8 These sources include the early creeds in 1 Cor. 15:3ff. and Acts 13:29, as well as hostile sources such as Toledoth Jesuand the information implied in the Nazareth decree. The Shroud of Turin is perhaps helpful, even if it did not belong to Jesus, since it evidences post-crucifixion burial.
Such refutations of critical theories are a major blow to those who would deny this event.
Second, even the accepted historical facts alone provide at least nine historical evidences for the resurrection, as enumerated above. In particular, that this event was reported early(probably in the AD 30s) by the very eyewitnesseswho attested to seeing the risen Christ (especially 1 Cor. 15:3ff. and the Acts creeds) is extremely strong evidence in favor of the literal resurrection. The historical evidence for the empty tomb is also very strong (even from secular sources alone), as are the changed lives of the disciples and the conversions of Paul and James. Therefore, a historical case for this event can be built on both a failure of critical hypotheses on the one hand plus the presence of valid, positive evidences on the other.
Third, even if we were to utilize only the four minimal historical facts that are accepted by virtually all scholars who deal with this issue, we still have a significant basis on which to both refute the naturalistic theories and provide the major evidences for the resurrection. The primary strength of these four facts is that they have been established by critical methodology and thus cannot be rejected by those who have doubts concerning other issues such as Scripture. In other words, the minimum amount of historical facts is sufficient to establish the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. Doubts on other issues do not disturb this basic fact.
If the Shroud of Turin is the burial garment of Jesus, we have another potential category of evidence for the resurrection, in that it would provide some strong scientific, repeatable evidence for this event. There is certainly no proof at this point, and the shroud could still turn out to be a fake, although the data appear to dictate otherwise. It would seem that, even if it did not belong to Jesus, the shroud is at least an actual archaeological artifact, thereby still providing some important information concerning death by crucifixion. The absence of bodily decomposition shows that the body was not in the cloth very long. Further, if the body was not unwrapped and if the image was created by a scorch from a dead body, we have sime potential data that could be highly evidential considerations in favor of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.
These three major categories of arguments for the resurrection do not exhaust the ancient evidence for this event,^13 but they do demonstrate this fact as a literal event of history, according to normal historical methodology. This event is the final capstone and fitting conclusion for the unique life, person, teachings, and death of Jesus. In the earliest church, the resurrection served the purpose of confirming Jesus Christ’s message and providing the basis for the truth of the Christian message.
For instance, the evidence of the Nazareth Decree (see pp. 176–177) and the assertions of Tacitus and Suetonius that Jesus’ teachings broke out again in Palestine afterhis death are other avenues that might be explored. The direct testimonies of Josephus and Phlegon are the most helpful in arguing for this event from non-New Testament sources.
