Debunking the Historicity of the Resurrection: A Miracle Too Good to Be True

Ah, the resurrection of Jesus—Christianity’s pièce de résistance, the event that supposedly changed history, yet somehow didn’t leave a single contemporary eyewitness account. Despite being the cornerstone of Christian theology, this miraculous comeback crumbles under even the most basic historical scrutiny. As much as believers might wish it were true, professional historians operate under slightly different rules than Sunday school teachers—namely, they don’t accept supernatural explanations as historical facts. What a shame.

The "Inconvenience" of Miracles in History

Enter David Hume, the 18th-century philosopher who had the audacity to suggest that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume lays out the obvious: a miracle claim is only worth considering if its falsehood would be even more miraculous than the event itself. He eloquently states:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavors to establish. … When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle" (Hume 90).

In other words, if you hear that someone walked on water or rose from the dead, it's far more reasonable to assume that human error, exaggeration, or flat-out fabrication is at play. Applying Hume’s method, the resurrection claim is about as historically sound as Bigfoot sightings.

The Glaring Absence of Eyewitnesses

You’d think an event as earth-shattering as a dead man rising would have at least one reliable, contemporary eyewitness account. Nope. Instead, we get the Gospels, written decades later by anonymous authors who can’t seem to agree on basic details—like who found the empty tomb, how many angels were there, or what Jesus even looked like post-resurrection. Impressive consistency.

Even Paul, the earliest Christian writer, has nothing to offer beyond a vague list of supposed appearances (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), which conveniently lacks specifics. Rather than describing a glorious reanimated Jesus, Paul relies on a creedal tradition—aka, hearsay. If that counts as solid historical evidence, then we should also take UFO abduction stories at face value.

Scholars Who Didn’t Get the Memo

Shockingly, not all scholars are on board with the idea that the laws of physics were temporarily suspended in first-century Judea. Here are just a few who have expressed skepticism about the resurrection’s historicity:

• Bart D. Ehrman (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) – New Testament expert who reminds us that historians can’t verify miracles since they’re, well, miraculous (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God).
• Gerd Lüdemann (Ph.D., University of Göttingen) – Concludes that resurrection "appearances" were likely hallucinations rather than actual events (Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus). So, less “he is risen” and more “they were tripping.”
• John Dominic Crossan (Ph.D., Maynooth University) – Argues that the resurrection was a theological spin, not a historical event (Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). In other words, an ancient PR campaign.
• Maurice Casey (D.Litt., University of Oxford) – Points out that resurrection stories evolved over time, meaning we’re dealing with legendary development, not CNN-level reporting (Casey, Jesus of Nazareth).
• James D. Tabor (Ph.D., University of Chicago) – Suggests that the resurrection belief emerged long after Jesus was gone, because, well, of course it did (Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty).

Conclusion: Wishful Thinking Doesn't Make History

At the end of the day, the resurrection claim is a historical non-starter. No contemporary evidence, conflicting source material, and the small problem that dead people tend to stay dead. When you strip away the faith-based assumptions, all that’s left is a theological belief, not a historical fact. But hey, if believing in supernatural resurrections makes life more exciting, who are we to argue? Just don’t expect historians to treat it as anything other than an ancient ghost story.

Works Cited

Casey, Maurice. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching. T&T Clark, 2010.

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne, 1994.

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

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter Millican, Oxford University Press, 2007.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology. Fortress Press, 1994.

Tabor, James D. The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. Simon & Schuster, 2006.