Reddit reviews The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
We found 21 Reddit comments about The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
IVP Academic
the long answer is 700 pages long
If you're wondering what makes Catholicism true among other religions, consider that Christianity is rather unique among religions for its truth value being directly tied to an historical event: Christ's Resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the dead, Christianity is decisively vindicated, regardless of the other religions' claims (which is not to say other religions may not have insights or elements of the truth, just that they are not the full truth in the way Christianity is). For that reason I advise looking into apologetics defending the resurrection. Here's a short reading list to get you started:
> Why, Christianity as opposed to atheism or other religions?
Hey man, I can't help you much with the questions about the specifics of creation and the role death plays in it, that has never bothered me a lot and I came to Christianity already believing that evolution is true. But I can help you with this question, I hope.
If you really want to find out you will have to do your own research on Christianity and other religions and on atheism and make up your mind. That said I think the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is very strong. I'd encourage you, if you have the time and money, to read the following two books: The Jesus Legend by Boyd & Eddy, and The Resurrection of Jesus by Licona. Both are very thorough and scholarly, the first dealing with the reliability of the gospels in general and the latter dealing with Jesus' resurrection in particular.
If you want a well grounded faith, you need to have a solid foundation. So many people believe in Jesus because they think the Bible is inerrant and when they discover that it isn't so, their faith quickly falls away. When our faith depends on the inerrancy of the Bible, our faith depends on our ability to resolve any and all of the apparent (and real) contradictions, both internal to the Bible and between Bible and external reality (like with young earth creationism and science). When we come across a contradiction that we can't resolve, our faith then will quickly come crashing down.
It should be the other way around: Jesus should be our foundation, and because Jesus is God and He held Scripture in high regard, we should have a healthy respect for Scripture as well. Perhaps then we won't tie ourselves in knots in trying to come up with tortured interpretations whenever the house of cards of inerrancy threatens to come crashing down. Look to Jesus when something in Scripture doesn't make sense; Jesus is the full revelation of God, the clearest picture (or icon if you like) of God that we will ever get in this earthly life.
>The stumbling blocks I now face in terms of figuring out what I believe mostly revolve around the question of the historicity of miraculous claims in the New Testament.
There are a couple good books on the Resurrection by N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig. Inspiring Philosophy has some good videos on it, too. If you are looking for an overall study on the historical Christ, Dr. Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus helped me a lot, too.
Edit: Found [this] (https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=pd_sim_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0830827196&pd_rd_r=SJ4TFXY6VPE6WWN54P2K&pd_rd_w=rp8N4&pd_rd_wg=hhCdC&psc=1&refRID=SJ4TFXY6VPE6WWN54P2K). Looks to me to be less apologetic-y and more based on the historical facts, but comes to a similar conclusion.
Or this book.
Do you mind terribly if I copy and paste something I wrote in a similar thread? It might help you make up your mind. Represents my many years of study as a believer. It is:
Science cannot help us answer the question, "Is there a God?" because it is not testable or subject to the scientific method.
Philosophy can help, and the arguments for or against the existence of God are called ontological arguments. There are several good ones: some of the strongest seems to be the Argument from Morality, the Argument from Beauty, and the Original Cause. Not sure if I can summarize all of them but maybe this is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
The Argument from Morality is what really ensnared former atheist turned Christian C.S. Lewis. He believed that while we do have man made rules we also have rules about fairness and justice that seem to come from nowhere, and point to the idea that there is an ultimate giver of this morality, God.
Regardless, if you examine the question of God's existence from philosophy you can re-examine whether you want to be an atheist. I think most philosophers find agnosticism more defensible. Philosophy never gives us a slam dunk answer, only a preference or something we can "defend."
All right. So what if there is a God? Then which religion, if any, is correct is the next question. Christians believe there is a God because they believe in what Jesus said. You might find the Jesus stuff hard to believe. Here's what we know, and the logic behind my belief:
-Jesus lived, preached, was crucified - this is pretty much historical fact.
-What's in dispute is whether he rose from the dead.
-His early followers sure believed he did. Even accounting for their ancient world writings, which were subject to literary problems not found in the modern world (i.e. moving dates or changing the order in which things happened) we can be pretty sure this Jesus fellow sparked a movement of believers that really believed he was raised from the dead and revealed God.
-Therefore, either Jesus really did this, or some mistake was maid. A third hypothesis - they made Jesus up - is just silly.
From here you can examine the Christian claims for truth and compare them to those of other religions. So, in sum: study some of the basic philosophical arguments for God, study the historical Jesus and the historical Resurrection, compare to other religions, and make your own decisions. Some other links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm
http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196
These resources will help answer your questions:
The new testament still scores pretty good compared to other ancient writings/writers.
Most of the items he listed as discrepancies between the gospels fall in the category of "an omission by one author isn't a contradiction". The timing issues have been explained by the gospel writers using different calendars and methods of measuring time, and multiple sabbaths (Therefore multiple days of preparation) during the passover week.
He touts Mark as an example of fine Greek written by a very educated man, but it's written in a Greek spoken by commoners and slaves; even approaching the ungrammatical at times.
In short, it seems that he quickly goes through a list of one-line statements that represent his side of the argument and never touches on the opposing view; when entire books have been written on many of these topics.
Yea I'm in the same boat, not a scholar but I've educated myself through Bart Erhman and Mike Licona. Ill go through your list with the knowledge I have.
>As already pointed out by /u/AdultSoccer, none of the gospel authors name themselves in the text.
This is not "evidence to the contrary" as you said, but only absent evidence.
>•The Gospel of Mark is heavily borrowed from in Luke. The author of Luke-Acts makes note of John Mark in Acts 12:25, but does not identify him as the author of the Gospel of Mark.
•The Gospel of Matthew borrows even more from the Gospel of Mark than Luke. Yet, according to tradition, the disciple Matthew is an eyewitness, whereas John Mark is recording what he has learned from Peter.
Yes, the gospel writings most likely used each other as sources, but that does not discredit who they are or there story on that basis alone. For example, if you were going to write a biography of your mom, in order to get an accurate portrait of your mom, could you not ask your siblings, her friends, her relatives, etc., what she was like, to have a more complete portrayal?
>•Mark 7:31 states Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon, to the Sea of Galilee, and finally into the re. . .
I appreciate the map! But Jesus was not in a race or anything, and, if I had to guess, chose that route to show himself to as many people as possible.
>•John Mark was Jewish, yet the author of the Gospel. . .
for the Malachi prophecy, the writer only mentions Isiah, but then quotes both Malachi and Isaiah. It should be noted, though, that both Malachi and Isaiah were referring to the same event, and Isaiah would be the "greater" of the two prophets. As far as contributing the ten commandments to Moses, I'm sure you know the story. God gave Moses the commandments, and Moses then gave them to his people. The verse you gave reads, "For Moses said. . ." and Moses did indeed say these things. As far as Joseph buying the shroud on the Sabbath, the writer was just saying what happened. Yes, that would be against the law, but Jesus also worked on the Sabbath for the Kingdom of God. It appears that work for the kingdom of God on the Sabbath was acceptable, but I'm no scholar here.
I would also like to say that Plutarch's biographies don't have his named attached to them either, similarly as to the gospel's biographies of Jesus. So it is not atypical that the "by: ____" does not appear. No one denies Plutarch wrote his though. I see you called into question Papias's attributions. For Mark; Papias says, "no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord" meaning that the accuracy of sequence of events was not taken into account. Yes, Mark begins with John the Baptist preparing the way, and ends with Jesus's death, but the order of his parables and teachings, according to Papias, may not be in a chronological order. Mark just goes from one parable to the next, many times. For Matthew writing in Hebrew according to Papias; We dont have any of the original manuscripts so we dont know what the original language was. I dont see why Papias would care to lie about this, so I would say that the original language as probably Hebrew.
I appreciate your comments though!
Also, Papias was the first, but Justin the martyr also cites Mark around 150 CE. For the other gospels, all the early church fathers had one voice in who wrote the gospels, and no one else was challenging this. So the only evidence available points to their traditional authorship. The church father were not always accurate though, so, again, we cannot say with 100% certainty, but this is history 2000 years ago, and, relative to other events of the era, the available evidence is pretty good.
Lastly, if something like this is holding you back from believing (that is, "academically, we dont know who, for certain, wrote the gospels"), know that nearly 100% of new testament scholars will admit that there are at least 2 different independent sources in the gospels, and the majority of scholars say there are 4-5 independent sources. So, if you are weighing the evidence for Jesus's resurrection, know that, regardless of who wrote what, there are still several eyewitness accounts as to what happen. Check out Licona's book on this, which has over 700 pages and 2000 footnotes. He has also debated Erhman several times, you can find it on youtube
Well, you asked for it.
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796
http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection-Jesus-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196
http://www.amazon.com/The-resurrection-factor-Josh-McDowell/dp/0918956722
>our religion, ie: for Judaism
I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?
>Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."
Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.
Books
Presentations
Debates
Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
>if you don't like my tone
I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha
>For those of you who have looked in to biblical historicity, on any level,
I guess this technically qualifies me?
>how do you reconcile potential errors and inconsistencies
Such as?
>as well as the concepts that stories of YHWH and Jesus could have been co-opted from other faiths
By asking for primary source evidence for these claims.
>Are there any books or websites you could recommend?
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth Bailey
Evidence for Christianity by John McDowell
The King Jams Only Controversy by James White (this is actually a book about textual criticism and manuscript transmission).
Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses by Richard Baukham.
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Mike Licona.
This book series by NT Wright.
Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P
I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6
Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:
Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.
https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1
Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7
Depends on what your gonna take as evidence. If you want unanimous, written records that Jesus the son of Joseph was resurrected, there is none(well, Gospels, but you're not Christian, so yeah). That being said here's a [debate from my favorite agnostic-atheist scholar, Bart Erhman, about the historicity of Jesus' ressurection ] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac) and here's a book. Here's another video too, but I'm really not too fond of it.
Disclaimer, I haven't read the book, the Priest at my local Catholic church recommended it however.
ME First the above quote is out of context. It is common apologist argument that is cherry picked. I can go through and show the real facts of every one of those "proofs". Whether you are a believer or not evolution is a solidified fact, one that even that catholic church is is agreement with. I can deal with almost any religious stuff but the denial of scientific fact, proven theories, I cannot abide by. That article is full of misinformation and misconstruing of documentation and facts. If you want to believe in god that is fine, but don't pretend to know science and biology when over the past 150 years more and more evidence has come to light proving the theory of evolution. And don't say "it's just a theory" when a theory in the scientific discord is of the highest caliber of proofs so to say. Whatever you wanna believe is fine, but proven fact denial is ignorant.
15 hrs · Like
ME I'll even give you a compromise, god used evolution to create the world we live in. It is a proven concept and you can see it in action if you would like sources. It is a well researched, conclusive theory that explains all the life that has occurred on this planet, including you and me, and the evidence for it grows and grows all the time.
14 hrs · Like
DBAG , that RawStory "Did Jesus Exist?" article is ridiculous propaganda peddled out to credulous suckers. It doesn't speak well for their case that the "scholar" they hang their hat on- David Fitzgerald- isn't a scholar at all, but a self-publis...See More
Did Jesus Exist?
One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our post-modern despisers of established religion. But...
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM
12 hrs · Like · 1
DBAG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlp63Lxrxi0
The Extra Biblical Evidence for the Historicity of Jesus Christ.
Documentary: Evidence for the historical existence of...
YOUTUBE.COM
12 hrs · Like · 2
ME Religion is ridiculous propaganda peddled out to credulous suckers. Was there a hippy running around at the time pissing people off? Maybe, but all the supernatural bullshit did not happen. So it doesn't matter either way.
2 hrs · Like
ME Either way this was about evolution, which if you don't think makes sense you aren't worth bothering with anyway. The Jesus thing is whatever, evolution is facts. End of story.
2 hrs · Like
DBAG Actually, this did start out as a discussion about Jesus. And your assertion that "all the supernatural bullshit did not happen" has not been demonstrated to be true.
2 hrs · Like
ME Demonstrate me some supernatural stuff then.
2 hrs · Like
DBAG Well YOU asserted that the supernatural stuff didn't happen, so the burden of proof is properly on you to prove it DIDN'T happen, but in fact there is a pretty solid historiographical case for the Resurrection.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Resurrection.../dp/0830827196
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
The question of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection has...
AMAZON.COM
2 hrs · Like · 1
ME Your reasoning is wrong, I have nothing to prove to you. I am done with this conversation, it is boring me and is the same apologetic garbage. Talking snakes, resurrection, people turning to salt, whatever makes you sleep better at night. If you wanna believe in a genocidal egotistical maniac that wipes whole races of people out for no reason, lets people starve and die every day for no reason, and wants you to be ashamed of what you are on your basic human level then good for you. I will live my fulfilling life without the necessity to believe in fairy tales.Good day sir.
1 hr · Edited · Like
DBAG So basically, your mind has been closed from the beginning, and you're unwilling to consider any evidence that might challenge your pre-formed conclusion, since that would involve opening yourself up to possibilities you've already decided were wrong before the discussion began. Do I have that right? Great "rational", "evidence-based" reasoning, bro!
1 hr · Like
ME I have done more reading on this stuff and grew up a staunch believer, I know what they have to say and I keep up with it bro. I've read my bible cover to cover, I've read all these apologist arguments, circular reasoning. everything. I keep up with it. And my conclusion still comes to hogwash. Like I said before :
Joshua Hege's photo.
1 hr · Like
DBAG You obviously know jack-shit about what you're talking about if you uncritically believe an internet puff piece hawking a book by a vanity-press kook, and are completely oblivious to the historical consensus on Jesus. Like most atheists promulgating the Christ-myth garbage on the internet, you've never read a single book on the subject (Whenever I encounter an atheist posing as an expert on the historicity of Jesus, the question "Name a single book you've read on the subject" always stops them dead in their tracks,) and I'm guessing you've cobbled together your information from things you saw in facebook graphics and YouTube videos. Basically, you make a mockery of the evidence-based worldviews you claim to have. Not everything you read on the internet is true, bro. Read a book for once in your life, something that actually gives sources for its claims, it won't kill you!
1 hr · Like · 1
ME No Meek Messiah: Michael Paulkovich, there's a book I read. I read consistently. I never said he didn't exist, I said it is unlikely, and very unlikely he existed as he is portrayed today. As for your typical rude Christian attitude when someone questions your beliefs, loving as it may be, go fuck yourself. I'm done arguing with you.
1 hr · Like
DBAG Ah yes, "No Meek Messiah", published on that prestigious "Spillix, LLC" imprint. As I said, if a vanity press publication by an author with ZERO academic qualifications is the first and only book you've read on the subject, you obviously chose a book that you felt was going to reinforce your pre-formed judgements on the matter. You're starting with your conclusion, and then choosing your evidence to fit your conclusion. Basically, you're doing exactly what atheists always accuse Christians of doing.
Look, I get it. You're an atheist. You like pretending you're smart. It's kinda your thing. You like looking haughtily down on the views of the great masses and clucking "herp derp fairy tales derp derp santa claus herp derp." Unfortunately, as with all edumacated-by-teh-intarwebz atheists, there's really no substance behind the superior posturing.
Well you've run into at least one guy here you can't bullshit. You know it too— if you were really pleased with your performance, you wouldn't keep responding to my posts after saying you're done.
All I'm asking is that you proceed with a little more humility. You're an atheist!?! Hey, more power to you! Here's the cookie you've always wanted! You believe it's "unlikely" Jesus existed!?! Well you have as much right to your opinion as the people who think it's "unlikely" we landed on the moon, or it's "unlikely" 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust! We're all special flowers, unique in our own way! Just realize that there are people VASTLY more knowledgable and intelligent than you who have arrived at different conclusions than you have, that you're dealing with a 2000-year-old intellectual tradition you can't even begin to grapple with, and that if you go posing as an expert on the interwebz, you're bound to get checked by people who ACTUALLY know what they're talking about.
If you'd be interested in doing some reading on the Resurrection, Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus, Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus, and N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God are all excellent. They're all on the long side, but if you really want to dig into the historical question, one or more would be helpful.
No such thing as a dumb question! And that question specifically is an excellent question! IMO, always ask for the facts and arguments that another person has, rather than asking for their conclusions. That way you can calculate the conclusions yourself from the facts/arguments. IMO, half the stuff you'll google or find on reddit talks about conclusions and not data/arguments (e.g. "Jesus never existed". Okay, well reddituser, could you explain more why you think that?)
There's a lot to study. I recommend using Feynman's method for learning (https://mattyford.com/blog/2014/1/23/the-feynman-technique-model). Can speed up your learning by 4x.
I'm sceptical that the facts are as you say, or that we could justly draw the conclusion you do from them. Isn't it much too bold to say that 100% of miracle claims have been proven false? I don't have the inclination to get into a case-by-case examination of individual putative miracles, but consider the class of miracles that is easiest to prove by sainthood standards: an unexplained and permanent recovery from illness. I think it will be enough to mention a supposed natural explanation which I'm sure we've both heard invoked by sceptics in such cases many times: "spontaneous remission."
To me, this amounts to saying there is a natural explanation, which is that there is no natural explanation. In these cases, I don't think there are non-question-begging grounds for ruling out a miracle as an explanation, and if a miracle is the only viable explanation that can't be ruled out, it is reasonable to think it is the correct explanation. Maybe that's a case of shoving God into a gap and further scientific progress will provide alternative explanations for many present-day "miracles," but you can't exactly beat believers over the head with hoped-for future scientific discoveries.
Even if all miracles we had investigated were truly confirmed bogus, it would be rash to draw a conclusion that miracles are impossible. (You might object that you really are open to the possibility if "exceptionally good evidence" is presented, but I think it amounts to the same thing considering the lack of clarity about what exceptionally good evidence would be—something Richard Dawkins, for example, frankly owned up to in a conversation with George Cardinal Pell when he said that if a 900-foot Jesus showed up and announced "I exist," he would not believe.) We could only that we hadn't found any examples yet, just like astronomers hadn't identified any black holes until the 1970s. The Transportation Security Administration has screened millions of air passengers hoping to find terrorists, and hasn't made a single terrorism-related arrest, but we would not reason validly if we concluded that there were no terrorists, or that a higher standard of evidence should be required for terrorism than for other crimes.
As for the particular claim of the Resurrection, I see no reason why it should have to stand or fall together with all other miraculous and mythical stories. Granted, it's a valid criticism if the evidence for the Resurrection amounts to nothing and a totally arbitrary choice is being made to believe one outlandish, unproven claim and reject the others. However, the best Christian apologists (I have in mind writers like Michael Licona, William Lane Craig, and N. T. Wright) lay out detailed cases for why the Resurrection is the best inference that can be made from the historical evidence (and this kind of reasoning isn't just the province of a scholarly elite, it's filtered down to the general Christian public through more popular apologetics works like The Case for Christ and Reasonable Faith). The onus is on other religious communities to make a comparable case for their own miracle claims; if there is none, then even if you think the Christian case isn't enough, you can't say a double standard is being applied.
The big thick one. It's called The Resurrection of Jesus. The section on historiography is especially helpful. It's something hardly any other book goes into in such detail.
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518996512&sr=8-1
See Here
Or here
Or here