-8

What is the evidence either for or against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? Was Jesus' resurrection a historical fact? I know that there are tons of hours of debate out there on the web between apologists and skeptics, but I would like to know if there is a consensus on the matter from the viewpoint of scholars and historians.

EDIT: examples of debates:

7
  • 3
    Welcome to History:Stack Exchange. Thank you for your question; please consider revising it to be more in line with our community expectations. Like many other stacks, we expect questions to provide evidence of prior research. That helps us to understand the question, and avoids our repeating work you've already done. Our help center, and other stacks provide additional resources to assist with revisions.
    – MCW
    Apr 6 '21 at 12:13
  • 2
    There is the 'Easter chasm' in theology: it was, is, and will remain a matter of faith. Anf that's the way since Paul. There will not be historical evidence for it, unless the guy indeed comes back. And so far, either he didn't return, or was imprisoned (in Jerusalem; there were a lot of candidates claiming to be it). To get this on-topic, I'll guess you need to ask 'away from theology' and instead for the historical summary/aspects of why we do not know and cannot know… But I am confident you already know that. Apr 6 '21 at 12:37
  • 3
    OK - admit I missed that you were asking about the resurrection. I'm even more inclined to suggest that that is out of scope. That is a religious issue and out of scope for history. That said, 1) Prior research is required and 2) if there are tons of debate, then there is no authoritative answer.
    – MCW
    Apr 6 '21 at 12:39
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because this is a question about a matter of faith, not of history. If it is a miracle, then it is not subject to history; if it is a historical fact, then it is not a miracle and discussion is likely to offend those for whom that miracle is a part of their faith. I'm exercising my modhammer on this one.
    – MCW
    Apr 6 '21 at 12:39
  • 3
    Reza Aslan's Zealot has a good sextet of paragraphs on this issue near the beginning of chapter 13. Basic gist is that it was certainly the oldest element of the faith that we have evidence for (going back to the early 40's at least). However, "... the fact remains that the resurrection is not a historical event. It may have had historical ripples, but the event itself falls outside the scope of history and into the realm of faith".
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 6 '21 at 13:30
-2

Post resurrection appearance of Jesus - Argument for

Having debated the subject on a mainstream debate site, the main evidence for the resurrection appears to comes from the argument that a total of 513 witnesses witnessed the post resurrection appearance of Jesus, and why would they lie? Et cetera.

Biblical accounts - Wikipedia

The earliest report of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is in Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.[13] This lists, in chronological order, a first appearance to Peter, then to "the Twelve," then to five hundred at one time, then to James (presumably James the brother of Jesus), then to "all the Apostles," and last to Paul himself.[13] Paul does not mention any appearances to women, apart from "sisters" included in the 500; other New Testament sources do not mention any appearance to a crowd of 500.[13] There is general agreement that the list is pre-Pauline – it is often called a catechism of the early church – but less on how much of the list belongs to the tradition and how much is from Paul: most scholars feel that Peter and the Twelve are original, but not all believe the same of the appearances to the 500, James and "all the Apostles".[14][note 2]

Argument against

I don't think there is any hard factual correct response to the statement above, it really is a matter for debate.

Jesus of Siberia

One could perhaps debate that currently we have a cult leader named Vissarion who claims to be a reincarnation of Jesus and he currently has more witnesses and followers than is attributed by Wikipedia to Jesus, and just because there are 4,000 of them living in his commune that testify to his authenticity does that mean we all automatically believe them just because there are 4000 of them and we do not know why they all believe what they do?

Slate

Vissarion has gained more than 10,000 followers—4,000 of whom live in clustered cabins and yurts in southern Siberia.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.