The Resurrection Myth

Overview: The alleged Resurrection of Jesus is regarded as the basis of belief for many Christian believers. Paul claims that there were 500 people who have witnessed the miraculous account. What is the historical basis for this, if at all, and what are the ramifications for Judaism and Christianity?

Christian theologians love the Resurrection account because it allegedly validates Jesus’ claim of being the Messiah. At first glance, it indeed seems convincing; after all, were there not 500 witnesses present as the New Testament claims?!

The Jewish response is simple: It never happened! And even if we are to assume it did occur, it wouldn’t prove anything. It could have well been a disciple of his who knew the powers of sorcery (perhaps learning it from him).^[1] The biblical response to this is from Deuteronomy 13[i] in which even a miracle-worker is not to be believed if going against the absolute Word of God—the Torah. Thus, even a great sorcerer cannot come to change the identity of the Messiah or the Oral Law in any shape or form. However, despite this concept of sorcery, I’m still inclined to say that the Resurrection account never happened—not even through sorcery. Why am I being so skeptical towards it (to believe it didn’t happen if I can just explain it as sorcery)? Because it’s more realistic to be critical towards radical claims, especially when there is not a single shred of evidence supporting it.

The general take on the Resurrection claim is that either the New Testament writers invented the story in order to promote their obvious agenda, or that they were innocently writing down the legend of Jesus’ passing that has developed until their times some few decades later. They may have also selected their most preferable version of the Resurrection legend that was around at their time.

What about the 500 witnesses?

At first I would like to mention, that there are major contradictions, both in quality and quantity, within the recorded Resurrection narrative.^[2] Within the four Gospels, there are additions, omissions, and contradictions regarding the date and witnesses and much more. One Gospel says there were 150 people present while another says 500. One says it happened on the second day of Passover while another says on the eve of Passover. This is in addition to many more contradictions, 24 in total. It seems as well, based on the dates attributed to the Gospels, that the story evolved throughout time getting increasingly dramatic. See Matthew 27:52 which really steps up the game. It gives the radical claim that at Jesus’ passing many of the deceased righteous were elevated from their graves in Jerusalem and appeared to many people.

Missionaries explain these conflicts to be like differences in eyewitness testimony of an event. They assert that conflicts are expected and actually prove the veracity of the witnesses since false witnesses would rehearse their stories. There are two problems with this answer of theirs: First, many of the differences concern times, dates, and places, which cannot be explained away by differences in perspective. Second, the testimony of the authors is supposedly “the inspired Word of God” to the point that it was affixed to the biblical canon by Christians scholars.

Let’s get back to the alleged witnesses who witnessed the Resurrection. Who’s telling us about the supposed witnesses? The Apostles—the very ones marketing Christianity. So it all boils down to a few people. It’s not like there are numerous writings about it found from different eye-witnesses; in fact, it’s rather surprising that not a single eye-witness documented this dramatic account (including the raising of the many dead in Jerusalem story recorded in Matthew!).^[3]

But what about Jesus’ vacant grave?

First of all, it is only the New Testament which tells us of this vacant grave, so why believe it? But there are explanations even if it indeed was vacant.

It may have been taken by the Apostles in order to fool the masses.[4] It’s also possible that it was simply destroyed or discarded by an opponent (possibly it was a Pharisee who was scared his followers would turn his body/grave into a worship site); this would in fact convince the Apostles themselves that there was a Resurrection. It’s possible as well that they checked or displayed the wrong grave. Just use your imagination to easily come up with many possible scenarios.^[5]

The Apostles traveled around preaching the raised Jesus from his grave-site. Some of the ignorant populace, as understood, would have bought it. After this, the Apostles wrote in their writings an adjusted and edited version of the story to make it sound more convincing. Each Apostle fabricating his own details, Paul even adding the alleged 500 witnesses.

But why would they lie, and even sacrifice their lives, for something they themselves knew not to be true?

Some missionaries are convinced about the truths of the Resurrection because of the stubbornness of the Apostles. The early Christian sources, such as Eusebius, record that the Roman government tortured the 11 Apostles for their faith.^[6] Yet they refused and were tortured to their death. A person, they claim, yet alone 11 people, do not jeopardize their life in order to stick to something they themselves are aware is false. The Apostles were obviously completely convinced of the Resurrection and therefore put their lives at stake for its message.

Sounds convincing? Maybe at first glance. For starters and most importantly, since when should we believe in the early Christian sources (and the New Testament) which are the only source for this story that the Apostles were tortured for this Resurrection myth and their belief in Jesus. It is a circular argument to base belief in the New Testament from a story brought in early Christian sources themselves (or the New Testament itself).

Secondly, as brought earlier, there is the possibility that the Apostles were in fact convinced that there was a resurrection because they checked the wrong grave-site or Jesus’ body was discarded or destroyed by an opponent of Jesus. This would actually convince the Apostles of a Resurrection. Third, the Apostles sincerely believed in Jesus and would do anything to convince the populace of the same. Putting their lives at stake for the Resurrection myth was a good method. I’m sure they were convinced they were going directly to Paradise for their courageous work. Fourth, it may well be that the Apostles believed in the Resurrection but haven’t witnessed it first-hand. They may have accepted a legend circulating at their time regarding the Resurrection and put their full faith in it.

Wouldn’t the people deny the claim unless verified by the witnesses?

It can be argued that people wouldn’t have accepted the Resurrection claim unless verified by the alleged witnesses. So from the fact that there were people who believed in the Resurrection shows that they obviously did go verify with the witnesses.

There are a few possible answers to this. Paul’s writings (the first of the Gospels) were only written at least 30-40 years after Jesus’ times.^[7] In addition, it must have been publicized only years after that (after all, the epistles were all private letters to individuals or communities at first). In addition, it is understood that those days there was no printing-press and only few would have access to the book for quite a while. Moreover, most Gentiles wouldn’t have even been able to read Greek, the language the New Testament was written in. Thus, by the time people would go to verify, the witnesses would have long been gone. [And this that Paul writes “500 witnesses most of whom are still living” they would obviously understand to be in his time of writing.]

Critical scholars date the New Testament to long after Jesus’ passing, with some extreme liberal dates putting it at 150 years after (the author obviously trying to write in a disciple first-hand perspective). The Talmud^[ii] even records Jesus (with most the details similar to the New Testament) being two generations before the New Testament’s dating of Jesus.[8] Much confusion circles the authorship of the New Testament. Many indications show that the writings weren’t around in the first-century. There is much strong internal evidence that the documents have a later date than actually attributed to them by the authors and its followers.

There’s much speculation if Jesus was even around as a highly popular figure in the times that the New Testament records him to have been. There’s much controversy if Josephus, a contemporary historian in Judea, even mentioned Jesus and it is surprising how silent he was regarding this supposedly popular miracle-worker.^[9] Besides him, none of the historical recordings of the time, including those of the Roman government in Judea and Philo of Alexandria, mention anything about Jesus. The dozens of New Testament contradicting accounts of the basics—of Jesus’ birth, life, names of 12 disciples, and death etc.^[iii] only adds to the reasoning of a later date to the Gospels.

If Jesus even existed as an historical earthly figure (in contrast to a heavenly angel) is up for question, though most scholars and early sources, including the Talmud, agree that he did exist. Because of their most probable late date attributed to them, the Gospels couldn’t be written by the disciples of Jesus. Many versions exist on the text of the New Testament; this is because of the many “alters” and “corrections” the early Christians felt free doing by adding, subtracting, or changing phrases in the New Testament.

Leaving all the valid speculation aside, let us assume that the book of Mathew documenting the Resurrection account was written and publicized right away. Paul was trying to persuade the pagans of the Greco-Roman empire to join his new attracting religion. Even if he will write of the alleged witnesses, they would have no way of verifying being in a different land than Judea (where the witnesses would have been), where the witnesses would be (especially since no city is mentioned of where the witnesses would be located).

Even if few were to go verify and would return after a failed manhunt, who is to say that they would be believed upon their return (after all, being just a few, which also can lie in defense of paganism etc.). There also could have been a Paul-arranged group to claim that they went to verify and confirm it. Many plausible scenarios are available upon imagination. Bear in mind, that the Gentiles would have a much easier time accepting Paul’s version of the Resurrection, after hearing the many rumours of the rise of Jesus and the empty grave and eager for a monotheistic religion.[10]

Another possibility is that it was a sort of dress-up mock Jesus (or a look-alike) that appeared from afar to a mass (with some trivial details easily being fabricated in the New Testament). This really isn’t so far-fetched—at least relative to the claim of a resurrection!

It is possible (and most likely) that the Apostles and some other strong believers traveled around preaching that they themselves witnessed Jesus arisen from the dead, thus the rumours begin!

In summary, the entire Resurrection account is one with no reliable basis and would prove nothing about Christianity even if factual.