Chap15-Burial and Resurrection

Chapter Fifteen
BURIAL
AND RESURRECTION
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
We now turn to the central event of Christianity: the resurrection of Jesus. As the
traditional account of the resurrection is very closely tied to the burial account we will
analyze these together in this chapter. Before we start with a detailed analysis of the
events, we will first give a summary of the episode as depicted in Mark.
It was the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea a member of the council
(the Sanhedrin), asked Pilate for Jesus body for burial. The Roman governor, after
verifying that Jesus indeed was already dead, granted him the request. Joseph
wrapped Jesus body in linen and then placed him in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he
rolled a stone over the entrance of the tomb. The two Marys saw where Jesus was
laid. (Mark 15:42-47)
Very early on Sunday morning, the two Marys and Salome went to Jesus tomb
to anoint his body with spices. When they arrived at the tomb they noticed that the
stone had been rolled away. They saw a young man dressed in white in the tomb. He
told them Jesus had risen and asked the women to tell Jesus disciples that he will
meet them in Galilee. The women ran away from the tomb, frightened and did not tell
anyone what had happened. (Mark 16:1-8)
Thus, in a nutshell, is Marks version of Jesus burial and resurrection.
THE BURIAL
The account of Jesus burial is given in all four gospels. As usual we will give Marks
version in full and use that as the starting point of our analysis.
Mark 15:42-47
When evening had now come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day
before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member who also
himself was looking for the Kingdom of God, came. He boldly went in to Pilate,
and asked for Jesus body. Pilate marveled if he were already dead; and summoning
the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead long. When he found out
from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. He bought a linen cloth, and
taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had
been cut out of a rock. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary
Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Joses, saw where he was laid.
The fundamentalist apologist, William Lane Craig, argues that there are three reasons
why the account of the burial in Mark is historical: first, it is based on an old
source; second, the accounts of Matthew and John provide independent attestation
of its historicity; and third, there is no conflicting tradition to this account. 1
1
Copan & Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p32

12
Before answering his claims we need to look at the account in greater detail.
Many problems and inconsistencies are present in the Markan passage above and in
its relation to the same episode in the other three gospels.
The first problem starts with the very first verse of the above passage. When
evening had come means that it was already sundown (i.e. 6pm) and the new day,
which was the Sabbath, had already started. Even if evening can be taken the mean
an earlier time [say about 4pm] the problem remains because according to the
synoptics that day, Friday, was the first day of Passover. Neither on a Sabbath nor a
Passover is any business transaction allowed. Yet we are told that Joseph purchased a
linen shroud on that day. The wording and arrangement of the passage does not
permit the interpretation that Joseph bought the shroud earlier. And the works of
laying Jesus in a tomb and rolling a stone to close it are all the kind of labor Jews
avoid on the Sabbath and on the Passover.2 These difficulties led D.E. Nineham to
conclude:
Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the story originates from a cycle of
tradition which knew of no chronological tie-up between the crucifixion and the
Passover.3
What this means, when translated to lay terms is this: the story of Jesus last few days
being closely tied to the Jewish feast of Passover and the story of the burial of Jesus
as told in Mark are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true at the same time. At
least one of these must be fictitious and the possibility that both of these being
unhistorical is not excluded on logical grounds.
The second problem involves the person of Joseph of Arimathea. According to
Mark he was the member of the council, i.e. the Sanhedrin, who was also looking for
the kingdom of God. The gospel of John even made him a secret disciple of Jesus
(John 19:38). But this is obviously incompatible with what Mark had described
earlier:4
Mark 14:55
Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put
him to death, and found none.
If Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin, which according to Mark, unanimously

condemned Jesus, it is unlikely that he would be described as one who was looking
for the kingdom of God. It is even more unlikely that he would be a disciple of
Jesus, as John would have us believe. 5 The two evangelists who used Mark as their
3
4
5
William Lane Craig, John Dominic Crossan and the Resurrection, in Davis, Kendall &
Collins, The Resurrection: p256-257
Nineham, Saint Mark: p433
Guignebert, Jesus: p491
As James F. McGrath, Professor of Religion at Butler University in Indianapolis,
pointed out in his book, The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith (2008), it is historically
improbable that Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus. If he indeed was a secret disciple,
why did he not include Jesus mother Mary and the other women in the burial process?
13
source, Matthew and Luke, each tried to modify the story to make it more convincing.
Luke added the statement that Joseph had not agreed with the action of the Sanhedrin:
Luke 23:50-51
Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and
righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathaea,
a city of the Jews, who was also waiting for the Kingdom of God.
This statement in Luke is possible because he had deliberately avoided saying earlier
that the whole council was present during the trial of Jesus:
Luke 22:66
As soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered
together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away
Matthew, to avoid Marks pitfall, made a more drastic alteration to the identity of
Joseph:
Matthew 27:57
When evening had come, a rich man from Arimathaea, named Joseph, who himself
was also Jesus disciple came.
Anyone reading Matthews gospel alone (as doubtless its author never originally
intended the gospel to be compared to other gospels) will not know that Joseph was a
member of the Sanhedrin and the problem in Mark is evaded. The source for
Matthews alteration is, again, not from history but from the Old Testament:
Isaiah 53:9
They made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death.
The problems about the burial accounts do not end here. John, calling Joseph a secret
disciple of Jesus, gave him a collaborator, Nicodemus:
John 19:38-42
After these things, Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for
fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away Jesus body. Pilate gave
him permission. He came therefore and took away his body. Nicodemus, who at
first came to Jesus by night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes,
about a hundred Roman pounds. So they took Jesus body, and bound it in linen
cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where
he was crucified there was a garden. In the garden was a new tomb in which no
man had ever yet been laid. Then because of the Jews Preparation Day (for the
tomb was near at hand) they laid Jesus there.
While it is true that the male disciples would have been in danger if they participated in
the burial, surely it would have been alright for his mother and his female relatives to take
part in it. [McGrath, The Burial of Jesus: p78]
14
Johns account contradicts that of the synoptics in a number of important details. In

the first place, no mention is made in the other gospels of Joseph having an assistant.
In the second place, John had Joseph and Nicodemus anoint the body of Jesus,
something which is expressly excluded by the Markan narrative. For Mark had the
women witness Joseph laying Jesus in the tomb, and then came on Sunday with the
specific purpose of anointing Jesus body:
Mark 15:46-16:1 (Luke 23:56-24:1)
He [Joseph] rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and
Mary, the mother of Joses, saw where he was laid. When the Sabbath was past,
Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that
they might come and anoint him.
It is impossible to try to reconcile Johns account with Marks. For the women would
obviously have known that Jesus body was already anointed by Joseph and would not
have bought spices to do the same on Sunday.6
In addition, it has been pointed out that having 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes
would take up a lot of space in the tomb and would have smothered the corpse under a
big heap of spice!7
In fact the whole account of the burial by Joseph of Arimathea has a fatal logical
flaw. This was aptly stated by Craveri:
They [the evangelists] take no account of their own invention. At the very time
when the most fanatical followers of Jesus are in flight lest they be accused of
complicity, this eleventh hour convert dares to risk expulsion from the Sanhedrin
and from his own social circle in order to perform an act of mercy towards the
cadaver of a rebel whom everyone had deserted. 8
We can conclude a few things based on our study above. It is apparent that neither
Luke nor Matthew had access to any new source apart from the Markan account. The
changes they made were necessary from their point of view to correct the
inconsistency in their common source namely describing the whole Sanhedrin as
condemning Jesus and then having Joseph as a member of that council. Johns
account expressly contradicts the account in Mark by having Joseph anoint Jesus
corpse.
These considerations show that Craigs second claim, that Matthews and Johns
accounts independently confirm the Markan account, is simply wrong. Matthew
and John had no new sources which corroborate the Markan account. Matthews
account was written expressly to correct what he saw as inconsistencies in the Markan
account. Johns account flatly contradicts Marks. As for his first claim, that the
Markan account is based on an old source, there is one major flaw: there is simply no
evidence of any such source! Michael Goulder, former professor of Biblical Studies at
the University of Birmingham, has this to say about Craigs old source:
6
7
8

McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p99
Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p403
15
Bill [i.e. William Craig] goes on, The burial is part of very old source material
used by Mark. How does he know this? He has no evidence at all for saying the
source material was very old: the only evidence before Mark is Paul, and Paul does
not mention any detail of the event. The very old source material is just
guesswork.9
So we can summarize a few things from our analysis above. Marks is the earliest
account of the burial of Jesus in a tomb. The story as it stands in Mark contains some
inconsistencies which make its historicity doubtful. The other evangelists show no
evidence of having any independent source available to them as the changes made to
Marks account were done for redactional reasons. If the details of story as it stands in
Mark is likely to be unhistorical, is there anything we can discover as to what actually
happened? There are two major strands of evidence that provides what, in my
opinion, is historically the most probable account of what happened to Jesus body.
FIRST CENTURY BURIAL PRACTICE IN PALESTINE

The first major strand of evidence is from what we know happened to bodies of those
crucified by Romans. We know from ancient sources that crucifixion is the common
form of punishment for criminals and rebels. They tend to leave crucifixion victims
on their crosses to serve as a visual deterrence against would be criminals and
political agitators. As Martin Hengel noted in his book on crucifixion in the ancient
Mediterranean:
Crucifixion was aggravated further by the fact that quite often its victims were
never buried. It was a stereotyped picture that the crucified victim served as food
for wild beasts and birds of prey. In this way his humiliation was complete. 10
This is certainly the case with many victims of crucifixion in Palestine. Josephus
recounts three incidents where Jewish rebels were crucified: the Roman governor of
Syria, Varus, crucified 2000 Jews who revolted after the death of Herod in 4 BCE
(Antiquities of the Jews 17:10:10), in 66 CE at the breakout of the Jewish revolt, the
Roman procurator Florus crucified many Jews in a general slaughter which killed
3,600 including women and children (Jewish War 2:14:9) and in 70 CE during the
siege of Jerusalem, Titus allowed his troops to crucify in front of the city walls
hundreds of Jews who tried to escape (Jewish War 5:11:1). Josephus did not mention
whether the bodies were eventually allowed burial, but the implication is that they
were not since they were left there to coerce submission of those who were still
alive.11
Indeed John Dominic Crossan has theorized that this is what exactly happened
to Jesus body. That the corpse was most probably left on the cross and was
ultimately devoured by crows and dogs.12
9
10
11
12
Michael Goulder, The Explanatory Power of Conversion Visions in Copan &

Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p99
Hengel, Crucifixion: p87
Crossan, Who Killed Jesus: p187
16
However such a conclusion may be a bit too hasty. The examples from Josephus
were all from times of acute political crises and open rebellions. 13 Other evidence
shows that when situations were closer to normalcy Jews were in many cases allowed
to bury the crucified. Philo mentioned such exceptions:14
Flaccus 83
I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this
festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations,
in order to receive the honors of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are
due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive
some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred
character of the festival ought to be regarded.
Another example is the discovery in 1968 of a crucified skeleton Giva ha-Mivtar

near Jerusalem. The skeleton was found in a tomb consisting of 35 individuals. That
he was found in the tomb is evidence that he was allowed burial. 15 Josephus himself
mentioned that Jews in Jerusalem normally bury victims of crucifixion before sunset:
Jewish War 4:5:2
[T]he Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down
those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down
of the sun.
This is mainly on account of the fact that Jewish law requires these bodies of the
crucified to be taken down by sunset:
Deuteronomy 21:22-23
If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you
hang him on a tree; his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall
surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you
dont defile your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.
Such a requirement is also attested in the Mishnah. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4
quoted the above passage from Deuteronomy, adding that Jews do not leave the
bodies of executed criminals unburied before sunset.16 We can conclude therefore that
in cases where there is no over-riding need to provide visual deterrence, it is
historically probable that bodies of the crucified were allowed some kind of burial.
How were such criminals buried? We know from historical sources that such
persons were never given honorable burials. In the Old Testament people who
disobeyed Gods commandments were not allowed such burial:
I Kings 13:21-22
13
14
15
16
McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p91-92

Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p23 & 139n20
Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?: p167-168
17
Thus says Yahweh, Because you have been disobedient to the mouth of Yahweh,
and have not kept the commandment which Yahweh your God commanded you
your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.
We find a similar reference to dishonorable burials for criminals in Josephus retelling

of the biblical story of Achan (Joshua 7):
Antiquities of the Jews 5:1:14
This Joshua told the people; and calling for Eleazar the high priest, and the men in
authority, he cast lots, tribe by tribe; and when the lot showed that this wicked
action was done by one of the tribe of Judah, he then again proposed the lot to the
several families thereto belonging; so the truth of this wicked action was found to
belong to the family of Zachar; and when the inquiry was made man by man, they
took Achar, who, upon Gods reducing him to a terrible extremity, could not deny
the fact: so he confessed the theft, and produced what he had taken in the midst of
them, whereupon he was immediately put to death; and attained no more than to
be buried in the night in a disgraceful manner, and such as was suitable to a
condemned malefactor.
Note the statement that to be buried in a disgraceful manner is suitable for a

condemned person. Such burials for condemned persons are also confirmed in the
Mishnah. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-6 prohibits such persons to be buried in the
burial place of their fathers but in graveyards for condemned persons. Furthermore it
says that the family members of the dead are used to not make open lamentations,
in other words these persons are not to be mourned for openly. Thus dishonorable
burial consists of two things: a burial away from the family tomb and one in which no
open mourning is allowed.17
From evidence above we would expect that in cases where Jews were crucified
in relatively normal or peaceful times, the Jewish authorities would have
approached the Romans for the bodies of the criminals to be buried. As McCane
noted:
The Jewish leaders were devoutly religious. To imagine that they would discard
these traditions, out of indifference or inconvenience, is to misunderstand burial
customs in a fundamental wayThus it is to be expected that someone from the
council approached Pilate about the body of Jesus. It is not necessary tosuppose
that any of the council members had any secret allegiance to Jesus. It is only
necessary to recognize that at least a few of them were involved in the proceedings
against Jesus, and that they were devout Jews. 18
However such burial would be a dishonourable one.
ALTERNATE BURIAL TRADITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
17
18
Richard Carrier, The Burial of Jesus in the Light to Jewish Law in Price & Lowder,
The Empty Tomb: p380
McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p96, 98-99
18
Despite Craigs (third) claim that no conflicting tradition exists for Jesus burial, there
is such an alternate tradition and, what is more, we find them multiply attested. Let us
look at a couple of passages in the New Testament:
John 19:31
Therefore the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, so that the bodies wouldnt
remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a special one), asked of
Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Acts 13:28-29
Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate
to have him killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they
took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
John 19:31 has the people who handed Jesus over to Pilate asking for Jesus body. The
verse in John stands in tension with what was narrated later with Joseph of Arimathea
asking Pilate for the body, as Ldemann noted, John 19:38 began all over again with
Josephs request.19 In both the above passages we find exactly what we would expect
from our analysis of first century practice among the Jews in Palestine. The Jews
who had a hand in Jesus condemnation were the ones who asked for Jesus body.
Note in Acts 13:28-29 they who had him killed were also they who took him
down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. 20 This tradition fits what we know from
the external sources quoted above; that devout Jews would consider it their duty to
bury criminals before sunset. This also means that Jesus was very probably
dishonorably buried.
The earliest statement about Jesus burial that we have is from Pauls first epistle
to the Corinthians (around 53-55 CE):
I Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Paul mentioned only that Jesus was buried with no elaboration as to the manner of his
burial. As Gerd Ldemann pointed out in his debate on the resurrection with William
Craig, the statement about his burial belongs in the same section as the statement
about his death. His burial reinforces the account that he died and is separate from the
statement about his resurrection.21 This grouping of the verses above is logical and
consistent.
Paul formed a very clear-cut dichotomy in his theology between Jesus death and
resurrection:
Philippians 2:8-9
19
20
21
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: p43

Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p22
19
And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death,
yes, the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and gave to him
the name which is above every name;
I Corinthians 1:23
[W]e preach Christ crucified; a stumbling block to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks
The death of Jesus was a stumbling block, a form of foolishness or madness.22

Jesus exaltation as we have seen in I Corinthians 15:3-4 began with his resurrection,
prior to this we have his death as a stumbling block and foolishness. Thus the
structure of the passage excludes the possibility that Jesus had an honorable burial
for that would imply that his exaltation had already begun. If the burial is part of
Jesus death, it was therefore part of the folly or madness. This is consistent with
a dishonorable burial.
Evidence from Christian writings outside the New Testament attests to the
presence of this alternate tradition: that the Jews who had Jesus killed were those who
took him down and buried him and that his burial was a dishonorable one. We find
such references in two early second century texts, the Apocryphon of James and the
Gospel of Peter:23
Apocryphon of James 5
[Jesus speaking] Or do you not know that you have not yet been mistreated and
have not yet been accused unjustly, nor have you yet been shut up in prison, nor
have you yet been condemned lawlessly, nor have you yet been crucified without
reason, nor have you yet been buried shamefully, as was I myself, by the evil one?
Gospel of Peter 6:21
And then the Jews drew the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid him on the
earth.
The Gospel of Peter also added that women were not allowed to mourn for Jesus by
the Jewish authorities24 and planned to do so only in secret on the third day:
Gospel of Peter 12:52
[On Sunday morning] And they [Mary Magdalene and her women friends] feared
lest the Jews should see them, and said, Although we could not weep and lament
on that day when he was crucified, yet let us now do so at his sepulchre.
Thus there is a strong alternate tradition of Jesus being buried by the Jews who were
not friendly to him and that he was buried dishonorably by the very same people
who had a hand in his arrest and ultimate crucifixion.
22
23
24
According to Martin Hengel, the word used by Paul, moria (translated as

foolishness) does not denote lack of wisdom or intelligence but is more akin to mania
(madness) [Hengel, Resurrection: p1]
Peter Kirby, The Case Against the Empty Tomb, in Price & Lowder, The Empty
Tomb: p246-248
McGrath, The Burial of Jesus: p75
20
TRAJECTORY OF THE BURIAL ACCOUNT

We find in the gospel accounts a tendency to make the burial less and less
dishonorable. Table 15.1 on the next page shows this evolution. The story of the burial
of Jesus can be seen above to have evolved towards making his burial more and more
honorable. A simple rock tomb has become a new tomb in Matthew, an unused tomb
in Luke and a new and unused tomb located in a garden in John. Jesus was simply
wrapped in linen in Mark. In Matthew it is added that this linen is clean. While in
John we are told Jesus body was embalmed with 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes!
Joseph of Arimathea, who was described in Mark as a member of the Sanhedrin who
was also looking for the kingdom of God, becomes a rich man who was a disciple
of Jesus in Matthew and a council member who was a good and righteous man in
Luke. John added the point that Joseph was a secret disciple.25
Mark 15:42-47
(c. 70 CE)
Matthew 27:57-61
(c. 90 CE)
Luke 23:50-56
(c. 95 CE)
John 19:38-42
(c. 100 CE)
Burial Account: Jesus body

- wrapped in linen shroud and
- placed in a rock tomb
- wrapped in clean linen shroud

and
- placed in a new rock tomb
- placed in a rock tomb where no
one had yet been laid
- anointed with vast quantities of
perfume
- placed in a new rock tomb
where no one had ever been laid
located in a garden
Joseph of Arimathea
- A respectable member of the
council (i.e. Sanhedrin)
- Looking for the Kingdom of
God
- A rich man (No mention made
of him being in the Sanhedrin)
- A disciple of Jesus
- A member of the council
- A good and righteous man
- Who had not consented to the
deed of the Sanhedrin26
- A secret disciple of Jesus
Table 15:1 Evolution of the Burial Account

This trajectory continues in the gospel of Peter.
25
26
McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p101, 105

This statement is possible because Luke avoided saying earlier that the whole
Sanhedrin condemned Jesus
21
Gospel of Peter 6:23-24

And the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he
had seen all the good things that he had done. And he took the Lord, washed him,
wrapped him in linen and brought him unto his own sepulchre, called Josephs
Garden.
Here we are told that Joseph washed Jesus body and he was placed in the tomb of
Josephs family. Then we are told that the women came to the tomb with the intention
of mourning for Jesus:
Early in the morning of the Lords day, Mary Magdalene, a woman disciple of the
Lord for fear of the Jews, since they were inflamed with wrath, she had not done
at the sepulchre of the Lord what women are wont to do for their beloved of them
who die - took with her her women friends and came to the sepulchre where he was
laid.
If we recall earlier, a dishonorable burial consists of not being buried in the family
tomb and not being mourned. With the gospel of Peter the trajectory is complete Jesus is now placed in a family tomb27 (albeit Josephs family) and he was to be
mourned by the women his burial is no longer dishonorable.28
Thus we can see later gospels trying their best to reduce the dishonorable
elements in Jesus burial found in the Markan account. Our question now is this: is
the Markan account already on this trajectory or was it the starting point, the historical
datum? Note that the Markan burial account did not say that the tomb was new or that
it was unused. Jesus body was probably not the only one in the tomb. If one removes
the remark about Joseph of Arimathea as one looking for the kingdom of God,
27
28
In 2007, Discovery Channel aired the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus in
which some scholars (namely James Tabor and Charles Pellegrino) claimed to have
discovered the family tomb of Jesus at Talpiot, a location close to the old city of
Jerusalem. A book entitled The Jesus Family Tomb co-authored by Pellegrino and
journalist, Simcha Jacobovici, was published around the same time. The documentary
and the book claimed that the tomb contained the bones of Jesus, Mary and Mary
Magdalene and other relatives of Jesus. It must be mentioned that one of the claimants,
James Tabor, is a legitimate biblical scholar. His blog on the Talpiot tomb can be
accessed via this URL: http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/
[accessed on February 13, 2008]. However it is unlikely that the claim is correct. At a
conference in Jerusalem in January 2008 on Jewish burial practices during the Second
Temple period, seventeen prominent biblical scholars and archaeologists issued a joint
statement in order to make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance including
all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus family or find
this claim highly speculative.
[The full text of their statement is available at
http://dukereligion.blogspot.com/2008/01/talpiot-tomb-controversy-revisited.html accessed on February 13, 2008]
22
Marks description is that of Jesus dishonorable burial in a common underground

tomb reserved for criminals performed by a Torah-observant council member.29 30
This leads us naturally to the next question: was Joseph of Arimathea an
historical person? We can immediately see the difficulty involved here, when we note
that even the town of Arimathea is probably a fictitious town! As the scholar E.
Goldin Hyman pointed out, there is no record in the Old Testament, Torah, Talmud or
anywhere else except in the gospels of a place called Arimathea. 31 Attempts to identify
the place with Ramathaim (I Maccabees 11:34) and Ramathaim-Zophim (I Samuel
1:1) are based on pure conjecture.32 How certain can we be of the existence of a
person who came from a non-existent town? Some theologians have nevertheless
employed some rather convoluted reasoning to enforce the opposite view:
[Joseph of Arimathea] Apart from this incident, an entirely unknown figure; if he
subsequently became a Christian, he does not appear to be a particularly wellknown one, so there would be no obvious reason for attributing the burial of Jesus
to him unless he had in fact been responsible for it. 33 [emphasis added]
The passage above shows how even critical historians, as Nineham doubtless was,
could lose their objectivity when dealing with fundamental issues crucial to their
faith. There is an obvious reason. Our analysis above on Jewish practice and on the
alternate tradition of Jesus burial showed that Jesus very probably was buried by the
very people who had a hand in having him executed. This was probably the tradition
that Mark had. He was in a dilemma. How to present Jesus burial in as positive a
light as possible given the fact that the tradition known to him, and probably to some
in the potential audience of his book, is that Jesus was buried by his enemies? The
solution, as John Dominic Crossan suggested, is the invention of an in-between
character, a member of the council who was nearly a disciple of Jesus (i.e. one also
looking for the kingdom of God.).34
This also answers Craigs rather nave rhetorical question about the burial by
Joseph in his summary of the debate with Ldemann:
So why no burial account of burial by some faithful disciple of Jesus or by his
family or by Romans as the direction of a sympathetic Pilate? 35
The answer is simple: Mark was constrained by the tradition available to him. And
that tradition stated that Jesus was buried by the same people who had a hand in his
condemnation. The best he could do, like what Matthew, Luke and John did with his
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Of course, to say that Jesus was buried by a Torah-observant council member does
not mean that the latter actually did the burial himself. He probably arranged for others
to do it. Thus to say that Joseph buried Jesus would be akin to saying Solomon built
the Temple. [McGrath, The Burial of Jesus: p72]
E. Goldin Hyman, The Case of the Nazarene Reopened, New York 1948 quoted in
Yerby, Judas, My Brother: p508
Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?: p172-173
23
account, was to nudge and change the tradition in such a way that his redactional
purpose is served.
For our purposes it is not important whether the name of the Jewish council
member who buried Jesus was actually Joseph. What is important is that Marks
description of him - as a respected council member who had not consented to their
actions and as one looking for the kingdom of God. is the evangelists fictional
addition.
CONCLUSION ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS

All the evidence points to the fact that Jesus was dishonorably buried in a tomb
reserved for common criminals by Jews who were probably involved in his execution.
As is the case with such tombs, Jesus body would not be the only one interred there.
MATTHEWS INTERLUDE
Matthew added a further episode between the burial of Jesus and the discovery of the
empty tomb. In Matthew 27:62-66 he tells us that the chief priests and the Pharisees
asked Pilate to place a guard on the tomb so that the disciples cannot steal Jesus body
and claimed that he was resurrected. To further ensure against the expected theft, they
sealed the tomb. This episode is not found in any of the other gospels. Let us first
look at the passage in full:
Matthew 27:62-66
Now on the next day, which was the day after the Preparation Day, the chief priests
and the Pharisees were gathered together to Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember what
that deceiver said while he was still alive: After three days I will rise again.
Command therefore that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest perhaps
his disciples come at night and steal him away, and tell the people, He is risen
from the dead; and the last deception will be worse than the first. Pilate said to
them, You have a guard. Go, make it as secure as you can. So they went with the
guard and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone.
Remember that Jesus died on a Friday, so the next day is Saturday the Jewish
Sabbath. We are thus asked to believe that devout Jews would be holding their
meeting with Pilate on a Sabbath day an improbable proposition. This fact alone
proves that the story is fiction.36
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus own disciples were portrayed as not
comprehending his words predicting his resurrection on the third day. 37 Yet in this
passage we are asked to believe that the chief priests and the Pharisees were not just
aware of these sayings of Jesus but completely understood what he meant!38
There are further problems with the story. For in inserting this episode Matthew
had had to alter the straightforward account of Mark, which was supported by Luke.
36
37
38
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p91

See Mark 8:30-32 (Matthew 16:21-23), Mark 9:9-10 & 9:30-32 (Matthew 17:22-23;
Luke 9:43-45)
McGrath, The Burial of Jesus: p84-85
24
In Mark (and Luke) the women went to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint the
body of Jesus (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1). Matthew had changed this to say that the
women simply went to look at the tomb (Matthew 28:1). This change was not
accidental. The writer of Matthew was probably aware of the inconsistency in his
story had he left it the way it was recorded in Mark; for it was most unlikely that the
women would have been unaware of the fact that a guard had been put on the tomb.
In fact it can be seen that Matthews insertion serves a purely apologetic
purpose. For after relating the account of Jesus appearance to the women, he adds
another little episode:
Matthew 28:11-15
Now while they were going, behold, some of the guards came into the city, and told
the chief priests all the things that had happened. When they were assembled with
the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave a large amount of silver to the soldiers,
saying, Say that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. If
this comes to the governors ears, we will persuade him and make you free of
worry. So they took the money and did as they were told. This saying was spread
abroad among the Jews, and continues until this day.
Now the purpose of Matthews earlier insertion becomes clear. It was meant as a
defense against stories that were circulating among the Jews around the last decade of
the first century; i.e. that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.
Not only is the account of the guard at the tomb incompatible with that of the
other gospels, the story itself is ludicrous. How is it that Pilate, himself no friend of
the Jews, could so readily agree with posting a guard at the tomb? How could the
chief priests convince the Roman guards of their ability to get them off the hook with
the Roman governor?
Matthews story is fundamentally incompatible with the other gospels and is
written for a very clear apologetic purpose. Furthermore the internal logic of the story
does not sound plausible. In short, this Mathean interlude is pure fiction.39
THE EMPTY TOMB

The fact that the tomb Jesus was laid in was empty on that Sunday morning is one
of the most often touted proof of the fundamentalists for Jesus actual resurrection.
To quote a typical remark by apologist Josh McDowell:
How can we explain the empty tomb? ...on overwhelming historical evidence
Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected... 40
So what is this overwhelming historical evidence the fundamentalists speak of?

One would think, based on such overconfident assertions, that the accounts in the
39
40
Cadoux, The Life of Jesus: p206

Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p96-97
McDowell, More Than a Carpenter: p92
25
gospels support each other to such an extent that it would be impossible to deny the
actual historical occurrence of the empty tomb.
According to the harmonized version, the women discovered the empty tomb.
The obvious question would be: which women? Let the gospels speak for themselves:
Mark 16:1
When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and
Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Matthew 28:1
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.
Luke 24:1, 9-10
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [i.e. the women] and some
others came to the tomb, bringing the spices which they had preparedNow they
were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women
with them told these things to the apostles.
John 20:1
Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still
dark, to the tomb, and saw the stone taken away from the tomb.
Mark said that there were three women, namely Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of
James and Salome who saw the tomb empty. Matthew however said that only the two
Marys were there. Luke simply said the women he later identified their number as
more than three, but the only three names he gave do not coincide with Marks.
According to Luke they were the two Marys and Joanna. John contradicts all these
when he mentioned that only one woman witnessed the empty tomb, Mary
Magdalene. Thus we have different names and no agreement as to the number of
women who witnessed the empty tomb.
The overwhelming historical evidence begins to crumble: the gospels could
not even agree on the fundamental issue as to whom (and how many) the witnesses to
the empty tomb were! This is not the only difficulty regarding the accounts of the
empty tomb.
In what condition was the tomb actually discovered? Mark says that the stone at
the tomb was already rolled away when the women arrived (Mark 16:4). Luke is in
agreement with Mark (Luke 24:2). John, too, said that the stone was already removed
when Mary of Magdala arrived (John 20:1). Matthew who, if you remember, had the
tomb guarded by sentries narrated the accounts in such a way that would lead an
impartial reader to conclude that the women witnessed the stoned being rolled away
by an earthquake and an angel from heaven (Matthew 28:1-5). This account (of the
earthquake and the angel) comes from the same author who mentioned dead people
coming to life when Jesus died, an event uncorroborated by the other gospels. The
presence of angels, in itself, makes the historicity of the story extremely doubtful.
The evangelists cant even agree on the exact setting in which the news of Jesus
rising was conveyed to the women. Mark said it was a person dressed in white in the
tomb who told them this:
Mark 16:5-6
26
Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a
white robe, and they were amazed. He said to them, Dont be amazed. You seek
Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold,
the place where they laid him!
Matthew said it was an angel who sat on the stone hence outside the tomb - he had
just rolled away from Jesus tomb.
Matthew 28: 2-6
Behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from the
sky, and came and rolled away the stone from the door, and sat on it. The angel
answered the women, Dont be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus, who has
been crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said. Come, see the
place where the Lord was lying.
Luke had two men in dazzling clothing tell the women Jesus had risen.
Luke 24:2-6
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb. They entered in, and didnt find
the Lord Jesus body. It happened, while they were greatly perplexed about this,
behold, two men stood by them in dazzling clothing. Becoming terrified, they
bowed their faces down to the earth. They said to them, Why do you seek the
living among the dead? He isnt here, but is risen.

John, although in agreement with Luke about the number of angels present, tells a
completely different story. Here the two beings did not more than ask Mary why she
is crying. The actual announcement of the resurrection was made by Jesus himself.
John 20:11-17
But Mary was standing outside at the tomb weeping. So, as she wept, she stooped
and looked into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head,
and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. They told her, Woman, why
are you weeping? She said to them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and
I dont know where they have laid him. When she had said this, she turned around
and saw Jesus standing, and didnt know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her,
Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for? She, supposing him to
be the gardener, said to him, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you
have laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned and
said to him, Rabboni! which is to say, Teacher Jesus said to her, Dont hold
me, for I havent yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, I
am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.
There is an episode in Luke about Peter running to the tomb when he heard the news
from the women (Luke 24:12) that is not found in the other synoptics. To a certain
extent Lukes story is corroborated by John. But this evangelist had Peter race to the
tomb with the beloved disciple (John 20:3-9), whereas in Luke, Peter went to the
tomb alone.
Many more loose ends remain. The gospels cannot agree as to what command
was given to the women. Mark and Matthew made the angel tell the women to
27
inform Jesus disciples to meet him in Galilee (Mark 16:7; Matthew 28:10). Luke did
not concur with them on this but retained the word Galilee in a different context
(Luke 24:6). In John, the command to Mary of Magdala was something entirely
different (John 20:17). The message of the angel was not forwarded, according to
Mark, for the women did not tell anyone of their experience (Mark 16:8). In Matthew
the opposite is the case, for the women were reported to have told the disciples who
duly went to Galilee to meet their risen Lord (Matthew 28:8,16).
Hence contradictions exist in almost every detail between the four gospels
accounts of the events surrounding the discovery of the empty tomb: they could not
agree on who actually witnessed the empty tomb, nor how many witnesses there
were; they could not agree if the tomb was guarded or not; they could not agree how
many angels (or were they merely men?) the women saw; they could not agree
whether it was the angels or Jesus himself who announced his resurrection; they could
not agree on the content of the message of the angels to the women or whether the
message was carried out; and they could not agree whether Peter was a witness to the
empty tomb. In fact, the only statement the gospels have in common is this: the tomb
in which Jesus was laid on the night of his death was found empty on Sunday
morning.41 All the other details contradict each other so blatantly that we have no
reason whatsoever to believe any of them to be historically true. Guigneberts
observations form an apt summary of the situation:
In fact everything leads us to believe that the first evangelist [Mark] who related
the discovery of the empty tomb said all he knew or thought he knew, and that the
others took their point of departure from his account with no new sources at their
disposal. They followed him, not faithfully, nor with the idea of elucidating his
account by a commentary which respected its integrity, but with that of arranging or disarranging - it in order to render it more convincing, of embellishing it or
merely of altering it, in order to produce an appearance of independent information,
for after all none of the discrepancies have any apparent meaning. 42
Now if the events surrounding the discovery of the empty tomb are historically
suspect, how confident are we of this central fact of the fundamentalists: that there
was actually an empty tomb? It should be remembered that all four gospels were
written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written
around 70 CE or forty years after the death of Jesus. In the cases of Matthew, Luke
and John, they were written at least twenty years after this, or sixty years after the
events they purport to describe. The earliest written sources we have are the epistles
of Paul, which were all written in the sixth and early seventh decades of the first
century. We find Pauls account of Jesus resurrection in his first epistle to the
Corinthians:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
41
42

28
Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until
now, but some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me
also.
Note in the above passage that there is neither any mention of an empty tomb nor of
its discovery by the women. If the discovery of the empty tomb was the essential
proof of Jesus resurrection, Pauls silence in I Corinthians is inexplicable. As the
whole of the 15th chapter of this epistle to the Corinthians was a vigorous attempt by
Paul to prove to some doubting Thomases there of the reality of the resurrection. For
Paul himself had said in the same letter:
I Corinthians 15:14
If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in
vain.
The appearance of angels to the women announcing the risen Christ would have been
especially convincing. Then why didnt Paul say anything about the empty tomb? 43
We have seen earlier in the analysis of the burial account that Acts 13:28-31 preserved
an earlier tradition of Jesus dishonorable burial; this is the passage, redacted as a
sermon of Paul:
Acts 13:28-31
Though they found no cause for death, they still asked Pilate to have him killed.
When they had fulfilled all things that were written about him, they took him down
from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he
was seen for many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem,
who are his witnesses to the people.
Note that there are mentions of appearances but not of an empty tomb and the
discovery by the women. One would expect the sermons such as the above to include
a sentence regarding this. Yet, like the passage from Pauls epistle, this sermon is
silent regarding the empty tomb. Thus, in these early testimonies we find no mention
of the empty tomb. The balance of evidence strongly suggests that the earliest
testimonies of Jesus resurrection were based on the appearances of the risen prophet
not on the empty tomb.44
N.T. Wright tried to argue that, despite what we have seen above, the empty
tomb account is presupposed in I Corinthians.15:3-4. His argument is based on the
premise that Pauls statement that Jesus was buried and then raised presupposes the
story of the discovery of the empty tomb in the same way that I walked down the
street presupposes on my feet. According to Wright, the empty tomb was what
alerted the followers that something extraordinary has happened.45
43
44
45

Helms, Gospel Fictions: p130
Guignebert, Jesus: p499-500
Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: p321
29
Unfortunately this is just another case of a conservative theologian reading into

the text what is not there. As Gerd Ldemann has pointed out the statement about
Jesus being buried is tied to Jesus death, as a way of saying he was really dead and
not someone who merely looked like he was dead. 46 Indeed the passage in I
Corinthians 15:3-4 can be naturally divided this way:
Line 1: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried
Line 2: that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
That burial is an indication that the person is really dead can be found from the
Talmudic tractate, Semahot 1:4-5 which states that preparations for burial can only
begin once one is certain that death has occurred. 47 Thus the very fact that Jesus was
buried confirms to the hearers that he was actually dead and that his resurrection was
not a mere resuscitation of someone who had fainted or had feigned death. This fits
the whole context better that Wrights hypothesis that the whole tradition of the
discovery of the empty tomb is somehow compressed in that one passage that he was
buried.
The gospel accounts were all written after the destruction of Jerusalem when it
was no longer possible to ascertain whether there was such an empty tomb or not.
The actual location of the tomb, if it ever existed, is no longer known. At present
there are two locations in Jerusalem that are being claimed by believers to be the
actual burial site of Jesus.
Protestant pilgrims favor the tomb discovered at the Gordon Calvary- named
after the 19th century British general, Charles Gordon, who discovered the site. On
the site, situated north of the 16th century Turkish built wall of the city, sits a small
hill. The hill has two caves, which viewed from a distance, looked like a skull.
However, there is not a shred of evidence in favor of this site as the actual burial site
of Jesus. In fact, the tomb claimed to be the actual tomb in which Jesus was laid, has
been shown conclusively by experts to be of a later origin.48
The other location, at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was discovered by
Bishop Marcarius of Jerusalem during the time of Constantine in 326 as a result of
divine revelation. Of course with such an inspiration there was no reason for the
discoverer to justify the choice of location. 49 In short, no weight can be given to this
site allocated by tradition. It certainly was not known before the 4th century. 50 All
these considerations had forced theologians, such as C.J. Cadoux, to conclude:
46
47
48
49
50
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p42, 139n5

Millard, Discoveries From the Time of Jesus: p126-127
The Empress Helena, upon being informed of the discovery, duly found at
the site a chip from the original cross, the crown of thorns and the lance which pierced
Jesus side!
Wilson, Jesus: A Life: p221
30
[I]t is impossible to be sure who, if anyone, actually saw an empty tomb.51

It should also be kept in mind that Palestinian Jews, as Jesus original followers were,
had no conception of the continuance of the life of the soul without the revival of the
body, which was a Greek concept. The disciples of Jesus would have regarded the
appearances of Jesus as proof that the tomb was empty 52 or at least empty of Jesus
body [the idea that the tomb was new and unused is a later development of the legend
as we have seen].
The considerations above show that the story of the empty tomb was a
secondary development in the early Christian apologetics for the resurrection of Jesus.
It was closely connected to the story of the burial of Jesus, which historicity is also
doubtful. We will now look at fundamentalist attempts to save the empty tomb.
Fundamentalist apologists tend to mention two factors which they said guarantee
the historicity of the empty tomb story. Firstly it is claimed that womens low social
status in Palestinian society means that they lack qualification to serve as legal
witnesses and any invention of the empty tomb story would not have used them as
principle eye-witnesses. 53 Secondly it is claimed that the fact that the tomb was not
venerated means that it was empty. One apologist wrote:
(The early Christians) did not venerate it precisely because it was empty. Tombs as
such were not venerated. It was the tombs containing remains of the deceased that
was venerated.54
On the women, remember that the gospel of Mark mentioned that the women did not
tell anyone else what they saw:
Mark 16:8
They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come
on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.
This is the ending of the original Mark, as we will see later, the account of the
appearances of Jesus in the last twelve verses of Mark is not found in the earliest
manuscripts and is a later addition to the gospel. Of course, Matthew and Luke both
tried to correct this oversight of Mark and had the women tell the disciples anyway.
Their additions are clearly redactional and add nothing of historical value.
The account in Mark does not allow for this. Since the women did not tell
anyone, Marks purpose could not have been to claim them as reliable eye-witnesses.
This points us to the clue as to why Mark narrated the story this way. Since Mark,
written circa 70 CE, is the earliest written source for the empty tomb story, it is likely
that he anticipated being confronted by some of his audience with protestations like
Hey, I have been a Christian a long time and have heard lots of stories about Jesus,
51
52
53
54

William Lane Craig, John Dominic Crossan and the Resurrection, in Davis,
Kendall & Collins, The Resurrection: p259
Robert Gundry, Taming the Debate in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p114
n10
31
how come I have never heard of this one about the empty tomb? So Marks ending is
his way of anticipating this, as if replying Oh, you know what women are like,
brother, they panicked and didnt tell anyone for a long time. That is why nobody has
heard of this before.55 As Gerd Ldemann noted:
By intimating that the women fail to relay the message of the resurrection, Mark
implicitly identifies himself as the first to proclaim the story of the empty tomb. 56
As for the argument that the tomb not being venerated means that it was empty, John
Barclay, Lecturer of Biblical Studies at the University of Glasgow, noted that this:
completely backfires: the tomb would not have to contain Jesus body for it to be
venerated (cf. The Holy Sepulchre) and, indeed, the lack of veneration might
support the case that the whereabouts of Jesus burial was simply unknown. 57
Barclays assertion is to the point. The best evidence that empty tombs were
venerated is that of the Holy Sepulchre itself. When Jesus tomb was rediscovered
in 326 a shrine was immediately put around it and pilgrims have venerated the place
since this time.58 As Joachim Jeremais noted:
The world of sacred tombs was a real element of the environment in which the
earliest communities lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could
have allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten. That is all the more the case since
for it the one who had lain in the tomb was more than one of those just men,
martyrs and prophet.59
Thus the two major arguments for the historicity of the empty tombs dissolve into thin
air.
Another recent attempt to argue for this historicity of the empty tomb has been
forwarded by N.T. Wright. He claimed that the empty tomb was a necessary condition
to make the resurrection appearances believable. Without the empty tomb, sightings
of the risen Jesus would have been classified as visions of hallucinations, which
were well enough known in the ancient world.60
Yet this ignores the fact that in many instances of reported sightings, these visual
experiences themselves are accepted as evidence of the reality of the occurrence
without any accompanying physical or tangible evidence. Thus we have even in
modern times reports of sightings such as that of the Virgin Mary, UFOs, Bigfoot, and
Nessie all of which are generally accepted by believers to be evidence for their
respective beliefs even without the availability of any other physical evidence. Wright
is claiming a level of scientific skepticism on behalf of the ancients that is unusual
55
56
57
58
59
60
Michael Goulder, The Baseless Fabric of A Vision, in DCosta, Resurrection

Reconsidered: p57-58
Ldemann, The Resurrection of the Christ: p87
John Barclay, The Resurrection in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship in
DCosta, Resurrection Reconsidered: p23
Millard, Discoveries from the Time of Jesus: p128-129
quoted in Ldeman, What Really Happened to Jesus: p139
Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: p686
32
even today. Furthermore, as Gerd Ldemann pointed out, in the majority of cases the
report that Jesus was seen alive was sufficient for the would-be believer in those
times.61 That indeed this is the case can be surmised from John 20:29 in the story of
doubting Thomas where those who have not seen and yet believed are praised for
their faith.
We can conclude that the story of the empty tomb is, in all probability, an
invention of Mark. How did Mark get the idea of the women at the tomb? As we have
seen in chapter 9, Mark was written by and for Gentiles. Thus the invention of the
story happened in a culture of worship of pagan gods and of adherence to mystery
religions mixed with religions such as Judaism. As Robert Price pointed out the story
developed from the amalgamation of a female mourning cult such as those who
worship the slain gods and the ancient apotheosis narrative where the hero turns up
missing and cannot be found by his companions. The mourning of slain gods can be
found in the Old Testament (e.g. Tammuz [Ezekiel 8:14] & Baal Haddad [Zechariah
12:11]) and in the legends of Osiris. The pagan culture was filled with myths of
searching goddesses such as Cybele, Ishtar, Isis, Aphrodite and Anat. Stories of a
missing hero can be found in the legends of Hercules, Aristeaus, Aeneas and
Romulus.62
It seems very likely that none of Jesus disciples were witnesses to the events
following his arrest.63 This is firmly supported by the fact that it is in these episodes
that the evangelists had to rely on Old Testament passages to reconstruct the events as
they thought it might have happened. The stories of Jesus burial by Joseph of
Arimathea and the discovery of an empty tomb by the women are products of the
Christian imagination. A fictional expansion of their hope historicized. This
conclusion has been, albeit reluctantly, accepted by non-fundamentalist theologians.
Bishop John Shelby Spong in his book Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (1994) had this
to say about the empty tombs and the events surrounding it:
There is a strong probability that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was developed
to cover the apostles pain at the memory of Jesus having no one to claim his body
and of his death as a common criminal. His body was probably dumped
unceremoniously into a common grave, the location of which has never been
known - then or now. This fragment in Pauls sermon in Acts thus rings with
startling accuracy...the empty tomb tradition does not appear to be part of the
primitive kerygma. 64
THE RESURRECTION
The first account of Jesus appearances we will look at is the account in the last twelve
verses of Mark:
Mark 16:9-20
61
62
63
64

Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: p333-335
Again Mark 14:50 (They all left him, and fled.) comes to mind. There were
no eyewitnesses because all his followers ran away after he was arrested.
Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality: p225
33
Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those
who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. When they heard that he was
alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved. After these things he was
revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the
country. They went away and told it to the rest. They didnt believe them, either.
Afterward he was revealed to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he
rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didnt believe
those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, Go into all the world,
and preach the Good News to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized
will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned. These signs will
accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will
speak with new languages; they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will
recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into
heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. They went out, and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs
that followed. Amen.
The diligent reader will note that these twelve verses sounds very much like a
summary of all of Jesus resurrection appearances given in the gospels of Matthew,
Luke, John and the book of Acts. This may seem surprising as we have shown in
chapter 9 that Mark was written earlier than all of these. But there is really no
perplexity here, for it is in fact proven that these last twelve verses were never part of
the original gospel of Mark and were added in much later. The proofs are as follows:
1
The style, content and whole character of the last twelve verses are clearly
non-Markan. In fact the style, vocabulary and verses are completely
different from the rest of Mark.65 As Nineham pointed out:
Even a cursory reading will make clear that the passage is not
composed of traditional pericopaes such as we have encountered in the
gospel proper but of brief resumes of stories and sayings already
reported more fully in other written gospels particularly Luke and
Acts.66
65
66
67
The early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215),

Origen (c185-254) and Tertullian (c160-c225) never quoted any verses
from Mark after the eighth verse of chapter 16. In fact down to the year
325 the passage from Mark 6:9-20 was quoted only once, by Ireneaus in
180 CE, in the whole of Christian literature. 67
In the 4th century the Christian historian, Eusebius (c264-340), in his work
Ad Marinum 1 stated that in the accurate manuscripts Mark ended with the
Nineham, Saint Mark: p439,449

Bentley, Secrets of Mount Sinai: p178
Nineham, Saint Mark: p449-450
34
words for they were afraid [Mark 16:8]. This opinion is also shared by
the famous fourth century theologian St. Jerome (c340-420).68
4
In all the important and earliest extent manuscripts of the Bible, the Codex
Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Syriacus, the last twelve
verses of Mark are conspicuously missing. All these manuscripts end at
Mark 16:8.69
Some later manuscripts to do have this ending add asterisks to these last
twelve verses, probably to show they need deleting. Some even have notes
stating that these verses do not appear in older copies.70
Both Matthew and Luke used the Markan gospel extensively (see chapter 6
for proof of this), both sticking to the basic narrative in that gospel. Yet
both Matthew and Luke have completely different accounts of the
appearances of Jesus. This also strongly suggests that the copies of Mark
used by these evangelists ended at verse eight of chapter sixteen.71
All the above considerations present a compelling case for the spuriousness of Mark
16:9-20. There is no longer any respectable scholar that holds the opinion that these
verses may be part of the original Mark. The quotation by Ireneaus in 180 CE
mentioned above and the fact that it presupposes knowledge of the other gospels
suggests a second century origin for these verses.72
In fact, from the 4th century onwards there appeared another spurious ending to
Mark which takes the place of Mark 16:9-20. This ending can be found in some late
manuscripts (after the 4th century CE). Given below is that variant ending (placed
immediately after Mark 16:8 for they were afraid):
But they [the three women] briefly reported to those in the company of Peter all
they had been told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them, and sent out by
means of them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable message of
eternal salvation.73
Needless to say, Markan authorship is also completely ruled out here as well, both on
the lateness of its appearance (after the 4th century) and on linguistic grounds. 74
These texts (Mark 16:9-20 and the other ending) are as spurious as the Johanine
Comma discussed in chapter 6. But because of its early appearance and its
acceptance into the Christian canon, which as we saw was not finalized until much
later, these verses has been, rather paradoxically, described by the Catholic theologian
M.J. Lagrange as canonically authentic though not literally authentic (i.e. it was not
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Nineham, Saint Mark: p449-450

Martin, New Testament Foundations I: p219
35
written by Mark).75 In other words, the earlier the fraud, the more likely it was
divinely inspired!
The fact that most lay Christians are unaware of the fact that the last twelve
verses of Mark are bogus bids poorly for the moral integrity of the church leaders who
are aware of this fact. Perhaps, like Lagrange, they, modern day elders of the
churches, believe that since the passage is canonically authentic there is no reason
to destroy the faith of their flock by pointing out that in very literal sense, this passage
is a fraudulent fabrication of early Christian piety!
The importance of this cannot be overstated: the earliest gospel, Mark, has no
account of the resurrection appearance of Jesus.
THE APPEARANCES OF JESUS AS DEPICTED IN THE GOSPELS

The remaining three gospels all give different and often contradictory accounts of the
resurrection appearances of Jesus.
Take the simple question: who was the first person to see the risen Jesus?
According to Matthew, Jesus first appeared to the two Marys while they were running
away from the tomb:
Matthew 28:8-10
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his
disciples word. As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying,
Rejoice! They came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus
said to them, Dont be afraid. Go tell my brothers that they should go into Galilee,
and there they will see me.
According to Luke the women only saw the angels but did not see Jesus. The first
persons to see Jesus was two of his followers (not of the eleven). The story (Luke
24:13-33) recounts how later that Sunday two of Jesus followers met with a stranger
on their way from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They told the stranger about the sad events
of the past few days. When they reached Emmaus they had supper together. During
that supper the two finally realized that the stranger was Jesus. Upon this realization
Jesus immediately disappeared from their sight. This is the account in full:
75

36
Luke 24:13-33
Behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which
was sixty stadia from Jerusalem. They talked with each other about all of these
things which had happened. It happened, while they talked and questioned together,
that Jesus himself came near, and went with them. But their eyes were kept from
recognizing him. He said to them, What are you talking about as you walk, and
are sad? One of them, named Cleopas, answered him, Are you the only stranger
in Jerusalem who doesnt know the things which have happened there in these
days? He said to them, What things? They said to him, The things concerning
Jesus, the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and
all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be
condemned to death, and crucified him. But we were hoping that it was he who
would redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these
things happened. Also, certain women of our company amazed us, having arrived
early at the tomb; and when they didnt find his body, they came saying that they
had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of us went to the
tomb, and found it just like the women had said, but they didnt see him. He said
to them, Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have
spoken! Didnt the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?
Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning himself. They drew near to the village, where they
were going, and he acted like he would go further. They urged him, saying, Stay
with us, for it is almost evening, and the day is almost over. He went in to stay
with them. It happened, that when he had sat down at the table with them, he took
the bread and gave thanks. Breaking it, he gave to them. Their eyes were opened,
and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their sight. They said one to
another, Werent our hearts burning within us, while he spoke to us along the way,
and while he opened the Scriptures to us? They rose up that very hour, returned to
Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them
According to John Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene alone:

John 20:11-18
But Mary was standing outside at the tomb weeping. So, as she wept, she stooped
and looked into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head,
and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. They told her, Woman, why
are you weeping? She said to them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and
I dont know where they have laid him. When she had said this, she turned around
and saw Jesus standing, and didnt know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her,
Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for? She, supposing him to
be the gardener, said to him, Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you
have laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned and
said to him, Rabboni! which is to say, Teacher Jesus said to her, Dont hold
me, for I havent yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, I
am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Mary
Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had
said these things to her.
And Paul in I Corinthians 15:5 mentioned no appearances to the women but instead
said that Jesus appeared first to Peter. This again contradicts all the other three
37
accounts in the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. 76 There is thus no clear cut
answer from the gospels [and Pauls epistles] as to who was actually the first to see
the risen Jesus.
Another contradiction arises in where exactly did the risen Jesus first meet his
eleven apostles. Mark, while not containing any actual account of Jesus appearances,
made the angel tell the women that Jesus will meet his apostles in Galilee:
Mark 16:7
But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goes before you into Galilee. There you
will see him, as he said to you.
Matthew makes Jesus himself convey that same message to the women (Matthew
28:10-see above). And further adds an episode of the disciples actual meeting with
him on a mountain in Galilee:
Matthew 28:16-20
But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent
them. When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted. Jesus came
to them and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven
and on earth. Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe
all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of
the age. Amen.
Matthew made no mention of any meeting of the disciples with the risen Jesus in
Jerusalem. Indeed the very flow of his last chapter implicitly excludes that
possibility, for he made Jesus command the women to tell the disciple to go ahead and
meet him in Galilee.
Luke, on the other hand, made the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples
happen in Jerusalem:
Luke 24:33-36
They rose up that very hour, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered
together, and those who were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and has
appeared to Simon! They related the things that happened along the way, and how
he was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread. As they said these things,
Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, Peace be to you.
John did not explicitly mention where the meeting took place, but it is quite obvious
that Jerusalem was implied as the appearance took place on that very Sunday evening.
John 20:19
76
Luke 24:34 [the response of the disciples to the story by Cleopas and his
companion that The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!] might be taken
to support the passage in I Corinthians. This in no way solves the problems for the
contradiction of whether it was the women, Mary Magdalene alone or Peter who first saw
the risen Jesus remains.
38
When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the
doors were locked where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus
came and stood in the midst, and said to them, Peace be to you.
The New Testament sources cant even agree on the number and sequence of the
appearances. Given below is a list of the number and sequence of the appearances. It
can be seen that there is no agreement whatsoever in the numbers and sequence of
appearances:
Matthew
1) 28:9-10
2) 28:16-17
To the two Marys

To the eleven apostles in Galilee
Luke
1) 24:13-32
2) 24:34
3) 24:33-39
To the two travelers to Emmaus

(Statement) To Peter
To the eleven apostles in Jerusalem
John
1) 20:14-18
2) 20:19-23
3) 20:24-30
4) 21:1-23
To Mary Magdalene
To the apostles in a house
To the disciples and Thomas
To the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias
I Corinthians
1) 15:5
2) 15:5
3) 15:6
4) 15:7
5) 15:7
6) 15:7
To Peter
To the twelve
To 500 followers
To James
To all the apostles
To Paul
The duration of the resurrected Jesus stay on earth is also something which the
gospels cannot agree on. In Matthew the duration is only a few days needed for the
disciples to travel from Jerusalem to Galilee. Luke had the whole resurrection and
ascension occur over that one Sunday.77 Acts contradicts this by asserting that the
duration was 40 days (Acts 1:3). John did not explicitly state the duration but made it
more than one week (John 21:26).
There is thus no agreement among the New Testament sources as to:78
77
78
Jesus appeared to the two on the way to Emmaus on Sunday evening (Luke
24:13-12). The two traveled immediately to Jerusalem (Luke 24:33). When they found
the eleven it was probably late that Sunday night. There Jesus appeared to them (Luke
24:36). After this Jesus led them to Bethany where he was taken up to heaven (Luke
24:50-53).
39
1.
The place of Jesus appearance. Mark implicitly, and Matthew, explicitly

state that Galilee was the exclusive location of the resurrection
appearances. Luke and John both assert Jerusalem as the place where the
resurrected Jesus was first seen.
2.
The number of appearances. Matthew mentioned two, Luke implied

three, John said four and Paul counted six.
3.
The person who first saw the risen Jesus. According to Matthew it was
the two Marys, according to Luke it was either Peter or the two travelers to
Emmaus, John said it was to Mary Magdalene alone and Paul said Peter
had that honor.
The duration of the risen Jesus stay on earth. Luke said it was one day,
Acts put it as forty. John and Matthew had it somewhere in between.
These discrepancies have serious repercussions. We note that there is some unanimity
in how the gospels tell the story of Jesus passion yet when it comes to the accounts of
the empty tomb and resurrection appearances the evangelists go off in all different
directions. As Roy Hoover, Professor of Biblical Literature at Whitman College
pointed out:
Looked at from the perspective of what we know about how the gospels authors
went about their task of composing their narratives, the variant character of their
Easter narratives, especially in contrast to the similarity of their passion
narratives, strongly suggests that there is no common tradition behind them. That
undoubtedly indicates that their empty-tomb and appearance stories are later in
origin than are the testimonies to the appearances of the risen Jesus noted by Paul
and that they are intended to make the claim that Jesus had indeed risen
believable to popular religious imagination. 79
Thus the very variant nature of the reports of Jesus appearances in the gospels speaks
against their historicity. It cannot be too heavily stressed that the resurrection
appearances are the fundamental sheet anchor of the Christian faith. Without the
reality of this, the whole edifice of Christianity (liberal theologians not withstanding)
collapses. But here, in a kind of supernatural situation where the burden of proof
would be extraordinarily heavy, the gospels and other New Testament sources cant
even present us with a harmonious witness to the event surrounding the appearances
of the risen Jesus. It goes without saying that no weight can be given to accounts
which contradict each other in every major detail.
79
Roy Hoover, A Contest Between Orthodoxy and Veracity in Copan and Tacelli,
Jesus Resurrection: p135-136
40
THE NATURE OF THE APPEARANCES

When evangelical Christians talked about the resurrected Jesus they mean that he was
physically raised from the dead. This resurrected Jesus can be touched and can
consume food. In other words, his was a tangible presence and not some ghost or
spirit (or worse, figments of the disciples imagination!). For evidence, these
fundamentalist Christians normally refer to the resurrection accounts found in Luke
and John. In Luke, Jesus was made to tell his disciples to touch him to make certain
he is real. He was also able to eat:
Luke 24:36-42
As they said these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them,
Peace be to you. But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that
they had seen a spirit. He said to them, Why are you troubled? Why do doubts
arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and
see, for a spirit doesnt have flesh and bones, as you see that I have. When he had
said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they still didnt believe for
joy, and wondered, he said to them, Do you have anything here to eat? They gave
him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. He took them, and ate in front
of them. He said to them, This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that
all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms,
concerning me must be fulfilled.
In Johns account the resurrected Jesus was also a tangible being who allowed
doubting Thomas to touch his hands and his side:
John 20:24-29
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, wasnt with them when Jesus
came. The other disciples therefore said to him, We have seen the Lord! But he
said to them, Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into
his side, I will not believe. After eight days again his disciples were inside, and
Thomas was with them. Jesus came, the doors being locked, and stood in the midst,
and said, Peace be to you. Then he said to Thomas, Reach here your finger, and
see my hands. Reach here your hand, and put it into my side. Dont be unbelieving,
but believing. Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him,
Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not
seen, and have believed.
In another resurrection account in the same gospel, set by the sea of Galilee, Jesus is
described as eating breakfast with Peter and six other disciples (John 21:12-15).
However, we do not find such strong statements of the resurrected Jesus
physical nature in the other two gospels. The gospel of Matthew contains only two
very brief accounts of encounters with the risen Jesus. Let us look at these two in turn.
The first encounter with the risen Jesus happened to the two Marys who were running
away from the empty tomb:
Matthew 28:8-10
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his
disciples word. As they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying,
41
Rejoice! They came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus
said to them, Dont be afraid. Go tell my brothers that they should go into Galilee,
and there they will see me.
The second passage tells of the disciples meeting Jesus on a mountain in Galilee.
Matthew 28:16-20
But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent
them. When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted. Jesus came
to them and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven
and on earth. Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe
all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of
the age. Amen.
Note how brief these two accounts in Matthew are compared to the elaborate
accounts in Luke and John. In the first passage, the only physical manifestation was
that the women were able to clasp Jesus feet. The second passage has no explicit
indication of physicality. Jesus was said to come to them and spoke to them briefly.
Furthermore the point made in Matthew 28:17 (but some doubted) about the
presence of doubt among some of his disciples seems to point to a lack of corporeality
in the appearance of the risen Jesus.
Finally, the oldest gospel, Mark, does not have any account of the resurrection
appearance of Jesus.
This leaves us with one last source on Jesus resurrection. Unlike the gospels, we
do have, in the authentic epistles of Paul, an eyewitness report from someone who
actually saw the resurrected Jesus. The most important passage from the Pauline
epistles on the resurrection is found in I Corinthians 15. Although we have already
quoted this passage above, it is of primary importance in our current considerations,
so here it is again:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third
day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to over five hundred brothers at once, most of whom remain until
now, but some have also fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me
also.
The Greek word translated above as he appeared to is ophthe. Pauls choice of the
word ophthe (he was seen, he was observed) is significant. I quote Guignebert:
This word does not necessarily imply the actual appearance of a person, but may
only indicate an unusual phenomena...the use of the word ophthe in enumerating
other visions in the Pauline lists...excludes such details as prolonged conversations,
meals and resumption of ordinary life, on which the gospels dwell. 80
80

42
An example of how Pauls experience of the risen Jesus can be seen in this, probably
autobiographical, passage:
II Corinthians 12:1-4
It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. For I will come to visions and
revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the
body, I dont know, or whether out of the body, I dont know; God knows), such a
one caught up into the third heaven. I know such a man (whether in the body, or
outside of the body, I dont know; God knows), how he was caught up into
Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Pauls description above shows that his visions of the Lord was not something
which could be described easily. His euphoric phrases about being out of body,
being caught up into Paradise and of having heard unspeakable words shows that
it was not a simple physical meeting he was talking about.81
The Acts of the Apostles provides further indication of such an intangible nature
of Jesus appearance to Paul. Here the account of Pauls vision of the risen Jesus is
given in the form of a speech by the apostle:
Acts 22:6-11 (Also Acts 9:3ff; 26:12)
It happened that, as I made my journey, and came close to Damascus, about noon,
suddenly there shone from the sky a great light around me. I fell to the ground, and
heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? I answered,
Who are you, Lord? He said to me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you
persecute. Those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but
they didnt understand the voice of him who spoke to me. I said, What shall I do,
Lord? The Lord said to me, Arise, and go into Damascus. There you will be told
about all things which are appointed for you to do. When I couldnt see for the
glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into
Damascus.
Nowhere in the accounts given in Acts are we actually told that Paul saw the risen
Jesus. All he saw was a blinding light and a voice which his companions either did
not hear or understand. The experience of Paul, which can be best explained as some
kind of ecstatic vision, was nowhere near the tangible person of the resurrected Jesus
described in the gospels of Luke and John.
Now if we provide a timeline on the resurrection accounts in the New Testament
we will notice a peculiar development. The earliest account, the epistles of Paul,
written in the 50s, described an intangible resurrected Jesus. The earliest gospel,
Mark, written two decades after the epistles of Paul, does not have any narration of
the resurrected Jesus. Then circa 90 CE, in the gospel of Matthew, we find two very
brief accounts, only one of which (Matthew 28:8-10) can be unambiguously
interpreted as a physical manifestation of Jesus. It was only around 100 CE, or 70
81
There is nothing unique about this type of experience. Muhammad, the founder of
Islam, was said to have experienced a similar kind of heavenly rapture where he was
transported miraculously to the site of the Jerusalem Temple and lifted up into heaven
where he spoke to both Moses and Jesus. [Armstrong, Holy War: p39]
43
years after the death of Jesus, that we do find written reports of a tangible resurrected
Jesus - in the gospels of Luke and John.
The believer may claim that such stories circulated orally before Luke and John
put them in writing. However is it believable that no one before that - not Paul, not
Mark and not, to a certain extent, Matthew, - thought it worthwhile to recount in
writing such remarkable stories? This stretches credulity to the breaking point.
At around the same time when Luke and John were written we find the church
father, Ignatius (d. c110) retelling such stories in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
Epistle to the Smyrnaean 3-4
For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I
believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with
Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal
spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by
His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its
conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being
possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. I give you these
instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I
guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not
only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to
God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however,
will be very difficult.
This passage gives us an important clue. It is obvious from the Smyrnaean epistle that
Ignatius wasnt just recounting the resurrection appearance of Jesus in a boring
sermon-like fashion. He was asserting the physical nature of the resurrection against
opponents (those beasts in the shape of men) who believed otherwise. We know that
there was a group of Christians, the Docetists, who first appeared around the end of
the first century who taught that Jesus was never truly human and thus he could not
have been resurrected in a corporeal form.
It would certainly have been a major coincidence that Ignatius (and Luke and
John) had such stories readily available from the oral tradition as a defence against
such opponents. A more likely explanation is that these stories were made up82 in the
heated battle against other Christians who believed in an intangible resurrected
Jesus.83
Here we once again bring in the witness of Paul. He in no way considered his
vision to be any different from, or inferior to, those experienced by Peter and the other
apostles. As he asserted:
I Corinthians 9:1
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Havent I seen Jesus Christ, our Lord?
II Corinthians 11:5
82
83
This means that the stories could either have been concocted from whole cloth or
padding added to original stories of visions as is the case, I believe of the appearance
of Jesus to Peter in Galilee to make the Jesus more tangible.
Michael Goulder, The Baseless Fabric of a Vision, in DCosta, Resurrection
44
For I reckon that I am not at all behind [or inferior to] the very best apostles.
For Paul, the seal of apostleship comes from having seen the risen Jesus. In this
respect, as is evident in these two passages, he did not consider himself the least bit
inferior to the apostles. Such confidence on Pauls part would be very hard to explain
if the apostles actually ate with and touched the resurrected Jesus while he only had
visions which he could not properly describe in words. Surely he would not have
placed his experience on par with theirs!
The precedent of the Pauline epistle strongly suggests that the appearances
witnessed by the original followers of Jesus amount to nothing more than the type
described by Paul. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Paul understood
Jesus appearances to the apostles as anything different from his own experience. 84 As
Karen Armstrong noted:
It is interesting to note that Paul makes no distinction between his own vision of
Jesus and those apparitions to Peter and the others. Where the gospels show Jesus
as physically and inconvertibly present to the apostles, able to eat drink and be
touched, Paul, who was writing much earlier, shows the events as entirely similar to
his own violent vision, which he compares to an abnormal childbirth. The
apparitions to Peter and James and the rest were probably visions like Pauls on the
road to Damascus, rather than physical manifestations of the risen Lord. Paul does
not suggest that they were any different. 85
If, as we have seen is very likely, the actual resurrection appearances of Jesus were
nothing more than hallucinatory visions, it becomes clear why there were skeptics
among the original followers of Jesus as to stories and claims of seeing the risen
Christ. We have noted this skepticism in Matthew 28:17. We see this doubt expressed
even in the passages from Luke and John given above. Had the appearance of Jesus
been in a tangible form it is highly unlikely that such doubts would have arisen.
We can now summarize our findings. Initially, the stories that were in circulation
about Jesus resurrection were like those of Pauls they never mentioned a Jesus
who could be touched and who shared meals with the disciples. Due to the advent of
Christian heretical groups such as the Docetists who denied a physical Jesus,
stories about the tangibility of a resurrected Jesus started to appear in the writings of
the groups who were opposed to them. We have no reason to believe that the tradition
of a corporeal physical resurrected Jesus was part of the earliest Christian tradition.
The resurrection appearances of Jesus, as described in the gospels, are not historical.
84
85

Armstrong, The First Christian: p55
45
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF

THE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES
We have seen that in I Corinthians 15:5-7, Paul recounted the resurrection appearance
of Jesus. According to this Jesus appeared first to Peter and then to the twelve, then
to five hundred, to James to all the apostles and finally to Paul himself. We have
seen above that Paul made no distinction between what he experienced and what the
rest saw. Thus we can safely call all these visions of the resurrected Jesus. In other
words, these are internal experiences not external supernatural manifestations.
It would, of course, be more satisfying if we could also explain the
psychological origins of these visions. In other words, what triggered the whole series
of Jesus sightings? Since Peter, the twelve, James, the five hundred and all the
apostles were all followers of Jesus, we can say that Peters vision was the trigger
for the rest of this. Thus being able to explain why Peter had the vision is the starting
point to explain the vision of the rest of Jesus disciples.
Pauls vision had to have a different origin, for he was not a follower and could
not have felt what Peter and the rest felt. Thus we have to explain the psychological
origins of the appearances to Peter and to Paul; two visions that did not have any
external catalyst.
Recently some critical historical scholars such as John Hick 86, Michael Goulder87
and Gerd Ldemann88 have used the findings of modern psychology to analyze and
explain the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Hick compares the experiences of the
first disciples, in particular Pauls as described in Acts (9:3-8, 22:6-11 & 26:12-18) to
modern studies of near death experiences where reports of seeing a bright light or a
brightly shining figure seems to be common. 89 Michael Goulder compares these with
modern studies of mass hysteria and collective delusions. But by far the most
comprehensive attempt to get to the psychological origins of the visions of the
apostles has been that of Ldemann. 90 Our presentation below on the psychological
origins of Peters and Pauls visions is based on Professor Ldemanns work, while
86
87
88
89
90
John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christianity in a Pluralistic Age, John
Knox 1993
Michael Goulder, The Explanatory Power of Conversion Visions in Copan & Tacelli,
Jesus Resurrection: p86-103
Gerd Ldemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, Fortress
1994
Gerd Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus, Westminster John Knox 1995
Gerd Ldemann, The Resurrection of the Christ: A Historical Inquiry, Prometheus 2004
Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: p24
As a result of his intensive study into the birth, resurrection of Jesus and the heresies
of early Christianity, Ldemann made a public statement renouncing his Christian faith in
1998, as he could no longer believe what his research has shown to be untrue. As a result
Professor Ldemann was subtly removed from his chair (New Testament) by a renaming
of his chair to that of History and Literature of Early Christianity. The new position
would not be one that would attract research funds. In effect this change in name has the
effect of stifling his research.
46
the analysis on the visions of the early community following Peters vision is based
on Professor Goulders analysis.
The Origin of Peters Vision

Most scholars agree that Peter must have been one of the first to have seen the risen
Jesus. It would otherwise be difficult to understand his primacy among the apostles.
This is consistent with the earliest recorded list of the resurrection appearances in I
Corinthians 15:5.
Given below is Ldemanns construction of a psycho-causation profile of the
resurrection vision (hallucination) by Peter:91
We are sure that Peter must have mourned Jesus death.
We also know, from studies by psychologist of the process of mourning,

that mourners, due to their love for the lost one, tend to feel in their minds
the presence of the loved one. A successful mourning is when the mourner
slowly parts, psychologically, from feeling the presence of the lost one. In
other words, their lives slowly return to normal as thoughts about the
recently deceased slowly recede into the background.
However there are cases where successful mourning is hindered and the
feeling of the presence of the loved ones becomes more intense and being
unable to bear the pain, the mourner actually see the dead person as
somehow being alive again. Research at Harvard University on cases like
these show unsuccessful mourning is more likely if the following
conditions are present:
o
o
o
The death is sudden

An ambivalent attitude towards the dead person associated with
feeling of guilt
A dependent relationship between the mourner and the dead.
We notice that these three factors are all present in Peters case.
o
o
o
Jesus death was sudden.

Peter denied Jesus just before the latter was executed. This must have
caused tremendous guilt in the Galilean fisherman.
Peter, of course, was a follower of Jesus. He left his work and home
to follow him. Thus it was a deeply dependent relationship.
To quote Ldemann directly:

The mourning hindered by the three factors mentioned was enormously helped in
the case of Peter by a seeing. The mourning first led to a real, deeper
understanding of Jesus, and this in turn helped toward a new understanding of the
situation of mourning. Recollections of who Jesus had been led to the recognition
91
Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p83-94

Ldemann, The Resurrection of the Christ: p163-166
47
of who Jesus is. Seeing Jesus thus already included a whole chain of theological
conclusions.92
Thus Peters vision of the risen Jesus is very likely the result of an unsuccessful
mourning.
The Origin of Pauls Vision

The psychological origins of Pauls own hallucinations (his visions of the resurrected
Jesus) are different from Peters. Remember that we have Pauls own words in his
genuine epistles. Thus we are able to derive a lot about the inner workings of his mind
through his writings.
First let us note that Paul had some kind of illness. He said as much in his epistle
to the Galatians:
Galatians 4:12-14 (RSV)
Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You
did me no wrong; you know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the
gospel to you at first; and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not
scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
Paul must have also been frail looking, for this is what he quoted his opponents
describing him:
II Corinthians 10:10
For, His letters, they say, are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is
weak, and his speech is despised.
Now let us look into a very revealing passage from II Corinthians (portions of which
we have seen earlier):
II Corinthians 12:1-10
It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. For I will come to visions and
revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the
body, I dont know, or whether out of the body, I dont know; God knows), such a
one caught up into the third heaven. I know such a man (whether in the body, or
outside of the body, I dont know; God knows), how he was caught up into
Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except
in my weaknesses. For if I would desire to boast, I will not be foolish; for I will
speak the truth. But I refrain, so that no man may think more of me than that which
he sees in me, or hears from me. By reason of the exceeding greatness of the
revelations, that I should not be exalted excessively, there was given to me a thorn
in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, that I should not be exalted
excessively. Concerning this thing, I begged the Lord three times that it might
depart from me. He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is
made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore I will rather glory in my
92

48
weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest on me. Therefore I take pleasure in
weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christs
sake. For when I am weak, then am I strong.
Our thinking here will take a few steps to work through:93
Paul is obviously describing one of his visions in this passage.
Note that he did not attempt to differentiate between his visions and his
revelations.
A thorn in the flesh, a disease, was given to him to keep him from being
too elated by the revelations (or visions).
This disease, his weakness, was what gave him his visions. For Christs
power is made perfect in weakness.
Thus for Paul, his illness (or the manifestations of its symptoms) and his
visions, are inseparably bound together. In other words, he only sees Jesus
when he is ill!
Pauls Damascus vision, his first vision of Jesus Christ, must be of a similar nature.
What triggered it? Wasnt Paul on the opposite end of the spectrum from Peter and his
views completely opposite? For the vision to be coming in from the depth of Pauls
psyche we need to show that Paul already had the seeds of belief in him.
Here Ldemann takes us through the steps, using a psychodynamic approach, in
seeing how this is so:94
Many fanatics suffer from inner turmoil. Their basic instincts long to do
things their beliefs tell them they cannot.
Thus they suppress their instincts.
This leads to a hatred of their situation.
This turns into hatred for those who could do what they themselves cannot
do. For example, the disgust most religious fanatics feel towards sex of
any kind is but one manifestation of this.
In some fanatics, a crucial turning point occurs which releases them from
previous inhibitions and they become free of their previous shackles.
In other words within the inner turmoil, the emotional dialectic, already
lies the new synthesis or world view.
We find Pauls situation to follow these steps very closely:
93
94
Paul (or Saul) was a fanatic. He was, in his own words full of zeal and
faultless in keeping to legalistic requirements to Jewish law (Philippians
3:6).

49
Although he claimed to be faultless in following the law, he suffered from

inner turmoil and fought to suppress his instincts. The passage below
clearly shows this:
Romans 7:7-11
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I
wouldnt have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldnt have
known coveting, unless the law had said, You shall not covet. But
sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all
kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was alive apart
from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and
I died. The commandment, which was for life, this I found to be for
death; for sin, finding occasion through the commandment, deceived
me, and through it killed me.
His obvious hatred of his own situation is turned outwards towards the
Christians. Paul probably saw within the Christian movement the very
antithesis of his position towards the law. This is more so in its preaching
of a crucified messiah in express contradiction to the law (Deuteronomy
21:23 anyone hung under a tree is under Gods curse). In zeal he
persecuted the Christians. (Galatians 1:23)
This inner turmoil came to a climax on his trip to Damascus where,

probably suffering from sunstroke or an epileptic seizure, Paul had his
vision which released him from his inner turmoil and converted him.
To again quote Ldeman directly:

Pauls appearance did not depend on Peters vision, since here it was not a follower
but an enemy of Jesus or his supporters who was affected. Here Pauls biography
gives strong indications that his vision of Christ is to be explained psychologically
as an overcoming of a smoldering Christ complex which led to sever inner
(unconscious) conflicts in him and finally released itself in this vision. 95
Thus Pauls vision arose from an entirely different set of circumstances from Peters.
Pauls vision was a release from an inner dialectic tension in his subconscious
theological paradigm.
The Sustenance of Subsequent Visions

Our next task would be to explain the subsequent visions described in I Corinthians
15:3-8. These visions are not primary in the sense that people who experienced these
visions have already heard of others (such as Peter and Paul) having similar
experiences. Michael Goulder labeled the visions of the early disciples, including the
alleged appearance to the 500, as collective delusions. Such phenomena have been
well studied by modern social psychology and its basic characteristics are known.
These characteristics can be found in various UFO sightings, visions of the Virgin in
Catholic Mariology and in sightings of creatures such as the Loch Ness Monster and
Sasquatch (or Bigfoot).
95

50
Basing his study on the value-added theory of N.J. Smelser, Goulder compared
the characteristics of the resurrection experiences of the early Christians to that of a
small community in South Dakota where sightings of Sasquatch suddenly took hold
of the community in 1977. There were six factors that brought on and sustained the
collective delusions:96
1
A close knit community
This allows for rumors to spread easily. The isolation from the outside world
means also that excessive skepticism can be kept in check. This was the case
with the community in South Dakota and was also the case with the early
followers of Jesus.
2
Structural Strain
The society or community must be under some kind of stress. This can be
exacerbated by the presence of the lowly educated and people who may be prone
to hallucinations. Again this fits the description of the South Dakota settlements
as well as the early church. Remember that the disciples were all running away
from the Jewish authorities when Jesus was arrested. They must have been in
hiding. They were all poorly educated. (Acts 4:13) The presence of some
members such as Mary Magdalene, who was probably prone to hallucinations
(Luke 8:2, Mark 16:9) - is another notable characteristic of the early Christian
community.
3
Presence of Generalized Beliefs
Such experiences do not arise out of thin air. Some kind of general belief must
already be present. In the case of the South Dakota settlements, the legend of
Bigfoot was already part of the local indigenous culture. Among the early
Christians there is the apocalyptic expectation that at the end of time, God will
raise all from the dead. Jesus is the first sign of this general resurrection. (I
Corinthians 15:23)
4
Trigger
There had to be an initial trigger that set off the whole series of visions. In the
case of the Sasquatch sightings it was the showing of a B movie in the
summer of 1977 there. In the case of the early Christians, the trigger was the
vision of Peter.
5
Sustaining Factors
The series of visions had to be sustained by mobilizing factors. In South Dakota
there were the media coverage, the various community actions, the police hunts
and the constant meetings over the issue which fed hundreds of sightings of the
mythical creature. For the early Christians their constant meeting together for
prayers (Acts 1:14, Luke 24:52) and then exchanging stories about their
resurrection experiences (Luke 24:33-34) could be the sustaining factors.
6
96
Pay-Off

51
This is an important consideration. Stories can spread because there was some
kind of pay-off for those who reported it as happening to them. In the case of
the Bigfoot sightings, it is obvious that reporting that you have seen the creature
means that you immediately become the center of media attention. In the case of
the early church, seeing the Lord, was an obvious stamp of discipleship (I
Corinthians 9:1).
When shown in such a comparative way, we can see that once the initial trigger was
done by Peter, we would expect the reports of sightings of Jesus would spread like
wildfire throughout the early community.
Conclusions on the Psychological Origins

of the Resurrection Appearances
We can conclude this section by stating very plainly that there is nothing supernatural
about the resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples. Once triggered by Peter,
the rest of the visions followed well understood principles that govern mass delusions.
The appearance to Peter was caused by a failed mourning, while that of Paul was
caused by a Christ complex. No other explanation fits the historical data better and
none other require fewer assumptions. There is no need to assume an event unheard
of in medical science - the resuscitation of a corpse three days after death. Any
explanation which assumes this violates Ockhams razor. As Ldemann concluded:
God must no longer be assumed to be the author of these visions, as is still argued
frequently, but inconsistently, even by advocates of the vision hypothesis. Rather
these are psychological processes which ran their course with a degree of regularity
- completely without divine intervention. At the same time this means that the
assumption of the resurrection of Jesus is completely unnecessary as a
presupposition to explain these phenomena. A consistent modern view must say
farewell to the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event We can no longer take
the statements about the resurrection of Jesus literally...So let us say this quite
specifically: the tomb of Jesus was not empty, but full, and his body did not
disappear, but rotted away. 97
THAT HE APPEARED TO CEPHAS

A RECONSTRUCTION
We have established that the resurrection appearances of Jesus were purely
psychological manifestations there was no physically resurrected Jesus. However
our natural curiosity demands that we at least try to flesh out (pun intended) this
finding and see if we can at least make an educated guess about what actually
happened. In this section we will attempt an, albeit speculative, reconstruction of the
probable sequence of events that led to the first resurrection appearance based on the
information available to us.
Our first question is: where did it happen? We have established that sightings of
Jesus around the empty tomb are unhistorical. As we have seen earlier, the gospels
97
Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p130, 134-135

52
disagree on whether it first took place in Galilee (Mark 16:7 and Matthew 28:16-20)
or Jerusalem (Luke 24:33-36 and John 20). The tradition of the first sighting taking
place in Galilee is more likely to be historical for a few reasons. Firstly it comes from
the earliest source (Mark). Secondly the Galilean appearance is complete in itself and
more consistent with the awkward fact following Jesus arrest - namely, that his
disciples all deserted him after he was apprehended. (Mark 14:50, Matthew 26:56)
Finally, the stories of the Jerusalem appearances have clear apologetic motif to
place the appearances of Jesus nearer and closer to the time and place of his death.98
Do we know when it happened? The formula in Pauls epistle that Jesus was
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (I Corinthians 15:4) does not
imply that Jesus was actually seen on the third day following his death. The qualifier,
according to the scriptures, shows that there this timing was not based on actual
eyewitness accounts but the result of later theological reflection. 99 So we do not know
when the first sighting of the resurrected Jesus happened it could have been a few
days or a few weeks after the crucifixion.100
We have seen above that it was Peter who had the first vision of the resurrected
Jesus. In the gospels there is a story of a resurrection appearance to Peter, in the 21 st
chapter of John. Let us look at the passage in full below:
John 21:1-14
21:1 After these things, Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples at the sea of
Tiberias. He revealed himself this way. 21:2 Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus,
Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his
disciples were together. 21:3 Simon Peter said to them, Im going fishing. They
told him, We are also coming with you. They immediately went out, and entered
into the boat. That night, they caught nothing. 21:4 But when day had already
come, Jesus stood on the beach, yet the disciples didnt know that it was Jesus.
21:5 Jesus therefore said to them, Children, have you anything to eat? They
answered him, No. 21:6 He said to them, Cast the net on the right side of the
boat, and you will find some. They cast it therefore, and now they werent able to
draw it in for the multitude of fish. 21:7 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved
said to Peter, Its the Lord! So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he
wrapped his coat around him (for he was naked), and threw himself into the sea.
21:8 But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the
land, but about two hundred cubits away), dragging the net full of fish. 21:9 So
when they got out on the land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and
bread. 21:10 Jesus said to them, Bring some of the fish which you have just
caught. 21:11 Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great fish,
one hundred fifty-three; and even though there were so many, the net wasnt torn.
21:12 Jesus said to them, Come and eat breakfast. None of the disciples dared
inquire of him, Who are you? knowing that it was the Lord. 21:13 Then Jesus
came and took the bread, gave it to them, and the fish likewise. 21:14 This is now
98
99

The passages in the Bible Paul meant were probably:
Jonah 1:17
Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights
Hosea 6:2
After two days he will revive us. On the third day he will raise us up
100

53
the third time that Jesus was revealed to his disciples, after he had risen from the
dead. 21:15 So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,
Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?
There are a few things we should note about this story. In the sequence of resurrection
appearances in that gospel, this is the third appearance by Jesus. The story shows that
Peter and some of the other disciples had already returned to their previous lives as
fishermen.101 Yet according to the fourth gospel, this is already the third time that
Jesus had appeared to them and in the appearance narrated earlier, Jesus had already
commissioned them to be apostles of his message (John 20:21-23). It is indeed
strange that Peter and the rest would settle back to their earlier life when they had
already seen the risen Jesus and had been told to proclaim his message to the world. 102
Even Thomas, who already exclaimed My Lord and My God after having touched
the wounds of Jesus (John 20:28) seemed inexplicably subdued in this episode.
Furthermore, as we have seen in chapter 9, John 20:30-31 seems to be the conclusion
of the original form of the gospel with chapter 21 added as an appendix at some later
date by (probably) another hand. It is more likely that the story was floating as a
separate tradition that was picked up by the author of the 21st chapter of John.
We find further evidence that this was a separate tradition from the fact that
almost exactly the same story appears in Luke; not as a resurrection account but rather
as a story of the calling of the disciples into Jesus ministry:
Luke 5:1-11
5:1 Now it happened, while the multitude pressed on him and heard the word of
God, that he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret. 5:2 He saw two boats
standing by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them, and were washing
their nets. 5:3 He entered into one of the boats, which was Simons, and asked him
to put out a little from the land. He sat down and taught the multitudes from the
boat. 5:4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, Put out into the deep,
and let down your nets for a catch. 5:5 Simon answered him, Master, we worked
all night, and took nothing; but at your word I will let down the net. 5:6 When
they had done this, they caught a great multitude of fish, and their net was
breaking. 5:7 They beckoned to their partners in the other boat, that they should
come and help them. They came, and filled both boats, so that they began to sink.
5:8 But Simon Peter, when he saw it, fell down at Jesus knees, saying, Depart
from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord. 5:9 For he was amazed, and all who were
with him, at the catch of fish which they had caught; 5:10 and so also were James
and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Jesus said to Simon,
Dont be afraid. From now on you will be catching people alive. 5:11 When they
had brought their boats to land, they left everything, and followed him.
Note the similarities between the two accounts:103

101
102
103
The statement I am going fishing by Peter is not that of a hobbyist who is bored
with nothing to do - note that he and some of the other disciples stayed out the whole
night trying to catch fish. Remember that Peter was a commercial fisherman. He was
essentially saying that he was ready to pick up the pieces of his life again. [Spong,
Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: p192]
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p 123
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: p86-87
54
The location is the same. Both the Sea of Tiberias and Lake Gennesaret are
merely different names for the Sea of Galilee. (John 21:1, Luke 5:1)
Peter is the main protagonist in both stories.
In both cases we have an unsuccessful fishing expedition with Peter having
caught nothing after being out all night. (John 21:4, Luke 5:5)
Both accounts tell of Jesus appearing on the scene and then urging them to
try again. (John 21:6a, Luke 5:6a)
After acting upon Jesus suggestion, they caught a great multitude of fish.
(John 21:6b, Luke 5:6b)
Having established that these two stories have the same origin, the next question is
which type of story was it originally? Was it a story of Peters calling into Jesus
discipleship that morphed into a resurrection account or was it the other way round?
Some scholars think that it was originally a resurrection account 104 while some think
both are conflations of two initially separate stories: one is about a miraculous catch
of fish and the other an Easter recognition legend. 105 Lukes account is mainly the
former, but Peters cry of guilt (Luke 5:8) seems rather strange for someone who had
just met Jesus. It fits the scenario of a resurrection appearance better with Peters
remorse about fleeing after Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem.106
That Luke did not use this as a resurrection appearance is also understandable
for theological reasons. Lukes presentation of the early church requires that the
resurrection appearances all be in Jerusalem. Thus this story, set in Galilee, could not
be told as it stands in the tradition. He thus modified it into a story of the calling to
discipleship of Peter.107
For our purposes, we only need to recognize that there is an old tradition which
connects Peter, the Sea of Galilee and his resurrection sighting (i.e. Easter
Recognition of Jesus) which predates Luke and John. 108 The idea that he had gone
back to his old life of being a fisherman is supported by the Gospel of Peter which
ends thus:
104
105
106
107
108
Funk et. al., The Acts of Jesus: p489-490

Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: p192
Ldemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: p86-87
55

Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread and many went away and repaired
to their homes, since the feast was at an end. But we the twelve disciples of the
Lord, wept and mourned, and each one, very grieved for what has come to pass
went to his own home. But, I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew took our nets
and went to the sea. And there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the
Lord
We do not know if the gospel of Peter contained any stories about Jesus resurrection
appearances since the available manuscript fragment ends at this point. However it
dovetails with the tradition in John 21 (and Luke 5) that Peter returned to Galilee and
resumed his former profession.
We can now make a hypothetical reconstruction of the events that led to the first
vision of the resurrected Jesus.109 Upon the arrest of Jesus the disciples fled (Mark
14:50). As we have noted in the previous chapter, the fact that the stories about what
happened subsequent to Jesus capture diverges among the gospels points to the fact
that the disciples had probably fled away from Jerusalem back to Galilee. They may
have fled after Jesus crucifixion, knowing, perhaps from other Galilean travellers,
that Jesus had died on the cross and that the Sanhedrin had arranged for his
dishonourable burial as a convicted criminal. With their hopes shattered, Peter, and
some of the other disciples, went back to their way of life before they had met Jesus:
to commercial fishing. It must have been in one of those early misty mornings, when
Peter was out fishing, that the combination of his intense love for Jesus, the shattered
hopes caused by his masters execution and feelings of guilt for having betrayed him
all came to a head and found release in the form of a vision. We do not know what
this vision entailed. It could be that Peter one early morning saw an apparition
walking by the edge of the sea which he thought was Jesus. 110 Perhaps a stranger
came that morning and had bread and fish with him. After the stranger had left, Peter
had an epiphany by recognizing the person as Jesus. 111 These visions could have
been supplemented by dreams where Jesus spoke to him. Peter would have told the
rest of the disciples about this and as we have shown above the whole visionary
experience would have caught fire. He reconstituted the twelve and together James,
the brother of Jesus, would have made their way to Jerusalem to proclaim the good
news.
Thus began the story of Christianity.
APOLOGETIC ATTEMPTS
This is a mopping up section, dedicated to answering some of the attempts by
modern apologists for the resurrection who continue to insist on its historicity.
109
110
111
My reconstruction is based on the works of these various scholars:

McGrath, The Burial of Jesus: p105-116
Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: p242-257
Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?: p249
56
1.
If Jesus had not been raised, his detractors could simply have pointed to his
body in the tomb.
According to Acts 2, the disciples started publicly preaching Jesus resurrection
at the Pentecost or 50 days after Jesus resurrection. Studies on the decay
process of corpses have shown that putrefaction starts as early as 2-3 days after
death. After 25 days mainly bones and hair remain. 112 Even allowing for
variations in decay rate due to temperature differences, it is obvious that by day
50, the body of Jesus, without access to modern forensic tools, would be
unrecognizable.113 The common grave for robbers that Jesus was buried in would
have contained the decayed remains of many bodies, it would have been
impossible for anyone to make any verification.
2.
The resurrection accounts in the gospels showed that Jesus was tangible, ate
fish, had his hands touched and was with the disciples for many days. No
visions or hallucinations could do this.
This simply assumes that the resurrection stories told in Matthew, Luke and John
are historical. They are not. The accounts of a tangible Jesus, as narrated in
these gospels, first appeared in the last decade of the first century - around 60
years after the death of Jesus. As we have shown above that the earliest accounts
of the resurrection, found in the epistles of Paul written 40 years earlier than
these gospels, expressly exclude such stories.
3.
Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, this could not be explained as

hallucination.
I Corinthians 15:6 simply noted that Jesus appeared to (Greek: ophthe) over
five hundred brothers at once. Without any further details it is impossible to
evaluate this account in depth. Pauls use of the same word ophthe means that
he did not differentiate these visions from his own. All we need to say is that
there are certainly modern parallels to this. The Bigfoot sighting mentioned
above is one. The miracle of the dancing sun - witnessed by more than 50,000
in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 - is another example.114 All these can be explained by
mass delusion or mass hysteria.
4.
The disciples fled in despair when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:50). The
crucifixion of Jesus would have led to the collapse of the early Jesus movement.
Only a physical, tangible, resurrected Jesus could have convinced the disciples
to continue their mission.
This reasoning is fallacious. The death of a founder, no matter how tragic, does
not necessarily lead to the collapse of the movement. As the Catholic theologian
112
113
114
Dr. Richard W. Merritt, Forensic Entomology

(http://www.cj.msu.edu/~people/forent.html accessed on July 4, 2006)
Jeffery Jay Lowder, Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb, in Price & Lowder,
The Empty Tomb: p289
Nickell, Looking for a Miracle: p176-181
57
Edward Schillebeeckx pointed out, the movement of John the Baptist continued
on among the Jews even after the beheading of the founder as if that death
entailed no break at all.115 And as John Hick added
[I]n Jewish thinking the death of martyrs were not taken as discrediting them
but on the contrary as giving them an even more exalted place in popular
esteem and in the divine plan.116
THE ASCENSION
The story of Jesus ascension is told by Luke twice, once in his gospel and then again
in the Acts of the Apostle. We give both versions here:
Luke 24:50-53
He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. It
happened, while he blessed them, that he withdrew from them, and was carried up
into heaven [Greek = ouranon]. They worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem
with great joy, and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
Amen.
Acts 1:3-11
To these he also showed himself alive after he suffered, by many proofs, appearing
to them over a period of forty days, and speaking about Gods Kingdom. Being
assembled together with them, he commanded them, Dont depart from Jerusalem,
but wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard from me. For John indeed
baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from
now. When he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up, and
a cloud received him out of their sight. While they were looking steadfastly into the
sky [Greek = ouranon, literally heaven] as he went, behold, two men stood by
them in white clothing, who also said, You men of Galilee, why do you stand
looking into the sky [ouranon]? This Jesus, who was received up from you into the
sky [ouranon] will come back in the same way as you saw him going into the sky
[ouranon]. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called Olivet,
which is near Jerusalem
Before delving into the details we will notice that the two accounts contradict each
other on a number of points.117
115
116
117
Timing of the Ascension: Luke 24 is a continuous narrative of the events on

Easter Sunday. There is no hint that the day is over all the way to the end of
the chapter where the ascension takes place. This means that Luke has Jesus
ascend into heaven on the first day of his resurrection. The account in Acts
says that the ascension happens 40 days after he has been raised.
Location of the Ascension: According to the gospel, the ascent happened at

Bethany, while Acts has it happening at the Mount of Olives. Bethany is a
small town about three kilometers to the southeast of Jerusalem. The Mount
Quoted in Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: p26

Ibid: p26
58
of Olives is a mountain range just outside the city to the east. Thus the two
accounts have Jesus ascending into heaven from two separate places.
These contradictions alone tell us that we cannot accept either of the stories at face
value. There are further problems with the ascension. For both accounts say Jesus
was lifted up into heaven. This is in conformance to ancient understanding of the
Cosmos; heaven is physically up there. We know this because we know of parallel
stories from ancient Mediterranean literature about the structure of the heavens and of
gods being lifted up there. Ciceros (106 46 BCE) The Republic narrates a dream of
Scipio where he is taken up to the heavens through its various spheres. 118 The
historian Livy (59 BCE 17 CE) tells of how Romulus, the legendary co-founder of
Rome was taken up into heaven by a thick cloud. 119 Similar stories of physical ascent
into heaven, often times accompanied or carried by clouds, are told of mythical,
legendary and historical figures such as Hercules, Empedocles, Alexander the Great
and Appolonius of Tyana.120 Stories of such ascents into heaven are commonplace
during the time of Jesus.
It would be wrong to claim that Luke meant the ascension to be taken in a
metaphorical sense, for as Matthew Baldwin showed, both the vocabulary and
narrative elements point to the fact that the evangelist meant a physical ascent of
Jesus into heaven up there:
The vocabulary is drawn from the entire context of Acts 1:1-14. In 1:2 we find
[anelemphthe], passive aorist of [analambano], he was
taken up. In 1:9, we learn that while they were watching Jesus, [eperthe],
aorist passive of [epairo] meaning, he was lifted up or he was raised up
and a cloud took him before their eyes. The primary meaning of
[hupolambano] stretching back to its use by Herodotus [see Liddell, Scott, Jones
Greek Lexicon (Oxford University Press: New York 1992) pg 844] is to take up
by getting under, and here there is more to the suggestion of the idea that the
cloud doesnt merely conceal him from their sight, but takes him further our from
their sight; they would not be able to see him, standing on the cloud, but the verb
implies exactly this, with additional connotations of providing a receptive and
protective function. Then in 1:10, we read that while they were gazing fixedly at
his traveling into the sky the two men appear to them. This language is graphic
and locative, having the narrative function of describing an ascent of realistic
terms.121
So clearly Luke meant Jesus physical ascent into heaven. But modern cosmology
tells us that there is no heaven up there, just mainly empty space interspersed with
planets, dust, moons, asteroids, stars and galaxies. Obviously the story as it is told in
Luke is a myth and cannot be historical. Yet this provides difficulty for the defenders
of the resurrection, for the ascension is very clearly tied to the resurrection in early
Christian theology:
118
119
120
121
Cartlidge & Dungan (ed), Documents for the Study of the Gospels: p188-194
Cartlidge & Dungan (ed), Documents for the Study of the Gospels: p187
Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: p144
Baldwin, Christ in Orbit: p20 n31
59
John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended out of heaven, the Son of
Man, who is in heaven.
Romans 8:34
It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right
hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Ephesians 1:20
which he worked in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit
at his right hand in the heavenly places
I Peter 3:21-22
This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into
heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.
As Ldemann pointed out, the sequence resurrection, ascension and return - are all
closely linked. Take out one of these elements and the whole theology collapses. 122
Since it is obvious that Lukes story of the ascension cannot be taken literally given
our current state of knowledge, the obvious conclusion is that the whole edifice of the
resurrection belief has been completely destroyed. During his debate with William
Craig, Professor Ldemann had to ask the fundamentalist apologist, twice,123 what he
thought of the ascension before the former replied. Craigs reply, when it finally
came, was a typical fundamentalist midrashic124 attempt to solve an unsolvable
problem:
I believe that Jesus, yes, left this four-dimensional space-time universeJesus
body ceased to exist in this four-dimensional space-time manifold that is described
by the equations of general relativity and special relativity and all the rest. Jesus
exited this four-dimensional space-time. 125
Craigs response showed that he understood the passage literally. However he had had
to add in the idea that the accounts in Luke and Acts only tell the story halfway, and
he had to add in the part about leaving our four-dimensional space-time manifold.
In other words Craig is adding to the narrative what is not in the text and is nowhere
122
123
124
125
Copan and Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p40

Copan and Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p40, 52
Midrash refers to the exegetical method of Rabbinic Judaism. It is a method of
expanding their reading of the sacred scripture which may include recasting old stories as
new ones or reading deeper meanings into existing texts. The former can be seen even
in the Old Testament where Moses parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:2-31) is recasted
as the story of Joshua parting the River Jordan (Joshua 3:14-17). The latter method is
sometimes used when faced with passages that were clearly at odds with the current state
of knowledge or worldview. The Rabbis would then explain and comment on it with
various extraneous information which may include legends, sayings, parables and stories
of the sages. Thus it is a method of reading into the text what is not there.
Copan and Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p58
60
even suggested or hinted. This speculative addition is necessary if he is to keep to

biblical inerrancy.
Even if we are to accept, for the sake of argument, that Luke left out the juicy
bits about Jesus ascension, it still presents a serious problem for the believer. Craigs
midrashic addition to the text means that Jesus actually was taken up physically some
distance above the ground, out of sight of the apostles, before he was teleported, StarTrek-like, into another dimension. But Jesus could have been made to exit this fourdimensional space-time manifold right there on the Mount of Olives or in Bethany
the lift-off was unnecessary. Why then did God choose to put up a show by taking
Jesus some distance off the ground as though he is going up to heaven, in
conformance to the prevailing erroneous cosmologies of the day, when he could have
teleported Jesus directly in front of the apostles? In his defense of Craigs response in
the book of the debate, Stephen Davis actually suggested that the whole thing was
primarily a symbolic act performed [by God] for the sake of the disciples. 126
[emphasis added]
Such an explanation opens up a Pandoras box for fundamentalists. For we are
told that in some cases, God could do things to appear in a way that is understandable
to the people of a particular period that may not actually be the way things are. So if
the ascension is performance, then what are we to say of the return of the son of
man in the clouds? Is that meant to be a performance as well? What about the much
anticipated (by fundamentalists) rapture (I Thessalonians 4:16-17)? Would that be
merely a performance as well?127 What about the central event, the resurrection itself?
Could the whole story of Jesus resurrection be a performance in which God sent
someone else in the place of the dead Jesus to make his symbolic proclamation? What
about the virgin birth? The idea of performance that conforms to the viewers
erroneous beliefs is not far from the idea that the audience is being deceived. The
absurdity of such an interpretation was already noted almost two centuries ago by
David Friedrich Strau (1808-1874) in his book Das Leben Yesu [The Life of Jesus]
(1837):
In order to convince the disciples of Jesus return to the higher world, even though
in fact this world was by no means to be sought in the upper atmosphere, God
nevertheless staged the spectacle of this sort of elevation. But this would be turning
God into a sleight-of-hand artist.128
Like the resurrection, the ascension is an ancient myth told by a people whose
understanding of cosmology has been shown to be false.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE MYTH

The new cult of the dead and risen messiah originally had a purely Jewish following.
It was when the apostle Paul (not one of the original disciples of Jesus) started
preaching around 40 CE that the number of Gentile converts started to swell. We
126
127
128
Stephen Davis, The Question of Miracles, Ascension and Anti-Semitism, in Copan

and Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p79
Baldwin, Christ in Orbit: p12-13
quoted in Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: p143
61
have seen that in the letters of Paul the belief about Jesus death and resurrection was
very basic and undeveloped. In his first epistle to the Corinthians (15:3-8), all he said
was that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day in accordance with the
scriptures. Paul further added that Jesus was seen by Peter, the apostles, James and
finally by himself. Nothing was mentioned as to whether he was actually seen on the
third day. Nothing was mentioned of the discovery of an empty tomb by the women.
Nothing about an ascension into heaven. Where did all these details come from if they
are not historical?
As with the case of the nativity, these ideas came from pagan beliefs that were
permeating the world of the early Gentile Christians. The new religion preached by
Paul had to compete with the class of mystery religions that were popular among the
Gentiles during that period. Greek and Roman myths were also part of this cultural
milieu.
Christianitys biggest rival during the first few centuries of its existence was
Mithraism. Mithraism, the most popular of the mystery religions, had Persian roots
and involves the worship of the Sun God, Mithra. During this time, Mithraism was
virtually the official religion of the Roman Empire, being very popular especially with
the military.129
Many rituals and beliefs of Mithraism seemed so closely related to the Christian
one that it becomes impossible to deny its influence on nascent Christianity. The
Mithraists had a special day dedicated to their god. It was the first day of the week,
which they appropriately called Sun-day, the day of our Lord. Mithra was the God
of the upper and nether world and it is he who will judge mens deeds. The Jewish
thinker, Philo had already identified the Logos with the Sun, it was therefore natural
and inevitable that the early Christians should identify Jesus with such a symbol.
Sunday became established as the Lords Day for the Christians as well. From this
observance of Sunday, the myth eventually evolved to connect the rising of Jesus with
that day. It is worth noting that the Mithraist ritual involve the liturgical
representation of the death, burial (also in a rock tomb!) and resurrection of the god
Mithra.130
Other contemporary mystery religions no doubt contributed to the evolution of
Christian mythology. The Syrian cult of Adonis also had a large following during the
time of early Christianity. Adonis, which means The Lord (Hebrew: Adonai), was
represented in the liturgy as dying and then rising again on the third day. And in this
liturgy it was the women who mourned his death and who found him risen on the
third day. The Egyptian cult of Osiris had a similar belief; for it was Osiris who was
dead and rose again on the third day.131
In the Phrygian myth of Attis, we have his story re-enacted each spring in the
form of a passion play where an effigy of the deity was hung on a tree and then
129
130
131
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p37, 41

Hinnels, Dictionary of Religion: p216
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p42
62
buried in a tomb. On the third day, while it was still dark, the tomb is opened and the
resurrection of Attis is celebrated with much merriment.132
The Markan story of an empty tomb without any resurrection appearances is a
well known form of ancient literature called apotheosis narratives. The gist of such
narratives is that the hero turns up missing, searches by his companions turn up empty
handed. It was only through a voice from heaven or through a prophecy recalled that
they finally realized he had been taken up to heaven. The story of Apollonius of Tyana
is one such example. Apollonius went into a temple and simply disappeared. In
another version, a heavenly choir announce his ascension into heaven.133
Early Christian liturgy was also clearly absorbed and imported from the mystery
religions. The Greco-Roman cult of Dionysius had their God, born of the virgin,
Semele,134 being torn to pieces by the Titans. He was then resurrected by his mother.
In commemorating his sacrificial death, the devotees ate bread and wine to represent
his body and blood. The Mithraist too had a Eucharistic celebration very similar to
the Christian one. And it was also Mithraism who first came up with the sign of the
cross, made on the forehead. It was the supreme symbol of their belief. The worship
of Osiris too involves veneration of the Osirian cross, the emblem of their god. 135
Fundamentalists have tried to explain this away by claiming that it was the
pagan mysteries who copied the Christian story. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
quoted a fundamentalist apologist stating that given the timing involved it should be
the pagans who plagiarized Christianity.136 Yet this claim is demonstrably false - for a
couple of reasons:
132
133
134
135
136
137
It is well known that these mystery religion preceded Christianity by at

least a few centuries. The myth of Adonis was known to the Greeks as
early as the 5th century BCE. Attis was introduced to Rome, together with
the Great Mother Cybele, in 205 BCE.137 The Egyptian myth of Osiris
dates back to at least 4,000 BCE and was recorded in detail by the Greek
Angus, The Mystery Religions: p60

Frazer, The Golden Bough: p347-352
Price, Deconstructing Jesus: p40-41
Some versions had Dionysius being born of the virgin goddess, Persephone.
Strobel, The Case for Christ: p161
In a recent debate with Tim Callahan, shown on the evangelical TV show Faith
under Fire, the apologist Gary Habermas made the claim that the resurrection accounts
of Adonis and Attis all date to the second century CE and later. Habermas asserted that
these myths could not therefore have influenced the Christian resurrection story. Such a
statement flies in the face of the available evidence. As Robert M. Price pointed out,
nowhere are the stories mentioned as innovations in these accounts. Although Lucian of
Samosata (c125 180 CE) was the earliest document we have that explicitly mentioned a
resurrected Adonis, he was not presenting it as a new story. In his De Dea Syria
(Concerning The Syrian Goddess) Lucian was describing the ceremonies he saw in the
Temple of Aphrodite in Byblos in other words he was describing what was already an
entrenched tradition. Similarly, although the extant explicit descriptions of Attis
resurrection date to the common era, we have evidence from pottery dating to preChristian times which depicts Attis dancing the traditional posture of his resurrection.
[see Price, Deconstructing Jesus: p91]
63
biographer Plutarch (c46-120 CE).138 The Persian Sun-God Mithras was

mentioned in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c480-c245
BCE). The cult of Mithraism reached Rome in the first century BCE. 139
138
139
140
The way the early church fathers defended against the mystery religions
showed that they knew these pagan myths antedated the Christian ones.
Justin Martyr (c160-165) claimed that the devil plagiarized Christianity by
anticipation with the pagan religions in order to lead people from the true
faith. He claimed the myth of the virgin birth of Perseus, an ancient Greek
legend that preceded Christianity, was pre-copied by the deceiving
serpent (Dialogue with Trypho: 70). Similarly he asserted that the cultic
rites of Mithraism had a diabolical origin (Apology 1:66). Tertulian (c160c225) made the same claim: that it was the devil that provided this premimicry. That the church fathers would resort to the absurd theory of premimicry (i.e. the copy coming before the original) means that they could
not make the claim that the pagan mystery religions copied from
Christianity! Why couldnt they? Because it must have been well known to
them and to their audience which came first!140
In the same debate mentioned in note 137 above, Gary Habermas - while admitting
that the Egyptian religion of Isis and Osiris is pre-Christian - claimed that there is no
resurrection in Osiris Osiris in particular was not raised. This is another claim
which collapses in the face of the evidence. In the pyramid text, a text dating to the third
millennium BCE (see chapter 12 for more information on this text) we have this prayer which clearly points towards the belief in the resurrection of Osiris:
As truly as Osiris lives, so truly shall his follower live; as truly as Osiris is
not dead he shall die no more; as truly as Osiris is not annihilated he shall not
be annihilated.
[cf: Freke & Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: p68-69]
As the Egyptologist, E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) wrote in his book The
Papyrus Of Ani:
In every funeral inscription known to us, from the Pyramid Texts down to the
roughly written prayers upon coffins of the Roman period, what is done for
Osiris, is also done for the deceased, the state and condition of Osiris are the
state and condition of the deceased; in a word the deceased is identified with
Osiris. If Osiris liveth forever, the deceased will liveth forever; if Osiris dieth
than will the deceased perish. [Budge, The Papyrus of Ani: p56]
The idea that the followers of Osiris will experience the same fate as him is similar
to that expounded by Paul about Jesus resurrection:
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised...
But now Christ has been raised from the dead. He became the first fruits of
those who are asleep. For since death came by man, the resurrection of the
dead also came by man. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be
made alive.
Guirand, The Larrouse Encyclopedia of Mythology: p9, 81-82, 220, 314
Benet, The Readers Encyclopedia: p655-656
Freke & Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries: p34
Price, Deconstructing Jesus: p91-93
Wells, The Jesus Myth: p100
64
The historical origin of the central events of Christianity did not begin with the actual
resurrection of a Galilean Jew. It began when Jewish apocalyptic was grafted onto
Greco-Roman paganism.
*****
We have analyzed in depth the stories of Jesus burial and resurrection. The account of
the discovery of the empty tomb was a late development and was very probably
invented by the author of the second gospel himself. The contradictory accounts of
Jesus resurrection in the gospels and Acts betrays their late, and hence unhistorical,
origin in the tradition. Jesus tangible and physical resurrection appearances were also
late developments in the mythologization of the biography of Jesus. The
appearances of the resurrection Jesus can be best explained as the result of
psychological and social-psychological processes in the minds of the early believers.
The story of the ascension, closely tied to the resurrection of Jesus and obviously
meant to be taken literally, is based on an erroneous ancient cosmology. As there is no
heaven up there, it simply provides another nail in the coffin of the whole
resurrection story. Furthermore we find that the elaboration of details of the
resurrection appearances found in the gospels was heavily influenced by stories told
in the pagan culture within which the early Gentile Christians lived. In short, the
central event of Christianity has no historical foundation.
65

Chap15-Burial and Resurrection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap15-Burial and Resurrection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter Fifteen

Copan & Tacelli, Jesus Resurrection: p32

If Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin, which according to Mark, unanimously

Johns account contradicts that of the synoptics in a number of important details. In

Guignebert, Jesus: p492

FIRST CENTURY BURIAL PRACTICE IN PALESTINE

Michael Goulder, The Explanatory Power of Conversion Visions in Copan &

Another example is the discovery in 1968 of a crucified skeleton Giva ha-Mivtar

McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p91-92

We find a similar reference to dishonorable burials for criminals in Josephus retelling

Note the statement that to be buried in a disgraceful manner is suitable for a

However such burial would be a dishonourable one.

ALTERNATE BURIAL TRADITION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Ldemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: p43

The death of Jesus was a stumbling block, a form of foolishness or madness.22

According to Martin Hengel, the word used by Paul, moria (translated as

TRAJECTORY OF THE BURIAL ACCOUNT

Burial Account: Jesus body

- wrapped in clean linen shroud

Table 15:1 Evolution of the Burial Account

McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p101, 105

Gospel of Peter 6:23-24

Marks description is that of Jesus dishonorable burial in a common underground

McCane, Roll Back the Stone: p102

CONCLUSION ON THE BURIAL OF JESUS

Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p91

abroad among the Jews, and continues until this day.

THE EMPTY TOMB

So what is this overwhelming historical evidence the fundamentalists speak of?

Cadoux, The Life of Jesus: p206

living among the dead? He isnt here, but is risen.

Guignebert, Jesus: p496

Guignebert, Jesus: p500

Unfortunately this is just another case of a conservative theologian reading into

Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p42, 139n5

[I]t is impossible to be sure who, if anyone, actually saw an empty tomb.51

Cadoux, The Life of Jesus: p166

Michael Goulder, The Baseless Fabric of A Vision, in DCosta, Resurrection

Ldemann, The Resurrection of Christ: p200

The early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215),

Nineham, Saint Mark: p439,449

Nineham, Saint Mark: p449-450

THE APPEARANCES OF JESUS AS DEPICTED IN THE GOSPELS

Nineham, Saint Mark: p449

According to John Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene alone:

To the two Marys

To the two travelers to Emmaus

The place of Jesus appearance. Mark implicitly, and Matthew, explicitly

The number of appearances. Matthew mentioned two, Luke implied

THE NATURE OF THE APPEARANCES

Guignebert, Jesus: p523

Guignebert, Jesus: p524

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF

The Origin of Peters Vision

We are sure that Peter must have mourned Jesus death.

We also know, from studies by psychologist of the process of mourning,

The death is sudden

Jesus death was sudden.

To quote Ldemann directly:

Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p83-94

The Origin of Pauls Vision

Ldemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: p94

Our thinking here will take a few steps to work through:93

Paul is obviously describing one of his visions in this passage.