A judge uses stringent legal principles to assess the credibility of Jesus' resurrection.

A highly qualified British judge examines the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Assessing secular evidence, historical sources, and the testimony of those involved Graeme Smith carefully and critically analyses the various resurrection accounts, their inconsistences and their value as evidence. This succinct but powerful document places less weight on the Gospel accounts and considers other evidence first; sources from outside the gospels, such as Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny; logical alternatives to the resurrection; and the opinions of experts in the fields of history, literary history, palaeography and law. Could this most improbable story be true? If so, what are the implications?