Christians commonly make two major assertions about the gospels: 1) that the New Testament gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection, or at least by disciples of eyewitnesses, and 2) that the gospels are reliable documents, some even say "the infallible word of God." By far the majority of Christians believe these assertions simply because it's what they've always heard, it's what they are comfortable with, and they have never examined the gospels in detail. I grew up as such a believer. But as this paper will demonstrate, the second assertion is provably false, and the first is groundless and highly suspect. When I closely examined the Biblical stories of the resurrection of Jesus, I found that they disagree in many details, are unreliable, and do not appear to have been written by eyewitnesses or trustworthy reporters of information.
What follows is a list of questions about the resurrection followed by answers taken from each New Testament source individually. After the questions, I will make a few observations and comments in analysis and summary.
The format and much information of the first portion of this paper comes from chapter 24 of Dan Barker's book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (1992). He points out that the different gospel accounts of the resurrection and subsequent events are irreconcilable, and he has issued a challenge to all Christians:
In each of the four gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.Though many have tried this, his challenge is impossible to meet.
Who went to the tomb that Sunday morning?
At what time did the women (or "woman" in John) visit the tomb?
What was their purpose?
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Who was at the tomb?
Where were these messengers situated?
What did the messenger(s) say?
Did the women tell what happened?
Who first saw Jesus?
When did Mary Magdalene first see Jesus?
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
Not counting women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
Did the disciples believe the two men who saw Jesus while out walking?
What happened at the appearance of Jesus?
Where was the resurrected Jesus wounded?
Did Jesus stay on the earth for a while?
Where did Jesus' ascension take place?
Something's Wrong Here: The fact that the gospels differ in their details about what happened after the resurrection raises many questions. Take the question of the stone; it cannot have been removed both before and after the women arrived, so either Matthew is wrong or the other three gospels are wrong. Many elements of Matthew's story are doubtful enough anyway3 (see endnote 3), but this and other points are direct contradictions.
Galilee or Jerusalem?: Contradictions are bad enough when they are on minor details, but the gospels even disagree concerning where Jesus first appeared to the disciples after the resurrection. In Matthew, Jesus first appears to his disciples on a mountain in Galilee and gives his last instructions there, the "great commission." This was predicted by the angel at the tomb who told the women to tell the disciples "he is going before you into Galilee, there you will see him" (28:7). Also in Matthew, Jesus himself met the women after they saw the angel, and he himself told them, "Go and tell my brothers to go into Galilee; there they will see me" (28:10). "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go" (28:16), and they saw Jesus; he gave them instructions to go make disciples of all nations, and the story ends. Matthew even says Jesus told the disciples at the last supper, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee" (26:32). The context of Matthew thus indicates that Galilee is the first and last place Jesus appears to the eleven, and Matthew has only one such appearance to the eleven, not multiple appearances. Additional support for Galilee being the very first encounter is that "some doubted" it was him (28:17). So the encounter in Galilee must be the first encounter between the eleven and Jesus, for the doubting would be unlikely if they had already seen him, and the three different previous instructions to go to Galilee to see him would have been out of place and completely illogical if he were going to see them before Galilee.
The unappended version of Mark agrees with Matthew that a single messenger tells the women to tell the disciples, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you" (16:7). The original ending of Mark may have depicted the disciples going to Galilee in accordance with this message, but the appended ending we now have does not mention Galilee. Instead, verse 9 abruptly begins a separate account of post-resurrection events, in which everything appears to take place in or near Jerusalem around the same day, just like in Luke.
Luke and John have two messengers instead of one, and they give different messages than are given in Matthew and Mark; indeed, in John they give no message at all. Luke contradicts Matthew and early Mark by having Jesus appear to the disciples in and around Jerusalem, not Galilee, and in Luke (like the appendage to Mark) nobody goes to Galilee at all. In fact, Luke has Jesus appear to Peter in Jerusalem (24:33-34), but in Mark the messenger tells the women to tell the "disciples AND PETER, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him'" (16:7)! John, too, contradicts Matthew and early Mark by having the first appearance to the disciples in Jerusalem. But John, probably the latest version of the story, also adds a subsequent account of the disciples seeing Jesus on the Sea of Tiberias, where he helps them catch fish and reinstates Peter; and this appearance, which Jn 21:14 says was the 3rd appearance to the disciples, is the last meeting recorded in John. 4 (see endnote 4)
In other words, there appear to have been at least two different early versions about where Jesus appeared after the resurrection, Matthew and early Mark placing events in Galilee, and Luke placing events in Jerusalem. It looks as though the appendage to Mark (16:9-20) may have been added to try to combine the two versions to avoid contradictions, but the work of the editor was not good enough to go undetected since the appendage is a bit out of joint with what precedes it-- i.e. as mentioned, early Mark has a messenger tell the disciples to go see Jesus in Galilee, but the early version is cut off abruptly and the appendage avoids any reference to Galilee and instead appears to give the Lukan version of the story. The author of John places events first at one location and later at another, but still disagrees with the other gospels. So there were likely two versions, one showing up in Matthew and early Mark, and the other showing up in Luke. Later, Christians who heard both versions probably tacked a hasty appendage to Mark to try to resolve the conflict, but they neglected the details.
Peter?: Paul thinks Jesus appeared to Peter, then to the twelve (Did he think Judas was there?), then on several other occasions, and he seems to think Peter was the first to see Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5). But Mark 16:6-7 has the messenger at the tomb send instructions to the disciples and specifically to Peter that Jesus was headed for Galilee and that everyone should go there to meet him. In Matthew, even Jesus himself tells the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see Jesus, and Matthew says they went to Galilee and Jesus appeared there and gave his final instructions. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and John were apparently unaware of any story of a special appearance solely to Peter; only Luke mentions it (24:33), and it happens in Jerusalem. In John, Jesus does have a conversation with Peter in which he "reinstates" him, but John is also nearby, and this takes place on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, not in Jerusalem.
How long?: How long did Jesus stay on the earth? In Luke, everything happens that first Sunday: He appears "that same day" to two of the disciples on the way to Emmaus, seven miles from Jerusalem (24:13); he walks with them and when it is "nearly evening" (24:29) he stops and sits with them, but they realize it's him and he disappears; the two disciples "got up and returned at once to Jerusalem" (24:33); when they arrive, they tell the other discipls what happened, and "while they were still talking about this" (24:36) Jesus stands among them, eats, gives them their final instructions, takes them out near Bethany on the Mount of Olives, and is taken up into the sky (24:36-52).
The Mark appendage gives little indication of time: Jesus rises "on the first day of the week", appears first to Mary M., then "afterward" to two in the country, then "later" to "the Eleven" as they're eating; he tells them to go preach everywhere, then he is taken up into heaven. While it isn't specific, it seems to be like Luke's version, in which Jesus is only around that Sunday. In Matthew, just as in the Mark appendage and in Luke, Jesus appears only once to the group of disciples (except it's in Galilee), giving them instructions to go preach. Matthew gives no indication of time, except that the disciples needed time to get to Galilee and meet Jesus on a mountain for the "great commission", and that would take more than a day, since Galilee is 60 to 100 miles away. In John, Jesus appears Sunday night to the disciples (except for Thomas) in Jerusalem(20:19), then again in Jerusalem a week later(20:26), then a third time by the Sea of Tiberias sometime "afterward" (21:1); it is not clear how long he stayed.
Acts says Jesus "appeared to them over a period of 40 days" (1:3). But the use of the number 40 is suspicious, because it is one of those "magic" numbers, like 3, 7, and 12, and it is used esoterically, or symbolically.
Numbers and Symbolism: Jesus' death with 3 hours of darkness on the cross or 3 days in grave, his resurrection, his appearances for 40 days and nights, and his ascension were mythically constructed to match the numbers and symbolism of the Exodus story:
Eyewitnesses?: The four gospels do not represent eyewitness testimonies of a resurrection. Rather they attempt to record stories that had been crafted and/or handed down by word of mouth in various and even conflicting versions over at least two generations, allowing 41 years from c. AD 29 to AD 70 (from the presumed death of Jesus at age 33 to the estimated date for the writing of Mark, believed to be the earliest gospel, with the other accounts being written even later). Various tales and traditions had grown up differing on such points as who saw the resurrected Jesus, where he appeared, when he appeared, how long he stayed around, and what happened in what order.
The gospels do not even claim to be written by eyewitnesses. In fact the synoptic gospels were completely anonymous, and even John was not written by John--it was called John because whoever wrote it referred to John and then wrote, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true" (21:24). Apparently, the people who wrote it claimed that they got their information from John, who supposedly wrote his story down. But they had no way of knowing whether the story was true or not. They were not eyewitnesses. Matthew contains 91 percent of the unappended version of Mark (Luke contains 53 percent of it), which leads one to believe the author of Matthew used Mark as a source and added information from other sources, or at least that Matthew and Mark shared a common source. If Matthew had been an eyewitness, you would think he could have remembered things for himself, and that he could have written in the first person, like Paul. Instead, Matthew is written from the perspective of one who did not participate in the events.
The simple truth is that all accounts of the resurrection are at their very best hearsay, and worse than that, in all likelihood owe their existence to fabrication or the literal distortion of "spiritual" parables. Unless you yourself see the resurrected Jesus, you must either rely on what is, at best, contradictory and suspicious hearsay, or else not believe.
Acts 1:9-11: After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 'Men of Galilee,' they said, 'why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into the sky, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into the sky.'
The ancient people believed God, or the Gods, lived up in the sky. In Hebrew (the Old Testament), the word for sky is shamayim; in Greek (the New Testament) the word is ouranos. People did not have two different words for sky and heaven; they were the same place. So when English Bibles translate shamayim and ouranos sometimes as sky and sometimes as heaven, they mislead modern readers. In the Bible, the sky/heaven (shamayim or ouranos) is a place:
Now we know that this is incorrect. But instead of giving up belief in heaven
and hell, people simply began to imagine them as existing in some
invisible dimension instead of "above" or "beneath"
the earth. But that is not the way the Bible teaches it. In Acts,
Jesus is depicted as rising into the sky (into heaven) until the
clouds hid him from view. And in Revelation 1:7 a Christian writer
says, "Look he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see
him, even those who pierced him..." Such descriptions are clues that the ascension and other stories are made up. It would be pointless for Jesus to have gone up
into the sky; nothing is up there but air. And if heaven were in
some other dimension (although I see no reason to think it is), Jesus
could have simply disappeared into that other dimension. The fact
that the Christian story depicts him going up into the air to heaven
simply betrays their ancient world view that heaven was the upper
sky; and this is one of the many clues that the story is a
fabrication.
Also, according to typical interpretations of Revelation 1:7,
they thought he would come back in the clouds and
that everyone would see him. They did not know the earth was a
sphere (although many believed it was flat circle), so they did not
have a problem thinking everyone would be able to see him come down
from heaven. Today, those Christians who still hold this belief resolve
the issue by saying maybe it will somehow be a spiritual
event that all will see in the spirit. Then there are those, believe it or not, who
think this was a prophecy of satellite television--i.e. We'll
all see him on television when he returns (a view at times advocated
by Pat Robertson)!
And then there is the symbolism of the solar cycle on which the resurrection story is likely based. The solar myth may be summarized as follows (for the northern hemisphere): The sun is the ruler of heaven, the god of goodness and righteousness, giver of life and light to the earth. Yet light and life (the forces of good) everywhere appear to be in a cosmic struggle with darkness and death (the forces of "evil").
Every spring and summer, the sun is winning the cosmic battle: days are longer than nights, the sun is high in the sky, animal and plant life thrives on the earth. On June 21-22, the summer solstice, the longest day of the year, the sun is at its highest point in the sky, ruling in majesty over a warm, fruitful earth. But as the summer proceeds, each day the sun is just a bit farther south, or lower in the sky, and the days shorten and nights lengthen bit by bit.
Then by September 22, the autumn equinox (Latin meaning "equal night"), a serious event happens: the sun, the great good god of light and life, ruler of heaven and earth, comes under the power of the forces of darkness, which take him captive. On Sept. 22, day and night are equal, darkness is beginning to overcome the light, and each day the hours of light decrease as the nights lengthen. And as the forces of darkness take over and autumn proceeds, the weather begins to change, the air cools, vegetation begins to die, and each day the sun sinks lower and lower on the horizon.
The sun sinks day by day until finally, on Dec. 21-22, the longest night, the winter solstice, the sun is dead, killed by the forces of darkness and at its lowest point on the horizon. The sun is dead and the powers of darkness, cold, and death have triumphed. For three days the sun of god lies at its death point, but on Dec. 25, the birthday of the new savior of the world, the sun is born as Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun. After this point, each day for 3 months the sun gains power and moves higher on the horizon, the days begin to lengthen bit by bit as light battles darkness. Finally, on March 22, the vernal/spring equinox, day is equal to night again and the sun triumphs over darkness and death; spring is born, and plant life that was dead is resurrected.
So we celebrate the resurrection of the sun/son of god on Easter, at DAWN on the first SUNday after the first full moon after the spring equinox -- the time when all life is renewed, even the moon and the sun. And in what sign of the Zodiac has the sun triumphed over death for the last 2,000 years? Pisces, the fish -- fittingly a symbol of Christianity from the beginning. Other points: Jesus + 12 disciples = Sun + 12 houses (signs of the Zodiac); Dec. 25 was the birthday of Mithras (the unconquered sun), savior in Mithraism, before it was adopted as the birthday of Jesus ("the light of the world").
The death and rebirth of the sun and vegetation was a central theme of so many ancient religions. John 12:24 "...unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." The Christ is not only the sun, which dies and is reborn, he also embodies all life on the planet, the cycle of death and rebirth. The inventors of Christianity constructed the story of Jesus in such a way that it embodied not only symbolism from Jewish legend and tradition (ex. the numbers and symbols from the canonical Exodus myth), but also astronomy, astrology, and the greatest symbols of nature religion.
It is interesting to me that many gnostic Christians believed the resurrection was a spiritual event and not in a physical body. In fact, some believed that the spiritually resurrected Jesus could still appear to them, and sometimes he appeared to them in different forms: an old man, a baby, even the image of the very person having the vision. If the gnostics held the more authentic/original Christian beliefs, belief in a physical resurrection should not even be considered necessary to be a Christian. But this gnostic view may not have been the more original view, although it is known that early Christianity was not a doctrinally unified movement. If the resurrected Jesus appeared only in dreams, trances, or "spiritual" visions, the historical aspect of the faith would not be so important.
One theory I have considered before is that the whole resurrection story, even most of the story of Jesus' life, was created as a symbolic myth that embodied the highest ideals and beliefs of a Jewish sect influenced by Greek philosophy and mystery religions. The resurrection could even have been reenacted in initiation rituals, and perhaps the different versions of resurrection events in the first century come from different descriptions of these rituals, all the details of which would not have been considered of utmost importance. The Christ could have been a symbolic figure, the goal of the initiate's spiritual development and transformation. So much of Christianity fits in with the mystery religions that existed at the time: ideas of purification, initiation, death and rebirth, securing a better afterlife, the communion meal, the brotherhood.
Yet another theory is that the resurrection stories were invented partly as a political move to retaliate against the Romans for dominating Judea and killing Jesus and other revolutionaries. It was like saying to the Romans,
"No matter what you do or whom you kill, you cannot destroy us and our God Yahweh is more powerful than you and your Gods. You killed our leader, but our God brought him back to life. 'Where is he, then?' you ask. God took him up to heaven, but he has fulfilled our old prophecies, and those who follow this messiah and Yahweh will also be resurrected and taken up, and he is coming back with the armies of heaven."Whether deliberate propaganda, misguided faith, or a mixture of both, it was potent. Perhaps some even saw the new story as a chance to spiritualize and take advantage of Jewish hopes for a messiah-king, teach people morality, oppose pagan secular and religious ideas in favor of more Jewish ones, and gain power and influence -- all at the same time. Perhaps some Jews even wanted to use it to stop violent resistance in favor of passive resistance. The resurrection story could have been used either way initially. But naturally, different members of the new movement would have different ideas about doctrine and practice, which would easily explain the existence of many different groups, arguments, and debates in early Christianity within a very short time. In the divisions that followed, perhaps some wanted to present the resurrection as a symbolic or more spiritual story to win the more intellectual Greek types to their movement, while others felt the need to hold to the literal version and the Pharisaic Jewish view of bodily resurrection, which was also more revolutionary and a bigger threat to the Romans, at least at first. Initiates at the lowest levels would have been told the literal version, especially at the beginning of the movement in Jerusalem, if the initial desire was to inspire Jews to have faith in their national God and to continue to resist Roman ways.
Who knows?
Below are some challenging questions I and others have posed, along with a few sample answers. Many of these answers have been given by people who were being very serious; some of the answers were given in jest, and some readers may find them offensive, but I decided to include them, since I think they may offer insight at times. You may not like any of the answers. You should try to answer each question honestly for yourself. If you are pressed for time, skip the sample answers, and just consider the questions.
Q. Why would Jesus have to leave the world at all? Why couldn't he just stay around, show his resurrected body to the world, and establish world peace?
Q. Why didn't Jesus show himself to Pilate or the Roman government after he rose again?
Q. Why does the Bible teach that all believers will one day be resurrected? If we are really spirits, why can't we just live forever without bodies?
Q. Where was Jesus' spirit between the crucifixion and the resurrection?
Q. If we get resurrected, will it be the same body or a different one?
Q. Where do we go when we die?
How do you answer these questions? What do you think of the details presented in this examination of the resurrection?
Matthew Kruebbe
7-24-2001
1 The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient writers do not have Mark 16:9-20. Was there an original ending that was lost? Was an earlier ending deleted by editors because it presented a different, unacceptable, or conflicting account? Mark 16:9-20 is a separate account appended to the earlier text. It starts abruptly with its own setting "Early on the first day of the week," which is awkward, breaks the flow, and is unnecessary. It does not mention a trip to Galilee which Mark 16:7 calls for. And while the unappended Mark says the women (including Mary M.) fled from the tomb and "said nothing to anyone," the appendage says Jesus appeared to Mary M. and she told the others.
2 1Cor.15:6 is the only place in the Bible that records an appearance to 500 people at once. Why did not a single gospel writer mention this event? Wouldn't it have been impressive to their readers; wouldn't it have helped their case, at least in the minds of credulous readers? Should one suspect that they were unaware of this story. Did Paul make it up to comfort the Corinthians, who evidently had lots of doubts about the resurrection. Is this story comparable to the scattered modern claims by devout Catholics of appearances of the Virgin Mary?
3 While they are not a matter of contradiction, there are other elements of Matthew's account that are suspicious. Matthew says there was an earthquake when Jesus died (27:51), whereas the other gospels do not. It also says that tombs broke open, and that many dead bodies came to life and appeared to people in Jerusalem after Jesus' resurrection (27:52-53). You would think that events of this magnitude would be important enough for Jews and Romans both to write about, yet not only do Jews and Romans not mention them, even the other Christian evangelists do not write about them. Of course, as I said, these are not contradictions, and they don't disprove Matthew, but the author does make some outrageous claims that are unsupported by contemporaries.
4 Was the gospel of John making an attempt to include two rumored locations in a single story? If so, the author was probably aware of stories set in different locations, but perhaps unaware that contradictory versions had actually been recorded--since his account does not actually solve the problems and even presents its own difficulties.
5
The Bible teaches that just as the sky/heaven is above the earth, so is hell below/within the earth. Consider the following:
The early Christians and their Bible along with other ancient people thought hell was
under the ground, the earth was flat, and God was up in the sky. It has only been in the last 400 years (since Copernicus, d.1543, and Galileo, d.1642, who's theory the Church condemned) that science has slowly driven ancient cosmology from people's minds.
6 The belief in the resurrection of the dead did not appear in Judaism until after they had made contact with the Persians, who's religion, Zoroastrianism, taught this doctrine. Because it entered Judaism at a late date, not all Jews believed it. For example, the Sadducees rejected this doctrine, saying that Moses did not teach it and that it, therefore, did not belong to the religion of Yahweh and the law.