A Harmonized Timeline of the Biblical Accounts of Christ’s Resurrection

Preliminary Thoughts

It is helpful to remember that biblical authors did not produce their works within the historical-sociocultural-literary environment of 21st-century westerners. While completeness and accuracy were important, ancient biography and historiography were not bound by the modern-day preoccupation with linear thinking, chronological arrangement, and precision of dating. That is why it is such a challenge to chronologically harmonize the Gospel accounts. The inspired authors did not think like we think and were not catering to our literary expectations. Reporting the facts for evangelistic and theological purposes, often arranged thematically rather than chronologically, appears to have been the aim. Nevertheless, the following is a feeble attempt to chronologize the biblical data of the Lord’s resurrection.

Discovery of the Empty Tomb

Early Sunday morning a small group of women journeyed to the tomb “while it was still dark” (John 20:1), and as it “began to dawn” (Matt. 28:1) they arrived at the tomb “when the sun had risen” (Mark 16:1). They were the first to discover the vacated premises but were initially unaware of what had happened. Mary Magdalene went and informed Peter and John, and they came, saw the empty tomb, and left (John 20:1-10). 

There were two angels at the tomb in the form of men (Luke 24:4; John 20:12), one of whom had earlier rolled back the stone and had frightened the guards (Matt. 28:2-4). The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead and instructed them to inform the disciples “and Peter,” or especially Peter (Mark 16:7). Because of fear the women said nothing to anyone as they fled from the tomb (Mark 16:8), but eventually they did (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9-10, 22-23).

Appearances of the Risen Christ

Mary Magdalene, at some point separated from the others, was the first to whom Jesus appeared (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18), though in due course to the other women as well (Matt. 28:9-10). Having been informed of what the women had been told and/or what they had seen, it is possible that Peter returned to the tomb again (Luke 24:12), as well as others (Luke 24:24), unless Luke and his fellow Gospel writers are simply reporting the facts without particular concern for chronological arrangement. Jesus then appeared to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5), two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), and multiple appearances to the apostles and many others in Judea and Galilee (1 Cor. 15:5-7).

Conclusion

While there is a great deal of overlap among the Gospel narratives, the differences confirm the independent testimony of each, contrary to critical theories of literary dependence and accusations of plagiarism. Each inspired author has provided an abridged account, reporting and arranging the facts to promote faith rather than attempting to satisfy our chronological curiosity. True accounts are provided by all the NT Gospels, and our proposed harmony supports their collective integrity. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Chronology of Jesus' Death & Resurrection, Resurrection of Jesus Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

 

Image credit: https://www.wijngaardsinstitute.com/the-risen-christ-is-our-sun/

The Resurrection of Jesus: Another Look at the Conspiracy Theory

Along with the prophetic scriptures, Jesus repeatedly foretold his own death and bodily resurrection. He was then violently killed, his death confirmed, and the place of his burial secured with guards posted to ensure the corpse was not stolen (Matt. 27:62-66). On the third day after the burial, the tomb was found empty and multiple eyewitnesses reportedly saw Jesus alive.¹

Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.’ And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. (Matt. 28:11-15, NKJV)

The earliest attempt to explain away the resurrection of Jesus was a conspiracy theory, accusing the disciples of stealing the body. The story was still being propagated years later as Matthew produced his Gospel, continued in the second century,² and even in modern times.³ This popular explanation, however, is seriously flawed. 

Major Challenge #1

Roman law decreed that tomb defilement (violatio sepulchri) was a crime punishable by death. A document from Roman Egypt (BGU IV 1024) contains court rulings prescribing the death penalty for disturbing the bodily remains of a tomb.⁴ A marble tablet from the first half of the first century AD, acquired from Nazareth and called the Nazareth Inscription, preserves an edict of Caesar ordering those who disturb graves or tombs or move sepulcher-sealing stones or remove corpses “to suffer capital punishment under the title of tomb-breaker.”⁵ Challenging the authority of Caesar was itself a grievous offense.⁶

Under these circumstances, why were the disciples of Jesus not arrested and promptly executed, unless the indictment was false? The Romans were very serious about enforcing their laws, verifying charges (Acts 25:5, 16), even by means of torture (Acts 21:34; 22:24-25), while dismissing unsubstantiated allegations (Acts 24:13; 25:7, 11, 25; 26:31; 28:18). 

Major Challenge #2

In the first-century Roman world, the penalty of death was also enacted in the case of a soldier’s dereliction of duty.⁷ If the initial Jewish explanation of the empty tomb were true, why was the matter not investigated, why was the alleged crime not exposed, and why were the guards not punished? 

Major Challenge #3

Contrary to the unproven speculations of liberal critics, the gospel story did not gradually evolve as a legendary tale over several decades. Eyewitness testimonies about the resurrected Christ began immediately and publicly, and wherever the message spread it was met with harsh opposition.⁸ It was not the empty tomb itself that convinced people, the apostle John notwithstanding (John 20:8), but encounters with and reports of Jesus seen alive (John 20:2, 14-18, 25; et al.).⁹

Conclusion

It is hard to believe that a handful of dejected and terrified disciples, whose inspiring leader had just been brutally killed by the Romans, would so blatantly defy the powerful and merciless regime, or willingly suffer and die for something they knew was a lie. And if early believers were as simplistic and gullible as many critics claim, how did they pull off such an elaborate hoax incapable of realistically explaining the global Christian movement of the past two millennia? The evidence more readily supports the biblical account of Christ’s resurrection and exposes significant flaws in eager attempts to deny it.¹⁰

--Kevin L. Moore   

Endnotes:

     ¹ See K. L. Moore, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1),” Moore Perspective (30 Nov. 2022), <Link>.

     ² Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108.

     ³ Richard Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, eds. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey J. Lowder (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2005): 350-52.

     ⁴ James G. Keenan, Roman Criminal Law in a Berlin Papyrus Codex (Chicago: Loyola University, 1989): 17-18. 

     ⁵ Clyde E. Billington, “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ?” Artifax (Spring 2005), <Link>. The reference to sealing stones comes from the Greek κάτοχος, applicable to holding something “constrained.” See

Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Lexicon Abridged: Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944): 368. Archaeologically, sepulcher-sealing stones have only been discovered in Israel.

     ⁶ Matt. 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:2-5, 14; John 18:33; 19:12-15; Acts 17:7; 25:8.

     ⁷ Polybius, The Histories 6.37; Tacitus, Annals 3.20-21; cf. Acts 12:19; 16:27; 27:42. See also Donald G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1998): 143-44.

     ⁸ Acts 4:1-21, 29; 5:17-42; 6:8–8:4; 9:1-2, 13-16, 20-30; 12:1-6; 13:6-8, 45-51; 14:1-20; 16:19-24, 37; 17:5-14, 18, 32; 18:6, 12-17; 19:23-41; 21:27-36; 22:22-25; 23:1-6, 12-15; 24:21; 25:2-3, 24; 26:8-11; 28:22; 1 Cor. 4:9-13; 2 Cor. 4:8-18; 6:4-10; 11:23-33; 1 Thess. 2:2; et al.

     ⁹ See K. L. Moore, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2),” Moore Perspective (7 Dec. 2022), <Link>.

     ¹⁰ See K. L. Moore, “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3),” Moore Perspective (14 Dec. 2022), <Link>.

Related Posts: Harmonized Timeline of Christ's Resurrection

 

Image credit: Wall mosaic at Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_of_Jesus#/media/File:Mosaic_-_Entombment_of_Jesus.JPG>.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3 of 3): Conclusion

The Indisputable Facts

Here are the documented facts that most evidence-based critical thinkers would concede:

·      Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in history.

·      He died in 1st-century Palestine by crucifixion.

·      Numerous individuals and groups adamantly believed that he appeared to them alive after his confirmed death.

·      The tomb was empty.

·      The movement quickly spread, and thousands of these early Christians suffered brutal persecution, even tortuous deaths, for their testimony and unrelenting faith.

·      Paul of Tarsus, a violent persecutor of the Jesus followers, became a steadfast believer and proclaimer of the resurrected Jesus.

The Most Probable Explanation

Which is the most likely explanation of the New Testament’s consistent claim of Christ’s resurrection? (1) Conspiracy theories (e.g., the body was stolen) do not reasonably explain the paralyzing fear of the pre-resurrection disciples replaced by the unrelenting faith of the same disciples post-resurrection. (2) Hallucination theories do not account for the empty tomb or for the numerous claims of eyewitness sightings at different times and places.¹ (3) Swoon theories (Jesus didn’t really die on the cross)² are contrary to any known historical records of Roman crucifixion—no known survivors! Neither do they account for a crucified victim supposedly recovering enough in three days to move a massive stone and convince people he had conquered death. (4) Myth theories do not reasonably account for any of the evidence. (5) Jesus having risen from the dead accounts for all the evidence: he was confirmed dead, the tomb in which his corpse was buried was later found empty, and numerous eyewitnesses were convinced they saw and interacted with Jesus afterwards, willing to suffer and die for their testimony.

The Will to Disbelieve

Unfortunately no amount of evidence, especially from the Bible, is going to satisfy those who are predisposed to dismissing biblical (supernatural) claims. If secular authors were held to the same critical scrutiny as biblical authors, no one could be certain that anyone in particular wrote or said or did anything in the distant past. If the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection, including abundant eyewitness corroboration, is not enough to convince someone, how can he or she be sure about any historical event?

The bottom line is this: what is one’s standard of proof, and what presuppositions influence the evaluative process? If a person is limited to a strictly naturalistic worldview, then the possibility of God and supernatural occurrences is automatically ruled out from the start. But what if the evidence points beyond the natural world?

Conclusion

The Bible consistently makes historical claims about real people and events in actual places and times, presenting its case for either confirmation or falsification. If Jesus didn’t walk out of the tomb, the biblical record is a lie and “we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Cor. 15:19). If, however, he did conquer death, it is the most significant event in all human history and it would be foolish to ignore it. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has radically shaped the course of history and countless lives and is as certain as any fact of history can be.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Hallucinations, as projections of a person's mind, do not explain why multiple persons on multiple occasions initially failed to recognize Jesus (Luke 24:13-32; John 20:11-18; 21:4-12), a fact that does not bolster the story if it were not true. In each account Jesus is eventually recognized through personal interaction.

     ² This theory was popularized by Hugh J. Schonfield’s The Passover Plot (NY: Bantom Books, 1977 [20th printing]), convincingly refuted by Clifford Wilson, The Passover Plot Exposed (San Diego: Master Books, 1977).

Related Posts: Resurrection of Jesus Part 1, Part 2, Another Look at the Conspiracy Theory

Image credit: https://biologos.org/articles/one-reason-to-live-hope-in-the-resurrection

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2 of 3): The Evidence

The Veracity of the Evidence 

All knowledge of ancient history depends on the credibility of historians and the information they report. Most if not all their information comes from reliable witness corroboration. Long before modern-day recording devices and forensic analysis, eyewitness testimony was the most valuable source of evidence.¹ From an ancient-oral-culture perspective, accurately remembering facts and transmitting them verbally was standard practice, and group recollection strengthened memory, recall, and consistent reporting even more.² During the first few decades of the Christian movement, as the reports of key persons and events circulated, eyewitnesses were still around to guard against significant variation.

Luke affirms that his historical records are based on the testimonies of “eyewitnesses,” enabling his reading audience to “know thoroughly” [ἐπιγινώσκω] with “certainty” [ἀσφάλεια] (Luke 1:2-4) in light of the “many proofs” [πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις] (Acts 1:3).³ Jesus having raised from the dead is therefore provable (Acts 17:31) rather than something to accept with blind faith.

The Abundance of Evidence

While the prospect of false witnesses is problematic in any age,⁴ this would be virtually impossible to achieve with the sheer numbers of analogous reports behind the NT records from so many willing to suffer and die for their convictions. “Trusting testimony is not an irrational act of faith that leaves critical rationality aside; it is, on the contrary, the rationally appropriate way of responding to authentic testimony.”⁵

According to Roman law, “Where the number of witnesses is not specified by law, two are sufficient” (Code, 4.20.8; Digest, 22.5.1, 12). The Jewish law required “two or three witnesses” (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). To confirm the reality of Christ’s resurrection, the canonical Gospels provide four separate witnesses, although each is based on numerous individual eyewitness accounts.⁶  Twenty-three additional multi-authored documents also comprise the NT, wherein even more evidence is documented.⁷

While not providing an exhaustive list, Paul specifically mentions fourteen eyewitnesses, adding another 500+ (1 Cor. 15:3-8). The Gospels-Acts reveal at least nine more (unless Nathanael = Bartholomew).⁸ Twenty-one of these are named in the biblical record: eleven of the original apostles, James the Lord’s brother, Paul, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna, Cleopas, Nathanael, Joseph Barsabbas Justus, and Matthias. Of all those recounted, most were still alive at the time the NT records were produced and their testimonies were thus subject to verification (1 Cor. 15:6; cf. Acts 26:26).

Testimony of Women 

The first documented eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ were females (Mark 16:1-8), which is inconceivable if the story were fabricated. Women in the staunchly-entrenched patriarchal societies of the first-century Mediterranean world were typically viewed as inferior to men and less trustworthy, so their testimonies were inadmissible in a court of law.⁹ In this particular sociocultural environment, one would think that the foundational belief of the Jesus movement would not rely on what was perceived at the time to be precarious confirmation, unless of course it actually happened.

Chronological Proximity of the Evidence 

Announcements of Jesus’ resurrection began immediately,¹⁰ and word rapidly spread across the Roman Empire and beyond (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1–28:31). The oral transmission of the message, eventually committed to writing, established Christianity in a hostile Jewish environment that spread throughout a resistant polytheistic world to become an impactful global movement that continues to this day. 

Beginning in Jerusalem around spring and early summer AD 30, the bold proclamation of “the gospel” or “the good news” [τό εὐαγγέλιον] convicted and converted multiplied thousands of Jewish people, who disseminated the message far and wide (Acts 2:1–8:4). Only about three years after the reported death and resurrection of Jesus, a violently antagonistic Jew named Saul, later known as Paul, was also impacted by this reality and dedicated the rest of his life to its proclamation (Acts 9:1–28:31). 

Having preached and defended “the good news” for about seventeen years from Palestine to Greece, Paul ventured to the pagan city of Corinth where he and his coworkers spent eighteen months affirming these truths.¹¹ Approximately five years later Paul wrote to the Corinth church, reminding them of the compelling testimony of Christ’s death and resurrection they had wholeheartedly embraced (1 Cor. 15:1-5), the same as consistently taught since the inception of the Christian movement less than three decades earlier. 

Skeptics tend to make a big deal out of the alleged “lateness” of the written Gospels, postulating the remotest possible dates that seem far removed from the events in question. Yet Paul’s undisputed writings and the oral transmission of the same basic message, predating the published Gospel accounts, render this criticism far less consequential than critics intend. Before any NT documents were produced, the essential teachings conveyed therein had been circulating and confirmed by living guarantors for many years.

Even if the most extreme estimates are considered, the published accounts of the NT were still within living memory of Jesus’ life on earth. If consistency demands that all other records of antiquity be treated with the same degree of scrutiny, how can anyone discounting the NT be confident about anything that occurred in the distant past?  

[T]he Gospels were produced well within the lifetimes of some who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry. By ancient standards this was a short period of time between the life of a famous individual and the appearance of biographies about him…. No other examples from antiquity have been preserved of this abundance of information from multiple authors in writings so close to the people and events being described.¹²

Concluding Observations

If the bodily resurrection of Jesus could so easily be discredited, how did it become the central doctrine of the Christian faith and how did it spawn a worldwide movement? The early believers did not choose their religion because it was familiar and popular. They embraced the Christian faith as true, irrespective of cultural conditioning and without violent coercion (just the opposite!). Christianity began and flourished among real people in the first-century world who could readily test its claims.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Among ancient historians, from Herodotus (ca. 484-425 BC) to Tacitus (ca. AD 56-120) to Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. AD 330-395), the reports of eyewitnesses were the preferred source of information. Note also Papias of Hierapolis, “Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.3-4). See D. E. Aune, The NT in Its Literary Environment 81; S. Byrskog, Story as History—History as Story 48-65.

     ² See J. D. G. Dunn, “Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition,” JSHJ 6 (2008): 85-105; B. Gerhardsson, “The Secret of the Transmission of the Unwritten Jesus Tradition,” NTS 51 (2005): 1-18; K. E. Bailey, “Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” ExpTim 106 (1995): 363-67.

     ³ ASV, ESV; also rendered “many infallible proofs” (N/KJV), “many convincing proofs” (CSB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). The noun τεκμήριον is a technical term from logic, referring to that which causes something “to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof” (BDAG 994).

     ⁴ Deut. 19:15-16; 1 Kings 21:7-14; Psa. 27:12; Prov. 14:5; Matt. 26:59-60; 27:12-13; Acts 6:13.

     ⁵ R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses 5.

     ⁶ Matt. 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-19; Luke 1:2; 24:1-51; John 20:1–25:25.

     ⁷ As a continuation of Luke’s record, Acts 1:3, 22; 2:23-32; 3:15, 26; 4:2, 10; 5:30-32; 10:39-40; 13:28-37; 17:3, 18, 31-32; 24:21; 25:19; 26:8, 23. Further, Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 9:1; 15:1-8, 12-21; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:14-15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 13:20-21; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:21; 2 Pet. 1:16; 1 John 1:1-3. 

     ⁸ Matt. 28:9-10, 16-20; Mark 16:9-19; Luke 24:13-49; John 20:11-29; 21:1-14; Acts 1:2-9, 21-23; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:4-8. See K. L. Moore, “The 12 Apostles (Part 7): Bartholomew,” Moore Perspective (5 April 2014), <Link>.

     ⁹ Josephus, Ant. 4.8.15; cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1.1259b; Cicero, Pro Murena 12.27; Epictetus, Disc. 2.4. A woman’s position in law was essentially determined by her position in the legal family unit. The husband and father had supreme authority, as Roman law accepted the supremacy of the male (Patria Potestas). Thus “the public law of Rome did not recognize women at all …. So we find that women were ineligible as witnesses in court” (J. A. Couch, “Women in Early Roman Law,” Harvard Law Review 8:1 [25 April 1894]: 42-43).

     ¹⁰ Matt. 28:7-10; Mark 16:6-10; Luke 24:9; John 20:2-18.

     ¹¹ Acts 18:1-18; 1 Cor. 3:2, 5-11; 4:14-17; 11:2; 15:1-3a; 2 Cor. 1:19; 6:1-11.

     ¹² C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the NT 17-19.

Related Posts: Resurrection of Jesus Part 1, Part 3

 

Image credit: https://credomag.com/2020/12/the-resurrection-as-a-landmark-in-acts/