Shroud of Turin: Real or Fake? (A Scholar’s Take)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

More than six years ago, my brother gave me a book he thought would pique my curiosity: The Sign by Polish art historian Thomas de Wesselow. The book was enormous, and yet I read it in just two days. I was completely absorbed by the mystery it explored: The Shroud of Turin, perhaps the most famous Christian relic in the world.

De Wesselow’s argument was as bold as it was controversial. I didn’t agree with his conclusions, but I was fascinated by the idea that a simple piece of cloth could carry such enormous historical, theological, and cultural weight.

Over the years, my perspective on the Shroud has evolved, shaped by scholarly research, scientific inquiry, and a broader understanding of relics in Christian history. What makes the Shroud of Turin so compelling isn’t merely the faint image of a crucified man that appears to mark its surface, but the convergence of faith, science, skepticism, and art that surrounds it.

For some, it’s Jesus’ shroud — proof of his suffering, death, and perhaps even resurrection. For others, it’s a masterfully crafted medieval forgery, a product of its time. 

In this article, I’ll approach the Shroud of Turin not as a believer or a cynic, but as a historian committed to critical examination and evidence. We’ll first look at what the Shroud actually is and trace its known history.

Then, we’ll delve into the strongest arguments presented in support of its authenticity before turning to the counter-evidence that points to a medieval origin. My aim isn’t to mock faith or dismiss mystery, but to ask: Can the Shroud of Turin truly be what some claim it is? Let’s take a look!

However, before we begin our journey into the mystery of the Shroud, why not explore the broader question at the heart of it all? Watch the compelling online debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Mike Licona: “Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen?” It’s a fascinating exchange of ideas and arguments! You won't be disappointed.

What is the Shroud of Turin: A Brief Overview

The Shroud of Turin is a long linen cloth bearing the faint, front-and-back image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma consistent with crucifixion. Measuring approximately 4.4 meters long and 1.1 meters wide (about 14.3 by 3.7 feet), the cloth has been kept for centuries in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

Its most distinctive feature is the sepia-toned imprint of a naked man, his hands crossed over his pelvis, with visible marks that many interpret as wounds from scourging, crucifixion, and a spear thrust to the side. The cloth is woven in a herringbone twill pattern, and its fibers have been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny.

The Shroud first entered the historical record in the 14th century in the small town of Lirey, France. Over time, it has been venerated by many as the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ.

Although the Shroud had been venerated for centuries, it wasn’t until the late 19th century that a discovery dramatically heightened its mystery. In 1898, an Italian amateur photographer and lawyer named Secondo Pia was granted permission to photograph the Shroud during a public exhibition in Turin.

Jean-Christian Petitfils, in his book Le Saint Suaire de Turin (The Holy Shroud of Turin), recounts the way an Italian photographer took the photos:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

When Pia developed his photographic plates, he was stunned to discover that the negative image appeared as a photographic positive, revealing startling details of the figure on the cloth with far greater clarity than the naked eye could see.

Pilgrims and scholars alike have been drawn to its mysterious image, and it has been the focus of numerous scientific tests, theological debates, and public exhibitions. The French zoologist Yves Delage noted:

His insight captures the heart of the problem. Precisely because the Shroud is associated with the central figure of Christianity, our deeply Christianized world, despite the rise of secularism in Western societies, has infused it with profound religious significance, as if its authenticity could somehow validate Christianity itself.

As a result, critical voices are often dismissed as merely anti-religious or hostile to faith. Yet if we are to do justice to this extraordinary artifact, we must approach it with the same skeptical and critical mindset we would apply to any other historical object, following the evidence where it leads, whether from history or science.

The Shroud of Turin: Evidence for the Authenticity

Over the past century, the mystery of the Shroud of Turin has given rise to a distinct field of study known as sindonology. This strange term is derived from the Greek word sindon, meaning a linen cloth. 

From the early 1900s onward, passionate individuals, often self-styled scholars rather than academic historians or scientists, dedicated themselves to defending the Shroud’s authenticity. They believe this mysterious item is Jesus’ shroud.

As Joe Nickell aptly observed, “from the turn of the century, self-styled 'sindonologists' have been crusading for acceptance of the ‘relic’ as authentic,” even though the Catholic Church itself has historically avoided making any definitive pronouncement about the Shroud’s authenticity.

These researchers formed a community with a clear mission: To gather evidence, scientific or otherwise, that would establish the Shroud as the true burial cloth of Jesus Christ. Similarly, Andrea Nicolotti, in his book The Shroud of Turin, notes:

With that context in mind, let’s begin by examining the common argumenta pro regarding the Shroud’s authenticity.

Wounds on the Wrist, Not the Palms

This is probably my favorite argument to which syndonologists consistently return. According to this line of thinking, and in contrast to most medieval portrayals of Jesus, a close look at the Shroud of Turin hands reveals a man whose piercing wounds are located not in the palms but the wrists.

Syndonologists claim that experimental research, particularly by forensic experts, such as Pierre Barbet, showed that the weight of a crucified body would cause the hands to tear completely free if nails were driven through the palms. Instead, they argue that the nails pierced the wrists, specifically at a region anatomists call the “Space of Destot.”

As Thomas de Wesselow summarizes:

On the surface, this seems like a persuasive piece of evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity. But what should we make of this argument upon closer examination?

Even if we concede that the Shroud of Turin indeed depicts a person whose wrists were pierced — and that point, as Wesselow himself admits, remains uncertain — this would hardly serve as definitive proof of authenticity.

First and foremost, it’s incorrect to assume that all medieval representations of Jesus' crucifixion depict nails driven through the palms. As Joe Nickell points out, researchers Donald and Joan Janney “found ‘several’ crucifixes dating from the Middle Ages in which the nails distinctly penetrate the wrist, not the palm.”

Furthermore, medieval religious imagination was often fueled by visionary experiences. Notably, Saint Bridget of Sweden (14th century) described Christ’s crucifixion wounds as being located “where the bone was hardest” (manum ipsam ex ea parte perforabant, qua os solidius erat), a description that fits the wrist area.

Visions like hers could easily have inspired artistic renditions and relics reflecting a wrist-wounded Christ. In other words, the notion of crucifixion through the wrist was neither unprecedented nor unknown to medieval people. Rather, it was part of the religious and cultural imagination well before the Shroud of Turin surfaced in historical records.

But what about the scientific claim that a nail must pierce the wrist to sustain the weight of a crucified body? Here, again, the evidence is less conclusive than syndonologists suggest.

Studies have shown that a nail driven through the Space of Destot wouldn’t necessarily provide more reliable support than one driven through the palm. As Dr. Anthony Sava noted:

Similarly, Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, a well-respected forensic pathologist, conducted experiments showing that when a nail is driven through the thenar fissure of the palm, it exits between the base of the metacarpal bones of the index and second fingers and the two corresponding carpal bones, precisely at a structurally sound point corresponding to the imprint seen on the Shroud.

At this point, he emphasized, the body would remain firmly suspended, a conclusion he verified through experiments involving cadavers.

Moreover, syndonologists often overlook another crucial detail: The victim’s arms didn’t have to bear the full weight of the body. Historical and archaeological evidence suggests that Roman crosses often featured a small footrest (suppedaneum) or a seat (sedile), intended to prolong the agony of the crucified.

This detail is depicted, for example, in the famous Palatine Graffito, an ancient image mocking a Christian named Alexamenos, which shows a crucified figure supported in part by a small ledge. With this support, the strain on the arms would have been significantly reduced, making palm crucifixion not only possible but historically plausible.

In short, while the wrist wound argument remains a favored point among defenders of the Shroud’s authenticity, critical examination reveals it to be far less decisive than it first appears. Neither historical art, religious visions, nor scientific experiments exclude the possibility of palm-wounded crucifixion.

The 3D Properties From the VP-8 Image Analyzer

One of the most frequently cited arguments by proponents of the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity is that it exhibits three-dimensional properties when analyzed using a VP-8 Image Analyzer. 

This claim gained particular traction in the late 1970s, when a group of American scientists formed the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) to conduct an in-depth scientific analysis of the cloth. Among their most publicized findings was the assertion that the Shroud’s image produced an anatomically consistent 3D relief, unlike typical photographs.

This device, developed by NASA to create depth maps from photographs of planetary surfaces, interprets brightness levels as spatial information, converting 2D images into 3D reliefs. 

In 1976, researchers John Jackson and Eric Jumper used the VP-8 on a photograph of the Shroud and claimed that, unlike ordinary photographs, the Shroud’s image yielded a coherent three-dimensional representation of a human form.

As they claim in a later article:

This finding fueled excitement among Shroud enthusiasts, as it was thought to suggest that the image was not merely a medieval painting or forgery.

Before proceeding further, I need to clarify that I am by no means an expert in computer vision or 3D modeling. Nevertheless, I rely here on scholarly analyses such as the study by Nicola Chinellato, who examined the claim critically using modern computational techniques.

He employed a three-dimensional morphable model (a sophisticated tool from computer vision) to assess whether the Shroud's face image truly contains three-dimensional information indicative of a real human face. His findings were cautious but revealing. 

Chinellato showed that while it’s indeed possible to generate a three-dimensional surface from the Shroud’s image, this ability isn’t unique to the Shroud. In fact, he demonstrated that similar three-dimensional effects can be obtained from random images or textured surfaces, especially when the brightness of an image is loosely interpreted as representing spatial depth.

Moreover, Chinellato critically points out the methodological problems underlying the VP-8 experiment. There is little publicly available information about exactly how the VP-8 operated, but it seems likely that it processed brightness levels directly into depth information — an assumption that modern computer vision would treat with extreme caution.

Chinellato’s experiments further showed that when the Shroud image is processed without preserving superficial texture or color cues, the resulting three-dimensional model becomes far less convincing. In short, the “3D effect” observed by STURP researchers may owe more to the quirks of image processing and human pattern recognition than to any inherent physical property of the Shroud.

In his conclusion, Chinellato writes:

However, he is also cautious, noting:

In sum, I would advise caution rather than certainty regarding the claim of the Shroud’s three-dimensional portrayal. After all, the question of the Shroud’s authenticity cannot hinge on a single, and at best disputed, piece of evidence.

Instead, it must be approached by considering all relevant data (historical sources, archaeological findings, and scientific analyses together) to reach a truly informed and balanced conclusion.

Pollen Grains from Middle Eastern Plants

Some parties have proposed using microscopic traces of pollen to determine the origin (and perhaps even the authenticity) of the Shroud of Turin. That option seemed both elegant and scientifically persuasive when I first heard it and found it quite impressive (not knowing anything about palynology, the study of microorganisms)

If the cloth truly originated in 1st-century Palestine, wouldn’t it make sense that pollens from that region might have been trapped in its fibers?

This argument gained traction in the 1970s, thanks to Max Frei, a Swiss criminologist who had previously worked in forensic police analysis. Frei obtained adhesive tape samples from the Shroud’s surface and later claimed that he had isolated 34 varieties of pollen from plants that grow exclusively in Palestine and/or southeastern Turkey.

Over time, and through repeated citations in popular books and documentaries, Frei’s claim became “common knowledge.” Thomas de Wesselow asserts (incorrectly) that “others have broadly endorsed” Frei’s report, which illustrates that the argument has taken on an almost mythic status in Shroud apologetics.

However, when examined critically, this theory is far shakier than its public reputation suggests.

First, and most fundamentally, even if Frei’s analysis were accurate (a big “if,” as we’ll see), it wouldn’t necessarily prove the Shroud’s authenticity or antiquity. As Joe Nickell aptly notes:

In other words, pollens could have arrived on the Shroud through any number of channels (e.g., travel, trade, or later contact) and don’t require a 1st-century Palestinian origin. But the problems go deeper.

Max Frei wasn’t a botanist, biologist, or palynologist. He was a criminologist (a forensic microscopist). To my knowledge, he had no formal training in identifying ancient pollen. Worse still, his scientific integrity had already been called into question before his involvement with the Shroud.

Frei had previously resigned from his role as founder and director of the Zurich scientific police after producing a flawed forensic report that contributed to the wrongful life imprisonment of an innocent man.

From a methodological standpoint, Frei’s study suffers from glaring deficiencies. Most notably, he didn’t use control samples, a basic requirement in any legitimate scientific analysis. This alone should raise red flags.

Furthermore, more rigorous studies have demonstrated just how easily pollen samples become contaminated. In laboratory settings, over 80% of slides exposed to air for only a few hours were contaminated by foreign pollens.

The Shroud, which has been displayed, touched, kissed, and even had objects laid upon it to create contact relics, is hardly a controlled environment. As the respected Italian palynologist M. Mariotti Lippi concluded:

There’s also a striking inconsistency here, one that Nicolotti has rightly flagged:

This selective skepticism reveals a troubling confirmation bias among the proponents of authenticity: Evidence is welcomed if it supports authenticity and dismissed if it challenges it.

In the end, behind the story of the alleged 1st-century pollen on the Shroud lies more smoke than substance, and, frankly, the trail leads back to a highly questionable source.

Dr. Steven Schafersman, a micropaleontologist and petrologist, went so far as to accuse Frei of scientific deception. He noted:

Given Frei’s track record, one might be forgiven for wondering if he simply borrowed some plants from a Jerusalem florist and “let nature take its course” over his tape samples.

Before we move on, it’s worth pausing to highlight the sheer scale of Max Frei’s scientific shortcomings, as summarized by Gaetano Ciccone. Ciccone presents a concise but damning list of failures that point not only to Frei’s incompetence but also to his fundamental misunderstanding of basic palynological principles.

#1 – “Frei is mistaken in claiming that pollen grains remain indefinitely intact in a dry environment, when in fact they are attacked and destroyed by oxygen, bacteria, and fungi. He seems unaware of the conditions under which pollens are preserved and fossilized (anaerobic environments, without oxygen) versus those in which they are more or less rapidly altered and destroyed (aerobic environments, with oxygen).”

#2 – “He appears not to understand what a 'pollen spectrum' is, confusing a table listing the quantities or percentages of different types of grains (a true pollen spectrum) with one that merely lists the names of various plant species.”

#3 – “He errs in his species identifications, which, according to other experts, are not possible under an optical microscope and often not even under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). He seems unaware that to credibly identify species, one must also be able to rule out all other plant species with similar or indistinguishable pollen.”

#4 – “He seems unaware of the ease with which objects left in the open air are quickly contaminated by pollen.” (Translation courtesy of Petar Uskovic)

Bloodstain Patterns and Their Supposed Consistency

Another frequently cited argument in favor of the authenticity of the Shroud concerns the distinctive pattern of bloodstains and scourge marks that cover the figure depicted on it.

Proponents argue that these bloodstains match precisely what one might expect from a victim of Roman crucifixion and scourging. Thomas de Wesselow articulates this viewpoint clearly, asserting:

This reasoning, on the surface, sounds impressive and historically precise. The supposed match between the Shroud's bloodstains and the historical Roman scourge (the so-called “flagrum taxillatum”) seems persuasive. However, upon closer scholarly scrutiny, this argument quickly begins to unravel.

In his meticulous article “The Scourge of Jesus and the Roman Scourge,” Andrea Nicolotti provides a comprehensive reassessment of our knowledge regarding Roman scourging instruments. 

He demonstrates that there is a complete absence of reliable archaeological or literary evidence confirming the existence of a scourge with the specific features often attributed to it by Shroud proponents, namely leather thongs tipped with lead balls or bone fragments (taxilli).

Nicolotti shows that what is often called the flagrum taxillatum isn’t an ancient term or attested Roman weapon, but rather a modern scholarly fiction, largely born out of 19th- and 20th-century misinterpretations.

This imagined scourge gained traction through a convergence of three factors:

#1 – Misidentified artifacts, such as Etruscan or decorative items, mistaken for whips

#2 – Misleading dictionary illustrations (especially in works like Anthony Rich’s “Dictionnaire”)

#3 – An apologetic desire to make sense of the marks on the Shroud

These elements were then reinforced by devotional medieval imagery of Christ’s scourging, feeding back into scholarly and popular belief. As Nicolotti compellingly argues, no ancient Roman artifact or unambiguous literary source confirms the use of such a scourge.

Furthermore, the Shroud's bloodstains themselves do not unequivocally indicate ancient Roman scourging.

Basing his arguments both on the scientific evidence (the issue of the blood’s flow) and historical evidence (the signs of the scourging), Nicolotti writes:

Flagellantism was, as art historian Gary Vikan explains, "part of a broader 'blood frenzy' that characterized European church ritual and art from the 13th to the 15th centuries and that stood in stark contrast with the first twelve centuries of Christianity, when references to the shedding of blood are extremely rare.”

Specifically, he notes, there was increasing emphasis in Gothic art, just as the shroud appeared in Lirey, on intense suffering, especially as revealed in images of Christ beaten and crucified.

Consequently, nothing inherently Roman or 1st-century emerges distinctly from the bloodstains or the alleged scourging pattern. In other words, the notion of distinctive “Roman” scourge marks on the Shroud is little more than speculation dressed as forensic proof.

Having critically assessed the common arguments offered in favor of the Shroud's authenticity, it's time now to explore the compelling historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence that points decisively toward a medieval origin.

The Shroud of Turin: Evidence of Medieval Forgery

When I first encountered arguments supporting the medieval origin of the Shroud of Turin, I was admittedly quite resistant. It took me some time (and honest reflection) to realize it was my own confirmation bias keeping me from fully acknowledging these insights.

However, upon careful reconsideration, I came to appreciate that these arguments, when evaluated collectively and impartially, form a robust case that strongly favors the Shroud’s medieval creation.

The Carbon Dating Results

One of the most important scientific examinations of the Shroud of Turin took place in 1988 when three prestigious laboratories (the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and ETH Zürich) conducted radiocarbon dating (C-14) of the fabric.

These institutions were specifically chosen because of their extensive expertise in dating ancient artifacts. To ensure maximum scientific integrity, the entire procedure was meticulously documented, filmed, and supervised at every step, with a control sample also tested alongside the Shroud sample.

Moreover, textile experts were carefully consulted to select the optimal location from which to extract the cloth samples, guaranteeing that the test would be performed on fabric representative of the Shroud itself.

When the results were finally announced, they were clear and consistent across all three laboratories: The linen fabric dated from between 1260 and 1390 C.E., firmly placing the Shroud within the medieval period. This finding appeared to decisively end the debate regarding the Shroud’s authenticity.

However, almost immediately after these results became public knowledge, the reaction from syndonologists was swift, vocal, and vehement.

Initially, it was the syndonologists themselves who eagerly advocated the use of radiocarbon dating, confident it would affirm their beliefs. Ironically, once faced with results that contradicted their cherished narrative, they promptly changed course and sought to discredit the very method they had enthusiastically promoted.

Accusations of conspiracy, incompetence, and even deliberate fraud proliferated rapidly among the disappointed believers, though no credible evidence emerged to substantiate these dramatic claims.

Among the more persistent hypotheses was the “sindonological pollution hypothesis,” as Nicolotti calls it. This theory proposes that over centuries, various contaminants (such as candle smoke, sweat, pollen, smog from Turin's skies, oil from hands, and even water from extinguishing the fire of Chambéry in 1532) heavily polluted the linen, artificially skewing the radiocarbon dating results toward a later date.

However, scrutiny quickly undermines this idea. The truth is, the radiocarbon dating method simply isn't significantly sensitive to such surface contamination. 

To produce a dating discrepancy of roughly 1300 years, contamination would need to introduce an astonishing proportion of recent carbon. Specifically, for every 100 original carbon atoms in the fabric, 500 more from the contaminating agents of around 1532 would need to be added — an impossible scenario.

Additionally, all samples underwent rigorous cleaning procedures specifically designed to remove surface contaminants. Indeed, each of the three laboratories employed different, yet equally thorough, cleaning methods to ensure accurate results.

Another creative hypothesis was popularized by former Benedictine monk Joseph Marino and his wife, Sue Benford, who famously claimed divine revelations from the apostle John and Jesus Christ. They argued that the samples used for carbon dating weren’t original fabric but medieval patches skillfully added later to repair the Shroud.

Despite its sensational appeal, this theory is equally untenable. Before cutting, textile experts carefully examined the Shroud, ensuring they selected a representative, original area. 

Accepting Marino and Benford’s theory would mean imagining that these highly respected specialists spent hours closely inspecting the cloth, yet completely overlooked extensive medieval patching. 

Furthermore, to shift the dating results by 13 centuries, the quantity of medieval threads would have to drastically outnumber the original ones, which is an absurd suggestion given the fabric’s structure.

It was no surprise, therefore, when in 2010 the University of Arizona officially reaffirmed its findings, stating clearly:

Ironically, many of these syndonologists passionately embraced Max Frei’s questionable pollen analysis, confidently extracting detailed historical knowledge from a handful of pollen grains, yet became ferocious critics of radiocarbon dating when the results didn't fit their expectations.

Apparently, the credibility of science for syndonologists depends entirely upon whether or not it confirms their preconceived conclusions.

The Shroud of Turin and Its Missing History

One of the strongest pieces of historical evidence pointing toward the medieval origin of the Shroud of Turin is its suspiciously late emergence into historical records. The earliest unambiguous references date to the 14th century. 

More specifically, the Shroud of Turin emerged around the year 1355, when a knight named Geoffroy de Charny began publicly displaying the cloth in the small French town of Lirey. This chronology fits remarkably well with the radiocarbon dating results mentioned above.

More tellingly, the local ecclesiastical authorities immediately expressed skepticism. In a revealing letter addressed to Pope Clement VII, Pierre d’Arcis, the Bishop of Troyes at the time, explicitly stated that the Shroud was a forgery. 

His words leave no ambiguity: “After diligent inquiry and examination, he [an earlier Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.”

This documented statement by Bishop d'Arcis is historically significant. According to him, his predecessor Henri of Poitiers had uncovered the deception firsthand, confronting and identifying the very artist who had produced this clever forgery.

Thus, as soon as the Shroud appeared, local church authorities promptly recognized it as a fabricated relic. This episode, meticulously recorded, makes it difficult to deny the medieval origins of the Shroud.

About a year ago, I attended a lecture delivered in a local church by a young theologian who had written his master's thesis on the Shroud. The church was full, predominantly with believers deeply committed to the Shroud’s authenticity.

Unsurprisingly, the young lecturer passionately articulated exactly what the audience wanted to hear. Yet what struck me most profoundly was his attempt to establish a direct historical link between the Shroud of Turin and an earlier Christian relic known as the Mandylion of Edessa.

The Mandylion of Edessa, historically speaking, is an ancient Christian relic that first “appeared” in a text from the 6th century. However, in his book From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin, Nicolotti notes:

It all started with an apocryphal account of Jesus’ correspondence with the Syrian king Abgar, first mentioned in the 4th century by Church historian Eusebius. 

The emergence of the relic, however, is closely tied to the 6th-century Syrian source called Acts of Mar Mari. According to the legend, there was a miraculous portrait of Jesus’ face imprinted on a piece of cloth sent to King Abgar to heal him.

Over time, this modest tale of ancient pen pals and portraiture took on a life of its own. What began as a simple exchange of letters gradually morphed into a miraculous cloth with divine powers, and some serious image upgrades along the way.

Take a look at the timeline below to see how this transformation unfolded. Just remember: All of these sources were composed centuries after Jesus’ death, with no reliable information about the alleged contacts between the historical Jesus and the Syrian king

Syndonologists frequently assert that the Mandylion (Jesus’ face cloth) and the Shroud of Turin are actually the same object, arguing that the former was secretly a folded burial cloth, displaying only Jesus’ face but concealing a full-body image. 

They insist that the Mandylion thus provides the missing historical link, suggesting the Shroud of Turin existed well before its 14th-century emergence.

During the mentioned lecture, the young theologian made some deeply troubling claims. For instance, he confidently asserted that the Mandylion was explicitly mentioned at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which is simply incorrect. As it turns out, no primary sources from this council confirm such a statement.

He also presented legendary accounts, including the mythical correspondence between Abgar and Jesus, as solid historical evidence. 

What was most unsettling was his complete disregard for historical method: Legends, written centuries after the events they described, were treated as if they were trustworthy historical documents. No historian would ever claim that the Syrian king really wrote to Jesus!

To fully analyse all the shortcomings of this theory, I would need to write a separate article. In this case, Nicolotti’s conclusion should suffice:

In sum, historical evidence firmly places the Shroud’s first appearance in 14th-century France, where it immediately faced accusations of forgery by contemporary religious authorities.

The attempt by syndonologists to retroactively anchor the Shroud’s existence in earlier relics like the Mandylion reveals not only a profound misunderstanding of historical sources, but also a disregard for the critical methods essential to studying Christian history.

A Time of Relic Forgery: The Medieval Context

A powerful supporting argument in favor of the medieval origin of the Shroud of Turin is the broader historical context of relic production during the Middle Ages. It was a period when Christian relics proliferated widely throughout Europe.

These objects (supposedly physical remnants connected directly to Christ, his apostles, or prominent saints) quickly became central to medieval spirituality. More pragmatically, however, relics were significant sources of revenue, prestige, and economic prosperity. 

Churches, monasteries, and towns competed fiercely to attract pilgrims by presenting extraordinary relics, often without concern for historical authenticity.

This phenomenon sometimes reached absurd extremes. It was commonly joked that if one counted all the “genuine” relics from the Middle Ages, John the Baptist would have possessed multiple heads, and Jesus himself could boast more than one foreskin.

Various cities and monasteries claimed they had the true head of John the Baptist, prompting amused medieval observers and later historians alike to wonder how many heads the Baptist actually had.

This competitive and lucrative relic trade led inevitably to widespread forgery, fraud, and deception. Indeed, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 explicitly warned the faithful against being “deceived by lying stories or false documents [associated with alleged relics], as has commonly happened in many places on account of the desire for profit.”

Within this context, the sudden appearance of the Shroud of Turin in the 14th century fits perfectly into a well-known historical pattern. Relics were incredibly profitable, drawing pilgrims from far and wide, generating local fame, and significantly enriching individuals, churches, and towns that housed them.

Fabricating a relic as significant as the burial cloth of Jesus would hardly have been extraordinary. Rather, it would have been entirely consistent with established medieval practices. Today, critical historians, as Dale C. Allison notes, “deem all alleged relics associated with Jesus to be counterfeits.” The Shroud of Turin fits perfectly within that category.

Jean-Christian Petitfils aptly summarizes this historical reality, noting:

Consequently, Allison rightly observes:

The Shroud of Turin in Comparison With the Only 1st-Century Burial Cloth Discovered

To further assess the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, we must compare it with genuine archaeological evidence from 1st-century Palestine. As it turns out, there is only one reliably dated burial cloth from this exact historical context: The textile fragments recovered from the so-called “Tomb of the Shroud” at Akeldama in Jerusalem.

This tomb, carefully excavated by archaeologists, contained burial remains confidently dated by radiocarbon to between the late 1st century B.C.E. and the early 1st century C.E.

The textiles from Akeldama differ fundamentally from the Shroud of Turin. Crucially, the burial cloth found there isn’t a single uniform linen sheet, but rather comprises at least four separate fabric pieces made from different materials, woven in simple, plain weaves typical of ancient Jewish textiles. 

This sharply contrasts with the Shroud of Turin, a large, singular piece of linen woven using a complex 3/1 herringbone twill weave. Importantly, this sophisticated herringbone weave has never been archaeologically attested in any first-century burial context from Israel.

Moreover, molecular analyses conducted at Akeldama have further strengthened this archaeological evidence. The study, published in PLOS ONE, confirms that textiles found alongside skeletal remains of a sealed loculus within this tomb were indeed contemporaneous with the early 1st century C.E.

Furthermore, genetic tests revealed tuberculosis and leprosy pathogens in these remains, emphasizing the tomb's unique importance, yet revealing nothing that could support the authenticity or the weaving structure of the Shroud of Turin.

Thus, when the Shroud of Turin is examined alongside genuine, scientifically validated first-century burial cloths, it emerges not as an authentic relic of the ancient Middle East but as yet another artifact aligning closely with medieval European artistic and textile practices.

Conclusion

The Shroud of Turin continues to captivate imaginations across the world, but when weighed against the combined force of historical records, scientific testing, and archaeological evidence, its origin appears unmistakably medieval.

The strongest arguments for its authenticity are consistently undermined by flawed methodology, ideological bias, or an absence of corroborating data. By contrast, the evidence pointing to a 14th-century origin is cumulatively decisive.

Perhaps more revealing than any individual argument is the psychological mechanism underpinning many defenses of the Shroud: Confirmation bias, the very human tendency to seek, favor, and remember information that confirms our preexisting beliefs.

This bias is especially evident in the selective acceptance of certain scientific methods (such as palynology or mechanical dating) when they support authenticity, and their wholesale rejection when they don’t (as with radiocarbon dating). 

Would I like it if the Shroud of Turin were truly Jesus’s burial cloth? Of course I would! Just imagine the insights we could gain — the historical, theological, and cultural significance would be immense. But I have to set those wishes aside and approach the evidence from a critical, objective, and neutral standpoint.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that the inability to precisely replicate the Shroud’s image today does not prove it’s miraculous or ancient.

Many historical artifacts (e.g., Damascus steel, certain illuminated manuscripts, etc.) are difficult to reproduce, not because they are supernatural, but because the specific techniques, materials, and environmental conditions that produced them have been lost. In the case of the Shroud, mystery alone isn’t evidence of authenticity. Far from it!

How Many People Saw Jesus After His Resurrection? (Verses & Chart)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Arguably, the most controversial claim of Christianity is that Jesus was raised from the dead — a claim central to the Christian religion. As Paul emphatically states, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile” (1 Cor 15:19). The resurrection isn’t just a theological concept; it's a historical assertion that, if proven false, would undermine the entire foundation of Christianity.

If Jesus had been crucified and no one proclaimed his resurrection, Christianity likely wouldn't exist today. Instead, Jesus would be remembered as another Jewish prophet who suffered for his teachings, with his followers fading into the vast landscape of ancient history. 

The question of how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection is, therefore, a fascinating historical inquiry. Our previous article delves deeply into the historical evidence for and against Jesus' resurrection, evaluating sources, testimonies, and scholarly interpretations. 

This article builds on that foundation. It provides a detailed presentation of the post-resurrection appearances as recorded in the ancient sources.

In the following sections, we’ll explore the stories of those who saw Jesus resurrected — from the women at the tomb to the disciples on the road to Emmaus and his appearance to over 500 people. We’ll start with the earliest source, Paul’s letters, and move through the Gospel accounts.

Additionally, we’ll analyze these appearances from a scholarly perspective, discussing what historians can deduce from them and how they approach such extraordinary claims. Stay tuned as we journey through the historical records and explore one of the most crucial questions in Christian history.

Appearances as Revealed in Jesus Resurrection Bible Verses

Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians

Our earliest account of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. It's one of his undisputed letters, written in 55 or 56 C.E. to a community in the Greek city of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul provides a list of those who allegedly witnessed the risen Jesus.

He writes: 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul's account is almost certainly part of the pre-Pauline tradition. In his Commentary, Joseph Fitzmyer notes that "Paul’s argument is kerygmatic, i.e. based on the common preaching of the early church. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) He recalls to the Corinthian Christians the salvific value of the gospel that has already been preached to them, by himself as the founder of the church in that city, but also by other evangelists whom he has mentioned earlier.”

This passage is foundational for understanding how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection according to early Christian tradition. Paul’s testimony includes not just individual appearances, such as to Peter (Cephas) and James, but also collective experiences, notably Jesus’ appearance to over five hundred people at once.

By highlighting these post-resurrection appearances, Paul reinforces the core message of the Christian gospel and its proclamation. His emphasis on the number and variety of witnesses aims to bolster the credibility and communal validation of Jesus’ resurrection.

The Gospel of Matthew

Another important alleged post-resurrection appearance derives from the Gospel of Matthew, written by an anonymous Christian in the later part of the 1st century. Matthew provides two significant post-resurrection accounts. 

The first one (Mt 28:1-10) describes Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary after his resurrection. According to this passage, the two women visit Jesus' tomb and encounter an angel who informs them that Jesus has risen.

As they leave the tomb to convey this message to the disciples, Jesus meets and greets them. This encounter affirms the women's role as the first witnesses of the resurrection and Jesus’ true identity as the resurrected Messiah. 

In their Commentary on Matthew, William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison rightly point out: “Without the resurrection Jesus' words are vacant and his opponents exonerated. With it, Jesus is vindicated, his cause and authority confirmed, and his opponents disgraced.”

The second account, known as the Great Commission, occurs in Matthew 28:16-20. In this passage, Jesus appears to the eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee. He commissions them to go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all he has commanded. 

These two accounts in Matthew emphasize the immediate and profound effect of Jesus' appearance after his resurrection.

The first account highlights the personal and intimate nature of the encounters with Jesus, beginning with the women who remained faithful to him. The second one broadens the scope and describes the universal mission entrusted to the disciples.

The Gospel of Luke

The author of Luke's Gospel, writing approximately at the same time as Matthew, offers more insight into Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, providing two compelling narratives that depict interactions with followers after his death. 

The first narrative (Lk 24:13-35) describes the encounter on the road to Emmaus. Two of Jesus' disciples are walking to the village of Emmaus, discussing the events surrounding his crucifixion and reports of his resurrection. 

Jesus joins them on their journey, but they don’t recognize him. As they walk, he explains the Scriptures concerning himself. Later, as they share a meal, their eyes are opened, and they realize who he is.

Joel B. Green, in his Commentary on Luke, notes: “The Emmaus account is structured in such a way as to call particular attention to the progression from lack of recognition to full recognition and to the means by which insight is gained, and thus to underscore the women's earlier affirmation that Jesus is alive.”

The second narrative, detailed in Luke 24:36-49, describes Jesus' appearance to his disciples in Jerusalem. Unlike Matthew, who places the appearance in Galilee, Luke is adamant that it occurred in Jerusalem — one among several points of contradiction. 

Jesus suddenly appears among his disciples, startling and frightening them, as they initially think they are seeing a ghost. He reassures them by showing his hands and feet and eating a piece of broiled fish. Jesus then opens their minds to understand the Scriptures and commissions them to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations, starting from Jerusalem. 

These two accounts in Luke’s Gospel contribute significantly to the question of how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection. The Emmaus narrative and the appearance in Jerusalem emphasize bodily aspects of Jesus' resurrection. He eats with the disciples, they touch his hands and feet to make sure he isn’t a ghost.

For Luke, therefore, Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances serve to establish the empty tomb and his bodily resurrection. 

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John probably comes from the 90s of the 1st century. Its author is an anonymous Christian living outside of Palestine, likely in Ephesus. The basic story of Jesus in John parallels that of the Synoptic Gospels, running from the ministry of John the Baptist to the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

However, even the stories that also appear in the Synoptic Gospels look remarkably different in John. Furthermore, John contains unique stories not found in the Synoptic Gospels. We can see these differences and additions by looking at John's description of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.

The first account, in John 20:11-18, describes Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene. Mary is weeping outside the tomb when she sees two angels seated where Jesus' body had been. Turning around, she sees Jesus but does not recognize him until he calls her by name.

The second account, found in John 20:19-29, involves Jesus appearing to his disciples. Initially, he appears to the disciples in a locked room, offering them peace and showing them his wounds. Thomas, one of the disciples, is absent and later expresses doubt about Jesus' resurrection, earning the nickname “doubting Thomas.”

A week later, Jesus appears again, specifically addressing Thomas' doubts by inviting him to touch his wounds. Finally convinced, Thomas utters the famous “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28) statement. Referring to this passage, Craig C. Keener concludes: “In this case, as in the

prologue, the confession of Jesus’ deity is unmistakable. It cannot simply represent an acclamation to the Father, since John explicitly claims that the words are addressed to Jesus.”

The third account (John 21:1-14) describes Jesus appearing to his disciples by the Sea of Galilee. The disciples are fishing but have caught nothing. At dawn, Jesus appears on the shore, though the disciples don’t initially recognize him. He instructs them to cast their net on the right side of the boat, resulting in a miraculous catch of fish.

These post-resurrection appearances in the New Testament Gospels add depth to the question of how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection. Each account provides unique details and emphasizes different aspects of interactions with his followers.

And how many days did Jesus stay on Earth after the resurrection? If we were to believe the account in the Acts, he stayed with the disciples 40 days before his final ascension to heaven (1:1-3). 

How Many People Saw Jesus After His Resurrection?

Think keeping track of your social engagements is hard? Imagine trying to catalog all the people who allegedly saw Jesus after his resurrection! Here’s a handy table to make sense of it all:

Having explored how many people saw Jesus after the resurrection, we’ll now take a scholarly look at these post-resurrection appearances.

Jesus’ Post-Resurrection Appearances: A Scholarly Approach

Throughout Christian history, believers have often appealed to physical proof of the miraculous aspects of Jesus' life and afterlife. These are known as relics, tangible embodiments of power associated with Jesus’ passion.

For example, in the Middle Ages, it was widely believed that the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper, the Holy Grail, conferred powers of immortality. While none of these relics hold historical credibility, they reveal the desire among some Christians to experience Jesus’ presence after his earthly life ended. 

Similarly, the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances emphasize the perceived reality of his continuing presence. These narratives assert that Jesus not only survived the grave but physically rose from the dead and will never die again.

However, the question of whether Jesus was raised from the dead can never be answered purely on historical grounds, and this impossibility extends to post-resurrection appearances. If Jesus was indeed resurrected, it would have been a miraculous act of God.

As Bart D. Ehrman notes in his highly acclaimed book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, any miracle claim is, by definition, beyond the scope of what historical evidence can demonstrate. 

Regarding our earliest source, Paul probably had a religious vision he interpreted as an encounter with the resurrected Jesus. Some visions are considered veridical, meaning visual experiences of phenomena that are actually present. Christians would claim that Paul’s vision of Jesus was veridical, thus asserting he truly appeared to Paul.

Non-veridical visions, on the other hand, can be induced by a chemical imbalance, fatigue, grief, or other factors. Non-Christians might argue that Paul’s visions were hallucinations rather than genuine encounters.

What can historians tell us about Paul's claims? The most prudent approach is to acknowledge that several of Jesus' followers likely had visions of him after his crucifixion. But what about the 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul? There is no corroborating evidence for this event.

As Dale C. Allison notes in The Resurrection of Jesus: 

Regarding the appearance to more than five hundred in 1 Cor. 15:6, our knowledge is near nil... Despite all the exegetical ink, 1 Cor. 15:6 remains an enigma. It is little more than a tease, a tantalizing hint about something that, barring the discovery of a new source, will forever provoke questions without answers, or at least answers without robust support… Yet we really know nothing about this ostensibly stupendous event. We have only a brief assertion, from someone who was not there, that it happened, and we cannot name a single individual who was involved.

It’s plausible that some of Jesus' followers, such as Peter, Paul, and Mary, did have visions and shared their extraordinary experiences with others, who then believed and passed on these stories. This could have created a snowball effect, with more people claiming to have seen Jesus alive after his death. 

Based on these stories, Matthew, Luke, and John developed their accounts, tailored to their theological perspectives and the social contexts of the communities for which they were writing.

But what did Peter, Paul, and Mary see? It’s impossible to determine. Without a new source from the middle of the 1st century (wouldn't that be great to have?!), the answer will depend largely on the worldview of the person asking the question.

While this might not be the definitive answer you hoped for, it’s the best historians can offer given the available evidence. And remember, when it comes to ancient history, sometimes the most definitive answer is, “We really don't know.” But isn't it fascinating to wonder? 

Conclusion

In examining the accounts of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, we find different, yet intriguing narratives, each contributing to the historical inquiry into how many people saw Jesus after his resurrection. 

Paul's letters provide the earliest testimonies, emphasizing a diverse group of witnesses including individuals and large groups. The Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John add further layers, each with unique details and perspectives that reflect their theological aims and the contexts of their communities.

However, while these accounts are foundational to Christian belief, their historical reliability remains a complex issue. Historians must navigate between the lines of faith and evidence, recognizing that miraculous claims, by nature, exceed the limits of historical verification. 

For a deeper dive into the arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, be sure to check out our earlier article that thoroughly evaluates the evidence from both perspectives. 

This continued exploration enriches our understanding and invites readers to engage thoughtfully with one of Christianity's most pivotal claims.

Interested in exploring more? Watch the recorded online debate “Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen” between Bart D. Ehrman and Mike Licona. Discover different opinions and arguments. Decide for yourself.

Resurrection Scriptures: Every Verse in the Gospels (PLUS TABLE)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The narratives of Jesus’ resurrection depict one of the foundations of Christian faith, drawing from a rich tapestry of accounts across the four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These Scriptures chronicle the dramatic events surrounding Jesus' trial, crucifixion, burial, and ultimate resurrection, with each Gospel offering unique perspectives and details.

Although there is significant overlap between the four Gospel versions, there are noteworthy differences as well. With that in mind, in this article I’ll show you resurrection Scriptures from all four Gospels to display the intense narratives of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, adding commentary where necessary.

Trial of Jesus Scriptures

The trial of Jesus begins soon after his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. He is first brought before the Jewish religious authorities where, according to Mark, false witnesses come in to testify.

56 Many false witnesses spoke against him, but they contradicted each other. 57 Finally, some men stood up and gave this false testimony: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with human hands, and in three days I will build another, made without human hands.’” 59 But even then, they didn’t get their stories straight!
- Mark 14:56-59

Jesus refuses to answer their charges, remaining silent until the high priest asks the most provocative question:

Then the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
63 Then the high priest tore his clothing to show his horror and said, “Why do we need other witnesses? 64 You have all heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?”
“Guilty!” they all cried. “He deserves to die!”
- Mark 14:61-64

Next, Jesus is brought to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. But even this higher authority cannot intimidate Jesus into defending himself.

2 Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” He answered him, “You say so.” 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.
- Mark 15:2-5

The Gospel of Mark goes on to say there was a custom wherein the Romans would release one Jewish prisoner for Passover. By the way, Bart Ehrman notes there is no historical evidence for this practice. However, Pilate brings out an insurgent murderer named Barabbas along with Jesus and asks the crowd whether Jesus or Barabbas should be released.

9 Then he answered them, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!” 14 Pilate asked them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him!” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified.
- Mark 15:9-15

Matthew’s Gospel adds a further symbolic flourish to this episode.

24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” 25 Then the people as a whole answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” 26 So he released Barabbas for them, and after flogging Jesus he handed him over to be crucified.
- Matthew 27:24-26

Only in the Gospel of Luke is Jesus also brought before Herod, sent to him initially by Pilate. However, Herod merely sends Jesus right back to Pilate.

13 Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people, and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us.
- Luke 23:13-25

Crucifixion of Jesus Scriptures

These Gospel verses describe the Passion of the Christ. Initially, soldiers take Jesus away, after mocking him for his supposed claim of being king of the Jews. Then they lead him to the place where prisoners normally carried their crosses to the place of execution. However, in Jesus’ case, Mark says the soldiers place this duty on someone else. 

21 A passerby named Simon, who was from Cyrene, was coming in from the countryside just then, and the soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross. (Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus) 22 And they brought Jesus to a place called Golgotha (which means “Place of the Skull”).
- Mark 15:21-22

Luke says that Jesus stops along the road to speak with some women who are weeping over his suffering.

27 A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. 28 But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
- Luke 27:27-31

At Golgotha, the soldiers nail Jesus to the cross. He is between two other prisoners being crucified as insurrectionists.

24 Then the soldiers nailed him to the cross. They divided his clothes and threw dice to decide who would get each piece. 25 It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him. 26 A sign announced the charge against him. It read, “The King of the Jews.” 27 Two revolutionaries were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.
- Mark 15:24-27

Only Luke’s Gospel says that Jesus pleaded with God not to hold those crucifying him accountable for his death.

34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
- Luke 27:34

John’s Gospel says that Jesus’ mother and the beloved disciple were there at the cross watching, and that Jesus spoke to them.

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.
- John 19:25-27

To literally add insult to injury, the crowd mocks Jesus as he suffers on the cross. An anomalous darkness falls and three hours later, Jesus utters his famous lament:

33 At noon, darkness fell across the whole land until three o’clock. 34 Then at three o’clock Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”
- Mark 15:33-34

When Jesus finally dies, Matthew’s Gospel says some interesting things occurred.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. 54 Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”
- Matthew 27:51-54

Burial of Jesus Scriptures

Joseph of Arimathea takes on the task of burying Jesus after obtaining permission from Pilate.

42 When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Then Joseph bought a linen cloth and, taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.
- Mark 15:42-47

Matthew adds another facet to the story, wherein the Jewish religious authorities who had tried and condemned Jesus ask for security around Jesus’ burial place.

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise, his disciples may go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.” 66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.
- Matthew 27:62-66

Jesus’ Resurrection Scriptures

There are a variety of Easter Bible verses in the Gospels. Mark’s Gospel, for instance, says that three women went to Jesus’ tomb to properly anoint his body for burial.

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” 4 When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
- Mark 16:1-8

In Matthew’s resurrection scriptures, the same scene is far more dramatic while also incorporating the guards at the tomb.

2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples.
- Matthew 28:2-8

John’s version initially has no messengers inside or around the tomb — merely the obvious absence of Jesus’ body which Mary and the two disciples in the scene find understandably perplexing.

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus’s head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed, 9 for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes.
- John 20:1-10

Appearance of Jesus Scriptures

While the original ending of Mark contains no appearances of the risen Jesus, Matthew says Jesus appears to the women as they are running back to tell the disciples about the empty tomb.

9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
- Matthew 28:9-10

Afterwards, just as the angel had said, Jesus meets the disciples in Galilee.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
- Matthew 28:16-20

Luke, on the other hand, says the first appearance of Jesus happens to two of his followers, who are not members of the twelve disciples, while on the road to another city. In The Bible, Theology, and Faith, R.W.L. Moberly writes that this story was intended by its author to show how discernment helps the Christian in the journey from doubt and despair to faith. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?”
-   Luke 24:13-32

Later in Luke, Jesus appears suddenly to the disciples, convincing them that although he is able to appear at will, he is still an embodied being.

While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 They were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see, for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 Yet for all their joy they were still disbelieving and wondering, and he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.
- Luke 24:36-32

In John, by contrast, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene just outside the tomb as she is looking in.

14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and she told them that he had said these things to her.
- John 20:14-18

In John, Jesus appears again to the disciples as in Luke, but one disciple is absent and misses the appearance.

24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
- John 20:24-29

There is yet another appearance at the end of the Gospel of John. In Discovering John, Ruth Edwards writes that this last chapter was added much later than the original ending of John 20, an idea with which most scholars agree.

After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias, and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he had taken it off, and jumped into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, only about a hundred yards off.

9 When they had gone ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred fifty-three of them, and though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
- John 21:1-14

Conclusion

Jesus' confrontation with both religious and political authorities, his unjust condemnation, and his agonizing death on the cross are portrayed as pivotal moments in the Christian narrative. These events, according to the Gospels, culminated not in defeat but in a transcendent victory—his resurrection from the dead.

Throughout history, the story of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and resurrection has inspired profound reflection, theological debate, and artistic expression. Whether accepted as literal truth or embraced as a symbol of renewal, the resurrection scriptures and associated narrative continue to shape the beliefs and practices of Christian communities worldwide.

Below is a chart of all the verses referring to Jesus’ trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

If Jesus Died on Friday and Rose on Sunday How is That 3 Days?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The concept of Jesus' resurrection "on the 3rd  day" stands as a cornerstone of Christian faith, echoing through millennia of theological discourse and shaping the redemption narrative. This belief finds its roots not only in the Gospels but in our earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul. But if Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, how is that 3 days?

In this article, I’ll explore the origins and interpretations of the "3 days" theme across the canonical Gospels, dissecting how each narrative frames the timeline from Jesus' death to his resurrection. This will include questions of Jewish time reckoning and the theological significance attached to the 3rd day, explaining how early Christians understood and interpreted the crucial period between Jesus’ death and his resurrection.

Where Did the Idea of the 3 Days Come From?

Our first reference to the 3 days leading to Jesus’ resurrection comes not from the Gospels but from our oldest source of Christian writing, Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul writes that he is passing on to his readers what he learned as a new convert, including that Jesus was crucified and “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

Since 1 Corinthians was written only about 20 years after Jesus’ death, we can be sure that this was a very old belief among Christians, established long before the Gospels were written. However, the idea was attributed to Jesus through predictions in the canonical Gospels.

Initially, the Gospels have Jesus predicting his cruel death and resurrection. Mark, our oldest Gospel, provides the first model for this in Mark 8:31, and then again in Mark 9:31-32 where Jesus says, “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.” Note that he says he will rise 3 days after being killed.

The Gospel of Matthew, although using Mark as a source, adds a bit to the story in Matthew 12:40, where Jesus, when asked by scribes and Pharisees for a sign of his authority, says “just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.” 

Later, in Matthew 16:21-28, Jesus says almost the same phrase as in Mark, although, in this case, it is “on the third day” rather than specifying the third day after his death. Matthew’s Jesus repeats his prediction in 17:20-22 while Luke 9:21-22 uses the same phrase.

The Gospel of John which often differs from the Synoptics, has Jesus predict his death more obliquely. For example, in John 3:14, Jesus tells his interlocutor Nicodemus “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” This is a reference to the episode in Numbers 21:1-9 in which God instructs Moses to make a bronze serpent and hold it up on a pole so that any Israelites who see it will not die from the poisonous bites of the snakes attacking them.

In John 12:23-24, Jesus uses another metaphorical reference to his death: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” Both of these sayings, though, focus mainly on the salvific aspect of his death and don’t explicitly predict his resurrection, although the phrase “produces much grain” may be a reference to his resurrection.

Due to all of these predictions, it would have been unthinkable for the Gospel writers — writing 4-7 decades after the events had occurred — to believe that the resurrection had not happened  in 3 days exactly as Jesus had predicted.

Having seen the origin of the notion of the three days in the Gospels, let’s look at how they describe the timeline from Jesus’ death to his resurrection.

What Day Did Jesus Die in the Gospel of Mark?

In order to count the days between Jesus’ death and his resurrection as told in the Gospels, we need to start by understanding a bit about the Jewish calendar. Jesus was, of course, a Jew living in Palestine, and three of the four Gospel authors were Jewish as well (Luke was probably a Gentile). This means they assumed their readers would understand the Jewish calendar.

This is a big topic, but I’ll just discuss the way days are measured here. Unlike the Gregorian calendar most people use now, the Jewish calendar measures a day from sunset to sunset. This is why the Sabbath in Judaism, which is Saturday, starts on Friday evening.

Although all four Gospels assume this day-counting method, there are slight differences between some of their accounts. For example, the Gospel of Mark, says that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover meal. Passover was the most important celebration for 1st-century Jews, since it commemorated God’s salvation of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.

For Mark, this took place on a Thursday evening. How do we know this? Because Mark 15:42 tells us that Jesus’ death and burial happened on the day before the Sabbath, which is always counted from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Not long after this meal on Thursday, Jesus is arrested, spends the night in jail, and is tried by Pilate in the morning. He is then crucified at 9:00 AM. Because Passover started the previous evening, he is crucified on the day of Passover. In other words, Jesus died on Good Friday.

Although the original ending of the Gospel of Mark does not include any appearances of the risen Jesus, it does speak of his empty tomb. Mark 16:1 says that women went to Jesus’ tomb to properly anoint his body “when the Sabbath was over,” specifically “very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen.”

For Jews, the Sabbath was over on Saturday at sundown, and the first day of the week was Sunday. That is, Jesus was resurrected sometime between Saturday night — the beginning of the first day of the week — and Sunday morning, when the women discovered the empty tomb. The timeline of these events in Mark would look like this:

Thursday night: Last Supper, Jesus is arrested.
Friday morning: Jesus is tried and crucified.
Friday afternoon: Jesus is buried.
Sunday morning: Jesus is resurrected.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which used Mark as a source, agree with Mark’s timeline. The Gospel of John, however, differs a bit.

What Day Did Jesus Die in John?

In the Gospel of John, the Passover begins on Friday at sundown, but Jesus’ Last Supper is on Thursday, the evening before. So, the Last Supper is not a Passover meal in John’s Gospel.

After it occurs, Jesus is arrested, spends the night in jail, and is tried by Pilate the following morning. His crucifixion occurs just after noon on the day before the Passover meal celebration. Additionally, this Passover coincides with the Sabbath, Saturday. This was very rare since the Sabbath occurs every Saturday, while Passover always occurs on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nisan and could, therefore, occur on any day of the week.  Finally, Mary Magdalene  finds Jesus’ empty tomb on Sunday morning.

John’s timeline, then, would look like this:

Thursday night: The Last Supper and Jesus is arrested.
Friday morning: Jesus is tried.
Friday at noon: Jesus is crucified.
Friday afternoon: Jesus is buried.
Sunday morning: Jesus is resurrected.

Note that despite the differences in chronology, both the Synoptic Gospels and John say that Jesus died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. But since all the Gospels say that he was resurrected “on the third day,” how are they counting? If Jesus died on Friday and rose on Sunday, how is that 3 days?

Scholarly Explanations of the Three Days

One scholar, Ben Witherington III, writes that, while modern people are obsessed with precision in time, privy as we are to precise timing instruments, ancient people didn’t have that luxury. Time was thus measured approximately in the ancient world, and that includes Jesus’ predictions of his resurrection in the Gospels.

Witherington thus argues that “the phrase ‘after three days’ in the New Testament can simply mean ‘after a while’ or ‘after a few days,’ without any clear specificity beyond suggesting several days.” While the lack of precision in ancient measurements of time is undeniable, it’s an open question whether the notion of three days would have been so carelessly tossed off.

A far more likely explanation, in my humble opinion, has to do with how things were counted in the ancient Mediterranean world. In the modern world, we use what is called exclusive counting, meaning that our starting point for counting is 0. By contrast, in his book The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, James Evans writes that ancient Rome and its surrounding cultures used inclusive counting; their starting point was 1. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Applied to the resurrection stories in the Gospels, this would mean that Friday, the day Jesus was executed and buried, was day 1. Day 2, then was Saturday, and day 3 was Sunday. This would mean that in ancient systems of counting, Jesus indeed rose “on the 3rd day.”

This is correct, even for the verses that say “after three days,” since, according to Bart Ehrman, any part of a day counted as a full day in ancient Judaism. While Witherington is no doubt correct about the imprecision of time measurement in the ancient world, the system of inclusive counting is the more likely reason Friday to Sunday would have been reckoned as 3 days.

Conclusion

To the modern mind, recounted facts are either 100% true or 100% false. If, therefore, Jesus said that he would be raised from the dead “on the 3rd day,” it either happened exactly 72 hours after he expired on the cross, or it didn’t. This has occasionally led modern interpreters, especially in religious contexts, to try to explain how Sunday could be the 3rd day if Jesus died on a Friday.

The very notion of the 3 days has its textual origins first in the letters of Paul, who confirms for his audience that Jesus was raised on the 3rd day as an important article of faith. We then see this written as a prediction from the mouth of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, although his predictions in John are a bit more circumspect.

Even though the Synoptics and John differ on chronology of the events of Jesus’ last week, they agree that he died and was buried on Friday and then raised on Sunday. By our count, that only seems like two days, with Friday being day zero.

In the ancient world, it’s quite likely that, without watches or cell phones, it was impossible for people to measure time with the exactitude we can now. Instead, perhaps “3 days” merely meant “a few days,” as Ben Witherington III says, and the actual number wasn’t as vitally important as it seems now.

In addition, people counted in the ancient world starting from 1 rather than 0. This means that Friday , the day of Jesus’ death, was actually day 1 for the Gospel writers. Saturday, the Sabbath, was day 2, making Sunday the all-important 3rd day when the empty tomb was found.

The “Minimal Witnesses” Naturalistic Hypothesis

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Unbelievers are retreating! Or so says resurrection expert, Dr Gary Habermas.

Toward the end of the recently-released, thousand-page first volume of his resurrection evidence tome, Habermas contends that there is a lack of scholars who are willing to embrace and defend a single naturalistic hypothesis to explain early belief in the resurrection of Jesus, “preferring a general ‘shotgun’ approach that basically presents several alternatives where the critic can switch back and forth between the options if one or two become problematic in the aftermath of the ensuing discussion.” [1] Few skeptical champions are standing up “apparently due to the strength of the contrary data.” [2]

But it may not behoove prominent academics to focus on promoting specific pet theories in lieu of prioritizing the broader, more foundational principles of their field. As Dr Ehrman notes, “any other scenario—no matter how unlikely—is more likely than the one in which a great miracle occurred.” [3]

That said, when I found my personal evangelical faith slipping away, a respected Christian mentor challenged me to answer one final question before closing the door. “The thing we know for certain is that Christianity exists,” he said. “Can you explain the existence of the church without a resurrection?”

Though it took years of investigation and study, it turns out I can.

Although the scholarly defense of each point could easily fill a full chapter in a book, the “Minimal Witnesses” hypothesis can be succinctly expressed as descriptions of twelve [4] relatively uncontroversial naturalistic events that, in turn, gave rise to the Jesus Movement, which eventually evolved into modern Christianity.

1. In the early first century, among the apocalyptic preachers active in Judea was one Jesus of Nazareth.

For the sake of this discussion, we’re assuming Jesus was a historical figure. [5]

The Dead Sea Scrolls, along with Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, and the wealth of apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Jubilees and Daniel, tell us that Jewish apocalypticism and apocalyptic preachers, such as John the Baptist, Judas of Galilee and Theudas, were not uncommon in first-century Judea.

For over a hundred years [6], scholarship has held that historical Jesus is best understood as an apocalyptic preacher. His earliest and most reliably attested sayings consistently align with apocalyptic themes [7], including the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom, the call to repentance, and the anticipation of an eschatological reversal in which the righteous are rewarded and the wicked are punished.

2. This Jesus said or did controversial things which led to his crucifixion on a cross, a common practice at the time.

While the infraction could have been anything, actions ascribed to Jesus – such as disturbing the peace in the Temple or challenging Roman authority by claiming to be the Messiah or “King of the Jews” – would have been sufficient to warrant the death penalty under Roman rule.

Medical research [8] and historical record [9] tell us death was all-but certain for crucifixion victims.

3. The resting place of Jesus’ body was unknown to his followers.

Apologists often focus on the timing of Jesus’ body’s removal, but the crucial question is who disposed of it.

If the Romans were responsible, the body would have been left on the cross, possibly to be eaten by animals, as this humiliation was considered part of the punishment. [10]

If a Judean religious exemption existed (despite explicit records to the contrary regarding Jesus’ case of treason [11]), the responsibility would have fallen to the family to successfully petition those in power. Mary, being of modest means and lacking influence, would have faced significant obstacles in securing the body and transporting it from Jerusalem to Nazareth for a simple pit grave. [12]

In the absence of family, the priesthood would have taken charge. However, Jewish law mandated that criminals be left in separate, designated Graveyards of the Condemned in a dishonorable and secretive manner. [13]

In the expected scenarios, the location of Jesus’ body remains unknown. For it to be otherwise would require the same authorities who condemned Jesus to honor him mere hours later—a notion nearly as implausible as a resurrection.

4. This Jesus had some followers while he was alive, but most disappeared into lives never recorded by reliable history, never to be heard from again… all except Simon Peter and possibly John.

Despite self-serving and often fanciful church traditions arising centuries later, only Peter and John of “The Twelve” are regularly mentioned in events after Jesus’ ascension [14]. In his comprehensive study [15], Sean McDowell acknowledges that Peter is the sole member of “The Twelve” for whom there is high confidence of martyrdom.

5. Distraught after the death of his mentor, Simon Peter became sincerely, albeit mistakenly, convinced that Jesus had appeared to him.

While potential causes are innumerable, a post-bereavement hallucinatory experience (PBHE), involving sensory perceptions of a deceased loved one, is a likely cause of Peter’s mistaken belief. Estimated to affect 30-60% of bereaved individuals during their grieving process [16], PBHEs can manifest through various sensory modalities, including visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory sensations, and may present as dreams, vivid memories, or hallucinations. PBHEs are common among grieving individuals, and do not necessarily indicate mental illness.

6. James the brother of Jesus became part of Peter’s Jesus Movement. Perhaps also one of the disciples named John.

In Galatians, Paul describes meeting James, Peter and John in Jerusalem, so we know they were all involved in the church. We don’t know what any of these men believed about resurrected Jesus, nor what their motivations might have been for joining the movement, since they left no first-hand accounts telling us. [17]

Assuming they came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, that could be explained by “social contagion”: a model of influence and persuasion. Peter’s claim of witnessing the risen Jesus gave the shocked and grieving group hope, which they readily accepted due to bias, predisposition, and the power of Jesus’ message. Peter’s influence, group dynamics, and cultural factors convinced them of the resurrection through faith… just like every Christian believer since.

Or maybe James just took over the family business. The possibilities are endless.

7. Stories about Jesus spread through person-to-person evangelism, with the focus on recruiting new followers rather than accurately transmitting historical events.

Details were embellished or invented to eliminate obstacles to belief, and the narratives most successful at winning converts were repeated. As the movement grew, Peter was not personally present to confirm or correct the adopted narratives.

The Jesus Movement grew for many decades before the first gospels were written, so scholars generally agree that it spread primarily through personal evangelism and word-of-mouth, rather than through written texts or formal institutions.

8. Paul (Saul), a Pharisee who had been persecuting the new Christians out of a sincere belief that he was serving God, experienced a non-veridical vision of the allegedly-resurrected Jesus.

Profoundly affected by this experience, Paul became a believer and began recruiting for Christianity and writing letters outlining his theology.

Per his own letters, Paul had multiple visionary experiences throughout his life [18], which significantly influenced his ministry and teachings. He was prone to them.

His persecution of Christians may well have caused him profound guilt and cognitive dissonance. This psychological distress, possibly resembling post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), could have triggered a psychotic break, manifesting as a vision of the resurrected Jesus. Paul’s subsequent conversion to Christianity may have served as a coping mechanism to resolve his inner turmoil, alleviate guilt, and find a new purpose in life.

9. Paul met Peter (and John), but they didn’t see eye-to-eye.

Paul went to Jerusalem to gain approval from Peter and the church for his Gentile mission, which allowed converts to forgo Jewish law. Despite apologists’ claims, Paul’s visit was not to learn about Jesus’ life or resurrection, as evidenced by his letters’ scant knowledge of Jesus’ ministry. When Paul states the apostles “added nothing” to his message [19], it suggests they provided no information beyond his divine revelations [20].

10. Several decades later, Greek-speaking individuals who had never met Jesus or Peter began documenting the circulating stories about Jesus, the sayings attributed to him, and their interpretations of these narratives.

The case against the traditional authorship of the gospels is strong, though too involved to argue here. (Fortunately, this blog’s founder has a course available.)

The case is nearly ironclad that the gospels are complex literary works shaped by various factors, rather than straightforward historical accounts. These include the recording of oral traditions about Jesus that circulated for decades (which may contain some historical truth), as well as motifs borrowed from familiar classical Greek literature [21]. The gospels also feature “intertextual” elements from the Old Testament to emphasize Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies [22], and polemical passages addressing arguments and objections to early Christian beliefs.

11. Occasionally, some early Christians engaged in disruptive behavior and faced consequences as a result.

However, early Christians generally lived relatively peacefully, rarely facing ideological persecution, although it did occur at times. They were accepting of others, kind to the poor and widows, and consequently grew in numbers.

Historical evidence suggests that the key figures in our hypothesis – Peter, Paul, and James – were likely killed in the 60s AD. If second-century historian Tacitus is correct, Emperor Nero blamed Christians for a devastating fire in Rome and executed Peter and Paul as scapegoats, whose recanting would not have saved them. The same is true for James the brother of Jesus, who was killed as part of a power-grab by a politically ambitious new high priest. [23]

Beyond these three, there is no reliable evidence that any other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ claimed resurrection faced martyrdom or significant danger for their beliefs. The deaths of later non-witnesses, while unfortunate, do not serve as a guarantee of veracity of resurrection claims.

12. Centuries later, in 303 AD, Christianity was temporarily outlawed in Rome, but it gained legal protection ten years later and soon became the Roman Empire’s first official religion, marking its transformation toward the institution we know today.

In short, to account for the established history of Christianity (and indeed, Gary Habermas’ “minimal facts”), we need only a single disciple to believe Jesus rose, a later convert who hallucinated the same, and a well-marketed legend to spread.

Supplemental embellishments like an empty tomb, group appearances, and suffering of other witnesses are not facts to be explained, but mere story artifacts of the legendary development described above.

The ball is in your court, Dr Habermas.

Jesus’ Resurrection: The Case for (And Against) the Resurrection

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

As a historian of early Christianity, I frequently encounter intriguing questions about Jesus and his life. Among them, two stand for the enduring curiosity and debate: “Did Jesus Exist?”, and more intriguingly, “Did Jesus’ resurrection happen?” If I had gotten a coin for each time a student asked me one of those two questions, I would be a rich man! 

This article delves into the complex and often controversial topic of Jesus’ resurrection - a cornerstone event in Christian history. Our exploration isn’t rooted in theological assumptions and perspectives but grounded in historical analysis. 

We aim to dissect the historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection, examining it through the lens of historical methodology and scholarly critique. This approach allows us to traverse the fine line between faith and historical evidence, providing academically rigorous and culturally significant insights.

We begin our exploration with a narrative overview, drawing from the canonical Gospels to reconstruct the story of Jesus’ death, the discovery of the empty tomb, his post-resurrection appearances, and eventual ascension. 

Following this, we’ll scrutinize the arguments often presented in support of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection by most Christian apologists. However, our journey doesn’t end there! We’ll critically analyze these arguments thus highlighting the methodological challenges and scholarly counterpoints that question the validity of such evidence. 

The historical significance of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus can’t be overstated. Beyond its theological implications, this belief was instrumental in shaping the early Christian movement and its subsequent growth into a world religion. Our discussion will shed light on this transformative power of belief as well!

Interested in delving deeper into the debate surrounding the resurrection of Jesus? Join us for an enlightening online discussion between renowned Biblical scholars Bart D. Ehrman and Mike Licona titled 'Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen?' Listen to the arguments from both sides and decide for yourself! 

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS: AN OVERVIEW OF JESUS’ BETRAYAL, ARREST, TRIAL, AND CRUCIFIXION

To understand the resurrection of Jesus, we need to begin with the last days he spent in Jerusalem with his disciples. The canonical Gospels, despite their varied perspectives and questionable historical reliability, agree on several basic features of Jesus’ last days.

This pivotal sequence begins with the betrayal by one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, setting in motion the events that would lead to Jesus' arrest and subsequent crucifixion. Judas' betrayal, often attributed to a complex mix of disillusionment and financial incentive, is a critical juncture in the narrative. 

The Gospels recount how Judas, in exchange for thirty pieces of silver, agreed to lead the authorities to Jesus. This act of betrayal is poignantly symbolized at the Last Supper, where Jesus, aware of Judas' impending betrayal, shares bread with him, an act loaded with cultural and symbolic significance.

The arrest of Jesus, following Judas' guidance, occurs in the Garden of Gethsemane, a place depicted as a quiet retreat for prayer and reflection. Here, the narrative tension heightens as Jesus, aware of his impending fate, is portrayed as accepting it with a mix of solemnity and resolve.

Following the arrest, Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, where he faces various accusations. The Gospels present this trial as fraught with legal irregularities, reflecting a broader theme of injustice and the fulfillment of a divine plan. 

Despite the lack of consensus among his accusers and the seemingly reluctant Roman authority in the form of Pontius Pilate, Jesus is ultimately condemned to crucifixion, a common Roman method of execution. 

>> Related: See our article, "Where Was Jesus Crucified? (And Can You Still Visit the Location)" to view images of the traditional path Jesus walked with the cross to Golgotha (Via Dolorosa) and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Golgotha), the traditional location of Jesus' crucifixion.

The Crucifixion itself, as described in the Gospels, is a culmination of suffering and symbolic significance. Jesus is portrayed as enduring mockery, physical abuse, and the burden of carrying his cross to Golgotha, the place of his execution. To the surprise of many, scholars are still not sure about the day, month, and year of Jesus’ death!

Daniel Marguerat notes the historical importance of Jesus’ death: “The death of Jesus gave rise to two powerful currents within Western civilization: one is Christianity, the other is anti-Semitism. Without the cross of Golgotha, the Jesus movement would not have developed into an autonomous religion. And anti-Semitism, even if it’s not a Christian invention, would never have been so virulent without the accusation against the Jews of having “killed the Lord.”

TIMELINE OF EVENTS AROUND THE RESURRECTION

Here we have provided an approximate timeline of the events leading up to the resurrection according to the Gospels, including Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion.  

It should be noted that some historians debate the historical accuracy of some of these events, especially the timeline around Jesus' death (See our article, "What day did Jesus die?") and Jesus' burial in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb.

We have also offered the Bible verses that support each event in the timeline.

JESUS’ RESURRECTION Summary: FROM THE EMPTY TOMB TO THE ASCENSION

Continuing from the narration of Jesus' death, we now turn to the subsequent events as described in the Canonical Gospels, focusing on the discovery of the empty tomb, the appearance of the risen Jesus, and his ascension to heaven. These narratives are central to the Christian faith, encapsulating the essence of "the resurrection of Jesus”.

The discovery of the empty tomb, typically attributed to Mary Magdalene and other women followers of Jesus, marks the beginning of the resurrection story. 

The Bible verses about the resurrection of Jesus vividly describe the early morning visit to the tomb, the encounter with an angelic being, and the initial disbelief and astonishment upon finding the tomb empty. As the author of John’s Gospel describes: “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance (John 20:1).”

Among the various sites proposed for the location of Jesus’ tomb, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem stands out as the most significant. This revered site, venerated since the 4th century and the emperor Constantine, has been a focal point of Christian pilgrimage. 

What day did Jesus rise? According to the New Testament accounts Jesus rose on the third day after his crucifixion - a day that early Christians identified with the Sunday. This day is celebrated in Christianity as Easter Sunday, marking Jesus' resurrection.

The Gospels narrate various appearances of Jesus to his disciples thus reinforcing the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. These appearances, ranging from the intimate encounter with Mary Magdalene to the more public revelations to the disciples, serve multiple purposes: 

Each Gospel provides its unique depiction of these appearances, contributing to a multifaceted understanding of the resurrection event. These accounts have been scrutinized and interpreted by numerous scholars and we’ll take a look at some of these issues later. 

The narrative of Jesus' resurrection concludes with his ascension to heaven, an event detailed in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. This moment is portrayed as the final physical departure of Jesus from Earth, occurring forty days after his resurrection.

The description of the ascension presents a dramatic and powerful image of Jesus being taken up into the clouds, leaving his disciples with a final blessing and a promise of the Holy Spirit. 

EVIDENCE FOR (AND AGAINST) THE RESURRECTION

Continuing from our exploration of the accounts of the empty tomb, appearances of the risen Jesus, and his ascension, we now venture into a more investigative terrain. 

While Jesus’ resurrection forms the bedrock of the Christian religion, a pivotal question arises: Is there any evidence of Jesus’ resurrection? Did it happen? Is it possible to affirm through historical analysis that Jesus conquered death? 

This question opens up a complex and fascinating field of inquiry. Certain Christian apologists assert the affirmative, citing what they consider to be compelling historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

As we transition to this next phase of our exploration, we will delve into the common arguments and evidence presented by proponents of the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Jesus’ Resurrection Happened! Evidence Used by Christian Apologists

Jesus Died on the Cross

In the quest to establish the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, a fundamental premise presented by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona in their book "The Case for the Resurrection" is the assertion of Jesus' death on the cross.

This argument forms the starting point of what they term the “Minimal Facts Approach.” Habermas and Licona argue that the crucifixion of Jesus isn’t merely a theological assertion but a historical event backed by substantial evidence.

This position is also explored by Lee Strobel, who delves into the medical and forensic aspects of crucifixion. Strobel's consultation with forensic pathologist Dr. Alexander Metherell sheds light on the brutal nature of crucifixion, a method of execution that was both excruciatingly painful and demonstrably lethal.

Women as the Witnesses of the Empty Tomb

In the discourse surrounding Jesus' resurrection, a notable point raised by some Christian apologists, including scholars like N. T. Wright and William Lane Craig, is the identification of women as the primary witnesses of the empty tomb. 

This aspect is consistently echoed across all four Gospels, with figures such as Mary Magdalene emerging as the first to discover the empty tomb. The use of women as central witnesses in these narratives is an interesting element, especially considering the cultural context of the time.

In the patriarchal society of the ancient world, where women’s testimonies were often viewed with skepticism and their social status was comparatively marginalized, the Gospels’ portrayal of women as the initial discoverers of the empty tomb stands out. Wright notes: “Women were simply not acceptable as legal witnesses.”

Apologists argue that the early Christians would be unlikely to invent a story with women as key witnesses if they aimed to construct a narrative that would be readily accepted and authoritative, given the societal norms of that era.

Post-Death Appearances of Jesus

A cornerstone argument often advanced by most Christian apologists revolves around the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples. Habermas and Licona, in their examination of the resurrection, assert, "There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus' resurrection that, after Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead."

Central to this argument are the accounts documented in the earliest Christian sources, notably in the writings of the Apostle Paul. In 1 Cor 15:3-8, Paul relates a tradition that he received, believed to have originated from Jesus' closest disciples and dating back to the early years of the Jesus movement. 

This passage is crucial as it lists a series of appearances of the risen Jesus, not just to Paul himself, but to all the apostles and more than five hundred other witnesses. The inclusion of a large number of witnesses, and the emphasis on the tradition being received from those who were close to Jesus, is presented as lending credence to the claim.

The argument posits that the belief in these appearances wasn’t a later development but was a foundational belief held from the earliest days of the Christian community. This point is often highlighted by apologists to argue for the historical reliability of Jesus’ resurrection. 

List of Post-Resurrection Appearances (Every Appearance with Location, Timing, and Supporting Bible Verses)

Below is a timeline of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus according to the New Testament accounts. The timeline attempts to follow the sequence of events as they are presented in the Gospels and other New Testament writings, culminating with Jesus' ascension.

We've also included the angels' appearance to the women who found the empty tomb since they were the first ones to learn about Jesus' resurrection, even if they did not technically experience a post-resurrection appearance.

The Endurance of the Disciple’s Faith Amid Persecution

Among the array of arguments presented by Christian apologists to substantiate the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, the unwavering faith of Jesus' disciples, even in the face of severe persecution and martyrdom, stands out.

Sean McDowell emphasizes this aspect, stating, “The strength of their conviction, marked by their willingness to die, indicates that they did not fabricate these claims; rather, without exception, they believed Jesus to have risen from the dead."

The crux of this argument lies in the assumption that the disciples, who were direct witnesses to the events surrounding Jesus' life and post-resurrection appearances, would not willingly subject themselves to torture and martyrdom for a cause they knew to be false.

While these arguments presented by different Christian apologists offer interesting perspectives on the resurrection of Jesus, it’s essential to approach them with a critical and scholarly lens. In the following section, we’ll delve into a rigorous examination of these claims. Let’s begin! 

The Historical Evidence of Jesus’ Resurrection: A Scholarly Critique

In the realm of historical scholarship, the question of "Did Jesus' resurrection happen?" poses a unique challenge, particularly when considered from the perspective of methodological limitations concerning miraculous claims. 

If Jesus' resurrection occurred as a miraculous act of God, it stands beyond the scope of what historical evidence can demonstrate. Historians, limited by the empirical nature of their discipline, can’t conclusively access or evaluate divine intervention or miracles.

For instance, while historical analysis can describe events like the ancient Israelites' assault on Jericho or Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans, it can’t assert divine causality, such as God's role in bringing down Jericho's walls or the theological interpretation of Jesus' death as atonement for sins.

This methodological boundary is eloquently outlined by scholars such as John P. Meier, who notes, "It's inherently impossible for historians working with empirical evidence within the confines of their discipline ever to make a positive judgment: 'God has directly acted here to accomplish something beyond all human power.'" 

Bart D. Ehrman concurs, highlighting the insurmountable challenge in demonstrating miracles historically: "Even if miracles are possible, there is no way for the historian who sticks strictly to the canons of historical evidence to show that they have ever happened."

These perspectives underscore the essential distinction between theological assertions and historical analysis. This distinction becomes even more pronounced when considering the possibility of validating miracle claims from other religious traditions with stronger historical attestations, like those of Baal Shem Tov. 

To paraphrase Dale Allison's remark, once the nose of the camel of miracle is inside the tent of a historical analysis, who knows what else may enter?

In summary, while the evidence of Jesus' resurrection may be a subject of theological belief, its validation as a historical event, especially as a miraculous occurrence, remains outside the purview of historical methodology. This acknowledgment is crucial in understanding the limitations and scope of historical analysis regarding events attributed to divine intervention.

Having established the inherent limitations of historical analysis in matters of divine intervention, we now turn our attention to detailed scrutiny of the specific historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection. 

Examining the Historical Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

Jesus’ Death on the Cross

In the debate surrounding the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, the argument that Jesus' death by crucifixion substantiates his subsequent resurrection always struck me as somewhat peculiar. While Christian apologists, such as Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, assert the crucifixion as one of the facts in their "Minimal Facts Approach," one can't help but wonder about the logical leap from death to resurrection. 

The fact that Jesus died is indeed just that - a fact. Death, as they say, is as certain as taxes, and no one is suggesting that the latter is miraculous. 

The emphasis on Jesus' death, while historically significant, doesn't inherently lead to the conclusion of his resurrection. It's a bit like saying, "I've proven my car was parked in the driveway, therefore, it must have driven itself to the store." The linkage between the two events - death and resurrection - in historical terms, seems to be a non sequitur.

One might speculate that the inclusion of Jesus' crucifixion in the resurrection argument is an attempt by apologists to create an impression of an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the resurrection. A laundry list of 'facts' can be persuasive, but upon closer examination, some of these 'facts' appear to be more about setting the stage than delivering a compelling argument.

Women and the Empty Tomb: A Historical Analysis

In addressing the argument that women being the first witnesses to Jesus' empty tomb substantiates the resurrection, it's crucial to consider some important scholarly perspectives and inconsistencies in the Gospel narratives.

Firstly, the earliest reference to Jesus' resurrection, found in 1 Cor 15:3-8, notably omits any mention of women as witnesses to the post-resurrection appearances. This absence is intriguing, given the later Gospel accounts which prominently feature women, especially Mary Magdalene, in this role. 

The discrepancy raises questions about the evolution of the resurrection narrative in the early Christian community and suggests a potential development in storytelling over time! 

Furthermore, the historical authenticity of the empty tomb itself is subject to debate among scholars. John D. Crossan and Bart D. Ehrman have argued against the likelihood of Jesus receiving a proper burial, based on what is known about Roman practices at the time. 

Romans typically left crucified individuals on the cross for extended periods as a form of humiliation and as a warning to others. This practice contradicts the Gospel narratives that describe a more respectful and immediate burial. Ehrman points out the absence of evidence for Roman officials granting such burials, especially for those executed for crimes against the Roman state. 

While I’m not completely convinced by Ehrman's and Crossan's arguments against the traditional story of Jesus' burial, the depth and seriousness of their scholarship merit close consideration in any thorough examination of the historical events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If you want to read more about Dr. Ehrman’s arguments against Jesus’ burial, check out this article. For a more affirmative approach check out an interview with Dr. Craig A. Evans here. 

Moreover, a close, comparative reading of the Gospel accounts reveals significant differences and contradictions in their descriptions of the events following Jesus' crucifixion. These inconsistencies concern who visited the tomb, the state of the stone covering the tomb, instructions given to the women, the women's subsequent actions, and where the disciples encountered the resurrected Jesus.

Such discrepancies challenge the coherence of the resurrection narrative and suggest elements of legendary embellishments within the story. Let’s take a look at some of these discrepancies. 

Who went to the tomb of Jesus?

Was the stone rolled away?

What did the women do?

Where did the disciples see Jesus?

The Rapid Emergence of the Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection?

Apologists such as William L. Craig often assert that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection emerged too promptly to be dismissed as a mere legend or myth. They argue that myths typically require several generations to evolve and become integrated into a community’s belief system. To substantiate their claims, apologists often quote A. N. Shewin-White. 

In his book Roman Society and the Roman Law in the New Testament, he noted that “even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the tradition.”

However, in the case of Jesus’ resurrection, evidence suggests that the belief was already prevalent within a few years of his death. This is notably indicated in the tradition that the Apostle Paul reports in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 which dates back to the earliest years of the Jesus movement. 

What do we make out of this argument? First, and foremost, it’s important to consider the broader historical context of myth and legend formation. The claim, often presented by apologists, rests on the assumption that several generations must pass before mythical elements can significantly influence historical narratives.

However, this assumption doesn’t necessarily hold across historical and cultural contexts. 

Sherwin-White, the classical historian, did argue that several generations are needed before the mythical tendency overtakes the core historical facts, but this doesn’t imply that myth-making processes can’t begin shortly after an event.

Historical precedents demonstrate that legends and mythical attributes can indeed start forming and circulating soon after an individual's life or certain events. For example:

These examples illustrate that myths and legends don’t necessarily wait for the passage of generations. They can begin to form and spread within years, or even months, of an event or an individual's lifetime. As E. Renan astutely observed, "The greatest of errors is to suppose that legendary lore requires much time to mature; sometimes a legend is the product of a single day."

This perspective challenges the notion that the early formation of beliefs about Jesus' resurrection automatically lends them historical credibility. Instead, it suggests that these beliefs, like many others in history, could have been subject to the rapid development of legendary elements in the immediate aftermath of the events they describe.

Visions of the Resurrected Jesus: What Can Historians Know?

In examining the argument regarding the post-death appearances of Jesus, a significant aspect to consider is the nature of these appearances as described by the earliest followers. The assertion that Jesus appeared to his followers post-mortem plays a pivotal role in Christian apologetics. 

However, from a historical perspective, this claim invites analysis through the lens of scholarship on visions and visionary experiences, a field that has seen considerable research over the past few decades.

Psychological studies have revealed that people can and do experience a range of visions, from sightings of deceased loved ones to encounters with religious figures and supernatural beings like angels. These experiences are often categorized into two types: veridical visions and hallucinations. 

Veridical visions refer to the perception of phenomena that are actually present, a claim often made by Christians regarding Paul's vision of Jesus. On the other hand, hallucinations involve visions of phenomena that are not physically present. 

To counter the claim that early followers of Jesus had hallucinations, William L. Craig notes: “It’s psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs, but in the disciples’ case, the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting.” 

However, it's crucial to note, as Ralph W. Hood, Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka assert in their textbook "Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach," that “there is a massive literature indicating that hallucinations are not simply characteristic of organic deficiencies.” 

This suggests that experiencing hallucinations doesn’t necessarily imply a pathological state and can occur under various conditions. 

The historical analysis of Paul's vision of the resurrected Jesus and other similar experiences reported by Jesus' followers thus enters a complex territory. Non-Christians might interpret these experiences as hallucinations, potentially triggered by a range of psychological or situational factors. 

The most plausible historical explanation could be that several of Jesus' followers experienced some form of vision following his death.

The absence of corroborating evidence, particularly regarding the claim that 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, as mentioned solely in 1 Cor 15, further complicates the narrative. It’s conceivable that these visions were interpreted and shared among early Christians, contributing to the spread of a new religious movement. 

Martyrdom and Belief: The Faith in Jesus’ Resurrection

Another argument, often put forth by Christian apologists, posits that the disciples' steadfast faith, even unto death, indicates they didn’t fabricate their claims of Jesus' resurrection. However, a critical examination reveals limitations in this line of reasoning.

Firstly, the historical record of the ultimate fate of many of Jesus' disciples is far from clear. Beyond the New Testament accounts, much of what is known about figures like Thomas or Matthew is derived from later legends and hagiographical narratives.

These stories, such as Thomas' journey to India, lack the historical veracity needed to draw firm conclusions. As such, they are generally not regarded as reliable sources by critical historians. Moreover, the story of Peter’s martyrdom is a mixed bag of legends and traditions without any early authentic sources to confirm it. 

Furthermore, while it’s true that some early Christian figures, such as Paul and James (the brother of Jesus), are believed to have died as martyrs, their martyrdom doesn’t necessarily validate the historical accuracy of the resurrection. 

Their willingness to die for their beliefs could have been based on personal convictions rooted in visionary experiences or profound spiritual encounters. History provides numerous examples of individuals and groups who have demonstrated similar levels of commitment to their religious beliefs, often at the cost of their lives.

For instance, followers of radical interpretations of Islam have been known to undertake acts of martyrdom, convinced of the divine mandate for their sacrifice. This willingness to face death for one's beliefs, while indicative of deep conviction, doesn’t serve as conclusive proof of the objective truth of those beliefs.

The Historical Significance of Jesus’ Resurrection

Had the narrative of Jesus’ life concluded with his death, Christianity might have remained a mere footnote within Second Temple Judaism - known only to a handful of scholars. Have you heard about Judas the Galilean? You probably haven’t! 

However, it was the burgeoning belief in Jesus’ resurrection that ignited the transformation of a small Jewish sect into a distinct and expansive religion - a religion with a missionary impulse that was, as Martin Goodman has shown, without a precedent.

This pivotal belief in the resurrection catalyzed the birth of Christianity, marking a defining moment in its history. Bart D. Ehrman eloquently explores the significance of this belief in his insightful book “How Jesus Became God” - it’s a must-read!

Finally, the debate over the historical evidence of Jesus' resurrection has seen an influx of new perspectives, thanks to advancements in archaeological methods, interdisciplinary approaches, and the discovery of new ancient texts.

Jesus’ Resurrection: Summing Up Conclusions

Being a historian of early Christianity, I frequently encounter the question – not just from curious students but also from friends and family – about whether historians can prove Jesus’ resurrection. 

Each time, I find myself explaining that they may be expecting too much from the discipline of history. Usually, my answer leaves them a tad disappointed; most hope for a clear-cut affirmation.

However, as I've endeavored to illustrate in this article, the reality is far from straightforward. From a historical perspective, it's beyond our capability to assert that a miracle, by its very nature, occurred. Miracles, transcending empirical evidence and scientific scrutiny, lie outside the historian's purview.

Furthermore, upon a closer examination, the common arguments put forth by various apologists, aiming to historically substantiate Jesus' resurrection, reveal significant gaps. 

As historians, we are left with a conclusion that, while simple, often doesn’t satisfy: Some of Jesus' earliest followers including Paul experienced something profound that convinced them he had conquered death. What exactly did they see? Was it a veridical vision or perhaps a simple hallucination? 

The answer remains elusive. And it's important to acknowledge that anyone claiming certainty on this matter, purely based on historical analysis, needs to be more truthful.

Finally, the story of the resurrection of Jesus, irrespective of its historical veracity, undeniably played a central role in the shaping of Western civilization and continues to be a subject of deep significance and enduring debate. A debate you are all welcome to join!

Physical vs Spiritual Resurrection: What the New Testament Teaches Christians to Believe

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

the New Testament & Jesus’ resurrection body 

What is a spiritual resurrection according to Paul?

What Spiritual Meant in Antiquity

Are these the only ways the Christian church understood Jesus’ resurrection?

Gnosticism & the Spiritual Resurrection 

Are there only two ways to interpret Jesus’ resurrection?

how does the Resurrection Story Change in the Gospels?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The story of Jesus’ resurrection is over two hundred decades old. Millions of people have heard, been inspired, or intrigued by this Biblical tale—or rather, tales. Christians have long since celebrated Jesus overcoming the finality of death as the greatest story ever told. 

But did you know that the story of Jesus’ resurrection is told in multiple ways? In this article we will explore the story of Jesus’ resurrection as told by the four Gospel writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and how their stories are similar, different, and why.

How many gospels mention the resurrection?

You don’t have to be equipped with a theological degree to know the answers about Jesus’ resurrection, but let’s say you find yourself in a Christian sanctuary on Easter morning and the preacher calls on you to give the biblical details of Jesus’ resurrection. Would you know where to look?

Fear not substitute preacher! Jesus’ resurrection appears in all four of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—only it is not the same exact story.

On what essential points about the resurrection do all the gospels agree?

Anyone giving critical thought and attention to the gospel accounts of the resurrection side-by-side should be able to spot the similarities between the accounts.

The core of the resurrection story is generally the same. If you combined all the core details together, the Easter story would go something like this:

Universal agreement about Christian foundational beliefs are few and far between, but both fundamental and progressive scholars alike have little doubt that Matthew and Luke borrowed from the Gospel of Mark which accounts for many of the similarities in the first three gospels, although Matthew and Luke’s resurrection accounts are much longer and add new details to their narratives.  

While the Gospel of John contains a lot of stories not found in the Synoptics, its resurrection narrative sticks more or less to the core narrative - that the tomb was found empty, that he appeared to his disciples, and so on. There are some notable differences in the gospel accounts, however.

On what points about the resurrection do the gospels Disagree?

What varies in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways are the secondary details. Here is a summary of some of the resurrection differences and contradictions to be mindful of in a side-by-side comparison of each Gospel’s account of Jesus’ resurrection and its immediate aftermath:

Matthew 28:

First to the tomb: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”

Secondary Details Unique to Matthew’s Gospel: 

• A violent earthquake
• An *angel of the Lord rolled back the stone
• Frightened guards who became like dead men
• Jesus intercepts the women on their way to tell the other disciples
• The women clasp Jesus’ feet and worship him
• The chief priests plot a conspiracy about the disciples stealing Jesus’s body
• The commissioning of the disciples on a mountain of Jesus’ choice occurs

Mark 16:1-8:

First to the tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Salome

Secondary Details Unique to Mark’s Gospel:

• The women fled from the tomb and said nothing to anyone - a curiously abrupt ending to Mark’s gospel

Luke 24:

First to the tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, “other women,” Peter

Secondary Details Unique to Luke’s Gospel:

• Two angels greet the women in the tomb
• The risen Jesus appears to two followers on the road to Emmaus and disappears in the breaking of the bread with them
• Jesus appears to his disciples and invites them to “touch and see” that he is not a ghost, eating a piece of broiled fish with them

John 20:

First to the tomb: Mary Magdalene, Simon Peter, the disciple Jesus loved

Secondary Details Unique to John’s Gospel:

• There’s an accusation of grave robbery
• Two disciples race to the tomb
• Jesus’ linens are discussed at length 
• Mary weeps and sees two angels
• Jesus appears to Mary and she thinks he is the gardener 
• Jesus refuses to be touched or held onto
• Jesus appears to his disciples while they hid behind locked doors, breathing on them the Holy Spirit
• Jesus invites Thomas to put his finger in the mark of the nails and his pierced side

*The number of angels varies between the resurrection stories. Matthew and Mark name one angel at the scene, Luke and John name two angels.

Why do the Gospels differ on the resurrection?

As for the additions and subtractions to Mark’s storytelling, why is there an expanding and contracting on the core details? Perhaps Mark’s cliffhanger in chapter sixteen made for great theater for him but left the other writers wanting a few more stones unturned. 

The reasons for the differences, however, likely go much deeper than creative license. By the time the other Gospels were being written, Christian doctrine formation was in its infancy as questions about Jesus’ resurrection ran rampant. The early church wondered about what seeing Jesus alive meant about his life, his death, and how his followers ought to think and act on Jesus’ teaching. The Gospel writers perpetuate the answers to these questions about Jesus in their resurrection accounts of him, leading readers to wonder not only about the nature of the resurrection, but the nature of Jesus himself—a question Bart expertly answers in his book How Jesus Became God. 

Whatever the case, Matthew and Luke communicate all sorts of secondary details that are just not there in Mark’s storytelling. And then there’s the resurrection story according to John’s gospel—a narrative loaded with core and secondary details that none of the other Gospel writers mention. Was Mark trying to be coy or did the other writers get access to some “Q” source information or did they hear other stories that Mark didn’t? Were not all Gospel writers privy to the same divine inspiration and oral tradition? If Mark got the story right, there would be no need to make any modifications—but this is most certainly not the case. 

The differences abound, leading readers down one rabbit hole after another in search of the truth about Jesus. Stick with the quest long enough and the details about what happened become secondary to the core question of who wrote these ancient narratives to begin with. Who were these Gospel writers, anyway?

Were the Gospel writers eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection?

The root cause for the differences is likely due to the fact that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. They were Greek authors writing about stories they heard passed onto them in the longest game of “telephone” ever played. And whoever told these stories about Jesus did so after the resurrection sightings—whether spiritual visions or physical encounters—and were not written down until at least four decades had passed since Jesus was crucified. That is a lot of time between actual events taking place and the recording of them! 

Even in this day and age of technological superiority and journalistic integrity, I would suspect a good deal of information would get missed or misconstrued if someone set out to write a detailed account of something that happened forty to seventy years prior, especially without having been an eyewitness personally. The time between Mark’s gospel and the others also increases the likelihood that the authors of the more recent Gospels utilized different sources to create their accounts of Jesus. I can’t even gather the exact story details gleaned from my children from a one-hour time span! The odds that each author would therefore hear and conclude the exact same things over decades of storytelling about Jesus are slim to none. 

When you combine all these probabilities with the theory that each author wrote to address the needs of different audiences as scholars like Bart Ehrman advise, then it is easier to understand why so many secondary details conflict between the resurrection narratives. The important thing is to recognize they’re different and to accept the variety with curiosity instead of fear or denial as Dr. Craig Keener describes. 

Conclusion

From investigative journalists like Lee Strobel making a compelling case for the benefits of these differences to this skeptical blogger’s equally compelling argument against them, the truth of the resurrection of Jesus continues to evolve. For the serious seeker, no one is better than Bart to guide you into the deepest depths of resurrection research. His books Jesus, Interrupted, The Gospels Before Jesus, and How Jesus Became God are equipped to inspire, stretch, and inform the most inquisitive minds on the subject, as well as many of his other books and articles.