How do scholars evaluate the historicity of the New Testament accounts of Jesus' resurrection?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Scholars separate the question of what the New Testament reports from the question of whether those reports describe historical events; most agree on a small cluster of facts—Jesus’ crucifixion, an early belief in an empty tomb or missing body, and post‑mortem encounters claimed by his followers—while fiercely debating how to interpret those facts and whether they prove a bodily resurrection [1] [2] [3].
1. What historians actually agree on: a narrow set of facts
There is broad scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified under Roman authority and that very early Christians came to believe he had been raised, a transformation that requires explanation; these points are treated as near‑historical givens across critical and conservative scholars alike [4] [2] [5]. Scholars also typically note that the New Testament contains early creedal material and multiple attestation—Paul’s references and Gospel narratives—that function as primary ancient sources historians must weigh, and that some core claims (burial, empty tomb, appearances) are attested in multiple, sometimes independent, strands of that tradition [6] [7] [8].
2. Method: how historians test the resurrection accounts
Historians apply standard tools—multiple independent attestation, criterion of embarrassment (e.g., women as first witnesses), early dating of traditions, and coherence with first‑century Jewish context—to assess probability rather than metaphysical possibility; proponents argue these tools give high historical probability to the empty tomb and appearances, while skeptics insist the methods cannot establish supernatural events and urge restraint in moving from psychological or sociological explanations to metaphysical claims [7] [6] [3].
3. Evidence commonly marshaled in favor of historicity
Defenders point to early creedal formulas Paul quotes (argued to be within years of the crucifixion), the discovery‑by‑women motif, the rapid origin and spread of the movement, and non‑Christian references that name Jesus and his execution as convergent support that something extraordinary happened to his followers’ expectations [6] [7] [9]. Major contemporary voices like N. T. Wright have argued that the empty tomb plus appearances make the resurrection historically “virtually certain,” and other scholars claim the collective visionary experiences reported by disciples are best explained by some form of real, communal encounter [3] [2].
4. Alternative explanations and the skeptical position
Critical scholars propose naturalistic alternatives: that the tomb was not empty, that appearances were visions or hallucinations shaped by grief and expectation, or that legendary development and theological shaping produced the stabilised narratives; Bart Ehrman and others accept the early conviction of disciples but reject the leap to a literal, physical resurrection, arguing the historical method cannot validate miracles [1] [2] [6]. Debate is intense and often reflects prior philosophical or theological commitments: some historians who disallow miracles a priori will not judge resurrection claims historically verifiable, while others who allow the possibility of extraordinary events are more open to positive historical judgment [5] [3].
5. Points of strongest uncertainty and limits of sources
Key uncertainties remain: the canonical Gospels differ in details and were written with theological aims rather than modern chronology, making harmonization difficult; the historicity of the empty tomb cannot be definitively proven or disproven from surviving evidence, and non‑canonical sources are late and dependent on the Gospels, limiting their independent value [10] [1] [8]. Scholars therefore stress degrees of probability rather than absolute proof, and acknowledge that methodological assumptions (about what counts as evidence for miracles) shape outcomes [2] [11].
6. Bottom line—historians’ verdict and why it matters
Historically inclined scholars agree that something radical happened: Jesus’ execution, the loss or absence of his body in early tradition, and experiences experienced by his followers that they interpreted as encounters with the risen Jesus are well attested and require explanation; how one explains those facts divides scholars—between those who see the best historical explanation as a physical resurrection and those who prefer naturalistic or visionary accounts—so the debate is as much about historiographical limits and philosophical priors as it is about the raw evidence [2] [7] [1].