The resurrection is a fabrication, as proved by the lack of information in 1 Cor 15 and the fact that Jesus worked no miracles in Jerusalem in Mark
Question: [editor’s note, this is a rather long question]
I want you to respond to the following article: “The Resurrection Story of Jesus”
Claims of “resurrection appearances of Jesus” in the earliest source, 1 Cor., do not list time, place, circumstances, nor whether Jesus spoke or did anything other than “appear,” and, Jesus appears primarily to “brethren” like in cults.
In the Gospel of Mark Jesus performs no miracles in Jerusalem (nor in any large city he visited). An empty tomb is not a miracle in itself, and the “young man” in the Markan version of the empty tomb is an ambiguous figure, perhaps an angel but perhaps also the same “young man”–mentioned only in Mark and left out of other Gospels–who was the last to abandon Jesus on the night of his arrest, and if the same person, the first to arrive at the empty tomb, which sounds like a nice framing device by Mark. Therefore there are no miracles seen in Jerusalem per Mark, the earliest Gospel.
Mark repeats twice that Jesus has gone on before his disciples to Galilee to appear to them there, not in Jerusalem:
“But after I [Jesus] have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Mark 14:28
“Go and tell his disciples—especially Peter—that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him.” Mark 16:7
Matthew features the same two lines:
“But after I [Jesus] have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Matthew 26:32 = Mark14:28
“Tell his disciples he has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.” Matthew 28:7 = Mark 16:7
Matthew even has Jesus make a special brief appearance outside the tomb just to repeat the same message:
“Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me [Jesus] there.” Matthew 28:10
Matthew does not have Mark’s ambiguous “young man” inside the tomb but a glorious appearance by an undoubted angel who descends from heaven and moves the stone in sight of guards. Matthew also has no mention of Mark’s “young man” who was the last to leave Jesus on the night of his arrest.
Did Mark leave out the appearance of an angel coming down from heaven, rolling the stone in front of frightened guards, sitting on it, leave out an earthquake at the tomb, and leave out the appearance of Jesus outside the tomb? Mark left out a lot, trimming down the story to just an empty tomb, a young man inside the tomb (and a young man who was last to flee at Jesus’s arrest) and frightened women who remain silent. The Greek is emphatic in Mark, employing a repeated word so the reader knows the women told nothing to anyone at all.
So, did Mark leave all of that out of the story or did Matthew add all of that to the story? Was Matthew deliberately seeking to puff up the story in Mark, and avoid embarrassing questions? In that case it would make perfect sense for Matthew to avoid mentioning Mark’s two mentions of a “young man,” and add a sealed tomb, guards, an angel descending from heaven and sitting on the stone, an earthquake, Jesus appearing outside the tomb, and the women not fleeing in disarray but with the direct intention to share everything they saw with the disciples. All of which Mark lacks.
Luke-Acts and John have Jesus appear to his disciples in Jerusalem after being raised, and even have Jesus tell his disciples to remain in Jersualem. This differs from the repeated mentions by Jesus per Mark and Matthew that he was going before his disciples to Galilee to be seen there. Luke-Acts’s post-resurrection story begins in Jerusalem, not Galilee as in Mark and Matthew: “…beginning at Jerusalem” Luke 24:47. Therefore when Jesus is resurrected in Luke-Acts he first appears to disciples in Jerusalem and commands them, “Do not leave Jerusalem…” Acts 1:4, unlike the clear messages repeated in Mark and Matthew:
“But after I [Jesus] have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Matthew 26:32 = Mark14:28
“Go and tell his disciples—especially Peter—that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him” Mark 16:7= Matthew 28:7
“Go and tell my brothers to leave for Galilee, and they will see me [Jesus] there.” Matthew 28:10
Did the author of Luke-Acts have knowledge of the above messages repeated in Mark and Matthew? That he did have such knowledge and creatively altered the message to suit his new sacred history “starting at Jerusalem” is obvious since he fails to mention repeated messages from Jesus in Mark and Matthew about going before his disciples to Galilee to be seen there, but adds a message at the tomb that resembles the messages in Mark and Matthew, but without retaining the meaning. In Luke the message at the tomb now is, “Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee…” (Luke 24:6). Galilee is no longer where the resurrected Jesus was “going on ahead” to be seen by his disciples, it is now a mere recollection of something Jesus said in the past.
Answer:
This entire argument is based on information not given by the gospel writers. Let us say this again and again, until these critics get it: Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. By what criterion ought Paul mention time and place in 1 Cor 15, when the purpose of his list is simply to give a fairly comprehensive list of who witnessed the resurrection? It would have been quite odd, in the context, if Paul had mentioned location! It would not fit Paul’s purpose.
Then the author uses the fact that Mark, who lists many of Jesus’ miracles, does not mention any miracles he performed in Jerusalem during the passion week as evidence that he did not perform such miracles. Again, this is NOT evidence that Jesus did not perform miracles at that time. Let me repeat: this ls literally NOT evidence. Then he has the audacity to add “nor in any other large city,” when Jesus did not visit any other large cities, that we know of! What does this empty fact prove?
Then, based on literally NO EVIDENCE, this author accuses Matthew of puffing up his story!!! This is just plain rhetoric, and has no value to prove anything. If we are going to accuse an author of puffing up his story, we better have evidence of such puffing, or a really strong case that the author would lie, of which there is none in this case. Apparently, this writer demands that all four gospels ought to have identical information, otherwise one or all of them are liars. But if they had identical information, then they would clearly have colluded with one another, and, besides, there would be no reason whatsoever to have four gospels. The four gospels are four mainly (but not fully) independent accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Every different detail mentioned by any author is used as evidence of either collusion or lying on the part of this author. This is really a lot of nonsense!
As for the claimed discrepancy between Luke and Matthew/Mark with regard to Galilee, we need to have a bona fide contradiction in order to have a case. Taking the four gospels into account, it is apparent that Jesus sent the disciples to Galilee, where he appeared to them, after which he told them to return to Jerusalem, where he appeared to them one last (?) time, followed by his ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem. There is plenty of time in the forty days between the resurrection and the appearance of Jesus to the apostles in Acts 1 for a journey to Galilee and back. NO CONTRADICTION!
This article is a load of nonsense, coming from the pen of a person who has already decided for world-view reasons that the resurrection did not happen. Such presuppositional thinking should be identified for what it is. When we are given an two different accounts of the same event or events, the authors should always be given the benefit of the doubt, unless there is a clear contradiction, of which this author offers none.
John Oakes
