Well, that is the thing about the historical evidence for the resurrection - it is a complex issue, removed as we are from the event, and you can’t assess it well without wading into the details (a point which the McGrews make). But the among the issues that the article focuses on are:
- the report from the women of the discovery of the empty tomb
- the witness of the disciples concerning the appearances of Jesus (including a discussion about the impact of the interdependence of their testimony on its evidential strength)
- the conversion of Paul
And the article looks at naturalistic explanations for these events (concluding that they are improbable, given the details of the case).
Again, the purpose of the article is to show that if the Gospels are generally historically reliable (staying neutral, initially, about what they say regarding the supernatural) then the Resurrection is strongly supported by the evidence. It does not itself argue for that reliability; leaving that task for elsewhere.