Back to A Different Lens

The Resurrection of Jesus carries three contested facts in this atlas. Reading them individually finds one genuine scholarly argument, not three separate claims, plus a note explaining what that argument can and cannot settle. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, "written within about twenty five years of the event," quotes what most scholars regard as an even earlier creed listing witnesses, the earliest surviving testimony to the claim.

Two Named Scholars, Genuinely Opposed

The two disputed-point facts name real, opposing positions rather than a vague disagreement. One states that Bart Ehrman "argues that visionary or grief-related experience among the early followers better explains the appearance reports than a historical bodily event." The other states that N.T. Wright "argues the empty tomb and the reported appearances are jointly best explained by an actual bodily resurrection." A naturalistic reading and a supernaturalist reading of the identical evidence, held by two named scholars on opposite sides.

The Third Fact Is Not a Third Position

The historicity fact does not add a third camp. Its own note says exactly what it is doing: "States the shape of the debate, not a finding on whether the resurrection occurred." Its own description draws the same line: "What can be established by ordinary historical method, an empty tomb tradition and experiences the earliest community described as encounters with the risen Jesus, and what the claim itself asserts, that Jesus was bodily raised, are treated separately by historians and by the tradition itself." Three facts, one real argument between two named positions, and one honest note about where historical method's authority runs out and the claim itself begins.

Where To Read More

• The Resurrection of JesusFoundationalThree contested facts, one real argument between two named scholars, plus a framing note on the limits of historical method