,” Reasonable Faith, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns-hallucination-hypo.

[17] Bart D. Ehrman and Hugo Méndez, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024), 250.

[18] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, KO.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 80.

[19] James W. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975), 132.

[20] William Lane Craig, “Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis,” Reasonable Faith, accessed September 26, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns-hallucination-hypo.

[21] See Herbert W. Benario, “The Annals,” in A Companion to Tacitus, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, ed. Victoria Emma Pagán (Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 114–15.

[22] See Sean McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2024).

[23] Saint Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 9:1–2, see Apostolic Fathers, The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh. Vol. 1 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969), 140.

[24] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996), 136.

[25] Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 183-84.

[26] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Updated & Expanded Edition) (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2023), chap 7.

[27] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 508-510.

[28] Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 105.

[29] N.T. Wright, “A Dialogue on Jesus with N.T. Wright.” in There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Anthony Flew and Roy Varghese (eds.) (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 210-211.

[30] Andrew Loke, Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (London: Routledge, 2020), 112-117.

[31] Although this is not a naturalistic explanation, Muslims or representatives of other religious movements might say that it was a divine miracle, so that he misled everyone present. However, this is an ad hoc hypothesis for which there are no facts. Worse, it makes God a liar who is responsible for the emergence of a large-scale hoax.

[32] Brant Pitre, “Crucifixion: The Cruelty of the Cross,” Catholic Productions, accessed October 11, 2025, https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/crucifixion-the-cruelty-of-the-cross. 

[33] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 305.

[34] David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus (London: Green and Sons, 1879), 412.

Bibliography

Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh. Vol. 1 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969.

Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2008.

Benario, Herbert W. “The Annals.” In A Companion to Tacitus, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World, edited by Victoria Emma Pagán, 127–140. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010.

———. Reasonable Faith. 3rd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2017.

———. Reasonable Faith. “Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis.” Accessed September 26, 2025. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns-hallucination-hypo.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit. London: SCM, 1975.

Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. New York: HarperOne, 2014.

Ehrman, Bart D., and Hugo Méndez. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2024.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Habermas, Gary R., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald Tacelli. Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010.

Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach. London: Routledge, 2020.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2004.

———. What Really Happened to Jesus? Translated by John Bowden. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Lapide, Pinchas. The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Translated by Wilhelm Linss. London: SPCK, 1983.

McDowell, Sean. The Fate of the Apostles. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2024.

Pearcey, Nancy R. The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Can Save Men from Themselves. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2023.

Pitre, Brant. Catholic Productions. “Crucifixion: The Cruelty of the Cross.” Accessed October 11, 2025. https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/crucifixion-the-cruelty-of-the-cross.

Scott, Bernard Brandon, ed. Finding the Historical Jesus: Rules of Evidence. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008.

Strauss, David. A New Life of Jesus. London: Green and Sons, 1879.

Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity (Updated & Expanded Edition): A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2023.

Wright, N. T. “A Dialogue on Jesus with N.T. Wright.” In There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, edited by Anthony Flew and Roy Varghese, 209–223. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.