Editing Resurrection of Jesus (section)

===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}}