SECTION II Chapter 9 - The Empty Tomb/ Resurrection "The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection. If they had died without making anyone believe this 'gospel', no gospels would ever have been written". --C.S. Lewis "The miracles, of which only a few men are said to have been witnesses, are insufficient to prove the truth of a religion that deserve to be believed by the whole world." --Diderot, THOUGHTS ON RELIGION If there is ONE fundamental tenet that all Christians adhere to, it is the belief that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected after three days. Despite major theological differences in other areas, it is this basic definition that essentially makes a believer a Christian. During his sermon to his Gentile congregation at Corinth, Paul identified the event of Jesus' resurrection as the focal point of Christian belief: "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? but if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:12-4) The gospels stories are filled with testimonials from witnesses of the empty tomb appearances of angels, men and even Jesus himself. The problem is there are discrepancies between the gospel writers' accounts of these events. Some of these differences could be considered minor, and reflect the fact that HUMAN witnesses often get their facts confused-- As we shall see below, many theologians have made valiant attempts to reconcile all the facts between the gospel accounts. Most, however, have had to reluctantly admit--that it is literally impossible to reconcile ALL the details with each other. (Those that insist there is NO discrepancy, typically ignore some of the details, expounded upon below.) What the Gospel Writers DO Agree On: All of the gospel accounts, of course, DO agree on some very basic points: (1) That Jesus was condemned by a reluctant Pilate to die on the cross. (2) That Jesus was resurrected after 3 days. (3) That Jesus first appeared to a group of women which included Mary Magdalene. Afterwards he appeared to many. ( As shall be explained below, the oldest bibles Mark do not appear to have this section in their gospel of Mark. This is discussed in detail in Section III, Chapter 3). What the Gospel Writers Do NOT Agree on: After agreeing on important basics, the gospel writers disagree on many of the DETAILS regarding Jesus' resurrection. The following is a list of some basic events that the gospel writers do NOT appear to agree on: (1) Was Jesus' tomb guarded by soldiers (Matthew); or did the women basically have free access to come and go without worrying about guards (Mark, Luke, John)? (2) Was the stone to Jesus' tomb rolled away AFTER the women arrived (per Matthew); or BEFORE? (per Mark, Luke, John)? (3) Did the women discover a "young man in a white robe (Mark); an "angel" (Matthew); "two men in dazzling apparel" (Luke); or "two angels" (John)? (4) Did the man/men/angel/angels say "Do not be afraid. Jesus is not here. Jesus has risen. Tell the disciples he goes to Galilee, you will meet him there as he told you" (Matthew, Mark); "Why seek living among the dead? Jesus has risen. He rose as he told you he would when he was still in Galilee?" (Luke), or "Why weep?" (John)? (5) Was the reaction of the women one of "trembling", saying "nothing to any one, for they were afraid" (Mark); of "fear and great joy" (Matthew); Excitement and belief, faithfully reporting all they were told (Luke); or Skepticism on the part of Mary Magdalene who seeing, Jesus with two angels, mistakes him for the gardener(John)? (6) When do the disciples enter the picture? The disciples are not told, for the women say nothing to no one (ie, the oldest bibles of Mark end here); The women leave in joy to tell the disciples (Matthew); The women tell the disciples, but they do not believe them (Luke); Mary Magdalene tells Peter who believes immediately (John)? (7) Did Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark); or to Mary Magdalene AND another Mary (Matthew); to Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James (Luke); or to Mary Magdalene alone (John)? (8) Did Jesus visit Mary Magdalene BEFORE she tells the disciples (Matthew); AFTER she tells the disciples (John); or possibly Jesus did not visit Mary at all (Luke). (Note: After this point, Mark is not referenced, as scholars believe this text not to be original to it.) (9) When did the disciples visit Jesus' tomb? After Jesus' arrest, the disciples flee and desert Jesus ( Matthew); Instead of fleeing, "certain disciples" went to the sepulcher (Luke); Peter and John visit the tomb (John)? (10) Regarding the details of the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' appearances-- Did Jesus state he is leaving for Galilee and that his disciples must follow him there (Matthew); that the disciples must NOT leave Jerusalem (Luke); or that he is neither going to Galilee nor staying in Jerusalem, but is going straight to heaven--ie, "I am now ascending to my Father" (John)? (11) Regarding Jesus' post-resurrection appearance, did they occur in Galilee ( Matthew); or Jerusalem (Luke); or Galilee AND Jerusalem (John)? Some scholars have argued John's account (which was probably written about a generation later that Matthew and Luke) may be an attempt to reconcile Matthew and Luke's account. (12) Were Jesus' resurrection appearances to the "eleven" (ie Judas Iscariot, the betrayer is dead), or to the "Twelve" (Paul, with no reference to Judas Iscariot)? Possibly one way to explain the discrepancies in these details, is to imagine SEVERAL groups of woman and disciples, visiting the tomb, who each had different experiences at the scene of the empty tomb. Of course, the gospel writers could have easily cleared this up, if they had only mentioned that there were several visits (assuming they knew of the other visitations). Some theologians dismiss discrepancies as the ones listed above as MINOR! They point out that these differences could possibly be due to HUMAN error by the gospel writers in reporting the exact events. However, if the gospels are to be inerrant, then of course there must be NO irresolvable conflicts! Conservative groups will not even consider this possibility--because this creates new difficulties! That is, if it can be demonstrated that there are ANY errors in the gospels, then arguably, this WEAKENS the authority of the gospels--and individuals could now question whether certain gospel verses were ALSO "mistakes". It would also open the door to questions, such as why the gospel writers, if under the influence of the Holy Spirit, could have made ANY omissions/mistakes? Up until now we have reviewed gospel details regarding the resurrection-- As we shall see, there is a more serious discrepancy between the gospel writers and Paul regarding an important DOCTRINAL matter --the nature of Jesus' resurrection. To understand this, it is necessary to look at some of the resurrection stories in more detail. Further Analysis of the Empty Tomb/Resurrection Stories. --Paul Paul's letters, which are believed by virtually all scholars to be the oldest Christian writings in the New Testament, NEVER REFERS TO THE EMPTY TOMB nor to a visitation by WOMEN--this despite his strong emphasis on Jesus' resurrection. Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Jesus in 1 Corinthians as follows: " He appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve disciples. Then he appeared to over five hundred followers, then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all, Jesus appeared to myself" (see Corinthians 15:3-8. Note, Paul refers to the TWELVE disciples while Matthew and Luke state that he appeared to the "eleven disciples" The differences between Paul's version and the four gospels is significant. Paul (because he is writing earlier) possibly has not heard of the appearances to the women. Paul states that Jesus visited Peter FIRST. However the synoptic gospels do not present Peter as a major witness to the resurrection. Likewise, the four gospels do not directly collaborate Paul's statement that Jesus visited James. (Some have pointed out that he may be the UNNAMED companion of Cleopus in Luke). Since, as we saw earlier, evidence points to James as the real brother of Jesus AND the head of the first Christian community in Jerusalem--this is NO minor omission. In reconciling Paul's statement that Jesus appeared to the group of five hundred--possibly this is the same group referred to in Acts that Luke reported that the Holy Spirit had descended among. --Mark When the world's two oldest bibles were discovered (ie Codex Sinaticus and the Codex Vaticanus. See Section III, Chapter 3)--both of these bibles ended the gospel of Mark, saying the women were too afraid to deliver the message they received from the "young man", and therefore "they say nothing to no one"! Many biblical scholars have taken this as evidence that the ORIGINAL version of Mark never contained accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances-- They believe that later versions (such as can be found in the King James Bible) were later additions by some Christian copyist, AFTER the fourth century C.E.! (Because of this, many recent editions of the New Testament have consequently left these last verses out.) It has been suggested that Mark may indeed have written for a community that had NEVER HEARD of an empty tomb. And this is why Mark carefully mentions that the women tell no one what they have seen. That is, Mark has to explain why no one else in his community had ever heard of the tradition of the empty tomb before his gospel was written. (See Section II Chapter 12, and Section III Chapter 3 for further details). Perhaps if Mark's version is correct, then Paul has not heard of the empty tomb because the women were too afraid to tell anyone of it. When Paul is writing to the Christian community at Corinth (1 Corinthians) he is explaining his views in defense to charges by some members that there was NO resurrection. It would seem likely that Paul would have mentioned the empty tomb story, if he had known of it. --Matthew Matthew's account gives more details on the resurrection and empty tomb than either Mark or Luke! The tomb, or sepulcher is guarded by soldiers. An "angel of the Lord" descends from heaven with the crashing sound of an earthquake. The angel rolls back the heavy stone sealing the tomb. The guards run away in fear, and the women arrive on the scene to witness the event and the empty tomb. However, the Roman soldiers LOST their chance to give an INDEPENDENT witness of these events. Instead, we are told that they are bribed by the chief Jewish priest to say nothing! Little attention is often paid to what a lost opportunity to the Jews this was! The fact that Matthew states that the soldiers followed instructions and told no one, means that MOST Jews probably never even heard of the resurrection from a source that they might consider reliable. Matthew reports how Jewish authorities told the soldiers to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciples stole the body from the tomb while they were sleeping. Per Matthew 28:15, the soldiers: "took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews UNTIL THIS DAY." (Matthew 28:15,emphasis mine.) Note Matthew's use of the phrase "UNTIL THIS DAY" in the above passage. Matthew has revealed here that he is in fact writing some time AFTER the resurrection, AND after the rumor of Jesus body being stolen had been commonly circulated among the Jews. Matthew (who had read Mark and probably found it necessary to add details which were missing or to correct errors he saw), felt he had acquired additional information (which Mark did not have) that would counteract these Jewish claims. (Wells, WHO WAS JESUS) None of the other gospel writers mention the presence of guards at Jesus' tomb--only Matthew's gospel mentions this. Because Matthew's account of Jesus' resurrection uses similar phrases and imagery as exists in the Septuagint (especially the book of Daniel), some skeptics have maintained that they believe Matthew "borrowed" some of his details, in his belief that the life of Jesus MUST be paralleling the Old Testament stories. Some of the parallels between Matthew and Daniel are: (footnote: this analysis was taken from Randel Helms GOSPEL FICTIONS) *Pilate ordered his soldiers to secure Jesus grave and they thus "sealed the stone". (Matthew 27: 62-66) When Daniel was placed in the lions' den, a "stone was brought and put over the mouth of the pit, and the king sealed it." (Daniel 6:17 LXX) *When Jesus' guards saw the angel of the Lord, whose "face shone like lightening", "the guards shook with fear and lay like the dead" (Matthew 28:3-4) When Daniel saw an angel whose "face shone like lightening", he found himself "trembling": "I fell prone on the ground in a trance" (Dan. 10:6,9) *After the angel tells the women to witness to the disciples that Jesus had risen, they turn and see Jesus. The woman fell "prostrate before him. (Matthew 28:9)-- just as Daniel "fell with my face to the earth" when he saw the angel Gabriel. Jesus' response is exactly the same as the angels: "Do not be afraid" (Daniel 10:9; Matthew 28:10) Even Matthew's story of the rich Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus in a tomb he had originally purchased for himself has parallels "borrowed" from Isaiah's 53:9 "they made his grave...with the rich in his death. " The early Christians, of course, took these parallels to mean that the events of the New Testament were directed by God to parallel the Old Testament stories, and NOT that this meaning was "manufactured" by the gospel writers! Doctrinal Nature of Jesus' Resurrection--A Resurrection of the Flesh vs Spirit? Other ancient religions were split on their view whether a resurrection of the FLESH would take place vs a resurrection of the SPIRIT. Zorastrianism believed in a physical resurrection of the faith ON EARTH. Following a a final overthrow of Evil and a last Judgment by the forces of Good--the virtuous would be resurrected in the flesh to live in a purified world. It is known that the ancient hebrews were in contact with Zorastrianism following the Babylonian exile, and sometime afterwards their writers also spoke of a Final Judgment, complete with a PHYSICAL resurrection for the virtuous. As with the Persian Zorastrians, the ancient hebrews viewed the virtuous to be resurrected to live on a purified earth (in their case headquartered in Jerusalem.) The ancient Egyptians and Greeks, on the other hand, believed in the immortality of the SOUL, but NOT in a resurrection of the PHYSICAL body. Upon death, the soul of man was freed from his material prison on earth--and if its owner had lived a virtuous life--could ascend into a heaven-like realm. The hellenic mystery religions (such as the cult of Isis) partook in a symbolic resurrection--or rebirth of the spirit. But even here, no PHYSICAL resurrection of the body was believed to have taken place. Paul's view of the nature of Jesus' resurrection contains elements from both those of the ancient hebrews and the ancient Greeks. Paul's ambivalence on whether it is the soul OR the body that is resurrected--can be seen in his description of a mystical experience he once had fourteen years ago: I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up whether still in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows - right into the third heaven. I do know, however, that this same person... was caught up into paradise and heard things which must not and cannot be put into human language. (2 Corinthians 12:1-4) (See Chapter I, Chapter 7 for a discussion of this event.) Paul's theology represents a combination of both spiritual and physical resurrection themes. According to Paul, one would NOT find themselves physically reborn into a mere "flesh and blood" body--but would instead experience a transformation into some new form of glorious radiance: "I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." "Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall all be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, " 'Death is swallowed up in victory' 'O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting.'" (1 Corinthians 15:50-55) Paul portrays Jesus, as a man of flesh and blood who has been transformed into a "glorious" body of heavenly radiance. "Christ will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body". (Philippians 3:21). Thus, Paul speaks of a transformation into a new glorious body. Paul is not clear whether this transformed body is of a "spiritual" or "flesh and blood" nature.-- He would appear to describe a new bodily form that FUSES both of these natures into one. The author of Luke hints at a "flesh and blood" Jesus, or at least a being who can alternate between human and spiritual form so that he can eat and drink with his apostles. (See Luke 24:41-43 and Acts 10:41.) Luke is also the only gospel writer who wrote that Jesus was literally "taken up into heaven" (Luke 24:51. Note--this occurs in Mark in its "later" edited form--ie after 4th Century C.E. and is not recorded in the gospels of Matthew and John). The gospel of John tells of the doubting apostle, Thomas, who refused to believe Jesus had risen from the grave until he could personally see and touch him. (John 20:27) Both Mark and Luke stated that Jesus appeared "in another form" to two disciples as they walked down the road to Emmaus. (Mark 16:12, Luke 24:13-32) According to Luke, the disciples did not recognize the identity of the stranger in their midst, until after sitting down to dinner with him. At the moment when they recognized the stranger as Jesus, "he vanished out of their sight." (Luke 24:31) Likewise, according to John 20:11-17, when Mary Magdalene visits the tomb and sees him, she mistakes him for the gardener. Gnostic Christians interpreted the resurrection in different ways. Many taught that the death of Jesus on the cross had been a mere illusion, as part of God's plan to trick the Archons.( This was also St. Paul's view. See Section I, Chapter 7) Other gnostics interpreted the resurrection purely in SPIRITUAL terms. That is, through the experience of dreams, trances, or moments of spiritual illumination--the initiated could encounter Jesus on a SPIRITUAL level-- as opposed to meeting a Jesus who was PHYSICALLY resurrected. (Elaine Pagels, GNOSTIC GOSPELS P 5) Orthodox Christians denounced this view of the gnostics as heretical. After all the Greeks had claimed that the souls of their famous philosophers were IMMORTAL (such as Socrates and Plato). Orthodox Christians declared that Jesus' resurrection was more dramatic in nature than this--and that Jesus must instead have been RESURRECTED IN THE FLESH! According to the early Orthodox Church father Tertulian (c 190 C.E.), every believer in Christ could anticipate that s/he would be resurrected in the flesh, just as Jesus himself rose bodily from the grave. The immortality of the soul, according to Tertulian, was generally accepted-- even by heretics (meaning the mystery religions also taught this.) Tertulian therefore taught that Christian belief was different on this one crucial aspect, that WHAT was resurrected was: "this flesh, suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, (a flesh) which ...was born, and ...dies, undoubtedly human." Tertullian fully expected this idea of Christ's PHYSICAL suffering, death, and resurrection to shock his readers. But he insisted that "it must be believed, because it is absurd." (Tertullian, DE CARNE CHRISTI 5, as quoted by Elaine Pagels in GNOSTIC CHRISTIANS P5) Comments on Current Trends. As noted above, there are NO non-Christian eye-witness accounts of Jesus' resurrection, which could be used to collaborate many of the gospel accounts! Some modern writers have taken advantage of the lack of details and consistency to propose some rather bizarre scenarios as to what "really did happen" on the cross. For example, there have been a number of books written that have speculated that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but had instead lapsed into unconsciousness. The proponents of this theory point to how Pilate was surprised how quickly Jesus died on the cross. The Jewish historian Josephus, for example, wrote how he had once personally witnessed a case where three men were taken down from the cross, and one of them actually survived the crucifixion. There are several variations after this point--some have Jesus reviving on his own and leaving the tomb (thus the empty tomb), or else Jesus was revived by some of his disciples with the help of certain drugs-- The imagination of the writer is the only limit to these stories! I personally don't think there is too much value to these speculations-- The point to be made is that there are so many discrepancies in the gospel accounts, that we literally have few HARD facts about the situation-- to prove or disprove ANYTHING! Therefore, the reality of the crucifixion and resurrection will probably forever be entirely confined within the realm of faith--that is, the RELIGIOUS tradition. Some Responses by Theologians and Religious Scholars Obviously various religious scholars and theologians are aware of the discrepancies described above between eyewitness accounts of the resurrection in the gospels. The conservative theologian I.H. Marshall said in 1977 that the Resurrection stories are not necessarily irreconcilable, but that "so far nobody has produced a convincing hypothesis." (Schmiedal, Art 'RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION NARRATIVES' ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, ed TK Cheyne, London: A and C Black, 1903) The theologian John Hick has characterized the incompatible resurrection narratives as a "progressive degeneration from history to legend". Hick admits it seems difficult for one to ever know if Jesus truly had a physical resurrection and appearance to his followers, as opposed to his followers seeing "a series of visions" of him "as a glorified figure of exalted majesty". (John Hick, DEATH AND ETERNAL LIFE, London: Macmillan, 1985, pp 171, 175-77, as quoted by GA Wells, WHO WAS JESUS.) Some writers have shown how easily some of the events in the New Testament could (because information was essentially spread orally from person to person) have been embellished with details that were not necessarily true. The theologian P.W. Schmiedel wrote how legends of the empty tomb could have arisen in perfectly good faith. That is, when Jesus' followers were confronted with the charge that Jesus' disciples had stolen the body of Jesus, a natural response would be for someone to say that the Jews had surely been watching over the tomb. Another Christian, upon hearing this report, might take this as a statement of fact and pass it on as such. Other Christians upon hearing this would naturally wonder if any soldiers had witnessed the resurrection . New conjectures of an angel descending from heaven, the bribing of the soldiers, etc would be made which others would hear and pass on again as being true. (P. W. Schmiedel, 'Resurrection and Ascension Narratives", ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, ed. TK. Cheyne, London: A. and C. Black, 1903, as quoted by GA Wells, WHO WAS JESUS, op cited.) Another point of view comes from the Bishop Peter Carnley. On the one hand, he agrees that "the diversity of the resulting traditions cannot just be added together to form one synthetic account of what is supposed to have happened at the first Easter." He also states that "fundamentalist writers and ultra-conservative popularizers of the Easter faith do the Church no lasting service by nervously seeking to defend a superficial harmony of the gospel narratives." On the other hand, Carnley concludes "our present experience of the spirit of Christ convinces us that the stories of the empty tomb and appearance are substantially true." In other words, what the bishop appears to be saying is that even though there may be some factual errors in the accounting of the resurrection, the important thing is one's SPIRITUAL relationship with Jesus. If one holds this opinion, it then really doesn't matter if there are major or minor differences in the different gospel accounts! (Peter Carnley, THE STRUCTURE OF RESURRECTION BELIEF, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987, as quoted by GA Wells in WHO WAS JESUS, op cited.) Conservative Battle over whether Jesus Christ rose in the FLESH, or SPIRIT. Conservative evangelicals will disagree passionately with the above analyses.--This includes what they consider to be a LIBERAL Christian interpretation that speaks in SPIRITUAL, as opposed to PHYSICAL terms. They will argue that the bible is LITERALLY true-- and thus any apparent errors and contradictions within the bible are due to the IMPROPER INTERPRETATION of these biblical verses. Of course, religious scholars and theologians disagree among themselves, regarding what is the "true" meaning of many passages. Unknown to most of the public, behind the scenes there is a fierce battle, (initiated primarily by some fundamentalist Protestant leaders), over whether Jesus Christ LITERALLY ROSE IN THE FLESH, as opposed to his SPIRIT! Believing that the latter doctrine essentially undermines the orthodox position of Christianity, some fundamentalist Christians have taken a tough stance, insisting that more "liberal" Christians who teach and preach any other doctrine, should not be allowed to teach in orthodox ("conservative") institutions. For example, Norman L. Geisler, Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the Liberty University in Lynchburg Virginia (founded by Jerry Falwell), passionately fought against any spiritual (liberal) interpretation of the resurrection. In his book, THE BATTLE FOR THE RESURRECTION, Geisler concluded that anyone who denied the PHYSICAL nature of Christ's resurrection should not be allowed to teach in Christian orthodox institutions: "The doctrine of the physical resurrection of Christ is essential to Christianity. There is no real resurrection unless the same physical, material body of flesh that died is restored to life every more. Therefore any denial that Christ arose in this same material body of flesh is unorthodox. Christian teachers and preachers who deny the orthodox position on a major doctrine of the Christian faith such as the resurrection should not be retained as leaders in our orthodox institutions. We must draw a line somewhere. To have no line of demarcation between a false understanding of a doctrine and a true one is to have no true doctrine at all. A creed or confession that can mean anything, means nothing. Painful as it may be, we must not allow doctrinal dilution in our churches and institutions on any of the great fundamentals of the faith that have once for all been delivered to the saints. And it has always been a fundamental of the Christian faith to confess: "I BELIEVE...IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH". (Norman L. Geisler, THE BATTLE FOR THE RESURRECTION, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1989, p 173)