A hypothesis is of dubious validity if it is unable to provide a possible explanation for what actually happened. The hypothesis that the disciples all fled from Jerusalem immediately after Jesus’s crucifixion is inconsistent with the claim that they announced his resurrection to people in the city soon after. An alternative hypothesis which does provide a complete and consistent explanation can be summarized as follows:-

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who became widely known in Israel in the last year of his life, with many supporters including a few among the literate elite in Jerusalem. He also made powerful enemies, who contrived to have him crucified. Later that day, one of his wealthy supporters obtained permission to remove his unconscious body from the cross and placed it temporarily in a nearby tomb until it could be moved after dark to a secret location where care could be provided. On regaining consciousness Jesus asked to see his disciples, who were not considered trustworthy but were nevertheless led to see him. Jesus told them that he would meet them back in Galilee after he had recovered, but he died of his injuries a few days later. This meeting was the only genuine contact between the disciples and Jesus after his crucifixion. All other reports are the result of mistaken identity, hindsight, false memory, illusions and visions. The disciples had lost contact but were sure of two things: they had seen Jesus alive after his crucifixion and he had promised to return to them. This was the message which they told to his supporters, which was taken as evidence that the anticipated apocalypse was even more imminent than previously thought.

The entire episode would now be forgotten if it had not been for the actions of Paul. He was originally an opponent until, while on the Golan Heights on the way to Damascus, he was nearly struck by lightning. He was literally thunderstruck, but imagined that he heard the voice of Jesus and reasoned that since it had come from heaven, the source of lightning, Jesus was now in heaven so must be divine. Paul decided that Jesus had specially chosen him to receive this secret and had given him the task of revealing it to everyone else, and he concluded that Jesus had come to earth in human form and had sacrificed himself to atone for human sin and when he returned at the apocalypse, only those who believed this message would be saved.

Of course no one knows and no one will ever know exactly what happened if there are multiple possibilities but if a hypothesis cannot provide a single possible account, then it is false.

The hypothesis presented above, on the other hand, leads to further proposals about what might have happened after Jesus’s crucifixion to give rise to the gospel stories:-

1.  When the women went to the tomb on the Sunday morning they met two servants sent by Joseph of Arimathaea to tidy up, who told them that Jesus was alive and would be taken back to Galilee. Later, with hindsight, the women decided that one of these men must have been Jesus. Matthew and John add some conversation details, but in the excitement of the occasion, it is unlikely that the women would have remembered accurately what was said.

2.  Later that day, two supporters on their way to Emmaus were joined by a third person and they discussed reports that Jesus’s body was missing. Later, with hindsight, they decided that this person must have been Jesus although they did not recognize him at the time and he was apparently uninjured. Further details in Luke are embellishments added to the story before it was recorded.

3. That evening, the disciples were led to the house where Jesus had been taken and they talked with him. He told them that he planned to return to Galilee after recovering and would see them there. This is the only report which mentions injuries, there is no question about identity and the disciples were unanimous about what happened.  But why did they not take him with them when they left? Because they were in an unfamiliar wealthy part of the city and did not know exactly where they were, because they would have had to carry him and they had no stretcher, because he seemed to be in good care, and because they would not have been allowed to take him even if they had wanted to do so.

4.  Some time later, several disciples were in a boat fishing when a man on the beach told them where to place their net to make a catch. They did not recognize the man as Jesus but, after bringing a large haul ashore, they decided it must have been him. This story appears only in John’s gospel where it continues with an elaborate account of Jesus having breakfast with the disciples on the beach. It is possible that a memory of a similar previous occasion got combined with this story by the time it was recorded.

5.  Matthew ends with the disciples meeting Jesus in Galilee as expected. This is an example of confusing expectation with reality.

6.   Luke ends with Jesus leading the disciples to Bethany and blessing them, which is just a literary device to conclude his gospel.

These proposals may not be exactly what happened, but they are far more positive than vague stories about visions.

There are good reasons to conclude that Jesus did not die on the cross:-

1. Some victims of crucifixion took several days to die but Jesus was taken down after about six hours.

2. Josephus records instances of people surviving crucifixion.

3. In wartime people survive terrible injuries. In the past, people survived amputation.

4. Mark notes that Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. At the very least, this shows that Mark thought survival possible or he would not have included the remark in his gospel.

5. The hypothesis which I have suggested allows for Jesus to be taken into care on the evening after crucifixion. Actions described for Joseph of Arimathaea make no sense if he did not do this so if it is fiction it is a nonsensical story.

6. The disciples claimed that they had seen Jesus alive after crucifixion. If this is true then he did not die on the cross.

7.  The hypothesis that belief in the resurrection resulted from visions by the disciples lacks explanations of how and where they happened.

In response to Gavriel:

1 & 2.  I suggest that Jesus was given care by Joseph of Arimathaea.

3.   A spear wound is only mentioned by John, so the others did not consider it important. It is probably a gross exaggeration. Maybe one of the soldiers poked Jesus to see if he would react.

4.  Mark thought that survival was possible.

5.  The story that a member of the Temple Council took custody of Jesus’s body, put it in a location known to the public and then made no protest when it disappeared is nonsensical. The hypothesis that he took the body to a secret location is consistent with all other evidence.

6. & 7.  If you propose that the disciples and Paul had visions, then you need to suggest how and where they might have occurred.

Some further comments:-

One of the implications of the hypothesis that post-crucifixion visions of Jesus caused the disciples to believe that he was divine is that Paul received this information through them rather than being the source of it himself. The argument to support this is based on passages from the epistles. The first is from 1 Cor 15: 3-6 where Paul writes:-

“I handed over to you the most important things which I had received: that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve”.     The last three items could have come from the disciples (although it is curious that Paul refers to the twelve. Did he know that Judas had betrayed Jesus? Maybe not.), but where did he get the idea that Christ died for our sins, which implies that he was divine?   In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul says:-

“I must make it clear, my friends, that the gospel you heard me preach is no human invention. I did not take it over from any man: no man taught it me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ”.    Paul clearly states that he did not get the idea from the disciples. On the other hand, he repeatedly claims that he has received a gift, a secret, or a commission direct from heaven (Romans 1:5; Romans 12:3; Romans 14:15-16; Romans 16:25-26; 2 Cor 12:1-10; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 3:7-10; 2 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:2-3; etc.) which fits the hypothesis that his belief that Jesus was divine resulted from his conversion experience. Furthermore, his conversion appears to have been sudden rather than a long period of doubt followed by gradual acceptation of new belief. Then there is the matter of the disciples own values. They had lived with Jesus for years and knew his strengths and weaknesses, but God was so holy to them that he could not even be mentioned by name. Paul’s belief that Jesus had been exalted to the same high status was blasphemous to them but Paul was familiar with Greek and Roman Gods who came to earth in human form all the time so the idea would not have seemed ridiculous to him.

The second passage is from Romans 1:3-5 :-   “Concerning his son, who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead”  It is generally considered that these two passages, which set out the fundamentals of the Christian creed, were adopted by Paul from another author and the question is whether they pre-date Pauls’s conversion, which happened within 2-3 years of Jesus’s crucifixion. However, the epistles in which these passages appear date from 10-15 years later, so far more time for someone to have composed them and for Paul to have adopted them than in the period between crucifixion and conversion.

Overall, the balance of evidence is that the belief that Jesus was divine originated from Paul rather than from post-crucifixion visions by the disciples.

The overall objective of any hypothesis is to find the most probable explanation for the origin of biblical documents which exist today. Any historical hypothesis is to some extent speculative since it is impossible to re-run the past to check what actually happened, but any valid hypothesis must be able to provide a complete and possible chain of events leading to the present situation.

The problem with the hypothesis that belief in the resurrection resulted from post-crucifixion visions by the disciples is the lack of explanation of when, where and how these crucial events occurred. As noted previously, it is also intrinsically improbable that the disciples believed that Jesus was divine and there is evidence which points to Paul as the originator of this belief.

My opinion is that, overall, the hypothesis that an unconscious Jesus was removed from the cross by a wealthy supporter and was seen alive by the disciples before dying a few days later is the most complete and probable explanation.

gavriel said

If he was seen alive a few days later, badly wounded and eventually dying, his disciples would not have started circulating stories about him being resurrected. Jesus and his disciples would have talked together and it would not have been perceived as a resurrection, but as an escape. The developing theology of the remaining disciples would have taken another course.

Finally Paul had a vision at a time, when Jesus according to your theory was since long dead. Paul obviously compared his vision with the stories he heard from Peter and James. 

2000 years ago, no-one could distinguish between death, coma and unconsciousness. The disciples believed that Jesus had died on the cross and had been buried, so their initial message to his supporters was simply that he had been resurrected and would return when he had recovered.

Paul’s vision did not involve Jesus. His description of the event and his subsequent actions correspond with nearly being struck by lightning.

gavriel said
Blackwell: “The problem with the hypothesis that belief in the resurrection resulted from post-crucifixion visions by the disciples is the lack of explanation of when, where and how these crucial events occurred.”

According to Paul, and the most probable chronology deduced from Paul’s letters, Paul’s vision occurred around 33CE and all the other visions before that. It is not very likely that the apostles had visions years after the crucifixion event, most probably it happened in the immediate aftermath of the shocking events, if it happened at all.  

If the disciples had visions in the immediate aftermath of the shocking events, then where were they? Were they in Jerusalem or in Galilee or somewhere else?  Were they together or separate? Did the women accompany them or stay behind in Jerusalem?  What did they think Jesus said to them? When did they tell others about their experiences?

A hypothesis is false unless it can provide a possible explanation of what might have happened.