SPOTLIGHT ON THE EMPTY TOMB

INDEX

FOREWORD

THE EMPTY TOMB INDICATES THEFT

THERE WERE NO GUARDS

ROMANS OR JEWS AT THE TOMB?

GUARDS BRIBED TO LIE?

COULD HAVE BEEN STOLEN

STONE EASY TO MOVE

THE MEN IN WHITE

THE SWOON THEORY

CONCLUSION

FOREWORD

The gospels are legendary accounts of the figure we know as Jesus Christ. They could well be legend to the extent that Jesus never lived at all.

This book shows that the empty tomb of Jesus does not prove that he rose from the dead. The tomb does not give any evidence for it at all. Moreover, theft would not refute resurrection. This book shows that even if the gospels are perfectly right and truthful there could be several natural reasons for the tomb being empty.

The following possible scenarios show that if the gospels are accurate in what they report their interpretation of what happened may be wide of the mark. The interpretations are only assumptions and it shows that Christianity’s bedrock, the empty tomb inferring the resurrection, is just the assumption of dead men and not necessarily a fact.

You can’t go for a paranormal assumption when a normal one would suffice. Inexplicable does not imply paranormal. Jack the Ripper was able to slaughter women with police filling the streets. If Jesus' body vanishing from a tomb in less strict and less dangerous conditions deserves to be called a miracle then that would imply that the Ripper was a supernatural being and not a man and was a bigger miracle. The Church follows the gospels in saying that Jesus rose from the dead and the tomb was guarded against theft by guards who were frightened by an angel into a faint. The angel opened the tomb of Jesus by rolling back a big stone from the doorway. A group of women come to anoint the body of Jesus and are carrying spices and find the tomb empty. They see Jesus who announces that he has been raised from the dead. They tell the disciples that the tomb is empty and has risen and then Jesus starts appearing to the disciples. Later he ascends into Heaven.

Top of the Document

THE EMPTY TOMB INDICATES THEFT

Let us pretend that the gospels are accurate about the empty tomb. It is hard to believe that if the Jews wanted rid of Jesus as desperately as the gospels say so that they were going to get one of their own subjected to a degrading death to show he was not the prophet and Son of God he claimed to be that the Jews would have tolerated Pilate releasing the body of Jesus for burial. All sources agree that Jesus was accused of sorcery and black magic by the Jews . The body then would have been eagerly sought after by witches and warlocks for use as relics and in magical rites.

The tomb being empty indicates that something very suspect was going on. Matthew says that an angel that looked like lightning moved the rock but be careful. He says that the sight of the angel scared the guards but not that the guards saw the stone being moved, the women may not have seen it either even if they were near. So, the gospels never say anybody saw it. We don’t know exactly when the stone was moved or how. Perhaps it was moved before and replaced sloppily and fell that morning. If Jesus was not moved until Sunday morning he would have been treated in the tomb. If he was removed as soon as possible after internment then evidence for theft by somebody else had to be manufactured which meant the tomb had to be reopened long after the body was gone for it to work. The disappearance would come out and had to be prepared for.

In the context of the times, people found it easy to believe in a resurrection even if the body was still in the grave for they knew John the Baptist was buried and still they thought that Jesus was John back from the dead (Mark 6).

Some believe it makes most sense to hold that Jesus’ burial was only temporary. It was Joseph’s tomb, it was too near the city which the Jews would not have wanted, and the gospels say Jesus was buried there for speed.

This would suggest that somebody could have taken the body for reburial and did it discreetly. Why the secrecy? Could be any number of reasons.

The real owner paid somebody to steal the body and get rid of it to have the tomb back.

Jesus came out of his coma when he was being removed.

Jews could not afford to get a reputation of stealing a body.

Jesus would have been discreetly buried somewhere else.

The secretiveness enforced silence on the culprits when the resurrection report got out. However the gospellers and apostles themselves may not have known that Jesus was moved.

Top of the Document

THERE WERE NO GUARDS

Only the Matthew Gospel states that Jesus’ tomb was protected from body snatchers. It says that the day after Jesus died the Jews implored Pilate to have the tomb guarded lest the disciples of Jesus come and steal the body and claim Jesus had risen from the dead for the Jews remembered Jesus saying he would rise after three days. Pilate thought this was a good idea and seals were applied to the stone and the guard mounted. This guard is supposed to prove that nobody stole Jesus from the tomb and that Jesus did not revive and come out himself.

The Jews did not close tombs properly for the first three days in case the person would revive (page 89, The Turin Shroud is Genuine). They would have done this especially in the case of Jesus if they thought he could raise the dead and heal or perhaps rise himself. The stone for the tomb of Jesus would have been in place well enough to keep animals out but Jesus could have got out.

Or maybe he called out to a passer-by through an opening. The passer-by, knowing that nobody would ever know, helped Jesus out of the tomb after moving the stone and gave him some clothes and maybe nursed him back to health him.

But if everybody was sure there was no hope for Jesus the tomb might have been sealed completely. But then why seal the tomb completely if the women were coming on Sunday morning? Hoare says that the bereaved occasionally employed people to watch the tomb for them in case the “deceased” would come round (page 89, The Turin Shroud is Genuine). But the Gospels imply that this was not done with Jesus when Matthew says Roman guards were needed and when he and the rest say the women worried about getting the stone moved. The watchers might have helped Jesus out of the tomb. Perhaps the Romans let them do the close watching while they just pranced about the area. By the way, the watchers would not have stayed inside the tomb to watch for the Jews thought that the tombs were religiously unclean. Ordinary Jews would have watched the tomb. The Romans would not have watched if the Jews did for the Jewish watchers were near enough to the city to summon them at the first sign of trouble. It is possible that if the Jews got a guard, that the guard was never intended to be very near the tomb all the time. This possibility refutes the view that if Matthew is telling the truth about the guards then Jesus could not have been stolen and shows that Matthew failed to be convincing.

The watchers would have probably been friends of Jesus and picked and paid by the filthy-rich Joseph of Arimathea and would have been happy to help Jesus to safety or steal his body and tell the Jews they fell asleep and some disciples stole Jesus.

Christians comment, “Even though the Jesus people were finished it was known that a return from the dead might restore Jesus to favour in the eyes of the people and create a huge revival. The Jews were taking no chances.” Then why did they have him killed before the eyes of the people? If he was privately killed at least they could say he never rose if he did rise for he was never dead. And there is no evidence that the Jews who caused Jesus’ death acknowledged Jesus’ miracle powers. They were convinced that the crucifixion was Jesus’ ultimate and final failure. They told him as much.

Suppose the Jews believed that Jesus had supernatural demonic powers even if he did cheat sometimes. It would seem that the Jews would not have wanted the guards there for if Jesus had been such a great worker of miracles they would have been terrified that the guards would see the resurrection and become converts. That would have been all the more reason why the guards had to be Romans and not Jews for Jews would have been easier to convert. But you may say that the Jews knew that Jesus could show himself to everybody anyway if he rose. They had no reason to think that he would. There would have been no guards and especially no Roman ones. The Jews knew that even if Jesus was stolen and he planned to rise that wouldn’t stop him rising. There might have been guards only if theft was thought to be the only way Jesus could rise from the dead.

Pilate would not have wanted guards there if he broke the law to allow Jesus a proper burial that made Jesus look like an innocent man when the dump was the place for criminals. They would know then what he did and so would the Jews. For the Jews to completely destroy Jesus’ hold over people by making a failure of him which was the alleged reason for their bringing the crucifixion about they had to ensure he had as degrading a burial as a common criminal.

The Womb and the Tomb (page 108) says it is terribly unlikely that the tomb was looked after by Jesus’ enemies and not his friends. Perfectly right. Maybe one independent guard needed to be there to make sure they behaved themselves. If there had been guards they would have been amateurs and we would be told this. We are not so there were no guards.

The places where the bodies of criminals were dumped were always under guard (Who Moved the Stone? page 152). But that was out of cruelty to stop them getting a decent burial. Jesus was already in his tomb and had no guards for several hours so no guards were needed.

John says that Jesus was buried in the tomb because it was so near (19:42). Not because it was Joseph of Arimathea’s so it was a stolen tomb. Romans would not protect a tomb to keep a body that did not belong there inside it. Perhaps the real owners pilfered and destroyed the body and were afraid to own up.

The Gospel never says that guards were witnessed at the tomb except by a man in white who was never asked about them. No evidence is given only hearsay.

We don’t know if the women saw the guards. So Matthew is as good as telling us that he is only assuming that there were guards there. What kind of evidence is that? It is rubbish like that that Christianity is dependent on. Matthew just says that the guards saw the angel at the tomb and fainted and then that the angel spoke to the women. The guards could have gone by then. The gospel does not tell us. If there had been guards there Peter and the disciple and the women would not have touched the tomb. The women would have been silenced and maybe even killed for seeing the guards lying comatose around the tomb for the guards would have checked if anybody had seen them or if anybody was talking.

If guards always watched the graves of criminals – or top criminals like Jesus - then the women would not have been asking how they were going to get the stone moved. When the women did not know about the guards for they would not have worried about shifting the stone if they had it suggests that there were no guards. It is probable that the women would have heard for they were at the tomb and went to the synagogue where women chatted.

The man or men in white would not have been noseying into the tomb if there had been guards posted. Who Moved the Stone? page 158, even admits that the white man was not supernormal. You don’t tamper with the scene of a crime especially when you are a stranger.

Luke wrote a gospel as an apologetic for Christianity (1:1-4) and mentions no guards showing that there were none there. He would not have omitted that unless he knew it was made up especially when he copied lots of stuff from Matthew. When Luke 24 itself is full of interpolations that are missing from some second century manuscripts Heaven knows what was going on with the rest of the gospels. The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (page 98) says that verses 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 51 and 52 are of dubious authenticity. Significantly, verse 3 is the one that says the body of Jesus was found missing and verse 6 announces the resurrection and 9 says the women reported this to the apostles. And verse 10 shows this was an interpolation all right for there is no need for verse 9 with it. And verse 12 has Peter running to the tomb and marvelling after verse 11 says the apostles as good as laughed at the women showing 12 was indeed an interpolation. And verse 40 which says the Lord showed the apostles his hands and feet. Verses 51 and 52 describe the ascension but they can be dropped from the narrative without interrupting the flow. When the most magical bits may be interpolations we should drop them entirely for when in doubt we must follow what is non-magical.

There are lies in the story of the guards which shows we can trust no detail in it and question if there were guards there at all. You should believe a person unless they have lied to you in the past especially if there was no need for it. You need evidence from someone or somewhere else to back up anything a liar says. Nobody has the right to command us to believe Matthew about the guards been there. At most we have to be neither sure or unsure.

The guards are so important in Christian apologetics – they are the prime reason that the view that Jesus got out of the tomb alive is rejected - that we can safely say the Christians themselves cannot believe the resurrection without them. John’s gospel accepts the rule in the Law of Moses to have two independent and trusted witnesses before you believe anything important including claims of miracles – the rule which God gave to Moses. This forbids the dependence on the soldiers for only Matthew said they were there and gave no witnesses to the event.

Top of the Document

ROMANS OR JEWS AT THE TOMB?

The Matthew Gospel asserts that there were guards at the tomb. If there were guards, were they the Temple Guards who were all Jews or Roman soldiers?

When the chief priests and the Pharisees told Pilate they wanted a guard he said, “You have a guard” (Matthew 27:65 AB). Professor Alford said that this can be translated as saying they have got a guard or that they must get a guard (page 211, Evidence that Demands a Verdict). But Mgr. E de Camus says that the word for guards is a Latin word, koustodia. The gospel was written in Greek and Latin was the language of Rome so guards must mean Roman Guards when the Latin word was employed. If Pilate used the present imperative meaning he meant, “Get a guard” this means he meant his own guards (page 73, The Resurrection Factor). He could not just order the Temple guards out for he did not know exactly what they were doing that night and why so it had to be his own guards. He told them to get his own guards.

Frank Morison thinks that if the guards were Roman it would be absurd to think of the Jews saying they were able to save them from the death penalty for sleeping if the Governor got wind of it (page 189, Who Moved the Stone?). That is why he thinks the guard was composed of the Jewish Guard for the Temple and not the Romans. But the gospel says they asked Pilate to set the guard instead of asking him to let them set the guard. Also the gospel never actually mentions the death-penalty – that is just a lie that is sneaked in to bolster up the argument. If Pilate had accepted a Jewish guard and they failed to do their duty they would have been in trouble for it was easy to get on the wrong side of Pilate.

You could say there were no guards for story is inconsistent or that we have no reason to believe there were.

If you are trying to influence a difficult sergeant or a politician you take a number of people with you to increase the chance of getting listened to. The gospel says that the chief priests and the Pharisees came before Pilate to ask him to get the tomb guarded. This suggests that it was not the Jewish Guard for one man could have successfully got Pilate to let the Jews’ own guards be used. Also, the rule was that Roman soldiers guard tombs and graves where theft was feared. The Jewish Guard were not for upholding Roman law for Rome only trusted Gentiles. Rome banned grave-robbery so the Roman soldiers had to take care of it.

Matthew would tell us if it was the Jewish Guard for they were trusted more by his Jewish readers than by the Romans. He wants them to be witnesses to the supernatural at the tomb for us. Jewish soldiers would not have taken on the job in case they would have to take the body from the thieves and become unclean and unfit to work in the Temple through it for a while.

Some surmise that the guards were Jewish for there was no chance that Jewish guards would have been punished for sleeping on duty and only they would be able to say they slept on duty which the Gospel of Matthew says they said for Roman soldiers would have been punished - and if they were not punished nobody would believe they that they were truthful (Evidence that Demands a Verdict Vol 1, page 212). But any guards would have been punished for Pilate commanded that the tomb be made secure. He was not going to let the Jews have a guard that could get away with sleeping. Any guards deciding to tell such a lie is ridiculous and simply would not be done.

The Jewish Temple Guard had to watch the Temple to prevent desecration and people from going to forbidden territory. They had a religious function. The Romans did not care what happened to the Temple as long as it was nothing illegal in their law. The Temple Guards were relieved in the daytime but not at night-time (page 214, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1). This means it was unlikely for the Jewish Guard to be sent to the tomb on Saturday evening. Pilate had desecrated the Temple and they would have been afraid to make do with fewer men.

The Jews would not have needed Pilate’s permission to place their own guards at the tomb. And how could Jewish guards work over the Sabbath? Could it be possible that Pilate had commanded that nobody would know where Jesus was buried and the high confidentiality was the reason guards could not be posted without his consent? The Jews could have asked Pilate to have the tomb guarded without knowing where the tomb was. This would tell us that the apostles and the women lied about knowing where the tomb was in order to create the resurrection hoax.

The Temple Guards were always checked up on by the captain to make sure they were not asleep. They got beaten up and their clothes burnt off if they were caught sleeping. The Jews would have been especially anxious to make sure a Jewish Guard at the tomb did not sleep. And they would have been paranoid about the Romans doing the right things for when Pilate had to be asked to place guards at the tomb it gave the probably inaccurate impression that the Romans could not care less what happened to Jesus.

The Temple had a tremendous influx of visitors because of the feast. It is impossible it believe that any guards would have been sent from the Temple to the tomb of a Jesus who was popular and the Jews feared what the people might do if anything bizarre happened to him like we are told in the Gospel. The priests could have been attacked.

It is important to establish that the guards were Roman because that helps to reveal the story of what Matthew says they did as rubbish.

Perhaps the guards were telling the truth and they did sleep on duty. Matthew gives absolutely no evidence that they were lying. That is the foundation of the empty tomb miracle or mystery – gossip.

Top of the Document

GUARDS BRIBED TO LIE?

The Matthew version of events is that there were Roman Guards at Jesus’ tomb to make sure nobody purloined the body and claimed Jesus rose. An angel opened the tomb on Sunday morning causing them to faint in terror. Some of them came round and went to the Jews. These were bribed to testify that they slept on duty and during that time the body was stolen by Jesus’ disciples.

FACT 1: The soldiers would not have went to the Jews. Policemen that have a problem go to their superiors not to a bunch of callous liars. The gospel says that the Jews accused Jesus of doing miracles that were all fraud. Romans would have been more open to the idea of the supernatural in Jesus’ life than Jews. They would have been too afraid of the angel they supposedly saw to lie. The soldiers could have been accused of telling lies about the angel and the rest and reported by the Jews. Plus the Jews were the temple priests – Sadducees. Sadducees had no belief in the afterlife or in angels. To them, the Old Testament angels were just appearances of God. They didn’t believe in any resurrection and would not have believed the soldiers had they testified that Jesus rose. The Jews would not have believed it about the angel. They would have had the soldiers in big trouble for they would have thought they were lying.

Even Matthew does not say the guards made such a testimony. All he says is they went to the Jews and said they would make it. And Christian liars often say they did make the testimony to inflate the evidence for the resurrection. Matthew doesn’t say the guards found the tomb empty.

FACT 2: They did not admit to the chief priests that they were unconscious yet the Gospel says they did.

The chief priests collaborated with Rome but they would have liked to get at them by accusing them of sleeping on duty when they had the legal chance for their racist scriptures told them to prefer Jewish rulers. They only licked Roman boots because they felt that there would be big trouble for the land if they did not. Moreover, these Jews were sceptical about the miracles of Jesus for they said his resurrection would have to be a fraud like everything else he did. Knowing their sceptical attitude – the chief priests were Sadducees who rejected the afterlife and current miracles and angels - how could the soldiers have approached them?

It is thought that it had to be confessed for they could not deny it. You cannot say that they knew the women saw them for there is no evidence of that. So this has to be left out of the argument for it is speculation.

The guards could have stopped the women talking by threats or simply contradicted them. Women were disbelieved more readily than men. It was only the word of a couple of women against a number of guards and everybody believes the guards.

The men could have said that they were lying down resting but not asleep and accuse the women of being mistaken or lying had the women seen them sleeping.

Anyway, the women would not dare tell when it involved the ruthless soldiers. And the Jews and Romans would have dismissed it as gossip for they would not have got the information first-hand. The apostles would not have been allowed to tell about the women.

Frank Morison says that the guards probably worked round the clock since Jesus was arrested for trouble over Jesus was feared so it would have been no wonder if they fell asleep (page 190, Who Moved the Stone?). But there is no probably about it for it could have been the guards who rested or other guards. Nobody posts guards who had to be suffering from fatigue.

FACT 3: The Jews would not have told the guards to say they slept on duty and neglected the tomb to stop anybody saying Jesus rose nor would the guards have agreed to do it.

The Jews allegedly told them they would keep them out of trouble if the Governor, Pilate, heard about their indolence. This is laughable because he would hear about it if they went about telling that. And it would still be a black mark on them that could come back to haunt them. It would be a huge hitch if men who claimed to sleep on duty got away with it. They wouldn’t have been allowed to say they did it. The Jews could not guarantee protection and it is impossible to see what they could have done. Pilate did not do everything they told him to.

The Jews would have been delighted to have the soldiers arraigned before Pilate to see them punished and found guilty of sleeping on duty and letting Jesus be stolen for that gave the perfect cover for what really happened. That was why the soldiers would not have gone to them for they would have had to expect this. The Jews knew that people would see the authorities were covering something up if soldiers could go around freely saying they let the body be stolen and were not punished. They would have drawn the conclusion that Jesus had risen. Matthew has the Jews doing exactly what they did not want to do! What a daft wonder-tale!

The Jews would have been in trouble for Pilate would have to find out that they claimed to know the Guards slept and never informed him.

The guards might have said they were attacked and knocked out or drugged instead of saying they fell asleep for sleeping on duty brought more than the sack, it inevitably brought the death-penalty (page 223, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1).

No soldier would have been willing to slander and endanger himself for a religion that he hated and to destroy a religion that was as good as dead and could be handled by the sword.

If they said the tomb was robbed one moment their backs were turned they would have been in less danger for these things happen. That is what they would have been told to say.

Or the Jews could have told them to admit that they fainted and blame a man dressed up as an angel for it. If an earthquake happened as Matthew says that could have scared them badly.

FACT 4: Upon finding the tomb empty, if they did that, the soldiers could have sealed the tomb again and said nothing not even to the Jews. They would have in case they would not be believed and would have been legally obliged to in case people would see the body was gone. Nobody would have known a thing. Or if they had to tell the Jews and their bosses there was no sense in telling everybody else that Jesus had disappeared. They could have acquired a body to put in the tomb and claim that it was Jesus’ and forbid entry. The Jews would have persuaded them to do that if they had gone to them. It is better to have a body in the tomb to refute the disappearance than to have word of mouth. The Jews knew the people placed no trust in the Romans.

FACT 5: If the Romans were going to tell a lie saying the disciples took Jesus when they were asleep why didn’t they tell the Jews that the tomb was robbed when they slept on duty even if it wasn’t true in the first place? They knew that those Jews were sceptics about the paranormal.

FACT 6: The Jews would not have told them to be so silly and say they knew who took the body while they were dead to the world.

Who would swallow such an asinine story? Who would believe that they were all asleep? Some had to stay awake to watch over the sleepers for Roman soldiers were widely hated and in danger. Who would believe that the grave robbers were so quiet that they didn’t waken anybody? People would know that if they did sleep they would have lain around the tomb in such a way that nobody could interfere with it without disturbing them. The guards would have been seen to have not been asleep for they were near the city and there were lookouts on the walls. The guards did not claim to be asleep for blatant lies would only make people think they had seen Jesus rise. The Gospel maker is lying when it says the Jews still accepted this story at the time he wrote for they wouldn’t have believed it for five seconds.

FACT 7: The story never gives any evidence that the soldiers lied when they said that the body was stolen so maybe they were telling the truth about that. Even Matthew never actually says it was a lie. He never says the reason the body vanished was because it rose all in one piece. The lie was in saying they slept during the theft for they had fainted. The lie was told to make the Christians look dishonest so that nobody would believe any resurrection story.

Matthew does not put the story in to prove the body was not stolen for his narrative shows that it could have been taken when the men were in a faint. It shows the Christians made up stories that served no useful purpose. If God really sent an angel that did not make the women faint but made the guards faint then God wanted the guards to faint so it was a miracle and that is a crazy suggestion. The angel was not supernatural or perhaps the Devil sent him. If there were guards then they were telling the truth when they said that they slept thinking nothing would happen and woke to find the tomb robbed. Matthew just assumed that it was a faint. He does not say he has evidence that they fainted. He couldn’t have for the men could not tell the public they were so negligent even if it were true.

FACT 8: If the guards had said they knew it was disciples of Jesus who carried off the body, they would have had to make some arrests and avail of false witnesses to convict the accused but this never happened showing that Matthew was making it all up. There must have been witnesses to enable them to say it was the disciples for soldiers cannot just make accusations. These witnesses are unmentioned. Interesting. Either there were none or Matthew wanted them to be forgotten. Either way something suspicious was going on.

FACT 9: Matthew contradicts himself on the guards and the missing body.

The angel is all Matthew says they saw for they fainted at the sight and left upon coming round after the women left. The angel could have been the Devil who wanted to scare them unconscious so that the body could be stolen so Matthew fails to be convincing if he wants us to think the body left the tomb supernaturally. The Jews could have told them to say that the angel was a demon who had taken the body and asked them to say a good angel raised Jesus.

There was no need for the soldiers to tell anybody that Jesus had simply vanished. They could have said the angel scared them into a faint and somebody must have taken the body when they were out cold.

Matthew infers that the soldiers must have went and told the Jews that Jesus had vanished from the tomb for there would have been no need for bribes if they had just seen an angel that opened the tomb.

How did they know that Jesus was gone supernaturally when the angel scared them when he appeared before he opened the tomb and made them faint?

It is more likely that they did not think the body was missing at all but just assumed it later and happened to be right.

FACT 10: If the soldiers had really been traumatised by a holy angel there would have been no way they would have dared to lie and risk his wrath. If they would have lived on the edge then they would just as easily have taken the body themselves.

FACT 11: If the burial cloths were still in the tomb it would not refute the guards’ claim that they saw people stealing the body. Yet Christianity lies that it would (page 355, The Truth of Christianity). The Church says the cloths stand against the testimony of the guards that they saw people stealing the body.

The Christians say that the thieves would not have left the cloths behind. They say the cloths prove that nobody stole the body so Jesus must have risen.

Come to think of it, when the guards went to the Jews the Jews would have seen to it that the cloths were removed from the tomb before anybody would see them. Though the cloths being there would not disprove theft they would lead to Jesus's followers claiming they were a disproof of theft.

The tomb was left alone so were the cloths found in the tomb the real cloths of Jesus? Somebody could have planted cloths there to confuse the authorities about the theft.

FACT 12: When the story of the angels or men in white at the tomb came out, sceptics could have said they were the men the guards had allowed to steal the body. Men dressed so strangely could have got the body removed from the tomb and put new cloths there as if Jesus had gone leaving the cloths behind.

There was no effort made to rule this out indicating that the angels story was a late invention. The story of the angels would not have been tolerated by the Jewish authorities or the Romans at any time. The witnesses would have been put to death.

FACT 13: The bribe story is a pack of lies.

Acts 1 tells us that the resurrection was kept secret for forty days. This makes the bribe story ridiculous for you do not bribe people to contradict what nobody is saying. You tell them to say nothing until somebody speaks and only then. The soldiers saying nothing until the resurrection tale came out would not have looked bad for this is the pattern with a lot of controversial claims. Confidentiality would have been a good excuse. They could not force the witnesses to speak out by speaking out first.

The bribe must have been substantial when the Romans were prepared to risk everything for it. It must have been worth a lifetime’s wages each. This makes it most unlikely that it was offered when Matthew says. There was no bribe.

Matthew says that some of the guards reported to the Jews. Matthew would tell us if the soldiers who had not gone with the rest told his version of events so they didn’t implying the rest had not been bribed to lie but were telling the truth. Matthew could not have known if they had really been bribed anyway.

But the gospel lets us think that the ones who didn’t go to the Jews could have been as bad as the ones who did. Maybe they were represented.

The Jews did not need to bribe but to say the men admitted to sleeping on duty and use them to blackmail them.

The bribe story is imaginary. If the Christians were so desperate to stop the Jews from saying that the body was stolen by the disciples and were happy to resort to lies it means that it probably was stolen by them. The truth could not refute the accusation. But if theft would not discredit the resurrection then why the cover-up in Matthew? Perhaps Matthew thought the empty tomb might be evidence for the resurrection and put it in, in case it was, which is a lot different from saying it IS evidence. He was preparing the way for it to become evidence if that was what it could become. Perhaps the Jews wanted to accuse the disciples of theft so that nobody would believe them if they began to say Jesus rose or did true miracles.

FACT 14: If the guards had accused the disciples of taking the body they would have needed to follow this up and make some arrests. Securing a false conviction would have been dead easy to them when the Jews and they were so corrupt. They were saying they could prove it was the disciples when they accused them.

Top of the Document

COULD HAVE BEEN STOLEN

The body of Christ could have been stolen for Matthew says it was left unguarded until the day after he died. And then it was left after the soldiers went to the Jews. Significantly he never says they looked in the tomb first. He would if they did. He would have to. So either they didn’t look in or Matthew invented the story of the guards in a hurry leaving holes in it.

Christians might say somebody must have been watching over it until the guards took over. But then the Romans would have gone to the tomb anyway when trouble was feared. If a gang of laymen supervised the tomb they were near enough to the city to summon the soldiers for help if a band of Jesus people were seen coming. Had there been a temporary guard before the professionals came we would be told. If the Romans were able to say that Jesus could have been stolen then we must take them at their word. We have every reason to. They would not have been there if it had been impossible.

The soldiers might have looked into the tomb or ensure the body was still inside before they put the seal on it if it had been left unsupervised for several hours before. But if they had checked Matthew who was so anxious to give the main details about them would have said so. The soldiers might have been satisfied from the outside appearance of the tomb and from the fact that only a few knew where the body was that the body would still be inside. They might have taken Joseph or somebody’s word for it that the tomb was the way they had left it. Joseph was an authority figure.

The Resurrection Factor claims that the seal of Rome was put on the tomb (page 77). But Matthew says the Jews put it on in the presence of the Roman soldiers which indicates that it was not the Roman seal. The Jews had seals of their own and since they demanded the guard it was up to them to put seals on the tomb. Had it been a Roman seal the women who went to the tomb to anointed Jesus on the third day would not have gone there at all for they would not get inside or get permission to get in to anoint for because of the popular beliefs regarding decomposition they could not expect permission. They might be willing to chance breaking a Jewish seal but not a Roman one. Weren’t they all very devoted to the law of the land? Pilate evidently did not care if Jesus was stolen or not when he had to be asked to put guards at the tomb and it seemed at that time that Jesus had no supporters to steal him. Pilate would not have cared enough about the body to let the Roman seal be used for he submitted the body to Jesus’ fans who could have done anything with it including cut it up for miracle souvenirs or eat it in response to his prediction that he would be eaten. The Sabbath was believed to have started on Friday night for Jews calculated a day from dark the night before. Some say since the Jews could not do that on the Sabbath the story is fiction or it was a Roman seal applied by Romans. But the fact is that one of them might not have worried about breaking the Sabbath under the circumstances. It is like a Protestant minister having an ecumenical service though his Church frowns upon it.

The soldiers did not faint but slept which shows the body could have been found missing and to have gone before they came on the scene.

There were no guards. They were made up to stop gossips saying that Jesus was stolen by his disciples which would have meant that they could have invented the resurrection visions for they were bent on tricking the people.

The thieves or the weather might have wiped away any telltale footprints or were they looked for at all?

The gospel of John alone says Jesus was wrapped in sticky cloths full of oils and spices according to the Jewish custom. But on Sunday morning it was found that these were stripped off and folded neatly. Would thieves strip a body and take it away?

How do we deal with this?

First it is refuted by the story of Matthew and Mark and Luke that Jesus was not in sticky clothes for the burial had to be completed by the women two days later for they came to anoint the body.

We have three gospels against one so which side should we take? The three gospels of course. And this despite the fact that women would not come to anoint a body that should be smelling already if Jesus really was beaten to a pulp as Christians believe.

The cloths found in the tomb could be explained as replicas of the cloths used for Jesus. If the thieves were seen carrying a body wrapped up and anointed nobody would link them with the missing body for the cloths were in the tomb.

The view that the thieves would have had to hurry instead of taking time to strip Jesus is useless. Nobody knows if they needed to hurry that much.

Jesus could have been wrapped up excessively so they left the extra cloths behind. Maybe these cloths came off. Maybe the cloths were left behind by the buriers and forgotten about.

Perhaps the thieves wanted people to think that Jesus rose and got out of the grave clothes himself.

Most thieves are not afraid to leave evidence that they struck if they are confident. Accordingly, the tomb of Jesus was left open. They knew nobody would be about until morning until they were well away. Or did they leave the tomb open because they were disturbed or to ensure a resurrection rumour would start?

And they knew that the more exposed a crime scene is, then the harder it is to pin down the criminals.

Matthew is the only one who mentions the earthquake that coincided with the moving of the stone. He says an angel moved it but we are not told how. Perhaps the angel moved the rock by sending the earthquake? If the tomb was opened naturally anybody at all could have taken Jesus out of the tomb.

There is no reason to think that the tomb was not opened and shut again before nature reopened it. Maybe the body was stolen the first time it opened.

There are hundreds of ways people could get away undetected with a corpse. Perhaps the body was reburied elsewhere before dawn at a secret place or lost?

The angels at the tomb were men for angel is simply a word for messenger. And they never affirm that the Lord was not stolen. According to John, Magdalene stated that Jesus could have been stolen and she believed that he was. Significant. She testifies that it was possible. The man who speaks to her makes no effort to contradict her at all so he agreed that Jesus was stolen too. She would not have been asking the gardener what the mysterious “they” had done with Jesus had it been impossible for him to have been stolen say if there were guards there. Magdalene found the tomb open and she fled according to John 20:2. She took it for granted that Jesus was stolen which does not necessarily mean she looked in and saw him missing. He could have been taken after she ran away. John would say if she had looked in.

If there was an earthquake the time the stone moved as Matthew says then it might well be that Jesus was covered out of sight in debris and the soldiers panicked thinking he was gone for they were superstitious about the stories surrounding him and ran off leaving a couple of the apostles with the chance to steal the body which may have been living or dead and perhaps the thieves were Andrew and Simon Zealotes who disappear from the New Testament or the men in white or the women. The men in white may have left the tomb tidied after finding the body gone and may have been Jews sent to investigate and who thought that Jesus rose.

Christianity says that Matthew says the tomb was opened as the women looked on. Well the rest certainly say it was opened before they arrived. If the tomb was already opened that means that the body could have been stolen before the women came. It is a bit less likely if the women were there when the tomb was opened.

In fact if Matthew is read properly, and without the Christian desire to pretend that the stone was sealed in front of witnesses and with Jesus inside and was seen opened with no body inside, it only says the women SET OFF for the tomb and the angel opened the tomb and spoke to the women not that they saw him opening it. So we can hold that the women could not verify that the body wasn’t stolen. This error that weakens the resurrection evidence in the gospels shows they are heretical and let Jesus down if he was the Son of God.

Some say Matthew can be translated as saying the women were at the tomb when the angel opened it. That would involve holding that when Matthew in our translation said they set out that he might have been indicating in his language that they got there. That is the only way it could be done. But even then you cannot be sure they saw the angel open the tomb. Maybe they were behind a bush comforting Mary Magdalene. The argument, “When Matthew can be translated as saying the women were there when these things happened as most Bible’s have it and when he could mean that that is what he meant for he would have to be clear about that”, misses the point and can be safely ignored.

Fundies need the women to see the tomb opened even though it contradicts the other gospels where they find the tomb opened and are baffled as to how this happened. The Christian solution to this contradiction is to assume that the gospels are not chronological! (bring up on www the Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?). There is no evidence for their solution being correct. Or that it helps.

The gospels were trying to show the resurrection was true so they could not afford to neglect chronology for that would make it possible to scoff at their evidence. Evidence can be destroyed by lack of chronology and we wouldn’t be able to trust the order he puts on other events in the account unless he was in strict order. It would have been easy for him to put the right order in.

The Gospel of John has Jesus been buried in loads of expensive spices and oils and Christians assume without evidence that a copyist made a mistake and it was less (page 102, The Jesus Inquest). If he had been saturated in such a heap of extravagances, he would have been worth stealing so that the oils and spices could be sold.

Top of the Document

STONE EASY TO MOVE

The New Testament states that Jesus’ tomb was cut out of a rock. Since that is so difficult it would seem to be a small tomb with a small stone for a door. The stone would have been like a flagstone for why have a big boulder? A flag would seal up the gaps better. Flags were used and rolled back and forth along a grove in the ground. And the angel in Matthew could still have sat on it if it were lying on something high.

The simplest way to shut defenders of the miraculously vanishing body idea up is to ask them what proof is there that the tomb was finished or just half-made. Accidents will happen and stones will fall out when the job is incomplete. They will answer that Jesus would not have been put there if it was not finished knowing fine well that the inside could have been ready.

It is interesting that Frank Morison says that two men could have moved the stone of the tomb (page 148, Who Moved the Stone?).

There were at least five women according to Luke and there is one in John and two or three in the rest. They wondered who was going to move the stone for them but that may say nothing about the size for that was a man’s job and that society was rigidly sexist. When they had no men in their company it gives us the clue that only one man was needed. How? For they were going to ask a passer-by for one man is easier to find than a few. There would have been few men about at that hour. (Or maybe the women meant they needed somebody with authority to break the seal, which is out of the question because they would have got their permission from the authorities before they had set out at all.) If so, one man would have done when they were just going to keep an eye out for one of the few men about to do it. An inconsistency in the story is that they ran to the apostles minutes later instead of bringing one along to move the stone. Some say the stone was heavy when five women could not move it. But most of them may have been old and they may have only imagined it was that hard to move. When they went alone it suggests they believed they could move it themselves. Matthew and Mark have two or three women which must be taken to be exact for they would not have implied that such a small number went alone to the tomb obviously intending to open it which would indicate a small stone that was easily moved and a grave easily robbed. It is certain that the stone was easily moved and not ultra heavy. The stone might have just been a light flag that was cut in a hurry so that the tomb would not be left open.

The tomb might have been partly open but closed enough to keep animals out and the women might only have needed it moved a bit to climb into the tomb. Or maybe they thought they needed it. Jesus could have got out through the gap.

Matthew 27:60, Mark 15:46 and Luke 23 say that Joseph moved the stone back to close the tomb at the burial and don’t mention anybody else. John says that Nicodemus was there as well burying Jesus. Nobody else was mentioned so there was nobody else meaning that just two men could move the stone. The gospel would not omit mention of another helper who moved the stone for it would have been to its advantage to have a stone that only say ten strong men could shift. Luke’s at least five women could manage it. Matthew’s “angel” who he never says was supernatural moved the stone alone. Matthew says that the angel who we know could be just a man moved the stone. He may not say the man physically lifted the stone out but he could mean that and that is significant.

The Secret Gospel of Mark says that Jesus moved the stone of a young man’s tomb by himself.

Scholars who say there were no guards would say that the stone must have been exceptionally heavy when no guards were needed to keep intruders out. That is stupid for if the disciples would have stolen Jesus they could have got enough men to move the stone so the stupid guards would still have been needed.

Worse is the argument in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol 1 that Jesus’ stone would have been heavier than usual for there was a danger of theft (page 208). The best way to avoid theft is not to let anybody know where the body is. And the tomb was not made for Jesus so the stone would have been ordinary and who was going to transport a mammoth rock at that time? If there were guards nobody would have worried about the stone. And the Matthew Gospel says Jesus was left unguarded for a long time which shows there was nothing unusual about the size of the stone.

The Bezae Manuscripts say that Mark 16:4 originally said that the stone could not be rolled away even by twenty men (page 71, The Resurrection Factor). But there is no evidence that the manuscripts are right or that this was in the original. The best manuscripts omit that reference. Also, since the stone was flat one can imagine how big it would be if twenty could not move it. Nobody would have a stone that size at their tomb. And the Jews would not have been able to say the apostles stole Jesus for there were only eleven of them and most of them were believed to have turned against Jesus because of the way they treated him at the end. This left only a few to steal the body if they wished.

The stone had to be removed by rolling it up a slot in an incline (page 86, The Resurrection Factor). But the women found it at a distance from the grave see page 87 of the fundamentalist tripe The Resurrection Factor. If this is so, then it sounds like the stone fell out and rolled a bit away from the tomb. That would scare the soldiers off, giving somebody the chance to remove the body. Perhaps the slot went on down past where the stone was positioned at the door and was kept in place with a brick or something. Jesus might have been able to move the brick so that the stone would slide and he could get out. Perhaps there was a rope to the brick and somebody hiding in the bushes pulled it out scaring the soldiers away for they were superstitious. This person then was able to rescue Jesus.

Jesus knew he would die one day and the gospels say he planned to rise again long before he did. The tomb could have been rigged to manufacture evidence that Jesus rose. It could have been a magic trick.

Richard Carrier in his Internet site, Why I Don’t Buy the Resurrection Story, says that stones across tombs in Palestine at the time of Jesus were very small and none larger that 4.5 feet high are known. The 4.5 feet one is on Herod’s family tomb meaning the others were probably smaller for it was a royal tomb. The stone of Jesus would have been less than a ton in weight and not hard to push from inside and the word roll in the gospels suggests that the stone was a big flat thing.

Top of the Document

THE MEN IN WHITE

Mark says there was a young man in white at the tomb of Jesus when the women arrived and he never calls him an angel. John says that Magdalene saw two angels inside the tomb. In Matthew, an angel descends and rolls back the stone and speaks to the women and he resembles a bolt of lightning. Luke just mentions two men in dazzling robes who spoke to the women at the tomb. Mark is the first gospel so what it says carries the most weight. It would say if the man were supernatural so he was not.

If I met John and Tom together and tell Mary I met Tom and I don’t mention John there is no lie if she does not know John and if he is not relevant. But there is no reason for Luke and John to say there were two angels when the others say one so there is a contradiction. The Gospellers knew they had to avoid anything that their critics could pick on so they had to avoid apparent contradictions so the contradictions must be deliberate and real. The Gospellers did not mean to contradict themselves but perhaps each other.

The angels could have been men for angel simply means messenger. Matthew’s man like a lightning flash could have appeared as lightning flashed making him look like lightning. Or were his robes so white that they dazzled like lightning in the morning sun? Or perhaps the angel was glorious in Matthew’s opinion but this glory was not visible and the lightning was normal enough. It is possible to write that a person is glorious and that people faint with awe of him without meaning that the glory caused the faint. Matthew held that God’s glory is there though it cannot be seen. His faith was used to the idea of invisible glory. Matthew does not say the glory of the angel was seen. The glory aspect does not refute the supernaturality of the angel. Matthew might be saying that the rock was shifted as a result of a lightning strike that was interpreted as an angelic force. The body snatchers might have gone with the body before the tomb was sealed or after it when they closed it again and this might be why it was open again. The man or his lightning strike moved the stone Matthew says. It was not very heavy in that case.

Matthew says the guards saw the flashing which scared them for what looked like a man would not. He says the flashing was the angel but that is only his interpretation and assumption. By the time the man was visible the guards were supposedly in a dead faint. There is no evidence that the guards saw the man or men. If they did then maybe they were the disciples the Jews told them to say stole the body from the tomb while they were asleep. The guards would then be saying they saw them and magically fell asleep enabling them to steal the body.

Why didn’t the guards say men in white stole the body instead of saying it was disciples of Jesus? This suggests that they recognised the men.

We know that it was not unheard of for men to put on white robes and scare Roman soldiers. Simon bar Giora managed it in 70 AD when he managed to make the Romans think he was a supernatural being that rose out of the ground (page 21, The Second Messiah). Matthew is wide open to the objection that someone frightened the guards and when they were out cold somebody robbed the tomb. And when it was seen that robbing the grave was possible the tricksters decided to go a bit further. It could have been a joke that was too successful and made the guards faint.

The Acts report that that when Jesus ascended into Heaven the apostles saw two men who told them Jesus would return as they had seen him go. It is not hinted that they were supernatural and the ascension which says Jesus was lifted up and hidden by a cloud could not be magical either. Luke only reports that the witnesses thought he was rising up and there could have been a fog. A man can look like he is levitating in a fog. Ascension can mean rising to the heavenly kingdom but without any visible or physical lifting up. The men were anxious to convince the apostles that Jesus would return one day. Surprisingly, they tell them they should not look up to Heaven for him to come back meaning that they would live to see it and that he had not gone there. The fact that Jesus never came back shows that they were not angels and only said what they thought. Luke only reports what they said without expressed approval. When these men played such a trick on the apostles they could have taken the body out of the tomb.

Back to the men in white. Would you go to steal a body in white robes? They would have avoided getting dirty. We hear about the robes but perhaps they had coats with them. The white robes have occult connotations. People sometimes stole bodies for use in magical rites and to make potions and philtres. Jesus’ body would have been a prime target if he had had the reputation of a healer and a sorcerer the Bible tells us he had. Plus the body was already gone by the time the men were seen. Would men stay around after the body had been taken? It depends.

The white men said that Jesus rose. It is significant that the Bible does not say if they knew he rose or not. They could have been fooling the women unaware that they were nearer the truth than that they were meant to be. They had to say something like that for they could hardly say that Jesus was stolen if they did it or knew who did.

Mark’s man told the ladies that Jesus was on his way to Galilee to meet his disciples there (16:7) but then the disciples encountered Jesus that day in Jerusalem (John 20). Christians say that there is no contradiction because the man meant that Jesus was to have the final or important meeting in Galilee while John reported the unimportant one. That is a mere excuse. The meeting in John is more important for it promises forgiveness which is not mentioned in the Galilee meeting.

The contradiction shows that the men were not real messengers from God for they erred. Lied would be a better word for Jesus would not have risked them going to Galilee without him being able to make it.

In Mark and Luke and John we read that the men or man in white were seen inside the tomb. They were covering up for the theft for they had no need to be inside. That is why Matthew prefers to say the angel was outside.

They were no angels when they spoiled the strength of the evidence for the resurrection by perching themselves outside and even inside the tomb. God would not have allowed them to.

Were they surprised by the women when they were inside the tomb? Did they tell them Jesus had risen to get rid of them before they would notice that they were trying to get the body out?

The tomb was gloomy and the land was probably darkish since the sun had just started to come up and the women were highly emotional. One of the men they saw could have been Jesus himself and they didn’t know him and he got rid of them quickly.

The women would have been slaughtered if they spoke of men being in the tomb instead of reporting it to the authorities.

The men at the tomb makes it as unreasonable to believe in the supernatural departure of the body from the tomb as it is to believe that £100 vanished from your till by the same means when somebody who was alone and close to it could have stolen it.

Christians will say the tomb is different for nobody had the motive to steal. What are they - psychics?

Some liberals try to argue that the men at the tomb were made up. But there is no evidence for this. They have either made the mistake of thinking that they were angels and therefore dubious or they don’t want them to have existed in case they took the body.

Top of the Document

THE SWOON THEORY

According to the swoon theory, Jesus Christ went unconscious on the cross and seemed to be dead and was thought to have been dead. Here, it is necessary to outline it to discount a supernatural reason for the tomb being empty.

The Gospels never prove that Jesus was dead or even nailed up. Many were simply tied to their crosses. The gospels only assume that Jesus was dead so there is no evidence that he was. If they had evidence it would have been based on Jesus seeming to have stopped breathing but that proves nothing. The centurion in Mark 15 saw Jesus died and said he was the Son of God meaning he was taking it for granted that he was dead without checking any further. This was the boss and he would not have tolerated any of his underlings stabbing Jesus to test if he was dead so John’s gospel lied when it said Jesus was stabbed. The gospel itself says the people who nailed Jesus were careless. It is not use saying that they could have been put to death for failing to put Jesus to death and they would not have been careless for the gospel says they did something stupid and people do stupid things.

There is no need to believe that Jesus’ crucifixion was fatal even if you pretend that the gospels are inerrant.

A soldier allegedly cut Jesus’ side to see if he was dead. The flow of blood from the side indicates that Jesus was probably still alive after he was reckoned to be dead. When the soldier did not thrust him again it indicates that there was a plan afoot to save Jesus’ life. John, the sole record of the incident, indicates that there was a plan to save Jesus’ life. John, the sole record of the incident, would tell us if the wound was meant to be fatal but he doesn’t. At John’s time, some heretics denied that Jesus died. Then John hinted that the wound was just a test.

Pilate is surprised when told that that Jesus died so soon.

There is no evidence that nails pierced his feet so he could have walked out of his tomb. The New Testament picks out bits of Psalms as prophecies of Jesus disregarding the context. It might have done exactly the same with Psalm 22 which speaks of a man having his hands and feet pierced. It never says the whole Psalm is about Jesus.

He could have got out of the tomb by himself or he was never buried in it in the first place.

If Jesus left the tomb alive he might not have been strong enough or brave enough to close the tomb again. The open tomb may suggest that he left the usual way or that whoever took him out was in a hurry to get him medical help and left the tomb open. If Jesus had died after they would not have been able to get him back. Perhaps the guards had been told though the tomb was sealed to keep checking up on it in case Jesus would come back to life so that he could be slain again and Jesus tricked them and sneaked out when they were not looking but were inside the tomb? Perhaps the guards were bribed by Joseph of Arimathea to let Jesus go in peace if he revived.

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Magdalene not to keep touching him for he hasn't ascended yet to God. This implies that Jesus was not glorified. He was a suffering ordinary looking and ordinary man then. He tells her to tell the apostles that he was ascending to God as if he had no intention of meeting up with them. The John gospel certainly accidentally infers that Jesus somehow managed to survive the crucifixion. It would be very odd if God raised Jesus as if he were just a normal man again to turn him into a magical being later. We read that Jesus appeared to the twelve later which could have been a vision imagined by the apostles. If they suspected Jesus was alive they could have been caught up in mass hallucination. It is not even said that they experienced all the same thing during their visions.

The evidence for a magical restoration of life is dubious.

Top of the Document

CONCLUSION

The inability of the Bible to abide by the rule that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence shows that it is no more inspired than the Chambers English Dictionary. One can find plenty of statements in it to explain why Jesus disappeared. We can come up with any number of possible theories but we are not sure which one is the right one. But all that matters is that we know that whatever happened it WAS of this world.

Top of the Document