Was Jesus' Body Eaten By Dogs?

Imagine this scenario: It is the first Sunday following the crucifixion of Jesus. Several of the women who have followed Him have gathered at the tomb where He was placed. They are carrying oils and spices to anoint His body and, after finding someone to remove the stone before the tomb, they do so. They go away in great sadness. 100 years pass. The tomb is now grown over. 1000 years pass. The tomb has been covered and built upon. No one even knows where it is anymore, but the body of Jesus has long since decayed and withered away.

Or maybe this one: It is, again, the first Sunday after the crucifixion, but the women have not gathered around the tomb, for they do not know where He was brought for burial. In truth, He was not buried, but tossed into a refuse heap reserved for Roman criminals. From there, His body was devoured by wild dogs.

If these seem fanciful revisions of the days following Jesus' death, they are among the accepted views of some of the ""scholars"" of the Jesus Seminar (who were so extensively quoted and used on ABC's program). If there is one area where the Jesus Seminar and its cronies must find victory in order to survive, it is in their explanation of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior. Anything short of resurrection, and Christianity fails miserably. Anything including resurrection, and the Jesus depicted by ABC is equally defeated. It is here that the foes of the real Jesus and Christianity square off in a battle for the minds and souls of all people.

We will confess to a decided confidence in the resurrection, but that confidence is not founded upon blind faith. While it is true that none of us saw Jesus' resurrected body, it is also true that there is solid evidence to support that some living in the first century did. First, however, we must examine some of the arguments of liberal scholarship against the resurrection.

First, there is the argument that what is reported in the gospels and in 1 Corinthians 15 is fabrication, but this is dubious at best. No reason is given to suspect the authors of fabrication. The actual reason is that, unless these are fabrications, the Seminar's scholars cannot square their ideas with what the text says, therefore they must be fabrications. Again, the circular nature of the argument is not lost on anyone willing to look at it objectively. A second argument is made that the resurrection story does not appear in the sayings source Q, but as has been pointed out (pages 4-5), Q does not exist, so arguing about what is in it or isn't in it is misleading. Besides, even taking the position that there is such a document and that it provided the source for much of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, what is one to do with passages such as Luke 11:29-30? ""This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation."" Clearly, this passage speaks of the resurrection of Jesus on the third day, just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days. The account is not in Mark's gospel, so if Q was Luke's other source, is this not a reference to the resurrection in Q? I am not sold on the existence of Q, and I certainly am not interested in letting liberal scholars define for me what it contained, but if they are going to push the matter, they are going to have to be honest enough to admit when it goes against their core beliefs.

A third argument made against the resurrection is the differences in the four gospels narratives. It is assumed that these differences make it clear that these documents are the work of men ""constructing"" history, and that if they were true, they would all be alike. However, the four narratives taken together support one another with different details of the same basic story. One of the Seminar's toughest critics, N.T. Wright of Great Britain, argues it this way, ""If I read about the Prime Minister in the Telegraph, the Times, the Mail and the Guardian, there are four different views, but that doesn't mean I don't have [a pretty good idea] of what the Prime Minister did.""1

Is there sufficient evidence to believe the gospels' accounts of the resurrection? Can we argue against the idea that these are fabrications? Consider for a moment the details of the resurrection accounts. First, there is the fact that women play a central role in all four accounts. This is most unusual for this time period, for "". . . the inclusion of women in any story in first-century Jewish culture could only serve to undermine the credibility of the story. In this heavily patriarchal culture, the testimony of women generally counted for nothing. Indeed, in most circumstances they were not even allowed to testify in court. Thus, there is no reason why each of the Gospel authors would have (independently?) included them in their accounts were they simply creating narratives. . .""2

In addition to this, read John's account of his and Peter's race to the tomb (20:3-9). Notice the details concerning who won the race, how John stooped over while Peter entered, and how the burial clothes were arranged. Is this the work of a fiction writer? Most writers would have rushed through this part of the story in order to get to the more exciting appearances of Jesus. One detail that is dismissed by many Seminar scholars are the references to Joseph of Arimathea. These scholars consider him to be a wholly fictitious character, but why then, make him a member of the Sanhedrin? Wouldn't all Jews, especially enemies of Jesus, have known who was on the council? In addition, he was wealthy, so that makes him even more prominent in Jewish society. If Joseph is a lie, exposing it would have been very simple for first century Jews. In addition, it should be pointed out that some scholars rejected Caiaphas in the trial narrative in the same way, at least until the tomb of Caiaphas was discovered. If the gospels present problems for the Seminar, 1 Corinthians 15 destroys them. Again, the date of Paul's epistle is not in question, even among the most liberal scholars. Thus, when Paul says, ""Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received . . . For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . ."" (vv. 1-4), he is plainly espousing a belief both he and the Corinthians had held for quite some time. The Seminar is faced again with dealing with how such a ""myth"" could become so widely accepted in such a short time. Paul follows this with a detail of the number of witnesses to the resurrection. Paul names names as it were, and the names he names are prominent in the early church. They are also still alive at Paul's writing. Peter, in particular (named in v. 5), was well known to the church at Corinth (see 1 Cor. 1:12; 9:5). Are we to believe that if Paul was preaching a myth, that Peter (who the Seminar sees as one of the early Jesus Movement characters, not a member of the Christ Cult) would not have responded by exposing Paul as a liar? Remember, at Corinth there were some who said there was no resurrection (15:12), so if they wanted to expose Paul, they could have simply brought forth testimony from Peter that the resurrection was a lie, unless the resurrection was true.

With just these few arguments, the liberal scholarship's position on the resurrection can be seen to be utterly wrong. Thus, we are able to return to the true arguments of Paul in chapter 15, that is, the resurrection is the hope, the glory, the victory of all who believe and obey the will of Christ. ""But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ"" (15:54-57).

1. Van Biema, ""The Gospel Truth?""
2. Boyd. Cynic or Son of God. 278.