Perhaps you've heard this riddle by now:
Suppose there’s a group traveling about your area, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon. He promises he alone can save you, but you must sell your belongings, devote your life to him, and cut off family members who try to stop you. He may also assign you a new name / identity, advise you to leave your home and job in order to follow him, and says that if you don’t love him more than your own family then you’re not worthy of him. His followers wrote a book about him in which he performs many miraculous feats, but no contemporaneous outside source corroborates these claims. What sort of group is that?
Christian apologists will reply that if the man in question performed miracles and rose from the dead, the apparent parallels to modern cults don't prove anything, and clearly he is who he claimed to be. In this way the resurrection is one of the apologist's trump cards (along with Kalam, fine tuning, shroud of Turin, etc.)
A scattershot of potential hail mary candidates by which they hope to ultimately vindicate their religion, circumventing all evidence so far mounted against it. "One weird trick atheists hate!", reassuring them they aren't deceived no matter how closely early Christianity resembled what we would, today, identify as an apocalyptic cult.
So, you then ask why they aren't a Muslim, since the Qur'an says Muhammad flew to Medina on a winged donkey, and the Hadiths say he briefly split the Moon in half by pointing to it. They scoff, religious chauvinism in play, insisting the resurrection is far better supported. (Or racial chauvenism, in dismissing thousands of eye-witness accounts from Indian followers of Sai Baba & various more recent gurus/god-men)
If Christian miracles (like the resurrection) are truly so well supported, it shouldn't be a big ask to see at least one contemporaneous source, outside of the Bible, which corroborates the resurrection. Or for that matter, the subsequent resurrection of saints from their tombs & appearance to many in Jerusalem described in Matthew 27:52-53. Isn’t it weird nobody else but Matthew noticed that happening? Even within the New Testament, only he mentions it.
I propose there are no independent accounts of the resurrection, risen saints or Yeshua's miracles for the same reason there exist no sources outside the Qur'an & Hadiths which back up Islamic miracle accounts. First, apologists might say we shouldn't expect there to be any, as all such credible reports would've been folded into scripture (I'll circle back to this).
Josephus, Tacitus, et. al.
Alternatively, they name drop Josephus (hoping you don't know about the forged passage in the Testimonium Flavianum), Tacitus, and Pliny the Elder. They either don't know it themselves (having trusted apologists they heard this from, never having read through their own Bibles) or hope you don't know it, but none of these men witnessed the resurrection or any miracles.
This is in part because they weren't contemporaries of Yeshua, born 37, 53 and 23 years post-crucifixion, respectively. These accounts merely affirm Yeshua ben Yosef existed, which is close enough for Christians. After all, surely the smallest kernel of truth in a story vindicates all of it...? (An epistemic leap they also make with respect to Noah's flood)
But then, you remind them Muhammad and Joseph Smith also existed. Muhammad has some of the same historicity challenges as Yeshua, but Joseph Smith at least is very well attested to, having lived and died far more recently.
Speaking of Mormonism, the fact that Mormons endured the Mormon Extermination Order of 1838 without recanting handily answers "why would apostles suffer torture for a false messiah". (Outside the Abrahamic tradition, Taru Singh, Mani Singh, and Mati Dass are examples of religious devotees who suffered torture rather than recant)
But the point here isn't that these younger religions are equally well crafted, as in many ways they're not, rather that members of all three appeal to miracle accounts attested to in their holy books and no other sources from their respective time periods. That's a red flag to any remotely discerning person, including Christians, but only when it's religions other than their own.
Paul's 500
Next, they will say that Paul wrote of 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Christ. Oddly, he never mentions any of their names. The apologist line is either that a few were known (the apostles, a facile dodge) or that this is because those 500 witnesses were still living, so locals could just find and ask them.
Remember how our hypothetical apologist said that all credible accounts would've been folded into scripture, so we should not reasonably expect any outside sources? (I told you I'd circle back!) In which case, why didn't Paul bother to interview any of those 500 to include their testimony? Was eyewitness testimony by locals, supposedly so well known to everyone such that it was unnecessary to name them, not deemed credible enough? (We might ask the same of Matthew, who didn’t bother including any testimony of the risen saints but his own.)
Paul also opened up Christianity to gentiles who would not have known those 500, so providing at least some of their names & testimonies for the sake of converts from outside of that immediate region would've been prudent, if they existed.
One might say Paul expected parousia to occur before the 500 had died, so recording their testimonies was unnecessary since Yeshua would return soon. Indeed Paul says in many verses not to marry, not to plan for tomorrow, but to expect Yeshua to return imminently. He wrote letters reassuring anxious followers that Yeshua would still return, as by that time it was decades after the crucifixion.
The problem with this defense, for the Christian apologist (unless they’re a Preterist) is of course confronting the fact that both Yeshua & Paul repeatedly affirmed that parousia was to take place in the lifetimes of those living at that time, but didn't.
The Empty Tomb
"So, what of the empty tomb?" they might ask, echoing many professional apologists who present the aftermath of graverobbing as a smoking gun which could only be explained by resurrection. When you suggest his followers stole his body to inspire a legend (so the wise teachings of their beloved master would not die along with him) they scoff, asking why no guards saw it happen.
In fact, at least one did. Refer to the narrative set forth in Matthew 28:11-25, presented here within the surrounding context of Matthew 28:
28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
In the bolded passages, the author(s) of Matthew describe their version of events: That DA JOOOOS (Thunder crash, sinister cackling) paid off a Roman soldier to say he witnessed Yeshua Ben Yosef's followers rolling the stone away from his tomb, stealing the body, then replacing the stone before making off with the corpse.
The apologist line, echoed here, is as follows:
Matthew 28:11–15 describes a plot by the Jewish religious leaders to distribute a false story about Jesus' resurrection. The Roman soldiers report what really happened at the tomb. The chief priests and elders agree to bribe the soldiers to lie and say they fell asleep on the job so hard that Jesus' followers were able to steal His dead body. They promise to protect the soldiers from Pilate, the Roman governor, if he hears they slept while on guard duty and wants to punish them. The lie begins to spread among the Jewish population, despite the idea being ludicrous (Matthew 27:66).
Is it ludicrous, though? In fact, isn't the alternative version of events, wherein the apostles did catch the soldiers napping and did steal the body of their beloved spiritual leader and teacher, that his teachings might not die with him but live on through legend, far more parsimonious? Is this not exactly the sort of story one might concoct to get out ahead of damning information?
And, is theirs not exactly the reflex seen in cult members following traumatic disconfirmation events, per Leon Festinger's case study of Dorothy Martin's UFO cult recorded in "When Prophecy Fails"? For a more recent example, Amy Carlson aka Mother God's followers claimed her resurrection following her death in 2021, presumably for similar emotionally driven reasons.
Are we to believe that upon hearing testimony from a Roman soldier that in fact Yeshua was the prophesied moshiach all along, having risen from the dead, his return heralded by an angel...the reaction of local rabbis would not be "Oh no, we were mistaken, let us correct our error and update our beliefs" but rather "let's cover this up"? As if preventing it from being widely believed would also prevent their own damnation?
It's like creationist stories I heard in private Christian school about atheist archaeologists uncovering human remains together with dinosaur remains, purposely destroying the evidence because it pointed to a young Earth (rather than, say, changing their minds). Projection by a people who justify their own dishonesty and bias by assuming the opposition is privately just as bad.
Anyway, there's also this expanded summary which is unexpectedly candid about the motive involved in their motivated reasoning; once again, bolding for emphasis:
The chief priests and elders began the first day after Jesus' resurrection bribing Roman soldiers to lie (Matthew 28:1–14). The men are instructed to say Jesus was still dead. In truth, Messiah had come and died and come back to life, yet Israel's religious leaders were working hard to keep people from believing it.
They bribed the Roman soldiers who saw the angel from heaven open the tomb to say that Jesus' followers had caught them napping in the night and had stolen the body. They promised to bribe Pilate, as well, if the story of their sleeping on the job reached his ears so that he wouldn't have them killed. The soldiers took the cash and started the story. It was still circulating when Matthew wrote this book, some decades later (Matthew 28:11–14).
The dividing line between hope of eternity and hopelessness of the grave lies in deciding between those two stories. Either Jesus was raised from the dead or Jesus never breathed again (1 Corinthians 15:14–20). Those who trust in Christ and those who refuse to believe are eternally and entirely separated by which they choose to believe (John 3:16–18).
That final appeal is as if to nudge you, winking, and say "come on, which would you rather believe?" as if that has any influence over what's actually true. But that often is the basis of religious discernment, as affirmed by William Lane Craig in his now infamous podcast episode wherein he advocates lowering the epistemic standard Christianity must meet, because it is so desirable that it be true (while atheism must still clear an infinitely high bar).
Anyway it tickled me that the Bible itself contains a conspiracy theory, by Christians, fraudulently assigning blame to Jews of the time. A longstanding tradition they have carried on to the present day. It gets a bit darker when one considers how these malicious rumors would go on to motivate mass killings of Jews. The blood libel and accusations of poisoning town water supplies (as explanation for plagues) were motivated by the frustration and resentment of Christianity, a religion meant to supercede Judaism, that Jews remained unconverted. Also that allegedly local Jewish authorities influenced the decision to crucify Yeshua rather than Barabbas:
Jesus was crucified as a Jewish victim of Roman violence. On this, all written authorities agree. A Gentile Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, condemned him to death and had him tortured and executed by Gentile Roman soldiers. Jesus was indeed one of thousands of Jews crucified by the Romans.
The New Testament testifies to this basic fact but also allows for Jewish involvement in two ways. First, a few high-ranking Jewish authorities who owed their position and power to the Romans conspired with the Gentile leaders to have Jesus put to death; they are said to have been jealous of Jesus and to have viewed him as a threat to the status quo. Second, an unruly mob of people in Jerusalem called out for Jesus to be crucified—the number of persons in this crowd is not given, nor is any motive supplied for their action (except to say that they had been “stirred up,” Mark 15:11).
But while the bolded portion is how the apostles would've viewed those Jewish authorities, it is not likely how said authorities would've viewed themselves, or described their motives, were they candid. It's a slanted retelling along the same lines as the conspiracy theory about the napping Roman soldiers reporting having witnessed an angel & the resurrection. One need only read between the lines to see what's happening here, rather than taking it at face value.
Suppose we were to instead consider the resurrection as a purely metaphorical event: That the Roman government sought to quash Yeshua’s teachings & ministry, his life’s work, by killing the man behind them. Only for those teachings, and his ministry, to not just continue on after his death but explode in popularity to the point that he’s still a hot topic of discussion even today. In light of that, did Rome truly succeed in killing him? Can it not be said that the essence of Yeshua, his message, survived his bodily death? In a sense, did he not rise from the grave and ascend to exultation? Alas, few or no Christians are content to view it this way, so it’s a moot point.
Afterthoughts
Isn't this all so much like a school bully you once embarrassed, who then embarked upon a never-ending campaign of disseminating stubbornly persistent, malicious rumors calculated to turn others against you? This practice continued on through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, New World Order, Jewish Space Lasers, various conspiratorial perspectives on Covid, elements of the flat Earth movement and so on.
Basically whenever Christians need a villain as an explanatory element in their stories, they pick Jews, because they want them gone anyway. If only because the persistence of Judaism (for sound reasons) has problematic implications for Christianity, as a supercessionist religion meant to fulfil & thus replace it.
Even Revelation, the fever dream revenge fantasy of John of Patmos, has all Jews either converting or being instantly killed during parousia. Anyone familiar with the history of the US Government's support for Israel can also work out the backhanded reasons for Uncle Sam's protectionism; for Yeshua to return, there must be an Israel, as well as Jews to convert or die in different measures.
This context also makes it extra funny how restricting Jews to money changing jobs, as Christianity forbids usury, backfired so spectacularly by enriching Jewish families from the medieval period onwards. As you might guess, in a sort of historical reenactment of a Tom & Jerry episode, shooting themselves in the foot this way only further enraged Christians who already barely tolerated European Jewish communities.
This toxic brew of religious resentment and economic humiliation gave rise to the money grubbing merchant trope, the Nazi ideological premise that the Jewish spirit is fundamentally mercantile & materialistic, etc. To this day, on social media, if I argue the credibility of any core doctrine of the Christian religion, one of the first questions they ask me is whether I'm Jewish (shortly before probing for other superficial disqualifiers, like sexuality or fitness level, tests I also pass)
I am not Jewish, instead biracial (white & native American). Their paranoia would amuse me if not for its long and storied consequences. Neither am I any appreciator of Judaism, which possesses many of the same credibility problems as Christianity & Islam, given their overlap.
After all, the Torah is where the Genesis creation story originates; a chronology in which Earth predates the sun & stars, and birds predate land animals. The Torah is also where ancient Hebrew cosmology, at odds with our modern understanding of Earth & the solar system, is described. It's every bit as misogynistic & homophobic, aspects less visible than they are in evangelicals or Muslims unless one specifically studies Haredim.
But I digress. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk