Surely the Bible’s accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are unscientific and inconsistent?

Can science “disprove” the resurrection?

“Science” is the human description of the regularities we normally find in nature. If we did not find some kind of regularities in the sequences in nature then life would be impossible. In science we systematize a study of these regular sequences, calling them “causes” and “effects”.

Our success in finding regular sequences in nature is undoubted, but this does not prove that there cannot be exceptions. The Bible does not say that people often rise from the dead – if it did then we could test this scientifically. What it says is that, as a unique event in history, God raised Jesus in a special way. Science therefore cannot “disprove” this.

The real questions are (i) does it make overall sense as part of a world view? (ii) are the accounts consistent and trustworthy?

The Background

Any detective knows that four honest and genuine eyewitness accounts of any lengthy event will all differ. People can be in different places and so see different bits of an overall pattern. Different people can record different bits - noticing different details or skipping for dramatic effect over boring or irrelevant bits. Here’s a map of where it all took place:

The gospels, of course, do not carry author’s names, but there is good evidence to assume that:

· Matthew reflects some input from the disciple Matthew.

· Mark reflects some of Peter’s preaching and viewpoint.

· Luke contains a more general account, having spoken eg to Jesus’ mother, Peter etc.

· John reflects input from the disciple John Zebedee, Jesus’ cousin. The breathless words of Mary Magdalene (as we shall see) changed his life, and he “zooms in” on her story.

Reconstruction

No one can be certain of all the details of any past event, but here is how it could have happened if all the four accounts are accurate from the viewpoint of their respective sources.

After Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane, most of the disciples (apart from Peter and John) ran in the opposite direction from Jerusalem. The obvious place to go was Bethany which is about a mile and a half the other way, and we know Jesus had friends there. There they stayed during Jesus’ trials and crucifixion.

John was well known in Jerusalem (John 18:16) and probably had a place owned or rented there, although working in Galilee in the North.. After the crucifixion, John seems to have taken Jesus’ mother Mary straight back to this home in Jerusalem (John 19:27). Peter, after his well known three denials of Jesus, also went back to John’s home - where he is found in John 20:3. Other women who watched the burial (Luke 23:55) also probably went back to John’s home. These included Salome (the sister of Jesus’ mother, also probably the mother of James and John) and the ‘other Mary’ who was married to Cleopas (or Clopas - probably Jesus’ uncle). Mary Magdalene would also naturally have stayed with them, but Joanna (as wife of Herod’s Steward Chuza) went to the nearby palace.

[1] Mary the wife of Cleopas and Salome both had sons amongst the disciples at Bethany, and Mary Magdalene may also have had relatives there, so they would have wanted to exchange news. Thus around sunset the next day (so that the trip could be done without breaking the Jewish Sabbath restrictions on travel distance) these two Mary’s (maybe with Cleopas) walked to Bethany. They stayed there overnight.

[2] Early next morning, Matthew 28:1 (reflecting Matthew who was at Bethany) records how the two Mary’s set out ‘towards dawn’. John, focussing in on the story of Mary Magdalene, says:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb (John 20:1)

He cannot really have intended us to picture a woman going in the dark alone, and, as we shall see, knew perfectly well she was not – but he presents her story dramatically in this way.

[3] They went back to John’s house in Jerusalem, where they were joined by Salome and (according to Mark 16:1 which reflects Peter’s view) they went on to the tomb ‘as the sun was risen’. Luke, with his more global picture, implies that they were joined en route by Joanna who, as already noted, would have been staying at the nearby palace.

Meanwhile, Matthew implies, the guards at the tomb understandably fainted at sight of a shining angel, who rolled back the stone. Matthew dramatically “telescopes” his account, immediately referring to what the angel said to the women. But this is for dramatic effect, and in the wider picture the guards obviously recovered and ran off before the group of women arrived.

No one saw the actual resurrection. That’s amazing. Had anyone been going to make up a resurrection story surely Jesus would have come striding out to be seen by Peter and other men?

[4] Luke, with his more global picture, implies that the thee women were joined en route by Joanna who, as already noted, would have been staying at the nearby palace.

[5] When the women did arrive at the edge of the garden, Mark makes it clear that they were some way off when they saw that the stone ‘which was very large’ (Mark 16:4) had been rolled back. When they saw this, what did they conclude? John 20:2-3 tells us that Mary Magdalene concluded the body had been taken, and at that point ran back.:

Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

Note how the different accounts, as we would expect if based on real events, give features which make overall sense only when we put them together. It is John who tells us that just from seeing the stone Mary Magdalene jumped to her conclusion, and it is Mark who tells us that they saw it some way off ‘because it was very large’. Together this explains why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels at this point. By this time (as Mark and Luke say) the angels were inside the tomb, and Mary jumped to her conclusion and ran back before actually reaching the tomb or looking inside it.

Secondly, note that John (unlike the other Gospels) has mentioned only Mary Magdalene. But note what she says after running back to his house: ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE do not know where they have laid him.’(John 20:2). This contrasts with John 20:13 where she has by then lost contact with the other women and so says ‘I do not know where they have laid him.’ John 20:2 recorded the plural ‘we’ because that is actually what she said - and it was seared on John’s memory because it dramatically changed his life. But it really ‘makes sense’ only in the light of the other accounts. This is just what we might expect if they are all partial but true accounts reflecting genuine events.

[6] Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene delivered her message to Peter and John who rushed to the tomb.

Meanwhile, The other women went on (recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke) to have a conversation with two angels who were by now inside the tomb. Angels, of course, have wings only in Christmas cards and stained glass windows - in the Bible they simply look like men. Luke refers to them as ‘men’ (24:4), but later as ‘a vision of angels’ (24:13). There is no contradiction. Likewise Matthew and Mark mention only one angel, whilst Luke mentions two. Perhaps only one spoke, and Matthew and Mark don’t think it necessary to mention his companion.

[7] Peter and John, missing the other women in the maze of Jerusalem streets, arrived at the tomb and found it empty but saw no angels.

The other women made their way back to John’s house, missing Mary Magdalene who slowly followed Peter and John back to the tomb.

[8] Peter and John walked back, puzzled, to John’s house, again missing Mary Magdalene who was returning to the tomb.

[9] Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb, having lost contact both with the other women and with Peter and John. John’s gospel records her first seeing two men in the tomb – not recognising them as angels at the time. Asked why she was crying she replied: John 20:13

“They have taken my Lord away and I don't know where they have put him."

Note earlier she had said “we” to John, but here has lost contact with the others so says “I” because for all she knows the others have now found the body.

The other women returned to John’s house where they waited for Peter and John to get back, and then told their story about the angels. Amongst the hearers were Cleopas and his friend, who later set off to Emmaus.

[10] The women had been given by the angels a message for ‘the disciples’. Having given the message to Peter and John back at John’s house, they were running towards Bethany to tell the rest of the disciples when Jesus himself met them (Matthew 28:9). Matthew’s gospel records the meeting with Jesus immediately after the meeting with the angels - just as Matthew himself heard it recounted at Bethany. We can imagine the breathless jumble with which Matthew heard it:

“We have been to the tomb…”

“It was empty – but we saw an angel…’

“And then we saw Jesus himself…”

Meantime, Mary Magdalene she saw Jesus himself – still not recognising him at first through her tears.

Again at the same time, Jesus’ uncle Cleopas and his friend were walking on the road to Emmaus and Luke 24:22-25 records what they said to the unrecognised man who joined them:

“some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

In this present reconstruction this is exactly right. They know about the women claiming to have seen angels (but not Jesus), and Peter and John going to the tomb and finding it empty – but have not yet heard the story of anyone who actually saw Jesus, Neither Jesus uncle nor his friend recognise him – they are not expecting to meet a man they saw crucified alive, in spite of the women’s claims about visions of angels. Finally, of course, Jesus may have let his headcover fall back as he gave thanks for the meal, and they recognised him.

[11] So everyone rushed back to John’s house in Jerusalem.

Luke 24:33-36 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread. While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

Only Thomas was missing (John 20:19-24).

Where, then, are all the supposed contradictions? If the accounts fitted any easier together, or if they all included exactly the same details, then we might suspect collusion. As it is, they do indeed look like accounts with input from different eyewitness sources. The various explanations offered by sceptics are not believable. Hallucination is unlikely to have affected so many different types who were not expecting a resurrection, and in hallucination people do not usually fail to recognise the person seen. A fraud seems unlikely as they were advocating a high moral system and most of them were martyred for it. A mistake is even less likely, as many of the figures involved were relatives and/or close friends who had lived with Jesus for three years.

Some particular aspects of the accounts are noteworthy:

1. No one claimed to have seen the actual resurrection

2. The primary witnesses were women, whose witness was less well regarded in the ancient world, and Mary Magdalene had an unstable past (Mark 16:9).

3. The angels and Jesus told the women to go and tell the men what to do. This was not only counter cultural in the first century, but would be in many patriarchal churches today.

4. As noted, little features in one account make sense only in the light of the others – something almost impossible to do in independently made up stories.

Finally, the earliest non-Christian accounts confirm that the death and resurrection of Jesus was, indeed, central to early Christian belief. The earliest is the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote The Antiquities of the Jews in Greek around 93 AD. The present Greek versions of his work contain a passage, which may have been edited, but probably originally read something like this:

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate ordered him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was thought to be the Messiah about whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

The early second century Roman historian Tacitus said of the Christians ‘They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.’ The Jewish Mishnah (written down c200 AD) refers to Jesus being executed on the Passover Eve, as John’s gospel says. The first record of a denial that Jesus died seems to come over 500 years later from Mohammed the founder of Islam – and is a major difference between the two faiths. Christians do not base their views of Jesus on someone who never knew him and lived half a millennium later – but on accounts based on eye witnesses to his life, death, and resurrection.

It would be unrealistic to call the resurrection “the best attested fact in history” or “proven beyond reasonable doubt”. Yet the evidence for it is both consistent and strong.

Further Reading:

John Wenham: The Easter Enigma (1993, republished 2005 by Wipf and Stock)

Rogert Forster and Paul Marston Reason and Faith (1989)