34..The strongest piece of internal evidence

The presence of women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb was an embarrassment to the early church in first-century culture, where women's testimony was widely discredited. What was a liability then is actually strong evidence for historical reliability now — people don't fabricate stories that hurt their own credibility.

The criterion of embarrassment and the women witnesses; Celsius's criticism

Richard Bauckham's thesis in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is that names appearing in Mark's gospel identify living witnesses known to the community receiving the text. When Mark names Simon of Cyrene "the father of Alexander and Rufus," and Paul greets a "Rufus" in Rome (Rom. 16:13), this likely connects to the same family — confirming these are not invented characters but real people vouching for the account.

Named eyewitnesses in Mark as evidence of historical reliability; Bauckham's thesis

Salome is present at the death scene and the empty tomb, but absent from the burial scene (only the two Marys watch where Jesus is laid). This inconsistency would have been smoothed over in a fabricated account. The simplest explanation is she wasn't there for the burial — a subtle but significant mark of historicity.

The inconsistency of Salome's appearances as evidence of historical accuracy rather than legend

The Digesta (summary of Roman law, ~500 AD appealing back to Augustus) states that "the bodies of those condemned to death should not be refused their relatives" for burial — and this was the general rule, not the exception. Ehrman presents a selective picture by quoting only sources showing executions without burial, ignoring Roman legal provisions that allowed it.

Roman law (Digesta) as evidence that burial of crucified persons was permitted and practiced

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 required that anyone executed by hanging be buried the same day so as not to defile the land. According to Dr. Craig Evans, the Sanhedrin was specifically tasked with ensuring proper burial of executed persons in Jerusalem to maintain ritual purity — meaning even the enemies of Jesus had religious motivation to bury him promptly.

Jewish law and Sanhedrin practice as evidence for burial; Deut. 21:22-23 and the purity argument

Philo's "Against Flaccus" (§83) records a Roman governor in Egypt allowing crucified persons to be taken down and given to relatives for burial during a festival — showing there were documented exceptions to any general policy of leaving bodies on crosses, and that burial was sometimes permitted on special occasions across the Roman world.

Philo's "Flaccus" as evidence of Roman burial exceptions for crucified persons

The Book of Revelation extensively exalts Jesus as Alpha and Omega, First and Last, worthy of worship — but when Michael appears (Rev. 12:7), he receives no such fanfare. The contrast between how Jesus and Michael are treated in the same book strongly suggests they are distinct beings, with Jesus occupying an utterly different category of glory.

Revelation's contrasting treatment of Jesus and Michael as evidence they are distinct beings

Apologetics — rigorously engaging the hard questions of the Christian faith — saved Winger's own faith when he was seriously doubting in his 20s. His guest Jonathan Mclatchie makes the case for a "maximal data argument" for the resurrection, as opposed to the more common "minimal facts" approach, arguing it is more compelling because it involves far more lines of evidence.

Introduction: apologetics as faith-saving; maximal vs. minimal facts approach to the resurrection

David Hume's objection — that miracles are by definition the least plausible explanation because they go against uniform experience — is circular: it uses the rarity of miracles to discount all testimony to miracles, then cites the lack of accepted testimony to miracles as proof they don't happen. Paley's response: if God raises Jesus specifically to vindicate his messianic claim, we would not expect that resurrection to be a repeatable event — so non-repetition is not evidence against it.

Hume's objection to miracles and Paley's response; the circularity in Hume's argument

The Christological trilemma (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic — associated with C.S. Lewis, likely originating with G.K. Chesterton) is built on the historical evidence that Jesus made both messianic and divine identity claims. He cannot have been lying — he made his violent death by the very authorities whose power he claimed to supersede a core part of his mission, which an impostor would never do. Mark 8's double rebuke (Peter rebukes Jesus; Jesus rebukes Peter as "Satan") shows this is not a later invention.

The Christological trilemma: Jesus's self-claims were not those of a liar or madman