Editing Resurrection of Jesus (section)

====Skepticism about the empty tomb narrative====
Early on, the stories about the empty tomb were met with skepticism. The Gospel of Matthew already mentions stories that the body was [[Stolen body hypothesis|stolen from the grave]].{{sfnp|Dunn2003b|p=836}} Other suggestions, not supported in mainstream scholarship, are that Jesus had [[swoon hypothesis|not really died on the cross]], was [[Lost body hypothesis|lost due to natural causes]],{{sfnp|Ehrman|2014|p=88}} or was [[Substitution hypothesis|replaced by an impostor]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.christianpost.com/voices/jesus-twin-brother-and-the-truth-about-easter.html|website=The Christian Post|first1=Robin|last1=Schumacher|date=12 April 2020|title=Jesus' twin brother and the truth about Easter}}</ref><ref>[[The Gospel of Afranius]]</ref>

The belief that Jesus did not really die on the cross but only appeared to do so is found in a wide variety of early texts, and probably has its historical roots in the earliest stages of Christianity.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|p=270}} According to Israeli religion scholar [[Guy Stroumsa|Gedaliahu Stroumsa]], this idea came first, and later, docetism broadened to include Jesus was a spirit without flesh.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|pp=267, 268}} It is probable these were present in the 1st century, as it is against such doctrines that the author of [[Johannine epistles|1 and 2 John]] seems to argue.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|pp=267, 268}}

The absence of any reference to the story of Jesus's empty tomb in the [[Pauline epistles]] and the Easter [[kerygma]] (preaching or proclamation) of the earliest church has led some scholars to suggest that Mark invented it.{{refn|group=note|Bultmann dismisses the empty tomb story as "an apologetic legend."{{sfnp|Bultmann|1963|p=287}}}} Allison, however, finds this [[argument from silence]] unconvincing.{{sfn|Allison|2005|p=306}} Most scholars believe that the [[Gospel of Mark]] and the [[Gospel of John]] contain two independent attestations of an empty tomb, which in turn suggests that both used already-existing sources{{sfn|Aune|2013|p=169}} and appealed to a commonly held tradition, though Mark may have added to and adapted that tradition to fit his narrative.<ref>Engelbrecht, J. "The Empty Tomb (Lk 24:1-12) in Historical Perspective." Neotestamentica, vol. 23, no. 2, 1989, pp. 245.</ref> Other scholars have argued that instead, Paul presupposes the empty tomb, specifically in the early creed passed down in 1 Corinthians 15.{{Sfn|Ware|2014|p=498}}{{Sfn|Cook|2017|pp=56–58}} Christian biblical scholars have used textual critical methods to support the historicity of the tradition that "Mary of Magdala had indeed been the first to see Jesus", most notably the [[Criterion of Embarrassment]] in recent years.{{sfn|Dunn|2003b|pp=843}}<ref>{{cite book|author-link=Richard Bauckham|author-first1=Richard|author-last1=Bauckham|title=Gospel Women, Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels|year=2002|pages=257–258}}</ref> According to [[Dale Allison]], the inclusion of women as the first witnesses to the risen Jesus "once suspect, confirms the truth of the story".{{sfn|Allison|2005|pp=327-328}}