Jonathan Pearce, an influential sceptic and philosopher, offers a detailed and damming critique of the resurrection of Jesus in The Resurrection: A Critical Examination of the Easter Story. He argues that the resurrection narratives are inconsistent, the historical claims are improbable, and that the naturalistic alternatives are more plausible than the traditional Christian account. For evangelicals, the resurrection of Jesus is not merely an article of faith—it is the cornerstone of Christian theology (1 Corinthians 15:14). Therefore, the claims of sceptics like Pearce deserve to be taken seriously and answered with clarity.
1. The Resurrection as the Heart of the Gospel
Just in case we are in any doubt as to the importance of this issue, the Apostle Paul makes the centrality of the resurrection unmistakably clear:
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).
Without the resurrection, there is no vindication of Jesus’ divine identity, no defeat of death, and no assurance of our justification (Romans 4:25). The resurrection is not an optional belief—it is the theological lynchpin upon which all Christian hope rests.
Pearce challenges this hope by arguing that the resurrection accounts in the Gospels are contradictory, legendary, and theologically motivated fictions. But are Pearce’s criticisms grounded in a fair assessment of the evidence, or do they themselves rest on naturalistic presuppositions that disallow the supernatural from the outset?
2. Apparent Contradictions and the Nature of Ancient Testimony
Pearce’s critique of the resurrection begins with what he sees as contradictions among the Gospel accounts: differences in the number of women at the tomb, the presence or absence of angels, the timing of events, and the post-resurrection appearances. While these differences are real, they are far from fatal. In fact, they are precisely what we would expect from multiple independent eyewitness testimonies.
When we compare the Gospels, we find complementary—not contradictory—details. For example:
- Matthew mentions one angel (Matthew 28:2), while Luke mentions two (Luke 24:4). But Matthew never says there was only one; he simply focuses on the angel who did the talking.
- John focuses on Mary Magdalene, while Mark lists several women. This is an example of selection, not contradiction.
- Mark ends abruptly (Mark 16:8), which Pearce sees as evidence of theological invention. But the abrupt ending may point to an unfinished document or to a deliberate literary device. In terms of the latter, Mark has simply deemed that he has fulfilled his task of recording the resurrection of Jesus and does not feel the need to outline subsequent events.
Respected scholars like Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) and Peter J. Williams (Can We Trust the Gospels?) argue that the diversity in the accounts actually supports their authenticity. Fabricated accounts tend to harmonize artificially. Real eyewitness testimonies include minor differences that reflect personal perspective and selective reporting.
All of Pearce’s examples of so-called contradictions in the Gospel accounts are easily accounted for in this manner. Indeed, he seems to have little understanding of the nature of selective reporting and individualised perspectives that is common to almost all historical documents. If we applied Pearce’s simplistic critique to the wider body of historical literature we would have to conclude that almost all currently accepted events from antiquity are fabricated myths.
3. Historical Reliability and Early Christian Proclamation
Pearce suggests the resurrection accounts are legendary developments added to the Jesus story several decades after his death. But this ignores the strong evidence that the resurrection creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dates to within five years of the crucifixion. Paul writes:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… and that he appeared…” (1 Corinthians 15:3–7)
This passage is a pre-Pauline formula that most scholars—liberal and conservative alike—agree is early, fixed tradition. Thus, James D. G. Dunn writes:
“This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” (Jesus Remembered, p. 855)
This one reference alone utterly demolishes the idea that the resurrection appearances were late, legendary embellishments. Instead, the belief that Jesus rose from the dead was present from the beginning of Christianity, proclaimed in hostile settings like Jerusalem, and embraced by Jewish monotheists for whom resurrection was unthinkable apart from the end of the world.
4. Unlikely Naturalistic Explanations
Pearce argues that naturalistic explanations including hallucinations, cognitive dissonance and legend development are more plausible than a bodily resurrection. But each of these theories fails to account for the full range of historical data.
- Hallucination Theory:
Hallucinations are private, subjective phenomena. Yet the resurrection appearances include group sightings (1 Corinthians 15:6), physical interactions (Luke 24:39), and extended conversations (John 21). Hallucinations do not eat fish or offer wounds for inspection. - Cognitive Dissonance:
Pearce relies on this psychological phenomenon to explain why the disciples continued to believe in Jesus after his death. But dissonance theory predicts a reinterpretationof failure, not a radical proclamation that their teacher rose from the grave and was divine. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead is so countercultural and dangerous that it cannot be explained by mere wish fulfillment. - Legend Development:
Legends take generations to develop, not months. The Gospels were written within living memory of the events (between 60–90 A.D.), and Paul’s letters date even earlier (40s–50s A.D.). A fabricated claim of the resurrection within the lifetime of the eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life and death would have been easily refuted and could never have gained traction. Historian N.T. Wright estimates that minor embellishment and fabrication requires at least two generations time gap and major mythological embellishment requires at least 200 years between the supposed event and its eventual false reporting. A claim as extraordinary as the resurrection simply could not have gained traction while eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life were still alive – unless it was true!
Furthermore, legends do not typically emphasize the embarrassing details found in the resurrection story—such as women being the first witnesses in a patriarchal society. As N.T. Wright argues:
“As historians, we are obliged to take seriously the fact that virtually all the early Christians known to us saw the resurrection of Jesus as central… We cannot account for the rise of early Christianity without it.” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 706)
5. Biased Presuppositions
One of the deepest flaws in Pearce’s methodology is his pre-supposed philosophical naturalism—an a priori rejection of the possibility of miracles. This is not an evidential conclusion but a metaphysical commitment. By assuming that dead people cannot rise, he rules out the resurrection before he even considers the evidence.
Pearce is not alone in this presupposition. David Hume also famously argued that miracles are always less probable than natural explanations. But Hume’s circular reasoning has been widely criticized. Philosopher John Earman, in Hume’s Abject Failure, dismantles Hume’s argument as “an embarrassment to the history of philosophy.”
Miracles are improbable given naturalism, but not improbable given theism. If God exists, then the resurrection is not only possible—it makes sense within a broader theological framework. As William Lane Craig has said, “the resurrection is the best explanation of the facts, provided that one is open to the possibility of God’s existence.”
6. The Theological Significance of the Resurrection
Pearce critiques not only the historical claims, but the theological rationale for the resurrection. But this critique misunderstands the Christian vision of redemption. The resurrection is not a random miracle. It is the divine vindication of Jesus as Messiah (Romans 1:4), the firstfruits of the new creation (1 Corinthians 15:20), and the inauguration of the kingdom of God (Colossians 1:18–20).
Moreover, the resurrection fulfills the promises of the Hebrew Scriptures. Isaiah foresaw a day when God would “swallow up death forever” (Isaiah 25:8), and Daniel predicted that the righteous would “awake to everlasting life” (Daniel 12:2). Jesus’ resurrection is the foretaste of that eschatological hope.
Pearce critiques the Gospels as theological propaganda. But even if they were written with theological aims, that does not mean they are historically false. Theology and history are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the Gospels claim to be both theological and historical (Luke 1:1–4; John 20:31).
7. The Testimony of the Martyrs
Another major problem for Pearce’s thesis is the behaviour of the disciples. Why would a group of defeated, disillusioned men suddenly proclaim that their leader had risen—facing persecution, imprisonment, and death—if they knew it was a lie? Sincere belief does not prove truth, but it does raise the question: What changed them?
- Peter, who denied Jesus, later preached boldly in Jerusalem (Acts 2).
- James, Jesus’ sceptical brother, became a pillar of the church (Galatians 1:19).
- Paul, an enemy of the church, was radically transformed by an appearance of the risen Christ (Acts 9).
As Sean McDowell has shown in The Fate of the Apostles, the willingness of the early Christian leaders to suffer and die testifies to the sincerity of their belief. They did not merely preach a metaphor—they proclaimed an empty tomb and a literal risen Lord.
Conclusion: Faith Founded on Fact
Jonathan Pearce’s The Resurrection is a serious attempt to dismantle the Christian Easter narrative. But when subjected to careful historical, philosophical, and theological scrutiny, his arguments fall short. The Gospel accounts, far from being late fabrications, are rooted in early, eyewitness testimony. The empty tomb, the transformation of the disciples, and the rise of the Christian church are best explained by the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
The evangelical claim is not merely that Jesus lives in our hearts, but that he physically rose from the dead in space and time. This claim is not anti-intellectual—it is the most coherent explanation of the evidence when we allow for the possibility that God is real and that He has acted decisively in history.
In the final analysis, the resurrection of Jesus is not only historically defensible—it is the very hope of the world. As Jesus said:
“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even though they die, shall live.” (John 11:25)