Read Part 1 Here: Why the Resurrection Deserves Serious Examination

Among those who deny the resurrection, various naturalistic theories have been proposed. Most of these theories fall into one of four main categories.

1. Jesus did not really die. Perhaps he fainted or fell into a coma, which left him to appear dead, but he later revived in the tomb and escaped.
2. The disciples stole the body and knowingly fabricated the resurrection story.
3. The disciples hallucinated. Driven by grief, they experienced something that made them sincerely believe that Jesus had risen, though they were mistaken.
4. The resurrection story is simply a myth or legend that developed over time.

Initially, these theories may sound plausible, or at least plausible enough to avoid investigating if a real resurrection occurred. But when these alternative theories are examined even briefly, their plausibility quickly fades away. It’s also worth noting that these theories often contradict each other. Some require the disciples to be deliberate liars, while others require them to be sincere yet mistaken.

Ultimately, an explanation is only as good as its ability to account for all the facts. So for example, if a theory explains the empty tomb, but does not explain the resurrection appearances, it does not suffice. If a theory explains the resurrection appearances, but doesn’t explain how Roman soldiers, who were professional executioners, could allow a body to be buried before ensuring it was fully dead, or cannot explain how the stone could be rolled away from a closely guarded tomb, it would not suffice. Whatever explanation we accept, we must look for the theory that best explains all the evidence in the case.

Could the Disciples Have Fabricated the Story?

To begin with, we must ask: could a large group of people fabricate a story they all knew was false?

It’s difficult enough for a few individuals to maintain a lie about recent events. But could hundreds,? Across multiple cities? Is it plausible that they could successfully coordinate such a large-scale deception without being found out? Without one single dissenter confessing to the grand scheme? Are we really to believe that there would not have been at least a handful of grounded individuals who would have resisted this fabrication as a foolish plan?

But what if it wasn’t a grandly designed scheme, but rather a legend that slowly grew and developed over time? That doesn’t help us escape the difficult questions either. Are we really to believe that every disciple would adopt the embellished version of the story as genuine, even though it contradicted their own memories? Is it really plausible that no one (including the opponents of the Christian movement) would point out that the resurrection message was a newly invented development? That not a single person would mention that Christians had only recently begun telling this story, or that it conflicted with what they had previously believed?

What’s even more challenging is that the entire early Christian movement continued to proclaim the resurrection story even in the face of persecution and death. Can we really believe that not a single person would cave under this kind of pressure and expose the falsehood?

It doesn’t take long to spot the serious flaws in the suggestion that the Christians knowingly spread a deception. This suggestion introduces more problems than it solves. If the resurrection is to be rejected in favor of a naturalistic explanation, it is far more believable to argue that the vast majority of early Christians genuinely believed the resurrection was true, but were all deceived or confused. For the sake of argument then, could it be that they were sincere, but mistaken? Could it be that they themselves had been deceived?

Could the Disciples Have Been Sincere but Mistaken?

At first glance, this explanation may sound more plausible than the idea of a deliberate deception. Perhaps the disciples truly believed Jesus had risen. Perhaps some had experienced some grief-driven hallucinations, visions, or other physiological experiences rather than actually witnessing a resurrection. And perhaps the sincerity of these “witnesses” was enough to convince others that a resurrection had actually occurred, ultimately leading to a sincere yet mistaken movement of belief based upon this confusion.

Yet this theory also quickly falls upon careful reflection. Hallucinations are private experiences. They do not occur to groups of people at the same time. Yet the resurrection accounts describe Jesus appearing repeatedly to multiple individuals at once, and sometimes even to large groups.

Nor does the hallucination theory explain the empty tomb. Even if some disciples experienced hallucinations, hallucinations do not remove bodies from graves. Even if we accept the hallucination theory to explain some of the resurrection appearances, this theory must be supplemented by additional theories in order for it to explain all of the facts.

Why Didn’t the Opponents Shut it Down?

Even if we were accept one of that either the disciples knowingly fabricated a lie, or were themselves deceived, we are still left with an additional question. If the resurrection was false, why didn’t the early opponents of Christianity expose it?

The resurrection message did not spread in private. Christians did not claim that Jesus had risen in some distant land, among unknown people, or in an isolated setting, where the claim itself could not be investigated. They publicly proclaimed that the tomb was empty. They claimed that he had appeared to hundreds of individuals at one time. And they made these claims in the very city where Jesus was crucified, during a time when these events were still in recent memory.

These claims were made while eyewitnesses were still alive. The resurrection accounts also involved well known public figures, such as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish High Priest. They publicly tied their story to a precise burial location of Jesus, the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin.

If the resurrection was false, it would have been easy to disprove. If any of the facts surrounding the story were not accurate, witnesses would have spotted this. If Jesus was not really buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, someone with this knowledge of where he was really buried would have spoken up.

The opponents of Christianity would have easily demolished the early Christian movement by simply producing a body. If they could have done so, they surely would have. Yet no body was ever produced. Nor did the critics disprove even the basic details of the resurrection accounts.

Even if we were to find a way to explain why the resurrection was proclaimed by Jesus’s disciples, we would also have to explain why the early opponents of Christianity failed to expose it. If the claims were falsifiable, they would have been exposed.

The Deepest Problem with the Alternative Theories

Yet even these are not the deepest problem facing the alternative explanations for the resurrection. The biggest reason why these theories fail is this: There is very strong evidence for the resurrection, and none of these theories actually make sense of that evidence.

In the next articles in this series, we will be turning to this evidence, building a positive case for the resurrection. This case will draw from three main areas:

• Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, which is the earliest known source of the resurrection procuration
• The four Gospel accounts
• Observations about the shape and theology of early Christianity

When this evidence is examined without foregone conclusions about what is and isn’t possible, it makes a remarkably strong case for the resurrection. These are not the only pieces of evidence for the resurrection, but they are, in my opinion, the strongest.

Once these are examined, building a positive case for the resurrection, the central issue with the alternative theories should become clear – because none of the alternative theories offer a more compelling explanation of the facts.