Resurrection of Jesus Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! ====Skepticism about the empty tomb narrative==== Early on, the stories about the empty tomb were met with skepticism. The Gospel of Matthew already mentions stories that the body was [[Stolen body hypothesis|stolen from the grave]].{{sfnp|Dunn2003b|p=836}} Other suggestions, not supported in mainstream scholarship, are that Jesus had [[swoon hypothesis|not really died on the cross]], was [[Lost body hypothesis|lost due to natural causes]],{{sfnp|Ehrman|2014|p=88}} or was [[Substitution hypothesis|replaced by an impostor]].<ref>e.g. https://www.christianpost.com/voices/jesus-twin-brother-and-the-truth-about-easter.html or in [[The Gospel of Afranius]]</ref> The belief that Jesus did not really die on the cross but only appeared to do so is found in a wide variety of early texts, and probably has its historical roots in the earliest stages of Christianity.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|p=270}} According to Israeli religion scholar [[Guy Stroumsa|Gedaliahu Stroumsa]], this idea came first, and later, docetism broadened to include Jesus was a spirit without flesh.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|pp=267, 268}} It is probable these were present in the first century, as it is against such doctrines that the author of 1 and 2 John seems to argue.{{sfn|Stroumsa|2004|pp=267, 268}} The absence of any reference to the story of Jesus's empty tomb in the [[Pauline epistles]] and the Easter [[kerygma]] (preaching or proclamation) of the earliest church has led some scholars to suggest that Mark invented it.{{refn|group=note|Bultmann dismisses the empty tomb story as "an apologetic legend."{{sfnp|Bultmann|1963|p=287}}}} Allison, however, finds this argument from silence unconvincing.{{sfn|Allison|2005|p=306}} Most scholars believe that the [[Gospel of Mark]] and the [[Gospel of John]] contain two independent attestations of an empty tomb, which in turn suggests that both used already-existing sources{{sfn|Aune|2013|p=169}} and appealed to a commonly held tradition, though Mark may have added to and adapted that tradition to fit his narrative.<ref>Engelbrecht, J. "The Empty Tomb (Lk 24:1-12) in Historical Perspective." Neotestamentica, vol. 23, no. 2, 1989, pp. 245.</ref> Other scholars have argued that instead, Paul presupposes the empty tomb, specifically in the early creed passed down in 1 Cor. 15.{{Sfn|Ware|2014|p=498}}{{Sfn|Cook|2017|pp=56β58}} Christian biblical scholars have used textual critical methods to support the historicity of the tradition that "Mary of Magdala had indeed been the first to see Jesus," most notably the [[Criterion of Embarrassment]] in recent years.{{sfn|Dunn|2003b|pp=843}}<ref>[[Richard Bauckham]], ''Gospel Women, Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels'' (2002), pages 257-258</ref> According to [[Dale Allison]], the inclusion of women as the first witnesses to the risen Jesus "once suspect, confirms the truth of the story."{{sfn|Allison|2005|pp=327-328}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page