The Invisible Things

Articles in Apologetics

Archive for the ‘Empty Tomb’ Category

The Tomb and The Question

with 10 comments

Consider this perhaps familiar scenario: A controversial theory is made that challenges the core beliefs of a faith rooted in history, embedded in an attractive, popular and entertainment-oriented format which masquerades as scholarship…

Like the cultural fallout of the The DaVinci Code, James Cameron’s documentary, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” makes strident claims about the central figure of Christianity, Jesus himself, yet takes them even further than even Dan Brown. The substance of the claims of the documentary is that an opulent tomb containing 10 ossuaries, 6 of which are inscribed with Biblically familiar names, actually contains the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family- including his wife, Mary Magdalene (or in this case, “Mary, the Master”) and their child, Judah! No doubt the discussion will be passionate, and perhaps last as long as the post-DaVinci Code activity did. However, central to any discussion will likely be the same question: Who was Jesus?

I have already seen numerous opinions written in the last several days that in response to the discovery of the so-called “Jesus Tomb,” Christians should do the reasonable thing and accept the facts, “Jesus’ bones have been found. He was not bodily resurrected. He is dead. You’ve been duped! But, I suppose you can still be a Christian. After all, Jesus is more powerful as an idea rather than a person. Ideas change people. That’s all we have!” I must strongly disagree. If it were to be proven somehow that these remains are in fact those of Jesus and his family, and that he was not resurrected, the reasonable response would not be to adapt the Christian faith and reconstruct its theology to fit the predicament and worship a symbol. The reasonable response would be to abandon the Christian faith altogether (what this would mean for theism is another argument). The apostle Paul spoke to this idea when he wrote in his first letter to the church of Corinth, “and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”

Ultimately, faith cannot be in a symbol. Symbols are interpreted in light of many things, often subjective in nature. They can mean vastly different things to different people. Yet, the Christian faith and its understanding of who Jesus was has always been based upon specific events in history and the people involved in those events. The primary meaning of these events is not subjective, but the foundation upon which Christian theology is understood. The meaning and power of these events and people have no value if they are not true! There are many beautiful stories that were never intended to be anything other than fiction, and though their ideas and symbols have persevered through the generations, placing faith in them in the way Christians do in Jesus Christ, would be absurd.

In the same way, no man, no matter how wise a teacher or influential a revolutionary, aught to be the object of faith or worship; for so long as he is a man, he can reach no further or do no more than those who may mistakenly place their faith in him. The man who accepts worship and acts as if he were God without having a shred of divinity is, as famously put by C.S. Lewis, either a lunatic or a liar, neither of which is worthy of worship. But, if He truly is Lord, then worship Him we must!

While we have little reason to think that this particular find bears any threat to the truths of the Christian faith, we must not entertain any notion of diluting it simply to avoid the challenges we are sure to face. We must consider it yet another opportunity to respond to the question that Jesus asked of His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?”

Initial Impressions of the “Jesus Tomb” discovered in Talpiot, Jerusalem

with 16 comments

A tomb discovered in Jerusalem has been the subject of much media attention in recent days. A Time Magazine blog entry, entitled “Jesus: Tales from the Crypt” ( has been heavily viewed, as has the Discovery Channel interactive site that details much of the information known about the tomb (

Though the tomb and its contents (10 ossuaries, 6 of which have inscriptions, as well as 3 unidentified skulls) have not yet been evaluated to the satisfaction of most interested parties, enough information has been gathered so far as to merit discussion. My initial impression is that much of the alleged evidence that has been interpreted as proof that the tomb discovered in 1980 was indeed that of the Biblical Jesus and his family is gaining such widespread attention now based upon an excellent and intentional public relations effort and hype rather than its own validity. However, I will be paying close attention to this story as it develops further.

Most of the information that will be revealed at the coming press conference and Discovery Channel documentary produced by Hollywood director James Cameron is known at this point. I have detailed below what I think are several strong points of contention.

The Family

It should be wondered whether a humble Galilean family would have been able to afford what is obviously an opulent and grand tomb for its time, or whether they would have located that tomb in Jerusalem rather than their own home. Though tradition recounts that James, the brother of Jesus, came to believe in Jesus as messiah and lead what became the early church in Jerusalem, it is also known that he was stoned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin in approximately AD 62. This is an important fact because the nature of his death would lead many historians to conclude that his subsequent burial would not have been likely to be honorable. Additionally, James’ presence in Jerusalem may lead some to conclude that the rest of his family was there as well, though there really is no conclusive evidence to suggest this.

The Inscriptions

Six of the ten ossuaries in the tomb have inscriptions. They are: “Maria,” the Latin form of Mary, inscribed on the side of the ossuary in Hebrew script; “Matia,” inscribed in Hebrew script; “Yose,” the diminutive of “Yosef,” inscribed in Hebrew script; “Yeshua bar Yosef,” translated “Jesus, son of Joseph,” inscribed in Aramaic lettering; “Mariamene e Mara,” so far translated as “Mary, known as master,” inscribed in Greek lettering; and “Yehuda bar Yeshua,” translated “Judah, son of Jesus,” inscribed in Aramaic lettering on a more decorated façade.

Though the collection of names bears striking resemblance to what we know are names of Jesus’ family, it should be said at the outset that these names were extremely common at that time. Additionally, there are some names from Jesus’ family that are missing from the tomb and some heretofore unknown names present. Joseph, the father of Jesus, does not seem to be present among the ossuaries, unless of course, his is one of the uninscribed. The ossuary inscribed “Yose” is unlikely to be that of the patriarch given that Yose would have been nicknamed this because of his father’s name. The ossuary inscribed “Matia” is puzzling given that the name Matthew has been associated with Jesus because of his disciple, Levi, though not with a member of his immediate family. “Matthan,” a name similar to Matthew, is listed among the genealogy of the Gospel of Matthew as the grandfather of Joseph. It seems doubtful that the two are related as the names themselves are different and the presence of Joseph’s grandfather in the tomb would only further raise the question of Joseph’s absence, as well as why the grandfather’s ossuary would be inscribed but Joseph’s presumably not.

The presence of the ossuary inscribed “Yose” strengthens the circumstantial case, as the name has been listed in the Gospel accounts as being a brother of Jesus. However, there is no other evidence to confirm that this ossuary belonged to the brother of the ossuary inscribed “Yeshua bar Yosef.”

The inscription “Mariamene e mara” is of high interest, especially to those who would like to make a case for the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene. The inscription has been translated “Mary, known as master,” which is strange indeed as it is unlikely that such a description would be given to a woman of that time, no less strange given that her presumed “mastery” bears reference to Jesus himself, yet the ossuary inscribed “Yeshua bar Yosef,” has no other description or title associated with it. If these are indeed the ossuaries of the Biblical figures, why would Mary have such a title and Jesus not? However, it is also possible, if not likely, that the inscription “Mariamene e mara,” could be translated as the diminutive form of “Mariam,” or “Maria.” In any case, none of these translations bear a direct or confirmed link to Mary Magdalene, nor do they really indicate a relationship between the owners of the “Mariamene e mara” ossuary and the “Yeshua bar Yosef” ossuary.

The other ossuary bearing an inscription reads “Yehuda bar Yeshua,” or “Judah, son of Jesus.” There is really no strong evidence to suggest that the Biblical Jesus had a son, nor that he was married (I have discussed this previously here: However, the presence of this inscribed ossuary in a tomb among other common yet Biblically familiar names in no way merits the reinterpretations of Biblical passages widely interpreted to be referring to the disciple John as actually referring to a child- possibly the child of Jesus. Without any additional historical evidence that Jesus had a son, the presence of the Judah ossuary seems to be a strike against the case, not for it.

The Discovery channel site seems to imply that an ossuary inscribed with “Yaakov bar Yosef a khui d’ Yeshua,” or “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” in Aramaic, is present along with the others. This is not the case, and is frankly misleading on the part of Discovery. Indeed, an ossuary with this inscription has been found and has been the subject of much discussion given its inscription. Much of the controversy surrounding this ossuary is due to the dismissal of the last part of the inscription, “brother of Jesus,” which some scholars have claimed was added as a forgery to bolster the value of the artifact. Incidentally, the owner of the ossuary, Oded Golan, testified in 2004 that it had been in his possession for over 25 years, and prior to that had been owned by someone else. This means that the James ossuary must have been discovered at least several years prior to the discovery of the intact Talpiot tomb, leading to the conclusion that it was never among the ten ossuaries found there.

Lastly, it seems to me that the linguistic variety of the ossuary inscriptions do not necessarily imply any kind of special status. It seems that the inscription of the “Maria” ossuary is being singled out due to the fact that Maria is the Latin form of Mary. Yet, what of the “Mariamene e mara,” “Yeshua bar Yosef,” and “Yehuda bar Yeshua” ossuaries, which are also inscribed in languages other than Hebrew script? This means that four of the six inscribed ossuaries are not in Hebrew script. Perhaps, then, the Hebrew inscribed ossuaries are the special ones? The statistical evidence, which has been put forth to conclude that the chances that this tomb is not that of Jesus’ family are 600:1 is also quite misleading. It assumes that the “Mariamene e mara” inscription identifies Mary Magdalene. It also does not weigh the presence of the names not associated with Jesus’ family against it, nor does it take in to consideration the presence of unmarked ossuaries. While the collection of names is intriguing, 600:1 in favor of this tomb being that of Jesus’ family seems almost absurd.

The DNA Evidence
According to information released about the tomb, useable tissue samples were only able to be extracted from the ossuaries inscribed “Mariamene e mara” and “Yeshua bar Yosef.” (Jewish law prohibits the bones from being disturbed, so testing has been limited to organic tissue residue found in the ossuaries.) Testing has so far concluded that the occupants of the two ossuaries could not have been maternally related. However, this is a far cry from establishing that the two were married! Though it seems obvious, it should be noted that without an authentic sample of DNA from either the person him/herself or a proven descendant, it is impossible to use DNA sampling to establish the identity of a person. Thus, without an existing sample of DNA from the Biblical Jesus, or a sample from a proven descendant of the Biblical Jesus, no DNA evidence will prove that this ossuary belonged to him.

Historical Considerations
While the information collected from this tomb might seem to build a convincing case for it being that of the Biblical family, it must be considered along side of all the other information we do know about the family and the circumstances of the early church. The historical validity of the New Testament documents provides ample information about the followers of Jesus, as do the writings of early church fathers and Josephus. Taken as a body of evidence, they certainly suggest that something significant happened to alter the behavior of the disciples and to propel the Christian movement into what it is today. I have written about this previously here: and here:

It seems valid at this point to conclude that the evidence that has been released so far is not strong enough to build a case for the Talpiot tomb having belonged to the family of the Biblical Jesus. Indeed, even Amos Kloner, the Bar-Ilan University professor and archaeologist who lead the excavation and subsequent analysis, has been quoted recently, dismissing the hype by saying “It makes a great story for a TV film, but it’s impossible. It’s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Related Issues:

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 1 (The Pos-Mortem Appearances)

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 2 (The Empty Tomb)

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 3 (The Origin and Perseverance of the Church)

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 4 (Addressing Alternative Explanations)

Related Articles (offsite):

The Discovery Channel interactive site on the “Lost Tomb of Jesus”

The Discovery Channel sponsored “Lost Tomb of Jesus” discussion board

CNN Article posted after the televised press conference:

Ben Witherington’s take on the Talpiot tomb:

Ben Witherington’s second take on the Talpiot tomb:

David Kuo’s take on the Talpiot tomb:

A fair take on some of the scholarly objections on,8599,1593893,00.html?cnn=yes

Update (03/06/2007):

An interesting commentary on the symbols found in the tomb, by Pastor David Janssen (new):

Craig Blomberg’s article on the Talpiot Tomb (new):

Brief Comments on the Recent Craig-Ehrman Debate

with 16 comments

On March 28, 2006, the College of the Holy Cross sponsored a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, titled "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" Since I was not able to actually attend this much-anticipated event, I have been able to review the transcript of the proceedings, which can be found here. Normally, I wouldn't endeavor to analyze or throw my 'two cents' in after the fact, but the debate raised several issues that are particularly germane to philosophical and historical apologetics and which I think merit some attention. I won't necessarily be defending the historical resurrection in this article as previous ones have made clear my position on this matter. However, I would like to examine some philosophical ideas related to the discussion that often cause damage to a debate such as this one.

Aside from a rather unfortunate and embarassing introduction from the moderator, which recounts a medieval debate between a Jewish Rabbi and a Christian Monk over whether Jesus was the messiah and seems to suggest that the resulting bedlam is characteristic of Christian 'sore losers,' both Craig and Ehrman seem to have conducted themselves in gentlemanly and scholarly fashion.

Dr. William Lane Craig, representing the affirmative position, is a Christian philosopher by profession, though it should be noted that he has advanced degrees in theology and philosophy and his apologetic work tends to focus on issues relevant to the cosmological argument for the existence of God and the historical resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, representing the negative position, is a Biblical historian and textual critic with a doctorate in theology who has been in the limelight recently after the publication of his latest book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, which discusses the transmission of the Biblical texts and how they were changed over time. In summary, Dr. Craig defended his position that there is, in fact, historical evidence in light of which the resurrection of Jesus is a probable event. He began with what is a classic approach of his, what I will call the 'Four Facts' argument, which propose that there are four facts which must be adequately explained: 1. the burial of Jesus, 2. the discovery of his empty tomb, 3. the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and 4. the origin of the disciples belief in the resurrection. On the basis of his argument, he concludes that the best explanation of the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. On the other hand, Dr. Ehrman argued that history is methodologically limited to dealing with information that can be verified through reliable sources and suggests only natural events. It is on the basis of this assertion that Ehrman declares such an event as the resurrection of Jesus non-historical, and therefore not germane to any discussion he would conduct.

This particular methodology, which Ehrman claims carries no bias toward theological issues, does not allow for a historical presence of the supernatural. Thus, the logical conclusion is that supernatural actions of God in history, are by nature non-historical. However, this just seems somewhat difficult to defend. If one were to grant the existence of God, not even necessarily a personal one such as Christianity posits, the declaration that God would not act in history is completely arbitrary on the part of the human being. Without a direct communication from God affirming this point, one really has no basis to assume it. However, one does have, again assuming theism, a precedent upon which to expect God to act in history- namely the creation of the universe itself, which must be a historical event though no one was there to write it down or snap a photo as it was happening. Yet, since even the ‘natural’ was created at that point, the act itself must have been supernatural. In any case, suffice it to say that I believe Ehrman’s position on the matter to be a bit of a stretch of the credulity of any philosopher. He may be playing by the rules of historians, but that says nothing of whether a supernatural event actually occurred.

In response to the classic 'four facts' argument put forth by Craig, Ehrman suggests a couple of alternative explanations, which, while he does not subscribe to them personally, he argues are more probable explanations than that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. For example, one he suggested first was that after Jesus' death by crucifixion, He was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. However, His family, motive unknown but preferring to have the final say in where Jesus was buried, broke into the tomb at night and removed the body. While transporting it, they encountered some Roman guards who summarily put them to death and cast all the bodies in an unmarked mass grave. Later, the disciples would obviously find the original tomb empty and legend would flourish.

While this explanation is rife with problems, the more important issue at play is, again, the arbitrariness with which it is assembled. The issue here is to find an explanation which satisfactorily deals with all the information available. In other words, and often stated by Craig, such an explanation must have appropriate explanatory scope and power in order to be the most probable and suitable to settle upon. Ehrman's suggestion not only fails in this regard, but it is absurdly ad hoc and ends up not satisfying the actual evidence but creating a list of other points to ground it that are either entirely contrived or at best speculative. For instance, his explanation follows the Gospel narrative in general but inserts an event previously unknown to account for the empty tomb. Not only is this event completely contrived, but it presents a new problem that the explanation does not itself solve. Specifically, had the relatives of Jesus (presumably Mary, and/or his brothers) attempted to move the body and been killed in the process, surely there would be some mention of their absence or at least an explanation of their deaths. In fact, history shows that at least James and Jude could not have been involved in this plot (assuming the authorship of the epistles of James and Jude are not spurious).

Craig, of course, continually returns to his 'four facts' argument and reminds the attending audience that they have not been adequately refuted. Given Ehrman’s inability to diffuse the ‘four facts’ argument, it seems that the issue of the debate sadly came down to one of professional methodology. On the one hand, we have a philosopher, adhering to the laws of logic and the fundamental notion of following the evidence where it leads, while on the other a historian willing to play by rules that satisfy operating in a bubble but seem almost absurd when exposed to the scrutiny of common sense. Needless to say, I was disappointed by this debate. Had the format of the proceedings themselves allowed, the scholars might have had opportunity to unpack the issues of historical and philosophical methodology in a depth necessary for really coming to any worthwhile determinations on the matter. While I find the ‘four facts’ argument to be strongly persuasive, it is only because I am also persuaded that historical methodology must allow for any event, including the miraculous, to occur. What would make for an interesting sequel to this debate would be to have the scholars return to discuss this issue in particular and then perhaps readdress the conclusions in regard to Jesus.

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 2 (The Empty Tomb)

with one comment

The second piece of evidence that establishes the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is the fact of the discovery of his empty tomb in the days after his crucifixion.

According to the details of the four Gospels, the tomb where Jesus had been interred, the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a Pharisee and secret supporter of Jesus, was empty upon the arrival of several of his female followers. The details are quite consistent: That on the third day after Jesus’ burial, Mary Magdelene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (among possibly other unnamed companions), traveled to the sealed tomb to anoint his body with oil. Upon arrival, they found the tomb open and Jesus’s body gone, and were instructed by an angel to alert the apostles. I would like to examine several aspects of this account, which I believe reinforce its credibility and accuracy.

It is unlikely that the Jewish disciples, though they had followed and believed Jesus, would have conceived of a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, as many skeptics assert. Rather, the Jewish tradition regarding the resurrection was undeniably physical, as they meticulously preserved the bones of the dead to await the general resurrection at the final judgment. Because of this bodily focus, the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection would have required that his tomb be empty. Moreover, the earliest Jewish polemic in response to the alleged resurrection of Jesus was that the disciples had stolen his body! Their own response also required that the tomb be empty. The followers of Jesus, Jewish and Roman authorities alike, and many others would have known the location of Jesus’ burial, as the tomb was no secret and thus could have simply been checked out once believers were heard proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus. So, for the authoritative response to accuse the followers of Jesus of stealing the body implies not only that the body was not in the tomb, but that the authorities themselves had verified this fact!

Incidentally, the apostle Paul, who’s letters are known to be the earliest documents among the New Testament manuscripts, passes along the tradition of Jesus’ bodily resurrection with the phrase ‘He was raised.’ As I mentioned before, the resurrection was strictly in physical terms for a 1st century Jew, so to further allege that the teaching of a bodily resurrection was a later Pauline invention would simply be a sequential error as well as an anachronistic application of modern theology.

The Gospel of Mark, thought to be the earliest among the four Gospels, certainly bears literary characteristics that are unmistakable clues to its age. In fact, when Mark mentions the high priest Caiaphas, he does not by name, but actually writes ‘the high priest,’ as if there would be no confusion as to whom specifically he meant. Of course, we know from parallel accounts that Caiaphas was, in fact, the high priest during the time of Jesus. This suggests that Mark was writing during the term of Caiaphas himself, who held office from AD 18-37, putting the account within at most seven years of the crucifixion!

In addition, the telling of the discovery of the empty tomb is quite simple and unmarked by theological motifs characteristic of later legendary accounts found among the apocrypha. To emphasize this, I would like to compare the incident as written in Mark 16 with that of the apocryphal gospel of Peter:

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, `He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' "They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16)”

“But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' (The Gospel of Peter)”

By comparing the two accounts, it is clear that the later account is overridden with theological motifs, such as the empty cross, the voice from heaven, and the over-glorified portrayal of Jesus. In addition, it is quite convenient that the account makes note that Jewish elders happened to be present for this event, as if in expectation of it! These things would be quite expected of an account written hundreds of years after the fact and heavily influenced by Gnostic tradition, as was the Gospel of Peter. However, such things would not be expected in an account written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, as was Mark.

A key element of the account of Mark is the fact that it was Jesus’ female followers who first discovered the empty tomb and brought news of it back to the disciples. But at the time, Jewish social culture regarded women as second class citizens, and according to the historian Josephus, the testimony of women was considered worthless! In fact, a quote from Jewish rabbinic literature should illustrate this well: “Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women.” Considering these facts, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers would have reported the female discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb unless, despite its awkward and embarrassing nature, it was in fact the truth.

These points show the reliability of the account of the empty tomb so strongly, such that any accounts to the contrary are quite without merit. The details provided by Mark clearly show that the empty tomb was a recognized fact in the years immediately following the crucifixion, rather than a later theological invention. The absence of contrary accounts or explanations of these events, as well as the inclusion of details that might have hurt the disciples’ case at the time, such as the testimony of women, further emphasizes this.

The Historical Resurrection of Jesus, Part 1 (The Post-Mortem Appearances)

with 5 comments

I have spent a great deal of time discussing the evidence for general theism and considerably less time discussing the evidence for the divinity of Jesus and the historicity of the events described in the New Testament documents. Yet, it is a fact that orthodox Christianity is built upon a historical event, not creative theological thinking. The Apostle Paul defends this very point in his letter to the church in Corinth, that "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain (1 Corinthians 15:14)." In fact, the historical resurrection of Jesus is a necessity, as the orthodox Christian believes that Christ was the first demonstration of the power of God which they expect to work in their own lives on the day of judgment. As Paul writes, "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20)."

However, among the many areas of contention for skeptics regarding the claims of the New Testament, the resurrection is the most widely disputed. In the next several posts, I would like to examine three major areas of evidence for this event, and then briefly evaluate some of the alternative theories suggested by skeptics to account for the contemporary belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

The first piece of evidence is the series of post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his followers and others after his crucifixion and burial. If Jesus was, in fact, resurrected from the dead, the fact that he appeared to others would not only be likely, but necessarily for the idea to even exist today. The epistles of the apostle Paul, the earliest documents of the Christian church, provide some interesting details that bolster the case for the resurrection. In his letter to the Corinthian church, Paul writes, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." Here, Paul says that the information that he had taught them, specifically dealing with the appearances of Jesus after his burial, was passed to him as a pre-existing tradition or confession of the existing group of believers.

Later, Paul writes to the Galatian church and mentions the journey he took to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles James and Peter three years after his own conversion, where he received the appearances tradition. Now, based upon the generally attested date of AD 30 for Jesus' crucifixion, Paul's conversion can be placed roughly three years later. This means that the information regarding the appearances of Jesus was intact and widely known within two to three years of the crucifixion, and documented within seven! In fact, Paul's mentioning of the remaining portion of the five hundred witnesses almost invites skeptics to verify for themselves, as if to say, "feel free to ask them!" As an aside, it is interesting to recall that prior to his conversion, Paul exerted considerable authority as a Pharisee, and was actively persecuting Christians up until the very day of his encounter with the risen Christ. The book of the Acts of the Apostles (chapters seven and eight) even mentions Paul's presence at and "hearty agreement" with the stoning of the disciple Steven, who openly proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus. Implicit in Steven's preaching was the fact that Jesus was not only the expected Messiah, but resurrected to glory, of which he had been a witness.

The fact that the establishment of the Christian church with its core doctrines can be traced to roughly a couple of years of Jesus' death and burial implies the general agreement among the community of the truth that Jesus had been crucified, buried, and resurrected. While historians find plenty of data in agreement with this belief, even among secular sources, sources that provide voices of dissention providing details strong enough to debunk the belief are non-existent. In other words, that the body of believers so greatly proliferated in such a short time shows that there were few, if not none, who had any evidence with which to clarify a mistaken belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

Often quoted by New Testament scholar William Lane Craig, Gerd Lüdemann writes in What Really Happened to Jesus? "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."