The Strength of Multiple Attestation

Introduction:

The principle of multiple attestation is a cornerstone of historical inquiry. When independent sources, especially from different traditions and genres, agree on an event, its historicity is strongly supported. The resurrection of Christ, specifically the discovery of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances, is confirmed through multiple, independent accounts in the Gospels, Acts, and early creeds.¹ These sources, produced by different authors for different audiences, demonstrate that belief in the resurrection emerged from eyewitness experiences, not later legend or theological embellishment.

1. The Gospels: Independent and Complementary Accounts

The four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—provide independent perspectives on the resurrection. Though they share core elements, such as the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, they also include unique details.²

• Mark’s Account: Considered by some as the earliest Gospel presents a stark, early tradition, with the women discovering the empty tomb and encountering an angel.³
• Matthew’s Account: Matthew adds the guards at the tomb and the Great Commission, indicating a separate tradition.⁴
• Luke’s Account: Luke provides detailed resurrection appearances, including the Emmaus road encounter, found only in his Gospel.⁵
• John’s Account: John offers unique accounts, such as Mary Magdalene’s interaction with the risen Jesus and the Doubting Thomas episode.⁶

New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham observes:

“The differences between the Gospels are not contradictions but rather complementary perspectives, evidencing multiple eyewitness testimonies.”⁷

2. The Early Creed in 1 Corinthians 15: A Separate Tradition from the Gospels

Paul’s summary of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 predates the Gospels and represents a separate, independent tradition. It is widely accepted by scholars to have originated within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion.⁸

James D.G. Dunn emphasizes:

“This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”⁹

Paul lists the key witnesses, including Peter (Cephas), James, the Twelve, and over 500 others, many of whom were still alive when he wrote, inviting his readers to verify his claim.¹⁰

3. The Book of Acts: Independent Testimony and Early Preaching

Acts provides a record of the earliest Christian preaching, emphasizing the resurrection as central to the gospel message. The speeches in Acts—delivered by Peter, Stephen, and Paul—are considered independent of the Gospel accounts.¹¹

• Peter’s Speech (Acts 2:22–32): Peter publicly proclaims the resurrection in Jerusalem, where critics could have refuted his claim by producing Jesus’ body.¹²
• Paul’s Speech (Acts 13:29–31): Paul emphasizes the eyewitnesses of the resurrection, consistent with his list in 1 Corinthians 15.¹³
• Stephen’s Martyrdom (Acts 7): Stephen’s vision of the risen Christ affirms the centrality of the resurrection in early Christian faith.¹⁴

Craig S. Keener notes:

“The speeches in Acts, although presented by Luke, draw from early oral traditions and creedal formulations that are independent of the Gospel narratives.”¹⁵

4. Oral Tradition: Independent Streams of Testimony

Before the written Gospels, the resurrection circulated through oral tradition in multiple Christian communities. Different regions preserved distinct details, which later appeared in varying Gospel narratives.¹⁶ This oral transmission, common in ancient cultures, spread through hymns, creeds, and public proclamation.

Kenneth Bailey, an expert on oral tradition, observes:

“In the first-century Jewish context, oral tradition was carefully preserved and passed down communally, making significant deviation unlikely.”¹⁷

5. Diversity of Perspective and Unity of Message

Although the Gospel accounts vary in detail, they are unified in their core proclamation: Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead. The differences are not contradictions but indicators of multiple independent eyewitness sources. Historians recognize that identical testimonies often suggest collusion, while variations are signs of authenticity.¹⁸

F.F. Bruce states:

“The Gospel writers did not conspire to tell the same story. Their variations attest to independent sources, and their shared testimony affirms a single truth: the resurrection.”¹⁹

6. Comparison with Other Ancient Historical Events

Multiple independent sources for the resurrection exceed the documentation for many accepted ancient events. For instance:

• Alexander the Great’s life: Primarily recorded by Arrian and Plutarch, written centuries after his death.²⁰
• Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon: Reported primarily by Suetonius and Plutarch, with fewer independent sources than the resurrection.²¹

Historian Michael Licona notes:

“The resurrection accounts are better attested than most events from antiquity. Disbelief often stems not from evidence but from bias against miracles.”²²

Probability Assessment: Multiple Independent Sources Increase Credibility

• Probability of multiple independent sources if the resurrection is true: High (95%)
• Probability of multiple independent sources if the resurrection is false: Low (10%)

Odds Ratio (Bayes Factor): 95% / 10% = 9.5 (Strong Evidence)

Conclusion: Multiple Independent Accounts Support the Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus is affirmed through multiple, independent sources:

• Four distinct Gospel accounts with unique perspectives
• The early creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15
• Independent oral traditions recorded in Acts
• Diverse forms of testimony (narrative, creed, and speech)

These converging lines of evidence, from different authors, genres, and regions, strengthen the historical reliability of the resurrection. The most reasonable conclusion from these independent sources is that Jesus of Nazareth truly rose from the dead.

Footnotes:

¹ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
² Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007).
³ Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (Freiburg: Herder, 1976).
⁴ Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).
⁵ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (New York: Doubleday, 1985).
⁶ D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).
⁷ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
⁸ Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
⁹ James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003),.
¹⁰ C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936).
¹¹ Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1979).
¹² I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008).
¹³ Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).
¹⁴ F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
¹⁵ Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary.
¹⁶ Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008).
¹⁷ Kenneth E. Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 53.
¹⁸ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 32.
¹⁹ F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
²⁰ Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt (New York: Penguin, 1971).
²¹ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves (New York: Penguin, 2007).
²² Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010).