[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the May issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The physical and anatomical features of the figure depicted on the Shroud of Turin have undergone extensive scrutiny and analysis. The man’s hands appear to be positioned over the genital area, with the right hand fully covering any nudity. To maintain this position, either the body would need to be tilted forward with arms stretched downward, or the elbows would need to be propped up and the wrists drawn together.¹ However, after death, muscles lose tension and postural control, causing the limbs to relax. Without nervous activity to sustain specific positions, a corpse’s arms are likely to fall to the sides once muscle tension dissipates. Therefore, maintaining a hand-over-groin position post-mortem while supine is improbable.²

Ercoline, et al. found significant deviations between the man on the Shroud and normal human anatomy, specifically regarding the length of the fingers, length of one arm, size of the hips, and the placement of the elbows.³ The researchers concluded that these deviations could not be due to normal anatomical variations. According to some scholars,⁴ the anatomy of the left hand and arm appears unusually elongated and the fingers disproportional to allow for this modest covering. By applying principles of medical human proportion, researcher Elio Quiroga Rodriguez conducted an analysis revealing that the figure on the Shroud exhibits an exaggerated arm length, notably showing the left arm as approximately 7 to 10 centimeters longer than a typical arm.⁵ This discrepancy does not align well with known anatomical norms. Unfortunately, either the torso of the image on the Shroud is too short or the arms are too long for the hands to cover the genitals.

One might argue that trauma from crucifixion could cause such a deformation. However, studies like that of Bordes, et al.,⁶ which utilized direct forensic techniques, refute this claim. Even with shoulder, elbow, and wrist dislocations resulting from crucifixion, such an event would not cause an arm to extend to the exaggerated proportions observed. Furthermore, the hypothesis suggesting that the head is leaning forward is difficult to substantiate and does not align well with the anatomical expectations of a relaxed supine posture.⁷ These discrepancies raise questions about the anatomical accuracy and potential anachronisms present in the Shroud’s depiction.

Fanti, et al.⁸ also observed that the buttocks and legs do not appear flattened against the cloth, even where direct pressure on it is expected. The fatty tissue of the buttocks is not affected by rigor mortis, so if a real man, dead or alive, in rigor or not, was placed on the cloth, some evidence from 3D image software should show this contact flattening. However, there is none.

The hair depicted in the Shroud seems to be flowing towards the man’s shoulders, instead of falling towards the ground. Interestingly, the hair is not matted with blood, as one would expect from the trauma of a crown of thorns. Rather, the hair itself appears clean. In addition, there are some blood spots that seem to fall around the hair, as opposed to dripping from it.⁹ Coroners Bucklin and Zugibe accurately note that scalps bleed precipitously, but there still lacks an adequate explanation for the lack of blood on the hair and the blood that appears to lie outside the hair.

Caja and Boi¹⁰ recently analyzed the Shroud’s body image and bloodstains to assess the anatomical characteristics of the depicted figure. Upon detailed examination of high-quality images of the Shroud, the researchers observed significant discrepancies between the frontal (anterior) and posterior (back) views. According to Caja and Boi, in the frontal view of the image, both ankles are visible and aligned parallel, with no overlap or superposition of the feet. However, in the posterior view, the right foot is notably plantarflexed (pointed downward), a position not reflected in the frontal image. Additionally, the degree of plantarflexion differs substantially between the two views—14.5 degrees in the frontal view and 32 degrees in the posterior view—nearly double. In the posterior view, the right foot appears to be beneath the left, while in the frontal view, the right foot appears on top. These discrepancies between the two images, which should theoretically depict the same moment in time, raise concerns about the accuracy of the representation. The researchers concluded that there is no anatomical or scientific explanation for these anomalies.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Shroud clearly depicts nail wounds from nails driven through the dorsal area (top) of the feet, whereas all archaeological remains of crucified victims discovered to date exhibit piercings through the sides of the heel bone in a straddling formation.¹¹ Although variations in crucifixion methods or regional practices could explain these differences, there are no documented examples of nails being driven through the top of the feet, nor is this method depicted in early artistic renderings. In recognition of the fact that very few crucified victims have been discovered and that all of them, thus far, demonstrate piercing through the sides of the heel bone, the depiction of nail wounds and blood patterns on the Shroud—indicating a dorsal penetration through the foot—lacks any known archaeological basis. This inconsistency calls into question the Shroud’s authenticity, suggesting that its portrayal may be more aligned with artistic interpretation than historical accuracy, as it does not reflect the documented practices of Roman crucifixion methods.

In addition, proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity often argue that if someone were attempting to create a forgery, they would have depicted the crucifixion wounds with the hands as they were commonly portrayed in medieval art, aligning with contemporary beliefs. Instead, they claim that the nail marks on the Shroud are located where the Romans actually placed them—through the wrists. While there is no direct archaeological evidence of nail wounds in the wrists of crucifixion victims, it is plausible to infer that the wrists would have been the most likely location for nail insertion by the Romans to maximize the inflicted torture and ensure the victim’s support on the cross. This assertion corresponds with the idea that nailing through the wrists would effectively bear the weight of the body, unlike the hands which would likely tear under the strain.¹² However, the image on the Shroud shows the left hand resting over the right, with the palms turned inward toward the body. This inward orientation does not allow for definitive identification of the placement of the nails.

Advocates of the Shroud’s authenticity, such as Paul Vignon,¹³ have endeavored to explain the origins of the scourge marks visible on the Shroud. To account for the circular marks, a theoretical device was envisioned—one equipped with somewhat spherical blunt objects attached to the ends of its lashes, each culminating in a lead weight capable of producing the impression of two side-by-side balls, resembling a small dumbbell. Having conceptualized this scourge, Vignon¹⁴ sought to reconstruct the likely direction of the strikes and even speculated on the positions the torturers might have assumed during the beating. He went so far as to create a facsimile of this hypothesized three-strap instrument of torture, publishing a photograph of it in his second book. Notably, in this reconstruction, he deviated from his earlier description by replacing the imagined small dumbbells with two rounded weights, akin to bullets, spaced at least three centimeters apart.

Many of these hypothetical flagrums have been materially reconstructed, following Vignon’s example, and presented as if they were faithful replicas of an ancient original, despite the complete absence of any historical evidence for such an instrument. One such reconstruction is currently on display at the Shroud Museum in Turin. The museum’s audio guide even claims, “The flagellation in Roman times was carried out with instruments like the one shown here, which has been faithfully reconstructed.”¹⁵ Flagrums such as these have been presented as corresponding to a typical or even unique model purportedly used in Roman times and allegedly well-documented by archaeology—a claim that is entirely unfounded.

Despite the lack of evidence, some have manipulated this absence into an argument supporting the Shroud’s authenticity. For example, Gaetano Intrigillo¹⁶ poses the question: how could a hypothetical forger have known about the Roman flagrum taxillatum, a device supposedly forgotten for centuries and only rediscovered through archaeology, and then replicated its distinctive marks so precisely on the Shroud? The implication is that the forger could not have known, thereby bolstering the Shroud’s authenticity. However, this reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The forger could not have known about the flagrum taxillatum because such an instrument has neither been forgotten nor rediscovered—it has never been documented. To date, no evidence exists that a flagrum taxillatum ever existed, nor have any marks made by such an instrument been discovered.

THE SHROUD AND CRUCIFIXION HYPOTHESES

Several scholars have attempted to estimate or conjecture how Jesus’ crucifixion physically occurred using the Shroud as a guide. Since the early 20^th century, medical professionals and scholars have sought to examine the blood patterns on the Shroud in an effort to make informed inferences about Roman crucifixion methods. This approach lacks both an archaeological and scientific precedent.

Most of the Shroud advocates with a medical background, like Robert Bucklin, a forensic pathologist, and W.D. Edwards,¹⁷ a medical doctor, have adhered to the classical interpretation established by Pierre Barbet,¹⁸ which identified a single wound in the center of the right foot as depicted on the Shroud. Most of these advocates agree, based upon their interpretations of the blood distribution on the Shroud, that the left foot was likely nailed atop the right foot, necessitating a severe contortion of the foot and ankle, which would also require the leg and knee to show an abnormal position.

Paul C. Maloney, following the work of Dr. Joseph M. Gambescia, argues that the Shroud suggests two nails were used to secure the right foot, flattening it against the stipes of the cross. This would account for the downward flow of blood and capillary spread observed on the bottom of the foot. In contrast, the left foot, secured with only one nail, retained its natural arch, which would have limited capillary action and the spread of blood.

However, Caja and Boi’s¹⁹ research identified a clear mismatch between the frontal and posterior images concerning the proposed overlap of the feet. The frontal image shows a bloodstain originating from the right foot or ankle, running between both feet, with no corresponding stain from the left foot. The bloodstain from the right foot appears to indicate a nail entry at the midfoot region (Lisfranc’s joint). In contrast, no bloodstain on the left foot corresponds to a nail entry point. The discrepancies between the frontal and posterior images of the feet cast doubt on the single-nail hypothesis and the overall consistency of the Shroud’s imagery.

ORIGIN THEORIES

The Shroud of Turin has been the subject of various theories attempting to explain the detailed imprint and blood marks, each supported by different researchers and evidence.

Painting or Artistic Technique

As previously noted, McCrone,²⁰ among others, has proposed that the Shroud was painted using iron oxide and other pigments, a conclusion based on his analysis of particles found on the cloth. Although this theory has faced criticism, it remains a plausible explanation, particularly given the prevalence of relic creation during the medieval period. Despite the conflicting views, it is evident that the image as it exists today is extremely superficial, with any pigment being almost imperceptible and very finely dispersed. A significant part of the image appears to result from the yellowing of the fibers themselves. Charles Freeman²¹ offers an intriguing solution to this puzzle, suggesting that over time, the original pigment has been removed, leaving only the “shadow” of its former presence.

Medieval Photography Theory

Nicholas Allen’s²² research on the imprint transfer on the Shroud points to the possibility that the Shroud of Turin was a product of medieval ingenuity, created using a photographic process involving a camera obscura and a quartz lens. Allen argues that the Shroud was deliberately manufactured for a noble or religious audience, rather than for public display, and that the image on the Shroud was created using a form of medieval photography, not traditional painting methods. His hypothesis explains all the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the superficiality of the image, its high level of detail, and the absence of pigment. Allen also believes that the medieval creators of the Shroud finalized their work by carefully trickling blood to the areas of the image corresponding to the wounds from nails and thorns on the crucified body. According to Allen, the bloodstains were applied in a manner consistent with the artistic practices and conventions of the late 13^th century.

Allen’s work²³ challenges previous interpretations and asserts that the Shroud’s creation involved a sophisticated process that was ahead of its time. He contends that this medieval photographic technique would have required advanced knowledge of optics and light-sensitive chemicals, which, while difficult to accept, provides a logical explanation for the Shroud’s mysterious features. Ultimately, Allen concludes that the Shroud’s image was intentionally crafted to appear miraculous, exploiting contemporary religious beliefs, and should be understood within the context of medieval art and science.

Scorch or Thermochemical Process

This theory, as championed by Emily Craig and Randall Bresee,²⁴ suggests that the image was formed through a chemical or thermal process, possibly involving a heated statue or bas-relief. The superficial nature of the image and the lack of brush strokes support the idea that heat or light could have transferred the image onto the linen. The bloodstains would have been added later as droplets atop the corresponding anatomical areas.

Pellicori²⁵ successfully replicated the coloration and some properties of the Shroud of Turin by applying certain substances to linen fabric and then heating it to induce oxidation and dehydration of the fibers. The applied substance acted as a catalyst, resulting in a more intense yellow color in the treated areas. Building on this approach, Craig and Bresee used a dust-drawing technique with nearly colorless aloe powder. The aloe powder, intended to catalyze oxidation and dehydration rather than produce direct coloration, was used to create an image of a human face on paper. This image was then transferred to linen, which was subsequently heated in an oven at 200°F for approximately five hours to induce the oxidation and dehydration of the linen fibers.

Naturalistic or Contact Theory

This hypothesis posits that the image was formed by direct contact between a body and the cloth, with body fluids reacting chemically with the linen fibers. Pierre Barbet supported the idea that the image was formed by natural chemical processes resulting from the direct contact of the body with the cloth. Raymond Rogers,²⁶ a chemist who worked on the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), considered the possibility that chemical reactions might have contributed to the image formation, although he also explored other mechanisms such as Maillard reactions.²⁷

While the Contact Theory provides a naturalistic explanation for the Shroud’s image, it faces challenges. For instance, critics argue that the theory does not fully account for the three-dimensionality and uniformity of the image, and that a perfect imprint would be difficult to achieve without significant distortion. Despite this, the Contact Theory remains one of the possible explanations for the Shroud’s enigmatic image.

Radiation or Energy-Based Theory

Introduced by John Jackson,²⁸ this theory suggests that a burst of radiation or energy, possibly during the resurrection, created the image. It attempts to explain the Shroud’s unique characteristics, such as the alleged lack of pigments and the precise, superficial image.

The idea of a coronal discharge or any other form of radiation as the mechanism behind the Shroud’s image formation is as speculative as other theories and lacks both empirical evidence and biblical support. Throughout the Bible, there are several instances of miraculous resurrections performed by Jesus and the apostles, yet none are described as emitting any kind of radiation or energy. Examples include the resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7), Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8), Lazarus (John 11), Tabitha (Acts 9), and Eutychus (Acts 20). In none of these cases is there any mention of light, energy, or radiation accompanying the resurrection.

Discussion on Theories

Although current scientific understanding does not fully explain the phenomenon observed in the Shroud, several rational solutions have been proposed, even if none have been perfected. The hypothesis that an artist could have created the image on the Turin cloth is bolstered by historical evidence. Historians have identified over 40 documented copies of the Shroud from the 14th to 16th centuries, suggesting that earlier replicas likely existed.²⁹

It is plausible to suggest that an image originally intended to portray the serene repose of death could have been later repurposed to vividly depict the sufferings of Christ with the use of real blood. This transformation would have served to enhance the Shroud’s status as a relic and an object of intense veneration. Additionally, it is conceivable that what began as painted blood was later augmented with real blood to bolster the cloth’s authenticity as a sacred relic. Alternatively, the blood could have been added on top of an image that was deliberately created to represent a crucified Jesus.

CONCLUSION

According to the New Testament, Jesus was alive for nearly six weeks after His resurrection, fully restored from death. In this context, relics such as the Shroud, which are associated with the dead, would have held no significance. The remnants of Jesus’ suffering, such as the cross, nails, crown of thorns, and seamless tunic, were all discarded and only “rediscovered” centuries later. There is no biblical or historical reason to believe that His grave wrappings, considered unclean according to Jewish customs, would have been uniquely preserved.

Moreover, the New Testament does not indicate any interest in preserving such items, nor does it suggest that they even existed as relics. Attempts to link the Shroud to biblical texts, such as the interpretation of the word proegraphe in Galatians 3:1 as referring to a picture or image, are etymologically and contextually implausible. The lack of biblical and traditional support for the preservation of any such relic further undermines the claim that the Shroud of Turin could be an authentic burial cloth of Christ.

Historical records show that there was no interest in searching for Jesus’ burial cloths until the latter half of the sixth century, with no prior documentation of their existence.³⁰ It wasn’t until this time that references to such relics began to appear, alongside other artifacts associated with Christ. Over the centuries, numerous “sister” shrouds surfaced, each claiming to be genuine, and many found their way into the most prominent cities across Christendom. France, especially during the Carolingian period, became a hub for these relics, though many were later exposed as medieval forgeries, such as the Shroud of Cadouin and the Shroud of Carcassonne. In Spain, the Shroud of Oviedo continues to be venerated despite dating back only to the eighth century. The Shroud of Turin stands out among these various relics because it uniquely features the image of a tortured body, unlike others that typically portrayed only the face, like the Veil of Veronica and the Mandylion of Edessa. The existence of numerous shrouds claiming authenticity raises substantial doubts about the legitimacy of the Turin Shroud.

While the Roman Catholic Church may have a vested interest in the Shroud as one of its most prominent medieval relics, it has never officially claimed the Shroud to be authentic. The Church’s teachings emphasize the resurrection itself, rather than any material object, as the foundation of faith. Likewise, Protestants who adhere to the principle of sola Scriptura find their assurance in the Bible’s narrative and the testimonies it records. Note that believing that the Shroud is genuine does not mean that one needs to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, just that He actually died. Therefore, one does not need to be Christian to believe that the Shroud is real.

Despite the extensive scientific analysis conducted on the Shroud of Turin, the most critical evidence lies within the biblical text itself. According to the Scriptures, there were multiple cloths used to cover Jesus’ body at His burial, not a single shroud. The Gospel accounts, particularly in John 20:6-7, clearly describe both a linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. This explicit detail directly contradicts the notion that the Shroud of Turin could be the sole burial cloth of Jesus. The existence of only one shroud fails to align with the biblical narrative, undermining its authenticity as the true burial cloth of Christ.

The Shroud of Turin, much like the Egyptian pyramids, stands as a testament to the enigmatic abilities of its creators. Despite the passage of centuries, the precise methods employed in constructing the pyramids remain elusive, suggesting that the Egyptians possessed capabilities and technologies that may no longer exist today. Similarly, the Shroud of Turin represents a creation that defies easy explanation. While vastly different in purpose and form, the artisans behind the Shroud clearly possessed the skill to craft a detailed and lifelike image, potentially augmented with blood, pointing to an advanced understanding of both art and anatomy.

The Shroud of Turin continues to captivate and fuel intense interest despite its carbon dating to the medieval period and the clear discrepancies with biblical accounts. This enduring fascination is largely driven by the unresolved mystery surrounding how the image of a crucified man was imprinted onto the linen cloth. Van Biema³¹ notes the persistent and aggressive defense of the Shroud’s authenticity by its adherents, who challenge scientific conclusions because, even after extensive analysis, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for the formation of the image. The scientific community remains perplexed, and many proposed explanations are dismissed as speculative. This ongoing mystery, coupled with historical documents and modern scientific theories that keep the debate alive, sustains the Shroud’s allure, drawing both skeptics and believers into the conversation. The Shroud’s enigmatic nature, combined with the lack of a definitive explanation, ensures that interest in it remains strong.

However, for Bible believers, the need for material evidence of Jesus’ death is unnecessary. The Shroud, whether real or fake, does not affect the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is already affirmed by the accounts of numerous witnesses documented in the New Testament, and no relic is required to substantiate this truth.

Endnotes

¹ Raymond E. Brown (2002), Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), pp. 151-152.

² E.A. Mare (1999), “Science, Art History and the Shroud of Turin: Nicholas Allen’s Research on the Iconography and Production of the Image of a Crucified Man,” South African Journal of Art History, 14[1]:66-83; R.E. Brown (1984), “Brief Observations on The Shroud of Turin,” Biblical Theology Bulletin, 14[4]:145-148.

³ Ercoline, et al (1982), “Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society,” Westin Hotel, Seattle, Washington (New York: IEEE), October 28-30.

⁴ See Elio Quiroga Rodriguez (2024), “Unveiling Deception: An Approach of the Shroud of Turin’s Anatomical Anomalies and Artistic Liberties,” Archaeometry, July, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382219566_Unveiling_Deception_An_Approach_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin’s_Anatomical_Anomalies_and_Artistic_Liberties; Joe Nickell (1983), Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books); Edward Steers, Jr. (2013), “The Shroud of Turin,” Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds (Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky), p. 146.

⁵ Rodriguez.

⁶ S. Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21.

⁷ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press), pp. 253-342.

⁸ Giulio Fanti, et al. (2005), “Evidences for Testing Hypotheses About the Body Image Formation of the Turin Shroud,” The Third Dallas International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, September 8-11, Dallas, TX, p. 9.

⁹ Ibid.; Luigi Garlaschelli (2010), “Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54[4]; Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of Turin, 127.

¹⁰ V.L. Caja and M. Boi (2018), “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin Through the Anatomical Traits of the Lower Limbs and Feet,” Archaeometry, 60:1377-1390.

¹¹ Nicholas Haas (1970), “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv’at ha-Mivtar,” Israel Exploration Journal 20:38-59; Emanuela Gualdi-Russo, et al. (2019), “A Multidisciplinary Study of Calcaneal Trauma in Roman Italy: A Possible Case of Crucifixion?” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11[4]; David Ingham and Corinne Duhig (2022), “Crucifixion in the Fens: Life & Death in Roman Fenstanton,” British Archaeology, 182:27, January-February.

¹² This assumption is supported by anatomical considerations that Stephen Bordes, et al. concluded from their experiments with cadavers that the most probable site for nail insertion was through the carpal bones of the wrist. See Stephen Bordes, et al. (2020), “The Clinical Anatomy of Crucifixion,” Clinical Anatomy 33[1]:12-21; cf. Zugibe.

¹³ Paul Vignon (1902), Le Linceul du Christ (Paris: Masson), pp. 110-116; Paul Vignon (1939), Le Saint Suaire de Turin (Paris: Masson), pp. 55-60.

¹⁴ Vignon (1939), p. 55.

¹⁵ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:1-59.

¹⁶ Sindone Gaetano Intrigillo (1998), L’istruttoria del Secolo (San Paolo: Cinisello Balsamo), p. 111.

¹⁷ W. D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F. E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463.

¹⁸ Caja and Boi, “The Evidence of Crucifixion on the Shroud of Turin,” 60:1377-1390.

¹⁹ Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

²⁰ Charles Freeman (2014), “The Origins of the Shroud of Turin,” History Today, 64[11].

²¹ N.P.L. Allen (1995), “Verification of the Nature and Causes of the Photonegative Images on the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin,” De Arte, 51:21-35; N.P.L. Allen (1997), “On Proto-photography and the Shroud of Turin,” History of Photography, 21[4]:264; N.P.L. Allen (1993), “Is the Shroud of Turin the First Recorded Photograph?” South African Journal of Art History, 11:12-32; N.P.L. Allen (1994), “A Reappraisal of Late-thirteenth Century Responses to the Shroud of Lirey-Chambery-Turin: Encolpia of the Eucharist, Vera Eikon or Supreme Relic?” Southern African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 4[1]:62-94. Allen argues that the Shroud was created using a primitive form of photography involving a camera obscura and light-sensitive chemicals like silver nitrate. This theory accounts for the high level of detail, negative image, and superficiality observed on the cloth. Allen’s experiments successfully replicated these features, making this one of the more scientifically grounded explanations for the Shroud’s origin during the 13th or 14th century.

²² N.P.L. Allen (1997), 21[4]:264.

²³ Emily A. Craig and Randall R. Bresee (1994), “Image Formation and the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 34[1], January.

²⁴ S.F. Pellicori (1980), “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19:1913-1920.

²⁵ Pierre Barbet (1955), A Doctor at Calvary (New York: P.J. Kennedy & Sons).

²⁶ R. Rogers (2008), A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin (Florissant, CO: Lulu Press).

²⁷ See also T. De Wesselow (2012), The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (New York: Penguin Group).

²⁸ J.P. Jackson (1991), “An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image,” History, Science, Theology and the Shroud, ed. A. Berard (St. Louis: Richard Nieman), pp. 325-344; L. Gonella (1987), “Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin: Problems, Results and Methodological Lessons” in Turin Shroud Image of Christ? Proceedings of Symposium in Hong Kong, 1986, pp. 29-40,31; Mark Antonacci (2012), “Particle Radiation from the Body Could Explain the Shroud’s Images and its Carbon Dating,” Scientific Research and Essays, 7[29]:2613-2623.

²⁹ F.C. Tribbe (1983), Portrait of Jesus (New York: Stein and Day), p. 63.

³⁰ Andrea Nicolotti (2019), Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends; Andrea Nicolotti (2022), “The Shroud of Turin: Anything Left to Say? The History of Christianity’s Most Controversial Relic,” Biblical Archaeology Review, April 6, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-shroud-of-turin-anything-left-to-say/.

³¹ D. Van Biema (1998), “Science and the Shroud,” Time Magazine, April 20, https://time.com/archive/6732613/science-and-the-shroud/.

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is also an adjunct faculty member in the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology. Sarah Ferry received her M.A. in English from Eastern Kentucky University. She is a former high school, middle school, and college English teacher. She has edited articles and papers on biblical studies for the past decade. She currently works remotely as a part-time freelance editor and proofreader.]

History and Background

The Shroud of Turin, a controversial linen cloth housed in a cathedral in Turin, Italy, is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Publicly displayed first in the 1350s in France, the Shroud has a complex history, having suffered fire damage in 1532 and undergone multiple repairs since then. It was handed to the Dukes of Savoy in 1578. The House of Savoy eventually gave it to the Vatican in 1983, who then placed it in St. John’s Cathedral under the care of the archbishop of Turin.

The Shroud bears a full-length frontal and dorsal¹ negative imprint of a man’s body. The linen cloth, which is woven with a herringbone pattern, is approximately 4.3 meters long and 1.1 meters wide. The Shroud contains multiple blood and fluid stains as well as areas that have been burned and watermarked.

Supporters of the Shroud’s authenticity note that the blood splatters match those described in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion. They connect the blood wounds around the head, back, side, wrists, and feet on the cloth respectively with the placing of the crown of thorns on His head (John 19:2), the scourging of His back (Matthew 27:26; John 19:1), the piercing of His side (John 19:34), and the nailing of His hands and feet (John 20:25).

Scientific examinations by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)² in 1978 revealed intriguing details, such as the presence of pollen allegedly predating the Byzantine period and first-century coins imaged in the eye sockets. Additionally, the Shroud’s herringbone weave is, according to Shroud advocates, similar to first-century burial cloths found in Jerusalem.

While significant passion and well-intentioned efforts have elevated the Shroud of Turin as a cornerstone of archaeological evidence for the death of Jesus, the artifact is fraught with many inconsistencies and unresolved issues. The dedication and hard work of those who have devoted their lives to substantiating the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are worthy of respect; however, the evidence supporting the Shroud fails on many levels, particularly in its alignment with both historical facts and biblical scriptures, undermining its credibility as an authentic relic.

Although many aspects could be examined in this brief discussion, the purpose of this article is not to diminish the beliefs of those who uphold the Shroud’s authenticity, but rather to highlight its vulnerabilities under critical scrutiny. This is especially true when considering the biblical discrepancies that remain inadequately addressed by its proponents and the Shroud’s late emergence in historical records.

Biblical Accounts

The biblical accounts of Jesus’ burial are of utmost importance in examining the validity of the Shroud of Turin. According to the Gospel accounts of Luke and John, Jesus was wrapped in more than one burial cloth.

Luke 24:12 (ESV)—But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John 20:5-7 (ESV)—And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths (ὀθόνια) lying there, and the face cloth (σουδάριον), which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths (ὀθονίων) but folded up in a place by itself.

Note that John reports that a separate face cloth (σουδάριον) was folded and set aside from the burial cloths (ὀθονίων). The term “cloths” is translated from the Greek “τὰ ὀθόνια” (ta othonia). The word ὀθόνια in verses 5 and 6 of John 20 unequivocally means “strips of linen,” and the word used in verse 7 is also the plural form of the same Greek word, ὀθονίων, indicating multiple pieces of cloth. In short, John reports that Jesus’ body was wrapped in two different types of grave-cloths: a face cloth (σουδ΄άριον) and strips of linen (ὀθόνια).

John 11:11-45 describes Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus involving two different burial clothing items, just like John 20:5-7. Verse 44 notes Lazarus’ appearance when he came forth from his grave: “The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips (κειρίαις), and his face wrapped with a cloth (σουδαρίῳ). Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’” Although the verse specifically mentions cloths wrapping only his hands, feet, and face, it is evident that Lazarus was wrapped in multiple cloths, similar to how Jesus was bound in John 20:7, where a separate cloth or napkin (σουδαρίῳ), was placed around His head.

Anointed with Spices

Some additional details in the biblical account may be valuable for studying the evidence of bloodstains on the Shroud. The Gospel of John mentions that a large quantity of spices were wrapped with Jesus’ burial garments:

Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews (John 19:39-40).

Nicodemus provided approximately 75 pounds of myrrh and aloe, substances known for their strong adhesive properties. These spices were traditionally used in Jewish burial practices to anoint the body and help preserve it, likely creating a sticky and fragrant coating over the burial cloths.

The Shroud of Turin and the Biblical Accounts

Mathew 27:59, Mark 15:45-46, and Luke 23:53 all use the singular Greek word for fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), indicating that these Gospel writers described Jesus’ burial garments more generally than did John. Proponents of the Shroud’s authenticity argue that John may not have been correct in identifying two separate burial clothing items. Some have suggested that John’s reference to a separate face cloth may denote a simple binding strap, intended to secure the jaw in a closed position at death, in addition to the full-body linen shroud later identified as the Shroud of Turin.³

While this interpretation may seem to provide a possible solution to the textual problem for Shroud advocates, the notion that John was mistaken in his account regarding two separate burial cloths does not hold up under scrutiny for two reasons. First, John 20:7 notes that the σουδάριον (soudarion) was “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting it was larger than just a strap for the jaw. Second, though Luke in his Gospel account (Luke 23:53) uses the singular Greek word for a fine linen cloth (σινδόνι), in the very next chapter, Luke uses the plural Greek word for linen cloths (ὀθόνια), identical to John 11 and 20, when describing Peter’s first glimpse into the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:12).

Another theory proposed by scholars like Arnold Lemke is that the face cloth referred to by John was only used initially at the cross to wipe Jesus’ face and then set aside inside the tomb by an unknown burial attendant. Lemke summarizes this theory as follows:

It is also possible, of course, that there was in fact a true face cloth used for a brief time perhaps to help cover the head or face of our Lord while being taken on a carrier to the grave and then left there, with the main linen wrapping cloth later having been taken away from the grave by the time Peter arrived on Easter morning—but this is speculative.⁴

This view suggests that a genuine face cloth was briefly used to cover the head or face of Jesus at the grave or during His transport to the grave and was subsequently left inside the tomb while the main linen burial cloth was used to cover the body of Jesus. In other words, the face cloth would have been buried with the body but may not have remained on the face upon Jesus’ final interment. According to this view, the folded face cloth set aside from the burial garment was not folded or set aside by divine action, but by human agents.

Discussion on Biblical Accounts

To reconcile how the Shroud could have captured the complete image of Christ despite the clear indication in the biblical text of two distinct burial cloths, one must assert one of the following scenarios:

1. Nicodemus did not actually apply 75 pounds of spices and aloes to Jesus’ body. This view discounts the explicit statement in John 19:39-40 where it states that “they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices.”
2. The face covering was used in conjunction with the body shroud, covering the entire body without causing any disruption to the image of Jesus on the Shroud. However, John 20:7 specifically mentions “the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself,” implying that this face cloth was separate from the larger body shroud.
3. A single shroud was used to cover the face, head, and body without causing any smearing or distortion to the resulting image. This would require that the Shroud, with its precise image and unsmeared droplets of blood, was somehow applied without affecting the condition of Jesus’ blood and sweat, contradicting the realities of wrapping a recently crucified body in linen (as implied in John 20:6-7).
4. John misrepresented the details, mistakenly describing two distinct clothing items, thereby suggesting that only one shroud covered the body from head to toe. This approach would essentially argue that the description in John 20:6-7 of two cloths is a gloss or error in the account.
5. The second, folded face covering referenced by John and Luke was merely a thin linen strap used to close Jesus’ mouth. This theory disregards the textual implication in John 20:7 that it was a larger piece of cloth, “folded up in a place by itself,” suggesting that it was more substantial than a simple strap. Further complicating this theory is the lack of any clear evidence of a strap on the face depicted on the Shroud of Turin.
6. The face covering referred to by John was merely a sweat cloth used immediately after Jesus was taken down from the cross but not applied within the tomb. This hypothesis, however, begs the question: why mention the napkin being folded in the tomb if it was not on Jesus when He was resurrected? This theory also relies on a human agent manipulating these burial cloths, rather than recognizing the possibility of divine action, as the biblical text seems to indicate.

Ultimately, all these scenarios challenge the clarity and authenticity of the text. They rely on arguments from silence or require reinterpretation of the text, which is clear in its description that two distinct burial cloths were used (Luke 24:12; John 20:5-7). John 20:6-7 indicates that when the tomb was found empty, the face cloth was folded neatly on the tomb bench, strongly suggesting that Jesus’ body was not stolen but that He had risen, leaving behind these items in an orderly manner, thus pointing to the resurrection.

In 1543, John Calvin presented a critical biblical rationale concerning burial cloths that remains relevant in comparing the Shroud of Turin with the biblical accounts:

In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, “as is the manner of the Jews to bury.” What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot…. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.⁵

If two linen garments (one for the face and one for the remainder of the body) were employed in the burial process, a single shroud could not encompass the entirety of the body and simultaneously capture a full and detailed image. Additionally, once again, the process of wrapping a body with linen, especially with the application of spices and aloes, would likely result in distortions, making it difficult to produce a clear and accurate representation of the entire form. The existence of the Shroud presents a clear contradiction with the descriptions provided by the biblical writers regarding Jesus’ burial garments, which imply a more complex arrangement that would not easily accommodate such an image under these conditions.

Dating the Shroud

On April 21, 1988, four samples were removed from the Shroud for analysis, each sample weighing approximately 50 mg and measuring 10×70 mm. It is important to note that the samples were taken from the main body of the Shroud, away from patches, but not necessarily far from the charred areas or obvious water stains. Three laboratories independently dated the Shroud to the Middle Ages,⁶ specifically between A.D. 1260 and 1390, rather than to the first century.⁷

Shroud advocates allege that of the 12 samples measured,⁸ there was a decrease in radiocarbon age as the samples were taken farther from the main body of the Shroud. In other words, samples taken closer to the area where the body lay were dated older, indicating less residual carbon-14 and therefore less modern contamination. Shroud proponents contend that the carbon dating results are flawed due to significant contamination by external sources of carbon-14, arguing that the Shroud dates to the first century.⁹ Possible contaminants include oils from human skin and soot from candles. Riani, et al.¹⁰ analyzed the samples measured by the three radiocarbon laboratories and concluded that the original sampling was flawed due to poor experimental design. Casabianca, et al. noted the following:

The measurements made by the three laboratories on the Shroud sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% CE 1260-1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval…. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.¹¹

However, according to Dr. Harry Gove, who developed AMS technology and observed the Shroud’s dating process in the Arizona lab, if the Shroud were truly from the first century and the results were skewed by contamination, the samples tested would have needed to be contaminated to the extent that one-third of the entire sample was affected—something that is highly improbable.¹²

Textile Analysis

In 1988, during the extraction of the radiocarbon sample, the Shroud underwent a comprehensive examination by Gabriel Vial, the Technical General Secretary of the Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens (CIETA). Vial determined that the Shroud had been produced on a four-shaft treadle loom.¹³ The distinctive herringbone pattern of the Shroud can be characterized by its V-shaped formations. Across the width of the Shroud, there are 53.5 of these V-shapes, each comprising approximately 80 warp threads—40 slanting in one direction and 40 in the opposite. This intricate pattern is achieved by sequentially attaching the threads to four shafts in a specific order: 1-2-3-4, repeated 40 times, followed by 3-2-1-4, also repeated 40 times, and continuing this sequence across the entire width of the Shroud. Accomplishing this with around 4,300 threads to produce 53.5 complete V-shapes is a highly skilled task.¹⁴ The evidence points unmistakably to the Shroud being woven on a four-shaft loom, likely operated by heddles. No such loom or weaving technique is known to have existed in the first-century Middle East, where silk production using similar technology was confined to China.

Vial expresses some skepticism toward claims that similar textiles had been discovered from ancient periods. Vial explains:

So far every example studied—and these have come from Pompeii, Antinoe, Palmyra, Cologne, Dura-Europos—has been radically different from the shroud, both from the point of view of the structure (2/2 twill as opposed to 3/1) and the materials used (wool and silk rather than linen). We have to look to the 16th century to find the first example of linen chevron weaving with a 3/1 twill structure, found in the canvas of a painting in Herentals (Belgium). Taking into account the constituent elements of any textile (material, structure, warp and weft density), the textile of which the shroud is composed is unlike anything presently known to date prior to the 16th century.¹⁵

Although Vial refrains from assigning a precise date to the Shroud’s origin, he contends that the four-shaft loom responsible for the Shroud’s distinctive 3/1 herringbone weave likely did not exist until the late medieval period. Supporting this, Hugh Farey states, “The conclusion to all this is clear, and difficult to obfuscate. The Shroud was inescapably woven on a four-shaft loom, and most probably one operated by heddles. Nothing of the kind is found, illustrated, or mentioned around the 1st century Middle East, and silk production involving such a loom was restricted to China. The Shroud, however, was made in Northern Europe, in the late 13th century, by which time the appropriate apparatus was established.”¹⁶

The Bloodstains

After His arrest and appearance before Pilate, Jesus would have been severely wounded, covered in blood during the journey to Golgotha (John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:29–31). The Gospel accounts, specifically John 20:25 and Luke 24:39-40, indicate that Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to the cross. Additionally, the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side (John 19:34). Sure enough, bloodstains correspond to these areas on the Shroud.

Real Blood?

Despite years of debate on whether the stains on the Shroud constitute actual blood, little consensus has been achieved. While some experts have rejected the notion that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are actual blood,¹⁷ there are those who, despite doubting the Shroud’s authenticity, acknowledge the presence of blood.¹⁸ Scholars like Hugh Farey argue that blood may have been used to enhance or embellish the artistic depiction of a man in repose.

Whether the stains are genuine blood, paint, or a combination of both, the limited studies conducted on the Shroud have primarily analyzed samples that had been cleaned of any adherent particles, often with differing methodologies, resulting in inconsistent conclusions. Walter McCrone¹⁹ analyzed approximately 30 sticky tape slides taken from various sections of the Shroud of Turin and identified small orange-red particles on numerous fibers, which he recognized as an iron oxide pigment. By assessing the density of these particles, he could distinguish between image and non-image areas, leading him to conclude that the image on the Shroud was at least partially created by iron oxide paint.²⁰

In contrast, John Heller and Alan Adler²¹ examined about 20 of the same slides but did not report observing a significant presence of these orange-red particles or their differential distribution. Heller and Adler,however, used a different approach. Instead of direct microscopic examination, they extracted individual fibers with toluene, thoroughly rinsing them to remove the sticky tape glue. This process likely also removed any paint medium and most of the embedded pigment. The discrepancies between McCrone’s and Heller and Adler’s findings likely stem from these differing methodologies rather than any intentional misrepresentation.²² Understanding these experimental differences offers a more balanced explanation for the conflicting results.

Heller and Adler concluded that the blood predates the image on the cloth.²³ Their research suggested that since the image fibers exhibited “corrosion” while the blood-covered areas did not, the image must not exist beneath the blood. However, this conclusion does not consider the potential effects of the blood or serum on the image at the time of application or during subsequent removal. The evidence suggesting that the blood predates the image is not definitive and may overlook key factors.

This raises the possibility that the blood and image could have been created simultaneously or that the blood was even added afterward as part of an artistic process. The Shroud clearly was carefully crafted to simulate the appearance of a burial cloth, using techniques that might enhance its credibility as a holy relic. The ambiguity surrounding the timing of the blood application lends credence to the theory that the Shroud may have been purposefully designed as a devotional or symbolic piece rather than an authentic witness to a Jesus burial (or anyone in the first century).

Flow Patterns and Scourge Marks

Upon evaluating the bloodstains on the Shroud, the distinct flow patterns have sparked considerable debate regarding their authenticity. Among the chief concerns are the marks on the back and legs of the Shroud image that are supposed to represent the injuries incurred through the scourging of Jesus. It is well known that scourging was designed to inflict pain and bodily injury through the tearing of flesh.

It is unknown what type of flagrum was utilized in the scourging of Jesus. However, if wounds were inflicted that would abrade and tear the skin (as most often depicted), significant blood flow would occur with each strike (John 19:1). Shroud advocates maintain that these continually oozing injuries would remain moist for hours and would eventually allow for the transfer of the scourge wounds to the cloth. However, according to Farey, there is no sign of any “flow” on the Shroud from the scourge marks on the back, let alone “areas of torn skin [which] would ooze blood and clear body fluid (serum).”²⁴

Matteo Borrini and Luigi Garlaschelli forensically analyzed the blood patterns from the Shroud. They found that the blood flow patterns observed on the arms and legs of the figure depicted in the Shroud do not align with the expected behavior of blood from a man who had been crucified with his arms positioned at an approximate 45-degree angle. Specifically, the blood rivulets on the back of the left hand correspond to a position in which the arms are extended 35 to 45 degrees above horizontal. Conversely, the bloodstains on the forearm suggest a scenario in which the hands were positioned almost vertically. In such a case, the blood would flow directly down the forearm, rather than at an angle, which is inconsistent with the blood patterns shown on the Shroud. The authors of the study note, “Assuming that the red stains on the Turin linen are actually blood from the crucifixion wounds, the results of the experiments demonstrate that the alleged flowing patterns from different areas of the body are not consistent with each other.”²⁵

Nicolotti²⁶ has observed that the marks on the body depicted in the Shroud correspond precisely with the shape of scourges known to people in the Middle Ages and commonly represented by artists of that period. Nicolotti maintains that the scourge marks are further evidence for dating the Shroud around the Middle Ages, specifically, in the first half of the fourteenth century.

Washed or Unwashed?

Whether Jesus’ body was washed or remained unwashed after His crucifixion is a crucial issue in determining the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. While many have weighed in on this matter, examining the blood spatter, the angle of the wrist stain, and the distinct divergence of the streams, little consensus has emerged.²⁷

Some advocates²⁸ argue that Jesus’ body was washed before burial and that the stains on the Shroud came from blood that flowed from the wounds after Jesus was laid to rest. This hypothesis requires the assumption that the wounds continued to bleed significantly after death. However, medically speaking, dead bodies do not continue to bleed after death. Once the heart stops, blood pressure drops to zero, halting active bleeding. While gravity may cause some passive leakage from wounds, significant blood flow ceases immediately. Blood also coagulates shortly after death, preventing any meaningful post-mortem bleeding. Medical literature confirms that post-mortem bleeding is typically minimal and does not result in the flowing patterns seen in living bodies.²⁹

Those who advocate that Jesus’ body remained unwashed when placed in the tomb³⁰ must assume that, despite being removed from the cross, transported to the tomb, and wrapped in a linen shroud with a large quantity of spices, the bloodstains remained precisely defined without smearing.

Discussion on Bloodstains

Interpreting the bloodstain patterns on the Shroud of Turin is fraught with significant limitations. Current analysis relies solely on photographs, lacking direct examination of the cloth itself. Even if the blood stains from the Shroud represent real blood, this fact does not specify whether the blood was human nor a person from the first century.³¹ Furthermore, there is still insufficient scientifically verified information about the cloth’s history over the past 2,000 years to draw definitive conclusions. As Jumper, et al. rightly note, science is not in a position to categorically prove the Shroud’s authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus,³² which underscores the inherent uncertainty and challenges in attempting to interpret the bloodstains on the Shroud.

Given the cessation of active bleeding after death, it is highly improbable that the detailed blood patterns on the Shroud of Turin could have been produced by a natural interaction between the burial cloth and a dead body. In an attempt to reconcile the presence of detailed bloodstains on the Shroud with the biblical account of Jesus’ burial, some proponents have suggested various theories³³ to explain how dried blood could have become re-liquefied and transferred to the linen cloth. These speculative hypotheses underscore the difficulty—if not futility—of trying to justify the detailed blood patterns observed on the Shroud as being naturally produced by a corpse post-crucifixion. The need for such elaborate explanations only highlights the implausibility of these claims.

Moreover, again, the spices mentioned specifically in John 19:39-40 would have significantly impacted the condition of the skin and any blood present on it, likely absorbing or smearing the blood, preventing the creation of the sharp, well-defined rivulets depicted on the Shroud.³⁴ Yet, modern scientific analysis has found no trace of these sticky, resinous materials on the Shroud.³⁵ The absence of any spice residue undermines the claim that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, as it contradicts the details provided in the Gospel and the burial practices of the time.

[to be continued]

Endnotes

¹ The frontal image refers to the anterior or front portion of the man’s body: face, chest, etc., whereas the dorsal image refers to the posterior or back plane of the body.

² STURP was a comprehensive study of the Shroud of Turin conducted by American scientists in 1978. The project was led by John Jackson, a physics professor at the Air Force Academy, after he discovered in 1975 that the Shroud’s images contained 3D information. With permission from the Shroud’s owner and church authorities, the scientists performed nondestructive experiments on the Shroud for 120 hours, including light and electron microscopy, photography, UV spectrophotometry, X-ray fluorescence, and thermal photography.

³ Vignon is one of the early researchers who proposed that the image of Jesus’ beard on the Shroud appears to be pressed or distorted, possibly due to a jaw strap. See Paul Vignon (1939), The Shroud of Christ (Westminster: Archibald Constable). Ian Wilson also makes reference to some distortion of the beard of Jesus portrayed in the Shroud as potentially created by a jaw strap. See Ian Wilson (2010), In The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved (New York: Doubleday).

⁴ Arnold E. Lemke (2000), “The Shroud of Turin—Is it or Isn’t it the Burial Cloth of Christ?” Paper presented at the St. Croix Pastor, Teacher, Delegate Conference, 6.

⁵ John Calvin (1844), “An Admonition Showing the Advantages which Christendom Might Derive from an Inventory of Relics,” trans. Henry Beveridge (Calvin Translation Society) pp. 332-334.

⁶ The C-14 dating protocol employed in dating the Shroud was thorough and designed to remove the claim of bias from having four samples delivered to three independent laboratories with three control samples.

⁷ P.E. Damon, et al. (1989), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Nature, 337:611-615.

⁸ The four samples were submitted to three independent accelerator-mass-spectrometry (AMS) laboratories in Tucson, Arizona; Oxford, England; and Zurich, Switzerland. For verification purposes, three control samples were included: (1) a linen piece from a Nubian tomb dating to the eleventh or twelfth century, (2) a linen cloth from a mummy associated with Cleopatra of Thebes, dating to the early second century, and (3) threads extracted from the cope (a ceremonial outer garment) of St. Louis d’Anjou from the Basilica of Saint-Maximin, France, dating to the early thirteenth century. Table 1 presents the age results as published in Nature. Following rigorous calibration, the radiocarbon analysis of the Shroud indicated a date range between A.D. 1260 and 1390. Significantly, the dates obtained for the control samples aligned appropriately with their anticipated historical periods (P.E. Damon, et al.).

⁹ Note that radiocarbon dating does, in fact, sometimes result in ages of materials that exceed 10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating, however, is understood to be suspect for objects thought to be older than roughly 3,000-4,000 years old [cf. George H. Michaels and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods 8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara Instructional Development.]. Further, biblical creationists argue that radioactive decay rates were apparently accelerated during the Flood and afterward, possibly up to 1,500-1,000 B.C., making all dating techniques unreliable for ages beyond that time. For evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in the past, see Don DeYoung (2008), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

¹⁰ M. Riani, et al. (2013), “Regression Analysis with Partially Labelled Regressors: Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin,” Statistics and Computing, 23:551-561.

¹¹ T. Casabianca, et al. (2019), “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry, 61[5]:1223-1231, March 22.

¹² H.E. Gove (1996), Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud (Bristol, UK: Institute of Physics Publishing, Techno House), pp. 291-292.

¹³ Gabriel Vial (1990), “Shrouded in Mystery,” HALI: The International Magazine of Fine Carpets and Textiles, p. 49.

¹⁴ Ibid.; See also Hugh Farey (2018), The Medieval Shroud: The Beginning of an Exploration into its Purpose, Process and Provenance, p. 17; Hugh Farey (2019), The Medieval Shroud 2: No Case for Authenticity, p. 20.

¹⁵ Vial, p. 49.

¹⁶ Hugh Farey (2019), “The Medieval Weave.” Medieval Shroud, September 13, https://medievalshroud.com/the-medieval-weave/.

¹⁷ Walter McCrone (1981), “Light-Microscopical Study of the Turin Shroud III,” The Microscope 29:19-38; Walter McCrone (1990), “The Shroud of Turin: Blood or Artist’s Pigment?” Accounts of Chemical Research, 23[3]:77-83.

¹⁸ Hugh Farey (2020), “The Medieval Shroud,” Science, Theology and the Holy Shroud, Edited Papers from the 2019 International Conference on the Turin Shroud, ed. R. Gary Chiang and Evelyn M. White (Ancaster, Ontario: Doorway Publications), pp. 1-7.

¹⁹ McCrone (1981); McCrone (1990).

²⁰ McCrone documented his findings with photographs, which were later supported by Eugene Nitowski and Joseph Kohlbeck, who also photographed the sticky tapes, showing orange-red particles adhering to the fibers, though they did not quantify or differentiate them based on image areas.

²¹ John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1981), “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 14[3]:81-103; John H. Heller (1983), Report on the Shroud of Turin (Boston: Houghton Mifflin); John H. Heller and A.D. Adler (1980), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, 19[16]:2742-2744.

²² Heimburger, a medical doctor with an interest in the Shroud of Turin, authored “A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and Interpretations” (2008), https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf. Additionally, David Ford provides insightful analyses of the debate between McCrone/Nickell and Heller/Adler in his work titled, “The Shroud of Turin’s ‘Blood’ Images: Blood, or Paint? A History of Science Inquiry” (2000), which can be accessed at www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf.

²³ Heller and Adler (1981), 14[3]:81-103.

²⁴ See Hugh Farey (2023), “Book Review: The Shroud of Jesus,” https://medievalshroud.com/book-review-the-shroud-of-jesus/.

²⁵ M. Borrini and L. Garlaschelli (2019), “A BPA approach to the Shroud of Turin,” Journal of Forensic Science, 64[1]:137-143.

²⁶ Andrea Nicolotti (2024), “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge: Historical and Archaeological Evidence,” For the Study of the Historical Jesus, 15[1]:57; Andrea Nicolotti (2015), Storia e Leggende di una Reliquia Controversa (Turin: Einaudi); Andrea Nicolotti (2016), “La Sindone, Banco di Prova per Esegesi, Storia, Scienza e Teologia,” Annali di Storia Dell’esegesi, 33[2]:459-510.

²⁷ See A. Heger, et al. (2024), “Further Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Nailing of the Hands,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:1573-1581.

²⁸ See Frank C. Tribbe (2006), Portrait of Jesus? The Shroud of Turin in Science and History, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, MN: Paragon House); also F.T. Zugibe (2005), The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry (New York: M. Evans & Co.), p. 219.

²⁹ Robert A. Wild, “The Shroud of Turin—Probably the Work of a 14th-Century Artist or Forger,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 10[2]:30-46; Joris Meurs (2023), “Immediate Postmortem Changes,” Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, 3:218-223.

³⁰ I. Wilson (1998), The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World’s Most Sacred Relic is Real (New York: Simon & Schuster), p. 32.

³¹ Kelly P. Kearse (2020), “Unanticipated Issues in Serological Analysis of Blood Species: The Shroud of Turin as a Case Example,” Forensic Science International: Reports, Vol. 2.

³² E.J. Jumper, et al. (1984), “A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin,” ed. J.B. Lambert, in Archaeological Chemistry-III, Advances in Chemistry Series 205 (Washington DC: American Chemical Society), pp. 447-476.

³³ König, L., et al. “Some Experiments,” 229-238.

³⁴ G.R. Lavoie, et al. (1983), “Blood on the Shroud of Turin: Part II—The Importance of Time in the Transfer of Blood Clots to Cloth as Distinctive Clot Images,” Shroud Spectrum International, 8:2-10; L. König, et al. (2024), “Some Experiments and Remarks Regarding the Possible Formation of Blood Stains on the Turin Shroud: Stains Attributed to the Crown of Thorns, the Lance Wound and the Belt of Blood,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, 138:229-238.

³⁵ Raymond E. Brown (1994), The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday); David Noel Freedman (1992), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 1 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

The post Examining the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin: A Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. “on the third day” (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
2. “in three days” (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19)
3. “after three days” (Matthew 27:63; Mark 8:31)
4. “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40)

On the surface, these four representations certainly appear to be inconsistent, if not contradictory. Indeed, to the English mind, these four phrases convey four different meanings. However, upon further investigation, we discover they are interchangeable expressions in the New Testament. The evidence from antiquity and from the Bible is decisive: “three days and three nights” in Oriental expression was an idiomatic allusion to any portions of the period. This fact stands proven and is undeniable based on at least three sources: (1) scholarly historical analysis of ancient idiomatic language; (2) biblical usage throughout the Old Testament; and (3) harmonization within the passion texts themselves.

HISTORICAL USAGE

First, a vast array of scholarly sources verifies the use of this idiom in antiquity. It constituted a loose form of speech to refer to two days and a portion of a third. A.T. Robertson referred to this usage as “the well-known custom of the Jews to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours.”¹ Likewise, in his monumental volume Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that “the expression ‘three days and three nights’ is an idiom which covers any parts of three days and three nights.”² The highly respected 17^th-century Hebraist John Lightfoot published a commentary on the New Testament, incorporating his vast grasp of Hebrew and Aramaic usage, including the Jewish Talmud and Mishna. In that commentary, he recounts the common usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” among the Gemarists, Babylonian Talmud, and Jerusalem Talmud, concluding: “So that according to this idiom, that diminutive part of the third day, upon which Christ arose, may be computed for the whole day, and the night following it.”³ The list of scholarly confirmation could be lengthened indefinitely.

BIBLICAL USAGE

Second, the Bible uses the same idiom throughout the Old Testament and continues into the New. For example, in the account of Joseph’s dealings with his brothers, Moses wrote: “So he put them all together in prison three days. Then Joseph said to them the third day, ‘Do this and live, for I fear God…’” (Genesis 42:17-18). Joseph put his brothers in prison for “three days” (vs. 17) and then released them “the third day” (vs. 18). The two expressions were viewed as equivalent.

In his pursuit of the Amalekites, David and his men came upon an Egyptian in the field, whom they nourished with food and drink:

So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick” (1 Samuel 30:12-13).

The inspired writer states unequivocally that the Egyptian had taken no nourishment for “three days and nights,” which the Egyptian, in his explanation of his predicament, defined as “three days.”

On the occasion when Jeroboam returned from exile in Egypt and led the Israelites in a rebellious confrontation of the rightful king Rehoboam, we are informed:

Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, “Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you.” So he said to them, “Depart for three days, then come back to me.” And the people departed (1 Kings 12:3-5).

Rehoboam then consulted with the elders of the nation, promptly rejecting their advice, and then consulted with the young men of his own generation who had grown up with him. Then the text reads: “So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (1 Kings 12:12). Lest we fail to grasp the fact that “for three days” and “the third day” are equivalent expressions, the inspired writer says so explicitly by equating them and then adding “as the king had directed.” The parallel account in 2 Chronicles completes the idiomatic usage by reading: “So he said to them, ‘Come back to me after (ע֛וֹד) three days’” (10:5). This latter allusion is not to—as a westerner would think—the fourth day, but to a point in time “on” the third day (vs. 12—בַּיּ֣וֹם). Hence, “after three days” equals “the third day.”

Yet another instance is found in the book of Esther. Having been elevated to a prominent position in the eyes of King Xerxes, Mordecai urged his cousin Esther to use her influence to save the Jews throughout the Persian Empire from annihilation by Haman. Here was her response:

“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!” So Mordecai went his way and did according to all that Esther commanded him. Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house (Esther 4:16-5:1).

Esther did not change her mind regarding when she would approach the king. Rather, she did exactly what she told Mordecai she would do. Hence, “three days, night or day” is precisely the same timeframe as “on the third day.”

We see the same idiom in the New Testament. One example is the inspired account of the events leading up to the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10. Several temporal indicators illustrate the principle:

• “ninth hour of the day” (vs. 3)
• “The next day” (“about the sixth hour”) (vs. 9)
• “On the next day” (vs. 23)
• “the following day” (vs. 24)
• “Four days ago” (“the ninth hour”) (vs. 30)

If we count the amount of time that transpired between the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (vs. 3) and the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius (vs. 24), we find it to be exactly three days, i.e., three 24 hour periods. Yet in Jewish reckoning, the period included three nights and parts of four days. Thus Peter described the interval as “four days” (vs. 30). See the chart below.

We are forced to conclude that the phrase “three days and three nights” is not to be taken literally. It was used figuratively in antiquity. Why take one expression out of the four that are used, interpret it literally (i.e., 72 hours), and then give it precedence over all the other passages? Jesus being in the grave “one complete day and night (24 hours) and the parts of two nights (36 hours in all) fully satisfy both the idiom and the history.”⁴ The English reader must not impose his own method of calculation upon an ancient, alternate method of reckoning time.

Another instance of the same idiom in the New Testament is seen in Paul’s stay in Ephesus. The text reads:

And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:8-10).

Paul states plainly that he remained in Ephesus for two years and three months. Sometime later, in his rush to get to Jerusalem in time for Pentecost, he came to the seacoast town of Miletus from whence he sent word to the elders of the church in Ephesus to come meet with him. Among the stirring remarks that he delivered to them on that occasion were these words: “Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31). Once again, it is apparent that the Semitic mind considered that any portion of a day or year could be counted as a whole day or year.

JEWISH USAGE

Third, it is abundantly clear from the accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection that this idiom was well recognized and utilized by the Jews at the time. Specifically, the chief priests and Pharisees confirmed use of the idiom when they sought an audience with the Roman Procurator Pilate:

On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first” (Matthew 27:62-64).

The Jewish leaders did not insist on the tomb of Jesus being secured for three 24-hour days. To the western mind, the phrase “after three days” indicates the need to maintain a guard until the fourth day had come. But not to the oriental mind. The phrases “after three days” and “until the third day” were, to them, equivalent expressions.

The evidence from both antiquity and the Bible is decisive: “Three days and three nights” was an idiom. This truth stands as a proven fact of history. Bullinger was correct when he emphatically stated: “It may seem absurd to Gentiles and to Westerns to use words in such a manner, but that does not alter the fact.”⁵

ENDNOTES

1 A.T. Robertson (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Row), p. 290.

The post The Interval Between Christ’s Death & Resurrection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

But now let’s suppose that your Bible class teacher says Jesus Christ died, was buried for three days, and rose again. What makes the story of Jesus any different from the one you heard at McDonalds? The truth is, there are many reasons Jesus’ story is different from all others. The most important reason is that His story is true, and the evidence supports it. Let’s look at some of that evidence.

The Bible Says So

One of the best reasons to believe that Jesus rose is because the Bible tells us that He did. The Bible is the most accurate book ever written. For many years, people have tried to prove it wrong and find mistakes in it. But they never are successful. If the Bible is right about everything else that it says, then we can trust it to tell us the truth about the resurrection.

The Event was Prophesied

King David, about a thousand years before Jesus walked on the Earth, explained that Christ would die and rise again. In Psalm 16:10, David prophesied of Jesus when he wrote: “For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” Peter quoted this verse in Acts 2:28 to prove that the Old Testament had foretold the resurrection.

From Fear to Faith

The night Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane was a sad time for His disciples. All of them ran for their lives in fear. Even “bold” Peter denied the Lord three times! But only a few weeks later, they stood together and preached that Jesus had risen from the grave. No amount of beatings, lashings, imprisonment, or threatening could stop them from preaching about the resurrection (Acts 4:18-20).

What event could change a small band of frightened doubters into powerful preachers? Only one thing could have caused the disciples’ change of heart. Peter said it well: “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32).

What Does It Matter?

Because Jesus rose from the dead, we do not need to be afraid of death. Everyone who obeys Christ and does what the Bible says to do to become a Christian will defeat death just like He did. We should thank God for raising Jesus from the dead and for promising to do the same for us.

The post Up from the Grave He Arose! appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[s]ince the second century a great dispute has been carried on as to the apparent discrepancy between John and the synoptists in their statements concerning the passover. The synoptists…clearly represent Jesus as having eaten the passover at the proper time, and as having been arrested on the same night, while John here and elsewhere…seems to represent Jesus as being arrested before the passover (2012, CXVIII, John 13:1-20, italics in orig.).

Is this a legitimate discrepancy that can be levied against the Bible?

First, what did the Law of Moses command concerning the observance of the Passover? In order for Jesus to be sinless (Hebrews 4:15), our spotless and unblemished Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), He had to keep the Law of Moses perfectly. If He violated the Law of Moses regarding the correct observance of the Passover, our hope is vain. The Passover lamb was to be killed at twilight (i.e., sunset) on the evening of the 14^th day of Nisan, the first month of the Jewish calendar (Ezekiel 45:21). The lamb was then to be eaten that same night with unleavened bread (Exodus 12:6-8; Numbers 28:16-17; Leviticus 23:5-7), leaving none of it until morning—burning any remains (Exodus 12:10). Unleavened bread was then to be eaten every day until the 21^st day of the month at evening (Exodus 12:18). No leavened bread was even to be in an Israelite house for that week, or those individuals would be “cut off from the congregation of Israel” (Exodus 12:19).

The language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke leaves little doubt that the Passover lamb was killed by the apostles on Thursday afternoon of the crucifixion week, which was the 14^th of Nisan, and that Jesus then immediately ate the Passover meal that evening on the 15^th of Nisan in keeping with the Law of Moses (cf. Matthew 26:17-21; Mark 14:12,16-18; Luke 22:7-9). The apparent discrepancy comes when we compare various verses in the book of John.

John 13:1-2 says, “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him.” A straightforward reading of this passage leaves the impression that the last supper that the disciples ate with Jesus was not the Passover meal, but actually “before the feast of the Passover,” as though the Passover began the next day. This would contradict the synoptic Gospels’ clear claims and imply that either John taught that the last supper was not actually the Passover meal as the other Gospel writers claimed, or that Jesus was observing the Passover early—on a different day than was commanded by God. In truth, the alleged contradiction in this case is easily dispelled by understanding that the phrase “supper being ended” (NKJV) is properly translated:

• “during supper” (ASV; ESV; RSV; McCord, 1989), or
• while the “meal was being served” (NIV), “being prepared…or going on” (Jamieson, et al., 2012, John 13:2), or “was preparing” (Clark, 2013, John 13:2), or
• “while they were at supper” (Barnes, 2012, John 13:2), or
• “there being a supper made, or he being at supper” (Henry, 2014, John 13:2).

In context, verse one of John 13 is a transitional verse, serving as a summary and wrap-up of the preceding section of John’s narrative (i.e., those events occurring “before the feast of the Passover”) leading up to the next critical section of his book, which covers the next seven chapters (an entire third) of the book, moving the reader through the final events of Jesus’ life. Verse two begins a new discussion concerning the Passover events—a narrative that begins “during” the Passover supper, or while it was “being served” or “prepared.” Greek scholar A.T. Robertson stated that “it is not certain that verse 1 is to be connected with verse 2. The best exegetes agree that a complete idea may be presented therein, either a general statement that Jesus loved his own before the Passover and until the end, or that he came into special consciousness of this love just before the Passover” (1922, p. 282). Respected biblical scholar Hugo McCord’s independent translation captures the portrait being depicted by John. “Before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. He loved his own in the world, and he loved them to the end. [Verse 2:] During supper (since the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him)” (John 13:1-2). Note the natural contrast that John is making between the words “before” and “during” with regards to that important feast.

But what about John 18:28? “Then they [i.e., the Jews] led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early [Friday] morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.” This verse seems to indicate that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal, which again leaves the impression that either the Passover had not yet begun, or that the Jews had failed to eat the meal at the proper time, which seems very unlikely. It is argued that “[i]n John’s sequence, the Last Supper was celebrated on Passover eve, and Jesus was tried the next day while the Jewish authorities themselves were preparing to eat the Passover meal (18:28)” (The Chronological Study Bible, p. 1217). However, a closer look at how the term “Passover” is used in the Bible, and especially by John, sheds light on this passage. Robertson notes that

it is by no means certain that the phrase “eat the Passover” means simply the paschal supper…. [T]he word “Passover” is used in three senses in the New Testament, the paschal supper, the paschal lamb, or the paschal festival. The word is used eight times in John besides this instance, and in every case the Passover festival is meant. So we may fairly infer that the usage of John must determine his own meaning rather than that of the Synoptists (pp. 281-282; cf. Jackson, p. 176).

Recall that the Passover festival lasted seven days, not merely the one night when the lamb was slain and eaten (Exodus 12:6-20). The Passover week had begun the night before with a feast and would continue over the following days with more feasting. The Jews, therefore, did not want to become defiled before the next unleavened meal of the Passover week.

The verse that perhaps causes the most accusations against the biblical account of the crucifixion day regards John 19:14. Before the crucifixion, after scourging Jesus and allowing the Roman soldiers to mock Him, Pilate brought Jesus out to the Jews again. “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” Because of this text, some argue that John “suggests that Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover began—‘the Preparation Day of the Passover’” (The Chronological Study Bible, p. 1217, italics in orig.). Again, this would imply that the supper that Jesus ate the night before with His disciples was not actually the Passover meal—i.e., the synoptics are wrong.

However, the phrase “Preparation Day of the Passover” is referring to the Sabbath Preparation Day that occurs during the Passover week—i.e., Friday. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who as stated earlier in unison clearly portray Jesus as being arrested and crucified after the Passover meal, all also state that the “Day of Preparation” was the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. They simply make it clear in context that they apply that description to the Sabbath Preparation Day (e.g., Matthew 27:62). Immediately after Jesus’ death, Luke couples the Preparation Day with the Sabbath, noting, “That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near” (Luke 23:54). Mark defines his use of the term even more clearly, stating, “Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath” (15:42). Robertson notes that John also used “Preparation Day” as being coupled with the Sabbath. “John himself so uses the word in two other passages (19:31,42), in both of which haste is exercised on the Preparation, because the Sabbath was at hand” (p. 282).

Biblical scholar Gleason Archer notes that the word translated “Preparation” (paraskeuē) was the actual word for Friday in the first century. “[T]he word paraskeuē had already by the first century A.D. become a technical term for ‘Friday,’ since every Friday was the day of preparation for Saturday, that is, the Sabbath. In Modern Greek the word for ‘Friday’ is paraskeuē…. [T]hat which might be translated literally as ‘the preparation of the Passover’ must in this context be rendered ‘Friday of Passover Week’” (1982, p. 375).Robertson agreed, explaining that “the term ‘Preparation’ has long been the regular name for Friday in the Greek language, caused by the New Testament usage. It is so in the Modern Greek to-day” (p. 282). Indeed, the NIV rendering of John 19:14 helps to clear the confusion by rendering the sentence, “It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.” John simply does not contradict the synoptic Gospels regarding Jesus’ crucifixion day.

But if Jesus was killed on Friday the 15^th of Nisan, and the Passover lambs were killed Thursday the 14^th of Nisan, how can He be our Passover lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7)? Gleason responded to that question, explaining, “It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs referred to here [i.e., in 1 Corinthians 5:7—JM] are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes—a rite Jesus had already observed with His disciples the night before…—but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel” (p. 376, italics in orig.). Gleason proceeds to illustrate the distinction between the private sacrifices (e.g., Exodus 12:6) and the public sacrifices (Exodus 12:16-17; Leviticus 23:4-8; 2 Chronicles 30:15-19; 35:11-16). He notes, “These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week” (p. 376). Jesus is the Passover lamb for all, and therefore, it makes sense that He would be sacrificed as a public sacrifice.

Thus, as is always the case, a text which appears on the surface to contradict another biblical text, is found to harmonize perfectly with it. Amazingly, when studied further and treated fairly, alleged contradictions which are levied against the Bible are consistently found in the end to actually provide even more evidence that the Bible’s internal consistency is nothing less than supernatural. If God is indeed the Author of the Bible, as it claims (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), then that certainly should be the case any time the original rendering of a Scripture can be determined with confidence and translated accurately. John’s description of the crucifixion event provides even more evidence for the amazing accuracy of the Bible. [NOTE: See Butt, 2003 for further information.]

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason, L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Barnes, Albert (2012), Barnes’ Notes On the New Testament (Electronic Database: WORDsearch).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Butt, Kyle (2003), “What Kind of Bread did Jesus Use to Institute the Last Supper?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1196.

The Chronological Study Bible (2008), (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).

Clarke, Adam (2013), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: WORDsearch).

Henry, Matthew (2014), Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Electronic Database: WORDsearch).

Jackson, Wayne (2011), A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (2012), Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) (Electronic Database: WORDsearch).

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Did Jesus Rise ‘On’ or ‘After’ the Third Day?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=756.

Lyons, Eric (2006), “Reasoning About the Resurrection of Christ,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=228&article=3689.

McCord, Hugo (1989), McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).

McGarvey, J.W. (2012), The Four-Fold Gospel: A Harmony of the Gospels (Electronic Database: WORDsearch).

Robertson, A.T. (1922), A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper & Row).

Viegas, Jennifer (2012), “Day of Jesus’ Crucifixion Believed Determined,” Discovery News, May 24, http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm.

The post Does the Bible Contradict Itself Regarding the Day of the Crucifixion? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In the introduction, Harris provided an endnote that described his view of the concept of a “fact.” He stated:

For the purposes of this discussion, I do not intend to make a hard distinction between “science” and other intellectual contexts in which we discuss “facts”—e.g., history. For instance, it is a fact that John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Facts of this kind fall within the context of “science,” broadly construed as our best effort to form a rational account of empirical reality. Granted, one doesn’t generally think of events like assassinations as “scientific” facts, but the murder of President Kennedy is as fully corroborated a fact as can be found anywhere, and it would betray a profoundly unscientific frame of mind to deny that it occurred (2010, p. 195).

Harris is exactly right. Events that happened in the past such as assassinations can be every bit as scientific and factual as other types of experiential knowledge. In fact, those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ have contended for years that direct observation is not necessarily needed to establish it as factual. If the assassination of J.F.K. can be nailed down scientifically and established as a fact, is it not also true that the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be equally validated as a scientific fact in the way Harris describes? Certainly it is. (We have established the case for the fact of the resurrection elsewhere, see Butt, 2002.)

“In our best effort to form a rational account of empirical reality” we are forced to conclude that no other series of events offers the explanatory power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The event is recorded in detail in the only book in the world that is proven to be inspired by God. Hundreds of people in the first century saw the resurrected Lord, and testified of such. And the fact is that Jesus’ tomb was empty.These facts and others combine to provide a cumulative scientific case to establish the fact of Jesus’ resurrection.

Of course, Sam Harris would disagree about the resurrection of Christ being a fact. But his insightful discussion of what actually constitutes a scientific fact opens the door for the resurrected Lord to walk through. “And it would betray a profoundly unscientific frame of mind to deny that it occurred.”

References

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason and Revelation, https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=147.

Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism,” Reason and Revelation, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2515.

Harris, Sam (2010), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Value (New York: Free Press).

The post The Resurrection of Christ as a Fact of Science appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Those closest to Jesus during His ministry initially doubted His resurrection from the dead and were justifiably rebuked for their unbelief. Although many of us likely would have been guilty of the same doubts, still, the apostles should have believed the witness of Mary Magdalene as soon as she testified to the empty tomb and risen Savior. Believers today, however, must be careful not to misinterpret Jesus’ rebukes of unbelief as promoting the popular notion that Christianity is an emotion-based, feel-good religion where evidence is unavailable or unnecessary.

EVIDENCE

Since the Bible repeatedly testifies that the faith of Christians is grounded in truth, reason, knowledge, and evidence (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4; John 5:31-47; Acts 1:3; 26:25), some wonder why Jesus rebuked the apostles for doubting His resurrection prior to seeing Him alive (Mark 16:14; cf. Luke 24:38). Had Jesus expected His apostles to have faith in His resurrection without proof? And why did Jesus tell Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29, emp. added)? Was Jesus commending an unverifiable, fickle faith?

The fact is, neither Thomas nor any apostle was rebuked for wanting evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. They were rightly rebuked, however, (1) for doubting the credible evidence they had already received, and (2) for demanding more evidence than was necessary for them to have solid faith in the risen Savior.

Prophecies

The same Man Whom Peter confessed was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16); the same Man Whom the apostles had seen raise Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44); the same Man Whom they saw transfigured (Matthew 17:5-9); the same Man Who had worked many amazing miracles in their presence (John 20:30); the same Man Who foretold precisely Peter’s triple denial (Matthew 26:34,75); the same Man Who accurately prophesied His own betrayal, scourging, and crucifixion (Matthew 20:18-19): this same Man repeatedly prophesied of His resurrection, even foretelling the very day on which it would occur (John 2:19; Matthew 12:40; 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19; 26:32). So well known were Jesus’ prophecies of His resurrection from the dead on the third day that even His enemies were aware of them. In fact, the “chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember, that while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, “After three days I will rise.” Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal Him away’” (Matthew 27:62-64).

So why did Jesus rebuke His apostles for their unbelief following His resurrection? Was He implying that they should have behaved like simpletons and believed everything they ever heard from anyone? (“The simple believes every word, but the prudent considers well his steps”—Proverbs 14:15.) Not at all. Jesus had every right to rebuke His apostles’ unbelief, first and foremost, because they refused to believe His Word (cf. Romans 10:17). They had seen Him raise the dead. They had witnessed His perfect life. They had heard His consistent words of Truth, including His repeated and accurate prophecies of various matters, including His betrayal, arrest, scourging, and crucifixion. They had every logical reason to believe what Jesus had prophesied about His resurrection. Everything they had ever seen and heard from Jesus was pure, right, and true. However, rather than expect a risen Redeemer on Sunday morning, such an idea “appeared to them as nonsense” (Luke 24:11, NASB, emp. added). Rather than traveling to Galilee and searching for the living Lord as soon as the Sun appeared on the third day (Matthew 26:32), they remained in Jerusalem behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19).

Jesus wanted His disciples to understand about His death and resurrection. He told them: “Let these words sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men” (Luke 9:43, emp. added). He desired for them to have a sincere, strong, evidence-based faith. Sadly, fear, preconceived ideas about the Messiah and His kingdom, and spiritual blindness (Luke 9:44; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4) initially interfered with the apostles’ belief in His resurrection.

Credible Testimony

When Jesus told Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29), was He condoning a careless faith? Was He advancing the idea of an emotion-driven, feel-good religion? Should we expect Christians living 2,000 years this side of the resurrection of Christ to have a reasonable faith in the risen Savior? If, unlike Thomas and the rest of the apostles, Jesus has never appeared to us, how can we expect to have a fact-based faith?

The same God Who rightly expects His human creation to examine the evidence and come to a knowledge of Him without ever literally seeing Him, is the same God Who expects man to follow the facts that lead to a resurrected Redeemer without ever personally witnessing His resurrection. No one believes in God because they can put Him under a microscope and see Him. No one can prove He exists by touching Him. We cannot use the five senses to see and prove the actual essence of God (cf. John 4:24; Luke 24:39). What we have at our fingertips, however, is a mountain of credible evidence that testifies on God’s behalf. The very existence of finite matter testifies to a supernatural, infinite, eternal Creator. The endless examples of design in the Universe bear witness to a grand Designer. The laws of science (e.g., the Law of Biogenesis) testify to God’s existence. [NOTE: For additional information on the existence of God, see http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12.]

A reasonable faith in Jesus’ resurrection is, likewise, based upon a mountain of credible testimony. Just as credible testimony (and not first-hand knowledge) has lead billions of people to believe, justifiably so, that Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and George Washington were real people, millions of Christians have come to the logical conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. Nineteen-hundred-year-old eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection exist in the most historically documented and accurate ancient book in the world—the New Testament. The event was foreshadowed and prophesied in the Old Testament (Psalm 16:10; Jonah 1:17-2:10; Matthew 12:40). Though very serious preventative steps were taken to keep the lifeless body of Jesus buried (Matthew 27:62-66), the tomb was found empty on the exact day He promised to arise. The body of Christ was never found (and, no doubt, first-century skeptics, especially the impenitent Jews who put Him to death, would have loved nothing more than to present Jesus’ dead body to early Christians).

The once fearful and skeptical disciples quickly transformed into a courageous, confident group of Christians who suffered and eventually died for their continual belief and teachings regarding the resurrected Lord. Hundreds of early Christians were able to testify to having seen Jesus firsthand after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Tens of thousands of once-skeptical Jews, not the least of which was Saul of Tarsus, examined the evidence, left Judaism, and confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Acts 2:41,47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 21:20). What’s more, these same Jews changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). As with evidence for the existence of God or the inspiration of the Bible, the cumulative case for the resurrection of Christ from credible testimony lies at the heart of a fortified faith.

CONCLUSION

Jesus rightly rebuked His apostles following His resurrection. They should have believed Mary Magdalene because she was a credible witness who said nothing more than what the Son of God had previously said many times would happen: He would arise on the third day following His death. What’s more, the blessing that Jesus mentioned to the apostle Thomas (“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”—John 20:29) was not an endorsement of a blind, emotion-based, feel-good religion, but Heaven-sent support for the truthful, credible evidence that leads the open-minded, truth-seeker to confess Him as “Lord and God.”

The post Faith, Evidence, and Credible Testimony appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As a case in point, Harris asked the question: “What should we believe?” He answered:

We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to…. In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us second hand. A person who believes only those propositions for which he can provide full sensory or theoretical justification will know almost nothing about the world (2004).

Harris then proceeded to discuss how to assess the validity of what we should or should not believe that other people tell us. He gave three sources of information and analyzed the validity of each. First, he proposed the scenario of an anchorman on the evening news claiming that a fire in Colorado had burned 100,000 acres. Second, he listed as a source of information numerous biologists who claim that DNA is the “molecular basis for sexual reproduction.” And the third source of information he listed was the Pope, who claims that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected bodily after death.

After some discussion, Harris concluded that the first and second sources of information are reliable and should be trusted, but the third, the Pope, is not. What is interesting about Harris’ discussion is why he concluded that the story about the fire on the evening news is trustworthy. He elaborated:

Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely on the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchorman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implicit in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a professional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here, if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado (2004).

It is not surprising that Harris follows this explanation with his statement about mistrusting the words of the Pope pertaining to the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, he is right: the Pope’s “word” on the resurrection is no more authoritative than the word of Sam Harris. But notice the straw man Harris has built. He rightly attacks the false belief of the Pope’s infallibility, but he does not address the real evidence that validates Jesus’ resurrection. Were we to put the evidence for the resurrection beside that of the news story, the resurrection would have unquestionably more “commonsense judgments” to commend it, making it much more “reasonably sure” than a modern news story.

Analyzing the resurrection of Christ in light of Harris’ filter of evidence, it is “scarcely conceivable” that several hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) of the resurrected Christ simply concocted the story to further their agenda. What would ordinary fishermen, farmers, or businessmen and women stand to gain from perpetuating such a hoax? The reward for their testimony was that many of them were stoned, killed with the sword, tortured, or imprisoned for nothing more than saying that they knew Jesus came back to life. Thousands of their peers listened with interest to their evidence, assessed the value of the witnesses and other information, such as the empty tomb of Christ, and were forced to conclude that the resurrection had, indeed, occurred (Acts 2:41). Many among the most educated classes, including the priests, who would have had numerous reasons to deny the validity of the evidence, were convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 6:7). The many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) offered for the resurrection are recorded in the most reliable documents ever to come down to modern man from any historical repository (see Butt, 2004). In fact, so powerful are the various evidences for the resurrection (see Butt, 2002), that, knowing what we know “about the casual connections between various processes” and humanity’s “success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings,” it is inconceivable that the resurrection of Christ is a hoax. The Pope is an easy target. The real evidence for the resurrection is not.

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/121.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2591.

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

The post Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is enrolled in Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral studies at Regions University. He has participated in an archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in both the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical Literature.]

Reinventing the Son of God is big business. Every year around Easter, Christians can expect to see the latest challenge to the historical picture of Jesus in magazines like TIME and Newsweek. For producers with bigger budgets, movies and television specials provide slick visuals to illustrate these new “truths.” There has been a recent flurry of these productions, ranging from popular novels to announcements about lost gospels, that allegedly will revolutionize how we understand the New Testament. For anyone with an interest in the sensational, the most recent addition to the growing host of heresy does not disappoint.

A new documentary titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4, 2007. At the helm were award-winning filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. The documentary promised to shed new light on Jesus through the earliest artifacts connected to the rise of Christianity. They claimed to take us to the tomb of Christ Himself, showing that He was a historic figure in spite of those who would claim Him to be nothing more than a myth. Are they doing Christians a favor, or are they doing more harm than good?

In the modern Jerusalem suburb of Talpiyot, a construction crew uncovered an ancient tomb while digging for a new apartment complex in 1980. Archaeologists immediately were called in to document the find in a salvage operation, lasting from March 28 to April 14 of that year (Kloner, 1996, 29:22). The find was a rock-cut tomb with 10 limestone ossuaries (bone boxes), six of which bore inscriptions identifying the occupants as Jesus, Joseph, Matthew, Simeon, and two Marys. The names were common ones to the period, so the archaeologists thought nothing of them. No special significance was attached to the tomb. The excavators finished their work, the construction resumed, and the ossuaries were placed in storage. Bone fragments found inside the ossuaries were buried in a cemetery according to Orthodox Jewish custom. The tomb soon lay buried, hidden by modern development.

Twenty-three years later, filmmaker Jacobovici began working on a documentary on the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus. He observed that there were several ossuaries with familiar names, including Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Could this be the holy family of the New Testament? He explored the work of the original excavators and found the evidence too tantalizing to pass up. After talking with the archaeologists who worked on the dig and writing a proposal, his work began. The fruit of his labor is the new documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which features the hidden tomb that supposedly contained the remains of Christ.

In order to determine the accuracy of the theory presented in the documentary, we first must look at the important idea of convergence. When the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence is interpreted and weighed, we expect there to be harmony. The three will converge, or come together. There may be cases where evidence from one area might be lacking, but we do not expect the evidence to be in conflict without adequate explanation. This is a key factor in determining whether Jacobovici’s conclusions are right or wrong.

Tales of Tombs and Ossuaries

A typical Palestinian rock-cut tomb

Rock-cut tombs were used in antiquity at least as early as the eighth century B.C. They are artificial underground caves in the bedrock slopes of Jerusalem, nearly always located outside the city walls (Magness, 2005, 124[1]:122-123). They were choice burial sites for those wealthy enough to afford them, while those with less financial means settled for trench graves, similar to those used in modern cemeteries. Families used rock-cut tombs over several generations, a practice which is reflected in biblical phrases such as “he slept and was gathered to his fathers” (2 Chronicles 34:28). They usually appear only in periods where the Jewish people had a measure of political independence.

In Jewish tombs, there were two burials involved for a single individual. In the initial or primary burial, the body would be placed on a loculus or kokh (rectangular burial niche) for the body to decay. About a year later, the bones would be gathered together for a secondary burial, usually in a limestone ossuary (bone box). Ossuaries began to appear during the reign of Herod the Great, dateable perhaps to 20-15 B.C. (Rahmani, 1994, p. 21). Their use continued at least until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but may have extended through the early second century.

Archaelogical Evidence

One of the primary problems with connecting the Talpiyot tomb with Jesus Christ involves the expense of owning such a tomb in antiquity. Even modest tombs were outside the price range of most people. Further complicating the matter is the fact that Jesus and His family never are portrayed as wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb. If Joseph died early, as suggested by some who note his absence in Jesus’ adult life, an additional financial burden would have been placed on the family, further decreasing their already minuscule chances of owning a tomb.

On the Biblical Archaeology Society website, scholar James Tabor (who supports the idea that the Talpiyot tomb could be that of Jesus) has objected to comments about the default burial of Jesus being in a trench grave along with others who were too poor to own a rock-cut tomb. He argues that it seems only natural that a popular religious leader like Jesus would be given an honorable burial by His devoted followers (Tabor, 2007). However, Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries notes that the name of Jesus is carved clumsily on the ossuary (labeled as no. 701). If this is the tomb of a popular religious figure, why give Him a simple, unadorned ossuary with only His name shoddily scrawled on the outside? Tabor’s objection clearly does not fit the evidence.

Another problem is that Jesus and his family did not come from Jerusalem. Joseph and Mary originally were from Bethlehem, and settled in Nazareth. While ossuaries frequently have the names of a person’s father or mother, ancient sources also typically make a distinction concerning the place of a person’s origin, as in the cases of Simon of Cyrene and Saul of Tarsus. Ossuaries in Jerusalem have been found that indicate a person’s place of origin when they were not originally from that city. If the tomb were truly that of Jesus Christ, we would expect Him to be identified on the ossuary as “Jesus of Nazareth” rather than “Jesus son of Joseph.” No one in the Talpiyot tomb is identified by place of origin. This evidence strongly suggests that the people buried in the tomb were natives of Jerusalem.

Additional evidence concerning the names on the ossuaries found in the Talpiyot tomb complicates the conclusions drawn by the documentary. The ossuary of the woman identified as Mary Magdalene is problematic, and conflicts with other evidence. First, if the ossuary belonged to Mary, we would expect her to be identified as “Mary of Migdal,” as she is in the New Testament (Luke 8:2).

Second, scholars are divided on how to translate the wording of MARIAMENOU MARA (the name appearing on one of the ossuaries), whether it gives two names for the same woman (“Mary, who is called Mara”) or if it indicates the names of two women—Mary and Martha—meaning that two people were buried in the same ossuary, which was not unknown (there are cases of as many as five people buried in a single ossuary). Stephen Pfann’s piece on the Society of Biblical Literature homepage disputes the reading used by the documentary, arguing that the inscription should be read MARIAME KAI MARA (Pfann, 2007). In this case, the inscription would refer to two women, Mariam and Martha. Most scholars now appear to be accepting Pfann’s corrected reading of the ossuary’s inscription, concluding that the remains of two individuals shared this ossuary.

An additional problem with “Mary Magdalene’s” ossuary is that the inscription is in Greek. According to the documentary, Mary spoke Greek and helped her brother Philip in evangelistic work. In reality, Mary Magdalene came from Migdal, a small Jewish fishing village. Usually in the first century, only upper class Jews spoke Greek. The average Jew would have spoken Aramaic. So why is her ossuary inscription written in Greek? This evidence suggests a Jerusalemite woman named Mary who was from the upper classes, and whose family could afford to bury her in a rock-cut tomb.

The program claims that “Mara” in the inscription means “teacher,” a conclusion with which no reputable scholar agrees. The word is actually a shortened form of the name “Martha.” It is suggested that Francois Bovon, Frothingham professor of the history of religion at Harvard Divinity School, has equated Mariamne with Mary Magdalene (Desmond, 2000). Bovon has denied this claim, however, in a letter sent to the Society of Biblical Literature in which he says the “reconstructions of Jesus’ marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction” (Bovon, 2007).

One final concern regarding the archaeological evidence: a primary assumption of the documentary is that the James ossuary comes from the same tomb in Talpiyot. The program claims that the 10th ossuary went missing during the original work on the tomb. To rebut this claim, Israeli archaeologist Joseph Zias has posted an excellent “viewer’s guide” to understanding the documentary on his website (www.joezias.com). Zias shows that the FBI proved the James ossuary was photographed in the 1970’s because of a criminal investigation against Oded Golan, the ossuary’s current owner (Zias, 2007). If the James ossuary was already in Golan’s possession when the tomb was discovered, it could not be the tenth “missing” ossuary. Zias also shows that he had indeed accounted for the tenth ossuary when the original work was done, and that it had no inscription.

Scientific Evidence

People in the Western world are trained to think that scientific evidence assures the quality of any product. Advertisers make sure the public knows that their work has been “scientifically proven.” This gives the consumer the idea that independent, objective research has gone into its production. The commercials for The Lost Tomb of Jesus did much the same in advertisements leading up to the premiere of the documentary.

The first major area of evidence concerns the DNA testing performed on two of the ossuaries, those of Jesus and Mary. Mitochondrial DNA was tested by the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2007, pp. 167-174). It was determined that the two individuals in this tomb were not related to each other. Since this was a family tomb, the documentary suggests, the two must have been husband and wife. But the only thing this test proves is that Jesus and Mary did not have the same mother. In addition, there are a number of other possibilities in terms of family relations. Mary could have been Jesus’ daughter, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law through marriage to a brother, sister-in-law from a previous marriage of his father, mother-in-law from a subsequent marriage of his father, or paternal cousins, with more distant relations remaining as further possibilities. To leap to the conclusion that the two must have been married to one another is problematic and prejudicial, to say the least.

Exterior view of a Jewish rock-cut tomb

In addition to the DNA evidence, further proof from statistics is supposed to support the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto assembled the statistical evidence, shown on the Discovery Channel website, which supposedly proves the tomb to be that of Jesus (2007). Unfortunately, the names represented on the ossuaries are extremely common. In his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckman indicates that the male names in the tomb are among the most popular, with Simon ranking first, Joseph second, Judah fourth, and Jesus sixth, with Mary being the most common female name (Bauckman, 2006, p. 70). This is why archaeologists initially thought nothing of the tomb when it was discovered. While the names corresponded to those of Jesus’ family in the gospel records, they were also the most common names in the first century. The equivalent today would be trying to find a modern cemetery that did not have anyone named Smith or Jones. Taking this evidence into account, the documentary claims that while the individual names are common, the cluster of names is not. After all, how many families in the first century could have people named Joseph, Jesus, and Mary?

While the argument initially sounds convincing, a number of problems persist with the statistics presented on the Discovery Channel website. In a letter to his colleagues posted on the Internet, Feuerverger admits that he made a number of assumptions before he performed his calculations. First, he assumed that the Joseph (Yose) of the ossuary and the Joseph, father of Jesus, are two different people—an unprovable assumption. He also assumed that the second Mary refers to Mary Magdalene, forcing a virtually statistical certainty that this is the tomb of Jesus. But this interpretation is impossible, as discussed earlier. A third assumption is that the presence of unknown people, such as Matthew and Judah, do not invalidate the statistical evidence, though that assumption goes against the historical evidence (Feuerverger, 2007).

The statistical evidence is invalid because the names on the ossuaries do not match the evidence for several reasons. First, there are two persons for whom the historical evidence does not account (Matthew and Judah). Furthermore, there are other family members that are missing, including His brothers James and Jude, and sisters Salome and Mary (who are named only in later tradition; cf. Mark 6:3). The documentary contends that Yose (Joseph) is not the father of Jesus. This contention drives the statistical probability higher, yet the documentary never addresses the fact that the Yose in the ossuary and the father of Jesus could have been the same person. Admittedly, this is not certain, but there is no good reason why the father of this Jesus could not have gone by Yose. Actually, a facsimile of the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries presented on the Discovery Channel website shows that Rahmani’s opinion was that Yose very well could be the father of the Jesus in this tomb. Finally, attributing the ossuary to Mary Magdalene further inflates the statistics, though no evidence exists to connect the name on the ossuary to her. It also assumes that the Matthew of the ossuary is a relative of Mary, but not her son, despite a lack of any evidence to support that possibility.

The final piece of scientific evidence involves the use of “patina fingerprinting.” Patina is a thin layer of buildup on the surface of an artifact due to chemical reaction with the environment. According to the program, the makeup of the patina holds clues about the tomb. Though touted as an important piece of information in the documentary, it is completely inadmissible as evidence. The use of the term “fingerprinting” is a misleading description, since it gives the viewer the impression that the science behind the process is exact. The truth is, the procedure is not exact, nor would we expect it to be. The patina evidence is rigged from the start. The patinas from ossuaries discovered in other environments are tested and shown to be different from the ossuaries in the Talpiyot tomb. Those in the Talpiyot tomb were tested and shown to be relatively similar. But these conclusions are to be expected. The real test is whether ossuaries from tombs similar to the Talpiyot tomb are different, which would strengthen Jacobovici’s case. But there is no reason to expect substantial differences in patina evidence from similar environments. No way exists to connect a single ossuary with a specific tomb. The use of this evidence is intellectually dishonest.

Historical Evidence

While the evidence from archaeology and science—the main underpinnings of the documentary’s premise—has been shown to be lacking, the program faces further difficulties in terms of the historical evidence. The basis for the documentary is drawn in part from later, extra-biblical traditions. It is strange, though perhaps to be expected, that the documentary draws on sources centuries later than the New Testament gospel accounts—further evidence of the utter lack of objectivity in the documentary. Rather than using the gospel records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (which have demonstrated their historical reliability and are accepted even by most non-believing scholars—see Lyons and Miller, 2004, 24[6]:57-63), the documentary is guided by pseudepigraphical works of highly dubious historical value.

The major problem is that no evidence exists to suggest that Jesus had a wife and child. There is no hint Jesus ever was married (Lyons, 2006). While archaeology occasionally fills in gaps left out by historical evidence, this fact would not have gone unmentioned in the earliest sources. The marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene is found nowhere in the ancient evidence.

The statistical probability of the Talpiyot tomb being that of Jesus hangs on Mariamne and Mary Magdalene being one and the same. Yet no early evidence connects the two. The only connection available comes from the Acts of Philip, an uncertain and widely disputed text, whose earliest surviving copy is from the 14th century, though possibly dated to the fourth. The text not only fails conclusively to connect Mariamne with Mary Magdalene, it has a few other discrediting features—including talking animals. Speaking from the historian’s perspective, it is grossly irresponsible to dismiss the best sources and use disputed evidence to support an already-drawn conclusion.

Response of the Early Church

Finally, we must examine the response of early believers to Jesus. In the gospel accounts, after the crucifixion of Christ, the disciples are depicted as a band of disillusioned idealists. They thought their Messiah was dead and gone, buried in a tomb, when He was supposed to save the world. Despite their initial disenchantment, they soon transformed into powerful preachers bent on evangelizing the Mediterranean world. Going on missions that put them directly in harm’s way (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27), they defied worldly authorities for the cause of Christ. Why the turnaround?

Being a Christian did not bode well for one’s health. History records that all of the apostles but one were martyred. So was James, the brother of Jesus. Even the average Christian at the time could expect to be executed if discovered by the Roman authorities. Of all the religious choices in the first century, why choose the one with the shortest life expectancy? It is hard to believe that such a religion would be the chosen course of people who had put Jesus’ body in the tomb, then later placed His bones in an ossuary. They would have been reminded of the lie every time the next family member was buried, at the very time people were preaching His resurrection. The only explanation for this complete inability to face reality would be insanity.

We are at a loss to find any other explanation for the dramatic turnaround of some of the fiercest defenders of the faith in the early church. There was tension in the family of Jesus, which would have included His brothers James and Jude (Mark 3:31-34). Paul actively persecuted the church (Acts 8:3). It is difficult—if not impossible—to explain such a dramatic reversal of men who were originally skeptics and even enemies of Christ.

In early church history, absolutely no awareness of this family tomb is indicated. During the reign of Constantine the Great, traditional sites of New Testament significance were marked. Churches were constructed over venerated locations, such as the purported burial place of Jesus and the site of his ascension to heaven, and even the site identified as Peter’s house. Before the reign of Constantine, Christians commemorated the final resting place of Jesus’ brother James. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the early church inexplicably lost track of the real tomb, in spite of the fact that it was used for at least four generations, until the end of the first century? Even so, the location never appears in Christian traditions or the writings of the early patristic writers. Christianity shows no awareness of the tomb from earliest times.

Both Roman and Jewish authorities were hostile to the early church. If the documentary is correct, all they had to do was point to the ossuary occupied by the body of Jesus to refute utterly the Christian claims of His resurrection. Yet there was no body to be produced. The fact that the body of Jesus was missing may well be reflected in a stone monument found in Nazareth in 1878, dubbed the “Nazareth Inscription Against Grave Robbing,” possibly dating to the time of the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54). The inscription states that tomb-robbing is a capital crime under Roman law. Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49 because of problems generated by the budding Christian faith. He also may have issued this order because of problems concerning the claims that Jesus rose from the dead. This observation is uncertain, however, and so must be weighed with caution (Ferguson, 2003, pp. 586-587).

In the end, the tomb discovery has wide-ranging theological implications. Some of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith hang upon the bodily resurrection of Christ. While the producers of the documentary have downplayed this aspect, claiming that Jesus could have had a spiritual resurrection, their view is yet another instance of failure to understand properly the ancient evidence. The unusual aspect of Christ’s resurrection was not that it was physical—which is what the Jews anticipated. The unexpectedness of it is the fact that it occurred before the end of time. According to Jewish belief, resurrection was physical, as can be seen in the book of 2 Maccabees. In chapter 7, one of several individuals being tortured expresses the belief that his mutilated body parts would be restored in the resurrection. In 2 Maccabees 17:46, a man named Razis, who committed suicide by pulling out his own intestines, called upon God to restore them to him again, presumably in the afterlife. It has been suggested that the point of having an ossuary was to preserve the bones for a physical resurrection (Rahmani, 1981, 44[3]:175-176).

Responses from Experts

While critics of the Christian faith make fun of believers scurrying to do damage control in the wake of the documentary’s premiere, it is not Christians who are leading the charge against the film, but atheists and agnostics. The majority of the archaeologists who have denounced the program are unbelievers. Their ire is not because the program controverts the gospel message, but because it violates standards of scientific and academic professionalism (Thompson, 2007). The established process of presenting new discoveries and interpretations is by means of scholarly venues, such as papers presented at professional conferences and articles published in peer-reviewed journals. By announcing the findings of the program in the popular media, complete with a perfectly-timed news conference to coincide with the release of the book and documentary, Cameron and Jacobovici have stepped on the toes of scholars everywhere.

Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who initially worked on the excavation and later published his findings in 1996, argues that the documentary is nothing more than a commercial enterprise (Nissenbaum, 2007). Kloner’s colleague in the excavation, Joseph Zias (one-time curator of the well-known Rockefeller Museum in Israel), has lamented that the documentary makes a mockery of the archaeological profession (Zias, 2007). From their comments in the popular media, it is readily apparent that both men, who are reputable archaeologists—but unbelievers—are frustrated with the project.

Some of the harshest language about the documentary came immediately after its airing. In a scholarly program that discussed the validity of the documentary’s radical claims, The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look, Ted Koppel interviewed two archaeologists. The first was William Dever, arguably the most recognized American archaeologist. The other was Jonathan Reed, a well-respected archaeologist who currently excavates at the site of ancient Sepphoris. Dever, who noted that he was not a believer and did not “have a dog in this fight,” labeled the program a “docu-drama.” Reed was even more hostile in his evaluation, denouncing the documentary as “archaeo-porn.” Reed’s evaluation of the evidence was that the theory is much like a chain made up of links, but one in which each link has a tremendous number of “ifs” that makes the final product difficult to accept.

It must be noted that Cameron and Jacobovici were unable to find archaeological experts to agree with their conclusions. While a few scholars have been sympathetic to the premise of the documentary, no one has endorsed it carte blanche. The vast majority of experts are frustrated, even angry, about it. In addition to the comments by Dever and Reed noted above, other archaeologists have expressed dismay and quickly moved to refute the thesis of the program. Jodi Magness, professor of archaeology at the University of North Carolina, has published articles on the websites of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Archaeological Institute of America exposing the shortcomings of the documentary (2007). Joseph Zias’ viewer’s guide posted on his website refutes nearly every claim made by the show, giving additional insight into what went into the program behind the scenes (2007). Tel Ilan, the scholar whose Lexicon of Jewish Names was used in providing the evidence for the statistical research presented in the program, has expressed outrage that her work has been connected to the documentary. The website of Scientific American has quotes from both Ilan and Magness expressing their anger and frustration (Mims, 2007). The verdict of the scholars? Professionals have given responses ranging from irritation to anger and disgust. Indeed, reaction of the experts is almost unanimously negative.

When one steps back from the documentary and looks to see if filmmakers handled the evidence properly, the result can be described only as pure disappointment. Rather than converging, the scientific, archaeological, and historical evidence are thrown into chaotic disarray. Evidence from one area is pitted against evidence from another. The best sources are dismissed, while disreputable sources are given an undeserved prominence in the conclusion of the program. Jacobovici has been unable to find any expert who will agree with him. The evidence is cherry-picked to create the appearance of the strongest possible case, but the end result is that the chain of evidence is weak at every link.

These artifacts have been known for 27 years, yet no one of scholarly repute has thought much of them until now. As vocal as critics of Christianity are, it is strange that this sleeping giant has lain undisturbed for nearly three decades. This is the kind of ammunition that the Bible’s detractors drool over, yet it never made a blip on the radar despite being published in 1996 and being featured on a BBC special the same year. Apparently, it takes a filmmaker to connect the dots on 2,000 year-old “evidence” that contradicts Christianity.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus has the potential to shake Christianity to its core, but the utter lack of good evidence means the documentary goes forth more with a whimper than a bang. Both Cameron and Jacobovici have admitted that neither is an archaeologist or scientist. They make it appear as if anyone with a budget and a film crew can do archaeology. This is painfully obvious at the end of the program, when Jacobovici goes to find the location of the tomb. He eventually discovers it and removes the concrete slab that seals it shut, essentially committing archaeological “breaking and entering.” Eventually, a representative from the Israel Antiquities Authority shows up to force the intruders to leave. Jacobovici demonstrates a flagrant disregard for proper procedure; the same may be said for the rest of his work.

In the wake of the program’s premiere, it appears that those involved are attempting to distance themselves from the project. In an e-mail to evangelical theologian James White posted on the Alpha and Omega Ministries website, Dr. Carney Matheson (the scientist responsible for DNA testing on the Jesus and Mary ossuaries) indicated that his responses in interviews with the filmmakers were manipulated (White, 2007). In a letter to his colleagues, Andrey Feuerverger, the statistical expert from the University of Toronto, emphasizes the assumptions that went into his calculations (2007). Even the Discovery Channel is refusing to promote the documentary, and now appears to be backing away from it. Despite drawing over four million viewers for the premiere, the channel has not celebrated its ratings. Subsequent re-airings of the show were cancelled. The channel scheduled the panel debate in The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look quite abruptly, the conclusions of which cast serious doubt upon Jacobovici’s findings.

Do Christians have anything about which to worry? Not at all. The documentary’s conclusion is based on poor use of evidence and faulty statistics. The evidence in the documentary has been skewed, even manipulated—a charge brought by scholars who have no spiritual stake in the program. While the documentary makes for sensational television, it has no scholarly basis. Rather than the evidence achieving convergence, the documentary pits different aspects of the evidence against other aspects. The difficulties in reconciling the scientific, archaeological, and historical data in a meaningful way can be solved by one simple solution: this is not the tomb of Christ.

If we could travel back in time nearly 2,000 years to the territory now occupied by the suburb of Talpiyot in modern-day Jerusalem, we could observe Jesus’ funeral, with mourners dressed in first-century Jewish garb solemnly marching toward a rock-cut tomb. The family of the deceased would gather around sorrowfully to lay their beloved to rest in the cool, stone chamber. A year later, they would put his bones in a limestone ossuary. Our hearts would go out to the family—even though the deceased was not Jesus of Nazareth.

Bauckman, Richard (2006), Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Bovon, Francois (2007), The Tomb of Jesus, [On-line], URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656.

Desmond, Peter H. (2000), “Woman Priests, Vegetarians, and Summer Dresses: Fourth Century Church Tales,” Harvard Magazine, May-June, [On-line], URL: http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0500113.html.

Ferguson, Everett (2003), “Back”grounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third edition.

Feuerverger, Andrey (2007), “Dear Statistical Colleagues,” [On-line], URL: http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt.

Jacobovici, Simcha and Charles Pellegrino (2007), The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History (New York, NY: HarperCollins).

Kloner, Amos (1996), “A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem,” Antiqot, 29:15-22.

Lyons, Eric (2006), “The Real Mary Magdalene,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3059.

Lyons, Eric and Dave Miller (2004), “Biblical Inerrancy,” Reason & Revelation, 24[6]:57-63, June, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=416.

Magness, Jodi (2005), “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 124[1]:121-154.

Magness, Jodi (2007), “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” Society of Biblical Literature, March 2 and April 3, [On-line], URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=640 ; Archaeological Institute of America, [On-line], URL: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408.

Mims, Christopher (2007), “Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: ‘I think it’s completely mishandled. I am angry’,” Scientific American, March 2, [On-line], URL: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_ in_the&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.

Nissenbaum, Dion (2007), “Tomb of Jesus, Son Found, Film Reports,” Chicago Tribune, February 27, [On-line], URL: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702270145feb27,1 ,1790100.story.

Pfann, Stephen (2007), “Mary Magdalene is Now Missing: A Corrected Reading of Rhamani Ossuary 701,” Society of Biblical Literature, [On-line], URL: http://sbl-site.org/PDF/Pfann.pdf.

Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1981), “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs, Part One,” Biblical Archaeologist, 44[3]:171-177, Summer.

Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1994), A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority).

Tabor, James D. (2007), “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” [On-line], URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombtabor.html.

Thompson, Marshall (2007), “Claims about Jesus’ Lost Tomb Stir Up Tempest,” MSNBC, February 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345429/from/RSS.

White, James R. (2007), “Dr. Carney Matheson Responds,” [On-line], URL: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1809.

Zias, Joseph (2007), “Deconstructing the Second and Hopefully Last Coming of Simcha and the BAR Crowd,” [On-line], URL: http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html.

The post Discovering the Truth About “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Is it any surprise, then, that first-century evangelists put so much emphasis on Jesus’ resurrection? Peter specifically mentioned how the apostle chosen to take the place of Judas was to become a witness of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:22). A short while later, Peter preached to thousands of Jews in Jerusalem a sermon that hinged on the empty tomb of Christ (Acts 2:24,31-32). He then spoke in the temple about the Lord’s resurrection (Acts 3:15,26), and afterward witnessed to this fact before the highest court of the Jews (4:10; 5:29-32). The apostle similarly witnessed to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:30). Paul repeatedly spoke of the resurrection of Christ in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:30,33,34,37), reasoned from the Scriptures about it in Thessalonica (Acts 17:3), and then gave testimony of this fact before both Festus and Agrippa (Acts 26:22-25).

First-century Christians frequently discussed the resurrection of Christ and were prepared to defend it using logical arguments comprised of sufficient evidence (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8; Acts 1:3; 26:22-23). Christ’s resurrection was fundamental to their faith and prominent in their preaching. It should be no less today. Hundreds of millions of people on Earth disbelieve in Jesus’ death-defying power. Skeptics scoff at the idea of Jesus coming back to life. Infidels in classrooms and media outlets throughout the world adamantly argue against it, alleging that “the bodily resurrection of Jesus did not happen on good biblical grounds,” and it certainly “did not happen on good historical grounds” (Barker, 1996).

In the past, we have discussed various irrefutable proofs for the resurrection of Christ (see Butt, 2002). In this issue of Reason & Revelation, we respond to four questions that skeptics are fond of asking as they attempt to discredit the Bible’s portrayal of this earth-shaking event (Matthew 28:2).

Most anyone who has spent much time reading the Scriptures knows that the Bible writers mentioned several individuals who rose from the dead. After the widow’s son of Zarephath died, Elijah prayed to God, “and the soul of the child came back to him, and he revived” (1 Kings 17:22). A few years later, the prophet Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite (2 Kings 4:32-35). Then, after Elisha’s death, a dead man, in the process of being buried in the tomb of Elisha, was restored to life after touching Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21). While on Earth Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:21-24,35-43), as well as the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-16), and Lazarus—who had been buried for four days (John 11:1-45). Matthew recorded how after Jesus’ death and resurrection “the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (27:52-53, emp. added). Then later, during the early years of the church, Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-43), while Paul raised the young man Eutychus, who had died after falling from a third-story window (Acts 20:7-12).

All of these people died and later rose to live again. Although some of the individuals arose very shortly after death, Lazarus and (most likely) the saints who were raised after the resurrection of Jesus were entombed longer than was Jesus. In view of all of these resurrections, some have asked, “What is so important about Jesus’ resurrection?” If others in the past have died to live again, what makes His resurrection so special? The former editor of Biblical Errancy, Dennis McKinsey, once mockingly asked:

Why would it [Jesus’ resurrection—EL] be of any consequence since…many others rose before Jesus? By the time he rose this was a rather common occurrence. I would think it would have been met by a resounding yawn rather than surprise followed by: So what else can you do? Adam’s act of coming into the world as a full grown adult is more spectacular (n.d.).

Given the fact that Jesus is not the only person ever to come back to life, what is it that makes His resurrection unique? Why is the resurrection of Jesus more significant than any other?

First, the resurrection of Jesus is more significant than any other resurrection simply because the inspired apostles and prophets said that it was. Critics may sneer at this response, but it is a valid point. Jesus did certain things that others did, including being raised from the dead, but His actions were more significant because of the statements attached to them. Consider the miracles Jesus performed in order to set Himself apart as the Son of God and promised Messiah. Many people throughout the Bible worked miracles in order to confirm their divine message (cf. Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:1-4), but only Jesus did them as proof of His divine nature. Once, during the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, a group of Jews surrounded Jesus and asked, “How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24)? Jesus responded to them saying, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me…. I and My Father are one” (John 10:25,30). These Jews understood that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh (cf. 10:33,36), and Jesus wanted them to understand that this truth could be confirmed by the miracles that He worked.

The miracles testified to His deity (John 20:30-31). Why? Because He said they did (10:25,35-38; cf. John 5:36). The miracles that Jesus performed bore witness to the fact that He was from the Father (John 5:36), because He said He was from the Father. A miracle in and of itself did not mean the person who worked it was deity. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, and a host of others worked miracles, with some even raising people from the dead. But none did so for the purpose of proving they were God in the flesh. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message that Jesus was the Son of God, not to prove that they were God (cf. Acts 14:8-18). Jesus, on the other hand, performed miracles to bear witness that He was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be (cf. John 9:35-38).

Similarly, one fundamental reason that Jesus’ miraculous resurrection is more important to a Christian than the resurrections of Lazarus, Tabitha, Eutychus, or anyone else who was raised from the dead, is simply because the Bible writers explained that it was more important. There is no record of anyone alleging that Lazarus was God’s Son based on his resurrection, nor did the early church claim divinity for Eutychus or Tabitha because they died and came back to life. None of the aforementioned individuals who was resurrected ever claimed that the resurrection was proof of deity, nor did any inspired prophet or apostle. On the other hand, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). His resurrection was different because of Who He was—the Son of God. Thus, just as the miracles He worked during His earthly ministry testified of His divine message, and hence His divine nature, so did His resurrection.

A second reason why Jesus’ resurrection stands out above all others is because it alone was specifically foretold in the Old Testament. In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter affirmed that God had raised Jesus from the dead because it was not possible for the grave to hold Him. As proof, he quoted Psalm 16:8‑11 in the following words:

I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence (Acts 2:25-28).

Peter then explained this quote from the book of Psalms by saying:

Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses (Acts 2:29-32).

The apostle Paul also believed that the psalmist bore witness to Christ, and spoke of His resurrection. In his address at Antioch of Pisidia, he said:

And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: “I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Therefore He also says in another Psalm: “You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:32‑39).

Where is the prophecy for the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter? When did the prophets ever foretell of Eutychus or Tabitha’s resurrection? They did not. No resurrected person other than Jesus had his or her resurrection foretold by an Old Testament prophet, nor did any inspired apostle or prophet in the first century apply Old Testament prophecies to them. This certainly makes Jesus’ resurrection unique.

Third, Jesus’ resurrection is more significant than any other because He prophesied numerous times that He would rise from the dead, even foretelling the exact day on which it would occur. Jesus told some scribes and Pharisees on one occasion, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, emp. added). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded how Jesus “began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day (Matthew 16:21, emp. added; cf. Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:22). While Jesus and His disciples were in Galilee, Jesus reminded them, saying, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 17:22-23, emp. added).

Christians do not serve a lifeless lord, but a Risen Redeemer Whose tomb was found empty nearly 2,000 years ago.

Just before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus again reminded His disciples, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again” (Matthew 20:18-19, emp. added). Jesus’ prophecies concerning His resurrection and the specific day on which it would occur were so widely known that, after Jesus’ death, His enemies requested that Pilate place a guard at the tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day…” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). They knew exactly what Jesus had said He would do, and they did everything in their power to stop it.

Where are the prophecies from the widow’s son of Zarephath? Did he prophesy of his resurrection prior to his death? Or what about the son of the Shunammite woman that Elisha raised from the dead? Where are his personal prophecies? Truly, no one who rose from the dead except Jesus prophesied about his or her own resurrection. And certainly no one ever prophesied about the exact day on which he or she would rise from the dead, save Jesus. This prior knowledge and prophecy makes His resurrection a significant event. He overcame death, just as He predicted. He did exactly what he said He was going to do, on the exact day He said He would do it.

Fourth, the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He is the only resurrected person ever to have lived and died without having committed one sin during His lifetime. He was “pure” and “righteous” (1 John 3:3; 2:1), “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). He was “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19), “Who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). No one else who has risen from the dead ever lived a perfect life, and then died prior to his or her resurrection for the purpose of taking away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). Because Jesus lived a sinless life, died, and then overcame death in His resurrection, He alone has the honor of being called “the Lamb of God” and the “great High Priest” (Hebrews 4:14). “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many,” and because of His resurrection, “those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).

Finally, and perhaps most important, the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. Since no one who has risen from the dead is still living on Earth, and since there is no evidence in the Bible that God ever took someone who had risen from the dead into heaven without his dying again, it is reasonable to conclude that all who ever rose from the dead, died in later years. Jesus, however, never died again. He rose from the grave to live forevermore. All others who previously were raised from the dead, died again, and are among those who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection. Only Jesus truly has conquered death. Only His bodily resurrection was followed by eternal life, rather than another physical death.

Skeptics have argued that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again” (see McKinsey, 1983, p. 1, emp. added). However, the inspired apostles said otherwise. Paul actually linked the two together while preaching in Antioch of Pisidia, saying, God “raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption…. He whom God raised saw no corruption” (Acts 13:34,37, emp. added). Paul also impressed upon the minds of the Christians in Rome how Jesus, “having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Romans 6:9, emp. added). [Is it any wonder Paul testified before Agrippa and Festus how Jesus was “the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23)? “[H]e was the first who rose again from the dead to return no more into the empire of death” (Clarke, 1996).] Jesus said of Himself: “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:17-18, emp. added). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews argued for a better life through Jesus on the basis of His termination of death. One reason for the inadequacy of the old priesthood was because “they were prevented by death.” Jesus, however, because He rose never to die again, “continues forever” in “an unchangeable priesthood,” and lives to make intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:23-25). As so often is the case, skeptics comment on the Bible without really knowing what the Bible says. To say, that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again” (McKinsey, 1983, p. 1), is to deny (or ignore) what the apostles and prophets actually stated.

Whether or not Eutychus, Tabitha, Lazarus, etc., rose from the grave, our relationship with God is not affected. Without Jesus’ resurrection, however, there would be no “Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Without Jesus’ resurrection, no suitable High Priest would be able to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25). Without Jesus’ resurrection, we would have no assurance of His coming and subsequent judgment (Acts 17:31). Without Jesus’ resurrection, “we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Corinthians 15:19).

Jesus’ resurrection is significant—more so than any other resurrection. Only Jesus’ resurrection was verbalized by inspired men as proof of His deity. Only Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament. Only Jesus foretold of the precise day on which He would rise from the grave—and then fulfilled that prediction. Only Jesus’ resurrection was preceded by a perfect life—a life lived, given up, and restored in the resurrection for the purpose of becoming man’s Prince, Savior, and Mediator. And, only Jesus rose never to die again.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul wrote at length concerning the resurrection of the dead because some of the Christians in Corinth taught “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (vs. 12). As one of his proofs for the Christian’s eventual resurrection, Paul pointed to the fact that Christ rose, and showed that the general resurrection stands or falls with Christ’s resurretion, saying, “if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile” (vss. 16-17)! After hypothetically arguing from the absurd in an attempt to help the Corinthian Christians to see that their stance on the final resurrection completely undermined Christianity, Paul proceeded to demonstrate that Christ had risen, making the resurrection of the dead inevitable. It is in this section of Scripture that some find a difficulty. Beginning with verse 20, Paul wrote:

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, emp. added).

In view of the fact that Jesus was not the first person ever to rise from the dead (as previously discussed), some have questioned why Paul twice described Jesus as “the firstfruits” from the dead. Did Paul err? Was he ignorant of all of the previous resurrections? In what sense did Paul speak of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”?

One could respond reasonably to these questions by pointing out the aforementioned fact that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead—never to die again. In this sense, Christ is “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5). Another (and perhaps better) explanation to the question surrounding 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 and Paul’s use of the word “firstfruits” (Greek aparche) is to recognize the metaphor Paul employed. Under the old law, the firstfruits were the earliest gathered grains, fruits, and vegetables that the people dedicated to God in recognition of His faithfulness for providing the necessities of life. The Israelites were to offer to God a sheaf of the first grain that was harvested on the day after the Sabbath following the Passover feast (Leviticus 23:9-14). Paul used the term “firstfruits” in this letter to the Corinthian church to reinforce the certainty of the resurrection. Just as the term “firstfruits” indicates that “the first sheaf of the forthcoming grain harvest will be followed by the rest of the sheaves, Christ, the firstfruits raised from the dead, is the guarantee for all those who belong to him that they also will share in his resurrection” (Kistemaker, 1993, p. 548). Jesus is God’s “firstfruits” of the resurrection. And, like the Israelites, God will gather the rest of the harvest at the final resurrection. Paul seemingly wanted the Corinthians to understand (by way of metaphor) that Christ’s resurrection is a pledge of our resurrection. It is inevitable—a full harvest guaranteed by God Himself.

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4, emp. added). And while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp. added). Skeptics are quick to contend, however, that these scriptures contradict various other passages. For example, Jesus predicted that He would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). On another occasion, Jesus told His apostles how His enemies would “mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him, and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again” (Mark 10:34, emp. added, NASB). In addition, He informed the Pharisees that He would be in the heart of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish—for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). How can a person be expected to believe that Jesus rose from the grave if Jesus and the Bible writers could not even decide whether He rose from the grave on the third day or the fourth day?

In an attempt to solve this difficulty, some seemingly well-meaning individuals have espoused the idea that Jesus must have been crucified on Wednesday or Thursday, rather than on Friday (eg., Scroggie, 1948, pp. 569-577; Rusk, 1974, pp. 4-6). Because Jesus could not possibly have been in the grave for three nights if He died on Friday and rose on Sunday, some believe He must have died a day or two earlier. However, this is highly improbable. First, Mark 15:42 states that the evening of Christ’s crucifixion “was the Preparation Day, that is, the day before the Sabbath,” and “[b]oth the Scriptures (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14,31,42) and Josephus indicate the day of preparation is the day before the weekly Sabbaths, namely, Friday” (Hoehner, 1974, 131:245; cf. Josephus, 16:6:2). Second, if Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on Sunday then He must have risen from the grave on the fourth day rather than “the third day.” What’s more, all attempts to place Jesus’ crucifixion and burial on Wednesday or Thursday instead of Friday are based more on a misunderstanding of a Hebrew idiom concerning time than actual evidence.

While statements such as “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” may appear contradictory at first glance, in reality they harmonize perfectly if one understands the more liberal methods ancients used to reckon time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, 131:248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a twenty-four hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, in Jesus’ time one would have been correct in teaching that Jesus’ burial would last “three days and three nights,” even though it was not three complete 24-hour days.

Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day.

• According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse seventeen of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Obviously, “forty days” and “forty days and forty nights” refer to the same time period in this context.
• During the reign of King Ahab, Israel and Syria “encamped opposite each other for seven days” (1 Kings 20:29, emp. added). Yet, “on the seventh day the battle was joined” and Israel killed 100,000 Syrian foot soldiers (20:29). Clearly, the two armies did not occupy their camps for a full seven days, but for six days and a part of the seventh. The remainder of day seven was spent in battle.
• When Joseph’s brothers came to visit him for the first time since selling him into Egyptian bondage more than a decade earlier (Genesis 37:12-36), Joseph incarcerated them for “three days” (Genesis 42:17). The text then reveals that he spoke to them “the third day,” and 42:18-24 represents them as being released that day—i.e., the third day. If Joseph’s brothers (with the exception of Simeon, 42:24) were released on day three of their imprisonment, then the “three days” they spent in the prison (42:17) are not equivalent to three 24-hour periods, but rather parts of three days.
• When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (10:5, emp. added). Verse twelve of that chapter indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day’” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
• When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before King Ahasuerus uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating or drinking “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16, emp. added). Yet, the text then tells us that Esther went in to the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).

By studying these and other passages, one can see clearly that the Bible uses expressions like “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time. Again, “[a]ccording to the Oriental mode of reckoning, three consecutive parts of days were counted three days” (Jamieson, et. al., 1997, emp. added).

From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

Even though in 21st-century America some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions are used frequently today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Think about the college student who explains to his professor that he worked on a research project “day and night for four weeks.” He obviously does not mean that he worked for a solid 672 hours (24 hours x 7 days x 4 weeks) without sleeping. It may be that he worked from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. for four weeks on the project, but not 672 sleepless hours. If he only slept five or six hours a night, and worked on the project nearly every hour he was awake, we would consider this person as one who truly did work “day and night for four weeks.” Finally, consider the guest at a hotel who checks in at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 3:30 p.m. Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients were in calculating time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.

The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.

A gentleman once e-mailed our offices at Apologetics Press, questioning whether Jesus had the same body after His resurrection as He did before being raised from the grave. According to this man, Jesus “appeared to people He knew but nobody recognized Him…. It’s as though He had a different body”—and possibly one that was not physical.

At the outset, it is incorrect to assert that “nobody recognized Him,” because Matthew 28:9,17 clearly implies that at least some of Jesus’ disciples knew Who He was and worshiped Him. Moreover, that Jesus had essentially the same body after His resurrection that He had when He died on the cross is evident from at least three different passages. In Luke 24:39, Jesus stated: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Jesus expected His disciples to observe His physical body. Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus ate a meal with His disciples (24:42-43; cf. Acts 10:41). And then in John 20:25-29, which is the most frequently cited passage in defense of Christ having a physical body, Jesus asked Thomas to touch His nail-scared hands and reach into His side that had been pierced with the Roman spear.

But what about those occasions when some of His disciples did not recognize Him? Do such verses as Luke 24:31,37 and John 20:10-16 represent a contradictory element in the resurrection story? First, just because the text says that the disciples thought they had seen a spirit when they actually saw Jesus (Luke 24:37), does not indicate that He looked different. Since they knew He had been killed, seeing His resurrected body caused them to think that He was in spirit form rather than physical. On one occasion, before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, His disciples were startled at His appearance, supposing He was a ghost (Mark 6:49). A similar thing happened to Peter when some thought his unexpected presence must have been an indication that it was “his angel” (Acts 12:15).

Second, the reason the two disciples who were traveling on the road to Emmaus failed to recognize Jesus initially was not because Jesus had a different body, but because God miraculously prevented them from recognizing Him. Luke 24:16 indicates that at the beginning of their conversation with Jesus “their eyes were restrained,” but then just before Jesus vanished from their sight, “their eyes were opened and they knew Him” (24:31). Thus, the disciples’ recognition ability failed, not because Jesus possessed a different body, but because their eyes were miraculously restrained.

A final person often mentioned as not having recognized the Savior (allegedly because Jesus had a different body) is Mary Magdalene. John 20:11-18 certainly testifies of her initial inability to identify Jesus. The question is: Was Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus her fault, or the result of Jesus having a different body? As with the above cases, there is no indication in John 20:11-18 that Jesus had anything other than His risen crucified body (cf. 20:25-29). There are at least four possibilities, however, as to why Mary failed to recognize Jesus right at first.

1. The Sun may not have risen all the way yet, thus making it difficult to see (cf. 20:1).
2. Mary was engaged in deep weeping that likely obscured her vision (20:11,13). In fact, the first words Jesus said to Mary were, “Woman, why are you weeping?” (vs. 15).
3. Considering Jesus’ clothes were taken from Him when He was crucified (John 19:23-24), and that the linen cloths which were used in His burial were lying in the tomb (John 20:6-7), Jesus likely was wearing clothes that made His exact identity less conspicuous at first glance. Perhaps His post-resurrection attire was similar to what a gardener or watchman would wear (cf. John 20:15).
4. It also is possible that Mary’s eyes were restrained miraculously, as were the eyes of the disciples with whom Jesus conversed on the road to Emmaus.

Once all of the Scriptures are taken into account, one can see that Jesus physically rose from the grave in essentially the same body that was crucified on the cross. The fact that some of Jesus’ disciples did not immediately recognize Him in no way contradicts His physical resurrection.

The inspired accounts of the risen Redeemer have been the focus of much criticism through the years (cf. Barker, 1992, pp. 178-184; McKinsey, 2000, pp. 447-454). However, when the honest, open-hearted student of the Bible looks carefully at the evidence, he will come to realize that these criticisms are actually the result either of insufficient knowledge or hardened hearts. Truly, the more one studies the passages of Scripture in which Jesus’ resurrection is discussed, as well as the historical context in which this momentous event occurred, the more he will see how incredibly accurate and trustworthy the Bible writers were.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Barker, Dan (1996), “Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?,” Debate with Michael Horner at the University of Northern Iowa, April 2, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html.

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?,” Reason & Revelation, 22[2]:9-15, February.

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Hoehner, Harold W. (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), “Antiquities of the Jews,” The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Kistemaker, Simon J. (1993), Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), “The Bible is God’s Word?,” [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/pamphlets.html.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, February.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Rusk, Roger (1974), “The Day He Died,” Christianity Today, March 29.

Scroggie, W. Graham (1948), A Guide to the Gospels (London: Pinkering & Inglis).

The post Reasoning About the Resurrection of Christ appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While to the 21^st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). The Jerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (from Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21^st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “on the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact day.

The Scriptures contain several examples which clearly show that in Bible times a part of a day was often equivalent to the whole day.

• According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?
• In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).
• In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.
• When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).
• Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”
• From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

Even though in modern times some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions frequently are used today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Consider also the guest at a hotel who checks in at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, depending on the context, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients could be in calculating time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory centers around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.

The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave do not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.

REFERENCES

Hoehner, Harold W (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.

Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

The post Did Jesus Rise “On” or “After” the Third Day? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

First, similar to how the miracles of Jesus were worked in order to set Him apart as the Son of God and the promised Messiah, even though all others who worked miracles during Bible times were not God in the flesh, the resurrection of Jesus is more significant than any other resurrection simply because the inspired apostles and prophets said that it was. Many people throughout the Bible worked miracles in order to confirm their divine message (cf. Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:1-4), but only Jesus did them as proof of His divine nature. Once, during the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, a group of Jews surrounded Jesus and asked, “If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24)? Jesus responded to them saying, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me…. I and My Father are one” (John 10:25,30). These Jews understood that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh (cf. 10:33,36), and Jesus wanted them to understand that this truth could be known as a result of the miracles that He worked. They testified of His deity (cf. John 20:30-31). Why? Because He said they did (10:25,35-38; cf. John 5:36). The miracles that Jesus performed bore witness of the fact that He was from the Father (John 5:36), because He said He was from the Father. A miracle in and of itself did not mean the person who worked it was deity. Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Peter, Paul, and a host of others worked miracles, with some even raising people from the dead, but not for the purpose of proving they were God in the flesh. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message that Jesus was the Son of God, not to prove that they were God (cf. Acts 14:8-18). Jesus, on the other hand, performed miracles to bear witness that He was the Son of God, just as He claimed to be (cf. John 9:35-38).

Likewise, one reason that Jesus’ miraculous resurrection is more significant than the resurrections of Lazarus, Tabitha, Eutychus, or anyone else who was raised from the dead, is simply because the inspired apostles and prophets in the early church said that it was more important. Like the miracles He worked during His earthly ministry that testified of His deity, His resurrection also bore witness of His divine nature. There is no record of anyone alleging that Lazarus was God’s Son based upon his resurrection, nor did the early church claim divinity for Eutychus or Tabitha because they died and came back to life. None of the above-mentioned individuals who were resurrected ever claimed that their resurrection was proof of deity, nor did any inspired prophet or apostle. On the other hand, Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). His resurrection was different because of Who He was—the Son of God. Just as the miracles He worked during His earthly ministry testified of His divine message, and thus also of His divine nature, so did His resurrection.

Second, the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. Since no one who has risen from the dead is still living on Earth, and since there is no evidence in the Bible that God ever took someone who had risen from the dead into heaven without dying again, it is reasonable to conclude that all who have ever arisen from the dead, died in later years. Jesus, however, “having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Romans 6:9). Jesus said of Himself: “I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore” (Revelation 1:17-18). All others who previously were raised at one time, died again, and are among those who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection. Only Jesus has truly conquered death. Only His bodily resurrection was followed by eternal life, rather than another physical death. Although it has been argued by skeptics that “it’s the Resurrection, per se, that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again” (see McKinsey, 1983, p. 1), Paul actually linked the two together, saying, God “raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption” (Acts 13:34, emp. added). Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews argued for a better life through Jesus on the basis of His termination of death. One reason for the inadequacy of the old priesthood was because “they were prevented by death.” Jesus, however, because He rose never to die again, “continues forever” in “an unchangeable priesthood,” and lives to make intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:23-25).

A third reason why Jesus’ resurrection stands out above all others is because it alone was foretold in the Old Testament. In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Peter affirmed that God had raised Jesus from the dead because it was not possible for the grave to hold Him. As proof, he quoted Psalm 16:8-11 in the following words:

I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence (Acts 2:25-28).

Peter then explained this quote from Psalms by saying:

Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses (Acts 2:29-32).

The apostle Paul also believed that the psalmist bore witness to Christ, and spoke of His resurrection. In his address at Antioch of Pisidia, he said:

And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You.” And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: “I will give you the sure mercies of David.” Therefore He also says in another Psalm: “You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:32-39).

Where is the prophecy for the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter? When did the prophets ever foretell of Eutychus or Tabitha’s resurrection? They are not there. No resurrected person other than Jesus had his or her resurrection foretold by an Old Testament prophet. This certainly makes Jesus’ resurrection unique.

Fourth, the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that His resurrection was preceded by numerous instances in which He prophesied that He would defeat death, even foretelling the exact day on which it would occur. Jesus told some scribes and Pharisees on one occasion, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, emp. added). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded how Jesus “began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day” (Matthew 16:21, emp. added; cf. Mark 8:31-32; Luke 9:22). While Jesus and His disciples were in Galilee, Jesus reminded them, saying, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 17:22-23, emp. added). Just before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus again reminded His disciples, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again” (Matthew 20:18-19, emp. added). Jesus’ prophecies concerning His resurrection and the specific day on which it would occur were so widely known that, after Jesus’ death, His enemies requested that Pilate place a guard at the tomb, saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day…” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). They knew exactly what Jesus had said He would do, and they did everything in their power to stop it.

Where are the prophecies from the widow’s son of Zarephath? Had he prophesied of his resurrection prior to his death? Or what about the son of the Shunammite woman that Elisha raised from the dead? Where are his personal prophecies? Truly, no one mentioned in the Bible who rose from the dead prophesied about his or her resurrection beforehand, other than Jesus. And certainly no one ever prophesied about the exact day on which he or she would arise from the dead, save Jesus. This prior knowledge and prophecy makes His resurrection a significant event. He overcame death, just as He predicted. He did exactly what he said He was going to do, on the exact day He said He was going to do it.

Finally, the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection is seen in the fact that He is the only resurrected person ever to have lived and died without having committed one sin during His lifetime. He was “pure” and “righteous” (1 John 3:3; 2:1), “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22). He was “a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:19), “Who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). No one else who has risen from the dead ever lived a perfect life, and then died prior to his or her resurrection for the purpose of taking away the sins of the world (cf. John 1:29). Because Jesus lived a sinless life, died, and then overcame death in His resurrection, He alone has the honor of being called “the Lamb of God” and the “great High Priest” (Hebrews 4:14). “Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many,” and because of His resurrection “those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation” (Hebrews 9:28).

Whether or not Eutychus, Tabitha, Lazarus, etc., rose from the grave, our relationship with God is not affected. Without Jesus’ resurrection, however, there would be no “Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Without Jesus’ resurrection, He would not be able to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25). Without Jesus’ resurrection, we would have no assurance of His coming and subsequent judgment (Acts 17:31).

Most certainly, Jesus’ resurrection is significant—more so than any other resurrection ever to have taken place. Only Jesus’ resurrection was verbalized by inspired men as proof of His deity. Only Jesus rose never to die again. Only Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament. Only Jesus prophesied of the precise day in which He would arise from the grave, and then fulfilled that prediction. Only Jesus’ resurrection was preceded by a perfect life—a life lived, given up, and restored in the resurrection for the purpose of becoming man’s Prince, Savior, and Mediator.

REFERENCES

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, pp. 1-4, February.

The post What's So Important about JESUS' Resurrection? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

But there may be some of you who have lingering doubts about the truthfulness of the resurrection of Christ. In fact, many people have much more than lingering doubts; they already have made up their minds that the story of the resurrection happened too long ago, was witnessed by too few people, has not been proven scientifically, and thus should be discarded as an unreliable legend.

Regardless of which position best describes your view of Christ’s resurrection, what we all must do is check our prejudice at the door and openly and honestly examine the historical facts attending the resurrection.

Determining whether Jesus Christ actually lived is something that must be established before one can begin to discuss His resurrection. If it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that He did walk this Earth, then any discussion about whether or not He arose from the dead digresses quickly into an exercise in yarn stringing based on little more than guesswork and human imagination. Fortunately, the fact that Jesus lived is practically universally accepted. A host of hostile witnesses testified of His life, and the New Testament documents in intricate detail His existence. [Even if one does not accept the New Testament as inspired of God, he or she cannot deny that its books contain historical information regarding a person by the name of Jesus Christ Who really did live in the first century A.D.] The honest historian is forced to admit that documentation for the existence, and life, of Jesus runs deep and wide (for an in-depth study on the historicity of Christ, see Butt, 2000). Thus, knowing that Jesus Christ existed allows us to move farther into the subject of His resurrection.

For most people, coming to the conclusion that Jesus died is not difficult, due to either of two reasons. First, the Bible believer accepts the fact that Jesus died because several different biblical writers confirm it. Second, the unbeliever accepts the idea, based not upon biblical evidence, but rather on the idea that the natural order of things which he has experienced in this life is for a person to live and eventually die. Once evidence sufficient to prove Christ’s existence in history has been established, the naturalist/empiricist has no trouble accepting His death. However, in order to provide such people with a few more inches of common ground on this matter, it would be good to note that several secular writers substantiated the fact that Jesus Christ did die. Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian writing in approximately A.D. 115, documented Christ’s physical demise when he wrote concerning the Christians that “their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus” (1952, 15.44).

In addition to Roman sources, early Jewish rabbis whose opinions are recorded in the Talmud acknowledged the death of Jesus. According to the earlier rabbis,

Jesus of Nazareth was a transgressor in Israel who practised magic, scorned the words of the wise, led the people astray, and said that he had not come to destroy the law but to add to it. He was hanged on Passover Eve for heresy and misleading the people (Bruce, 1953, p. 102, emp. added).

Likewise, Jewish historian Josephus wrote:

[T]here arose about this time Jesus, a wise man…. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3).

The fact that Pilate condemned Christ to the cross is an undisputed historical fact. As archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi stated:

Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings such as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger that…he [Jesus—KB] was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius (1995, p. 222).

It is at this point in our study that some would suggest that Hugh Schonfield’s infamous “Swoon Theory” should be considered. Schonfield (1965) postulated that Christ did not die on the cross; rather, He merely fainted or “swooned.” Later, after being laid on a cold slab in the dark tomb, He revived and exited His rock-hewn grave. Such a theory, however, fails to take into account the heinous nature of the scourging (sometimes referred to as an “intermediate death”) that Christ had endured at the hand of Roman lictors, or the finely honed skills of those Roman soldiers whose job it was to inflict such gruesome punishment prior to a prisoner’s actual crucifixion. To press the point, in the March 1986 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, William Edwards and his coauthors penned an article, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” that employed modern medical insight to provide an exhaustive description of Jesus’ death (256:1455-1463). Sixteen years later, Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson coauthored an updated review (“An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Jesus Christ”) of the extensive scientific evidence surrounding Christ’s physical death (2002). After reading such in-depth, medically based descriptions of the horrors to which Christ was exposed, and the condition of His ravaged body, the Swoon Theory quickly fades into oblivion (where it rightly belongs). Jesus died. Upon this, we all most certainly can agree.

Around the year A.D. 165, Justin Martyr penned his Dialogue with Trypho. At the beginning of chapter 108 of this work, he recorded a letter that the Jewish community had been circulating concerning the empty tomb of Christ:

A godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Somewhere around the sixth century, another caustic treatise written to defame Christ circulated among the Jewish community. In this narrative, known as Toledoth Yeshu, Jesus was described as the illegitimate son of a soldier named Joseph Pandera. He also was labeled as a disrespectful deceiver who led many away from the truth. Near the end of the treatise, under a discussion of His death, the following paragraph can be found:

A diligent search was made and he [Jesus—KB] was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.

Upon reading Justin Martyr’s description of one Jewish theory regarding the tomb of Christ, and another premise from Toledoth Yeshu, it becomes clear that a single common thread unites them both—the tomb of Christ had no body in it!

All parties involved recognized the fact that Christ’s tomb laid empty on the third day. Feeling compelled to give reasons for this unexpected vacancy, Jewish authorities apparently concocted several different theories to explain the body’s disappearance. The most commonly accepted one seems to be that the disciples of Jesus stole His body away by night while the guards slept (Matthew 28:13). Yet, how could the soldiers identify the thieves if they had been asleep? And why were the sentinels not punished by death for sleeping on the job and thereby losing their charge (cf. Acts 12:6-19)? And an even more pressing question comes to mind—why did the soldiers need to explain anything if a body was still in the tomb?

When Peter stood up on the Day of Pentecost, after the resurrection of Christ, the crux of his sermon rested on the facts that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. In order to silence Peter, and stop a mass conversion, the Jewish leaders needed simply to produce the body of Christ. Why did not the Jewish leaders take the short walk to the garden and produce the body? Simply because they could not; the tomb was empty—a fact the Jews recognized and tried to explain away. The apostles knew it, and preached it boldly in the city of Jerusalem. And thousands of inhabitants of Jerusalem knew it and converted to Christianity. John Warwick Montgomery accurately assessed the matter when he wrote:

It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus (1964, p. 78).

The tomb of Jesus was empty, and that is a fact.

Regardless of whether or not one believes that Christ rose from the dead, one thing that cannot be denied is the fact His apostles preached that they saw Jesus after He physically rose from the dead. The New Testament book of Acts stresses this issue almost to the point of redundancy. Acts 1:22, as one example, finds Peter and the other apostles choosing an apostle who was to “become a witness” of the resurrection of Christ. Then, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter insisted in his sermon to the multitude that had assembled to hear him that “God raised up” Jesus and thus loosed Him from the pangs of death (Acts 2:24). And to make sure that his audience understood that it was a physical resurrection, Peter stated specifically that Jesus’ “flesh did not see corruption” (Acts 2:31). His point was clear: Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and the apostles had witnessed the resurrected Christ. [Other passages which document that the central theme of the apostles’ preaching was the bodily resurrection of Christ include: Acts 3:15; 3:26; 4:2,10,33; and 5:30.] Furthermore, the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 (especially verse 14) verifies that the preaching of the apostle Paul centered on the resurrection.

Even Joseph McCabe, one of the early twentieth century’s most outspoken infidels, remarked: “Paul was absolutely convinced of the resurrection; and this proves that it was widely believed not many years after the death of Jesus” (1993, p. 24). The skeptical modernist Shirley Jackson Case of the University of Chicago was forced to concede: “The testimony of Paul alone is sufficient to convince us, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this was the commonly accepted opinion in his day—an opinion at that time supported by the highest authority imaginable, the eye-witnesses themselves” (1909, pp. 171-172). C.S. Lewis correctly stated: “In the earliest days of Christianity an ‘apostle’ was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection” (1975, p. 188).

It has been suggested by some critics that the apostles and other witnesses did not actually see Christ, but merely hallucinated. However, Gary Habermas had this to say about such a fanciful idea:

[H]allucinations are comparably rare. They’re usually caused by drugs or bodily deprivation. Chances are, you don’t know anybody who’s ever had a hallucination not caused by one of those two things. Yet we’re supposed to believe that over a course of many weeks, people from all sorts of backgrounds, all kinds of temperaments, in various places, all experienced hallucinations? That strains the hypothesis quite a bit, doesn’t it? (as quoted in Strobel, 1998, p. 239).

Indeed, the hallucination theory is a feeble attempt to undermine the fact that the apostles (and other first-century eyewitnesses of a risen Christ) preached the message that they really had seen a resurrected Jesus.

The apostles preached that Christ physically rose, and those who heard the apostles verified that they preached the resurrection. Apart from what a person believes about the resurrection of Christ, he or she cannot deny (legitimately) the fact that the apostles traveled far and wide to preach one central message—“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

As the list of facts continues, one that must be enumerated is the verified historical fact that the majority of the apostles suffered cruel, tortuous deaths because they preached that Christ rose from the dead. Documenting these persecutions is no difficult task. Fox’s Book of Martyrs relates that Paul was beheaded, Peter was crucified (probably upside down), Thomas was thrust through with a spear, Matthew was slain with a halberd, Matthias was stoned and beheaded, Andrew was crucified, and the list proceeds to describe the martyr’s death of every one of the Lord’s faithful apostles except John the brother of James (Forbush, 1954, pp. 2-5).

Additional testimony comes from the early church fathers. Eusebius, who was born about A.D. 260 and died about 340, wrote that Paul was beheaded in Rome and that Peter was crucified there (Ecclesiastical History, 2.25). [Exactly how and where Peter was martyred is unclear from history; the fact that he was martyred is not.] Clement of Rome (who died about A.D. 100), in chapter five of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, also mentioned the martyrs’ deaths of Peter and Paul. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, documented the death of James when he stated: “Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hand to afflict certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:1-2). The apostle Paul perhaps summed it up best when he said:

For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and we toil, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:9-13).

Wayne Jackson correctly noted that “while men may die out of religious deception, they do not willingly go to their deaths knowing they are perpetrating a hoax” (1982, 2:34).

Some ill-advised attempts have been made to deny that Christ’s apostles actually died because of their belief in, and preaching of, the resurrection. For example, it has been proposed that the apostles died because they were political instigators or rabble-rousers. However, combining the high moral quality of their teachings with the testimony of the early church fathers, and acknowledging the fact that their primary task was to be witnesses of the resurrection, it is historically inaccurate to imply that the apostles suffered for any reason other than their confession of the resurrection. The fact of the matter is, the apostles died because they refused to stop preaching that they had seen the Lord alive after His death.

Sir William Ramsay was a one-time unbeliever and world-class archaeologist. His extensive education had ingrained within him the keenest sense of scholarship. But along with that scholarship came a built-in prejudice about the supposed inaccuracy of the Bible (specifically the book of Acts). As Ramsay himself remarked:

[A]bout 1880 to 1890, the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts (1915, p. 38).

As could be expected of someone who had been trained by such “scholars,” Ramsay held the same view. He eventually abandoned it, however, because he was willing to do what few people of his time dared to do—explore the Bible lands themselves with an archaeologist’s pick in one hand and an open Bible in the other. His self-stated intention was to prove the inaccuracy of Luke’s history as recorded in the book of Acts. But, much to his surprise, the book of Acts passed every test that any historical narrative could be asked to pass. In fact, after years of literally digging through the evidence in Asia Minor, Ramsay concluded that Luke was an exemplary historian. Lee S. Wheeler, in his classic work, Famous Infidels Who Found Christ, recounted Ramsay’s life story in great detail (1931, pp. 102-106), and then quoted the famed archaeologist, who ultimately admitted:

The more I have studied the narrative of the Acts, and the more I have learned year after year about Graeco-Roman society and thoughts and fashions, and organization in those provinces, the more I admire and the better I understand. I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it here [in the book of Acts—KB]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice (Ramsey, 1915, p. 89).

In his book, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Ramsay was constrained to admit:

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians (1915, p. 222; cf. also Ramsay’s 1908 work, Luke the Physician).

Indeed, Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, is widely acknowledged as an extremely accurate historian in his own right—so much so that Ramsay converted to Christianity as a result of his personal examination of the preciseness of Luke’s historical record. It is of interest, then, to note what Luke himself wrote concerning Christ’s resurrection:

The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3).

What legitimate reason is there to reject Luke’s testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection when his testimony on every other subject he presented is so amazingly accurate? As Wayne Jackson noted:

In Acts, Luke mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. And his references, where checkable, are always correct. This is truly remarkable, in view of the fact that the political/territorial situation of his day was in a state of almost constant change (1991, 27:2).

Other Bible critics have suggested that Luke misspoke when he designated Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Cyprus (Acts 13:7). Their claim was that Cyprus was governed by a propraetor (also referred to as a consular legate), not a proconsul. Upon further examination, such a charge can be seen to be completely vacuous, as the late Thomas Eaves documented:

As we turn to the writers of history for that period, Dia Cassius (Roman History) and Strabo (The Geography of Strabo), we learn that there were two periods of Cyprus’ history: first, it was an imperial province governed by a propraetor, and later in 22 B.C., it was made a senatorial province governed by a proconsul. Therefore, the historians support Luke in his statement that Cyprus was ruled by a proconsul, for it was between A.D. 40-50 when Paul made his first missionary journey. If we accept secular history as being true, we must also accept biblical history, for they are in agreement (1980, p. 234).

The science of archaeology seems to have outdone itself in verifying the Scriptures. Eminent archaeologist William F. Albright wrote: “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition” (1953, p. 176). The late Nelson Glueck, himself a pillar within the archaeological community, said:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible (1959, p. 31).

Such statements—offered 40+ years ago—are as true today as the day they were made.

Please note, however, that this argument is not being introduced here to claim that the New Testament is inspired (although certain writers have used it in this way quite effectively). Rather, it is inserted at this point in the discussion to illustrate that the books which talk the most about the resurrection have proven to be accurate when confronted with any verifiable fact. Travel to the Holy Lands and see for yourself if you doubt biblical accuracy. Carry with you an honest, open mind and an open Bible, and I assure you that you will respect the New Testament writers as accurate historians.

Maybe the New Testament documents are accurate when they discuss historical and geographical information. But what about all the alleged “contradictions” among the gospel accounts of the resurrection? Charles Templeton, who worked for many years with the Billy Graham Crusade but eventually abandoned his faith, used several pages of his book, Farewell to God, to compare and contrast the statements within the four gospels, and then concluded: “The entire resurrection story is not credible” (1996, p. 122). Another well-known preacher-turned-skeptic, Dan Barker, has drawn personal delight in attempting to locate contradictions within the four accounts of the resurrection. In his book, Losing Faith in Faith, he filled seven pages with a list of the “contradictions” he believes he has uncovered. Eventually he stated: “Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let’s leave the Jesus myth buried” (1992, p. 181).

It is interesting, is it not, that Barker demands to know “exactly what happened” on a day in ancient history that occurred almost 2,000 years ago? Such a request speaks loudly of the historical legitimacy of the resurrection story, since no other day in ancient history ever has been examined with such scrutiny. Historians today cannot tell “exactly what happened” on July 4, 1776 or April 12, 1861, yet Christians are expected to provide the “exact” details of Christ’s resurrection? Fortunately, the gospel writers described “exactly what happened”—without contradiction. Examine the following evidence.

Head-on Collusion

“Collusion: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000, p. 363). Even if we never had heard the word collusion before, most of us still would understand the situation it describes. Suppose, for example, that five bank robbers don their nylon-hose masks, rob the city bank, and stash the cash in a nearby cave. Each robber then goes back to his respective house until the police search is concluded. The first robber hears a knock at his door and, upon opening it, finds a policeman who “just wants to ask him a few questions.” The officer then inquires, “Where were you, and what where you doing, on the night of February 1, 2002?” The thief promptly responds, “I was at Joe Smith’s house watching television with four other friends.” The policeman obtains the four friends’ names and addresses and visits each one of their homes. Every single robber, in turn, tells exactly the same story. Was it true? Absolutely not! But did the stories all sound exactly the same, with seemingly no contradictions? Yes.

Now, let’s examine this principle in light of our discussion of the resurrection. If every single narrative describing the resurrection sounded exactly the same, what do you think would be said about those narratives? “They must have copied each other!” In fact, in other areas of Christ’s life besides the resurrection, when the books of Matthew and Luke give the same information as the book of Mark, critics today claim that Matthew and Luke must have copied Mark because it is thought to be the earliest of the three books. Another raging question in today’s upper echelons of biblical “scholarship” is whether Peter copied Jude in 2 Peter 2:4-17 (or whether Jude copied Peter), because the two segments of scripture sound so similar.

Amazingly, however, the Bible has not left open the prospect of collusion in regard to the resurrection narratives. Indeed, it cannot be denied (legitimately) that the resurrection accounts have come to us from independent sources. In his book, Science vs. Religion, Tad S. Clements vigorously denied that there is enough evidence to justify a personal belief in the resurrection. He did acknowledge, however: “There isn’t merely one account of Christ’s resurrection but rather an embarrassing multitude of stories…” (1990, p. 193). While he opined that these stories “disagree in significant respects,” he nevertheless made it clear that the gospels are separate accounts of the same story. Dan Barker admitted the same when he boldly stated: “Since Easter [his wording for the resurrection account—KB] is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account” (1992, p. 179). One door that everyone on both sides of the resurrection freely admits has been locked forever by the gospel accounts is the dead-bolted door against collusion.

Dealing With “Contradictions”

Of course it will not be possible, in these few paragraphs, to deal with every alleged discrepancy between the resurrection accounts. But I would like to set forth some helpful principles that can be used to show that no genuine contradiction between the resurrection narratives has been documented.

Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make

Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. But the wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction just because the wife mentioned only clothing stores, while the husband mentioned only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They simply are adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That same type of thing occurs quite frequently in the resurrection accounts.

As an example, Matthew’s gospel refers to “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John writes only about Mary Magdalene visiting Christ’s tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Dan Barker cited these different names as discrepancies and/or contradictions on page 182 of his book. But do these different lists truly contradict one another? No, they do not. They are supplementary (with each writer adding names to make the list more complete), but they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew had stated that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, however, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?” and again you say that you do. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes, you did. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes, they were. But were any of your answers contradictory? No, they were not. How so? The fact is: supplementation does not equal contradiction!

Also fitting into this discussion about supplementation are the angels, men, and young man described in the different resurrection accounts. Two different “problems” arise with the entrance of the “holy heralds” at the empty tomb of Christ. First, exactly how many were there? Second, were they angels or men? Since the former question deals with supplementation, I will discuss it first. The account in Matthew cites “an angel of the Lord who descended from heaven” and whose “appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow” (28:2-5). Mark’s account presents a slightly different picture of “a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe” (16:5). But Luke mentions that “two men stood by them [the women—KB] in dazzling apparel” (24:4). And, finally, John writes about “two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain” (20:12). Are any of these accounts contradictory as to the number of men or angels at the tomb? Factoring in the supplementation rule, we must answer in the negative. Although the accounts are different, they are not contradictory as to the number of messengers. Mark does not mention “only a young man” and Luke does not say there were “exactly two angels.” Was there one messenger at the tomb? Yes, there was. Were there two as well? Yes, there were. Once again, note that supplementation does not equal contradiction.

Were They Men or Angels?

The second question concerning the messengers is their identity: Were they angels or men? Most people who are familiar with the Old Testament have no problem answering this question. Genesis chapters 18 and 19 mention three “men” who came to visit Abraham and Sarah. These men remained for a short time, and then two of them continued on to visit the city of Sodom. The Bible tells us in Genesis 19:1 that these “men” actually were angels. Yet when the men of Sodom came to do violence to these angels, the city dwellers asked: “Where are the men that came in to thee this night?” (Genesis 19:5). Throughout the two chapters, the messengers are referred to both as men and as angels with equal accuracy. They looked like, talked like, walked like, and sounded like men. Then could they be referred to (legitimately) as men? Yes. But were they in fact angels? Yes.

To illustrate, suppose you saw a man sit down at a park bench and take off his right shoe. As you watched, he began to pull out an antenna from the toe of the shoe and a number pad from the heel. He proceeded to dial a number and began to talk to someone over his “shoe phone.” If you were going to write down what you had seen, could you accurately say that the man dialed a number on his shoe? Yes. Could you also say that he dialed a number on his phone? Indeed you could. The shoe had a heel, sole, toe, and everything else germane to a shoe, but in actuality it was much more than a shoe. In the same way, the messengers at the tomb could be described accurately as men. They had a head perched on two shoulders and held in place by a neck, and they had a body that was complete with arms and legs, etc. So, they were men. But, in truth, they were much more than men because they were angels—holy messengers sent from God’s throne to deliver an announcement to certain people. Taking into account the fact that the Old Testament often uses the term “men” to describe angels who have assumed a human form, it is fairly easy to show that no contradiction exists concerning the identity of the messengers.

Perspective Plays a Part

What we continue to see in the independent resurrection narratives is not contradiction, but merely a difference in perspective. For instance, suppose a man had a 4×6 index card that was solid red on one side and solid white on the other. Further suppose that he stood in front of a large crowd, asked all the men to close their eyes, showed the women in the audience the red side of the card, and then had them scribble down what they saw. Further suppose that he had all the women close their eyes while he showed the men the white side of the card and had them write down what they saw. One group saw a red card and one group saw a white card. When their answers are compared, at first it would look like they were contradictory, yet they were not. The descriptions appeared contradictory because the two groups had a different perspective, since each had seen a different side of the same card. The perspective phenomenon plays a big part in everyday life. In the same way that no two witnesses ever see a car accident in exactly the same way, none of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus saw the events from the same angle as the others.

Obviously, I have not dealt with every alleged discrepancy concerning the resurrection accounts. However, I have mentioned some of the major ones, which can be explained quite easily via the principles of supplementation or difference of perspective. An honest study of the remaining “problems” reveals that not a single legitimate contradiction exists between the narratives; they may be different in some aspects, but they are not contradictory. Furthermore, whatever differences do exist prove that no collusion took place and document the diversity that would be expected from different individuals witnessing the same event.

Based on historical grounds, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has as much or more evidence to verify its credibility than any other event in ancient history. Unfortunately, this evidence often gets tossed aside by those who deny the possibility of miracles. Using a strictly empirical approach, some have decided what is, and what is not, possible in this world, and miracles such as the resurrection do not fall into their “possible” category. Since they never have seen anyone raised from the dead, and since no scientific experiments can be performed on a resurrected body, they then assume that the gospel resurrection accounts must have some natural explanation(s). In an article titled “Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection,” Richard Carrier embodied the gist of this argument in the following comment:

No amount of argument can convince me to trust a 2000-year-old second-hand report over what I see, myself, directly, here and now, with my own eyes. If I observe facts which entail that I will cease to exist when I die, then the Jesus story can never override that observation, being infinitely weaker as a proof. And yet all the evidence before my senses confirms my mortality…. A 2000-year-old second-hand tale from the backwaters of an illiterate and ignorant land can never overpower these facts. I see no one returning to life after their brain has completely died from lack of oxygen. I have had no conversations with spirits of the dead. What I see is quite the opposite of everything this tall tale claims. How can it command more respect than my own two eyes? It cannot (2000).

Although such an argument at first may appear perfectly plausible, it encounters two insurmountable difficulties. First, there are things that took place in the past that no one alive today has seen or ever will see, yet they still are accepted as fact. The origin of life on this planet provides a good example. Regardless of whether a person believes in creation or evolution, he or she must admit that some things happened in the past that are not still occurring today (or at least that have not been witnessed). To evolutionists, I pose the question: “Have you ever personally used your five senses to establish that a nonliving thing can give rise to a living thing.” Of course, evolutionists must admit that they never have seen such happen, in spite of all the origin-of-life experiments that have been performed over the last fifty years. Does such an admission mean, then, that evolutionists do not accept the idea that life came from nonliving matter, just because they never have witnessed such an event? Of course not. Instead, we are asked to consider “ancient evidence” (like the geologic column and the fossil record) that evolutionists believe leads to such a conclusion. Still, the hard fact remains that no one alive today (or, for that matter, anyone who ever lived in the past) has witnessed something living come from something nonliving.

Following this same line of reasoning, those who believe in creation freely admit that the creation of life on Earth is an event that has not been witnessed by anyone alive today (or, for that matter, anyone else of the past, except possibly Adam). It was a unique, one-time-only event that cannot be duplicated by experiment and cannot currently be detected by the five human senses. As with evolutionists, creationists ask us to examine evidence such as the fossil record, the inherent design of the Universe and its inhabitants, the Law of Cause and Effect, the Law of Biogenesis, etc., which they believe leads to the conclusion that life was created at some point in the past by an intelligent Creator. But, before we drift too far from our primary topic of the resurrection, let me remind you that this brief discussion concerning creation and evolution is inserted only to establish one point—everyone must admit that he or she accepts some concepts from the distant past without having personally inspected them using the empirical senses.

Second, it is true that a dead person rising from the dead would be an amazing and, yes, empirically astonishing event. People do not normally rise from the dead in the everyday scheme of things. Yet, was not that the very point the apostles and other witnesses of the resurrection were trying to get people to understand? If Jesus of Nazareth truly rose from the grave never to die again—thereby accomplishing something that no mortal man ever had accomplished—would not that be enough to prove that He was the Son of God as He had claimed (see Mark 14:61-62)? He had predicted that He would be raised from the dead (John 2:19). And He was!

Those first-century onlookers certainly understood that a person rising from the dead was not natural, because even they understood how the laws of nature worked. As C.S. Lewis explained:

But there is one thing often said about our ancestors which we must not say. We must not say “They believed in miracles because they did not know the Laws of Nature.” This is nonsense. When St. Joseph discovered that his bride was pregnant, he “was minded to put her away.” He knew enough about biology for that…. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the water they were frightened; they would not have been frightened unless they had known the Laws of Nature and known that this was an exception (1970, p. 26).

The apostle Paul underscored this point in Romans 1:4 when he stated that Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” The entire point of Christ’s resurrection was, and is, that it proved His deity. As I stated earlier, most people who deny the resurrection do so because they refuse to believe in a God Who performs miracles, not because the historical evidence is insufficient.

When dealing with the resurrection of Christ, we must concentrate on the facts. Jesus of Nazareth lived. He died. His tomb was empty. The apostles preached that they saw Him after He physically rose from the dead. The apostles suffered and died because they preached, and refused to deny, the resurrection. Their message is preserved in the most accurate document of which ancient history can boast. Independent witnesses addressed the resurrection in their writings—with enough diversity (yet without a single legitimate contradiction) to prove that no collusion took place.

The primary argument against the resurrection, of course, is that during the normal course of events, dead people do not arise from the grave—which was the very point being made by the apostles. But when all the evidence is weighed and it is revealed that the apostles never buckled under torture, the New Testament never crumples under scrutiny, and the secular, historical witnesses refuse to be drowned in a sea of criticism, then it is evident that the resurrection of Jesus Christ demands its rightful place in the annals of history as the most important event this world has ever seen. To quote the immortal words of the Holy Spirit as spoken through the apostle Paul to King Agrippa in the great long ago: “Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8).

Albright, William F. (1953), Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press).

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).

Bruce, F.F. (1953), The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), fourth edition.

Butt, Kyle (2000), “The Historical Christ—Fact or Fiction?,” Reason & Revelation, 20:1-6, January.

Carrier, Richard (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/1b.html.

Case, Shirley Jackson (1909), “The Resurrection Faith of the First Disciples,” American Journal of Theology, pp. 171-172, April.

Clements, Tad S. (1990), Science vs. Religion (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Eaves, Thomas F. (1980), “The Inspired Word,” Great Doctrines of the Bible, ed. M.H. Tucker (Knoxville, TN: East Tennessee School of Preaching).

Edwards, William D., Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 256:1455-1463, March 21.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, chapter 25.

Forbush, William B., ed. (1954), Fox’s Book of Martyrs (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Glueck, Nelson (1959), Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Cudahy).

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2002), “An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Reason & Revelation, 21:1-7, January.

Jackson, Wayne (1982), “He Showed Himself Alive by Many Proofs,” Reason & Revelation, 1:33-35, August.

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “The Holy Bible—Inspired of God,” Christian Courier, 27:1-3, May.

Lewis, C.S. (1970), God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Lewis, C.S. (1975), Miracles (New York: Touchstone).

McCabe, Joseph (1993), The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, reprint of 1926 edition).

Montgomery, John Warwick (1964), History and Christianity (Downers Grover: InterVarsity).

Ramsay, William (1908), Luke the Physician, and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton).

Ramsay, William (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton).

Schonfield, Hugh J. (1965), The Passover Plot (New York: Bantam).

Strobel, Lee (1998), The Case For Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Tacitus, Cornelius P. (1952 reprint), The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago, IL: William Benton).

Templeton, Charles (1996), Farewell to God (Ontario Canada: McClelland and Stewart).

Wheeler, Lee S. (1931), Famous Infidels Who Found Christ (Peekskill, NY: Review and Herald Publishing Association).

Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1995), “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?,” Jesus Under Fire, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

The post The Resurrection of Jesus Christ appeared first on Apologetics Press.