Editing Resurrection of Jesus (section)

==Burial and empty tomb==
Scholars differ on the historicity of the empty tomb story and the relation between the burial stories and the postmortem appearances. Scholars also differ on whether Jesus received a decent burial. Points of contention are (1) whether Jesus's body was taken off the cross before sunset or left on the cross to decay, (2) whether his body was taken off the cross and buried specifically by [[Joseph of Arimathea]], or by the Sanhedrin or a group of Jews in general, and (3) whether he was entombed (and if so, what kind of tomb) or buried in a common grave.

With regard to the question of what produced the faith that Jesus was raised from the dead, Schroter and Jacobi state that the assumption of the empty tomb, and the view that the disciples were convinced they saw Jesus risen from the dead, finds wide support in New Testament scholarship. Challenges such as [[Gerd Ludemann]]s, who argues that the tomb was not really empty but takes the stories of Jesus' appearances as describing real events, explaining them as subjective visions, remain a minority.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Schroter |first1= Jens |last2= Jacobi |first2= Christine |title= The Jesus Handbook |year= 2022 |publisher= Eerdmans |page= 789 |isbn= 978-0802876928}}</ref>{{refn|group=note|Jacobi: "In the more recent past [...] [[Gerd Ludemann]] (1994, 2002) drew on the subjective vision hypothesis and described Jesus's tomb as "full". This position can be considered a minority opinion. At present however, the assumption that Jesus's tomb was indeed empty and that his disciples were convinced that they had seen the resurrection Jesus finds wide support among New Testament scholars."}} Yet they also note that "The question about the historicity of the empty tomb [...] cannot be answered." They say that the empty tomb does not seem to be the factor that produces faith in the resurrection, but rather functions as a narrative link between cruxifixion and resurrection.{{refn|group=note|Schroter and Jacobi (2022): "The question about the historicity of the empty tomb, therefore, cannot be answered. Nevertheless, it is decisive that no significance is ascribed to it according to the witness of the New Testament. In the Gospels, the empty tomb in itself does not produce faith. Its function on the level of the narrative, however, consists in linking the experience of the crucifixion and burial with the appearances. To this extent it is a part of the narrative implementation of the Easter traditions in the framework of the story of Jesus in the Gospels."}}

===Burial===
{{Main|Burial of Jesus}}

An often noted argument in favour of a decent burial before sunset is the Jewish custom, based on Deuteronomy 21:22–23,<ref>{{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy|21:22-23|NRSV}}</ref> which says the body must not be left exposed overnight, but must be buried that day. This is also attested in the Temple Scroll of the Essenes, and in [[Josephus]]' ''Jewish War'' 4.5.2§317, describing the burial of crucified Jewish insurgents before sunset.{{sfn|Brown|1973|p=147}}{{sfnp|Dijkhuizen|2011|pp=119–120}}{{sfnp|Dunn|2003b|p=782}}{{sfnp|Evans|2005}}{{sfnp|Magness|2005}} Reference is made to the [[Digest (Roman law)|Digesta]], a Roman Law Code from the 6th century AD, which contains material from the 2nd century AD, stating that "the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted".{{sfnp|Evans|2005|p=195}}{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=104}} Burial of people who were executed by crucifixion is also attested by archaeological finds from [[Jehohanan]], a body of an apparently crucified man with a nail in the heel which could not be removed who was buried in a tomb.{{sfnp|Magness|2005|p=144}}{{sfnp|Dunn|2003b|p=782}}

Contra a decent burial, [[Martin Hengel]] has argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death,{{sfnp|Magness|2005|p=141}}{{sfnp|Hengel|1977}} a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature".{{sfnp|Magness|2005|p=141}} [[John Dominic Crossan]] argued that Jesus's followers did not know what happened to the body.{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=94}}{{refn|group=note|Allison refers to "Crossan, Historical Jesus, 391–4; idem, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 123–58; idem, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 160–77))"}} According to Crossan, Joseph of Arimathea is "a total Markan creation in name, in place, and in function",{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=94, note 4}}{{refn|group=note|Allison refers to Crossan (1996), ''Who Killed Jesus?''}} arguing that Jesus's followers inferred from Deut. 21:22–23 that Jesus was buried by a group of law-abiding Jews, as described in Acts 13:29.

New Testament scholar Dale Allison writes that this story was adapted by Mark, turning the group of Jews into a specific person.{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=94-95}} Roman practice was often to leave the body on the stake, denying an honourable or family burial, stating that "the dogs were waiting."{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=95}}{{sfnp|Crossan|2009|p=143}} Archaeologist Byron McCane argues that it was customary to dispose of the dead immediately, yet concludes that "Jesus was buried in disgrace in a criminal's tomb".{{sfnp|McCane|2003|p=89}} British New Testament scholar [[Maurice Casey]] also notes that "Jewish criminals were supposed to receive a shameful and dishonourable burial",{{sfnp|Casey|2010|p=451}} and argues that Jesus was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea, but in a tomb for criminals owned by the [[Sanhedrin]].{{sfnp|Casey|2010|p=451}} He therefore rejects the empty tomb narrative as legendary.{{sfnp|Casey|2010}}

New Testament historian [[Bart D. Ehrman]] writes that it cannot be known what happened to Jesus's body; he doubts that Jesus had a decent burial,{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=82-88}} and also thinks that it is doubtful that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea specifically.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=82}} According to Ehrman, "what was originally a vague statement that the unnamed Jewish leaders buried Jesus becomes a story of one leader in particular, who is named, doing so".{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=84}}{{refn|group=note|In an earlier publication (2003), Ehrman recognized that "Some scholars have argued that it's more plausible that in fact Jesus was placed in a common burial plot, which sometimes happened, or was, as many other crucified people, simply left to be eaten by scavenging animals", but further elaborated by stating that "[T]he accounts are fairly unanimous in saying ... that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it's relatively reliable that that's what happened."<ref>Bart Ehrman, From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Lecture 4: "Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus" [The Teaching Company, 2003].</ref>}} Ehrman gives three reasons for doubting a decent burial. Referring to Hengel and Crossan, Ehrman argues that crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible", and the body was normally left on the stake to be eaten by animals.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=85}} Ehrman further argues that criminals were usually buried in common graves;{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=86}} and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed Jesus to be buried.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=87}}

A number of Christian authors have rejected the criticisms, taking the Gospel accounts to be historically reliable.{{refn|group=note| {{harvtxt|Wright|2009|p=22}} argues that the burial of Christ is part of the earliest gospel traditions.}} [[John A.T. Robinson]] states that "the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus".{{sfnp|Robinson|1973|p=131}} [[Dale Allison]], reviewing the arguments of Crossan and Ehrman, finds their assertions strong, but "find[s] it likely that a man named Joseph, probably a Sanhedrist, from the obscure Arimathea, sought and obtained permission from the Roman authorities to make arrangements for Jesus’s hurried burial".{{sfnp|Allison|2021|p=112}} [[James Dunn (theologian)|James Dunn]] states that "the tradition is firm that Jesus was given a proper burial (Mark 15.42-47 pars.), and there are good reasons why its testimony should be respected".{{sfnp|Dunn|2003b|p=781}}

Dunn argues that the burial tradition is "one of the oldest pieces of tradition we have", referring to 1 Cor. 15.4; burial was in line with Jewish custom as prescribed by Deut. 21:22–23 and confirmed by Josephus ''War''; cases of burial of crucified persons are known, as attested by the Yehohanan burial; Joseph of Arimathea "is a very plausible historical character"; and "the presence of the women at the cross and their involvement in Jesus's burial can be attributed more plausibly to early oral memory than to creative story-telling".{{sfnp|Dunn|2003b|pp=781–783}} [[Craig A. Evans]] refers to Deut. 21:22-23 and Josephus to argue that the entombment of Jesus accords with Jewish sensitivities and historical reality. Evans also notes that "politically, too, it seems unlikely that, on the eve of Passover, a holiday that celebrates Israel's liberation from foreign domination, Pilate would have wanted to provoke the Jewish population" by denying Jesus a proper burial.{{sfn|Evans|2005|pp=188–190, 195}} [[Andrew Loke]], after replying to various objections against the historicity of the guards at the tomb, argues that "the presence of guards at the tomb would imply that Jesus was buried in a well-identified place (contrary to unburied hypothesis)".{{sfn|Loke|2020|p=141}}

According to religion professor John Granger Cook, there are historical texts that mention mass graves, but they contain no indication of those bodies being dug up by animals. There is no mention of an open pit or shallow graves in any Roman text. There are a number of historical texts outside the gospels showing the bodies of the crucified dead were buried by family or friends. Cook writes that "those texts show that the narrative of Joseph of Arimethaea's burial of Jesus would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible".<ref>Cook, J. (2011). Crucifixion and Burial. New Testament Studies, 57(2), 193-213. {{doi|10.1017/S0028688510000214}}. p. 213.</ref>

===Empty tomb===
{{Main|Empty tomb}}

====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}}

====Empty tomb and resurrection appearances====
[[N. T. Wright]] emphatically and extensively argues for the reality of the empty tomb and the subsequent appearances of Jesus, reasoning that as a matter of "inference"{{sfn|Wright|2003|p=711}} both a bodily resurrection and later bodily appearances of Jesus are far better explanations for the empty tomb and the 'meetings' and the rise of Christianity than are any other theories, including those of Ehrman.{{sfn|Wright|2003|p=711}} [[Raymond E. Brown]] concurred, stating "...in my judgment, the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is strong...", and critiqued skeptical objections.<ref>{{cite book |last= Brown |first= Raymond |author-link= Raymond E. Brown |year= 1994 |title= An Introduction to New Testament Christology |publisher= Paulist Press |pages= 163–166 |isbn= 978-0809135165}}</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James DG Dunn]] writes that the majority of scholars of the Bible believe that the evidence shows that the Resurrection of Jesus is historical.<ref>{{cite book |last= Dunn |first= James |author-link= James Dunn (theologian) |year= 2019 |title= Why believe in Jesus' Resurrection? |publisher= SPCK |page= unpaginated |isbn= 978-0281076581}}</ref> [[Dale Allison]] argues for an empty tomb that was later followed by visions of Jesus by [[Apostles in the New Testament|the Apostles]] and Mary Magdalene, while also accepting the historicity of the resurrection. While he acknowledges contradictions in the Gospels' narratives, he argues that they agree on the important themes and that the differences are inconsequential when judging the historical event as a whole.{{sfn|Allison|2021|pp=3, 310-335, 337, 353}} Allison has endorsed David Graieg's work on the Resurrection appearances, which also argues that early Christians remembered Jesus as having physically risen from the dead. Using a methodology based on memory theory, Graieg argues that [[Apostle Paul|Paul]] in [[First Corinthians]] remembered Jesus as having bodily risen from the dead and that the resurrection was of core importance to early Christians. Graieg argues that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that he was remembered by Christians as having risen in a metamorphized form.<ref>{{cite book |last= Graieg |first= David |year= 2024 |title= Resurrection Remembered: A Memory Approach to Jesus' Resurrection in First Corinthians |publisher= Routledge |page= Preface (unpaginated) |isbn= 978-1032679983}}</ref> Religion professor [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]] points to how the notion of an empty tomb would fit with the [[Ancient Greek religion|ancient Greek beliefs]] that any case of immortalization always required absolute physical continuity. A vanished body could consequently be an indication of someone having been made immortal, as seen for instance in the case of [[Aristaeus]], the Trojan prince [[Ganymede (mythology)|Ganymede]], and princess [[Orithyia of Athens]], whose mysterious disappearances were seen as the result of their being swept away to a physically immortal existence by the gods, [[Heracles]] whose lack of bodily remains after his funeral pyre was considered proof of his physical immortalization, and [[Aristeas|Aristeas of Proconnesus]] who was held to have reappeared after his body vanished from a locked room, which Endsjø interprets as something like a resurrection.{{sfn|Endsjø|2009|pp=58-60, 63, 83, 93}}{{sfn|Lehtipuu|2015|pp=62–63}}

J. D. Atkins argues that the narratives of Jesus contacting the disciples physically in Luke and John are not apologetic responses to docetism, and Siniscalchi suggests the gospels reliably preserved memory of the earliest appearance traditions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Atkins |first=J. D. |title=The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |year=2019 |isbn=978-3161581656 |pages=380-410}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Siniscalchi |first=Glenn |title=The Doubt of the Apostles and the Resurrection Faith of the Early Church (review) |url=https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/72/2/950/6444245 |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |volume=72 |issue=2 |pages=950-51}}</ref> Jorg Frey also argues against applying docetism to first century works.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Frey |first=Jorg |title=Docetism in the Early Church |publisher=Mohr Siebeck |year=2018 |isbn=978-3161540844 |pages=27-50}}</ref> Smith argues that Mark has integrated two traditions, which were first separate, on the disappearance (from the tomb, interpreted as being taken to heaven) and appearance (post-mortem appearances), into one Easter narrative.{{sfn|Smith|2010|pp=2, 179–180}}{{sfn|Smith|2007}} According to [[Géza Vermes]], the story of the empty tomb developed independently from the stories of the post-resurrection appearances, as they are never directly coordinated to form a combined argument.{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=142}} While the coherence of the empty tomb narrative is questionable, it is "clearly an early tradition".{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=142}} Vermes notes that the story of the empty tomb conflicts with notions of a spiritual resurrection. According to Vermes, "[t]he strictly Jewish bond of spirit and body is better served by the idea of the empty tomb and is no doubt responsible for the introduction of the notions of palpability (Thomas in John) and eating (Luke and John)".{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=148}} Ehrman rejects the story of the empty tomb, and argues that "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it ... an empty tomb would not produce faith".{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=98}} Ehrman argues that the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=90}}

=== Angels as Witnesses to the Resurrection ===

The New Testament highlights the presence of angels, particularly multiple angels at the tomb of Jesus, reinforcing the credibility of the resurrection account through the motif of paired witnesses. This reflects the legal principle in Deuteronomy 19:15: “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”<ref>Deuteronomy 19:15, English Standard Version.</ref>

In John, Mary Magdalene sees two angels seated where Jesus' body had been (John 20:12). Luke describes two men in “dazzling apparel” who appear to a group of women (Luke 24:4). Mark mentions a single “young man in white” (Mark 16:5), which some interpret as consistent with the other Gospels when viewed as literary compression. In each case, the women—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome—receive the angelic message and are sent to inform the disciples.

The motif of dual angelic witnesses reappears at Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:10–11) and in Revelation’s depiction of two prophetic figures (Revelation 11:3), underscoring a broader biblical pattern of divine confirmation through multiple heavenly messengers.

Reactions to these appearances vary. In Matthew, guards at the tomb witness the angelic event but are bribed to deny it (Matthew 28:2–15). These divergent responses illustrate the tension between revelation and evasion that runs through the Gospel narratives.

John Chrysostom observed, “The appearance of angels is not to bring fear, but to call men to wonder.”<ref>Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff.</ref> Daniel L. Akin notes that the presence of two angels in Luke and John corresponds to the Old Testament requirement of multiple witnesses and may be intended to underline the credibility of the resurrection narrative.<ref>Akin, Daniel L. “The Resurrection of the Great King.” Southeastern Seminary, sermon manuscript on Mark 16:1–8. Available at: https://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Mark-16.1-8-The-Resurrection-of-the-Great-King-Manuscript-kh.pdf</ref>