Resurrection Theories

Most Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross and then miraculously returned to life. But some non-Christians have proposed other theories to explain what happened. Several of these resurrection theories originated in ancient times, but others are modern. Here are brief descriptions of the best-known theories:

Stolen Body Theory

Some early opponents of Christianity claimed that the followers of Jesus secretly stole his body from the tomb and then invented the whole story of the resurrection. The Gospel of Matthew mentions this accusation in verses 27:64 and 28:13, and refutes it by saying that the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers.

This accusation may have even prompted the Romans to enact a new ordinance known as the Edict of Caesar. This ordinance, which is engraved on a marble slab found in Galilee, prescribes the death penalty for anyone convicted of unlawfully removing a body from a tomb. It's possible that this law was enacted because of accusations against the followers of Jesus.

The Stolen Body Theory is one of the oldest and best-known resurrection theories. But there are two good arguments against it. First, a hoax involving so many people would be difficult to pull off. And second, the followers of Jesus would have had no plausible motive for carrying out such a plot.

Missing Body Theory

A more likely possibility is that someone else took the body from the tomb without Jesus' followers knowing about it. In fact, according to John 20:2-16, this is exactly what Mary Magdalene thought when she first discovered that the tomb was empty. This explanation would probably occur to most people who found themselves in a similar situation.

There is a variation of this theory in which everyone goes to the wrong tomb, which happens to be empty. But all forms of the theory have the same basic difficulty, because a missing body, just by itself, probably wouldn't be enough to convince most people that Jesus had returned to life. Still, the evidence strongly suggests that the first visitors to the tomb did find it empty, and this could very well have been the initial step toward the eventual belief in the resurrection.

Swoon Theory

The basic assertion of the Swoon Theory is that Jesus wasn't completely dead when he was removed from the cross. In fact many people have been mistakenly pronounced dead, even by modern doctors. In some cases breathing becomes so shallow and heartbeat so faint that both are very difficult to detect. If modern doctors can be fooled, then so could the Roman soldiers at the cross.

The gospels indicate that Jesus died much sooner than most victims of a crucifixion. According to Mark 15:44, Pontius Pilate was very surprised when he heard that Jesus was already dead. Proponents of the Swoon Theory often argue that this could indicate that he was actually still alive.

Some people have suggested that the early death might have been caused by the wounds that Jesus suffered during his scourging. Also, according to John 19:34, a soldier thrust a spear into his side shortly before he was removed from the cross. Even if he wasn't already dead, this probably would have finished him off.

On the other hand, some scholars think that the story of the spear thrust is a fabrication, purposely invented by the author of John to try to refute the idea that Jesus wasn't completely dead. The other three gospels, which were probably written before John, say nothing at all about a spear thrust. As for the scourging wounds, most experts doubt that they would have been fatal.

In some versions of this theory, Jesus revives for only a short time, just long enough to make a few appearances, and then actually does die. In other versions he makes a full recovery, but soon leaves the country to avoid recapture.

The Swoon Theory is usually regarded as one of the most plausible resurrection theories. But unless new evidence comes to light, it will continue to be based mostly on speculation.

Drugged-Body Theory

This is similar to the Swoon Theory, except that the apparent death on the cross is induced by a drug. Such a possibility does have a scientific basis, because experiments have shown that a plant-derived drug called Reserpine can put mice into a temporary death-like state for several days. This, or some similar drug, might very well have the same effect on a human being.

A detailed account of this theory was given by Hugh J. Schonfield in his book The Passover Plot. The author argues that a death-simulation drug was given to Jesus as part of a plot to allow him to survive the crucifixion.

Although such a scenario is possible, this theory is usually rejected on the grounds that it is too complex and involves too much conjecture.

Twin Theory

There are two main versions of this theory, both based on the idea that Jesus had a twin brother. In one version the twin dies on the cross instead of Jesus, and in the other version the twin appears as an impostor after Jesus dies.

Proponents of these ideas claim to find supporting evidence in certain names which can be translated as "twin". But both versions of the theory are obviously very far-fetched, and it has few supporters.

There are other variations on the idea that a mistake in identity caused someone else to be crucified instead of Jesus. Some early Gnostic writings say that Simon of Cyrene, the man who carried the cross, was also the man who died on it. And a fraudulent book called the Gospel of Barnabas says that Judas Iscariot was the man who was actually crucified. But both of these ideas are just as far-fetched as the twin theory.

Vision Theory

The basic idea of this theory is that the earliest belief in the resurrection was based on illusory visions of a ghostlike apparition of Jesus. In ancient times many people believed that divine beings sometimes used visions as a method of communication. A person who had such a vision knew that it was a vision, but thought that a divine being had created it. Thus, the belief in the resurrection could have originated when some followers of Jesus imagined that he was using visions to communicate with them. Then later, as the message was carried to people in other communities, stories about visions could have gradually evolved into stories of a real physical resurrection.

Supporters of this idea argue that the severe emotional impact of the crucifixion would have made the followers of Jesus susceptible to such visions. Their expectations for him had been so high, and his arrest and execution had occurred so suddenly, that many of them could have found it difficult to accept the reality of what had happened.

Some of his followers could have still been in a state of denial two days later when his tomb was found to be empty. That discovery could have given them hope that he had somehow survived after all. Fervently believing that he actually had survived, they could have had hallucinations in which they saw his ghostly form trying to communicate with them. Others may have seen him in dreams, or simply "felt his presence."

Proponents of this theory often point out that the apostle Paul apparently based his belief in the resurrection on a hallucinatory-like experience. As related in the Book of Acts (9:3-9), Paul was on the road to Damascus when a bright light flashed around him, then he fell to the ground and heard the voice of Jesus. The experience was so traumatic that he was blind for three days.

The letters of Paul are the earliest known Christian writings. Yet he never explicitly says that Jesus was resurrected in bodily form. And in 1Corinthians 15:3-8, he adds his experience on the road to Damascus to the list of other post-resurrection appearances, suggesting that he thought they were all of the same nature.

Another example of a vision of Jesus is found in the re-discovered "Gospel of Mary". One surviving fragment of this work contains a passage in which Mary Magdalene tells the other disciples that Jesus appeared to her in a vision and gave her a special revelation.

Some scholars think that Mary Magdalene may have been the first believer in the resurrection. It is an interesting fact that she plays the biggest role in the stories of the empty tomb and the first post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, yet she is rarely mentioned anywhere else in the gospels. Luke 8:2-3 says that seven demons had been expelled from her, and this could indicate that she was a very emotional person. As already noted, she apparently had at least one vision of Jesus. Perhaps her attachment to him was so strong that she couldn't accept the reality of his death, and she took this vision as proof that he was still alive.

Many people consider some form of the Vision Theory to be the most plausible alternative explanation for what happened.

Hypnosis Theory

Some people have suggested that visions of a risen Jesus could have been caused by post-hypnotic suggestion. This is in line with the theory that Jesus used hypnosis to perform some of his miraculous cures. If he could use hypnosis to cure people, then perhaps he could have also used it to implant a post-hypnotic suggestion into the subconscious of his followers.

Although this scenario is theoretically possible, most people think it is unlikely.

Spiritual Resurrection Theory

Some modern Christians, and even a few theologians, believe in a spiritual (rather than bodily) resurrection of Jesus. According to this view, his human body either vanished or was removed by God, and he reappeared in his eternal spiritual form.

Some scholars think that this was also the original belief of the earliest Christians, and that the idea of a bodily resurrection didn't appear until later. Possible evidence for this can be found in some of the earliest writings, including the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Thomas. Surviving writings of the gnostics indicate that this group of early Christians may have believed in a spiritual resurrection. In fact the evidence suggests that different groups of early Christians disputed this very matter, and some scholars suspect that several passages in the gospels may have been invented to try to refute the idea that Jesus arose in spiritual form. The best-known example is John 20:24-29, in which Jesus invites the disciple Thomas to touch the wounds made by the nails and the spear thrust. Some scholars doubt that this actually happened, especially since none of the other gospels say anything at all about nails or a spear thrust.

The belief that Jesus returned in a spiritual form is also consistent with the various gospel stories in which he suddenly appears and disappears, or passes through walls, and with the stories in which his followers don't initially recognize him, or are told not to touch him. Many scholars think that these stories are older than the stories in which he invites the disciples to touch him.

Note that the Spiritual Resurrection Theory is fundamentally different from the Vision Theory. In one case there is an actual spiritual resurrection, whereas in the other case there are only hallucinations.

Summary

In all likelihood the followers of Jesus did find his tomb empty, and this was probably the first step toward the belief in his resurrection. The empty tomb is also a key part of most of the alternative theories, though their explanations for it differ. One of the best-known explanations, that the body was stolen, doesn't seem convincing to most people. The Drugged-Body Theory, the Twin Theory, and the Hypnosis Theory are also usually rejected.

Many people consider the Vision Theory to be the most plausible of the alternative theories, but the Swoon Theory also has supporters. And some Christians prefer the idea of a spiritual resurrection to the traditional belief in a bodily resurrection.

Lost Gospels

According to some estimates, early Christians wrote at least twenty gospels that weren't included in the bible. Many of these non-biblical gospels apparently disappeared later, although it's possible that copies of some of them still survive at unknown locations. Luckily, several that appeared to be missing have been found again in modern times. But some are still missing, and could be permanently lost.

Gospels that were left out of the Bible are called non-canonical gospels. Many scholars also call them apocryphal gospels, because most of them have unknown origins. This uncertainty about their origins was one reason many of them were excluded from the Bible. But some were also excluded because they expressed unorthodox or heretical views.

Scholars know about the past existence of some missing gospels because they are mentioned in other ancient writings that have survived. Parts of some lost gospels were even copied into surviving writings, so that a portion of their original content is still preserved.

In fact, people are often surprised to learn that parts of several lost gospels may have been preserved in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This preserved material has been identified by certain characteristics which indicate that it was copied from other writings. Thus the authors of the New Testament gospels apparently got some of their information from earlier writings. Modern scholars call these earlier writings "sources", and have determined that there were probably three of them. But apparently all of them have disappeared.

These three lost sources may have been the first gospels. Their ancient names are unknown, so they are usually identified by modern names, specifically the Lost Q Source, the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative, and the Signs Gospel. Because no copies of any of them have survived, they are sometimes called hypothetical gospels. But most scholars believe that they really did exist at one time.

Actually, these three missing gospels aren't completely lost, since material from them is preserved in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In fact, considerable knowledge about their original content has been obtained by studying this preserved material.

Some other non-biblical gospels have been discovered more directly, because actual physical remains have been found. Examples include the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Judas. All of these were discovered in modern times. But only fragments or secondary translations have been found, so the complete original forms of all of them are still unavailable.

These three rediscovered gospels are named after Simon Peter, Mary Magdalene, and Judas Iscariot, but those weren't their real authors. Their real authors are unknown, and will probably never be identified. In ancient times anonymous authors would sometimes ascribe their books to famous people in an effort to get more publicity and authority for them.

Ancient writers mentioned a number of other gospels which they knew about, but which apparently no longer survive. These include the Gospel of Matthias, the Gospel of Perfection, the Gospel of the Seventy, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Gospel of the Twelve, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Eve. Other gospels may have also existed, but even their names have been lost.

Some early gospels may have vanished because they were secret gospels and very few copies were made. Others could have been lost due to wars, conquests, upheavals, and persecutions. In addition, there have been accusations that early church leaders intentionally destroyed some gospels in order to cover up embarrassing facts about the origins of Christianity. Some intentional destruction did take place, but exactly what was lost can't be determined.

But the modern discoveries prove that a missing gospel can sometimes be found again. And there is a chance that more will be found in the future, especially since small fragments of several possible unknown gospels have been uncovered in various excavations.

Here are brief descriptions of some of the best-known lost (or rediscovered) gospels:

The Gospel of Mary

The existence of this gospel was unknown until several fragments were discovered in modern times. Since the only long fragment is a Coptic translation, most of the original Greek text is still lost. And even the long fragment may only include about half of the book.

Because the "Mary" in this gospel is depicted as a very prominent disciple, most scholars assume that she is Mary Magdalene, although in the extant text she is always just called Mary. The gospel emphasizes her prominence by presenting her as a strong leader, and by suggesting that she was the most favored disciple of Jesus and received a special revelation from him. It also suggests that this led to a conflict with Peter, who may have seen her as a threat to his position as overall leader of the disciples in the period after Jesus departed.

Indications of a rivalry with Peter are especially evident in the last section of the extant text, in which Mary gets into an argument with Peter and his brother Andrew over some private revelations that Jesus had given to her. This section may derive from memories of a historical conflict between her and Peter which eventually caused her to leave the group. Thus, although this gospel probably wasn't written until the second century, it may preserve some traditions passed down from an earlier period.

The Gospel of Mary contains some gnostic ideas, particularly in the section which describes the revelations she received from Jesus. This connection with gnosticism, together with the prominent role that the gospel gives to a female, may have led to its suppression by orthodox Christians.

The Gospel of Peter

A fragment of this gospel was discovered in Egypt in the late nineteenth century, and two more possible fragments have been found since then. But a large portion may still be missing. Hopefully the remainder will eventually be found, because the available text contains some interesting material, including the only known description of Jesus leaving the tomb after his resurrection.

Ever since the first fragment was discovered, this gospel has been controversial. A few scholars think that it preserves some of the beliefs and views of the earliest Christians. But most regard it as a secondary work containing a mixture of fanciful elements and material copied from the New Testament gospels.

One intriguing part of this gospel is its account of the exit of Jesus from the tomb. This exit takes place during the night as some Roman soldiers stand guard nearby. Suddenly the soldiers see two men (or angels) descend from heaven and enter the tomb. A short time later the men come back out with Jesus between them. At this point the men look so tall that their heads reach to the sky, and Jesus looks even taller. They are followed out of the tomb by a cross. Suddenly the soldiers hear a voice from heaven, and the cross answers it.

The description of this scene puzzles many people, since it appears to depict a wooden cross that can walk and talk. But some scholars think that the passage is actually describing a cross-like formation of resurrected saints who have returned to life along with Jesus and follow him out of the tomb. A few scholars also see connections between this account and a passage at Matthew 27:52-53, which describes a similaThe Gospel of MaryThe Gospel of Petersimilar resurrection of dead saints.

The Gospel of Thomasr resurrection of dead saints.

The Gospel of Thomas

This gospel was probably first written in Greek, but the only surviving complete text is a Coptic translation discovered in Egypt in 1945. Its initial section indicates that it contains the "secret sayings" of Jesus, and the main text then gives 114 of these sayings. In most of the passages Jesus speaks as a teacher and his disciples make comments and ask questions.

Because the initial section of this gospel refers to "secret sayings", many scholars believe that it was a secret gospel, at least originally. This means that it was thought to contain secret knowledge, and that only certain individuals were allowed to read it. Several other secret gospels, or fragments of them, have also been discovered.

The Gospel of Thomas may preserve some authentic teachings of Jesus that aren't found in the bible. For this reason, many scholars regard it as the most important surviving non-canonical gospel.

The Gospel of Judas

The only extant copy of this gospel was found in Egypt, but the time and place of its discovery are uncertain, and there are indications that it passed through the Egyptian black market at one stage.

The existing copy is a Coptic text, probably a translation of a still-lost Greek original. Unfortunately the manuscript is damaged in many places, and some pages are missing, so that translation and interpretation are difficult. However, many scholars believe that it was a secret gospel used mostly by certain gnostic sects of Christians.

This gospel is notable in that it may depict Judas Iscariot as the most loyal disciple of Jesus, and an innocent martyr instead of an evil betrayer. But because of the damage to the manuscript, and the difficulties of interpretation, there is some uncertainty about this matter. In any case, this is one of the later gospels, probably not written until the second century, and most scholars doubt that it contains any authentic information about the real Judas Iscariot.

The Lost Q Source

This hypothetical gospel is also called the Lost Sayings Gospel and the Q Document. Like other hypothetical gospels, its probable existence has been inferred from studies of the New Testament gospels. In fact, it is thought to be the original source of many of the teachings of Jesus that are preserved in Matthew and Luke. The name "Q" comes from the German word "quelle", which means "source".

Most scholars believe that this gospel was primarily a collection of the sayings of Jesus, with little narrative material or biographical information. In the earliest period these sayings must have been preserved orally, but later someone apparently collected them and wrote them down. They may have been collected for the use of early Christian missionaries as an aid in spreading the new faith.

Scholars have put together possible reconstructions of this gospel by extracting material from Matthew and Luke, but some uncertainties are involved in exactly what should be included. There is a chance that some of the original parts of this gospel have been completely lost.

The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative

Scholars have deduced the probable existence of this hypothetical gospel from careful studies of the Gospel of Mark. These studies indicate that the author of Mark obtained some material from an earlier source. This source is now lost, but the evidence suggests that it was a short narrative of the arrest, interrogation, and crucifixion of Jesus. For this reason, it is called the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative (or Lost Passion Narrative).

The unknown author of this missing work had a good knowledge of what happened to Jesus during and after his arrest. It might have even been written by a member of the first community of believers, known as the Nazarenes, who lived in Jerusalem in the years after Jesus departed.

Reconstructions of the original form of this gospel indicate that it gave a simple straight-forward account of what happened before and during the crucifixion. Because this account may be the basis for all the later accounts, whoever wrote it performed an extremely important service.

The Lost Signs Gospel

The likely existence of this hypothetical gospel has been deduced from studies of the Gospel of John. It is called the Signs Gospel because it apparently described some miracles of Jesus which it called "signs". Its unknown author may have regarded the ability of Jesus to perform these miracles as one of the "signs" that he was the Messiah.

These miracles include the changing of water into wine (John 2:1-11), the giving of sight to the man born blind (John 9:1-8), the healing at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2-9) and the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45). The fact that these particular miracles aren't mentioned in the other gospels indicates that their authors probably hadn't seen the Signs Gospel.

In addition to the miracle stories, this gospel may have also contained some information about John the Baptist, and about the crucifixion and resurrection. But it probably didn't have much information about the teachings of Jesus.

Holy Communion :What is the purpose of this sacrament?

The Eucharist is a ceremonial re-enactment of the Last Supper. It is also called Holy Communion and the Lord's Supper. Its avowed purpose is to give worshipers the opportunity to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. The flesh and blood are assumed to be miraculously created out of bread and wine at an earlier stage of the ceremony.

The miraculous conversion of bread and wine into flesh and blood is called transubstantiation. The traditional belief is that the conversion occurs when the bread and wine are consecrated by the pronouncement of the phrases "this is my body" and "this is my blood". The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and certain other Christian groups officially affirm that the transformation actually does take place.

The origin of the Eucharist can be traced to certain passages in the gospels, particularly John 6:53-58, Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28, and Luke 22:19-20. For example, in John 6:53-54, Jesus says:

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Taken literally, this passage says that it is necessary to consume the flesh and blood of Jesus in order to be saved. The Eucharist provides an opportunity to do this, with the miracle of transubstantiation supplying the needed flesh and blood.

To most people, the bread and wine still look and taste the same after they are consecrated. Many believers in a real transformation consider this to be just another part of the miracle. Others say that the flesh and blood of Jesus is inter-mixed at the microscopic level and thus isn't noticed. On the other hand, many modern Christians simply regard it as symbolically representing Christ's flesh and blood. In some churches grape juice is substituted for the wine used in the traditional form of the sacrament.

In ancient times, when the number of Christians was still small, outsiders heard rumors about the Eucharist and concluded that it was a form of cannibalism. This gave Christianity a bad reputation, and was one of the reasons for the persecution of the early believers.

The Last Words from the Cross

The gospels appear to give several different accounts of what Jesus said in the last moments before he died. Here are his last words as reported in each gospel:

Matthew 27:46 and Mark 25:34:

Jesus cried out in a loud voice "Eloi, Eloi, lama, sabachthani?" which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


Luke 23:46:

Jesus called out in a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."


John 19:30:

Jesus said "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.


Matthew and Mark agree, but the statements in Luke and John aren't found anywhere else in the New Testament. Is there a plausible way to explain these differences?

Most biblical scholars believe that Mark was the earliest gospel, closest in time to the actual events. And there is evidence that its author got much of his information from an even earlier source known as the Lost Passion Narrative. Although this document no longer survives, Mark did have a copy of it, and used it when writing his description of the crucifixion. Because his account may derive from such an early source, many scholars think that his description of what Jesus said is probably the most reliable, especially since the words are first given in the Aramaic language that Jesus himself spoke.

The author of Matthew apparently copied most of his account of the crucifixion directly from Mark. Thus, it isn't surprising that the two gospels agree on Jesus' last words.

There is evidence that Luke also copied most of his account from Mark. But the statement he gives for Jesus' last words isn't found in Mark, or anywhere else in the gospels. Many scholars think that Luke decided to substitute a different statement because he didn't like what he saw in Mark, since it implies that Jesus thought God had forsaken him. Luke appears to have made such substitutions in other parts of his gospel, so he could very well have made one here as well.

John's description of the crucifixion contains several elements that aren't in the other gospels, and this indicates that the author had a unique source of information. Traditionally, this other source has been identified as the un-named "beloved disciple", who was said to be an eyewitness. Perhaps for this reason, none of Jesus' crucifixion statements in John are in the other gospels, and none of his statements in the other gospels are in John. This isn't necessarily a contradiction, since different witnesses could have remembered different statements. On the other hand, there obviously can only be one last statement.

Because the author of Luke appears to have made a substitution, most scholars think that the final choice is between the statement in John and the statement in Matthew and Mark. Since Mark's account is probably closest in time to the actual events, many consider it to be the most reliable. But the extra details in John's account have led some scholars to regard it as the most trustworthy.

One way to try to resolve the issue is to look at the words themselves. Some people think they detect a "ring of truth" in the words:

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

It seems unlikely that a gospel writer would have invented this type of statement, because it implies that Jesus felt that God had deserted him. Thus, it probably wouldn't have gotten into the story unless Jesus actually said it.

But some scholars have noted that this same statement is also found in the Old Testament (Psalm 22), and therefore Jesus could have simply been quoting old scripture.

The statement in John, "It is finished," puzzles some people. If Jesus knew that he would be resurrected, why would he imply that everything was finished? Unless perhaps he was only referring to the crucifixion itself.

Thus, because of the various uncertainties, there is no way to make a final choice. Unless new information becomes available, the matter will probably never be resolved.

Who Was at the Cross?: Which followers of Jesus actually saw him die?

Who Was at the Cross?

The gospel descriptions of the crucifixion appear to be eyewitness accounts. But who were the witnesses? According to Matthew 26:56, all the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and most of them probably stayed away from the crucifixion out of fear of their own arrest. John 18:15-27 says that Peter's fear of arrest caused him to repeatedly deny that he even knew Jesus.

The crucifixion took place at a location called Golgotha, which was probably just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Most likely it was beside a road leading out from one of the city's gates. Thus the followers of Jesus would have been able to get there fairly easily. But who actually went there? To try to answer this question, we first need to look at what each gospel says about the matter:

Gospel of Matthew

According to this gospel, the various witnesses included Roman soldiers, Jewish officials, passersby who mocked Jesus, and two men crucified at the same time. The only reference to followers of Jesus is found in Matthew 27:55-56, which says that many women were "watching from a distance", and specifically names "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." Unlike male followers, these women would probably have been allowed to watch without being arrested, provided that they didn't try to interfere.

Gospel of Mark

The account in this gospel is very similar to that in Matthew. In fact most biblical scholars believe that Matthew copied most of his account from Mark. In any case, Mark 15:40-41 also says that many women watched from a distance and specifically mentions "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

Gospel of Luke

The author of this gospel also apparently copied most of his account of the crucifixion from Mark. The only mention of Jesus' followers is in Luke 23:49, which says that some of them watched from a distance, but doesn't give any names.

Gospel of John

The account in this gospel differs considerably from the other three. It says that several women and one disciple stood "near the cross", and that Jesus spoke to them from the cross. The women are identified as Jesus' mother Mary, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clophas (or Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene. The disciple is identified only as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

The unnamed disciple mentioned in John is often called the "Beloved Disciple". He has traditionally been identified as John the son of Zebedee, one of the original twelve disciples, and the author of the gospel. But many scholars have questioned this identification, and the matter is still very much in dispute. But whoever he was, this gospel says that he and several women, including Jesus' mother, were near the cross, close enough to talk to Jesus and hear his words.

The other three gospels never mention a "disciple whom Jesus loved". They also say nothing about any disciple or any women being near the cross, or talking with Jesus while he was on the cross. Their accounts of the words that Jesus spoke from the cross are also completely different from the words attributed to him in John's gospel.

All of this suggests that the author of John had a source of information that wasn't available to the other gospel writers. This source is usually assumed to be the un-named Beloved Disciple himself, and a statement at John 21:24 seems to confirm this. Thus, this un-named disciple was probably the eyewitness for John's account of the crucifixion.

But who was the source of information for the other accounts? Most scholars think that Matthew and Luke got nearly all of their information about the crucifixion from Mark, though they sometimes made minor alterations. Thus, Mark's account is generally regarded as the original. And according to church tradition, Mark got most of his information about what happened directly from Peter.

But since Peter almost certainly didn't witness the crucifixion himself, who did he get his information from? Apparently not from the Beloved Disciple, since the accounts are so different. Instead, some people have suggested Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry the cross, although the gospels don't say whether he stayed to watch the crucifixion. Another possibility is that Peter talked to one or more of the women who watched from a distance. Matthew and Mark name several of them, in both cases specifying Mary Magdalene first.

If Mark got his information from Peter, and Peter got it from someone else, that would make Mark's account third-hand. But it actually reads like a first-hand account. In fact many scholars believe that Mark also had another source of information, a lost gospel known as the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative which was written fairly soon after the crucifixion by an unknown person who had a good knowledge of what happened. Evidence for Mark's possible use of such a lost document can be discerned in certain subtle details of his account.

Thus, the gospel stories of the crucifixion appear to be based on two primary sources of information: (1) The memories of the un-named Beloved Disciple, and (2) a now-lost early passion narrative used directly by Mark and second-hand by Matthew and Luke. Some additional details may have been provided by other sources such as Peter.

Although these conclusions are plausible, some people think that they leave some important questions unanswered. For example, why is John apparently the only gospel that mentions the presence of Jesus' mother Mary? If she was there, shouldn't such an important piece of information be in all of the accounts?

Some people also ask why John doesn't mention the followers who watched from a distance, and the other gospels don't mention the followers who were near the cross. One possible explanation is that all of the accounts actually refer to the same group, which gradually moved closer to the cross. Or possibly two separate groups were present, but each gospel writer only had information about one of them.

A more serious problem relates to what Jesus said while on the cross. What he says in John's account is completely different from what he says in the other accounts. It has been argued that different witnesses to an event often give different descriptions of it later. Certainly that could account for minor inconsistencies. But in this case the accounts are totally different.

Questions have also been raised about the story of the spear thrust. According to John 19:34, a Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear to make sure that he was dead. Yet the other gospels say nothing about this.

The various disparities have led some scholars to question the accuracy of certain parts of one or more of the accounts. But most Christians believe that all the accounts are basically correct, and that the discrepancies are simply the result of variations in what different witnesses saw or remembered.

Note: If we try to list all the specific individuals mentioned in the various accounts, we get the following result:

1. Mary Magdalene (mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John)

2. Mary the mother of James and Joses (mentioned by Matthew and Mark)

3. The mother of Zebedee's sons (mentioned by Matthew)

4. Salome (mentioned by Mark) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (3), the mother of Zebedee's sons

5. Mary the mother of Jesus (mentioned by John)

6. Mary the wife of Clophas (who was probably Joseph's brother) (mentioned by John)

7. An un-named sister of Jesus' mother (mentioned by John) -- Many scholars think that this is the same person as (6), i.e., the wife of Clophas

8. The un-named Beloved Disciple (mentioned by John)

Much of the debate about the identities of these people centers on the Beloved Disciple. But there has also been a lot of discussion about the second person on the list, Mary the mother of James and Joses. Sometimes called "the other Mary", she appears in the story again (in some accounts) as one of the women who accompany Mary Magdalene to the tomb on Easter morning.

Several different identifications have been proposed for this "other Mary". Some people think that she was a previous wife of Joseph and the mother of his other children. Others say that she was the same person as the sixth individual on the list, i.e., the wife of Clophas and possibly a sister (or half-sister) of Jesus' mother.

But some scholars argue for another, and very intriguing, possibility. They contend that this "other Mary" was actually the mother of Jesus! If this is correct, a major disparity would be eliminated, because Mark and Matthew would then agree with John that Jesus' mother was present at the scene.

There are two main pieces of evidence to support the theory that this Other Mary was the mother of Jesus: First, her name is Mary. And second, her sons James and Jose could be two of the four brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3.

But there is also a basic problem with this theory: For if this Other Mary really was the mother of Jesus, why don't Matthew and Mark say so? Instead, both authors seem to treat her as a minor character, and Matthew 28:1 even refers to her as "the other Mary".

In fact the whole matter of this woman's identity is very puzzling. But if it could be resolved, the possible conclusions could be very important.

The Son of Man

In the gospels Jesus often refers to himself as the "Son of Man". The term appears in all four gospels, and is used more than 70 times. The way it is used suggests that it was a title. But if so, what did it mean?

Linguistically, in the Aramaic of that period, the term "son of man" simply meant "an ordinary man" or "an ordinary human being". But many scholars think that it also had a specific prophetic meaning. They point to a passage in the Old Testament Book of Daniel (7:13-14), which reads:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

In this passage Daniel seems to be using "son of man" as a name for the Messiah. According to the old Jewish prophesies, the Messiah was a great future leader who would overthrow all evil rulers and set up an eternal Kingdom of God. During the period when Jesus was growing up, many people were expecting this Messiah to appear within a short time.

But there were different ideas about how the Messiah would accomplish his goals. Many common people thought of him as a military leader who would drive the Romans out of the country. But the scriptures sometimes depicted him as a devout holy figure who would use non-violent methods and God's assistance to achieve his ends.

Many scholars believe that Jesus used "Son of Man" in the same way as the Book of Daniel did, as an alternate name for the Messiah. Jesus even used the same imagery as Daniel in several of his own statements, such as when he says (Mark 13:26) "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory."

But why would Jesus use a substitute name for the Messiah? One possibility is that he realized that he might be arrested if he openly called himself the Messiah, and so he used Son of Man as a secret "code name". Most likely the authorities knew about the Messiah, and were ready to arrest anyone who claimed that title. But they may not have known what Son of Man meant.

Another possibility is that Son of Man was a specific name for the non-violent type of Messiah, and Jesus wanted to make it clear that he didn't intend to start a revolt. In his view the main role of the Messiah was to provide an atonement for everyone's sins so as to bring about a reconciliation between humankind and God.

Some scholars think that "Son of Man" is a misleading translation of the original Aramaic, and that a better translation would be "Son of Humanity". This could be interpreted to mean that Jesus represented the whole human race. Another possible translation, found in some bibles, is "Son of Adam". But however the term is translated, it was probably an alternate name for the Messiah.

The Second Coming of Jesus: Did Christ promise to come again?

After Jesus ascended to Heaven, his followers expected him to eventually return to the earth again. This expected return is known as the Second Coming. It is also called the Second Advent, the Parousia, and the Last Coming.

During his ministry Jesus talked about a second coming on a number of occasions. For example, in John 14:3, he says "I will come back", and in Matthew 16:27 he says "For the Son of Man is going to return in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

Most Christians believe that Jesus did promise to return. But some people are puzzled by certain statements he made regarding the time of his return. One such statement can be found at Matthew 16:28, in which he says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Another example is found at Luke 21:32, where he says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." He makes similar statements in Luke 9:27 and Mark 9:1.

Some people take these statements to mean that Jesus promised to return while some of his disciples were still alive. But his meaning isn't completely clear, and it's possible to interpret the statements in a way that doesn't put any time limit on when he will come back.

However, his original followers may have misunderstood him, because they believed that he would return very quickly. That's why many of them stayed in Jerusalem instead of going back to their homes in Galilee and returning to their former occupations. They expected the second coming to take place either in Jerusalem or on the nearby Mount of Olives, and they wanted to be in the area when it happened. Because they anticipated only a short wait, they saw no reason to go back to their previous way of life.

The apostle Paul also expected a quick return. Although he apparently never met Jesus, he knew about the promised return, and he expected to live long enough to see it happen. In 1Corinthians 7:29-31 he says that the time is so short that believers must drastically change the way they live. But several of his letters, particularly those he wrote to the Thessalonians, reveal that some people were starting to wonder why Jesus hadn't already returned and were concerned about the delay.

As the delay grew longer, it was natural for people to start worrying that they wouldn't live long enough to see Jesus return. But an intriguing passage at John 21:20-23 suggests that many people held onto their hopes for a surprisingly long time. At one point in this passage Peter asks Jesus about the final fate of the Beloved Disciple. The passage continues as follows:

Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Evidently Jesus had once made a statement about wanting the Beloved Disciple "to remain alive until I return." Such a statement could have caused people to expect this disciple to live until the second coming. Thus, as long as he remained alive, people could still hold out hope that Jesus would soon return.

The passage also mentions a rumor that the Beloved Disciple would never die. This could indicate that he eventually reached a very advanced age. But at some point he finally did die, and this may have been the final blow to the expectations of a quick second coming. Some scholars think that this passage was written shortly after this disciple's death, and that it is an attempt to explain why Jesus still hadn't come back.

Because the early hopes for a quick return weren't fulfilled, later Christians gradually shifted their attention away from the second coming. But most modern Christians still believe in it. A number of people have even predicted an exact time and place for it, and in some cases large crowds gathered to watch. Such predictions are often based on "signs" such as natural disasters, wars, the appearance of evil political leaders, an increase in immorality, and sightings of the Wandering Jew.

The study of biblical prophesies has led some people to expect the return to take place during a future period known as the End Time. Other predicted events of this period include a final war between Good and Evil, the resurrection of the dead saints, the Last Judgement, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Opinions differ as to whether Christ will return before, during, or after these other events.

The Rapture

Some people associate the Second Coming with an expected event known as the Rapture. This refers to an envisioned future time when Jesus will suddenly appear in the clouds and pull all true Christians up to him, then take them to heaven. Everyone else will be left on the earth, where they will go through a period of torment called the Tribulation.

During the Rapture all saved people will be pulled up to Jesus at the same moment, and will appear to vanish instantly from the face of the earth. In the same process all dead people who lived righteous Christian lives will be resurrected and also pulled up. Thus Jesus will rescue not only the living righteous, but also those who have died.

Many of the expectations about the Rapture are based on Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, especially a passage at 1Thessalonians 4:16-17:

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

Jesus will not come down to the earth's surface, but only to the clouds, and the saved will be pulled up to meet him there. Many Christians believe that they will be "glorified" as they are pulled up. This means that their bodies will be converted into an imperishable perfect form, and that their minds will be freed from any desire to do sinful things or think sinful thoughts. This is seen as a necessary step in preparing them to enter heaven.

After the Rapture, the people left behind will have to suffer through the Tribulation, a period of famine, plagues, pestilence and war. According to some predictions, this will last for seven years.

Some Christians expect a different order of events, with the Rapture not taking place until either the mid-point or the end of the Tribulation.

How Did Jesus Die?

According to the gospels, Jesus died less than six hours after he was put on the cross. This was much sooner than normal, because victims of crucifixions usually lived much longer, at least 24 hours, and sometimes several days. Mark 15:44 says that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate was very surprised when he learned that Jesus was already dead. For these reasons, there has been a lot of speculation about how he finally died.

Medical experts aren't completely sure about the usual cause of death in ancient crucifixions. An older theory holds that the fixed position on the cross would cause blood to slowly accumulate in the legs, and the lack of blood elsewhere would gradually lead to death. One problem with this theory is that the victim usually wasn't completely immobilized on the cross. Although his ankles and hands were in fixed positions, he did have some freedom to move up and down vertically by bending his knees.

According to the preferred modern theory, the victim had to push up with his legs to hold himself in a free-breathing position, and he would slowly suffocate when he became too exhausted to continue holding himself up. This theory is supported by the fact that Roman soldiers sometimes hastened death by breaking the victim's legs.

But whatever the cause, it normally took much longer than six hours for the victim to die. For this reason, many experts think that a special factor was involved in Jesus' death.

One obvious possibility is wounds or injuries. The gospels say that Roman soldiers flogged Jesus and pressed a crown of thorns onto his head before the crucifixion. In addition, the gospel of John says that nails were used to attach him to the cross.

If the flogging was especially brutal, or if the other wounds were unusually severe, an excessive loss of blood could have brought about an early death. But blood loss normally leads to unconsciousness and a gradual death, whereas the gospels indicate that Jesus remained fully conscious throughout the ordeal and then died abruptly. Thus, excessive bleeding probably wasn't the cause.

There are several possible explanations for an abrupt death, including heart attack, heart rupture, stroke, shock, and blood clot. Some experts think that the last of these, a blood clot, was the most likely cause of Jesus' death. But there isn't enough information to be certain about the matter.

According to John 19:34, after the Roman soldiers found that Jesus was dead, one of them thrust a spear into his side to make sure. But if the account is correct, Jesus was already dead when this happened. (The other gospels don't mention this incident.)

Some people have suggested that Jesus himself chose the moment of his death by "simply dying", or possibly by stopping his own heart from beating. Another possibility is that God didn't want to watch him suffer any longer and mercifully brought the ordeal to an end.

Note: The accounts indicate that Jesus had wounds on the hands and ankles (from nails), in the side (spear thrust), on the head (crown of thorns), shoulders (from carrying the cross) and back (flogging). Wounds or markings in these same locations sometimes appear on mystics or other individuals who are very close to God. Called stigmata, they are often said to be a supernatural sign of holiness. But although they may bleed for a while, they normally aren't fatal.

Golgotha

Golgotha is the biblical name for the place where Jesus was crucified. It was probably a small hill just outside the walls of ancient Jerusalem. According to Christian tradition, it was within the area now occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. But some biblical scholars doubt that this is the correct location.

The name "Golgotha" is derived from the Aramaic word gulgulta. Matthew 27:33 and Mark 15:22 give its meaning as "place of the skull." When Saint Jerome translated these verses into Latin, he used the Latin word for skull, calvaria, which was later converted into the English word Calvary.

The gospels don't say why Golgotha was called the "place of the skull". One common suggestion is that the site was on a hill or near a rock that had the shape of a skull. Another suggestion, first made by the third-century scholar Origen, is that the name referred to the burial place of Adam's skull, traditionally believed to have been interred at Jerusalem. But these are just suggestions, and no one really knows how the site got its name.

The bible also doesn't say where Golgotha was located. But it does give three specific clues:

Clue 1. John 19:41-42 says that Jesus' body was carried only a short distance before it was placed in the tomb. This indicates that the site was probably near a cemetery.

Clue 2. Hebrews 13:12 says that the site was "outside the city gate", but unfortunately doesn't say which gate.

Clue 3. Matthew 27:39 indicates that the location was near a road which carried a lot of foot traffic.

The second clue is consistent with a traditional Jewish religious requirement that all executions had to take place outside the city, a requirement which the Romans appear to have generally honored. And the third clue is consistent with the fact that the Romans often crucified people on elevated spots near major roads, to serve as a warning of the probable fate of anyone who challenged their authority.

Some scholars have suggested that Golgotha was probably near the northern section of the city, because this would put it close to the administrative area, where the main public buildings were located. At the time of the crucifixion, the northern section of the city was bounded by the so-called Second Wall. Unfortunately Jerusalem was destroyed twice by the Roman army during Jewish revolts in the first and second centuries, and this makes it difficult to determine the exact boundaries of the ancient city. However, the approximate location of the Second Wall is known.

During the first destruction of Jerusalem, most Christians fled the city, and the second destruction dispersed almost the entire population. Because of these upheavals, and because Christian writers rarely mentioned Golgotha during the next two centuries, some scholars think that knowledge of its location was probably lost. But other scholars argue that local traditions could have been strong enough to preserve the knowledge despite the upheavals. The scarcity of reliable information from these early centuries makes it impossible to know for sure.

Better information is available in writings from the fourth century onward, starting from the time of Constantine the Great. During his reign he and his mother, Empress Helena, became interested in building a church near the locations of Golgotha and the tomb in which Jesus was placed. The idea was especially appealing to the Empress, and in 326 AD she made a trip to Jerusalem to explore the possibilities.

When the Empress reached Jerusalem, she was told that Golgotha and the tomb were in the vicinity of an old Jewish cemetery located on the northwest side of the city. The original source of this information is uncertain. One story, found in a fifth-century book called the Acts of Judas Cyriacus, says that Christians had learned about the cemetery from an old Jew who had to be tortured before he would reveal its location. But many scholars doubt this story, and in fact there is a good possibility that the cemetery was well-known to the people of the city. It's also possible that local traditions associated the cemetery with past crucifixions, thereby making it an obvious choice for the site of Golgotha.

In any case, the Empress was told that Golgotha and the tomb were in the vicinity of this old Jewish cemetery. But the exact locations of the two sites were still unknown. One problem was that the Romans had built a pagan temple over part of the cemetery, and in the process they probably destroyed parts of it.

Shortly after her arrival, the Empress ordered the demolition of the pagan temple and the excavation of the area beneath it. The earliest account of this excavation, by the church historian Eusebius, simply says "the venerable and hallowed monument of Our Lord's resurrection became visible." Exactly what this means isn't clear, but some later accounts say that the excavation uncovered a tomb containing some nails and the sign that Pilate had attached to the top of the cross. Several later accounts also say that three crosses were found, either in the tomb or a nearby cistern, and that one of them was identified by its healing powers as the true cross.

Because the earliest writer Eusebius doesn't mention the nails, the crosses, or Pilate's sign, some scholars think that the later accounts were embellished, especially since they differ from each other in various details. Thus, there is some uncertainty about what was actually found during the excavation.

The first churches built at the location were later destroyed, once by Persian invaders, and once by Arabs. After the Crusaders gained control of Jerusalem in the eleventh century, they constructed the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre, although part of it had to be rebuilt after it was damaged by a fire in 1808. It encloses both the tomb of Jesus and a small rocky outcrop called the "rock of Golgotha".

According to church tradition, Jesus began his walk to Calvary from the Antonia Fortress, which housed the main Roman military garrison in the city. The traditional route, called the Via Dolorosa, covers a distance of about 0.4 mile [650 meters] and ends at the church. However, some scholars think that the last interrogation of Jesus took place at Herod's Palace, and that he began the walk from there. This would be a shorter distance.

The site of the present church appears to fit the available evidence regarding Golgotha's location: The church is northwest of the ancient city, probably just outside the ancient wall, and apparently in the area of an old cemetery. Thus it may very well mark the correct location, or at least be near it. But some scholars have expressed doubts, and several other possible sites have been proposed. The best-known alternate location, Gordon's Calvary (the Garden Tomb), is about 0.4 mile north of the ancient city.

Barabbas: Why did Pilate release him instead of Jesus?

According to the gospels, it was customary for the Romans to release a Jewish prisoner during the Passover festival. The Roman governor Pontius Pilate tried to use this custom as an excuse to release Jesus. But a crowd in the courtyard demanded that a prisoner named Barabbas be freed instead, and Pilate eventually gave in to the pressure. Thus Barabbas was released, and Jesus was crucified.

In books and movies, Barabbas is usually depicted as an evil criminal. But he may have actually been a freedom fighter in the Jewish resistance to the Romans. Evidence for this can be found at Mark 15:7, which says that he was in prison because he had taken part in a recent uprising. In fact, some biblical scholars think that he was an important rebel leader. If so, this would explain why the crowd shouted for his release, because any leader in the fight against the hated Romans would be very popular with the common people.

But Jesus was also very popular with the common people. When he entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, he was greeted by large excited crowds. Many people believed that he was the long-awaited Messiah, who with God's help would overthrow all oppressive rulers and establish a new eternal Kingdom of God.

But if Jesus and Barabbas were both very popular, why did the crowd call for Jesus to be crucified and Barabbas to be released? The likely explanation is that the crowd was dominated by employees of the Jewish religious authorities. Their servants and henchmen would have been in the courtyard, and probably composed a significant part of the gathering there. Also, because Jesus was arrested late at night and brought before Pilate early the next morning, most of his followers probably didn't know where he was, or what was happening to him. And his closest followers had apparently gone into hiding out of fear of arrest.

Thus the Jewish leaders could have told their servants and henchmen to shout for Barabbas to be released, and the rest of the crowd could have then joined in. This explanation is supported by Mark 15:11, which says that the "chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead." But why did the Jewish leaders want Jesus to die instead of Barabbas? The answer is that many of the common people believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and this made him a threat to their authority.

The Mystery of Barabbas

The so-called "mystery of Barabbas" refers to some puzzling similarities between the released prisoner and Jesus himself. The most striking similarity concerns their names. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas". The name Barabbas can be obtained from this by dropping the name "Jesus" and changing "bar Abbas" to "Barabbas". Furthermore, the phrase "bar Abbas" can be translated as "son of the Father", which could possibly be applied to Jesus himself, since he sometimes used the word "Abba" (father) in referring to God.

From this evidence, many scholars have concluded that Barabbas' original name was "Jesus bar Abbas". Other evidence indicates that this name was intentionally altered by later Christian writers. One well-documented case involves the scholar Origen, who reportedly promoted the change for reverential reasons, because he didn't want the name "Jesus" to be associated with a criminal.

Another similarity between the two men relates to their possible roles as rebel leaders. The gospel of Mark says that Barabbas had been imprisoned for taking part in a revolt, and his popularity with the crowd suggests that he had been one of its leaders. But from the viewpoint of the Romans, Jesus could have also appeared to be a rebel leader. Many people were calling him the Messiah, a title which implied that he would overthrow the existing government. He had a large number of followers, many of whom might be easily swayed into taking part in a revolt. In fact, his earlier attack on the temple merchants could be regarded as a "mini-revolt".

Thus, both men may have had the same name, and both of them could have appeared to be rebel leaders, at least from the Romans' viewpoint. These similarities are known as the "mystery of Barabbas". Some people think that the similarities are too close to be accidental and have looked for another way to explain them. According to one radical theory, in the original story Jesus himself was the imprisoned rebel leader, and Barabbas is an invented "fictional duplicate" inserted into the story to play that role instead. The motive for such a change would be to cover up the fact that Jesus had tried to organize a revolt against the Romans and was crucified as a result.

But this theory is mostly speculation, and its supporters have to resort to questionable arguments to explain the details. For these reasons, most scholars are unconvinced. In fact, Jesus was a common name in ancient Palestine, and uprisings against the Romans took place quite frequently. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that a rebel leader with the same name as Jesus would happen to be in Roman custody on the day of the crucifixion.

Note: The gospels don't say what Barabbas did after he was released. But other ancient sources do preserve some traditions about him. According to one tradition, on the day he was released he went to Golgotha and watched Jesus die on the cross. Some sources also say that he was later killed while taking part in another revolt against the Romans.

Why did Judas Iscariot Betray Jesus? Did he want Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans?

Judas Iscariot was the disciple who betrayed Jesus. According to the gospels, he led a group of armed men to a garden where Jesus was praying and identified him with a kiss. After a brief scuffle, Jesus was seized and taken to the Jewish religious leaders. They put him through a long interrogation, then turned him over to the Romans and pressured the Roman governor Pontius Pilate into ordering his crucifixion.

The Jewish leaders paid Judas a bribe for his help. Matthew 26:15 says that it was "thirty pieces of silver", possibly referring to a silver coin known as a Tyrian shekel. But Judas didn't get any benefit from the money, because he died shortly after the betrayal.

The New Testament contains two accounts of how he died. Matthew 27:3-5 says that he felt so much remorse over what he had done that he returned the bribe money and then hanged himself. And Acts 1:18 says: "with the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out." Because these accounts appear to differ, there is some uncertainty about how he actually died.

Note: Another idea about how Judas died can be found in the non-biblical Gospel of Judas (discussed below). It says that Judas had a vision in which the other eleven disciples stone him to death after they find out about the betrayal. It isn't clear where this shocking idea came from, but it probably isn't what really happened, since the bible most likely would have reported it too.

Because Judas was a common name in ancient Palestine, the gospel writers usually added the surname Iscariot to make it clear who they were talking about. John 6:71 calls him "Judas Iscariot the son of Simon." He was put in charge of the disciples' money, keeping it in a special box and making purchases for the group as needed. John 12:6 says that he sometimes stole money from the box for his personal use.

Matthew 26:14-16 suggests that Judas betrayed Jesus out of simple greed for the bribe money, whereas Luke 22:3 and John 13:27 say that the Devil entered into him and made him do it. But some biblical scholars have put forward another theory. They say that Judas wanted Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans and got angry when it became clear that no revolt was planned.

Jesus was fully aware of the coming betrayal. He talked about it several times, and though he never mentioned Judas by name, he did identify him indirectly. This fore-knowledge has led some people to argue that the betrayal wasn't an act of free will, but was imposed on Judas as part of a divine plan for the atonement between God and humankind.

But most theologians believe that Judas did act in free will and should be punished for it. And in Matthew 26:24, Jesus says "woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." The medieval writer Dante Alighieri apparently agreed, because in his Inferno he condemned Judas to the lowest circle of Hell, doomed to be chewed for eternity in the teeth of Satan.

Yet some people still argue that Judas shouldn't be blamed. Several scholars have suggested that he was merely the negotiator in a secret prearranged surrender, and that his later portrayal as a traitor is a historical distortion. Variations on this idea were put forward in the book The Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schonfield, and also in the controversial film The Last Temptation of Christ.

This idea surfaced again with the discovery of an ancient copy of a previously lost Gospel of Judas. This book appears to depict Judas as the most trusted of all the disciples. It also says that Jesus told him about the necessity for a betrayal and asked him to take the blame for it. But the only existing copy of this gospel is badly damaged, and much guesswork is involved in determining the correct translations of some key passages. As a result, questions have arisen as to how it really depicts Judas. In any case, because it probably wasn't written until the second century, most scholars doubt that it is a trustworthy source of information.

Another unorthodox view of Judas can be found in a fraudulent book called the Gospel of Barnabas. This book makes the preposterous claim that Judas, not Jesus, was the person who died on the cross. It alleges that this happened because Judas was miraculously transformed to look like Jesus shortly after the betrayal and was accidentally crucified in his place. Of course this entire story is an obvious fabrication.

The origin of the surname Iscariot is uncertain. According to one theory, the name means "man of Kerioth", and refers to a town or area in ancient Judea. If correct, this would suggest that Judas came from southern Palestine, whereas the other disciples were probably Galileans from the north. According to another theory, the name Iscariot comes from the Latin word "sicarius", meaning "dagger-man". The Sicarii were a group of rebel assassins who were resisting the Roman occupation of the country. Thus Judas might have originally been a member of this group. (The released prisoner Barabbas also may have belonged to this group.)

Perhaps the best-known artistic depiction of Judas is The Kiss of Judas by Giotto di Bondone, c.1306, a fresco in the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. Another well-known depiction can be found in Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper. Here the artist shows Judas as somewhat smaller and darker than the other disciples, and he appears to be clutching a bag which may contain the bribe money.

First Witness to the Resurrection

Who was the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection? To try to answer this question, we first need to look at what each gospel says about the matter.

Gospel of John (20:1-18)

This gospel gives the most detailed description of what happened on the morning of the resurrection. It says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb shortly before dawn and saw that it was open. Thinking that someone had moved the body, she ran and told Peter and an unnamed disciple what she had seen. These two men ran to the tomb, found it empty, and then left the area. But Mary lingered nearby and began to weep. Eventually she looked into the tomb again and saw two angels, who asked her why she was weeping. She told them that someone had moved Jesus' body, and that she didn't know where it was. Then suddenly she turned and saw Jesus himself. Here is the description of her encounter with him, as told in John 20:14-16:

At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "Woman," he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."

Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).

Thus, according to this gospel, Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Jesus. She didn't recognize him initially and thought he was a gardener. But when he spoke her name, she immediately knew who he was.

Gospel of Matthew (28:1-20)

This gospel also begins its account with the discovery of the empty tomb. But in this version of the story, Mary Magdalene is accompanied to the tomb by another woman who is identified as "the other Mary". After these two women reach the tomb, they see an angel who says that Jesus has risen and isn't there. The angel then instructs them to tell the male disciples that they can see Jesus in Galilee. The two women hurry off to find the male disciples, but on the way they suddenly encounter Jesus himself. He says, "Greetings", and they fall at his feet and worship him.

Thus, according to this account, Mary Magdalene and another woman also named Mary were the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This gospel doesn't describe any other encounters with Jesus in the vicinity of Jerusalem. But it says that the male disciples went to Galilee, (as the angel had instructed), and saw Jesus there.

Gospel of Luke (24:1-35)

According to this gospel, several women accompanied Mary Magdalene on her visit to the tomb, including Joanna and Mary the mother of James. After the women find the tomb empty, they suddenly see two men in shining garments standing next to them. These two men tell them that Jesus has risen and left. The women then go to the male disciples and tell them what happened at the tomb. The male disciples don't believe them, but Peter goes to the tomb anyway, finds it empty, and then leaves. Thus, in this gospel's account, nobody sees Jesus during the initial visits to the tomb.

But later two of his followers do encounter him during a trip from Jerusalem to a village named Emmaus. One of these followers is named Cleopas, but the other one isn't identified. As they walk toward the village, Jesus joins them and begins talking with them, but they don't recognize him. After they reach the village, they all decide to have dinner together. During the meal the two travelers suddenly recognize their companion as Jesus, but he immediately vanishes from their sight. They then hurry back to Jerusalem to tell everyone what happened. When they arrive, they find the disciples gathered together talking, and saying that Jesus is alive and has appeared to Peter, though nothing is said about where or when this appearance to Peter took place.

Thus, this gospel isn't clear about who saw Jesus first. It could have been the two men who encountered him during the trip to the village, but initially didn't recognize him. Or it could have been Peter, who in the meantime had told the other disciples about an encounter of his own. In either case, this account is inconsistent with those of John and Matthew because it indicates that none of the women saw Jesus near the tomb.

Gospel of Mark (16:1-20)

The oldest known manuscripts of this gospel don't describe any post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Partly for this reason, many scholars believe that this gospel's original ending has been lost. Whatever the case, these oldest manuscripts stop abruptly at verse 16:8, right after the discovery of the empty tomb. In the last two verses Mary Magdalene and two other women are told that Jesus has risen and is on his way to Galilee, and that his followers can see him there. Thus, if the original ending was lost, the missing part most likely described at least one appearance in Galilee but none in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Later scribes who made copies of this gospel realized that the original ending may have been lost, and several new endings were eventually invented to take its place. The ending chosen for most modern bibles consists of twelve verses (16:9-20) known as the "Longer Ending" or "Apocryphal Addition". This ending says that the risen Jesus made his first appearance to Mary Magdalene. But this was probably copied from John's account and thus is unlikely to be an independent source of information.

The possible loss of Mark's original ending is especially unfortunate, because many scholars think that it was the first New Testament gospel to be written.

First Corinthians (15:1-8)

In addition to what the gospels say, there is also an important passage about the resurrection in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. This passage (15:1-8) specifically says that the risen Jesus appeared first to Peter (who Paul calls Cephas), then to the other male disciples, and then to various other people.

Paul doesn't say where he got this information, but he did know Peter, and he also met some other disciples during his trips to Jerusalem. For this reason, and also because this letter to the Corinthians was probably written at least 15 years earlier than any of the gospels, some scholars think that it may be the most reliable source of information about the resurrection.

Many people find these different accounts to be confusing and inconsistent. Attempts have been made to reconcile them, but the effort necessarily involves loose interpretations and implausible arguments. Some of the difficulties may stem from the fact that the gospels probably weren't written until at least 35 years after the events, and by then most of the original witnesses were either dead or couldn't be located. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was written earlier, but it doesn't give any specific details about the appearances it mentions.

The inconsistencies could indicate that the stories gradually changed as they passed from person to person during the intervening years. However, the common elements suggest that there were originally three basic stories about what happened on that first Easter Sunday. In one story Jesus makes an appearance to Mary Magdalene (and possibly another woman) near the tomb. In another story he appears to Peter at an unspecified place and time. And in a third story, found only in Luke, he appears to Cleopas and an unnamed companion on the road to a village called Emmaus.

Many people doubt that Jesus would have made his first appearance to an obscure follower like Cleopas and a companion who isn't even named, especially since Luke is the only gospel that contains this story. For this reason, attention is usually focused on the other two stories.

In trying to decide between the other two stories, some scholars think that Paul's first letter to the Corinthians should carry the most weight, because it's probably closest in time to the events themselves. Paul specifically says that Peter was the first person to see the risen Jesus. Luke also indicates that Jesus might have appeared to Peter first. But neither account actually describes the appearance.

The accounts of an appearance to Mary Magdalene (and possibly another woman) are found in John and Matthew. Both gospels say that the appearance took place near the tomb, and both give some details about it. Although those details aren't consistent, the accounts could still be based on the same original story. It's possible that the other writers (Paul and Luke) had also heard this story, but intentionally excluded it from their accounts.

Why would Paul and Luke intentionally omit a story about an appearance to the women? Some scholars have suggested that they did so because women weren't considered to be reliable witnesses. But another possibility is that Peter wanted the story suppressed. By suppressing the story about the women, he would find it easier to get people to believe that the first appearance was to him, and this would enhance his status and reinforce his leadership role in the early community of believers.

Luke does say that women discovered the empty tomb. But then he indicates that they left it and went to the male disciples without ever seeing Jesus. To some people, this suggests that he had heard the full original story about the women, but intentionally omitted the part about their encounter with Jesus near the tomb.

However, if there was an attempt to suppress the story about the appearance to the women, it didn't succeed, and this could indicate just how important their role was. In fact, if judged by the amount of surviving detail, there is more evidence for an appearance to the women than for an appearance to Peter.

Note: According to the Catholic Church, the risen Jesus visited his mother Mary before he appeared to anyone else, to comfort her and let her know that he was alive. However, this is merely an assumption based on what he should have done. There is no mention of such a visit in the New Testament.

Why Was Jesus Crucified?

According to the gospels, the main charge against Jesus was that he claimed to be the king of the Jews. The Roman soldiers were mocking this idea when they dressed him in a purple robe and pressed a crown of thorns onto his head. This was also the charge written on the sign at the top of the cross.

But the charge was false. The enemies of Jesus had concocted it by twisting the meaning of the old Jewish prophesies about the coming of the Messiah.

According to those prophesies, the Messiah was a great future leader who would appear during a period of extreme desperation and crisis known as the End Times (or Last Days). Assisted by God, he would overthrow all evil oppressors and set up a perfect kingdom on earth, where all the righteous people could live forever in peace and joy.

During the years when Jesus was growing up, many people believed that the End Times had already arrived, and that the Messiah would soon appear. This belief was especially strong in Galilee, the region of Palestine where Jesus lived. And the belief grew even stronger when John the Baptist began proclaiming that all the prophesies about the Messiah would soon be fulfilled.

But those prophesies could be interpreted in different ways. Some scriptures, such as Isaiah 53, depict the Messiah as a devout non-violent person who will prepare the way for the new kingdom by sacrificing himself to pay for humankind's sins. Other scriptures describe him as a future descendent of King David, and depict the new kingdom as a purified version of David's original kingdom. These references to King David caused many common people to envision the Messiah mainly as a military leader, whose first action would be to organize a revolt against the hated Romans and drive them out of the country.

The Romans were fully aware of the discontent in the country and the hope for a liberator. More riots and uprisings took place in Palestine than in any other part of their empire. Because of the continual unrest, they were always on the lookout for potential rebel leaders.

When Jesus began his ministry, he didn't publicly call himself the Messiah. He probably realized that it would be dangerous to do so, because even though he clearly didn't plan any type of military action, the authorities could have misunderstood his intentions and arrested him anyway. An example of his cautiousness can be found at Matthew 16:20, which says that "he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ." (The word Christ is the English equivalent of the Aramaic word for Messiah.)

But despite his public silence about this, his teachings and miraculous cures soon began to attract large crowds, and within a short time many people in Galilee were thinking that he might be the Messiah. As a result, when he and his disciples set out for Jerusalem to attend the annual Passover festival, they were accompanied on the trip by a large group of followers. It isn't clear how big this procession eventually became, because other groups of festival-goers may have joined it along the way. But by the time it reached Jericho it was large enough to attract considerable attention, for many people in the city heard that it was coming and gathered along the road to watch Jesus go by.

According to Luke 19:11, during the last stage of the trip many of the travelers were expecting the new perfect Kingdom of God to be created at any moment. This is an indication of the high level of excitement within the group at this time. This excitement was sustained all the way to the end of the trip, so that when Jesus reached Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, a large exuberant crowd celebrated his entry into the city.

Shortly after he arrived, he got so angry at the dishonest merchants in the temple courtyard that he launched a physical attack against them. A few biblical scholars, looking for hidden meanings, have argued that he was actually trying to trigger an uprising in the city. Others have suggested that he expected God to step in and create the new kingdom by divine intervention. But the gospels indicate that his main concern during this period was to prepare his disciples for his coming departure.

Christians often blame the Jews for his death. But this blame should probably be limited to the Jewish religious leaders, who had managed to keep some of their power by cooperating with the Romans. These leaders saw the crowds that gathered around Jesus, and they knew that many people were calling him the Messiah. Mark 11:18 says "they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching." But their ultimate fear probably went deeper, because if growing numbers of people believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he could eventually become a serious threat to their authority.

Mark 12:12 says that these religious leaders initially hesitated to arrest Jesus because "they were afraid of the crowd." But at some point they decided that they had to get rid of him. With Judas Iscariot's help, they were able to seize him late at night when there was no crowd to defend him. After interrogating him until early morning, they turned him over to the Romans and accused him of claiming to be a king.

Under Roman law, anyone who claimed to be a king was guilty of rebellion against the emperor. The normal punishment was crucifixion.

But the crucifixion couldn't take place until the Roman governor Pontius Pilate gave the final order for it, and the gospels indicate that he was reluctant to do so. Apparently he realized that Jesus was innocent. Actually, he had the power to release Jesus if he really wanted to. But in his role as governor he often needed the collaboration of the Jewish leaders. And in the end, he was more concerned with placating them than with saving Jesus.

Thus the gospels put nearly all of the blame for the crucifixion on the Jewish leaders. But some scholars think that just as much blame, or even more, should be placed on the Romans. In fact John 18:3 says that Roman soldiers took part in the initial arrest of Jesus, suggesting that the Romans were involved in the matter almost from the beginning. Their military commanders always kept a close watch on the city, especially during festivals. They could have easily mistaken Jesus for a political agitator, or even a potential rebel leader. And they were usually quick to react to even a minor threat.

When the Jewish leaders wanted to kill someone, they usually sent their henchmen to gather a mob and stone the victim to death. Crucifixion was a Roman method of punishment, and it is a basic fact that Roman soldiers, not Jews, put Jesus on the cross.

For these reasons, some scholars think that the Romans were the real culprits, but that the gospel writers tried to cover this up and blame the Jewish leaders instead. The gospels were written during a period when Christians were trying to avoid trouble with the Romans, and putting the blame on them could have created friction. It would have been much safer to blame the Jews.

But other scholars, while they agree that the Romans were partly responsible, still think that the Jewish leaders should get most of the blame. These leaders probably had a much greater fear of Jesus than the Romans did. But they wouldn't have wanted the common people to blame them for his death. To try to avoid this, they could have coaxed the Romans into believing that Jesus was a trouble-maker, and let them get rid of him.

A compromise view is that both groups, Jewish leaders and Romans, played major roles. But unless new evidence is uncovered, there will probably always be disagreement about who should get the most blame.

In any case, the crucifixion can be explained as a natural result of the prevailing political circumstances in Palestine. However, many Christians believe that it was actually pre-ordained beforehand, as part of a divine plan in which Jesus had to suffer and die as a sacrifice to pay for everyone's sins.