Justified True Belief

(P1) The New Testament documents are multiple, early, independent, and generally reliable historical sources about Jesus and the earliest Christian movement. + On a “maximal data” approach, we do not artificially restrict ourselves to a handful of widely conceded facts; rather, we assess the New Testament writings as we would other ancient historical sources. The Gospels and Acts show: (1) multiple authors drawing on distinct sources and traditions, (2) early composition within living memory of the events, (3) familiarity with first-century Palestinian geography, customs, and politics, and (4) undesigned coincidences between different books that mutually confirm their historical character. This justifies treating them as broadly trustworthy witnesses, not as late, legendary compilations whose details must be discarded in advance. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Undesigned Coincidences as Evidence of Gospel Reliability • CE / NT Criticism: External Corroboration – Archaeology and Non-Christian Sources • CE / NT Criticism: Early Dating and Eyewitness Proximity of the New Testament

(P2) Taken as generally reliable, these sources support a rich cluster of historical facts about Jesus’ death, burial, empty tomb, and post-mortem appearances. + Among the facts supported by the Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters are: (a) Jesus’ public ministry, arrest, and condemnation under Pontius Pilate; (b) His brutal scourging and crucifixion, leading to His death; (c) His burial in a specific rock-hewn tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea; (d) the discovery of His tomb empty early on the first day of the week by a group of His female followers; (e) multiple, extended, sensory encounters with Jesus alive again, at different times and places, involving different individuals and groups (including meals, conversations, and physical contact); (f) the transformation of the disciples from fearful and despondent to bold public witnesses; and (g) the conversions of prominent skeptics and opponents such as James and Paul, grounded in what they took to be encounters with the risen Christ. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Internal Marks of Eyewitness Testimony and Verisimilitude • CE / NT Criticism: Convergence of Independent New Testament Traditions • CE / NT Criticism: Transformation and Conduct of the Key Witnesses

(P3) These facts are supported not only by Christian testimony but also by undesigned coincidences, external corroboration, and hostile or neutral sources that confirm key points. + Undesigned coincidences...subtle interlocking details between different New Testament documents...show that the authors are independently reporting a shared underlying reality rather than colluding in fiction. For example, incidental details in one Gospel explain obscure statements in another without apparent design. In addition, non-Christian sources (such as Tacitus, Josephus in at least some textual layers, and early hostile traditions) affirm that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, that His followers quickly proclaimed His resurrection, and that the movement spread despite persecution. Jewish polemic presupposes that the tomb was empty, accusing the disciples of stealing the body rather than simply pointing to a known, occupied grave. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Undesigned Coincidences as Evidence of Gospel Reliability • CE / NT Criticism: External Corroboration – Archaeology and Non-Christian Sources

(P4) No naturalistic explanation (fraud, apparent death, hallucination, displaced body, legend, or any combination thereof) adequately accounts for this broad, interconnected body of evidence when the New Testament is treated with ordinary historical seriousness. + When the full range of data is considered...Jesus’ known death by crucifixion, specific tomb burial, empty tomb discovered by named individuals, numerous multi-sensory appearances over forty days, the radical and immediate transformation of the disciples, the conversions of James and Paul, the detailed and realistic character of the narratives, and the deep internal coherence across independent documents...naturalistic theories repeatedly fail. Each tends to explain at best one or two elements while contradicting others or requiring ad hoc additions. A conspiracy cannot plausibly sustain decades of suffering and martyrdom; a swoon does not fit Roman execution practices or inspire worship of a glorified, death-conquering Lord; hallucinations do not produce an empty tomb, coordinated group appearances, and conversions of enemies; displaced body and legend theories conflict with early, structured tradition and eyewitness-rooted testimony. Combining them only multiplies speculative assumptions without yielding a simple, unified account. See also: • CE / Resurrection: The A.L.I.V.E. Argument • CE / Resurrection: Contra Conspiracy Hypothesis (Stolen-Body Theory) • CE / Resurrection: Contra Apparent Death Hypothesis (Swoon Theory) • CE / Resurrection: Contra Hallucination Hypothesis • CE / Resurrection: Contra Displaced Body Hypothesis • CE / Resurrection: Contra Legend Hypothesis

(P5) If God exists and has reason to vindicate Jesus’ claims and mission, then a bodily resurrection fits naturally as a divine action in history and provides a powerful, unified explanation of all the Maximal Data. + Philosophical arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, teleological, moral, and more) make divine action a live explanatory option. On that background, the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead is not an arbitrary miracle claim but a theologically fitting act: it vindicates Jesus’ messianic claims, confirms His teaching, and inaugurates the new covenant and the hope of final resurrection. This single hypothesis straightforwardly explains the empty tomb, the varied and persistent appearances, the transformation of frightened disciples into bold witnesses, the conversions of skeptics and opponents, and the rise and spread of the early Christian movement centered on the proclamation that “God has Him from the dead.” See also: • Natural Theology Arguments

(C) Therefore, when we consider the maximal range of well-supported historical data and treat the New Testament documents as generally reliable sources, the best explanation is that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection,” in William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts. Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017. Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices. DeWard, 2019.

+ The Maximal Data Method simply grants that the New Testament is generally reliable, which is exactly what skeptics dispute. This stacks the deck in favor of resurrection.

1. The reliability claim is argued for, not merely assumed. Defenders of the Maximal Data approach present detailed positive arguments for the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament: undesigned coincidences, accurate incidental details, correct geographical and cultural references, and coherence with external evidence. The argument invites us to treat these documents by the same standards we use for other ancient sources. 2. General reliability does not mean inerrancy or perfection. The maximal approach does not require that every verse be error-free to use the documents historically. Historians routinely regard ancient works as generally reliable while allowing for minor mistakes or uncertainties. The question is whether the New Testament, overall, has the marks of honest reporting about real events...and the McGrews argue that it does. 3. Skeptics are free to challenge particular details, but must then offer an alternative explanation of the cumulative pattern. Even if someone disputes one or two elements, the larger body of interlocking facts, supported by multiple lines of evidence, still stands in need of explanation. The Maximal Data approach is powerful precisely because it does not rest on a single verse or isolated claim but on a broad, interconnected network of data. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Undesigned Coincidences as Evidence of Gospel Reliability • CE / NT Criticism: External Corroboration – Archaeology and Non-Christian Sources • CE / NT Criticism: Early Dating and Eyewitness Proximity of the New Testament

+ People in the ancient world were generally superstitious and uncritical. We should not put much stock in their miracle reports, including resurrection claims.

1. The New Testament authors often show critical awareness of alternative explanations. The Gospels and Acts mention attempts to explain away miracles (e.g., accusations of demonic power, claims that the disciples stole the body, doubts within the ranks of the disciples themselves). They record skepticism and verification behaviors (touching, eating, extended conversations) rather than blind acceptance. 2. Intellectual ability and critical reasoning are not modern inventions. Ancient historians, philosophers, and legal writers display sophisticated reasoning and awareness of human error. First-century Jews and Greeks knew that dead people stay dead; that is why resurrection, when claimed, was so controversial. The very scandal of the resurrection message argues against a background of uncritical gullibility. 3. Credulity in some areas does not invalidate all testimony. Modern people can be gullible too, yet we still rely on eyewitness reports in courts, journalism, and everyday life. The question is not whether ancient people ever believed foolish things, but whether specific witnesses in specific contexts give us good reason to trust them about specific events...especially when multiple, independent, mutually reinforcing testimonies are available. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Internal Marks of Eyewitness Testimony and Verisimilitude • CE / NT Criticism: Transformation and Conduct of the Key Witnesses

+ The Gospel accounts of the resurrection contain apparent contradictions. If they cannot even agree on basic details, we should not build a maximal argument on them.

1. Many alleged contradictions dissolve on closer examination. Differences in emphasis, compression, or selection of details can look like contradictions at first glance but can often be plausibly harmonized. Defenders of the McGrews’ approach offer specific case studies showing how various accounts fit together like different camera angles on the same events. 2. Variation in secondary details is exactly what we expect from independent witnesses. In ordinary historical and legal contexts, slight divergences in detail are a mark of genuine, independent testimony, not collusion. A perfectly uniform set of stories would raise suspicion of fabrication. The Gospels’ differences, set against their deep underlying agreement, look more like authentic multiple attestation than like sloppy legend. 3. The core claims remain stable and mutually reinforcing. All four Gospels attest to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, His burial, the empty tomb discovered on the first day of the week, and subsequent appearances to followers. The Maximal Data Method focuses on this robust center of agreement, supported by multiple authors and traditions, not on every disputed peripheral detail. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Convergence of Independent New Testament Traditions • CE / NT Criticism: Early Dating and Eyewitness Proximity of the New Testament

+ Appealing to a miracle to explain a large collection of facts is still a ‘God of the gaps’ move, just with more gaps described in detail.

1. The Maximal Data Method appeals to explanatory power, not to ignorance. “God of the gaps” arguments say, “We do not know how this happened, therefore God did it.” By contrast, the Maximal Data approach compares specific naturalistic hypotheses with the resurrection hypothesis and asks which best explains the positive evidence we have. It is a competition of explanations, not a retreat into mystery. 2. The resurrection hypothesis makes positive, testable predictions about the kind of evidence we should expect. If God raised Jesus, we would anticipate an empty tomb, persistent and transformative appearances, early and bold proclamation centered on resurrection, and documents that bear marks of honest testimony. That is exactly the pattern we find. This is not plugging God into a gap but recognizing a theistic explanation that fits the evidence better than its rivals. 3. The argument is framed within a broader theistic context. If we already have independent reasons to believe that God exists, then divine action is not an ad hoc way to patch holes, but a live explanatory option. The resurrection is then assessed as a particular historical claim about what this God has done, rather than as a last-ditch resort when natural causes fail. See also: • Natural Theology Arguments

+ Because the Maximal Data Method is cumulative, a skeptic can always resist it by denying enough individual premises or casting doubt on enough details.

1. Logical possibility of resistance is different from rational plausibility. In principle, anyone can deny any premise. The important question is whether such denials are well-motivated and supported by evidence, or whether they are ad hoc moves to avoid an unwelcome conclusion. A cumulative case gains force when each individual premise is independently credible and the overall pattern is hard to dismiss without special pleading. 2. The facts used in the maximal case are diverse and mutually reinforcing. The argument does not lean on a single fragile point. Archaeological realism, undesigned coincidences, early creedal material, external references, internal coherence, and psychological transformation all converge. To dismantle the case, one must undermine many different kinds of evidence, which is far more difficult than raising doubts about a single datum. 3. Cumulative reasoning is standard and appropriate in historical and legal contexts. Courts, historians, and everyday reasoning often rely on the convergence of many small indicators rather than on a single overwhelming proof. The Maximal Data Method applies this ordinary pattern of reasoning to the question of Jesus’ resurrection, inviting fair-minded evaluation rather than demanding blind acceptance. See also: • CE / NT Criticism: Convergence of Independent New Testament Traditions • CE / NT Criticism: Undesigned Coincidences as Evidence of Gospel Reliability

Natural Theology

Cosmological

Teleological

Moral & Rational

Five Ways

Christian Evidences

Resurrection of Jesus

Maximal Data Method (McGrew)

Divinity of Christ

Prophecy Fulfillment

New Testament Criticism

Old Testament Criticism

Common Objections

Problem of Evil

Science

Bad Claims

World Religions

Mormonism

Islam

Jehovah's Witness

Philosophy

Logic

Logic: Common Fallacies

Epistemology

Philosophical Theology

Prolegomena

Bibliology

Theology Proper

The Trinity

Creation

Anthropology

Christology

Soteriology

Ecclesiology

Eschatology

Public Theology

Theology of the Family

Biographies

Ancient History

Classical Antiquity

Medieval Period

Early Modern Period

Late Modern Period