Historical Questions About the Resurrection
Skepticism towards miracles
One of the most common reasons scholars often raise questions about the historical veracity of the resurrection accounts is the simple fact that they portray a miraculous event, something that is said to be too incredible to believe historical. Is this fair?
To Die For
Finally, St. Paul describes a list of eye-witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.
He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
That Paul doesn’t mention Mary Magdalene here is fascinating—was a woman eyewitness just not worth mentioning given the suspicion over the testimony of female witnesses?
More interesting is this: what did these people have to gain from making up such a story? Fame? Money? Power?
What many of them apparently received was death (cf. e.g., Clement, Corinthians, 5:5–7). Even if you believe their account that Jesus rose from the dead, the fact that people like St. Paul never recanted—even under such a threat—is remarkable. What gave them such courage?
All of this suggests that it is unlikely the story was simply made from whole cloth. I think just from a historian’s view then you’ve got to come to one unsettling conclusion: something happened Easter morning—and it can’t be easily explained.
Such a conclusion opens the door for something more—the supernatural gift of faith, which cannot be simply established by empirical evidence.
Link