Resurrection of Jesus

====Empty tomb and resurrection appearances====
[[N. T. Wright]] emphatically and extensively argues for the reality of the empty tomb and the subsequent appearances of Jesus, reasoning that as a matter of "inference"{{sfn|Wright|2003|p=711}} both a bodily resurrection and later bodily appearances of Jesus are far better explanations for the empty tomb and the 'meetings' and the rise of Christianity than are any other theories, including those of Ehrman.{{sfn|Wright|2003|p=711}} [[Dale Allison]] argues for an empty tomb that was later followed by visions of Jesus by [[Apostles in the New Testament|the Apostles]] and Mary Magdalene, while also accepting the historicity of the resurrection.{{sfn|Allison|2021|pp=3, 337, 353}} Religion professor [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]] points to how the notion of an empty tomb would fit with the [[Ancient Greek religion|ancient Greek beliefs]] that any case of immortalization always required absolute physical continuity. A vanished body could consequently be an indication of someone having been made immortal, as seen for instance in the case of [[Aristaeus]], the Trojan prince [[Ganymede (mythology)|Ganymede]], and princess [[Orithyia of Athens]], whose mysterious disappearances were seen as the result of their being swept away to a physically immortal existence by the gods, [[Heracles]] whose lack of bodily remains after his funeral pyre was considered proof of his physical immortalization, and [[Aristeas|Aristeas of Proconnesus]] who was held to have reappeared after his body vanished from a locked room, which Endsjø interprets as something like a resurrection.{{sfn|Endsjø|2009|pp=58-60, 63, 83, 93}}{{sfn|Lehtipuu|2015|pp=62–63}}

Smith argues that Mark has integrated two traditions, which were first separate, on the disappearance (from the tomb, interpreted as being taken to heaven) and appearance (post-mortem appearances), into one Easter narrative.{{sfn|Smith|2010|pp=2, 179–180}}{{sfn|Smith|2007}} According to [[Géza Vermes]], the story of the empty tomb developed independently from the stories of the post-resurrection appearances, as they are never directly coordinated to form a combined argument.{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=142}} While the coherence of the empty tomb narrative is questionable, it is "clearly an early tradition."{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=142}} Vermes notes that the story of the empty tomb conflicts with notions of a spiritual resurrection. According to Vermes, "[t]he strictly Jewish bond of spirit and body is better served by the idea of the empty tomb and is no doubt responsible for the introduction of the notions of palpability (Thomas in John) and eating (Luke and John)."{{sfn|Vermes|2008a|p=148}} Ehrman rejects the story of the empty tomb, and argues that "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it [...] an empty tomb would not produce faith."{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=98}} Ehrman argues that the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus.{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=90}}