Biblical Evidence for a Resurrection Conspiracy Theory

The problem with the mystery of the empty tomb, until now, has been establishing a motive. But analysis of motive, in the mystery of the empty tomb, has so far failed to acknowledge the fact that there were two categories of Jesus’ disciples: ordinary people who openly identified with him and for whom no motive can be established in the circumstances of the New Testament evidence, and a group, mostly from the elite social classes, who remained secret disciples.

There is a longstanding Christian attitude that insists on the resurrection as a “fact of history”, in the face of what appears to be the inability of opponents of the resurrection to find a logical and historically valid alternative explanation for the empty tomb. on Easter morning.

In general, it is not well appreciated to what extent the doctrine of the resurrection was an explosive issue in the highest political and ideological circles of the time of Jesus. To believe or not to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection was the main issue that divided the Jewish Sanhedrin into two hostile political-ideological factions: the factions of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

The twenty-third chapter of the Book of Acts provides strong historical evidence of the intense political-ideological rivalry between these two groups at the time of Jesus. We can gauge the intensity of sectarian rivalry in the Jewish Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus from the incident recorded in the twenty-third chapter of the Book of Acts, where Paul appeared before the Sanhedrin for trial. Paul, aware of the sectarian rivalry at the Council, appealed to the Pharisee faction, himself being a Pharisee. He shouted: “Brothers, it is on the question of the resurrection of the dead that I have been brought before this assembly!”

The violent uproar that followed his diplomatic appeal to the Pharisee section of the Sanhedrin gives us more than an idea of ​​the degree of ideological division in the Sanhedrin at the time of Christ.A proper judicial trial of Christ could have turned into a brawl under the same circumstances as Paul’s. When we consider the fact that the Pharisees who had traded blows with their fellow Sadducees in a debate over the doctrine of the resurrection were the men who had actually taken over the body of Christ, then the previously unconsidered possibilities regarding the missing corpse of Christ become evident.

We know that there were Pharisee members of the Jewish council who were disciples of Christ. We don’t know how many. But we know that there were at least two: Nicodemus and José de Arimathea. We know, too, that these two men risked taking the place of the family of Christ. They requested the body of Christ from the Roman authorities and took charge of the expenses of his burial. Such was the extent of his commitment to Christ. But how would these men have felt about the judicial murder of the man they had believed in? How far would they have gone to get revenge on the Sadducean civil authorities?

Would not the men who would trade blows with their colleagues on the doctrine of the resurrection be easily tempted to devise a proof of what they believed and thus score a point against the hated opponent? This, to me, is a fundamental question to consider, because it seems very likely to me that a conspiracy theory about the mystery of the empty tomb should take into account the questionable roles of the two Pharisees, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, in the circumstances. of the death, burial and supposed resurrection of Jesus.

Of the four gospel accounts, Mark’s Gospel stands out in its factual detail of the bare facts of the Easter morning event. It is significant that Mark’s account is considered the oldest account of the life and death of Christ available to us.

A comparison of the Mark and Matthew accounts reveals some significant differences showing that the Matthew account represents an early stage in the mythologizing of the bare facts of the life and death of the historical Jesus.

Mark does not report Matthew’s earthquake on the morning of the resurrection. He is silent about Matthew’s angels with shining faces descending from heaven. Rather, he honestly reports that a young man dressed in a white robe was found sitting in the tomb when Peter and John went to inspect the tomb on the morning of the resurrection (Mark 16:5).

Yes, you read it right! A young man! Not an angel! Not surprisingly, Mark’s account is not very popular among Christians.

The collective testimony of the Gospel accounts is that the Apostles did not suppose that a resurrection had occurred, but that “a young man” dressed in a white robe (quoting Mark) had suggested the resurrection to the Apostles in the most brazen words.

The presence of a man at Christ’s tomb on the morning of the resurrection claiming to be an angel is riveting long unrecognized. evidence in support of a conspiracy theory of the resurrection of Christ. Mark, in his historical objectivity, unknowingly provides us with compelling evidence of a conspiracy by a person, or group of people, to deceive the Apostles.

You don’t need to be a Sherlock Holmes to guess correctly:The evidence for the presence of a young man in the tomb is that someone was trying to mislead the Apostles..

It would appear that the Pharisee members of the Sanhedrin (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, to be specific) who had supported the Messianism of Jesus deliberately engineered the resurrection to embarrass their Sadducee opponents in the Sanhedrin.

Later history testifies to the fact that Nicodemus and his co-conspirators had accurately measured the human elements for their plan. The Apostles’ aggressive pattern of evangelism after Pentecost emphasized the damning message that the Sadducean civil authorities had rejected and murdered the Messiah, just as their fathers had rejected and murdered the prophets. Now, that was a very serious accusation, which could compromise the legitimacy of the already unpopular Sadducee leadership in the eyes of the people. The Sadducees were fully aware of the danger that such a campaign heralded. In response, they moved quickly to suppress the fledgling sect of the Nazarene.

The Sadducees knew that someone, or a group, was out to not only embarrass them, but to take away their power and prestige, if possible.

Had there been a modern police force available in the first century AD, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have been prime suspects in the mystery of the empty tomb.