One of the most widely cited arguments for the existence of God, particularly by Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, is the historical argument centered on the resurrection of Jesus. It goes something like this:
- Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion.
- He was buried, and his tomb was found empty.
- His disciples claimed to see him alive after his death.
- The best explanation for these facts is that Jesus physically rose from the dead.
- Therefore, God exists.
It sounds neat, compelling, and emotionally resonant, but history is not a morality play, and evidence is not a sermon. Once you dig into the claims, the argument unravels.
Contradictions Among the Gospels
The New Testament is the primary source for the resurrection narrative, but the accounts are inconsistent and often contradictory:
1) Who went to the tomb (which women)
- Matthew 28:1 – “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.”
- Mark 16:1 – “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.”
- Luke 24:10 – “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them.”
- John 20:1 – Only Mary Magdalene is mentioned as going to the tomb that morning.
Discrepancy: different names and numbers of women.
2) Time of arrival / “when” they came
- Matthew 28:1 – “After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week.”
- Mark 16:2 – “Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise.”
- Luke 24:1 – “Very early on the first day of the week.”
- John 20:1 – “Early, while it was still dark.”
Discrepancy: John has Mary coming while it’s still dark; the Synoptic gospels say dawn/after sunrise.
3) Was the stone rolled away, and how?
- Matthew 28:2 – An angel rolled the stone away; an earthquake occurs; the angel sits on the stone.
- Mark 16:4 – The stone was already rolled away when they arrived.
- Luke 24:2 – The stone was rolled away when they arrived.
- John 20:1 – The stone had been removed from the entrance when Mary arrived.
Discrepancy: Matthew emphasizes dramatic angelic action and earthquake; Mark/Luke/John imply the stone was already moved when they arrived.
4) Who (if anyone) was guarding the tomb?
- Matthew 27:62–66 & 28:11–15 – Pilate placed guards at the tomb; the chief priests bribe the guards to say the disciples stole the body.
- Mark, Luke, John – no guards mentioned.
Discrepancy: guards are unique to Matthew (and serve to explain an empty tomb without resurrection).
5) Number and appearance of angels / men / figures
- Matthew 28:2–3 – One angel, dazzling, rolls stone and sits on it; later another angel sits at the tomb (28:5 mentions angel(s) — Matthew is a bit mixed).
- Mark 16:5 – A young man in a white robe sitting inside the tomb.
- Luke 24:4 – Two men in dazzling clothes standing by the women.
- John 20:12 – Mary sees two angels sitting where Jesus’ body had been placed.
Discrepancy: the number (one vs two), location (inside vs outside), and role differ.
6) The message from the angel(s)
- Matthew 28:7 – “He is risen…go quickly and tell his disciples to go to Galilee; there they will see him.”
- Mark 16:7 – “Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.”
- Luke 24:5–7 – “Why look among the dead? He is not here; he has risen. Remember how he told you…” (no instruction to go to Galilee)
- John 20:17–18 – No angel instruction to go to Galilee; Mary is told “go to my brothers and tell them” and later she encounters Jesus in Jerusalem; Jesus later tells disciples to meet elsewhere.
Discrepancy: Matthew/Mark instruct Galilee; Luke and John give different instructions or none.
7) Did the women immediately tell the disciples? What was their reaction?
- Matthew 28:8 – The women left quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell the disciples.
- Mark 16:8 (short ending) – The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark’s abrupt original ending.)
- Luke 24:9–11 – The women reported everything; the apostles did not believe them.
- John 20:2 – Mary runs and tells Peter and the other disciple; they run to the tomb.
Discrepancy: Matthew/Luke/John say they told others; Mark’s earliest ending has them tell no one.
8) Who first saw Jesus alive? (order and persons)
- Matthew 28:9–10 – Jesus appears to the women as they go to tell the disciples; later the disciples see him in Galilee.
- Mark 16:9 (longer ending, likely later addition) – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene (this aligns with John). Shorter Mark ends before appearances.
- Luke 24:13–35 – Two disciples on the road to Emmaus encounter Jesus (they later recognize him) before he appears to the Eleven.
- John 20:14–18 – Mary Magdalene sees Jesus first (alone); later he appears to disciples.
Discrepancy: order and identity of first seers differ across accounts.
9) Location(s) of appearances – Galilee vs Jerusalem
- Matthew 28:16–17 – The disciples meet Jesus in Galilee (explicit).
- Mark 16:7 – Angel says, “he is going ahead of you to Galilee.”
- Luke 24:33–49 – Jesus appears to them in Jerusalem (Emmaus and then Jerusalem appearances).
- John 20:19–21 – Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem that evening; later John 21 shows appearance by the Sea of Galilee.
Discrepancy: Matthew/Mark emphasize Galilee meeting; Luke/John place early appearances in Jerusalem.
10) Did Jesus eat physical food / have a physical body?
- Luke 24:36–43 – Jesus eats a piece of broiled fish in front of the disciples to prove he is not a ghost (physical).
- John 20:27–29 – Jesus invites Thomas to touch his wounds (physical).
- Mark 16:14 – Jesus reproaches the apostles but no eating scene in earliest text.
- John 20:17 and some passages suggest a more spiritual body in other places.
Discrepancy: emphasis and detail of physicality vary; Luke explicitly shows eating, others are different in tone.
11) Appearance to “Peter” / “Cephas” (is it claimed or narrated?)
- 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Paul) – Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter).
- Luke 24:34 – “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (report)
- John – does not give a standalone appearance-to-Peter narrative, but Peter is included in group appearances.
Discrepancy: Paul treats a Peter appearance as independent evidence; Gospels differ on explicit narration.
12) Appearance to “the Eleven” vs “the Twelve” vs “others”
- Luke 24:33–36 – Jesus appears to a group in Jerusalem (the disciples).
- John 20:19–23 – appears to the disciples (Thomas absent initially).
- Matthew 28:16 – the disciples meet in Galilee (eleven worship, some doubt).
- Mark (long ending) and 1 Corinthians 15 list additional appearances (500 people at once – 1 Cor 15:6), which the Gospels do not mention.
Discrepancy: who saw him and whether large group appearances occurred — Paul mentions a 500-person appearance not in the four Gospels.
13) Thomas episode (did Thomas touch Jesus?)
- John 20:24–29 – Thomas doubts and then touches Jesus’ wounds eight days later.
- Luke and Matthew do not record this explicit “touch” story (Luke has a different post-resurrection commissioning).
Discrepancy: uniqueness of the Thomas story and its absence elsewhere.
14) The Ascension timing / details
- Luke 24:50–53 – Luke records a kind of ascension at the end of his Gospel but in muted terms; the disciples worship and return to Jerusalem with joy. No 40-day time-frame mentioned.
- Acts 1:3–9 (same author) – The ascension happens 40 days after resurrection, with explicit supernatural lifting into the clouds.
Discrepancy: Luke’s Gospel and Acts give different emphases and timelines; Acts supplies the 40-day waited ascension not in Luke 24 itself.
15) Burial details that affect the resurrection story
- Who prepared the body?
- Mark 15:42–47 / Luke 23:50–56 / John 19:38–42 / Matthew 27:57–61 – differ on whether Joseph or Joseph+Nicodemus did the burial, whether the women witnessed it, what spices were used, and whether the body was wrapped (John mentions spices and linen; Mark says he was laid in a tomb because the Sabbath was beginning).
Discrepancy: These affect whether women could or should have anointed/visited the body, and whether it could plausibly have been removed.
- Mark 15:42–47 / Luke 23:50–56 / John 19:38–42 / Matthew 27:57–61 – differ on whether Joseph or Joseph+Nicodemus did the burial, whether the women witnessed it, what spices were used, and whether the body was wrapped (John mentions spices and linen; Mark says he was laid in a tomb because the Sabbath was beginning).
16) The tomb’s location (which tomb)
- Matthew – a tomb “hewn out of rock” owned by Joseph of Arimathea.
- Mark/Luke/John – similar but with minor variations in description and ownership details.
Discrepancy: minor, but the specifics vary.
17) Emotional reactions of witnesses
- Fear / amazement / joy / disbelief / silence – all appear: Matthew (joy + fear); Mark (trembling, bewildered); Luke (reported & disciples disbelieve); John (Mary weeping then joyful). The tone differs sharply between accounts – some emphasize proclamation, others fear and silence.
Discrepancy: emotional character and subsequent behavior differ.
18) The “coverup” story (guards bribed) — timing and plausibility
- Matthew 28:11–15 – Jewish leaders bribe guards to say disciples stole the body. This story appears only in Matthew; no corroboration in other Gospels or external sources.
Discrepancy: unique to Matthew and seems designed to rebut “stolen body” hypotheses.
19) Mark’s ending problem
- Mark 16:8 (the oldest manuscripts) ends with women saying nothing and fleeing in fear – no resurrection appearances narrated. Later manuscripts append 16:9–20 describing appearances, ascension, and commissioning (likely a later addition).
Discrepancy: the original Mark ends abruptly; later harmonizing additions contradict the earlier abrupt silence.
20) Zombie saints
- Matthew 27:51–53 – At the moment Jesus dies, “the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”
Discrepancies and other odd bits:
No other Gospel mentions this – not Mark, Luke, or John. Which is bizarre, because if you’re writing the “good news” and corpses are wandering around Jerusalem, you’d probably include it.
No historian of the time mentions it either – not Josephus, not Tacitus, not Philo, not anyone. You’d think “hundreds of dead saints strolling into Jerusalem” would’ve merited at least one passing remark, as would an earthquake.
The timing is confusing: they come out of their graves at Jesus’ death, but don’t appear in the city until “after his resurrection.” So what were they doing in the meantime – hanging around in graveyards waiting for the green light?
It looks like classic apocalyptic imagery – Matthew is fond of Old Testament-style flourishes (earthquakes, cosmic signs). Most scholars think it’s theological symbolism, not history.
These inconsistencies make it impossible to reconstruct a single coherent narrative from the texts. For historians, contradictions in primary sources are a serious red flag. The more discrepancies in foundational events, the less confidence one can have that they reflect historical truth.
Eyewitnesses or Second-Hand Accounts?
Apologists claim the disciples were eyewitnesses. But the earliest writings we have, such as Paul’s letters, were penned decades after the supposed events, and the Gospels themselves were written even later and by anonymous authors. Even if the authors had access to stories from disciples, memory is notoriously fallible. Grief, trauma, and expectation can produce false sightings and collective delusions. The argument relies on oral tradition that could have been embellished or reinterpreted over decades.
Lack of Independent Historical Evidence
The resurrection leaves virtually no footprint outside Christian sources. Roman historians like Tacitus and Jewish historians like Josephus mention Jesus, but they do not report the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, or miraculous resurrection. That’s significant: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here it’s mostly hearsay amplified over decades by a movement that had every reason to promote its founder’s divinity. Without contemporary corroboration, the resurrection remains historically unsupported.
Alternative Explanations
Skeptics offer plausible naturalistic explanations:
- The Swoon Theory: Jesus did not fully die, survived the crucifixion, and later recovered. Highly improbable given Roman execution methods, the brutality of the crucifixion, and lack of medical evidence.
- The Stolen Body Hypothesis: The tomb was emptied by followers or enemies. Multiple conflicting Gospel accounts make this implausible, and no external evidence supports it.
- Visionary Experiences: The disciples experienced genuine visions or hallucinations of Jesus alive. Psychologically plausible, especially in the context of grief, expectation, and group reinforcement.
- Legendary Development: The resurrection story developed over decades, with miraculous elements added as the community’s faith evolved. Oral traditions can transform over time into mythic narratives.
None of these explanations require divine intervention, yet the latter two are historically plausible.
The Circularity Problem
Apologists often assume the resurrection is true and then treat the texts as evidence for it—a textbook case of circular reasoning. They cherry-pick details that support belief while ignoring contradictions, missing external corroboration, and alternative explanations. William Lane Craig and others rely on “minimal facts” approaches, selecting only the most agreed-upon elements among scholars. But even these minimal facts, such as Jesus’ death, do not logically require resurrection as the only explanation.
The Problem of Myth and Transmission
Oral cultures tend to embellish stories over time. Events become more dramatic, details shift, and heroic narratives are created around central figures. The resurrection fits this pattern: stories that begin with grief and hope become transformed into tales of triumph and divine validation. By the time the Gospels were written, decades later, the legendary layer could easily have overtaken the historical kernel.
Conclusion
The historical argument for God based on Jesus’ resurrection collapses under scrutiny. Contradictory Gospel accounts, lack of contemporary evidence, plausible natural explanations, and the potential for mythic development leave it deeply shaky. Even if we grant that something unusual happened around Jesus’ death, the leap from mysterious events to a divine resurrection requires enormous assumptions. The historical argument appeals to emotion and faith, but it fails as a rigorous, evidence-based case for God. At best, it points to human devotion, myth-making, and the early Christian community’s desire to believe in their founder’s significance; at worst, it constructs a historical narrative from conflicting and unreliable sources, then proclaims certainty where none exists.