Historical Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Christ (Part 2)

s we continue to examine the historical evidence from the eyewitnesses of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is necessary to recall the discussion from Part 1, which emphasized how ancient historians prioritized eyewitness testimony over literary sources, unlike many modern historians.¹⁾Heath Henning, Historical Evidence from the Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1); April 15, 2022; https://truthwatchers.com/historical-eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection-part-1/ Craig Keener explains:

For the Greeks, the very term used for research or investigation, ἱστορια (historia), left “no doubt possible about what was early considered the defining characteristic of the genre…. The method… consisted basically of the interrogation of witnesses and other informed parties” and then weaving their responses into a cohesive narrative. Even if some writers failed to travel to all the places their narratives covered, travel was apparently a familiar component of historical research. Herodotus initiated this emphasis on research (Hdt. 1.1), traveling widely; Thucydides, who cross-examined his sources, assumed this approach as the standard (Thucyd. 1.22.2; 5.26). Diodorus Siculus claims to have visited the sites of his history in Asia and Europe, complaining that even some of the best historians err when they do not visit the sites in question (Diod. Sic 1.4.1). Appian (Hist. rom. Pred. 12) claims to have checked out his reports by traveling to Carthage, Spain, Sicily, Macedonia, and elsewhere. Likewise, the later historian Herodian insisted that he accepted nothing secondhand without tracking down all the facts (Hdn. 1.1.3). Although most of Philostratus’s sophistic subjects were long deceased, he interviewed some who still lived, even on multiple occasions (Vit. soph. 2.23.606)….

Polybius avers that investigation is “the most important part” of writing history (Polyb. 12.4c.3)…. Although interviews were impossible when one was dealing with the distant past, writers preferred them when living witnesses remained available. Greek historians often traveled to the locations of events and consulted those who were considered reliable oral sources.²⁾Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1-2:47, Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, MI: 2013), Vol. 1, pp. 183-184

Modern readers often assume the ancient world was naïve, gullible, and easily swayed by superstition—an assumption sustained only by ignorance of ancient intellectual rigor. In reality, ancient people were capable of logic, skepticism, and diligent investigation. They often traveled extensively to verify reported events, interviewing eyewitnesses and testing the truth of claims. As noted in the quotation above, ancient historians “accepted nothing secondhand without tracking down all the facts.” Thus, when Paul writes that over five hundred eyewitnesses saw the risen Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:6), he implicitly invites such investigation.

The Greek term Paul uses to describe his act of “delivering” this testimony to the Corinthians is παραδιδωμι, which in this context means “of oral or written tradition hand down, pass on, transmit, relate, teach[.]”³⁾A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. Walter Bauer and trans. Wm. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, University of Chicago Press  (Chicago, IL: 1979), p. 615 This concept of transmission parallels how ancient historians documented events through direct knowledge and personal verification.

An illustrative example can be found in the writings of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian who personally witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem. Captured by the Roman army, Josephus observed the events firsthand and later recorded them, distinguishing his method from others who relied merely on hearsay. He wrote:

since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories.

As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole war, and of all the particulars that occurred therein, as having been concerned in all its transactions; for I acted as general of those among us that are named Galileans, as long as it was possible for us to make any opposition. I was then seized on by the Romans, and became a captive. Vespasian also and Titus had me kept under a guard, and forced me to attend them continually. At the first I was put into bonds, but was set at liberty afterward, and sent to accompany Titus when he came from Alexandria to the siege of Jerusalem; during which time there was nothing done which escaped my knowledge; for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what information the deserters brought [out of the city], I was the only man that understood them. Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions [παραδοσιν]. And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in the war….

How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed that undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs! who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors’ own memoirs, yet could not they be acquainted with our affairs who fought against them. (Josephus, Against Apion 1.45-51, 56) ⁴⁾The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 940

First, notice how Josephus uses the word παραδοσιν to indicate that he is passing on his eyewitness testimony, not oral tradition as mere hearsay. Further observe Josephus’ statements that:

1. he was an eyewitness to the events, which made him a more accurate source for details;

2. his personal involvement in the events did not bias his testimony but rendered it more reliable;

3. he was able to question those who escaped Jerusalem to investigate what occurred within the city;

4. he compared his own notes with the emperors’ memoirs;

5. he took notes while the events took place and recorded the reports of deserters from the city;

6. his written account was presented to others who were present at the events to verify its accuracy; and

7. those who wrote on the same subject without such qualifications could not be regarded as reliable “histories.”

These very marks that confirm the accuracy and authenticity of Josephus’ records are the same qualifications claimed by the authors of the Gospels. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, names authoritative eyewitnesses such as Cephas and James, in a manner comparable to Josephus naming Vespasian and Titus. These key figures of authority served as witnesses to confirm their respective testimonies—Vespasian and Titus for Josephus, and Peter and James for Paul (cf. Galatians 1:18–19). Paul also identified himself as an eyewitness (1 Corinthians 15:8), as Josephus did, and noted that over five hundred others could vouch for the truthfulness of his experience—just as Josephus appealed to “many of the Romans who had been in the war.”

Josephus elsewhere employs the same Greek word in a similar context:

But then I was not in like manner afraid of my own writing, but I offered my books to the emperors themselves, when the facts were almost under men’s eyes; for I was conscious to myself, that I had observed the truth of the facts [παραδοσιν]; and as I expected to have their attestation to them, so I was not deceived in such expectation. (Josephus, Life 361)⁵⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 38

Here again, Josephus appeals to his eyewitness status and to the authority of the emperors who could verify the truth of his writings. His remark that “the facts were almost under men’s eyes” conveys that these events did not occur in secrecy, hidden away in some inaccessible corner of the world, but were open to public verification (cf. Acts 26:26).

Similarly, Paul did not expect an ignorant or credulous audience to believe uncritically in the resurrection of Christ. He fully anticipated that a skeptical culture would question and deny the very possibility of such an event. Alfred Edersheim observed:

The details, or ‘signs’ are clearly intended as evidences to all of the reality of the Resurrection, without which it would not have been believed; and their multiplication and variety must, therefore, be considered as indicating what otherwise would have been not only numerous but insuperable difficulties. Similarly, the language of St. Paul implies a careful and searching inquiry on his part; the more rational, that, besides intrinsic difficulties and Jewish preconceptions against it, the objections to the fact must have been so often and coarsely obtruded on him, whether in disputation or by the jibes of the Greek scholars and students who derided his preaching.⁶⁾Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Macdonald Publishing Co. (Mclean, VA: 1883, 1886), Vol. 2, p. 625

In other words, Paul did not assume that Jews would easily abandon their long-held belief that the resurrection would occur only at the end of the age, nor that the Greeks—who scorned the idea of bodily resurrection—would readily relinquish their prejudice against such a notion. Paul understood that he must argue for the resurrection with persuasive, confirmable evidence presented to all who would hear him. Thus, he “delivered” this gospel message with an emphasis on verifiable testimony and the names of living witnesses who could be questioned.

Let us review once again what Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

For I delivered [παρέδωκα] unto you first of all that which I also received [παρέλαβον], how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: ⁵ and that he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of Cephas, then [seen is an implied verb] of the twelve: ⁶ after that, he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. ⁷ After that, he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of James; then [seen is an implied verb] of all the apostles. ⁸ And last of all he was seen [ὤφθη—aorist, passive, indicative: ‘οραω] of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1 Corinthians15:3-8

Paul uses the same Greek verb four times (and implies it twice more) to stress the empirical nature of what was “seen.” He grounds his apostolic authority on the fact that he had personally seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul magnified his apostolic office (Romans 11:13; 1 Corinthians 9:2; 12:28–29; 2 Corinthians 11:5; Ephesians 2:20), declaring that his commission came directly from Christ (Romans 1:1, 4–5; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:6; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:1, 11; Titus 1:1).

“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)” (Galatians 1:1).

As one scholar summarizes, “Accordingly we may add the appearance [of the resurrected Christ] to Paul to our collection of facts that make up our historical bedrock.”⁷⁾Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 400 The apostolic office itself was dependent upon the eyewitness experience of seeing the risen Christ (Acts 1:21–22; 10:36–42; 1 Corinthians 15:7).

Many commentators, however, have erroneously claimed that Paul’s use of the words “I delivered… which I also received” are rabbinic expressions implying the transmission of mere oral tradition or hearsay.

Paul, for example, constituted the single intermediary between the eyewitnesses (especially Peter; cf. Gal. 1:18) and the Corinthians when he “handed on to you… what I first received” (1 Cor. 15:3). Even when he, like Josephus, appeals to the confirmation of the account by many other eyewitnesses (“five hundred brethren at once… of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep”: 1 Cor. 15:6), he emphasizes that the events were well within the living memory of people to whom access was still possible. As we also learn from Josephus, the language of tradition does not necessarily imply an oral transmission but can refer to the writing of recollections. Thus, when Luke’s preface claims that “they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2), the reference could include written accounts composed by those eyewitnesses.⁸⁾Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Second Edition), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 37-38

Paul’s use of the common rabbinic phrase “I delivered [παρέδωκα]… which I also received [παρέλαβον]” clearly differs from its later rabbinic usage. As observed in Josephus, the phrase does not necessitate the transmission of oral tradition, as commonly interpreted by commentators. Paul received a revelation of the risen Lord, acknowledging himself as an eyewitness in 1 Corinthians 15:8. He confirmed his eyewitness experience with Peter (v. 5) and James (v. 7), who were likewise eyewitnesses of the risen Christ (Gal. 1:18–19). This was also confirmed “according to the scriptures,” which foretold the resurrection of the Messiah. Paul’s use of “delivered” and “received” stands in complete contrast to rabbinic tradition as preserved in the Mishnah: “Nahum the Scrivener said: I have received a tradition from R. Measha, who received it from his father, who received it from the Zugoth, who received it from the Prophets as a Halakah given to Moses from Sinai” (Mishnah, Peah 2.6).⁹⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 12 In this example, the tradition is claimed to extend back to Moses at Mount Sinai, yet it lacks any verifiable eyewitnesses or scriptural warrant—only an unverifiable chain of oral transmission.

Paul not only “delivers” the gospel, which is grounded in eyewitness testimony that can be verified, but he also challenges any opposing claims. He writes, “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not” (1 Cor. 15:15). In this context, Paul rebukes those in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead. He argues that the future resurrection is guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ—if the dead rise not, then Christ could not have risen either. Note the courtroom terminology Paul employs: “false witnesses” and “testified” (1 Cor. 15:15). The “we” refers to “above five hundred brethren” (1 Cor. 15:6), many of whom were still “present” to testify to what they had witnessed—that God raised Christ from the dead.

An early Christian writer, Papias (c. A.D. 110), described his careful inquiry into apostolic testimony: “If then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip or Thomas, or by James or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord say.” (Papias, frag 1)¹⁰⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 153 Aristion, though unnamed in the New Testament, is grouped by Papias with the apostles as an eyewitness. Other ancient sources identify Aristion as the first bishop of Smyrna (The Apostolic Constitution 7.46).¹¹⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 7, p. 478 Aristion may be the intended reference in Revelation 2:8 to the “angel” of the church in Smyrna.

The declaration of the gospel and the resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15 are further corroborated through multiple attestations. The death of Jesus Christ is recorded in Matthew 27:45–54; Mark 15:33–39; Luke 23:44–48; John 19:28–30; and 1 Corinthians 15:3. His burial is cited in Matthew 27:56–61; Mark 15:42–47; Luke 23:50–55; John 19:38–42; and 1 Corinthians 15:4a. His resurrection on the third day appears in Matthew 28:1–8; Mark 16:1–9; Luke 24:1–8; John 20:1–10; and 1 Corinthians 15:4b. His appearances to individuals are referenced in Matthew 28:9–10; Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13–35; John 20:11–18; and 1 Corinthians 15:5, 7–8. The appearance to the twelve is attested in Matthew 28:16–17; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36–51; John 20:19–23, 26–29; and 1 Corinthians 15:5, 7. The only appearance uniquely mentioned by Paul is that to James.

Michael Licona observes, “the appearance to James is not mentioned elsewhere… Its presence in this tradition and nowhere else indicates the presence of tradition independent of the canonical Gospels.”¹²⁾Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: a New Historiographical Approach, IVP Academic (Downer Grove, IL: 2010), p. 322-323 Paul met James three years after his conversion in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18–19) and had the opportunity to inquire about this appearance, which he later referenced. Clearly, Paul did not fabricate this detail. James became the leading figure of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13–21; 21:18–25; Antiquities 20.200).¹³⁾ Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 656 Although Paul once rebuked Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11–14), he nonetheless submitted to James’s counsel (Acts 21:26). N. T. Wright notes, “Since he [James] had probably not been a disciple of Jesus during the latter’s public career, it is difficult to account for his centrality and unrivalled leadership unless he was himself known to have seen the risen Jesus.”¹⁴⁾N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press (Minneapolis, MN: 2003), p. 325

John likewise emphasizes that he was an eyewitness to the events of Christ’s life and resurrection. His use of terms indicating eyewitness evidence, similar to Paul’s, aligns with judicial language. “The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record” (John 12:17). Here, the people serve as eyewitnesses who “bare record” of what they saw. John further states that he “bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Richard Bauckham comments,

John never suggests that ‘witness’ is something else that later Christian believers also do. Similarly Luke confines the vocabulary of witness almost entirely to those who have been personal disciples of Jesus, with the single major exception of Paul, who is a witness on the basis of his own special experience of the exalted Christ. For both John and Luke witness is something that requires firsthand contact with the events of Jesus’ history.¹⁵⁾Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Second Edition), Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 389-390

Other references from the pen of John confirm this usage of the term:

• “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.” (John 3:11)
• “And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.” (John 3:32)
• “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.” (John 19:35)
• “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24)
• “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

These passages clearly indicate that the eyewitness evidence is consistent with what would be expected within any court of law. Of particular significance is 1 John 1:1–3, which extends beyond the simple act of seeing, to include hearing and touching, thereby providing indisputable testimony to the physical, bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As discussed in Part 1,¹⁶⁾Heath Henning, Historical Evidence from the Eyewitnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1); April 15, 2022; https://truthwatchers.com/historical-eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection-part-1/ John also provides specific names that a first-century audience could locate and interrogate as living witnesses. Prominent members of the Jerusalem elite—such as Nicodemus (John 3:1, 4, 9; 7:50; 19:39) and Joseph of Arimathæa (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51; John 19:38)—are called upon to give testimony. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson note, “Joseph of Arimathea is specifically mentioned by name. Since, as a member of the Sanhedrin, his name could have been well-known, someone inventing the story would probably not have used it…. Anyone in Jerusalem could very easily walk over to his house and check out the story first hand.”¹⁷⁾Josh McDowelll and Bill Wilson, He Walked Among Us, Thomas Nelson Publishers (Nashville, TN: 1993), p. 281 J. P. Moreland concurs, “No one could have invented a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case.”¹⁸⁾J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Baker Books (Grand Rapids, MI: 1987), p. 167

A Nicodemus (Niqdimon) mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, who lived during Nero’s reign and Jerusalem’s destruction, is identified as the wealthiest citizen in Jerusalem. His actual name was Buni, son of Guryon, and he is said to have had a daughter who was a disciple of Christ and who later lost all her wealth (Babylonian Talmud, Taanit 20a; Ketubot 66b; Gittin 56a; Abot D’Rab Nathan 6; Genesis Rabbah 42;¹⁹⁾Midrash Rabbah: Genesis (trans. Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman) The Soncino Press (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 340 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.12.§1;²⁰⁾Midrash Rabbah: Ecclesiastes (trans. Dr. A. Cohen) The Soncino Press (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 8, p. 193 Lamentations Rabbah 1:5.§31;²¹⁾Midrash Rabbah: Lamentations (trans. Dr. A. Cohen) The Soncino Press (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 7, p. 101 Pesikta Rabbati 29/30B.4).²²⁾Pesikta Rabbati (trans. William G. Braude), Yale University Press (Dallas TX: 1968), Vol. 2, p. 589 Pilgrimages allowed Jews of the Diaspora to travel to Jerusalem to verify such claims. Therefore, when Paul wrote to Gentile regions, he did so with the awareness that his claims could be examined by traveling to Jerusalem—where they would find an empty tomb corroborating the message of resurrection.

The Jewish leaders attempted to conceal the evidence of the empty tomb by asserting that the body had been stolen (Matthew 28:11–15; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chap. 108).²³⁾The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, Vol. 1, p. 253 This explanation presupposes that the guards had fallen asleep, allowing the disciples to remove the body. Yet, in the ancient world, guards caught sleeping were executed (Acts 12:19) or, at minimum, beaten with a staff and had their garments set aflame (Mishnah Middoth 1.2).²⁴⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 590 Craig Keener observes, “Nevertheless our evidence for the theft of corpses appears in Gentile regions, never around Jerusalem.”²⁵⁾Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2009, 2012), p. 341 The Jewish leaders evidently knew the tomb was empty—otherwise, they could not have accused the disciples of theft (Matt. 28:11–15). The apostles could not have preached resurrection without an empty tomb (Acts 2:23–31), and they maintained this testimony under persecution (Acts 4–5). The disciples, unable to protect Christ during His life, would not have risked death to steal His body (Luke 22:33–34, 47–53). Furthermore, they were emotionally devastated, fearful, and disillusioned—hardly disposed to fabricate a resurrection narrative.

Beyond these considerations, the disciples did not anticipate a resurrection; thus, they had no motive to feign one. Edersheim writes, “Thus, even so fundamental an article of the faith as the resurrection of Christ is described as having come upon the disciples themselves as a surprise—not only wholly unexpected, but so incredible, that it required repeated and indisputable evidence to command their acknowledgement.”²⁶⁾Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Macdonald Publishing Co. (Mclean, VA: 1883, 1886), Vol. 1, p. 690 Because Joseph of Arimathæa buried the body (Matt. 27:57–60; Mark 15:43–46; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38–40) and Nicodemus, along with the women, prepared the burial spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55–56; 24:1), it is evident that the disciples themselves had no involvement in Christ’s burial and intentionally distanced themselves from His body, fearing the same fate—crucifixion. The mention of spices indicates conformity to Jewish burial customs (Mishnah Berakoth 8.6;²⁷⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 9 Josephus, Antiquities 17.199;²⁸⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 571 Wars 1.673)²⁹⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 727 intended to mask the stench of decomposition before the secondary burial (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.6;³⁰⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 391 Pesahim 8.8).³¹⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 148 The inclusion of spices demonstrates their expectation that Christ’s body would decay. Even after Peter and John saw the empty tomb, “For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” (John 20:9) Edersheim comments, “And this also is most instructive. It was not the belief previously derived from Scripture, that the Christ was to rise from the Dead, which led to expectancy of it, but the evidence that He had risen which led them to the knowledge of what Scripture taught on the subject.”³²⁾Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Macdonald Publishing Co. (Mclean, VA: 1883, 1886), Vol. 2, p. 634

Jews customarily venerated tombs to honor the deceased, yet Christ’s tomb was not venerated for centuries by either Jews or Gentile believers. Christ rebuked the Pharisees for this practice: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous.” (Matthew 23:29; cf. Luke 11:47) Abraham’s tomb in Hebron (Genesis 23:19; 25:10; 49:31) was commemorated as a monument “most excellent marble, and wrought after the most elegant manner” (Josephus, Wars 4.531-532).³³⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 833 David’s tomb was known to returning exiles (Nehemiah 3:16) and in the first century (Acts 2:29). Josephus records David’s burial “with great magnificence… and immense wealth” (Josephus, Antiquities 7.392),³⁴⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 266 “There the king kept the gold from Ethiopia and the spices” (Lives of the Prophets 1.12).³⁵⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 386 It was defiled by Gentiles when Hezekiah displayed its treasures (Lives of the Prophets 1.13;³⁶⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 386 cf. 2 Kings 20:12-13). Hyrcanus later seized 3,000 talents of silver from it (Josephus, Antiquities 7.393;³⁷⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 266 13.249;³⁸⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 437 16.179;³⁹⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 538 Wars 1.61),⁴⁰⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 672 and Herod plundered “furniture of gold, and those precious goods that were laid up there” (Josephus, Antiquities 16.179-181;⁴¹⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 538 cf. 7.394).⁴²⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 266

Other notable tombs in Jerusalem included those of Philip, Herod’s brother (Josephus Antiquities 18.108),⁴³⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 594 Helena, mother of Syrian kings who became proselytes (Josephus, Antiquities 20.94-95).⁴⁴⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 647-648 Isaiah, “near the tomb of the kings, west of the tomb of the priests in the southern part of the city[,]” (Lives of the Prophets 1.9)⁴⁵⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 386 Haggai, “buried near the tomb of the priests, in great honor as were they[,]” (Lives of the Prophets 14.2)⁴⁶⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 394 Zechariah, “buried near Haggai” (Lives of the Prophets 15.6).⁴⁷⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 394 Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest (Lives of the Prophets 23.1;⁴⁸⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1985), Vol. 2, p. 398  cf. 2 Chronicles 24:20-22); and James the Lord’s brother (Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.18).⁴⁹⁾ The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 102 A debated ossuary discovered may belong to James. Both Jews and Christians venerated tombs. An inscription discovered in 2003 on what was formerly believed to be Absalom’s tomb reads, “This is the tomb of Zechariah, martyr, very pious priest, father of John.” “The inscription reveals that local Christians venerated the site and believed Zechariah, the father of John the Baptizer (Luke 1:5-26, 57-66), was buried in the tomb.”⁵⁰⁾Randall Price with H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 252 Josh McDowell observes, “At least 50 tombs of prophets or religious leaders were venerated as shrines in Palestine during the time of Jesus.”⁵¹⁾Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection, Regal (Ventura, CA: 2009), p. 189; referencing Edwin Yamauchi, “Easter—Myth, Hallucination, or History?” Christianity Today, vol. 4 (March 15, 1974), pp. 4-16 Randall Price and H. Wayne House affirm, “the mounting archaeological clues confirm Jesus’ statement concerning the erection in this place of monuments to the prophets.”⁵²⁾Randall Price with H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, Zondervan (Grand Rapids, MI: 2017), p. 253

The Lord Jesus was buried in a garden tomb (John 19:41–42; 20:15). Kings were commonly buried in garden tombs (2 Kings 21:18, 26). King David’s tomb was traditionally believed to be a garden tomb (Nehemiah 3:16, in an addition from the LXX—“as far as the garden of David’s sepulchre”). This general location is north of the old city. Josephus identifies it with “that gate which they called ‘Gannath’” (Josephus, War 5.146).⁵³⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 852 The name “Gannath” derives from the feminine plural form of גַּן (gan), the Hebrew word meaning “garden.” This is where “the monument of John [Hyrcanus] the high priest” (Josephus, War 5.259)⁵⁴⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 859 and “monuments of King Alexander [Jannaeus]” (Josephus, War 5.304)⁵⁵⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 862 are located. “The Kidron valley and the area north of Jerusalem are dotted with monumental tombs from this period, commemorating (accurately and inaccurately) the memory of prophets, holy men, sages, priests, and royalty.”⁵⁶⁾Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, DoubleDay (New York, NY: 1994), Vol. 2, p. 1280-1281

The probable location of Christ’s tomb was leveled by Hadrian to build a temple to Aphrodite/Venus after the Bar Cochba revolt (A.D. 135–136). The city of Jerusalem was completely “ploughed” on the 9th of Ab (Micah 3:12; Mishna, Taanith 4.6;⁵⁷⁾ The Mishnah (Trans. Herbert Danby), Hendrickson Pub. (Peabody, MA: 1933, 2016), p. 200 Lamentations Rabbah 1.13, §41)⁵⁸⁾Midrash Rabbah: Lamentations (trans. Dr. A. Cohen) The Soncino Press (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 7, p. 121 and Jews were forbidden to view their ancestral soil from a distance (Eusebius, History of the Church 4.6)⁵⁹⁾ Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 157 with “death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 47).⁶⁰⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 1, p. 178 The city was renamed Colonia Aelia Capitolina, or simply Aelia. A Temple of Jupiter with a statue of Hadrian was erected where the Jewish Temple had stood. A Gentile church was later established with the first Gentile pastor in Jerusalem named Mark (Eusebius, History of the Church 4.6),⁶¹⁾Eusebius, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine (Trans. G. A. Williamson), Dorset Press (1984), p. 158 severing any continuity with Jewish-Christian traditions concerning the exact site of the Lord’s burial. Helena, Constantine’s mother, later ordered a church built upon the site of the Temple of Aphrodite/Venus based on earlier traditions. This church, constructed between A.D. 325–335, is where the present “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” stands. There is no record of Christ’s tomb being venerated or visited by pilgrims before this time (i.e., the 4th century).

Tertullian sarcastically referred to an early Jewish counterclaim against the resurrection: “This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants” (Tertullian, The Shows, or De Spectaculis 30).⁶²⁾ The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edited by Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James, Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 2012, Vol. 3, p. 91 This comment implies a tradition of a garden tomb and a gardener fearful of pilgrims damaging his crops. Yet, no evidence exists of Christ’s tomb being venerated until the 4th century. The only reasonable explanation for this historical reality is that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb, as all available evidence validates the fact of an empty tomb.

Historian Michael Grant writes,

Even if the historian chooses to regard the youthful apparition as extra-historical, he cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb. True, this discovery, as so often, is described differently by the various Gospels—as critical pagans early pointed out. But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.⁶³⁾Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Charles Scribner’s Sons (New York, NY: 1977), p. 176

Apparitions, or so-called “spiritual resurrections,” cannot account for an empty tomb. Jews of the first century held superstitions concerning ghosts (see 1 Samuel 28:11-14; Matthew 14:26; Mark. 6:49; Luke 24:37; 2 Baruch 27.9;⁶⁴⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 630 48.34;⁶⁵⁾ The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Ed. James H. Charlesworth) Doubleday (New York, NY: 1983), Vol. 1, p. 637 Josephus, Antiquities 13.317;⁶⁶⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 443 19.272;⁶⁷⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 632 Wars 1.84,⁶⁸⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 675 521,⁶⁹⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 713-714 599,⁷⁰⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 721 607;⁷¹⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 721 7.452;⁷²⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 936 Against Apion 2.54).⁷³⁾ The New Complete Works of Josephus (Revised and Expanded) (Trans. William Whiston, Introduction and Commentary by Paul L. Maier), Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1999), p. 963 As Craig Keener observes, “Ancients commonly reported apparitions of deceased persons or deities, and hence occasionally those of persons who had become immortal, but these are not resurrection appearances.”⁷⁴⁾Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Grand Rapids, MI: 2009, 2012), p. 333 Paul distinguished resurrection appearances from mere apparitions (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; 2 Corinthians 12:1–4). Norman Geisler further notes, “Indeed, His resurrection body had the same scars of His crucifixion (John 20:27)…. Thomas eventually recognized Jesus from His crucifixion scars (John 20:27-28).”⁷⁵⁾Norman L. Geisler, The Battle for the Resurrection, Thomas Nelson (Nashville, TN: 1989), p. 45-46 Jesus Christ himself said, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)

The evidence for the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is abundant. The empty tomb (Matthew 28:6; John 20:5–8), Mary’s recognition of His voice (John 20:15–16), the physical appearances witnessed by many (1 Corinthians 15:3–9), and the tangible encounters where Christ was handled (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:39; John 20:17, 27; 1 John 1:1–3) all affirm the reality of His bodily resurrection. He possessed “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39; Acts 2:31) and ate food (Acts 10:41) on at least four occasions:

• With two disciples—Luke 24:30

• With ten apostles—Luke 24:42–43

• With seven apostles—John 21:12–13

• Before His ascension—Acts 1:4

He still bears the scars of His crucifixion (Zechariah 12:10; John 20:27; Revelation 1:7; 5:6). All these form part of the “many infallible proofs” by which, as Luke records, “he shewed himself alive after his passion” (Acts 1:3).