Every historical Scholar and reasonable person accepts that Jesus was a real person who died on a cross, but now we have to investigate the controversial part, were the supernatural reports true? To do this, let's analyze any doubts about the major claim from the gospels, the resurrection of Jesus.
Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, says
"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied." - 1 Corinthians 15:14-19
My minimal facts argument is inspired and outlined by New Testament Scholar Michael R. Licona, who holds a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from the University of Pretoria. You can read his more detailed approach on the Resurrection of Jesus here.
Logic Used:
Historians use inference to the best explanation to weigh historical hypotheses. So the more likely theory should reasonably expect the most important facts while relying on fewer unsupported assumptions.
Relevant Fact Cluster:
This is the most relevant and important fact cluster that virtually all NT scholars can accept (including non Christian scholars):
Very shortly after Jesus’ death, the disciples, and Paul (a former persecutor of the church), had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected and had appeared to them.
Evidence Sources:
(Licona),(Licona pp.303-440)
Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. InterVarsity Press, 2011, https://a.co/d/77f7Xrl.
Evidence Explanation:
Historical Evidence Jesus is alive (50-second mark)
1st-century historians Tacitus (Roman) and Josephus (Jewish) mention that Jesus died by crucifixion. We have ancient external sources (Josephus and Deuteronomy) and archaeological evidence that supports the historicity of Jewish burial customs for crucifixion victims. The Joseph of Arimathea burial story in the gospels is also an unlikely Christian invention because of the Sanhedrin hostility towards Christians. All reputable NT scholars accept that Jesus died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, which would have most likely led to his burial.
Does the “1 Corinthians 15 creed” date to about AD 30?
The early dating of the Corinthian creed shows that the resurrection claims started within 3 days (or a similarly short time) of Jesus' death and that the claims came from the original disciples themselves. This creed records the 12 apostles, James, and 500 brothers at one time as seeing the risen Jesus, along with Paul (the former Pharisee tasked with killing Christians) adding that he saw the risen Jesus and converted.
Paul's letters and the growth of the early church show that the disciples boldly proclaimed the resurrection. The letters from Paul and early church father letters show that the disciples faced immense persecution for their resurrection proclamation. These sources also mention the martyrdom of some apostles with Tertullian attesting to public records of Paul and Peter's death. The crucifixion of Jesus and Nero’s persecution of Christians mentioned by Tacitus shows the hostile environment towards early Christians and their sufferings, which corroborates the NT and church tradition claims of persecution. Pliny the Younger describes “recant or be killed” practices by the Romans for the execution of Christians. Josephus wrote in 90 AD saying that the disciples never abandoned their faith (read the uncorrupted Arabic and reconstructed versions here).
How would the early church start, grow, and endure persecution if the founding disciples recanted their faith? You don't have to prove martyrdom to believe in the sincerity of the disciples' resurrection claim. The evidence shows that the disciples were willing to suffer, be persecuted, and risk death for resurrection proclamations that provided no worldly gain. All reputable NT scholars accept that the disciples sincerely believed in their resurrection appearances, no matter what the actual cause of those appearances was.
2 Scholarly Theories:
These are the 2 most reputable theories that have been offered by skeptical and conservative NT scholars in academia.
Theory A: The resurrection appearances were just hallucinations.
Theory B: Jesus had a bodily resurrection.
How The Hallucination Theory Explains The Facts:
The hallucination theory accounts for this fact by suggesting that grief hallucinations paired with mass hysteria was more likely than a bodily resurrection.
If the hallucination theory were true, it would be difficult to expect this fact because of several reasons. First off, the resurrection reports recount Jesus appearing to groups of 12 and 500 people at one time, and according to modern psychiatry group hallucinations do not exist since they are categorized as individual experiences.
Furthermore, this theory must assume that 500 other people and Paul were in a similar state of psychosis for a grief hallucination, which is very difficult to explain since Paul was hostile towards Jesus' ministry, making him an unlikely candidate for a grief hallucination of Jesus.
Perhaps the hallucination theory could account for the group appearances by suggesting that one close disciple had a grief hallucination, and then convinced the others that they saw shared or similar visions of Jesus as a result of mass hysteria. This seems plausible because high social suggestion, expectant alertness, and memory reconstruction can lead groups into falsely believing they all saw the same vision as seen with the Miracle of the Sun in Fátima, Portugal.
However, such an explanation is difficult to support since Paul was hostile towards the ministry of Jesus, also making him an unlikely candidate for peer pressure into a superstition since he was not expectant nor susceptible to previous social suggestions about Jesus.
The Corinthian Creed also lists 6 different resurrection appearances with the hostile Paul being listed separately from the group accounts. This means that Paul's resurrection experience was individual, so he could not have been persuaded into a shared illusion.
The hallucination theory also has trouble explaining why the disciples and Paul proclaimed that Jesus was buried and then raised, which implies a physical bodily resurrection rather than a non physical apparition interpreted to be supernatural. The authentic letters of Paul (accepted by all scholars) also show a physical interpretation of the resurrection to mean that your mortal body gets life just like Jesus did.
In the gospel of Mark, the disciples mistake Jesus for a ghost, which shows that 1st century Christians were capable of interpreting strange events as non physical but supernatural apparitions (even if this specific passage happens to be the result of embellishment or interpolation). If the sightings of Jesus after his death were just perceived apparitions, then the disciples and Paul could have preached about “the Ghost of Jesus” living on, yet they emphasize that he was buried (physical element) and then raised (connected with the same physical element). This means there had to have been some physical nature of Jesus' appearances that led the disciples and Paul to believe it was a physical resurrection rather than a supernatural vision, which cuts sharply against the non physical nature of an apparition, haunting, or hallucination.
To make it fit, the hallucination theory must make a few unsupported assumptions: it must assume that 500+ people were in a similar state of psychosis for a mass grief hallucination or shared expectancy for mass hysteria, it must assume that Paul, the hostile church persecutor, was also in a similar state of psychosis for a grief hallucination or mass hysteria, it must assume that the disciples and Paul interpreted Jesus' appearances as non physical visions, and it must make a philosophical assumption that the supernatural is impossible, which is somewhat difficult to support since complete naturalism is a philosophical bias based on personal worldviews and experience.
How The Bodily Resurrection Theory Explains The Facts:
The bodily resurrection theory accounts for this fact by suggesting that God had supernaturally raised Jesus from the dead, and then Jesus physically showed himself to people.
If this theory were true, it would be natural to expect this fact because a physically raised Jesus would be convincing enough to convert skeptics like Paul, and a physically raised body could appear in 6 different encounters as reported in the Corinthian Creed.
Furthermore, a physically raised body also aligns with the disciples proclamation of a resurrected Jesus who they said was physically "buried and raised", and it aligns with Paul's interpretation that Jesus was physically raised from the dead.
The authentic letters of Paul (accepted by all scholars) also show an interpretation of God being the external force that raised Jesus from the dead. So the supernatural inference is an evidential claim that comes from a resurrection eyewitness source, its not ad hoc or speculative. It's also reasonable for the eyewitness to interpret a bodily resurrection as being supernaturally charged with theological significance, since a bodily resurrection is impossible by purely natural means. It's also reasonable to believe that if a loving God wanted to redeem his people and give them eternal life (as claimed by Paul's letters), then raising his own Son to have eternal life would prove such a divine plan.
To make this theory fit, it must make just one unsupported assumption: that supernatural miracles are possible, which is somewhat difficult to support since supernaturalism is a philosophical bias based on personal worldviews and experience.
I would personally argue that this assumption has some support based on the medical documentation of modern miracles contained in Dr. Craig Keeners peer reviewed book, and you can listen to a summary of some of the miracle accounts contained therein HERE and HERE. However, those have not been universally reviewed or accepted by NT scholars, so I will NOT count the miracle documentation as strength towards the bodily resurrection theory.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the hallucination theory fails to reasonably expect all the facts, and it relies on several unsupported assumptions. Conversely, the bodily resurrection theory can reasonably expect all the facts, and it only relies on one unsupported assumption that revolves around the same philosophical dilemma found in the hallucination theory.
Since the bodily resurrection theory outpaces the hallucination theory by a significant margin (both in explanatory power and fewer unsupported assumptions), then we can conclude that Jesus physically rising from the dead is the most likely explanation for these facts.