# There Is No Evidence for the Resurrection Objection Defeater ## Intro *"Jesus is definitely dead. Dead people don't come back, and there's no evidence he did."* That sentence sounds like one claim. It is really three, and each one has to be checked on its own: - **Jesus died.** True. Christians agree, and say so first. - **He could not have risen.** That is a claim about what is *possible*, and "we have never seen it happen" does not prove it. - **There is no evidence he rose.** That is a claim about *evidence*, and it is false as stated. There is early, named testimony. The real question is whether it is *enough*. Untangle those three and the conversation changes. The skeptic is no longer holding a proof that Jesus stayed dead. He is holding a judgment that the evidence is not strong enough, which is a position that has to be argued, not assumed. ![Caravaggio, The Incredulity of Saint Thomas: the risen Jesus guides the doubting disciple's finger into the wound in his side while two apostles look on](/codex/assets/caravaggio-incredulity-of-saint-thomas.jpg) _Caravaggio, *The Incredulity of Saint Thomas* (1601-02). The first resurrection skeptic asked for evidence and was given it ([John 20:24-29](/codex/john-20-24-29/)). Image: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons._ ## Cheatsheet **30-second reply.** *"I agree Jesus died. The question is whether he stayed dead. You say it's impossible, but 'we've never seen it' isn't the same as 'it can't happen'; you'd need to show no God could raise him. You say there's no evidence, but we have a list of named witnesses written down within about twenty-five years, by a man who met two of them in person. You can say that's not enough. That's a fair debate. But 'no evidence' isn't true."* **Fast facts.** - 1 Corinthians is generally dated to the mid-50s AD, about 20 to 25 years after the crucifixion. - In [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/) Paul passes on a tradition he had himself "received," naming Cephas (Peter), the Twelve, more than five hundred at once, James and finally himself. - In [Galatians 1:18-19](/codex/galatians-1-18-19/) Paul says he stayed fifteen days with Cephas in Jerusalem and also saw James the Lord's brother. - Paul had been a persecutor of the church ([Galatians 1:13](/codex/galatians-1-13/)). James, by the Gospels' account, did not believe in his brother during his ministry. **Counter-moves.** - *"Science says it's impossible."* Science tells us what nature does on its own. The resurrection claim is that God acted. Show that no God could do it, or drop "impossible." - *"That's just the Bible."* These are first-century documents with named authors and named witnesses. Throwing them out because they were later collected into a Bible is the genetic fallacy. - *"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."* Fine. That concedes the issue is *how much* evidence, not *whether there is any*. **Concessions, and what each one collects.** - **Grant:** dead people do not come back by natural processes. **Collect:** so the only live question is whether God acted, and that is a question science cannot rule out in advance. - **Grant:** testimony shows people *believed* Jesus rose; it does not by itself prove he did. **Collect:** then the belief is a fact that needs explaining, and the skeptic owes a better explanation of it (see [Minimal Facts Argument](/codex/minimal-facts-argument/)). - **Grant:** Christians must not assume the miracle just because they believe in God. **Collect:** and the skeptic must not assume no miracle just because he does not. Both sides go to the evidence. **Closing line.** *"'Not enough evidence' is a conversation. 'No evidence' is a slogan."* ## In full The objection usually arrives as a blend of three claims, and its force depends on letting them run together: 1. **The metaphysical claim:** resurrection is impossible. 2. **The empirical claim:** resurrection has never been observed. 3. **The evidential claim:** there is no evidence, or no sufficient evidence, that Jesus rose. The first does not follow from the second. "X has never been observed" does not entail "X is impossible." To get from the observed regularity (dead people stay dead) to the conclusion (Jesus was not raised), the skeptic needs a hidden premise: *no supernatural agent can raise the dead*. That premise is not a finding of biology. It is naturalism, and it needs its own defence ([Naturalism](/codex/naturalism/), [Methodological Naturalism](/codex/methodological-naturalism/)). The third claim splits in two. "There is no evidence" is false: testimony is evidence, and the resurrection claim rests on early, named testimony ([Pre-Pauline Creeds](/codex/pre-pauline-creeds/)). "There is not sufficient evidence" is a fair position, and the place where the real debate happens. The Christian has a burden here too: showing a resurrection is *possible* does not show one *happened*. The case has to be made from the historical data, which is the work of the [Minimal Facts Argument](/codex/minimal-facts-argument/) and the [Argument from the Resurrection](/codex/argument-from-the-resurrection/). ## Grammar and hermeneutics The two texts at the centre of the evidence say more on their own grammar than a casual reading catches. 1. **"I delivered unto you... that which also I received" ([1 Corinthians 15:3](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3/)).** Paul uses a matched pair of verbs, *paredōka* ("I handed on") and *parelabon* ("I received"), the standard vocabulary for passing on a fixed tradition. He is not composing; he is quoting something he was given. That is why the passage is widely treated as a creed older than the letter itself. 2. **"Hath been raised" ([1 Corinthians 15:4](/codex/1-corinthians-15-4/)).** The verb *egēgertai* is a perfect passive. The perfect describes a completed act with a continuing result: he was raised and remains raised. The passive points to the one who raised him, God. The ASV keeps both: "hath been raised." 3. **"He appeared" ([1 Corinthians 15:5-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-5-8/)).** The same verb, *ōphthē* ("he appeared," "he was seen"), is repeated for every witness: Cephas, the Twelve, the five hundred, James, all the apostles, Paul. The list is built as a roll of witnesses, not a vision report. 4. **"Of whom the greater part remain until now" ([1 Corinthians 15:6](/codex/1-corinthians-15-6/)).** A present-tense aside: most of the five hundred were still alive when Paul wrote. The clause only makes sense as an invitation to check. 5. **"To visit Cephas" ([Galatians 1:18](/codex/galatians-1-18/)).** The verb is *historēsai*, to visit for the purpose of getting to know, to inquire. It is the root of the English word *history*. Paul spent fifteen days with Peter. The next verse adds James, "the Lord's brother," the same James named in the 1 Corinthians list. Read together, the texts put Paul in direct contact with two of the named witnesses within a few years of the events, and show him passing on a list he did not invent. ## Argument structure | # | Premise | |---|---| | **P1** | That Jesus died does not establish that he was never raised; the two are separate claims. | | **P2** | "Resurrection has never been observed" does not establish "resurrection is impossible"; that step needs the premise that no supernatural agent can raise the dead, which is not a scientific finding. | | **P3** | Early, named testimony to the resurrection exists, so "there is no evidence" is false. | | **P4** | Rejecting that testimony because it later became Scripture is the genetic fallacy. | | **C** | **The objection reduces to "the evidence is not sufficient," which is a claim to be argued from the data, not a proof that Jesus stayed dead.** | ## Form The defeater is **defensive**. It does not prove the resurrection; it shows that the objection, as usually stated, proves less than it claims. It works by **logical analysis**: separating three claims, exposing the hidden premise needed to make the first valid (P2), and showing the evidential claim is false in its strong form (P3, P4). What is left, "not sufficient evidence," is then answered by the positive case on other pages. --- ## P1, Jesus' death does not establish that he was never raised ### Affirmative case (second-order arguments) 1. **Christianity affirms the death.** The resurrection claim *requires* a real death. "Christ died for our sins" is the first line of the creed ([1 Corinthians 15:3](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/)). Agreeing that Jesus died costs the Christian nothing. 2. **Two propositions, two burdens.** "Jesus died" is a historical claim with near-universal agreement among historians. "Jesus did not rise" is a second claim and needs its own support. The first is not evidence for the second, since every resurrection claim begins with a death. ### Anticipated objections 1. **"Dead is dead. That settles it."** ### Rebuttals 1. **It settles what nature does, not what God can do.** Christians do not claim Jesus recovered by a natural process. They claim God raised him. Paul put the question to Agrippa directly: "Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?" ([Acts 26:8](/codex/acts-26-8/), ASV). ### Live-cite kit - **Scripture:** [Acts 26:8](/codex/acts-26-8/) - **Aphorism:** *"Every resurrection story starts with a funeral."* ### Tactical notes - Agree with the death first and warmly. It disarms the opponent and moves the debate to the right question. --- ## P2, "Never observed" does not establish "impossible" ### Affirmative case (second-order arguments) 1. **The hidden premise.** Set the skeptic's argument out: (1) dead humans do not naturally return to life; (2) Jesus was a human who died; therefore (3) Jesus was never supernaturally raised. The conclusion does not follow. It mentions a supernatural possibility the premises never address. To make it valid, add (P3*): *no supernatural intervention can restore a dead person to life*. That premise is not a result of biology. It is a philosophical claim, and it assumes the very thing in dispute. 2. **Science describes regularities, not limits on God.** Biology tells us that irreversible death is not naturally reversed. A unique act of God is, by definition, not a natural regularity, so it is not the kind of thing a repeatable experiment can rule out. 3. **The conditional question.** *If* a God exists who made and sustains life, raising a dead man is not logically impossible. So the impossibility claim is only as strong as the case for atheism, which is a separate debate. ### Anticipated objections 1. **"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."** 2. **"Hume showed it is always more likely the witnesses were wrong than that a miracle happened."** ### Rebuttals 1. **Then the objection has changed.** That slogan moves from "impossible" to "needs strong evidence." The Christian can agree that a resurrection claim deserves careful scrutiny; that is a debate about the weight of the evidence, which is exactly where this defeater wants it. 2. **Hume's argument assumes its conclusion.** [David Hume](/codex/david-hume/) argued (*Enquiry*, §10) that the uniform experience against miracles always outweighs testimony for one. But experience is only uniform if every report of a miracle is set aside in advance, which is the point under debate. See [Argument from Miracles](/codex/argument-from-miracles/). ### Live-cite kit - **Scholarly:** Hume, *An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748), §10, the objection's classic form. - **Aphorism:** *"'We've never seen it' describes our experience, not God's power."* ### Tactical notes - Write the skeptic's syllogism down and ask him to supply the missing premise. Once P3* is on the table, he has to defend naturalism, not just cite biology. - Ask: *"Can you distinguish an event being impossible from an event being possible but, in your view, not well enough evidenced?"* --- ## P3, Early, named testimony exists, so "no evidence" is false ### Affirmative case (second-order arguments) 1. **The creed.** 1 Corinthians, generally dated to the mid-50s AD, preserves a tradition Paul "received" before he passed it on, listing appearances to named people ([1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/)). See [Pre-Pauline Creeds](/codex/pre-pauline-creeds/). 2. **Contact with the witnesses.** Paul spent fifteen days with Cephas and met James ([Galatians 1:18-19](/codex/galatians-1-18-19/)). The testimony is not an anonymous legend surfacing centuries later. 3. **Hostile converts.** Paul had persecuted the church "beyond measure" ([Galatians 1:13](/codex/galatians-1-13/)). James, the brother of Jesus, appears among the witnesses ([1 Corinthians 15:7](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/)). Both changed sides. See [Paul the Apostle](/codex/paul-the-apostle/) and [James the Brother of Jesus](/codex/james-the-brother-of-jesus/). 4. **What counts as evidence.** Evidence is any information relevant to assessing a claim. Testimony qualifies, in history and in court. It can be mistaken, and it can be insufficient, but it is still evidence. > *For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.* ([1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/), ASV) ### Anticipated objections 1. **"That only proves people believed it."** 2. **"People change religions all the time. Paul's conversion proves nothing."** ### Rebuttals 1. **Agreed, and the belief now needs explaining.** Early testimony establishes the belief, not by itself the event. But the belief arose early, among people who had known Jesus, and included former opponents. A skeptic who grants the belief owes an explanation of it: sincere but mistaken experiences, legend, or a real resurrection. Each has to be weighed. See [Minimal Facts Argument](/codex/minimal-facts-argument/). 2. **Agreed, and the question is why this one.** A conversion does not prove a resurrection. But Paul gives a specific cause, an appearance of the risen Jesus, and the question is whether that is better explained naturally or supernaturally. That is a debate about explanation, which again concedes there is evidence to explain. ### Live-cite kit - **Scripture:** [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/); [Galatians 1:18-19](/codex/galatians-1-18-19/); [Galatians 1:13](/codex/galatians-1-13/) - **Scholarly:** Habermas and Licona, *The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus* (2004); N.T. Wright, *The Resurrection of the Son of God* (2003). - **Aphorism:** *"Testimony can be wrong. It cannot be nothing."* ### Tactical notes - Ask the five-witness question: *"If five people told you they saw something extraordinary, is their testimony (A) evidence that might be mistaken, or (B) not evidence at all?"* Almost everyone picks A, and A concedes the point. --- ## P4, Rejecting the testimony because it became Scripture is the genetic fallacy ### Affirmative case (second-order arguments) 1. **Documents before a canon.** Paul's letters were written as ordinary letters to particular churches decades before anyone gathered them into a New Testament. Their later status does not change what they were when written. 2. **Origin is not evaluation.** Dismissing a source because of where it ended up, rather than examining what it says, is the [Genetic Fallacy](/codex/genetic-fallacy/). The right move is to weigh the source: its date, its distance from the events, its authors' knowledge, and alternative explanations. ### Anticipated objections 1. **"Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular."** ### Rebuttals 1. **Not when the texts are used as historical sources.** The argument does not assume the Bible is inspired. It treats Paul's letters as first-century documents, the way a historian treats Tacitus or Josephus. See [Bible Circularity Objection](/codex/bible-circularity-objection/). ### Live-cite kit - **Aphorism:** *"Being bound into a Bible later does not make a letter less of a letter."* ### Tactical notes - Ask: *"If Paul's letter had been found in a jar and never made it into the Bible, would you count it as evidence?"* If yes, the objection is to the label, not the source. --- ## Conclusion **The objection reduces to "the evidence is not sufficient."** That Jesus died is common ground (P1). That resurrection is impossible does not follow from never having seen one; it needs naturalism as a premise (P2). That there is no evidence is false; there is early, named testimony (P3), and it cannot be dismissed by its later place in Scripture (P4). What remains is a real debate about whether the evidence is enough, which is where the [Minimal Facts Argument](/codex/minimal-facts-argument/) and the [Argument from the Resurrection](/codex/argument-from-the-resurrection/) make the positive case. ## Master objections to the defeater - **"You're just shifting the burden of proof."** No. The Christian accepts a burden: to show the resurrection is the best explanation of the data. This defeater only removes the claim that the skeptic has already *disproved* it. See [Burden of Proof](/codex/burden-of-proof/). - **"Even if there's some evidence, it's too weak to matter."** That is the sufficiency debate, and it has to be had with the data: the early creed, the named witnesses, the converted opponents. It cannot be settled by repeating "no evidence." ## Tactical opening / closing **Opening line:** *"I agree with you that Jesus died. So let's be precise: are you saying he couldn't rise, or that the evidence isn't good enough? Those are different arguments."* **Closing landing strip:** *"You don't have to believe he rose today. But you've moved from 'definitely dead, no evidence' to 'I'm not convinced by the evidence.' That's honest, and it means the next step is to look at the evidence together."* ## Connection to Scripture - [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/), the creed and the roll of witnesses - [1 Corinthians 15:14](/codex/1-corinthians-15-14/), "if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain": the faith stakes itself on a checkable event - [Galatians 1:13](/codex/galatians-1-13/), Paul the persecutor - [Galatians 1:18-19](/codex/galatians-1-18-19/), fifteen days with Cephas, and James - [Acts 26:8](/codex/acts-26-8/), "Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?" - [John 20:24-29](/codex/john-20-24-29/), Thomas asks for evidence and receives it ## Patristic / scholarly note **Classical:** - David Hume (*An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding*, 1748, §10), the classic statement of the objection from uniform experience **Modern:** - Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (*The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*, 2004), the minimal-facts method - N.T. Wright (*The Resurrection of the Son of God*, 2003), the historical case from the rise of resurrection belief - See [Gary Habermas](/codex/gary-habermas/) ## Scholarship Published academic works this page draws on, each matched to a publisher, index or library catalog record. - Gary R. Habermas, *Case for the Resurrection of Jesus* (2004). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1984532W) - N. T. Wright, *The resurrection of the Son of God* (2003). [Open Library](https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1981296W) ## See also - [Minimal Facts Argument](/codex/minimal-facts-argument/), the positive historical case - [Argument from the Resurrection](/codex/argument-from-the-resurrection/), the resurrection as evidence for Christian theism - [Pre-Pauline Creeds](/codex/pre-pauline-creeds/), the early tradition behind [1 Corinthians 15](/codex/1-corinthians-15/) - [Argument from Miracles](/codex/argument-from-miracles/), whether miracle claims can be rationally believed - [The Resurrection Accounts Contradict Objection Defeater](/codex/the-resurrection-accounts-contradict-objection-defeater/), the companion defeater on the Gospel accounts - [Bible Circularity Objection](/codex/bible-circularity-objection/), why using the New Testament as a historical source is not circular - [Genetic Fallacy](/codex/genetic-fallacy/), dismissing a source by its origin - [Burden of Proof](/codex/burden-of-proof/), who must show what - [David Hume](/codex/david-hume/), the classic argument against miracles - [Arguments](/codex/arguments/), master index
## Common questions this page answers **Q: Is there any evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?** Yes. The question is whether it is sufficient, not whether it exists. The earliest is the tradition Paul quotes in [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](/codex/1-corinthians-15-3-8/), written in the mid-50s AD, which names Peter, the Twelve, more than five hundred people, James and Paul as witnesses. Paul says he met Peter and James in person ([Galatians 1:18-19](/codex/galatians-1-18-19/)). **Q: Doesn't science prove that dead people can't come back to life?** Science shows that dead people do not come back by natural processes, and Christians agree. The resurrection claim is that God raised Jesus. To rule that out, one has to show that no God could do it, which is a philosophical claim about naturalism, not a finding of biology. **Q: Isn't using the Bible as evidence circular?** Not when its books are treated as historical sources. Paul's letters were written as ordinary first-century letters long before they were collected into a New Testament. Dismissing them because they later became Scripture, rather than examining them, is the genetic fallacy. **Q: What is the difference between no evidence and not enough evidence?** "No evidence" means there is nothing relevant to weigh. "Not enough evidence" means there is relevant information, but it does not, in the speaker's judgment, establish the claim. Testimony is evidence even when it might be mistaken, so the honest form of the skeptic's position is "not enough evidence," and that is a debate about the data.