10: Fraud Type 2: Someone Else Stole the Body

10

Fraud Type 2: Someone Else Stole the Body

To be sure, more critical scholars are attracted to this second, more general version of the stolen body hypothesis. In this case, one or more persons other than Jesus’s disciples supposedly performed the feat of moving, reburying, or even stealing Jesus’s dead body. Since it explains so little of the known and recognized scholarly data, it is virtually always intended to serve as an auxiliary hypothesis, not as a position that stands on its own, as will be pointed out directly below. Many options have been suggested here.

Though still unpopular, this second fraud variety has been more common than implicating Jesus’s own disciples by postulating that they stole Jesus’s dead body and then lied by claiming to have seen him alive while experiencing major transformations in the process. But all the while (according to Fraud Type 1), the disciples would have behaved as if they were truly convicted in their beliefs (Acts 4:33), plus being quite willing to suffer (5:40–41). But after Stephen in Acts 7:54–60 (an early leader though not an apostle) and James the son of Zebedee in Acts 12:1–2 were martyred for their beliefs, it might have seemed as if the fakery would not be able to be maintained much longer. Nonetheless, the evangelism and rejoicing simply continued unabated.

According to this second stolen body view, the chief idea was that someone else—almost anyone could potentially be cited to perform the job—must have stolen, reburied, or perhaps simply moved Jesus’s dead body to a different location. The involved person or persons could even have been unknown perpetrators. This hypothesis was not as far-reaching as the Fraud Type 1 proposal, and that probably helped it gain more momentum than its counterpart that blamed Jesus’s disciples; hence, it was held more commonly. Further, a couple of the major natural responses needed an additional hypothesis in order to explain the empty tomb.

If Jesus’s disciples were the perpetrators as in Fraud Type 1, one advantage is that a built-in explanation for Jesus’s appearances would be included as well—they simply lied. But in making that move, the view went way too far overboard. The more direct way to characterize the situation would be to respond that the disciples lied about having seen the resurrected Jesus. True, certain subexplanations might enter the conversation and soften this report somewhat, making it look like some sort of mistake. But the obvious difficulty in believing such a hypothesis would have been that it essentially implicated the very persons who would never have been involved in the first place. These are most likely the chief reasons behind the virtual abandonment of this position over the past 250 years of critical interaction.

So why employ this second, weaker thesis at all? Several reasons account for the quite irregular though occasional appearance of this second option that identifies a culprit(s) other than one of Jesus’s disciples, definitely making it more popular than the Fraud Type 1 since at least the time of English deism. The short answer is that it was sometimes thought that this secondary scenario was able to plug some apparent holes in the overall critical approach to the resurrection.

Most crucially, this view at least does not implicate the very preachers and teachers whose lives had almost undeniably changed most radically after Jesus’s death, such that they were at least willing to die for the proclamation of the resurrection message. Such famous transformations, especially when they involve as many individuals as this thesis does, hardly seem possible if the proclaimers themselves were the same ones who were radically changed—all based on falsehoods or even lies. As William Lane Craig states, “To my knowledge, the only naturalistic explanation of the empty tomb that deserves any consideration is the suggestion that some third party stole the body.”

The chief weaknesses with implicating Jesus’s disciples as the perpetrators were not the only reasons why this view attracted somewhat more attention. There are a few other advantages with this Fraud Type 2 hypothesis. For starters, there are more options for the potential identification of the offenders, including the “crafty” selection of an unknown person(s). Further, there are also more motives available that may have driven them to their decision and actions. Moreover, not all these possibilities were equally drastic, as in cases where Jesus’s body may simply have been moved, perhaps even rather innocently.

But the chief reason for those researchers who chose a version of this Fraud Type 2 thesis is probably some species of visionary view being selected as the individual scholar’s major option regarding Jesus’s appearances. Speaking generally, this could either have been a natural subjective hypothesis such as hallucinations, illusions, or another species of postmortem scenarios. Conversely though, it could even have involved a supernatural option such as Jesus actually having appeared to his followers, though in more glorified, nonbodily appearances. Strangely enough, a number of scholars especially since the days of German liberalism chose the latter option, still arguing that Jesus actually rose from the dead, though rejecting what they considered to be the overly physical testimony of the Gospels and other New Testament texts.

When more visionary theses (either subjective or objective versions) were chosen, a reason to empty the tomb was often thought to be necessary, for these visionary conceptions by themselves would fail to do the job on their own. Of course, that immediately complicated the alternative thesis as well. But there obviously must have been an explanation for what happened to Jesus’s deceased body.

Varieties of the Fraud Type 2 Position

Several different angles on alternative tomb hypotheses will be presented in this chapter. Basically, the category potentially includes any person or group who stole, reburied, or moved Jesus’s body after his burial other than Jesus’s disciples. In fact, the hypothesis that might meet the overall group requirements may qualify for a tongue-in-cheek moniker termed something like the “Potpourri Jesus Tomb Collection”!

Different categories of perpetrators are extant. One option is that friends could have stolen, taken, or moved Jesus’s dead body for reasons outside the burial process (such as Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, or possibly even the women in the case of those few scholars who do not consider any of these persons to be disciples). Another option is that enemies might have done the same (like the Romans or the Jewish leaders). Though neither (necessarily) friends nor enemies, a third option is the enigmatic proposal that necromancers might have taken the body in order to salvage the organs and other body parts of a powerful man. Also, we will mention a few catchall ideas, such as what is probably the most popular idea in this category—that the women went to the wrong tomb on the first Sunday morning—as well as the thesis that the dirty work was done by an “unknown” thief or perpetrator.

The Wrong Tomb Theory

Even in the heyday of nineteenth-century German liberalism with its penchant for a variety of naturalistic resurrection theses, only relatively few scholars would even venture in the direction of choosing the challenges presented by one of the Fraud Type 2 hypotheses. One of the ones who did so was Oxford University–trained Harvard Divinity School professor Kirsopp Lake (1872–1946). Lake is one of the few scholars who ever proposed the wrong tomb theory, and it is not usually acknowledged that this was only a brief suggestion on his part. He explained the possibility like this: Joseph of Arimathea indeed buried Jesus’s body, but the women probably only witnessed the procedure from a distance. No male disciples were present due to their fear and despair caused by Jesus’s death. On Sunday morning the women headed back to what they thought was the correct tomb to finish the burial process, but they found it open and unoccupied. Then the women were told by a young man standing there that Jesus was not in the tomb.

The women were obviously “overwrought” when they came to the tomb. But given the “already firm belief” in the resurrection that these women had, they apparently took the young man’s words to mean that the closest tomb nearby had been that of Jesus, but that his body was now gone. But the fellow was probably saying no more than that neither Jesus nor anyone else had been buried in that particular tomb. So of course, this tomb was obviously empty! Since the women were not physically close when Joseph was doing the burying, they could not be sure that this particular tomb was the same one. The young man even “tried to tell them that they had made a mistake . . . and probably pointed to the next tomb.”

Perhaps due to their excitement, the women were in no position to understand the young man completely. Further, Lake commented that the women and virtually all believers in their day believed that if Jesus had been raised, then the tomb would have been empty. Hence, they were naturally interpreting these events in light of their own background beliefs. Nonetheless, the women had, in fact, gone to the “wrong tomb,” which constituted Lake’s “natural explanation.”

Intriguingly, Lake was clear that he was not offering this idea as some sort of irrefutable view about which he was positive. He took great care to state a few times that the various portions of his scenario were only “possible” or at most “probable.” He even concluded the discussion with these words: “These remarks are not to be taken as anything more than a suggestion of what might possibly have happened.” But this caution has rarely been repeated regarding his thesis since that time.

Even stranger is that Lake actually affirmed the resurrection along with Jesus’s appearances, though as nonbodily occurrences. Hence, he had no need to affirm the empty tomb and may have preferred to explain it away. His book title even states as much—he thought that he was providing “Historical Evidence” for the resurrection. However, he thought that the empty tomb was defenseless anyway, in that it “is for us doctrinally indefensible and is historically insufficiently accredited.” Lake thought that he was following Paul and the other apostles in this matter by holding to real appearances of Jesus as “a spiritual being” rather than as a material body without the empty tomb. Further, Lake also opposed strenuously the naturalistic theories that were leveled against Jesus’s resurrection appearances.

Such views have still not been very common in the past few decades. Michael Martin asks why we can rule out the thesis that someone other than the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb. A. N. Wilson suggests the possibility that the young man at the tomb stole the body and took it elsewhere, but admits that we will never know for certain. But these sorts of theories are few and far between.

An Overview of Responses to Stolen Body by Non-disciples Theory

Before offering several very specific responses to what we have called the stolen body by non-disciples hypotheses (i.e., Fraud Type 2), Craig’s earlier comment noted that a third party removing Jesus’s deceased body is the only natural tomb thesis “that deserves any consideration.” After all, as Craig notes, an inscription written on a fifteen by twenty-four-inch marble slab, called the Nazareth Decree, “seems to imply that tomb robbery was a widespread problem in first-century Palestine” as well as possibly elsewhere in the Roman Empire. Then Craig adds that no positive evidence regarding such hypotheses of this nature occurred, making it merely an ungrounded assertion.

Having made these comments, Craig then provides six brief reasons that militate against someone other than the disciples removing Jesus’s body from the tomb, especially if these considerations are used in tandem. While these reasons of course do not guarantee that such a removal could not have taken place, they raise the bar and hence make it more difficult for such a thesis to succeed.

Craig begins, first, by saying that we have no knowledge of a third party where a motive was harbored to steal Jesus’s dead body, especially when nothing of value was apparently buried along with it. Even if the tomb was simply desecrated for whatever reason, taking the body does not make very much sense, especially given the factor of the body weight.

Second, according to the available sources, only a few men plus several women appear to even have known where the tomb was located. This might complicate things for a third party stealing Jesus’s body unless the news had spread further.

Third, since the data favor the women discovering the empty tomb just some thirty-six hours after the crucifixion, this provides very little time for a conspiracy to be arranged, develop, and launched. Working within this narrow window to perform such a task and steal the body would involve a tight, seemingly well-planned operation, especially with the available working time being between the evening of the Sabbath until very early on Sunday morning.

Fourth, leaving graveclothes in the tomb also does not make a lot of sense during a hurried operation. Even if the clothes were left behind because the spices made them heavy, they would hardly have been folded neatly, as appears to be the case (John 20:5–7). Two independent traditions vouch for this second trip to the tomb by the men (with Luke 24:12, 24 being the second one).

Fifth, plots often get exposed later whether by rumor, discovery, or secret-telling. The disciples’ preaching in the same city could well be what exposed a potential conspiracy. A payoff could well be a motivating factor too.

Sixth, perhaps the most compelling response to the hypothesis that someone other than Jesus’s disciples stole Jesus’s deceased body is left untouched by this hypothesis. This stolen body scenario fails to address the data favoring the tradition that Jesus appeared alive again mostly to his followers after his death. Hence, another alternative response is needed in order to address the most troublesome portion of the picture for the one denying this scenario, and this fails the criterion of explanatory scope to make the two scenarios work.

For Craig, the conclusion to this matter is that no plausible natural responses are “yet available” to explain the empty tomb. However, the resurrection of Jesus fits the data very well and is just what we would expect on this supposition. The rejoinder that any hypothesis is more likely than a resurrection draws us back precisely to the overall question of miracles itself, which as Craig points out, runs aground against the other responses such as those in the volume in which his response here appears. Of course, this assumes that the other components of the overall positive case must also obtain.

Turning Matthew’s Stolen Body Account on Its Head

Concerning just Craig’s fifth comeback to stolen body accounts alone, he mentioned that conspiracies and plots “tend to come to light eventually, either through discovery or disclosure or at least rumor.” But Carrier provocatively conjectures further on this matter. Carrier asks, “What if the theft was indeed brought to light? Imagine, for example, that what the guards said (28:13–15) was not a lie after all, but the truth.”

In Carrier’s alternate, imagined scenario, Matthew would still have been defending the empty tomb account. But rather than simply buttressing the main story by providing the account regarding the guards, which is almost always thought by critical scholars to be the motivation for this explanation, “certain fanatical Christians” (probably not the ones who stole the body, Carrier notes) were actually answering the quite real rumor that had gotten started because of the historical attempt by some to steal Jesus’s dead body. In such a case, the author could have been responding to the objection (either real or imagined) that Jesus’s body had been stolen. Following the speculated scenario, Matthew’s account would more or less accurately be witnessing the additional development that this particular explanation had spread in answer to the Christian proclamation (Matt 28:15).

While being a strange and fanciful twist to Matthew’s account, to be sure, this is not to retort that it could never have been the case. Still, a few problems count against Carrier’s comeback here. These must be mentioned.

(1) Carrier no doubt intends his rejoinder to serve as conjecture rather than as a potent volley drawn from the reported data. For in the same context, he freely postulates other countermoves as well, while pointing out somewhat properly in his conclusion that “of course, we cannot know whether the body of Jesus was stolen, since all direct evidence has been erased by secrecy and time.” Thus, though the rumor could have been true, with Matthew hinting at its actual existence, this is not really being asserted by Carrier as a historical occurrence. Carrier’s attempt seems simply to take the Gospel account in one, two, or many directions at once, so that it is maneuverable in whatever form is necessary in order to avoid a direct answer to Matthew’s resurrection claim. This seems to be indicated best by Carrier’s word choices of “perhaps,” “what if,” and “imagine.”

This lessens the ultimate value of Carrier’s response, in that while it does not count in any direct way as a blow against Matthew’s report, it serves rather as a reply that, in effect, says, “Maybe so . . . We cannot tell for sure.” So the critical comeback could even flip back and forth as needed between responses of “What if . . . ?” and “Remember, I suggested that . . .” and “Well, what do you want? It was only a suggestion.” This certainly at least seems to be the case here. But playing both ends against the middle while thinking of many just barely possible scenarios obviously does not qualify as refuting the Gospel accounts.

(2) If Carrier is right that Matthew may have been referring to or addressing an early rumor, one where he reported “the truth” of the matter, then we have a serious issue regarding who was being implicated by that rumor. In terms of being guilty of snatching Jesus’s body, who were the ones to whom the fingers pointed in Matthew’s account? While Carrier could always respond that Matthew changed the storyline or just plain missed the point, it was clearly Jesus’s own disciples who were the ones implicated with the theft according to the potential rumor (28:11–15). The way Carrier presents the story, the truthful report by the guards at the tomb was twisted into a plot by the disciples and spread that way by unknown, non-apostolic perpetrators “probably not involved in the theft themselves.” But the point here is that, in Matthew, the apostles were clearly the culprits rather than any others.

Around AD 150 Justin Martyr spread an account drawn from or otherwise similar to Matthew’s story. Justin told his Jewish interlocutor Trypho that the Jews had sent emissaries “throughout all the world to proclaim that . . . his disciples stole him by night from the tomb . . . and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.” Again, as in Matthew, the perpetrators of the theft here were Jesus’s disciples.

Similarly, Tertullian wrote approximately fifty years after Justin and sarcastically asserted that the same Jesus who was beat up, dead, and buried “is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!” Here we see what appears to be the same or similar accounts woven together from both the story in Matthew, coupled with another, later account in the Gospel of John, where Mary Magdalene supposes that the gardener moved (rather than stole) Jesus’s dead body (John 20:11–16). However, Tertullian added the odd twist that the gardener seemed to be most concerned lest his lettuces get trampled by the presumed numbers of people that were sure to come in order to visit Jesus’s empty sepulcher.

Then in the despised fifth-century anti-Christian Jewish text Toledot Yeshu (which is sometimes dated earlier and also reflects earlier traditions), the gardener reappears. Seemingly surprised that everyone was so perplexed, he leads the priests to the place where he had reburied Jesus’s body and sells it to the leaders, receiving thirty pieces of silver in return. Then the Jewish leaders drag Jesus’s body down the streets of Jerusalem.

So clearly, the accounts in Matthew, Justin, Tertullian—along with another late document, the Acts of Pilate (10:16–17)—portray Jesus’s disciples as the chief culprits in the prolonged deceit. John, Tertullian, and the later Toledot Yeshu mention the gardener (named Juda?) as simply moving Jesus’s dead body, and the reason for that mistake is quickly uncovered. Tertullian mentions both traditions—the disciples and the gardener.

In at least the earliest couple of texts plus the majority of sources here, Jesus’s disciples are still the ones who were said to have stolen Jesus’s dead body, opening the door to the preaching of the resurrection message. The alternate accounts of the gardener in Tertullian and the Toledot Yeshu are not only much later, but the gardener’s mistake was quickly discovered and corrected—it was not a permanent solution to the issue.

The overall chief point not to be missed here is that even on Carrier’s clever re­arranging of numerous possibilities, the sources are clearly against him. Carrier even admits that, “We have no texts attacking Christianity from the first century, not even fabrications or slanders.” Carrier’s explanation is that Christianity was too small of a sect to rate on anyone’s “literary radar.” Nonetheless, the earliest texts that we have concerning this matter—Matthew’s echoed rumor and Justin Martyr’s similar account from halfway through the second century—both implicate the disciples. Without much specificity on the matter, it appears that Carrier would rather have the body snatchers be other, perhaps even unknown persons. Yet the earliest texts that we have do not favor his position.

But further and much more seriously, Carrier now faces a rather devastating logic tree. If one is inclined to prefer the earliest and majority view that Jesus’s own disciples did the dirty work stealing Jesus’s body, then as we have already shown in the previous chapter, this view is faced with many insuperable problems, most of all from the scholarly, specialist perspective. As a note of advice, Carrier should resort instead to one of his other options rather than this one concerning Jesus’s closest followers.

But if Carrier prefers the possibility of his original suggestion here regarding a (mere) rumor of theft, then he needs most likely to settle for another person or group against the earliest data and facing a number of tough questions. For example, who else might be the candidate(s)? Would he also argue against the earliest view that soldiers fell asleep on the job but that they could still accurately identify the bandits? Or perhaps they were just afraid to act? But if Carrier also abandons the account of the soldiers altogether, then he must be careful here, for it will soon look as if he is now picking and choosing whatever and whenever simply in order to weave any view except the New Testament position!

Of course, Carrier might take none of the above options and never choose who might be the perpetrator. He could simply say, for example, that he was merely exploring the possibility that Matthew knew of a rumor critical of the Christian report of the empty tomb and that such a possibility was worth pointing out. But such a response would seem to settle for a very unsubstantial possibility. While Carrier might protest this characterization, it would probably look to most observers as if, once being forced into a tough situation, he had settled for a lesser road that now seemed to be the only way open.

But Carrier needs to head in a more specific direction beyond commenting on potential motives and some undiscovered “what if” plots that lack evidence, and toward the possible rumor specifically hinted at in Matt 28:11–15. Then he should indicate clearly that he has moved from the original notion in Matthew that implicates Jesus’s disciples in the process. Carrier comments, “There is simply nothing improbable in an empty tomb being the result of theft.” Improbable or not, we need more than just his say-so speculations throughout this entire process. Namely, we need a comprehensive, likely hypothesis—one that explains the detailed circumstances in this specific case while avoiding the hard problems and pitfalls in the process. Beyond these “what ifs” alone, we need some actual and strong historical evidence for Carrier’s favored option, so that it can be checked against the known, agreed-upon data. After all, Craig responded with historical data.

(3) Further, even if Carrier or another critical scholar decided to take the route that we have termed the Fraud Type 2 or stolen body thesis, opting for someone other than one of Jesus’s disciples, he or she would now need to develop at least one other alternative hypothesis to complete the naturalistic response to this event. This is necessary because the most crucial data to be explained are not those items pertaining to the empty tomb, as important as they are, but rather how, specifically, should Jesus’s resurrection appearances be explained.

To expand further on the last point, unless Jesus’s appearances are accounted for naturally, dismissing the empty tomb by any approach(es) whatsoever will not disprove the resurrection. Theoretically at least, Jesus’s body could hypothetically have been stolen from the tomb by anyone, only to have Jesus rise from the dead in a secret hiding place such as another burial tomb or even from a private home, still appearing to his followers later! These other locations, wherever they were, would then serve only as temporary lodgings from which Jesus would have resurrected—to “stand up again” (Greek anastasis and egeirō).

As already mentioned, and without developing either the details here or a critique, some researchers over the years have proposed literal appearances of Jesus that did not depend on his physical, crucified body or the empty tomb. Of course, this would differ from the New Testament teachings. But the point being made here is that explaining the identities and methods employed by those who robbed the tomb and stole Jesus’s deceased body certainly does not necessarily prevent his resurrection or the subsequent appearances. Thus, another thesis is necessary. Carrier should carry on with both projects in detail. Carrier has mostly bantered around the edges of the issues regarding some theory that somewhere may explain what happened to Jesus’s body, freely offering caveats here and there. But he has plainly not done the hard work of naming the person(s) and describing the methods used. Even so, he may still say that he offered a hypothesis.

A More Detailed Critique of the Fraud Type 2 Hypotheses

The preceding chapter emphasized the most obvious problems noted by most scholars who readily recognize that the double knockout blow to the Fraud Type 1 hypothesis was that the same disciples who stole Jesus’s dead body were necessarily the very ones who were both so exuberant in their resurrection faith, even being willing to die for their faith, which some of them did. While no single, equally lethal bomb sinks the Fraud Type 2 scenarios, the initial refutation is nearly as fatal.

(1) Even asserting the strongest considerations, the collection of Fraud Type 2 responses basically only speaks to the matter of the empty tomb while failing altogether to touch the central data on behalf of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Of course, it cannot be denied that the empty tomb is certainly a valuable part of the resurrection picture. But as a result, though this thesis might pick around some of the other edges, it basically ignores what is both the strongest as well as the most important indications that the risen Jesus was seen by others.

Pertaining to the minimal facts method, the empty tomb is not even included among these data, though it is definitely part of the second half dozen or so accepted historical facts listed in volume 1 of this study. But as stated several times now, Jesus’s body could theoretically have been stolen from wherever it was buried and placed in some hidden, unknown grave or other spot, only to have Jesus rise from that alternate location and still appear. While a number of New Testament comments would be mistaken if such a series of occurrences had obtained, the point being made here is that Jesus would still have been risen and appeared to his disciples, and Christian truth would follow.

(2) Additionally, besides not addressing the appearances, the Fraud Type 2 naturalistic views need to be demonstrated and not simply stated as possible what-if scenarios, like those critical scholars who prefer this angle so often choose to do. But this may be a nigh impossible task, as both Dale Allison and Richard Carrier have noted that these hypotheses lack any data, especially from the first century.

In spite of the comment stated immediately above, Dale Allison in his later book on the resurrection provides several considerations against those scholars who make critiques such as this one. At the very end of that discussion in the book, Allison still remarks, “This means that any skeptical scenario will, in the nature of the case, lack positive, cast-iron evidence. Every alternative history will, in other words, necessarily be speculative and indeed oppose the texts at important points. Given how little we know, this is not the fatal flaw some imagine it to be.” And a page later, Allison adds that the overall evidential case for Jesus’s resurrection is extraordinary and that he is unaware of a parallel case elsewhere.

The comment regarding an absence of any “cast-iron evidence” for these natural Fraud Type 2 scenarios is of course not being requested and is an overstatement. Likewise, many theses could be true as well. However, these are not the specific points in view at this juncture. What is being discussed and remains the issue is that substantially more than happenstance is required by the supporters of these ideas, but the actual, specific data are seldom provided. Allison’s favorite suggested option on the negative side appears to be the work of necromancers, though as cited above, even he comments on the same page that it is one of the views of which he maintains, “We have no reason to endorse any of these speculations, for which there is not a shred of evidence. They must all be deemed unlikely. Yet they are not impossible.” Thus, in spite of Allison’s several caveats, even he considers what we have termed the Fraud Type 2 hypotheses to be improbable solutions.

(3) As pointed out in much detail throughout various places in this study, many of the events in the canonical Gospels, including several particulars of Jesus’s burial in Joseph’s tomb, are supported by good data. In the case of Jesus’s entombment, a number of important features have an advantage—they are multiply attested. As Bart Ehrman notes on this subject, independent sources that relate the same details or aspects were most likely not invented on their own. Rather, this means that the underlying traditions, sources, or actual facts that gave rise to the accounts and upon which they are based must predate them and be even earlier still. Ehrman explains the bottom line here: the presence of these factors in independent sources increases the probability that the material is credible.

These interment texts may also include briefer, multiply attested snippets of information that together assist in encapsulating an overview of Jesus’s entire burial process. Different texts also report individual aspects of the burial process. For some examples, each of the following particulars is arguably also multiply attested by at least two independent sources: Joseph of Arimathea’s role in requesting Jesus’s body from Pilate; Pilate’s permission; Joseph retrieving Jesus’s deceased body from the cross, preparing it, and burying it in a new tomb; and even that a guard was posted in front of the tomb.

Altogether, there are approximately seven independent texts for Jesus’s traditional burial, depending on how a couple of them are counted. They are Mark 15:42–47 (and the Synoptic parallel passages); John 19:38–42; the fairly well-supported pre-Markan burial source; the exceptionally early and authoritative, pre-Pauline creedal statement recorded in 1 Cor 15:4; the highly accredited sermon summaries in Acts, such as those attributed to Petrine preaching in Acts 2:24, 27, 31 (especially taken in tandem); the Pauline argument in Acts 13:34–37; and the Gospel of Peter (2:3–5; 5:15; 6:21–24). More than a half dozen independent sources is an amazingly strong number. But do they help confirm the same incidents? If so, alternate critical theories would have to oppose this combined collection of data, with much less actual evidence on their behalf, which is a highly questionable scheme.

Even skeptical scholars like John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar members voting as an entire group agree to the multiple attestation of various burial events here. Going a little further, the Jesus Seminar members also agreed as a group that the empty tomb accounts are likewise multiply attested. While this last subject is not the topic for this chapter, it still serves the purpose here of pointing to and augmenting the traditional burial scenario depicted in the Gospels.

While multiple attestation of independent texts does not guarantee historicity, it is one of the most important tests for the historical status of events, for it can provide substantiation and confirmation from multiple angles, including the early dates of the tradition. Hence, the seven sources mentioned above as favoring both the burial as a whole as well as noting the individual aspects from the Gospels regarding Joseph of Arimathea specifically approaching Pilate, gaining permission, taking down Jesus’s body, and preparing and placing it in his own grave all point powerfully in the same direction and favor the traditional scenario.

The overall point of this third critique regarding the multiply attested sources for the traditional burial of Jesus is not only to defend this event per se. The additional purpose here is to indicate that critical scholars who wish to move in a different direction by holding that someone stole or otherwise moved Jesus’s body have to show initially some very strong evidences for their own alternate position and indicate the superiority of the opposed view in addressing the numerous angles of this traditional burial material above. As already mentioned, critics too often like to just list several possible moves here without buttressing their data.

Next, the further question needs to be addressed regarding how Jesus’s appearances are to be understood by Fraud Type 2 theses, which we have asserted is by far the major issue in the initial critique above. But even without knowing which of the Fraud Type 2 options the critical scholar might choose to take, this would be a very difficult hill to climb, due to the fairly strong source data that support the traditional burial.

With regard to any of the Fraud Type 2 paths, then, what are the facts and sources that are comparable to those that support the traditional view? How much first-century data supports the alternate view? Of course, the critic has many options and much freedom in weaving their chosen hypothesis. But the view cannot simply be asserted as true. Nor can a number of negative assertions alone be piled up against the traditional case without being accompanied by many positive reasons that support an alternative thesis. The traditional position has some evidence backing it, such as the multiple sources from this third critique alone. What sources back the other options?

(4) The next problem for the alternate Fraud Type 2 positions is this: how would any of these suggested views totally captivate the apostle Paul? Could any of these proposals feature a message that would completely change the remainder of Paul’s life? Would they be capable of causing his swift and immediate about-face, even when he constantly and repeatedly faced death, always being willing to die at every turn, as he mentions frequently?

The story began with Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee and expert in the Old Testament and its history and theology plus all its legalities, additional rules, and traditions as well as their applications. On top of that, he had advanced beyond his peers, as indicated by his being singled out to carry on the message of Judaism even to the point of imprisoning believers and hounding them to their deaths and doing so with great relish. According to Acts, Saul was trained in these areas and disciplines under the well-known scholar Gamaliel (22:3), and he was “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (23:6; 26:5).

Totally steeped in Jewish tradition, Saul (now referred to as Paul) would later testify that at that point he was chosen and called, becoming an eyewitness to the majesty of the risen Jesus Christ, whom he saw on the road to Damascus (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; cf. 10:32–33). The apostle Paul marched faithfully to the beat of Christ’s message through to the end of his life (Phil 3:10–11), which almost surely ended in martyrdom.

The purpose of this chapter is not to defend and argue for Paul’s appearance per se, but to lay out in abbreviated form how his message opposed each of the Fraud Type 2 options. It does not seem like any of the stolen or moved body views enacted by a person or persons other than Jesus’s disciples serves as an option here with even a chance of enticing Paul and his cause, not to mention doing so in a way that would change him radically for the remainder of his life, thus fulfilling what we know about him, particularly from his own writings plus Acts.

One other item might be mentioned here. We have indicated that critical hypotheses are often stated without evidence, as if simply mentioning potential “what if” options is sufficient. In very few places is this latter practice more obvious than it is with alternate views pertaining to the cause of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the best-known scholars have made their own diagnoses, supposing the possibility or perhaps even being almost certain that Paul had a stroke, experienced a bout of epilepsy or a hallucination, was a victim of the heat, or had a breakdown of some sort. Several of these may even be piled up in the space of a sentence, taking no longer than the few words necessary to simply state them. Thus, “what if” type suggestions occur in more than just the stolen body chapters.

More careful scholars have attempted to calm the situation by pointing out that we simply do not have the data to determine the matter one way or the other. Princeton Theological Seminary New Testament professor J. Gresham Machen charged repeatedly many years ago concerning these theories regarding Paul at the end of German liberalism’s theological reign: “There is not the slightest evidence . . . totally insufficient data . . . no real basis” for many of these suppositions.

So how is Paul’s conversion to be explained alternately? The total assurance he manifested repeatedly was that he had actually seen the risen Jesus, and he never deviated from that. Nor was he ever forced to deviate from it! The remainder of his life argues against the options above, almost all of which involve a sickness of some sort. But the cause awaits another discussion. We only wish to point out here that any natural hypothesis needs to be detailed to the point of doing at least an equally good job of accounting for all of the information that we possess. The Fraud Type 2 hypotheses fail to do so.

(5) Further, how are we to account similarly for the conversion of Jesus’s skeptical brother James? Along with his family members, James’s earlier stance was apparently to reject Jesus and his message, along with joining the public sentiment (hoi par’ autou) that Jesus was out of his mind (exestē; Mark 3:21, 31–35; John 7:3–5). Yet later, after he met the risen Jesus, James appears to have been converted from his early position to his subsequent leadership of the Jerusalem church.

Admittedly, this was a rather abrupt about-face for James—a change from thinking that his brother was mentally ill to following him even to the point of being willing to be stoned to death for his belief in him (Josephus, Ant. 20.9.1). The majority opinion among critical scholars is that the apparent and awe-inspiring change in James was due to an appearance of the risen Jesus. This event was recorded in both the very early creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:7 as well as narrated briefly in chapter 7 of the later, noncanonical Gospel of the Hebrews.

James’s move away from his previous unbelief has to be accounted for adequately both in his conversion and in his leadership position in the early church. Scarcely has anyone stated this more succinctly than critical scholar Reginald H. Fuller, who went as far as to retort, “It might be said that if there were no record of an appearance to James the Lord’s brother in the New Testament we should have to invent one in order to account for his post-resurrection conversion and rapid advance.” Quite similarly, N. T. Wright also asserts regarding Jesus’s brother James, “it is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.”

Taking a different angle altogether concerning James, Ehrman argues other specifics in a chapter entitled “Two Key Data for the Historicity of Jesus.” Of perhaps the two strongest arguments for the historicity of Jesus, Ehrman’s first is that of Paul’s personal acquaintances, beginning with a very crucial meeting that occurred when Paul visited Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with Peter and James the brother of Jesus just a few years after the crucifixion. During this discussion, Ehrman unpacks a number of historical items indicated by Paul’s visit, such as listing four independent sources for the existence of Jesus’s brothers, and even rather incredibly notes that this trip by Paul and his new acquaintances could just possibly constitute the closest occasion we have for gaining eyewitness testimony about Jesus! Referring to Paul’s comment in Gal 1:19–20, Ehrman even states a little earlier, “When Paul swears he is not lying, I generally believe him.”

In fact, Ehrman thinks that this just-mentioned meeting in Jerusalem is probably where and when Paul first heard the details concerning James’s vision of the risen Jesus. Further, bringing together the larger picture, Ehrman thinks that James, Peter, Paul, Mary Magdalene, and the other women all had some sort of visions or, at the very least, believed that and interpreted their experiences that way. But they all believed that Jesus had indeed been raised.

Michael Licona takes a different approach to James, drawing from the minimal facts approach. He discusses in depth James’s skepticism, Jesus’s appearance to him, and the results afterward, including why James was converted. Licona’s summary of what we know about James is very instructive. Licona definitely recognizes that Jesus appeared to James and that, as a result, James became a Christian leader in Jerusalem. Further, James’s conversion was most likely due to a resurrection appearance.

Against the cross-section of these views that range all the way from scholars like Licona, Wright, Reginald Fuller, and Ehrman above, along with many others, which optional view of the stolen, moved, or reburied body of Jesus by a person or persons besides Jesus’s disciples can account for James’s conversion better than his having experienced an appearance of the resurrected Jesus? In short, what view most accords with the best evidence? It must be remembered at this juncture too, that what is being requested is not a response to each of the individual critiques of the Fraud Type 2 hypotheses. Rather, a single thesis needs to be chosen that accounts for all this data, and equally well or better than the resurrection appearances. What other thesis, then, makes a response that equally well explains the fact that this Fraud Type 2 thesis basically only explains the empty tomb, making it necessary to come up with another account for the appearances, the strong number of ancient, multiple sources that favor the traditional burial of Jesus as opposed to virtually no data on the other side, plus answers to the lifelong transformations of Paul and James, when their answer was that they had seen the risen Jesus?

(6) Then there are the twin problems of motives and any indications that these intentions were actually the case. In other words, even beyond much of the actual data themselves, which have been posited throughout this chapter, which views are accompanied by the best inside track on the clearest, strongest motivations behind their actions?

We have already discussed in the preceding chapter as well as this one, in a fair amount of detail, the better-known or more common alternate scenarios. These include options such as dumping Jesus’s body in a common pit, burying it in a trench, Joseph quite innocently reburying the body in another tomb or location for whatever reasons, or even the actions of necromancers. But if these options are the closest that we can get to more possible rival circumstances, then potential Fraud Type 2 positions seem to be clearly in trouble. These latter suggestions do not appear to “size up” in likely ways by comparison with the traditional scene in the Gospels. The traditional burial in Joseph’s tomb is stronger in almost every comparison and evaluation, including the most probable motives, the presence of multiple independent sources, pre-Gospel sources with very early dates for the material, the sometimes-­determinative meaning of the Greek terms, and so on. Thus the traditional burial is easily the best of the two categories in terms of the considerations in its favor.

On the other hand, where are the similar sorts of multiple evidences that would signify that another of the candidates for stealing or otherwise disturbing Jesus’s dead body would replace or dismantle the traditional thesis with its own data? It seems that the remaining “contenders” have few established motives, no legal standing for its option alone, and especially no serious testimony in its favor. For instance, what Romans or Jews would desire to encourage the growth and development of a new, large body of enthusiastic followers, rumors of other possible rival religious leaders in Jerusalem or elsewhere, or yet another new religious movement to concern them?

Or in the case of the potentially intriguing suppositions that necromancers might have taken the body, perhaps hoping for something to gain from robbing Jesus’s tomb, where is the specific evidence here with regard to this particular case involving Jesus’s body? As even Allison allows, these views are “speculations, for which there is not a shred of evidence.” Moreover, Carrier himself points out, “We cannot expect any other evidence of a discovered theft to survive. We have no texts attacking Christianity from the first century, not even fabrications or slanders.” The honest concessions by these skeptical researchers indicate some of the lack of hypothetical toeholds that oppose the historicity of Jesus.

Hence, these alternate charges are only bare possibilities—the often proposed “what ifs”—as is even acknowledged by some of the most critical scholars. Options like these face huge uphill struggles largely in competition against a great deal of early evidence. This regular lack of evidenced, competing situations is certainly damaging to these views. Earlier in this chapter we mentioned another possibility: that of an unknown performer or location. But as Wolfhart Pannenberg wisely remarked along similar lines:

It has been suggested that the burial place of Jesus might have been unknown. But this is a pure invention of modern scholarship without the slightest evidence. Moreover, it does not seem very likely that nobody would have been interested in where Jesus’s body had gone when his followers proclaimed his resurrection in that city, and friends and foes of that proclamation would take for granted that there is a connection between resurrection and the dead body.

Perhaps needless to say, positing unknown persons and locations hardly helps with questions of understanding or knowing the motivations of those involved!

In sum, it is already problematic that very little or no actual data support the motivations behind these alternate actions, which is the specific angle being examined at this point. But further, what proper conclusions should be drawn when the persons or locations are proclaimed to be unknown and therefore can hardly be evaluated (as just mentioned), or when the suggestions make essentially no real sense (like the Jews or Romans having been the culprits, again without historical data or divulged motives and so on) or are illogical (such as happenstance proposals)? This lack of data and reasons seems to contribute to the comparative absence of many takers regarding the Fraud Type 2 option.

(7) The wrong tomb thesis, barely even suggested by Kirsopp Lake, is an intriguing option by itself. The women watched the burial, supposedly from a distance, though this point both opposes the available texts and possesses no support, besides obviously being postulated in order for the women to fail to recognize the correct tomb on Sunday morning. Then, when the young man near the tomb saw their confusion at mistaking his verbal correction as well as his pointing in the proper direction, it would make sense for him to correct their misconception as well, but he fails to do the latter. Additionally, Robert Stein makes the point that it is simply amazing that everyone promptly forgot the location of the tomb after such a brief time!

So, in their enthusiasm and armed with their assurance that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead (a conviction that would have existed before the appearances, though such a view on their part is denied by virtually all scholars today), the women never cared to locate the correct tomb. Rather, they were pleased to run off without further inquiry. Likewise, the later trip to the tomb by the male disciples, attested by multiple sources, also apparently ended up at the exact same mistaken tomb, even though the young man tried to correct that. However, what about the account, which is also attested by multiple sources, of the men discovering the graveclothes inside the wrong tomb? Perhaps the women or the men (or both) had indeed gone to the correct tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:5–7) after all? Or were the graveclothes found in a tomb where Jesus was never buried at all? All the time, as Margaret Thrall reminds us, “then the right grave would still contain the body of Jesus.” On this view, then, Jesus’s dead body was apparently never discovered even as it lay right there in the correct burial chamber.

Then, as has been noted above, this actually fascinating hypothesis stops there and explains nothing else because Lake himself thought that the best evidence actually established the fact of the objective resurrection appearances of Jesus, though in nonbodily form. So, Lake’s story is refuted at a number of places, yet still allows that Jesus both rose from the dead and appeared to his followers in the process!

(8) As already mentioned elsewhere, the Jewish leaders plus the early believers as well as the Romans themselves all had a stake in keeping track of Jesus’s dead body, though for clearly different reasons. Too many adverse outcomes from various perspectives could have occurred otherwise. Hence the chief point here is that none of these persons or groups would have wanted Jesus’s body to simply disappear by whatever means. Too many potential negative outcomes were at stake for everyone. This is illustrated well by the point that the Gospel of John records Mary Magdalene talking to the person she mistakenly thought was the gardener who had removed Jesus’s body. Understandably, she wanted to retrieve it (20:15).

Such issues indicate that there were reasons to think that Jesus’s burial place would most likely have been watched carefully or at least checked periodically. C. E. B. Cranfield agrees, noting, “The Jewish and Roman authorities had, in fact, a very strong interest in Jesus’s being securely dead.” Thus, going to the wrong tomb or other such developments would have been “quickly corrected.” While not necessarily being fail-safe, these other problems add to the conditions that make stealing or removing the body more unlikely.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented an overview of the troubled fate of the hypotheses that we have labeled Fraud Type 2, where Jesus’s crucified and dead body was supposedly stolen or moved by someone other than Jesus’s disciples. These actions could have occurred either purposely or innocently, but each option is beset by several problems. Many hypotheses have been gathered under this rubric, often mentioned only once by a couple of scholars or nonscholars. Then when the alternate refutations are mentioned, the original challenge is often simply dropped or else reduced to a mere notation or suggestion without any further explanation.

Altogether, comparatively few critical scholars have ever chosen any of these Fraud Type 2 options. There are at least three good overall reasons for this dearth, accompanied by a variety of subpoints under each one. First, the hypotheses all fall short for a variety of reasons, with none of them getting even close to solving a large number of key puzzles to which they need to respond. Very critical researchers have even acknowledged this. Second, there would seem to generally be too small a prize for these critical efforts—such as the “right” to attempt to explain the empty tomb to enemies, not to mention a healthy payment no doubt being offered and paid for the correct information. Third and perhaps most crucially, besides failing to claim any potential benefits, it was pointed out in this chapter that the “holy grail” of this entire discussion would still fail to have been accomplished—namely, solving the far more difficult task of explaining the resurrection appearances, since these events are not really addressed by the Fraud Type 2 alternate theses. So who wants to spend all this exceptional time and effort without solving by far the major, most central issue?

Notes

William Lane Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 1997), 259.

As with the quite unintentional secondary burial thesis by Joseph of Arimathea that was evaluated in the burial chapter in volume 1.

Strangely enough, James Tabor postulated that Jesus’s mother, Mary, and the other women moved Jesus’s body after the initial burial, and while this is a burial thesis instead of a stolen body view like those we are considering here, there is a parallel in that the action was performed by the women, which is rarely proposed. See James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 235. Perhaps Tabor agreed as well, because in a later blog he changed or reframed the scenario from the women to Joseph of Arimathea doing the reburial; see Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” Society of Biblical Literature Forum, 2007; reprint, 2; also found in Bible History Daily (blog), March 14, 2007, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-­archaeology-topics/­two-burials-of-jesus-of-nazareth-and-the-talpiot-yeshua-tomb/.

In the earlier burial chapter in volume 1, an interesting angle was that the hypotheses discussed there postulated the possibility that the Roman soldiers may have tossed Jesus’s body into an unknown, common pit (such as the view of John Dominic Crossan). This may actually exhibit some secondary similarities for this chapter too. While those burial accounts belong strictly in that chapter, and although the Roman soldiers did not “steal” the body per se, they were the ones who performed the nontraditional burial on this option.

Albert Réville was a nineteenth-century French scholar who thought that the Jewish leaders were responsible for what happened to Jesus’s dead body. More specifically, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin probably made arrangements for Jesus’s dead body to be stolen. Then the body was placed where it most likely would never be discovered. See Réville, Jésus de Nazareth: Études critiques sur les antécédents de l’histoire évangélique et la vie de Jésus, 2 vols. (Paris: Fischbacher, 1897), 2:250–52, 347, for the Sanhedrin’s crucial role in Jerusalem. Dale Allison refers to the (seeming) sheer possibility that “the Jewish authorities filched [the body] to prevent veneration of Jesus’ remains” then “dumped” it when things got out of hand, but by then were either “unable or unmotivated to recover it later” (334). Allison also alludes to the text in Acts 13:29 as potentially hinting that the Jewish leaders themselves may have buried Jesus in the first place (362–63). But pertaining to this general scenario among others, Allison asserts, “We have no reason to endorse any of these speculations, for which there is not a shred of evidence. They must all be deemed unlikely. Yet they are not impossible” (334). His comments in the last half of this note are taken from Dale C. Allison Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (London: T&T Clark, 2005). Robert Stein mentions the claim that the Jewish leaders were the perpetrators but scoffs at it, including mentioning the guard at the tomb; see Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 267–68, 270.

Jack A. Kent makes what seems to be one of the most general, idle suggestions that either friends or enemies simply removed the body. See Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 88.

The best-known contemporary proponent of the possibility of necromancers having stolen Jesus’s deceased body is Dale Allison, who makes some suggestions involving this idea but never finally adopts it in his text Resurrecting Jesus, 202–3, 334. Richard Carrier also mentions this option in his essay “The Plausibility of Theft,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 350, 365.

These details can often be mixed and matched as well. For instance, John A. T. Robinson thinks that about the only empty grave hypothesis that “cannot be so easily dismissed” is the idea of “foul play,” where some (presumably unknown) “extremist fanatics” moved or took Jesus’s body; see Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 123–24. French scholar Réville named the Sadducees as the perpetrators, but the place where they finally placed Jesus’s body was apparently unknown according to his volume Jésus de Nazareth. Kent is one of those who suggests briefly that Jesus may have been buried in an unknown grave; see Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 88. A very different idea mentioned by Duncan Derrett, who also held the swoon or apparent death theory—see the material on Jesus’s death in both volumes 1 and 2 of this study for many specific details there—who adds that Jesus’s body was later cremated! See Derrett, The Anastasis: The Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Event (Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater, 1982), 128. Cf. Wolfhart Pannenberg’s critique at the end of this essay as well. Allison includes many different twists and turns among the sorts of options within this Fraud Type 2 alternative category (Resurrecting Jesus, 302–3, 307–10, 320, 324–26, 331–34). Yet, in spite of listing these possibilities, Allison seems to be mentioning what he thinks are not serious alternatives at all. As a case in point, he pronounces that many of these suggested scenarios invoke poor reasoning (302, 303, 305, 308, 313, 317, 325, 328, 329, 331–32). Further, Allison points out that these theses often have little or no evidence in their favor (312, 317, 334, 340). As just mentioned above, he also asserts that these options cannot be endorsed because “there is not a shred of evidence” on their behalf (334). He also rejects outright several of these options (303, 308, 311, 314). Quite intriguingly, when all the dust settles, although somewhat tentatively, Allison still decides in favor of the historicity of the empty tomb (331–34, 344, 346), as well as strongly endorses Jesus’s appearances to his followers (346, cf. also 343). In a more recent work, Allison begins the volume by affirming his personal recognition of the resurrection appearances: “I believe that the disciples saw Jesus and that he saw them.” See Dale C. Allison Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 3.

These words along with a few other phrases by Kirsopp Lake show how critical views have changed in the intervening almost 125 years since Lake wrote this treatise. The comment that the women going to the tomb already believed in the resurrection, made in more than one place in Lake’s work, would be made by very few critical scholars today. But there is also a practical warning here for us today that we should not think that staunch views held solidly today by liberals, moderates, or conservatives alike will necessarily still be in force decades from now.

Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 2nd ed. (London: Williams & Norgate, 1912; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 237–38, 248–53.

Lake, 238, 241, 249–50.

Lake, 252, cf. 248, 250.

Thrall states that while Lake’s wrong tomb theory is a “very unlikely” option, it is the “most plausible” of the natural theses pertaining to the empty tomb; see Margaret E. Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” The Thomist 43 (1979): 199. Barry W. Henaut simply mentions the “wrong tomb” thesis in passing; see Henaut, “Empty Tomb or Empty Argument: A Failure of Nerve in Recent Studies of Mark 16?,” Studies in Religion 15 (1986): 180.

This is the scholarly move mentioned above where even those who actually affirmed Jesus’s resurrection appearances but as less than bodily events still thought that they had to do something with the empty tomb accounts in the Gospels.

The quotation is from Lake, Historical Evidence, 253. Here again, as mentioned above, Lake’s expression of over a century ago certainly runs contrary to where the scholarly meter on the empty tomb is today, with Lake making it sound almost as an embarrassment to scholars. Today, easily a majority of critical researchers accept the historicity of the empty tomb. In fact, there are more critical arguments in its favor than there are on behalf of almost any of the remaining resurrection evidences.

Lake, 252–54, 265–79. Here is at least the third area in only a short space where scholarly views have shifted significantly in recent times. Probably the predominant view today holds that the New Testament teaching, including Paul’s view, is that the nature of Jesus’s appearances was bodily in nature. The words “resurrection of the flesh,” prominent in many classical Christian creeds down through the centuries, is still eschewed in many contemporary circles today. But Jesus appearing in an actual body is probably the most popular scholarly position at present concerning the New Testament view, even among those who reject this position personally. It should be noted once again that this view is definitely not to be decided by scholars according to their colleagues’ headcount, but due to the way the New Testament data are now construed. Thus, it was a change based on the strength of the arguments themselves. The published treatment that is often cited as favoring the bodily view of Jesus’s appearances most strongly is the nearly exhaustive treatise specifically on this subject by N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), particularly 32–552. See also the shorter but weighty argument in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2010), 400–436. For an assessment of where scholarship lines up on this issue today, see Gary R. Habermas, “Mapping the Recent Trend toward the Bodily Resurrection Appearances of Jesus in Light of Other Prominent Critical Positions,” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 78–92.

Some examples of Lake’s critiques of major alternatives to the resurrection appearances include his dismissals by the religionsgeschichtliche Schule (history of religions school) movement of his time, with its parallel mythological conjectures (198–99, 262–66), plus hallucinations and other subjective views (266–67, 271, cf. 212).

Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 95.

A. N. Wilson, Jesus (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992), 242. This work was written before Wilson’s conversion to Christianity.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 259. It might be added regarding the Nazareth Decree that this stone was reportedly found in the city where Jesus was raised, perhaps not long after his death. That may possibly reflect one or more of these grave-robbing scenarios in Palestine, or even that the stories of Jesus’s resurrection appearances were being told around the Mediterranean area and may have created quite a stir. But no clear decision can be made on these options based on this stone message alone. This archaeological discovery is also mentioned and commented on in volume 1. For a more technical treatment of the matter, including both a photograph of the stone and the Greek text of the inscription that also mentions sealing gravestones, see F. Cumont, “Un rescrit impérial sur la violation de sèpulture,” Revue Historique 163 (1930): 242, for the photo appearing on the unnumbered page that follows this page, with the translation on 243. For a more popular treatment that begins with the words “Ordinance of Caesar,” see Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 202–3. However, as explained in volume 1 of this study, an alternate thesis has appeared recently that the incident in question may have referred to the grave of Nikias, a famous dictator from Kos (Greece) during the time of Caesar Augustus. More research will hopefully be done on these options. See Kyle Harper, Michael McCormick, Matthew Hamilton, Chantal Peiffert, Raymond Michels, and Michael Engel, “Establishing the Provenance of the Nazareth Inscription: Using Stable Isotopes to Resolve a Historic Controversy and Trace Ancient Marble Production,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30 (2020): 1–7.

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 259–60. The brief quotation above is found on 260.

Richard Carrier responded specifically to Craig’s six points above, judging affirmatively that these positive points “encompass all the objections anyone might raise that are worthy of attention.” Of course, a bit of personal interest could well be present here as Carrier circumscribes the territory in such a way that there are no other plausible views to which he must respond. Then Carrier could claim that he had handled all of the major or worthwhile responses. Carrier objects to Craig’s first response regarding the need for a motive to rob the tomb, by asserting that body parts and crucifixion nails were valuable at that time, especially for necromancers. Other potential motives are also suggested, even pertaining to the possibility of robbery being recognized in Matt 27:63–64, whether or not the story was an invention. (See Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 350–52). To Craig’s second comment that only very few men and women would know where the body had been interred, Carrier responded that the thief could have been someone in Joseph’s own party, or one who either followed behind and viewed the procedure or perhaps simply inquired later concerning the group and then bribed one of those who were present (352). Third, regarding Craig’s thought that there was only a very brief time frame in which to facilitate all the requirements of such a heist, Carrier answered chiefly that there were two nights during which the activity could have been accomplished (352–53). Fourth, addressing Craig’s comment on the graveclothes being left behind in Jesus’s tomb, Carrier retorted that “bodysnatchers want the body parts,” so they would have discarded the remainder (353). Fifth, regarding Craig’s charge that conspiracies are usually discovered, Carrier responded that criminals do not usually announce their crimes, plus there were no press corps, forensic scientists, or other such modern means of discovery available at that time (353–54). Sixth, Carrier of course holds that the resurrection appearances can be explained quite naturally (354–55).

Craig, “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 260.

Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 355.

Carrier mentions some half dozen well-known cases of fraud or cover-ups in both secular as well as religious settings, such as UFO reports, a “face” being visible on Mars, plus the results of the movements and followers of David Koresh, Heaven’s Gate, Jim Jones, and Rastafari groups, where additional details emerged later (356–57). Carrier tries hard too, in his attempt to compare the influence of some of these movements to the influence of Christianity! Yet, he goes overboard in this last aspect (357).

Carrier, 354, quote on 364.

Carrier, 355.

Carrier, 355.

Carrier, 355.

Justin, Dial. 108, cf. also 17. For this translation, see the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (1886–1889; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 1:253.

Tertullian, Spect. 30, with the quotation also taken from Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:91.

David Mishkin has pointed out that while the earliest extant copy of an Aramaic version of the Toledot Yeshu dates only to the tenth century, “some have argued that it originates as early as the third century.” See Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017), 3.

See the account and explanations by Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 200, 202, 348 (incl. chap. 24n4) on the story in the Toledot Yeshu along with the extant manuscript copies and dates that detail this tale. Cf. also Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 205–6.

Carrier seems to list this reference in the Acts of Pilate (also known as the Gospel of Nicodemus) as 1:13; see “Plausibility of Theft,” 351. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1232–34.

Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 357.

Carrier, 357.

Carrier, 354.

Carrier would no doubt resort at this or other points to his frequent comments that any view is preferable to a miracle or other supernatural event, so therefore he is simply open to alternative natural explanations of any or all sorts. As he states in the conclusion of this essay on 364 when mentioning Jesus’s resurrection, “We have no good evidence that any form of supernaturalism is true.” But it must be remembered that we are discussing here a cause for the empty tomb report, and it has not been concluded on these data alone that a miracle or supernatural occurrence has taken place. Furthermore, his naturalistic-type worldview outlook is most likely unprovable in itself, eliminating any exalted perch from which he may judge all other events.

Carrier, 354.

On another subject, Carrier mentions that, in his opinion, his thesis on that occasion addresses my list of critically recognized historical facts with the exception of the empty tomb, which, as we have seen, he rejects (197). Whether he has done that adequately in the first case is open to question. But the point here is that he needs that sort of specificity in explaining his hypothesis on behalf of the empty tomb, instead of the generalities that allow him to skip anywhere he desires.

Regarding the appearances, Carrier provides a hint concerning one of the places that he might head while responding to Craig: “The physicality of appearances in the Gospels can be a doctrinal and legendary development” given that these appearances are not found in Mark and because the epistles do not teach “physical appearances” (354). But if Carrier took this option, his claims in this statement alone would already be both outdated as well as incorrect.

One effort along these lines is hinted at by New Testament scholar Dale C. Allison Jr., in his two volumes Resurrecting Jesus and The Resurrection of Jesus. Allison clearly explains, “I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death” (Resurrecting Jesus, 346) and “I believe that the disciples saw Jesus and that he saw them” (Resurrection of Jesus, 3). He leans somewhat more so than not in favor of the empty tomb, though he is still not positive of this last event, remaining rather agnostic about it (269, 331–34, 343–44). Further, Allison finds no need for an empty tomb or a physical body for there to be a meaningful afterlife (Resurrecting Jesus, 225, 344), though he thinks that the Jewish plus the New Testament views were that of raised bodies (Resurrecting Jesus, 317, 324–25; Resurrection of Jesus, 131–36, cf. 224–25). On the other hand, Murray J. Harris takes quite a different angle on the subject in Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) and his follow-up work, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament: Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). Although Harris clearly accepts the historicity of the empty tomb (Raised Immortal, 37–44), he holds concerning the risen Jesus that, “after his resurrection his essential state was one of invisibility and therefore immateriality” (53, similarly, 54–58). Yet in his postmortem appearances, Jesus could be touched (55) due to his assuming materiality (54, 57). A very different thesis with a similarity or two is that held by Barnabas Lindars, who thought that Jesus’s resurrection appearances were supported by strong evidence, whereas the empty tomb was a late legend argued backwards from the appearances. See Lindars, “Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection but No Empty Tomb,” Theology 59 (1986): 90–96. A slightly later version of Lindars’s ideas appeared in his essay “The Resurrection and the Empty Tomb,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1993), 128–34. We will respond to similar theses below and elsewhere in this study.

For detailed responses to Allison’s overall views, see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 623–41; Gary R. Habermas, “Dale Allison’s Resurrection Skepticism: A Critique,” Philosophia Christi 10, no. 2 (2008): 303–13. Norman L. Geisler objects strongly to Harris’s position in Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), esp. chap. 8; as does Francis J. Beckwith, “Identity and Resurrection: A Review Article,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990): 369–73. Many of the items in these sources also apply to Lindars’s argument.

Carrier also ends his main chapter above with further details regarding the guards at the tomb, raising additional points that have been discussed in much detail in the chapter on Jesus’s burial in volume 1 as well as elsewhere in this study, so his items will simply be listed here briefly. He joins almost all critical commentators in rejecting Matthew’s account of the guards at the tomb (Matt 27:62–66; 28:11–15), noting “several positive reasons to disbelieve it.” See Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 358. These include the supposition that stealing Jesus’s body was a possibility in the first place or the guards presumably would not have been introduced into Matthew’s text at all. Further, Jesus predicted his resurrection in the context (Matt 27:63), thereby “priming his disciples to expect” the resurrection. Then “more importantly,” the guard is not placed at the tomb until Saturday, hours after a potential theft. In conclusion, “even if the story of the guards is true it does little to argue against the possibility of theft.” Several other considerations also cause Carrier to doubt the presence of the guards. For starters, they appear in the Gospel of Matthew alone. Next, when the women arrive, the tomb is already open, and they are unimpeded by the presence of the guards. Carrier dismisses Craig’s supposition that the women did not arrive until after the guards left due to the presence of the angel, because this version takes too many liberties with the text. However, it is difficult to understand very specifically why Carrier would be able to make much of this point. After all, frankly, reading Carrier’s complaints that Craig or anyone else takes too many liberties with the Gospel text is almost comical, given what has already been noted in the discussion concerning Carrier! More than perhaps any other commentators, Carrier is prone to take positions that are not supported by the text in question, seemingly in an effort to try and explain some convoluted idea—using exegesis “as a torture chamber” according to Licona. On this last tendency, see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 411n453, cf. also 57n104. Additionally, Carrier thinks Matthew’s story reads more like fiction and that there is an overt apologetic function to the entire account (358–59). As an aside, Carrier repeats the term “entail” or “entails” several times in this discussion (such as 358), apparently without realizing that logical entailment is a property of deductive arguments rather than the inductive points that he is making here. In this strict sense, at least, no strict entailment follows from his arguments at all.

As Craig also noted in his critique above. Other scholars have noted similarly.

Though we have taken great pains to argue against this entire cartel of burial and stolen body hypotheses.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334, with a related comment appearing on 340; Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 357.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 345.

Allison, 346.

Again, Allison, 334, similarly 340. To be clear in this context, though Allison cites sources for grave robbers such as necromancers, he apparently means by this evaluative statement that there are no specific data that connect them to Jesus’s burial tomb, so in this case the idea is deemed to be “unlikely.”

There is a distinction between the overall number of different sources that record a saying or event and how many of these resources are actually independent. Multiple attestation concerns the number of independent sources that are present and confirm the items in question.

Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 290. Ehrman’s comment is cited below.

Some might consider adding sources such as the additional portions of traditions that many scholars think lie behind the burial accounts in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. It was argued in the chapter on Jesus’s burial in volume 1 that there may well have been a tradition behind the guard that was posted at Jesus’s tomb, as found in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter, though it may well be later than the other pre-Gospel traditions. Some might question counting separately the two Acts traditions above, but the point here is that they are separate, earlier reports, even though they are contained in a single book. For those who object, one of them can always be subtracted to make a half dozen.

While the Gospel of Peter is by far the weakest of these texts in historical terms, Ehrman also counts this writing as one of those dated within 100 years of the crucifixion. See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 171; Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 44. Even Darrell Bock dates the Gospel of Peter to the mid-second century, or just some twenty to forty years after Ehrman, so there has been some movement on the date of this text. See Darrell L. Bock, The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth behind Alternative Christianities (Nashville: Nelson, 2006), 218–19.

Crossan puzzlingly lists Jesus’s burial as having “Double Independent Attestation,” which should be noted is still very good in itself. But his list of corroborating texts includes 1 Cor 15:4; Gos. Pet. 2:3–5a; 5:15b; 6:21, 23–24; Mark 15:42–47 (plus the Synoptic parallels) along with John 19:38–42, which most critical scholars would probably count as four independent sources, which would be incredibly strong. Yet it seems that Crossan apparently counts all these texts except 1 Corinthians 15 as aspects of a single source, which yields his two-source total instead of the usual critical count of perhaps four here. See Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 438.

The Jesus Seminar lists three Gospel sources for Jesus’s burial: Mark 15:42–47 plus the Synoptic parallels; John 19:38–42; and the Gos. Pet. 2:1–5; 6:1–4 (562). It additionally lists the obvious reference to Jesus’s burial in 1 Cor 15:4 (453), which may be the most highly acclaimed text of all. Yet, in spite of these four total sources attesting to Jesus’s burial, the Seminar still judges that the traditional burial did not occur (562). Most incredibly, the Jesus Seminar declares at the beginning of its study of Jesus’s actions that they had no preconceptions in coming to this topic, for their views were “not predetermined by theological considerations” (1). See Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1998).

The Jesus Seminar lists three sources for the empty tomb: Mark 16:1–8 and the Synoptic parallels; John 20:3–10; and Gos. Pet. 12:1–13:3. But like the burial of Jesus, it still concludes that this event did not occur; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 563. (The Jesus Seminar references to the Gospel of Peter are not necessarily listed the same way that other researchers number these same references.)

The number of independent sources listed for Jesus’s burial by Crossan and the Jesus Seminar is less than the above list of seven. A few comments are in order here: (1) Crossan’s list of two sources often equals four by most scholarly counts (he does list four total references, though). But even by critical standards, it would seem highly problematic for Crossan to legitimately count comments from Mark, John, and the Gospel of Peter all as the same source, as if they were interconnected puzzle pieces. It would at least seem that very few other scholars would make the move that these three texts in Mark, John, and the Gospel of Peter all report variations of the same passage in speaking of Jesus’s burial. (2) Four is also the number of sources provided by the Jesus Seminar, of which Crossan is a member anyway. (3) In spite of studying the views of scholars that are far from conservative, four sources are quite substantial anyway and provide plenty of material with which to make the case here, as indicated by other scholars who comment concerning source counts. See historian Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197; cf. also another historian, E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), particularly 2–11. Additionally, see the comments on source attestation by Ehrman in the next couple of notes.

As Bart Ehrman states strongly in his text mentioned above: “But if a word or action is found in several sources and they did not collaborate with one another, then none of them made it up; the tradition must predate them. If it is found independently in a number of sources, the probability of its being reliable is increased, assuming, of course, that it is contextually credible.” See Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 290; also 111, 130–31, 251, 261.

Plus the sources that were noted earlier for the guard at the tomb. On the same page as the quotation in the prior note, Ehrman contrasts the difference between “a saying or deed” that is present in only one source and one that is corroborated in several sources, with the latter being far more evidential (290). Interestingly enough, when he argues similarly regarding one versus several sources earlier in the book, Ehrman uses as his example a case that is corroborated by seven sources (92)—the same number that we argued for here regarding the traditional view of Jesus’s burial.

Ehrman changed his view on the traditional burial and empty tomb accounts in the Gospels, which he now accepts. For an explication of his new argument against the traditional views and a critique of it, see the earlier chapter on Jesus’s burial plus the chapter on the empty tomb in volume 1. Bart D. Ehrman’s more recent view is expressed in his volume How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 151–64.

Gal 1:11–17; Phil 3:4–9; cf. Acts 7:58–8:1; 9:1–2; 22:3–5; 26:4–11.

Such as historian Michael Grant, Saint Paul: The Man (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1976), 107–9, who mentions several options. So also major Jewish historian Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul, trans. William F. Stinespring (New York: Macmillan, 1944), 325, 329–30, who was convinced (along with other scholars) that Paul suffered from epilepsy.

Such charges and ones like them regarding their application to the apostle Paul are treated and critiqued in both the chapter on Paul in volume 1 of this study, plus in the appropriate chapters on these particular versions of naturalistic theories. The positive historical and other backup for Paul’s appearance was also treated in the minimal facts chapters of volume 1, which include Paul’s conversion.

Grant, Saint Paul, 109. In spite of his own comment above, Grant states: “Our evidence is too fragmentary and enigmatic, to allow us to do more than guess at an answer.”

J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1925), 47, 59, 61, 65, with the quotations appearing on 47 and 59 as well as in many similar phrases.

The Greek text in Mark 3:21, 31–35 is difficult in its own right, such as regarding the question of the identity of those who attempted to restrain Jesus. The Greek literally indicates that these were people nearby (hoi par’ autou), but both the way the terms are used plus Jesus seemingly ignoring his family, at least temporarily (3:31–35), favors the notion that Jesus’s family agreed with this public sentiment. It no doubt looked quite embarrassing for both Jesus and his family, hence raising its likelihood of authenticity. R. T. France notes the traditional interpretation that Jesus’s family attempted to get Jesus out of the public view, having concluded themselves that Jesus was “out of his mind” (165). After entertaining some alternate interpretations, France concludes that the traditional view “seems the least unsatisfactory solution” (166) and “seems to make the best sense” of the language here. The family, then, was concerned for both theirs as well as Jesus’s reputation, since he apparently was not sane (167). See France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Larry W. Hurtado basically agrees with this interpretation, as well; see Hurtado, Mark, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 65.

James the brother of Jesus is even initially present in the upper room among a crowd of about 120 persons (Acts 1:13, 15), along with the other brothers of Jesus, the disciples, Mary the mother of Jesus, and others, immediately after Jesus’s ascension (Acts 1:13–14). So James was numbered from the beginning as being present among those who would begin the church just a few days later. Then, at the epochal Jerusalem council of Acts 15:1–35, James gives what turns out to be the decisive word on the soteriological fate of the gentiles (15:13–21), even sounding as if he were handing down the final decision himself (15:19). Whether or not Gal 2:1–10 depicts the same meeting as the one in Acts 15, James’s presence is also unmistakable there (cf. Gal 1:18–19).

Two of the very few protests here are those from John Painter, “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” 25–29, 57–62, and, quite surprisingly to many, Richard Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” 106, with both essays being found in Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, eds., The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Both of these authors also produced earlier writings that voiced these views: see Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997); Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 46–57. Bauckham does acknowledge that the predominant view among scholars is that James’s resurrection appearance was the occasion of his conversion in “James and Jesus,” 106.

Crossan dates the Gospel of the Hebrews quite early (Historical Jesus, 434–36), while Bock apparently dates it to the second century (Missing Gospels, 218). Licona comments on these subjects in Resurrection of Jesus, 450, 458.

Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 37, after citing Gal 2:1–10, 12; Acts 15:13; 21:18.

Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 325. Wright likewise follows the majority view that James probably came to believe in Jesus due to a resurrection appearance (560).

Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 142–74.

Ehrman, 146–56.

Ehrman, 145, 151, and to a lesser degree 148.

Ehrman, 120.

Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 203–4, 192. Ehrman has held this view for a long time; see Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, 201, 229–30, cf. 231–32.

Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 440–51 on James’s skepticism, 455–58, 499 with regard to Jesus’s appearance to James and afterward, and 458–60 concerning the reason for James’s conversion. The very helpful summary of what we know about James is found on 460.

Licona, 460–61, 618 for succinct comments to this effect. Licona considers the evidence for this appearance to James to be quite strong, but he no longer counts this event as one of the minimal facts. This has nothing to do with any lack of historical evidence whatsoever. But the definition we gave of the minimal facts also requires a very significant amount of scholarly support—a high percentage of critical scholars. Licona tightened up the initial historical criteria for the scholarly consensus that favors historical events (esp. 64–66), and as a result he does not count James’s appearance as a minimal fact, strictly because of this tighter second criterion for these facts. True, the critical scholars who comment on the matter virtually always think that James was converted from skepticism either by the risen Jesus himself appearing to him, or at the very least by what James thought or believed was the risen Jesus’s appearance. Licona’s new application is that the overall scholarly sample size of the commentators on the matter is simply too small. In the research, those who comment on these details regarding James almost always conclude the same thing, as just stated, but Licona prefers a broader cross-section of views on the subject. Given the strength of the evidence itself, even without a larger number of scholars, Licona considers James’s conversion due to Jesus’s resurrection appearance to be a second-order fact (461, cf. 618), along with three other second-order facts: namely, the empty tomb, Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection, and the bodily nature of the appearances (468–69). Regarding the historical evidence per se, Licona’s view still reflects closely the position that he and I took in chap. 4 of our volume The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), which includes James’s appearance as one of the minimal facts (67–69, 224).

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 202–3, 334; Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 350, 365n1, 365n5. See also Carrier’s earlier article, “The Guarded Tomb of Jesus and Daniel in the Lion’s Den: An Argument for the Plausibility of Theft,” Journal of Higher Criticism 8 (2001): 304–18.

Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334; a similar statement by Allison appears on 340. See the further treatment of necromancers in the chapter on the empty tomb in volume 1.

Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 357. Ehrman makes a strictly unrelated but still helpful concession here as well (Did Jesus Exist?, 290).

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “History and the Reality of the Resurrection,” in Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 69.

Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 267–68. As mentioned above, Stein cites the presence of the guard at Jesus’s tomb.

Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions,” 199. Thomas C. Oden is another of the many scholars critical of the wrong tomb thesis (484) as well as other Fraud Type 2 options; see Oden, The Word of Life, vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 485–86.

C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Expository Times 101 (1990): 171.

Other additional or secondary considerations may also arise while addressing challenges in extended discussions regarding the plethora of Fraud Type 2 suppositions. For instance, as with other critical questions, such as those surrounding the empty tomb, much is properly made of the location of Jesus’s burial being found precisely in the city of Jerusalem, where the initial preaching also began—since that message could have been checked out within the local vicinity. But if both friends and foes alike were keeping a general or specific eye on the whereabouts of Jesus’s body, which seems to make sense, as mentioned in the previous section above (along with Pannenberg’s very helpful quotation on page 465), then we are again confronted with the juxtaposition of the dead body within the proximity of the city where the preaching occurred. Thus, especially in light of the absence of any alternate archaeology or supported accusations having occurred (as helpfully also pointed out in the concessions above by Allison, Carrier, and the last comment by Ehrman), the city of Jerusalem remains a very strategic place of advantage for early Christian preaching, thereby providing the opportunity for disproof of the alternative Fraud Type 2 hypotheses, especially without any actual evidence against the preaching from these charges. Once again, while this is not a failproof situation, these are strong cognate considerations just the same.

↑ Back to top