A Query on the Resurrection, by Anton Thorn

A Query on the Resurrection

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."

- Paul, I Corinthians 15:14

The following is a slightly edited version of a response I prepared to a challenge which one of my readers sent to me in January, 2001. This challenge was for me to disprove the resurrection of Jesus. While I do not accept any special obligation to bear this onus (one has no obligation to prove negative claims, or to disprove the positive claims which others make), I nonetheless had many points to make in regard to it. Primarily, one fact that is an insurmountable challenge to the Christian faith is the fact that no one can prove that the resurrection in question actually happened. Certainly, numerous attempts have been published throughout history, and, granting certain questionable assumptions, many of those attempts sound convincing. However, the very fact that those attempts rely on questionable assumptions is inescapable and certainly destructive to their overall arguments.

My basic approach to this challenge is not to "disprove" per se the resurrection, but to give good reasons why it is not reasonable to believe it genuinely happened. First, I explain on sound philosophical principles - principles which believers themselves must assume even in order to dispute them - why I reject any claim to the miraculous. This reason alone is sufficient for me to consider the resurrection story false. Second, I consider many of the details of the resurrection story itself while examining a number of theories posited as alternatives to a genuine resurrection. Many of these points, while some are indeed stronger than others, will expose many of the weaknesses of the case for the genuineness of the resurrection story. Third, I chew on the question of whether or not the story of Jesus' resurrection could be a myth. And lastly, I explain why the story of Jesus' alleged resurrection, assuming it could be proven to be true, would not matter to me anyway, so attempting to prove it to me is moot regardless.

With these opening remarks in mind, let us now turn to my comments.

* *

January 21, 2001

Dear ____,

Thanks so much for your e-mail. I loved your questions, and enjoyed responding to them. The following responses to your points, and to many other points which I grabbed from Christian websites which deal with the issue of Jesus' resurrection, will provide the basic reasons why I consider the claim of Jesus' resurrection to be a falsehood.

The centrality of Jesus' alleged resurrection to Christianity proper cannot be disputed. It is, as the above quote from Christianity's founder suggests, the very focal point of Christian theistic belief and the issue which is thought to lend Christian philosophy its overall validity. Therefore, I am more than pleased to examine this issue, given its importance to the Christian worldview.

Because of the length of this (rough) essay, I have divided it into the following sections, accessible by internal hyperlinks:

Preliminaries
On the validity of the notion 'miracle'
Relevant Sources to Consult
Anti-Supernatural Bias?
The Swoon Theory of the Resurrection
Some Christian Defenses Reviewed
1. Discounting Reality in Favor of Imagination
2. Keathley's Carelessness
3. One Lawyer's Indulgence in Lawless Reasoning
The Wrong Tomb Theory
The Stolen Body Theory
Bonus Question: Could the resurrection have been a myth?
Christianity as opposed to mythology?
Eyewitnesses?
A personal challenge to you
No Contemporary Debunkers?
Counter-Evidence Lacking?
On Myths, Women and Credibilty
So What?

Preliminaries:

In a message titled "I'm sure you get plenty of challenges on your atheism, but humor a child" (dated 17 Jan 2001), Mr. ____ writes:

I recently encountered objectivism on a website I frequent, and so I did a search on it and came across your site.

Thorn:

Thank you, Mr. ____. I'm pleased to hear from you. If you can recall, what search engine did you use, and what keyword(s) did you use to find my site?

Mr. ____ writes:

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs, but you also seem quite dedicated to convincing us of them.

Thorn:

Throughout virtually all of my adult life and a good portion of my youth, men and women whom I have known have been quite dedicated to convincing me of their mythical claims about persons walking the earth 2000+ years ago. Not only do they expect me to buy into their self-reinforcing schemes of delusion (cf. Edmund D. Cohen, The Mind of the Bible-Believer, et al.), they also expect me to sacrifice my life, my reason and my happiness as a result. If I am "entitled to [my] beliefs," I shall not thank Christianity for this right.

Mr. ____ writes:

personally, I am a protestant Christian. on your website I've found a number of arguments against religion, god belief, etc. including a section criticizing the myths that spring up around religion, relying on people abandoning logic. I then have a request for you. Disprove to me, conclusively, the resurrection of Jesus.

Thorn:

Excuse me? "Disprove" to you the alleged resurrection of Jesus? Why should I need to do this? It is not my claim that Jesus was resurrected from his grave, so I see no burden of proof on my part. One is not called to prove negative claims; on the contrary, the burden of proof is on those who assert the positive (e.g., "Jesus was resurrected…"). Seeing that no one's been able to prove that Jesus was "resurrected," I see no reason why one should have to bother with disproving it.

If it is your claim that Jesus did exist, was crucified, did die on the cross, and resurrected himself from the dead, then you bear the onus of proving each of these claims. I bear no onus to disprove them per se. My choice not to accept these claims as truth is just as valid and justified as your rejection of elves, brownies and gremlins. "I don't believe in god because I don't believe in mother goose," wrote Clarence Darrow.

On the validity of the notion 'miracle':

Mr. ____ writes:

Scrutinize it as you have so scrutinized religion. apply your logic to it.

Thorn:

What is the foundation of logic? According to Objectivism, the foundation of logic is the law of identity. A is A. The law of identity according to this philosophy is not some academic quodlibet whose only use is to inspire debates over non-essential, non-real issues (which seems to be the assumption among many academics these days). Nor is the law of identity some "analytic truth" which man knows innately, either through some kind of divine revelation or inborn knowledge (cf. Platonism, rationalism). The law of identity is not some freely floating datum which has no reference to objective reality.

Rather, according to Objectivism, the law of identity is the foundation of our reasoning, of our ability to identify the facts of reality. The basis of the law of identity is the fact that existence exists, the fact that to exist is to be something, that for A to exist, it must be A. This is preliminary to our course of reasoning, and must be identified explicitly before we can achieve certainty in the rest of our cognition. In atheology, I call this "arguing from the fact of existence." The fact that existence exists, i.e., the fact that something exists rather than nothing, is undeniable, irreducible, and therefore primary and axiomatic. The fact that existence exists is identified explicitly by Objectivism as the foundation to all cognition, and therefore to all philosophy.

When someone asks us to accept his miracle claims as true of reality, claims for which he has only hearsay as "proof" and "faith" as "evidence," he is asking us to reject the law of identity. He is asking us to accept that A can magically become non-A, or that A can perform the action of non-A, simply because it was imperatively willed by some universe-ruling form of consciousness. But in reality, the law of identity is absolute; it does not depend on the functions of consciousness, human or divine. In Objectivism, we hold that existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness; that is, because consciousness is consciousness of something, there can be no consciousness unless there is something to be conscious of, i.e., something which exists.

I reject the 'miraculous' (and therefore claims which posit miracle events) not only because it is literally nonsense, but because it contradicts what we do know (i.e., knowledge which has been validated) about reality, that existence exists independent of consciousness, that A is A, regardless of who accepts it, likes it, rejects it or is angered by it. So on firm philosophical grounds, contrary to the appeasing posture assumed by non-Objectivist atheologists, I reject the entire notion of 'miracle' when it is intended to refer to some kind of supernatural interruption of the laws of nature. And as an Objectivist, I do this on grounds which every theist must assume even to take issue with me on this matter.

If one makes the assertion that 'miracle' does not constitute a violation of natural laws, then alleged miracle events can be explainable on the basis of natural law, and thus appeals to the supernatural are unjustified. Apologists may also claim that one must be "omniscient" to rule out the supposed plausibility of alleged miracles. But the non-theist can use this strategy against the apologist: defenders of miracles would have to have exhaustive knowledge of the laws of nature and the identity of entities before they can rule out an alleged event's conformity with natural law. And if they do not have this exhaustive knowledge of the laws of nature and the identity of entities, then how do they know that an event suspended natural law in order to take place? Quite simply, the appeal to supernaturalism is always premature and objectively unjustified.

And finally, see my Dialogue on Induction to see how acceptance of the notion of miracle confounds one's ability to achieve certainty in knowledge. Either way you look at it, miracle-belief is irrational.

Relevant Sources to Consult:

Furthermore, for me to attempt a partial or even full analysis of the resurrection myth of the New Testament, I would likely be duplicating some splendid work which already exists. My efforts, I'm afraid, would be superfluous at best in this regard. For material that is available online, I highly recommend the work of Richard Carrier. He has written extensively on the resurrection myth, and I believe his work alone answers virtually all the of the arguments for the alleged historical truth of Jesus' resurrection. See the index to his monumental Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story.

Preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker engaged in a debate with believer Michael Horner on the question of Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?

Barker has also offered believers in the resurrection an Easter Challenge in his book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992; cf. pp. 178-184). If you are a believer in the resurrection of Jesus, see if you can take Barker's Easter Challenge.

In the Geisler-Till debate, preacher-turned-atheist Farrell Till takes on mega-apologist Norman Geisler on the issue of the resurrection story.

Atheologist Steven Carr takes on the resurrection tale.

Robert Price has also chimed in on this issue.

Wes Morriston and Dave Horner have also butted heads on the validity of the resurrection myth in a debate.

And of course, you can read some of my own thoughts on the idea of the very historicity of Jesus. This essay is the first of my Letters to a Young Atheologist which I also recommend.

Offline, you can consult the following texts if they are available to you:

McCabe, Joseph, The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993), 168 pages. (I must mention, there are many things that McCabe stood for philosophically with which I as an Objectivist do not agree; however, his examination of the resurrection myth is quite commendable.)

Michael Martin chapter 3: "The Resurrection," The Case Against Christianity, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), pp. 73-104. In fact, on pages 87-96, Martin takes on pop apologist Gary Habermas' defense of the resurrection from his debate with skeptic Antony Flew. Martin notes that Habermas' defense of the resurrection numbers among the most sophisticated defenses offered by Christian apologists for the resurrection. So if Habermas' defense of the resurrection does not withstand criticism, reasons Martin, then there is good reason to expect less sophisticated defenses to fail as well.

Feuerbach, Ludwig, The Essence of Christianity, trans. George Eliot, (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989), pp. 135-139.

Certainly, there are plenty more sources I could cite either directly or tangentially related to the issues of the gospel resurrection myth. However, if you have already exhausted these sources and have objections to their arguments against the resurrection tales, let me know what they are. I'm curious of what you think.

Anti-Supernatural Bias?

Mr. ____ writes:

I would warn you that many have come to Christianity because they were not able to explain it away, but based on what you say, he clearly could not have been resurrected.

Thorn:

So far, men over the ages have surrendered their minds to primitive philosophy because they did not have a rational philosophy to protect them from such foolishness. Now we do. Now we have Objectivism.

If one wants to call this "anti-supernatural bias," that is acceptable. After all, those who insist on the validity of their supernatural claims share an anti-reality bias.

I think John Burton makes a splendid point when he writes:

Conclusions about alleged supernatural entities are based on mysticism, which is intentionally nonrational. The word "bias" implies the inappropriate rejection of an assertion due to nonrational factors, for instance a prior irrevocable commitment to an opposing viewpoint. Supernaturalism is therefore founded upon bias and would not exist without it. If one recognizes this and wishes to avoid bias, one must therefore reject supernaturalism. (Quoted from this feedback article.)

I agree. It is true that notions and claims "about alleged supernatural entities are based on mysticism, which is intentionally nonrational." That is why the Bible makes its pumps for 'faith', which is the acceptance of allegations without evidence, rather than for reason, which is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." (Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 22.) Mystic and subjectivist philosophers have always attempted to destroy men's confidence in their senses and to replace that confidence with nonsense. Such philosophers are the handmaidens of religion.

Imagine claiming the power to make any claim and say it's true because you claim that it was revealed to you by a source beyond "this reality." It's true "just because" and one should accept this as knowledge because he "just knows." No concern for a genuine, rational and honest means of knowledge; "if the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" as some believers have ejaculated. If that's the case, why did the God of the Bible create men with minds? It seems this being wants robots which blindly obey commands unquestioningly, not men with minds who study the facts of reality and deal with them on reality's terms.

Mr. ____ writes:

If you were able to clearly disprove it, Christianity falls to pieces. if you disprove it, then the founder of the religion lied, and there is no life after death. now, there are some theories. if you don't agree with them, skip them. I'll try not to waste too much of your time. I am, admittedly, very much aided by Christian literature.

Thorn:

Well, obviously the facts of reality disprove it. What else does one need? And to what else can one appeal except the facts of reality? I know many believers who have been shown repeatedly numerous arguments and facts in reality which fly against their god-beliefs. Yet still they find some way to rationalize the persistence of their self-delusion.

The Swoon Theory of the Resurrection:

Mr. ____ writes:

The Swoon theory: The theory that Jesus did not actually die but rather fainted, then was aroused in the tomb: How? if the theory is true, how did Jesus do it? how did he survive the scourging, the spear in the side, the nails in his limbs, the unnatural position of the cross and the untended wounds? how did he roll back the stone? How did he get past the guards, who faced death if they failed to guard him and were trained roman soldiers? and if he overcame all that, how did he appear on the countryside and convince hundreds of people that he was conqueror over death and prince of life?

Thorn:

There are a lot of assumptions here which you place as artificial hurdles against non-belief. But even with these assumptions intact, one can still make an excellent case for some version of the "swoon theory." Even if we take into account all the events recorded in the four gospels leading up to Jesus' alleged resurrection, as well as those following his alleged resurrection, we can see that rejection of the resurrection tale as we are expected to believe it is far more rational than believing that a "god-man" (whatever that is) literally died and literally raised himself from the dead.

You assume as a certainty that Jesus' body was actually placed in the sepulchre. This is questionable. We have no eyewitness reports of this. All we have is the gospel "records," which were written anonymously decades after the alleged events in question. You ask how all this could have been accomplished. From the details provided by the gospels, I see no reason why we should dismiss out of hand the plausibility of a conspiracy. Who was this character Joseph of Arimathaea, and what was his interest in Jesus? The Bible tells us very little about this man, except that he was wealthy and thought to be a disciple of Jesus (Matt. 27:57; John 19:38), an "honorable counsellor" (Mark 15:43; cf. Luke 23:50) and that he took possession of the (supposedly dead) body of Jesus after he was brought down from the cross. (Matt. 27:59-60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:38) What did Joseph do with the body in the meantime? It could very well be the case that Jesus and Joseph had this planned all along, and that Jesus' body never made it into the sepulchre to begin with!

We are told that Jesus' body was put into the sepulchre by Joseph of Arimathaea, but this testimony is clearly secondhand hearsay at best. The gospel writers themselves do not claim to be eyewitnesses of this. Matthew (27:61; cf. Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55) claims that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" were "sitting over against the sepulchre," witnessing Joseph put Jesus' (now supposedly dead) body into it. But where are their testimonials? Why do we not have some account from the hand of one or the other Mary to support Matthew's claim? Indeed, how can Matthew's claim be supported at all, if we recognize that it is based on hearsay? It could very easily be the case that both Matthew and Luke were trying to improve upon Mark's gospel, and simply copied certain portions of the latter. (Direct and verbatim copying is not unheard of in the Bible. See for instance II Chronicles 36:22-23, which is repeated in Ezra 1:1-3. There are many more such examples of this.)

So far as Jesus surviving his wounds leading up to and including his crucifixion, this is not hard to believe (certainly a lot more easy to believe, and less contradictory to the laws of nature than believing that Jesus was actually Jehovah-god in the flesh raising himself from the dead!). A non-believing lawyer named David hosts a website, Arguments Against Christianity, featuring his own essays on atheism. He has an article on this particular matter called Did Jesus Really Die on the Cross? I think it's quite interesting to say the least. He believes that the key to all of this lie in a few easily downplayed details:

Jesus' crucifixion lasted between 3-6 hours (when most crucifixions lasted 3-6 days before death)

Jesus avoided a real crucifixion;

Jesus' wounds were not necessarily life-threatening;

Jesus' body was left intact;

The mysterious sponge mentioned in the gospels just before Jesus allegedly "gives up the ghost." (See Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:29) How could any of the gospel writers know what was soaked into this mysterious sponge? They each claim it was vinegar, but how could they know this? Even if we assume that the gospel writers themselves witnessed Jesus' crucifixion (and there's no good reason why we should), would they have gone up to the fellow who put the sponge to Jesus' lips and asked what was in the sponge? Perhaps the sponge was filled with vinegar; but that does not preclude it from being filled with other substances as well. It could very well be the case that this mysterious sponge was laced with OPIUM. (How do you disprove this?) Opium was available in Palestine in these days, and Jesus could very well easily have procured it. (Indeed, for all we know, Joseph of Arimathaea - a wealthy man of means - could have been a salesman of this substance! How do you disprove this?)

Also, do we have a physician's report documenting the cause and time of death? No, we do not. We have the assumption that the Roman guards on duty at the time (anonymous individuals, mind you) were proficient at distinguishing death from coma or drug-induced sleep. But what justifies this assumption? Blank out.

Furthermore, the gospels themselves admit (see Mark 15:39 and John 19:33) that those attending Jesus' crucifixion assumed he was dead before they even took him down from the cross and had a chance to examine him! It is amazing to fathom this, that a man's death can be determined from a distance of quite possibly a few yards. I would hope that today's physicians would be more careful than this!

Some Christian Defenses Reviewed:

There are a number of web-based articles which attempt to criticize or "refute" the so-called "swoon" and other theories of the resurrection myth which conflict with church dogma. Let's look at a few of these pro-Christian sites and see what they have to offer on these matters.

1. Discounting Reality in Favor of Imagination:

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: A Challenge for Skeptics

The above article offers five possible alternatives:

Jesus died --- Jesus rose ------------------------------- (1) Christianity

Jesus didn't rise --- the apostles were deceived --- (2) Hallucination

the apostles were myth-makers --- (3) Myth

the apostles were deceivers --- (4) Conspiracy

Jesus didn't die ------------------------------------------- (5) Swoon

Defenders of the Christian religion, of course, expect men to discount alternatives (2)-(5) and to accept the supernaturalism entailed in alternative (1). However, when do defenders of the Christian religion demonstrate the truth of their supernatural claims? The answer: Never.

So, here's a personal challenge to any believers who care to take me up. If you believe if with all your mind, all your heart and all your soul, that a supernatural being exists and that your prayer to him will accomplish results, then here's a challenge. Matthew 17:20 has Jesus tell his disciples, "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, 'Remove hence to yonder place'; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you." This is quite a claim indeed! Luke 17:6 has Jesus offer a similar claim: "If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, 'Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea'; and it should obey you." If this kind of primacy of consciousness over existence were a reality, it would make many things in life so much easier, wouldn't it? But we never see a demonstration of objects in reality responding directly to one's wishes like this. Mountains and trees are not conscious beings, and therefore cannot obey our wishes by understanding us. So it must be some supernatural causality that Jesus has in mind here. Now, if you believe this is true, then can you demonstrate it?

I would not ask for believers to remove mountains; this might disrupt too many lives. Nor would I recommend they attempt to cast defenseless trees into the sea. This seems rather unkind. But a small feat of the supernatural, one which does not remove mountains and forests and thereby necessitating the re-routing of interstate freeways and power lines, might be an acceptable alternative to these. So here's my challenge: I have a small stone which sits on my window sill. It is quite dense, weighing at least 12 ounces, and is smooth and rounded. I use it to keep the shade close to the window when the window is open and the breeze is moving against the shade. Of course, it serves no purpose now because it is the middle of January, and the window will not be open for a matter of months at this point (it's been pretty chilly as of late).

Assuming you, the believer, have any influence on the supernatural ("And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" - Matt. 21:22), then it should be no large task to command this little stone to suspend itself in my room, about eye level, for a period of no less than 24 hours, in a prominent location, where my head will smack into it if I were to walk through normally. This shouldn't be so difficult, especially if you have "faith as a grain of mustard seed."

But I imagine there is some reason why this will not happen, and most likely believers refusing to accept my challenge will try to blame the failure of their faith in the supernatural on those who do not believe. Meanwhile, I will go on with my life, enjoying it according to my terms, not the priests' and the mystics'. The retreat to the belief in the supernatural is motivated not only by the desire that reality obey the mystic's wishes, but that other men obey them too.

2. Keathley's Carelessness:

Here's another page which claims to disprove some False Theories Against the Resurrection of Christ, this one written by J. Hampton Keathley.

In this article, Keathley identifies six (6) theories of the gospel resurrection story contrary to the dogmatic belief of (non-heretical) Christianity. Those theories are:

The "swoon" or "resuscitation theory";

The "hallucination theory";

The "impersonation theory";

The "spiritual resurrection theory" (as opposed to the bodily resurrection of "non-heretical Christianity";

The "theft theory";

The "unknown tomb" theory

For each of these alternative theories respectively, Keathley offers both a definition and his refutation. What he leaves out are the arguments which critics may use to support any of these alternative theories. He also fails to reference any material provided by critics of the Christian view or defenders of alternative scenarios.

One may say that Keathley and other apologists have no obligation per se to cite sources which contradict their intended conclusions. I agree, they are free to conduct his "scholarship" as they see fit. But what do they fear? If everything they stand for is so "true," then why do they lack the confidence of engaging the defenses of alternative theories which they pretend do not exist? It's very easy to destroy a cornered target, a target without any support or protection, with little or no substance. And many believers will not notice the vacuity of Keathley's and similar apologetic treatments which fail to give the "other side" a fair hearing. It is this kind of uncritical use of the mental faculty which such beliefs not only foster in believers, but demands from them absolutely and unquestioningly.

3. One Lawyer's Indulgence in Lawless Reasoning:

In A Lawyer Examines the Swoon Theory, there are a few curious statements which its author emphasizes. Let's look at some of them. (The very title of this page seems to want to put the author in a position of special authority because he's a lawyer - or claims to be. But the author's day job is irrelevant to the validity of his arguments. As we saw above, it is possible that lawyers may in fact see that the case for the resurrection is extremely weak at best.)

For instance, he writes:

Roman executioners knew how to tell when their victims were dead!

How does this "lawyer" know this? Did he know every Roman executioner? I don't doubt that this was the norm. But just because it was the case in general that "Roman executioners knew how to tell when their victims were dead," does this mean that there were never any slip-ups? Can this "lawyer" prove that no Roman executioners ever took a bribe to enable his victims' escape?

Or, is it possible that the executioner on duty the day that Jesus was crucified was a novice and not an expert? How does this "lawyer" know that this was not the case? If this is at all a possibility, then there is room for doubt in regard to the pertinence of this "lawyer's" claim.

Could it be that the executioner on duty the day Jesus was crucified was paid off in a conspiracy to allow Jesus live through the crucifixion process? How does this "lawyer" know that this did not happen? Was he there? If this is at all a possibility, then there is room for doubt in regard to this claim.

Is it possible that the executioner on duty the day Jesus was crucified was off duty when it came time to take Jesus down from the cross, and thus not present to ensure Jesus had died? How does this "lawyer" know that this was not the case? If this is at all even a remote possibility, then the above claim is moot.

Can one rule out the possibility that those on duty towards the last hour or so of Jesus' crucifixion were little better than teenage recruits assigned to no-brainer guard duty, and simply could not tell the difference between a dead man and a man in a drug-induced coma-like state? Does this "lawyer" know that all guards on duty that fateful day (assuming any of this even happened to begin with) could tell the difference between death and drug-induced coma-like states? Could it be that the so-called "expert executioners" could not tell the difference between a legitimately dead man and a man in a drug-induced state of unconsciousness? If there's at least a remote possibility of this, then there is reasonable doubt contrary to the above claim.

Inability to determine the certainty of death before the development of modern forensic medicine was a fact of life in primitive or less scientific times. For instance, as late as the 17^th century (much later than the days of the gospel writers and Roman executioners), many people were unmistakably diagnosed as deceased when in fact they were simply suffering from a coma or extremely deep sleep. You've heard the expression "grave yard shift"? This phrase reportedly has its origin in the days when such misdiagnosis was so frequent that undertakers began tying a string between coffin occupants and a small bell located outside the grave so that, in the grim chance that someone were buried mistakenly, they could ring the bell when they woke up in the coffin. See this curious article for the origin of common phrases associated with this persistent problem.

Would the authors of the gospels know if this happened? The gospels were written decades after the alleged event in question. Do you really think they knew every detail of the circumstances? How would they know if they were not present at every point in the story? Were the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John present when "an angel of the Lord appeared" to Joseph in a dream (yes, IN A DREAM!) to tell him about Mary's unexpected pregnancy? (Cf. Matt. 1:18-20) If they were not present at this time, then their account is hearsay, not eyewitness testimony. Likewise, were either of the authors of the gospels present when the Roman executioners took Jesus down from the cross to make certain that they were not mistaken when they wrote that Jesus "gave up the ghost" while still on the cross? (Cf. Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30) If neither author were present for this, how can we consider their account so reliable?

Is it more intellectually responsible to assume that these events happened by intervention of supernatural forces, which have mysteriously disappeared in modern times, than to recognize that our leg is being pulled?

The "lawyer" also claims:

Jesus was stabbed in the side to ensure his death.

It very well could be that the purpose behind stabbing Jesus was to ensure death. But it is a non sequitur to argue that stabbing a crucifix victim automatically guarantees the results intended by this action. Quite simply, such claims beg the question if offered without tangible evidence (and what tangible evidence do we have today? The Shroud of Turin??). Many claim that the spear piercing Jesus' side penetrated his heart, but how does one prove this claim? The Bible itself states that water came gushing out of the wound. This sounds like Jesus' stomach was pierced, not his heart. Quite certainly, this claim is asserted prematurely and arguments in favor of it which do not take into consideration legitimately considerable possibilities are inconclusive.

The "lawyer" reasons:

Roman custom required stabbing under Jesus' circumstances. It wasn't a coincidence.

So what? See above.

Here's my favorite:

If you seriously examine what the swoon theory requires, you'd have to be an absolute idiot to still consider it possible.

And I have to be exactly WHAT to believe that a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness exists, and that after he incarnated himself in the fleshly guise of man and orchestrated complicated human events to allow himself to be crucified to death and later resurrected himself from the dead (even though this being is supposedly immortal)? I have to be an "idiot" to put a few pieces together and come up with a resolution which does NOT contradict the laws of nature? What idiot wrote this? Does he realize what he is asking me to believe instead? Talk about context-dropping!

Then, after insulting the intelligence of his readers, this "lawyer" writes:

Despite being beaten and stabbed, despite internal hemorrhaging, despite having had no food or water, Jesus somehow recovers from His coma by natural means, not by a miracle!

This is not unheard of. If the catatonic state of the crucifixion victim were drug-induced, we call this process "coming down." Modern police records are rife with examples of this. Some men are naturally quite rugged, and even more so when intoxicated on certain substances.

And finally, the "lawyer" amuses himself with the following:

Jesus feels His way around the tomb and finds the stone door… Jesus manages to push the heavy stone door to the side even though there is nothing to grab onto on the inside surface of the stone. [How does this "lawyer" know this?] (The stone was slid into a groove. Hence, it has to be moved sideways, not simply out.)… Even in His weakened condition, in a quiet private cemetery, Jesus manages to push back the stone door without any of the guards noticing!… Why go half-way? Jesus has been whipped, beaten and stabbed, is hemorrhaging, and hasn't had any food or drink for at least three days. Does He just push the stone open enough to squeeze through? No, He pushes the stone door COMPLETELY out of the way!!!

None of this conjecture would be necessary if one grants even the remotest possibility to the potential conspiracy involving Joseph of Arimathaea. If Joseph took possession of Jesus' body as the gospel tales relate, it is quite possible that Jesus never made it into a sepulchre, but was instead nursed out of his drug-induced catatonic state in the luxury of Joseph's home. Would Joseph publicize Jesus' recuperation? Of course not. Is this possible? Why not?

This "lawyer" [sic] even admits that Mark 15:44 has Pilate amazed that Jesus was already thought to be dead: "And Pilate marvelled if [Jesus] were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead."

In the next verse, Mark 15:45, we read: "And when he knew it [Pilate] of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph [of Arimathaea]." Even here, we see the transmission of *hearsay* as the message of Jesus' *assumed* death was spread among those involved in decisive factors of the drama. Crucifixion was a long, drawn-out means of execution; it was not meant to last only one afternoon. And Pilate probably knew this (we can infer this from the passage I just cited). I could imagine Pilate's conversation with the centurion:

Centurion: "This man has come for the body of the king of the Jews." [motions toward Joseph of Arimathaea]

Pilate: "What body? You mean he's already dead? Are you sure? The guy's only been up there a few hours!"

Centurions: "They are taking the body down now. The guards swear to me that he is dead."

Pilate: "That’s unheard of! He was just in here a few hours ago offering silence to my questions! Very well, then, if he's dead, give the body to whomever. I don't care."

And off the centurion goes to hand the body over to Joseph of Arimathaea. Little do the centurion and Pilate know that the guards who were pulling Jesus down from the cross may still have been alive! Again, we have no physician's report certifying death! We have nothing that comes close to so official a word on this matter. All we have are the writings of a few anonymous writers who were clearly sympathetic to the outcome of the story, a story which was written decades after the event in question.

In The Myth of the Resurrection, McCabe writes in the chapter titled "The Fiction of the Gospels,"

If the historicity of Jesus is so very certain, there must be some quite indisputable witnesses to it. Who are they?… Who wrote the Gospels? They are entitled "According to Matthew," etc., not "by Matthew," etc., in the oldest Greek manuscripts and in early references to them… even if they professed to be written by Matthew, etc., it would not follow that they were… [And in the case of Luke, who some authorities think may have actually authored the gospel bearing his name], [h]e is, he says, [i, 1-3], writing down for a friend, as "many" others have done before him, and account of what they have *heard* about Jesus. [pp. 77-78.]

What does Luke 1:1-3 say? Let's look:

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; [3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.

McCabe is certainly correct; Luke's own gospel, assuming authentic Lukan authorship, admits that it is secondhand information at best. What are Luke's sources? We are not told. We are simply told that the story is "most surely believed among" his crowd. But no one disputes this; I do not dispute that many people in 1^st century Palestine "surely believed" a lot of things which people today, both Christian and non-Christian, would not believe for a moment. But where did Luke get the story he tells? Blank out. He claims that his sources were eyewitnesses, but how can one verify this? We are not given names, nor does he refer to any other writings, extant or lost in the centuries, which document his story. We find this problem afflicting all the gospel narratives.

The Wrong Tome Theory:

Mr. ____ writes:

The wrong tomb theory: Theory that those who declared him to be risen went to the wrong tomb: I could go into this one, but for the sake of time. Jesus caused the Jews and the Romans all sorts of trouble. if the women had found the wrong tomb and declared Jesus risen, the authorities could simply have gone to the real tomb, taken the body, strung it up in the center of the city, and forever quenched all rumors of Jesus' resurrection.

Thorn:

Well, if Jesus never died on the cross, but was taken by Joseph to be nursed back to health (how do you prove that this did NOT happen?), never having been placed into the sepulchre, then why would we need the wrong tomb theory? I'm quite satisfied with the recognition that the entire gospel yarn is complete fiction, or at best an elaborated and embellished semi-history of some local personality we now call Jesus.

The Stolen Body Theory:

Mr. ____ writes:

Stolen body theory: the theory that Jesus' body was stolen from the tomb?: This one's even mentioned in the bible. Again, there is the stone and there are the soldiers. The tomb, recall, was guarded by roman soldiers, a guard like that had 14 to 16 men in it, the soldiers that spread Rome over the world. these soldiers were trained to be able to hold 30-some yards against an entire battalion. The disciples, most certainly not models of bravery before, would have either had to sneak by them and move a massive stone *in full view of the awake members of the guard* or battle their way past them. a difficult feat by any standards. if they had somehow succeeded in overcoming the guard, why? why would they suffer all that they did suffer, torture and death, in the name of a false cause. Why risk so much and ruin their lives for a lie they knew to be one?

Thorn:

The stolen body theory as you detail it here certainly assumes that [a] Jesus died, and [b] Jesus' body was placed into a tomb. How do you prove these questionable assumptions? We've already seen above that neither assumption is necessitated without the possibility of exception by the details provided by the gospels, so this point seems quite moot. If you appeal to the New Testament gospel accounts as 'evidence', you beg the question, for these sources simply make the same claim you are called to prove. Indeed, it is this claim itself which is suspect, not only its sources. If you have no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, then be honest and simply admit it. Besides, how could you disprove a variation of the stolen body theory which posits a secret door in the back of the sepulchre which the gospel writers did not know about? I don't consider this a genuine possibility (it lacks evidence, just as do the gospel claims themselves), but how would one go about proving there was no such secret door that conspirators could have used to escape with Jesus' body?

Bonus question: Could the resurrection have been a myth?

I call this a "bonus question" because it is one which you did not ask in your message to me, but which I'm certainly willing to entertain. Consider it a gratuity.

From David's Christian Page, we find the following response to the question "Could the resurrection have been a myth?":

No, it could not have been something as simple as a myth... It's true that myths are often spread as the truth, but you will notice that those who swear the myth to be true never claim to be eyewitnesses. It's usually something they have heard from a friend of a friend, or from some media source that they can't quite remember. With the resurrection, those telling the story claimed to be EYEWITNESSES, and the story was being widely spread very soon after the events, when others able to easily debunk the myth could easily have done so. The evidence shows that while some believe it didn't happen, no one could offer any evidence against the eyewitnesses' testimonies. The resurrection has none of the characteristics of a myth. It was either the most elaborate and cruel hoax of all time, or it was the truth. And I think I have already shown that it is very unlikely to have been a hoax.

It would be better for apologists not to even bring up issues like eyewitnesses and "evidence," for their own arguments have a way of coming back and biting them in the you-know-what quite hard. Let's analyze this a bit.

In response to the question, "Could the resurrection have been a myth?" the author says point blank, "No, it could not have been something as simple as a myth." So immediately we know what his position on the question at issue is from the start, which is predictable given the nature of the website.

Christianity as opposed to mythology?

He states that "It's true that myths are often spread as the truth, but you will notice that those who swear the myth to be true never claim to be eyewitnesses." Does this mean that all people who "swear" that the resurrection is true are eyewitnesses? Surely not! If the event in question is alleged to have happened some 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades, then it is not the case that anyone who "swears" in defense of the supposed truth of the resurrection is an eyewitness of the event in question. Any would-be eyewitnesses would be long dead by now, and I mean long dead. So already there's some suspiciousness to this author's argument.

Next he says, "It's usually something they have heard from a friend of a friend, or from some media source that they can't quite remember." Or read in a book? The point the author is trying to make here is that myths are usually passed about in the form of secondhand information, or more likely, gossip and fabrication. Indeed, I have no argument against this. And indeed, this applies to every Christian whom I've ever met, for, as I mentioned above, no person walking the earth alive today could have been an eyewitness of the event in question. So, any Christian walking the earth alive today could only have learned of these claims from a secondhand source, which is the Bible. Since no person alive today can rightly claim to have been an eyewitness of the event in question, no person alive today can rightfully claim to have learned of the event in question firsthand, and therefore cannot claim the authority of an eyewitness. So far, the author has not been able to distinguish his god-belief claims from the myths from which he would like to distance them. But let's read a bit further and see if he does gain some higher ground.

But the author's antagonism here against the idea that Christianity has a mythic nature is obvious. We shall see below that his assumption that Christianity is based on eyewitness testimony is unfounded. But what is a 'myth'? The author does not explore this matter very deeply, so let's help him out. According to Bernard Doyle's essay Mythology, a 'myth' is "a story of forgotten or vague origin, basically religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a society." Does Christianity have a "forgotten or vague" origin? Certainly, it does. We do know the name of the person who initiated Christianity's beginnings; his name was Paul and many of his writings have been preserved. But where did Paul get his ideas? Does Christianity attempt to "explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a society"? Indeed, it goes even farther than just this, it attempts to offer its believers a comprehensive view of reality and life (i.e., it attempts to serve as a systematic philosophy).

Several essays are available online which examine these issues:

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ by Acharya S.

By James Still:

The Search for the Historical Jesus

The Pre-Canonical Synoptic Transmission: Who Was the Historical Jesus?

The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus

The Formation of the New Testament Canon by Richard Carrier

Christ a Fiction by Robert Price

Historicity of Jesus FAQ by Scott Oser

Of course, no examination of this question would be complete without some review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

And from my own correspondence series Letters to a Young Atheologist, see in particular:

Letter 1: The Issue of the Historicity of Jesus

Letter 3: Regarding the Validity of the Bible

See other essays on my site for matters pertaining to the viability of Christianity as a form of philosophy.

"Furthermore," writes Doyle, "myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth." Doyle believes that his definition distinguishes between what he considers to qualify as myths and what may otherwise be just "any unreal or imaginary story." In other words, a myth does not attempt to offer the claim of some trivial event as true; rather, it attempts to offer something much more sophisticated, tales that can easily lend themselves to the foundations of philosophical doctrine.

Is Christianity mythic in nature? Indeed, I agree with my friend Dave who writes, "The appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion all read like Elvis sightings." This is so true.

Eyewitnesses?

Next, the author writes, "With the resurrection, those telling the story claimed to be EYEWITNESSES, and the story was being widely spread very soon after the events, when others able to easily debunk the myth could easily have done so." Well, we already know that Luke (1:1-4) discounts himself from the list of alleged eyewitnesses to the events recorded in the gospel attributed to him (see above). Where does either Matthew, Mark or John claim to be an eyewitness? How do we know that the real author of each gospel was the person to whom each gospel is respectively attributed? Each gospel has the title "The Gospel According to…." Either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. We have no independent confirmation of the authorship so claimed, nor do we even know who these people were, their credibility or character. Where there is no information, believers casually assume the least critical position in order to believe the contents in question. What justifies this? Blank out.

The author speaks of "EYEWITNESSES." But the gospels do not mention ONE PERSON who actually witnessed Jesus rising from the dead. Who is the "EYEWITNESS" of Jesus' resurrection itself? Supposedly Mary Magdalene witnessed Jesus' body being placed in the sepulchre (Mark 15:46-47). Where is Mary Magdalene's "EYEWITNESS" testimony? Or it was some other unnamed women (Luke 23:53-55). But where is their "EYEWITNESS" testimony? Or was it just Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus (John 19:38-42)? Do we have either of their "EYEWITNESS" testimonies? Hard to say who saw Jesus' body actually laid in sepulchre, assuming it was. But where are their testimonies?

So, not only do we not have any written records of those who are mentioned to be "EYEWITNESSES" of Jesus' body being laid in the sepulchre, we do not even have a single mentioning of any "EYEWITNESS" to the resurrection itself, even if we grant the most charitable reading of any of the gospel accounts. The gospels relate Jesus' body being placed within the sepulchre, and then we have various individuals (initially women, then later the male disciples [were the women also considered disciples?]), encountering the already-risen Jesus. According to the gospels themselves, the last Jesus is seen by anyone is when his body is being placed in the sepulchre. The next time he is seen he has already risen from the dead. WHO WITNESSED JESUS RISING FROM THE DEAD? EVEN ACCORDING TO THE GOSPELS, NO ONE WITNESSED THIS CRUCIAL, ALL-IMPORTANT AND ENTIRELY CENTRAL EVENT.

So, the author points to the importance of "EYEWITNESSES," but can point to NONE in the case of the central event in question itself. Indeed, no gospel account claims that anyone was present during this event. It supposedly happened in a tomb with ONE OCCUPANT and NO WITNESSES.

A personal challenge to you:

So, Mr. ____, in answer to your request to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, I offer you a counter-request: Can you name ONE PERSON who witnessed firsthand the event of Jesus' resurrection? Can you name ONE PERSON who was present in the tomb when Jesus' body, limp, cold and lifeless, suddenly revived and rejuvenated? Can you name ONE PERSON who was an EYEWITNESS to this event, the ONE EVENT upon which Paul himself holds as the single factor guaranteeing the validity of his preaching (I Corinthians 15:11-14)? If you don't want to take on my challenge, I understand.

But, if you can name such a person, who is this person, and where, if any, is his FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT recording this event, and why is it not included in the New Testament? If you cannot name this EYEWITNESS to the resurrection, then upon what is the Christian faith and its preaching based? The answer is: HEARSAY handed down anonymously and recorded and probably embellished according to a superstitious agenda.

So much for EYEWITNESSES. So much for the validity of the Christian "faith."

No Contemporary Debunkers?

As for "others able to easily debunk the myth could easily have done so," there are a few things to say. For one thing, this is somewhat tautological. But that does not make it wrong. Tautologies whose reference is to reality are not wrong. Also, some critics of this kind of defense often point out that a myth budding amongst so many other myths, as was rather fashionable among the primitive societies of first century Palestine, would probably have garnered little notice from those who would have otherwise taken the time and effort to "debunk" the one myth in question. So we may not be justified in expecting writings intent on debunking the early Christian beliefs. Do we have reams and reams of literature debunking the religious ideas of the contemporary Essenes? How about of the ideas of the Gnostics? Indeed, those sources which do criticize these and other potentially rivalrous groups were Christian themselves! (Incidentally, author Sid Green argues that there are good reasons not to discount the possibility that Jesus came from an Essenic sect in his recently published essay From Which Religious Sect Did Jesus Emerge?)

Furthermore, just because no records of criticism of the budding Christian movement at the time are known to exist (assuming there are none known to exist), does not mean that there were not plenty of "others able to easily debunk the myth" who did do so. Such is an argument from existence. And, given the exorbitantly bloody history of the Christian church throughout its first 15 centuries of development, a development marked by inquisitional tribunals against accused heretics and censorious of heretical thought, it could very well be that there were numerous publications in circulation dating back to the beginnings of Christianity which "debunked" the myths from a contemporary advantage which were later destroyed by the church pontiffs.

As one source states:

In AD 313 the Roman emperor Constantine the Great decreed toleration of Christianity. Twenty years later, Constantine the Great set the pattern of religious censorship that was to be followed for centuries by ordering the burning of all books by the Greek theologian Arius.

The Greek theologian Arius was a believer in the Holy Ghost, the resurrection of Christ, the trinity (in so many words), and the "great commission" which Jesus gave to his followers. This is confirmed in his Letter to the Emperor Constantine. For all purposes, Arius was a Christian. And if the Christians holding the bigger stick should wield that stick against Christians who differed in minor respects (as did Arius vis-à-vis the conventional Christianity of Rome at the time), how much more should those whose disagreement with or criticism of Christianity enjoyed a much wider berth than Arius' endure such scourging and censure? (If you are unfamiliar with the history of Arianism as disposed against by the Roman church, see this online Catholic Encyclopedia article.)

Paul Johnson (himself a Catholic), in his megalithic A History of Christianity, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976; First Touchstone Edition, 1995), says of these things:

The venom employed in these endemic controversies reflects the fundamental instability of Christian belief during the early centuries, before a canon of New Testament writings had been established, credal formulations evolved to epitomize them, and a regular ecclesiastical structure built up to protect and propagate such agreed beliefs. Before the last half of the third century it is inaccurate to speak of a dominant strain of Christianity. So far as we can judge, by the end of the first century, and virtually throughout the second, the majority of Christians believed in varieties of Christian-gnosticism, or belonged to revivalist sects grouped around charismatics. (52)

So here we may have an answer to several questions generated by the remark from the article on Dave's Christian Webpage. Criticism and "debunking" of Christianity during its initial decades of development, assuming there were any, would have had a shifting target; since no canon was yet in place to guide Christian thought in a unified manner, and the budding churches were in dire need of instruction with regard to what they were supposed to believe. What distinguished some early Christian beliefs from contemporary gnosticism most likely varied from sect to sect. Those who were critical of the one may have been at the same time critical of the other, depending the blend of ideas which were associated and considered.

Besides, suppose there were reams of manuscript evidence of debunkers of the Christian religion contemporary with its origination. Are you telling me that believers today would find this fact a convincing hurdle to their belief? I doubt that! Supposing we had the writings of numerous ancient scholars who knew Jesus and his followers personally, but were critical of his campy ideas, showing all kinds of firsthand testimony to the falsehood of the claims about Jesus that were popularized in the gospel narratives, would this convince today's believers that Christianity is all crock? Of course not. It could be that some of Jesus' own followers who later abandoned him because they were disgusted by his teachings (John 6:66 shows this happened), possibly wrote about what they witnessed in Jesus. Would the church have ensured the survival of such controversial writings? If you think so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Christians are notorious for their ability to absorb any fact which contradicts their religious beliefs and rationalize them into some kind of "evidence" reinforcing their delusion. Such writings would no doubt be claimed to be evidence in favor of Christian theism, buttressed with the claim that the existence of such protests against the budding church is evidence of the devil's anger at Jesus' arrival on earth and his ensuing ministry. Don't tell me that Christian apologists are not capable of this kind of subterfuge. It's all about reinforcing belief. After all, even Paul writes in Romans (3:7), "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged a sinner?" In other words, Paul is asking whether or not the ends justify the means. And given the context of his statements, he obviously believes they do. We've already seen how today's apologists follow Paul's example above.

Counter-evidence lacking?

The author continues, stating, "The evidence shows that while some believe it didn't happen, no one could offer any evidence against the eyewitnesses' testimonies." But this statement not only concedes an important fact ("…some believe it didn't happen…"), it argues from silence when the author asserts that "no one could offer any evidence against the eyewitnesses' testimonies." For one thing, we saw above that there were no eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself; neither Mary Magdalene, nor Joseph of Arimathaea, nor Nicodemus were sealed in the sepulchre with Jesus to watch him resurrect himself.

Furthermore, it may be the case that some present at the time could and did offer evidence against Jesus' alleged resurrection (which no one witnessed), but that their testimony was not recorded, or that it was squelched by church censure. So it is important not to be so hasty and uncritical here. (Religious ideas pretty much demand that believers be uncritical of their content.)

Was it unusual that some who were close to Jesus did not believe his allegedly miraculous powers? No, this does not seem to be unusual. For we read in John 6:66, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." What did these disciples see that today's believers are not seeing? Naturally, the New Testament, which has a biased course of investment favoring belief over non-belief, does not say.

On Myths, Women and Credibility: