Discuss the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus

The two accounts show many discrepancies which question the historicity of the empty tomb tradition. Marxsen argues that both accounts cannot be held as coming from eyewitnesses for,

“…either the women wanted to anoint the body…or they wanted to visit the tomb. Either they found the stone already rolled away, or it was rolled away in their presence through heavenly intervention. Either they found the young man in the tomb, or an angel sat on the stone in front of the tomb.”

Marxsen concludes that the discrepancies occur because Matthew was weaving traditions into his account. Although the accounts we have are information conveyed through other people, the Gospel writers want us to believe that Jesus was resurrected – therefore the interweaving of tradition, could be argued to make the accounts more relevant to early readers. We can ask, for instance, whether Matthew knew of traditions of heavenly intervention at the tomb, included in the much later Gospel of Peter, and wove them into his account ‘…to accentuate the miraculous element in the story.”

Another important point is the inclusion of the guard of soldiers in Matthew. The guard, not mentioned at all in Mark, ‘became like dead men’ (Matt. 28:4) upon the sight of the angel and, later in the account, are bribed to tell Pilate that the body of Jesus was taken by the disciples while they were sleeping. However, Marxsen asks, “How can anyone say what happened while they were asleep?” But Matthew seems to have strengthened the apologetic nature of his account by adding further that, “…this story is still told among the Jews to this day” (Matt. 28:15). So perhaps Matthew has included the story of the guard as a defense against the view that the resurrection was faked, and that the disciples stole the body. Marxsen continues by arguing that, regardless of why Matthew included these traditions and stories, the result is that because of the, “…inner contradictions, the story cannot in any case have actually taken place as it stands.” Sarah Coakley echoes this view by writing that the gospels,

“…exhibit all the signs of an accumulating tradition, with increasing interest in the manifestly supernatural…and in apparently apologetic motifs, such as Matthew’s story of the guard on the tomb (Matthew 27:64f) or the bribing of the soldiers to say that the body was stolen (28:12f).”

It must be remembered, however, that the Gospel writers want the reader to believe in the resurrection. Therefore, an argument worth considering is that the addition of traditions and later narrative extrapolations do not affect the historicity of such works. Rather the addition of such details can help to enable a relative simple story to become relevant to a much wider audience and variety of societies. It is also crucial to notice that in Matthew and Mark’s accounts, women were the first to see the risen Jesus (as well as in John 20:11-17 and Luke 24:1-9). In the first century, women’s testimonies were unacceptable and they were, “…unable to serve as legal witnesses.” If the story is fictitious, why would women be the first witnesses, if their testimonies were useless?

A further point which questions the historicity of the empty tomb tradition is that Paul, the most prolific New Testament writer, did not mention it at any point in his works. 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 15, is central to his teacher about the resurrection, but at no point mentions the empty tomb. In addition, the earliest record of the empty tomb, which appears in Mark and therefore written at around 70 AD, tells us that some women discovered the empty tomb, “…and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” Presumably, therefore, it took some time for the empty tomb tradition to flourish. This would support the view that the empty tomb story arose after a belief in the resurrection rather than vice versa. This argument can in turn be supported by the addition of material to Mark 16 in which Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene who, “…went out and told those who had been with him…” Marxsen writes that, “What follows (16:9-20) is a later addition which is not found in all the manuscripts. This addition is a harmonization from the other Gospels.” On the other hand, it can be argued that the lack of an empty tomb tradition in Mark was not intended. Marxsen seems not to have considered that Mark may have intended to continue his work and indeed the Greek word ‘γαρ’ (meaning ‘for…’) found at the end of Mark 16:8, would suggest that more of his account was to follow.

At this point we come across a historical and theological question: what happened to the body of Christ. Doubters often argue that the women simply went to the wrong tomb, but the accusations by the Jews that the disciples stole Jesus’ body, shows this view to be fallacious. For example, Dr. William Lane Craig writes,

"In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb."

Craig also asserts that the empty tomb accounts are not apologetic accounts, like Marxsen believes, and that the ambiguity amongst the disciples shows that this tradition was not, “…an apologetic device of early Christians; it was…‘a trophy of God’s victory’. The very fact that they saw in it no certain proof helps to insure that the narrative is substantially uncoloured by apologetic motifs and in its primitive form.” I think that Craig’s arguments help to clarify that the accounts have not been theologically manipulated, but have at least been edited for a wider audience.

Regardless of this, however, none of the Gospel accounts provide an account of the process of the resurrection itself. Therefore, apart from the empty tomb traditions, and testimonies of the women connected with this story, the appearances of Jesus to the disciples are the only other historical records of the resurrected Jesus. Craig writes that most doubters of the empty tomb are in error because they attempt to, “…explain only half of the evidence (namely, the empty tomb) and completely ignores the other half (that is, the appearances). A second hypothesis to explain must be added. But if explanatory scope is the criterion for preferring one hypothesis to another, then the resurrection... is to be preferred.” Therefore, if we are to look to accounts of the appearances of Jesus, we should look to Paul’s works, and particularly Corinthians.

The age of Paul’s accounts greatly strengthens the historicity of the appearances of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15 most likely dates back to within 5 years of the crucifixion, and this fact seems to exclude the possibility of legendary content within Paul’s writings. Paul also was able to directly speak to James, and Peter the chief disciple. Indeed Paul writes, “…Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died” (1 Cor. 15:6). The appearances are most likely historically reliable, because Paul was able to speak directly to two close friends of Jesus, to whom He appeared, and also as Paul was able to question the majority of the 500 people Jesus also appeared to. Craig quotes Norman Perrin who writes, “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” He follows this by quoting Wolfgang Trilling who point out that,

“…the totality of the miracle reports permit no reasonable doubt that Jesus in fact performed ‘miracles.’ That holds analogously to the appearance reports. It is not possible to secure historically the particular event. But the totality of the appearance reports permits no reasonable doubt that Jesus in fact bore witness to himself in such a way”

The fact that there were living witnesses at the time of Paul’s recordings also would prevent legendary details from creeping into peoples’ accounts. Craig suggests that because, “The witnesses listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15 continued to live and move in the early community…[they would]…exercise a control on the appearance traditions.” Furthermore, in defending the historicity of Corinthians by refuting the possible inclusion of legendary details, Craig writes that,

“Since the apostles were the guardians of the Jesus tradition, it would have been difficult for fictitious appearance stories incompatible with the apostles’ own experience to arise and flourish so long as they were alive, or for the true story to be supplanted by a false.”

These factors strongly support the view that the traditions that are the foundations of the gospel appearance accounts are not legendary material, therefore ensuring the historicity of the records. However, Craig points out that some appearance narratives are more historically reliable than others – For example the accounts of the women Jesus appeared to would be incredible in Paul’s era, and the appearance to Paul, who experienced Jesus first-hand and later died for his beliefs in the resurrected Christ.

However, it is also important to stress that the bodily resurrection of Christ took place. Luke 24:36-43 is a pivotal passage,

“…Jesus himself stood among them and said… ‘Why are you frightened...Look at my hands and my feet…Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet…”

Critics often pass the appearances off as visions or hallucinations, but it is important to realize that the disciples were not expecting Christ to rise from the dead. There was no concept in Judaism of the Messiah physically rising from the dead with a body they could touch and interact with. The records in the gospels also do not show the kind of vagueness that makes up a vision. They could recall and explain it clearly. Indeed when Paul writes of his 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (2 Cor. 12.1-7) he does not include Jesus' appearance to him - The historicity of the bodily resurrection and appearance of Jesus seems to be intact.

Thus, both the empty tomb tradition and the bodily resurrection of Christ are fundamental dogmas in the Church. Harking back to 1 Corinthians 15:14, faith is indeed futile if Christ has not been raised, for without the resurrection there is no atonement if Christ did not rise and the general resurrection of the dead, which was anticipated by Jesus’ resurrection, is denied. David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham, rejected the empty tomb tradition, stating that Jesus both rose from the dead and was in his grave. But the empty tomb acts as a ‘trophy of God’s victory’ and points towards God’s commitment to the redemption of mankind. Although scholars such as Marxsen have questioned the historicity of the empty tomb and the appearances, Craig has provided strong arguments for the historicity of these traditions. Marxsen asks at one point, “...are the texts concerned to give information about the mode of Jesus’ resurrection? Or are they primarily assertions of faith?” But the strength of Craig is that he is sympathetic to the notion that the historicity of the Gospels and of Paul’s work, are tied with both of these factors – not simply one of them. These writers are writing from a position of faith and in a time where tradition is a highly significant part of life, while also faithfully recording the stories about Jesus.

[2737 words]

Bibliography:

1. G. Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament. Moody Press, 1996.

2. S. Coakley, ‘Is the Resurrection a Historical Event?’ as found in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ / edited by Paul Avis.  London : Darton, Longman & Todd, 1993.

3. W. L. Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 16), Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press 1989

4. W. L. Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" June 16, 1998.

5. W. L. Craig, In Defense of Miracles, Ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, InterVarsity Press 1997.

6. W. Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, ET, London: SCM 1970.

7. N. Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Augsburg Fortress Publishers 1977.

8. W. Trilling, Fragen zur Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, Patmos 1967.

9. ‘Does Archaeology Support the Bible’, .

---