An Argument for the Historicity of Jesus's Burial via the Lack of Scriptural Allusion

 

Jesus's burial in a rock-hewn tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, is depicted in all four Gospel traditions. A decent number of scholars have questioned the partial or total authenticity of this story, arguing that Jesus may have been dishonorably interred in an earth grave or perhaps not even buried at all [1]. The following will argue against both of these hypotheses and will argue that the lack of proper scriptural allusion makes both of these theories implausible. It will conclude that the Gospels are generally correct in their unexpected description of Joseph's role in honorably burying Jesus ,a precis defended by a substantial amount of scholars today [2].

Scriptural Allusions and Dishonorable Burial

Though the crucifixion of Jesus is an event that virtually no ancient historian would deny as a historical event, it is hard to deny that within the history of the event there is a large amount of Scripture and literary devices wrapped within around the historical fact. This idea of "tradition scripturalized" [3] fits in well with the retroactive incorporation of scripture of the Christian tradition. Events in the life of Jesus were used as the template to scope out potential parallels in Scripture, in order to find places in the Hebrew Bible to connect with the inherited oral tradition being passed along by the Church. Nowhere is this more apparent than the Passion narrative of Christ's death.

The earliest tradition of such Passion, found in Mark 15, makes heavy use of Psalm 22:

• vs. 1, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?" (Mk. 15:34)

• vs. 6-7, "[I am] scorned by mankind and despised by the people. All who see me mock me;(Mk. 15:16-20;29-32)

• vs. 7-8, " they make mouths at me; they wag their heads, 'He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” (Mk. 15:29-32)

• vs. 14, "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint." (the general practice of crucifixion would dislocate the bone, Mk. 15:24, cf. Jn. 19:34 for the reference to being "poured out")

• vs. 15, "my strength is dried up like a potsherd." (Mk. 15:21, as Jesus is too weak to carry His own cross).

• vs. 15, "my tongue sticks to my jaws." (Mk. 15:23, cf. Jn. 19:28).

• vs. 16, "they pierce my hands and feet." (Mk. 15:21; John 20:24-29 later clarifies Jesus was pierced on the cross rather than tied with ropes.)

• vs. 18, "they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." (Mk. 15:24)

In establishing Mark's contingency on the 22nd Psalm, we now turn to the implications that this has on the main topic of this study: the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.

What narrative would one expect a follower of Jesus, in utilizing Psalm 22 and other Scriptures, create in order to further this continuation of fulfilling literary parallels? Had Christians not known what had become of the body, Psalm 22 provides quite the creative inspiration for depicting the typical disposal of a crucifixion victim. If Jesus's corpse was originally deposed in a mass grave  (a fairly common fate for crucifixion victims outside of Israel)  to decompose in the heat Jerusalem sun, and, as Crossan [4] and Ehrman suggest [5], possibly eaten by dogs or other scavenging animals, verses 16 and 20 would suffice quite handsomely, "For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me... Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog!" The term "dog" (כְּלָ֫בִ֥ים) is obviously being used metaphorically here, yet the passage as a whole is also a poetic layout of the Psalmists language described in the figurative language of being "pierced", "mocked", "buried in dust", etc. The author of Mark retroactively put the literal pain Jesus during the crucifixion onto the more figurative language expressed by the anguished Psalmist. A known or potential tradition of Jesus's corpse eaten away by scavenging animals would have worked quite well. Note also such a tradition's connection to passages like Deuteronomy 28:26, "Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away."

 
Or suppose Jesus was entombed not by the Romans but by the Jewish Sanhedrin, likely in fulfillment of mandatory burial laws for the executed as laid out in Deu. 21:23. If Jesus had been dishonorably deposed in a criminal graveyard, shamefully decomposing is an earth grave for criminals until his bones were eventually collected per Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.5.-6.6, Mark could also have found plenty of parallels in Psalm 22. Does not a disposal of the corpse of Christ in a shallow earth grave not bring forth reminiscence of Ps. 22:15, "you lay me in the dust of death?" In reading vs. 17, "I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me" I immediately imagine the Pharisees mocking the rotting corpse of Jesus as they shamefully depose him. 

This kind of shameful internment following an execution also parallels the suffering servant of Isaiah 52 and 53, a scripture used extensively by Christians for the passion of Jesus. Isaiah 53:9 speaks of God's servant as killed and possibly buried in the manner of evildoers despite being innocent, "And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth." Note also Is. 53:12, which has the servant "numbered with the transgressors", again being associated with the wicked in His suffering despite Himself having done no evil. One may also find parallels with the shameful death of the righteous man at the hands of wrongdoers in the Wisdom of Solomon (2:12-21), who is then later exalted by God (3:1-11)

Archeologists digging up bones buried in an earth grave.

Thematically, both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 involve the suffering (one may call it a passion) of one who is faithful to God, being persecuted, mocked, and tortured by his enemies before allegorically being killed and disposed of in a shameful manner. The first half of these passages deal with such suffering and the hope for God's rescue (Ps. 22:1-18; Is. 53:1-9), with the second half expressing optimism as God promises to vindicate the righteous from their iniquities in the future. Redemption and later vindication is eventually seen following the character's "death" and anguish (Ps. 22:19-31; Is. 52:13-15; 53:10-12).

Mark's Reversal of Expectation

Mark's loyalty to this formula is quite strong as He describes Jesus's arrest, trial, and execution. The Lord is unfairly prosecuted for a crime He was innocent of, mocked at while He was being tortured, and executed in a shameful way akin to the death of a criminal, all the while being silent (Mk. 14:61) in fulfillment of Is. 53:7. Yet Mark reverses expectations when it comes to Jesus's burial; Jesus is, contra Ps. 22:15 and Is. 53:9, not laid in a criminal's grave but instead is given the rather surprising treatment of an honorable burial. Joseph of Arimathea, being described as "seeking the Kingdom of God" in Mk. 15:43, buries the body of Jesus not in an earth grave (which was the typical method to bury Jews of the lower class, cf. Ps. 22:15) but in a rock-hewn tomb which were probably exclusive to the wealthy. Joseph also buys a linen cloth for Jesus to be buried in (Mk. 15:46), a fairly pricey expense for an executed criminal. 

Many may find Scriptural parallels in the second half of Is. 53:9, "[he was] a rich man in his death", to be mirrored in Mark's depiction of Joseph's role in burying Jesus. However, as W. Creighton Marlowe argues, the use of rich (עָשִׁיר) in the passage is not a statement pertaining to honorable burial, but is rather meant to further associate the suffering servant as one unfairly killed and buried by the wicked, [6]

"The common association of wealth and wickedness in the OT world suggests that within this synonymous parallelism, the full sense is "[the] wealthy [wicked]." The author's intention in v. 9 was to tell about the servant's undeserved suffering (v. 9b), wherein he was portrayed and processed as a criminal in his death and burial by his persecutors and prosecutors (v. 9a). The plan of these evil people (rich and reprobate) was to place him among the refuse of mankind (v. 9a), even though he had committed no violent and verbal crimes (v.9b)…A case has been made for the understanding of Isaiah 53:9 as a text that reveals that (1) the suffering servant would be handled by his opponents as a criminal in regard to his death and burial (53:9a); and (2) this treatment would be unfair and unjust because this servant had never sinned verbally or had never acted violently or retaliated verbally (53:9b)."

Indeed, the Septuagint likewise renders the Greek use of "rich" in Is. 53:9b as being in association with the wicked, with Yahweh avenging His servant who was oppressed by the wicked and the wealthy, [7] 

"The LXX’s use of [wicked] and [rich] reflects a view of the wicked and the rich as a visible, enduring class of people distinct from those who confess their sin and the servant’s atoning work in 53:1-7. In several places of LXX Isaiah, the rich is related to the wicked that is the object of God’s judgement. Thus, the LXX rendering in v. 9 makes the sentence imply God’s retribution against the wicked and the rich who despised and killed the servant".

In other words, Isaiah's use of "rich" is denotative of rich oppressors who trample the poor, a common theme among the Old Testament prophets. Just as the servant "made his grave with the wicked", the Hebrew parallelism also suggests that he further "was a rich man in death." Both of these statements imply a treatment of the servant as an unrighteous criminal by despite his innocence. Thus this speaks not of an honorable burial in a rich man's tomb, but acts as further artillery for the theming of a degrading death and burial of a blameless man. 

Matthew 27:57 notes Joseph's status as a "rich man" that buries Jesus in his own expensive tomb, which could be seen as the evangelist's reading of Mark's narrative back onto Is. 53:9b. Yet even if Matthew read Mark in this way, it's not at all clear as to how Mark would have originally seen the passage in this manner. Mark does not note Joseph's wealth (though certainly a Sanhedrin member would be affluent) nor does he state that Joseph buried Jesus in his own personal tomb. Furthermore, why Mark would suddenly take a passage about shameful burial and knit it into a narrative depicting a partially-respectable internment is beyond me. Mark's use of Psalm  22 and Isaiah 53 elsewhere in his passion narrative clearly take the mockery and death of Jesus as a negative thing disposed onto a guiltless man; one would think he would continue this trend with the burial narrative, as so many aforecited verses would have helped achieve this goal. Had Mark 15 wanted to use Is. 53:9, a narration of a contemptible internment would have been apropos: "he made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man [an unrighteous man] in [the manner of] his death." Why would Mark suddenly reinterpret the ignominy of the "rich man" passage into something of honor, given that he consistently sticks with the discomfiture of the servant's passion throughout the rest of his narrative, including during the mocking and crucifixion of Christ?

A rock-hewn tomb in Jerusalem, usually meant as communal  tombs for wealthy families

 One can, in their creativity, quite easily construct an alternative tradition of Mk. 15:42-47, formulating a narrative that emphasizes Jesus's passion and more closely follows the tribulation of the righteous undergone in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, [8]

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, the Sanhedrin went to Pilate and requested the body of the Lord for burial. Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body. And Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning. For in the Law it has been written: The sun is not to set on one put to death.' And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to the members of the court. Having taken the body of the Lord, they said “Let us drag along the Son of God now that we have killed Him. Let us bury Him quickly before the sun sets. Let Him make His grave with the wicked.”And they dug a plot and laid the body of the Lord inside, rejoicing in their wickedness. This was done so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, “you lay me in the dust of death.” Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid."

Such a tradition, rife with the motifs of innocence, dishonor, Christological titles, and Scriptural allusions, is highly expected under the hypothesis of literary creation. The honorable nature of the Canonical Gospels stands out like a sore thumb when compared to this hypothetical account that more closely follows the motifs of the Torah.

Why Invent an Honorable Burial?

If Christians desired to depose of Jesus in a dishonorable manner in order to follow Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, why suddenly have Joseph treat Jesus properly when in the preceding verses the Pharisees mocked Jesus at every turn?  Such a tonal shift prematurely puts the vindication of the servant at the moment of His burial, rather than following it. A closer formula to the Torah would be having Jesus dishonorably killed and buried, having divine exaltation only after the tribulation undergone by His enemies in the form of an empty tomb and post-mortem vindication (Mk. 16:1-8). 

One may argue that the dishonor of Christ being interned unceremoniously would be too much for the early Christians too bear, and that such an act of shame would need to be masked by a literary spinning of Jesus's respectable burial by a member of the court. This is peculiar; would a dishonorable burial really be such a hard pill to swallow given the extent of shame Jesus had already endured on the cross? Paul goes as far as to denotate Jesus's crucifixion as the certification for God's curse upon Him (Gal. 3:13), and admits that the crucifixion was embarrassing and troubling for Jewish and Gentile recipients of the Gospel message (1 Cor. 1:23). Yet the Church embraced such shame rather than hide it, reworking it into a message of atonement, forgiveness, debt payment, and salvation. I see no reason that a shameful burial would be any more problematic. As a matter of fact, Paul seems to promote the idea that our mortal, corruptible bodies are "sown in dishonor" (1 Cor. 15:43) like a seed prior to being raised in glory, and throughout His epistles compares Christian's metaphorical burial (ie baptism) to Christ's burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). In reading the epistles one does not get the impression that Paul would have had any reservation towards a dishonorable burial; if anything, he probably would have used it to further his analogy.

Christians afterall did not shy away from the brutality of Jesus's crucifixion, taking every blow and every mocking statement as a further burden that Christ bore for those He loved. The Gospels trend upward in trajectory not only in the level of innocence given to Jesus by Pilate, but also in the level of suffering He endures during the Passion. All four Gospels record Jesus bring mocked, with each getting slightly more detailed in the descriptions of shame deposed to Christ. Mark starts with Jesus being flogged and mocked before being crucified, with John ending the tetralogy of Passion narratives with Jesus's body being pierced in order to ensure His death (Jn. 19:34), while also adding further desecration to the corpse. Little resilience is given to lessen Jesus's pain prior to His burial. 

A dishonorable discernment of His body would both follow the trend of the suffering servant in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, as well as further emphasize the extent Jesus suffered for the sins of the world. Not even His body would be spared. To the early Christians, the theology of suffering was quite pertinent. Jesus was flogged for our sins. Jesus was mocked for our sins. Jesus was killed for our sins. Why not have Jesus's burial in an obscure dirt plot add on to the Lord's burden for our sins? Jut as Christians looked back to Deuteronomic laws to emphasizes Jesus's status as being cursed through the cross (cf. Gal. 3:13 to Deu. 21:23), it would only be canny to further this by applying a shameful burial, or lack of burial altogether, to passages like Deuteronomy 28:26, which speaks of God punishing the wicked by allowing their exposed corpses to be consumed by birds and other animals. 

Another thought: given the Markan inverse of using kingly motifs as mockery rather than flattery, a dishonorable burial would in fact serve better here. Jesus is given a reed, a purple robe, and a crown of thorns as a form of ridicule rather than regality (Mk. 15:16-20) The title "King of the Jews" is given to Jesus in Mark 15:2 and in other Gospels is a sign with the phrase is nailed above His head in various languages (Jn. 19:21). How fitting would it have been to continue this "dishonored King" motif with Jesus's shameful burial? The Talmud is no stranger stories of kings buried in dishonor. King Jehoiakim is dishonorably deposed in Jeremiah 22:19, "He will have the burial of a donkey— dragged away and thrown outside the gates of Jerusalem.” How ironic would it have been to have the corpse of Jesus pulled by a donkey outside the gates of Jerusalem in order to parallel the treatment of King Jehoiakim's body; this would be a direct reversal of Jesus's triumphal entry on a donkey per Mark 11:1-11. Just as Jesus is given unflattering treatment to parody His status as king, it would only make sense to give the dead king a "chariot" in which He is violently dragged around to further His disgrace. This concept actually correlates quite well the graphic description laid in the 4th century (or later) Jewish polemic the Toldot Yeshua, where Jesus's corpse is dragged through Jerusalem in order to mock the Christian movement, [9]

"Therefore they all assembled, and tying the body [of Jesus] to a horse's tail, brought it and threw it down before the Queen, saying, 'Behold the man of whom you have said, He has gone up to heaven.' When the Queen saw him, she was overwhelmed with shame and unable to speak. Moreover, while the body was dragged about for some time, the hair of the head was pulled out. And this is the reason why now the hair of a monk is shaved off in the middle of the head; it is done in remembrance of what happened to Yeshu."

This again goes to show that a shameful burial would have furthered the Markan narrative of Jesus as a King treated with dishonor.

The Inconsistency of an Honorable Burial

But, if for the sake of argument we are to ignore prior Scriptural precedent and presume that Christians wanted Jesus to be given an honorable burial to mask the potential embarrassment that a dishonorable internment would carry, why present such a reserved tale? In Mark 15:42-47 there are still dishonorable elements to the burial of Jesus, though these are more reflective of Jewish oral law than they are of Old Testament scripture; per the Mishnah (6.6) Jesus is not entombed in his family grave with bodies of the righteous, and there is no public mourning or crowd display of grief. The women companions of Jesus, despite watching Joseph care for the body, do nothing to assist him; perhaps this is because they, as companions of Jesus, would not be allowed to help with the burial given Jesus's status as an executed criminal, leaving the job to the Sanhedrin and their servants to depose of the wicked (cf. Acts 13:29). [10]

Thus the Gospels leave us with a quasi-honorable burial; Joseph lays Jesus is a tomb for the affluent, wrapped in a fairly nice burial shroud. If the later Gospels are to be believed, Joseph also buried Jesus in his own new tomb (Matt. 27:59), where "no one had yet been laid" (Lk. 23:35), and he adorns the body with expensive spices (Jn. 19:39-40). The rules for interning an executed criminal are still followed, leaving out the involvement of Jesus's companions, being buried by the Pharisees instead of his family, and the forbiddance of public lamentation. Joseph seems to have been making the best of what he could given the situation (perhaps because Joseph was possibly sympathetic to the Christian way per Mk. 15:43; Lk. 23:50-51; Jn. 19:38), essentially dressing up the corpse as nice as he could while not technically violating the law. Such balance implies a careful tiptoeing around of tradition on Joseph's part. [11]

Though in the Gospels, especially the later ones, put much attention on the spices and expenses used to entomb Christ, the account is still held back from a truly honorable burial. There are no crowds to mourn Him, no public displays of anguish, nor does anyone other than Joseph (and Nicodemus) assist in preparing the corpse. It is an honorable burial, but undeniably a private one. 

Should not the King of the Jews, if one is to create a fictional story, receive a burial fit for a man of status? Jesus is afterall considered a king all throughout the Passion narrative. Royalty tended to have quite large turnouts to their funerals, where a large crowd wept and mourned for their fallen ruler (Gen. 50:1-11; 2 Sam 3:31; 2 Chron. 24:15-17, etc.). One can easily imagine that, perhaps after the Romans and Jews realize the error of their ways (cf. Mk. 15:39), Jesus is given a large eulogy fit for a king. We see something along these lines in the Gospel of Peter, where after the portents follow Christ's death, many of the Jews show regret in their sins and lament Jesus publicly in order to seek mercy from God's judgement. [12] If the Gospels wanted to portray a truly regal burial for the King of the Jews, they seem to have missed the mark. We are only given a story of a private and honorable burial, but nothing more. 

Vindication Without Proper Burial

A final consideration: would an honorable burial be required in order to best depict Jesus's exaltation and bodily assumption into heaven? It is conceivable that Mark would need to have the body be accessible in order to "prove" that the resurrection had in fact taken place. A rotted corpse unceremoniously disposed may hamper this effect. 

 

This objection limps. In the ancient world there was no shortage of tales of apotheosis that did not involve the person being previously entombed. Let us not forget the stories of the body of Aeneas disappearing on the battlefield (Dionysius, Rom. Anti., 1.64.4.) or the corpse of Aristeas going missing before he can be buried, only to appear again later on (Herodotus, Hist. 4. 13-16). The Christian Scriptures also show that it was not unheard of for a highly revered figure to be vindicated following a terrible death and dishonorable burial. Most well-known are the Maccabean martyrs, who still receive the hope of future resurrection and exaltation despite their bodies being completely dismembered by the soldiers of Antiochus IV (2 Macc. 7:4-42). New Testament examples also abound. Luke 16 foretells of a parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the wealthy Jew is buried presumably extravagantly (vs. 22) and yet is damned to hell, whereas the body of the impoverished Lazarus is not said to be buried but is instead carried away to heaven by angels. The two witnesses of Revelation 11:7-12 are killed and left unburied, yet still manage to ascend to heaven in front of all present. 

Jewish and Christian texts of the 1st and 2nd century likewise give frequent examples of figures being translated into heaven sans burial. In the Testament of Job 39:11-13 and 40:3-4, the children of Job are crushed under a large building, with their bodies being lost and unrecoverable; however, they are shown to be assumed into heaven and appear to their family in a glorified state. The Protoevangelism of James 24:3 has the body of Zacharias vanish after he is murdered before it can be interred. 

Clearly then, ancient people were not averse to telling stories of missing bodies without the need to include a formal burial. Is it really a stretch of the imagination for the author of Mark to have constructed a vindication narrative (perhaps through a missing body motif) without giving Jesus a proper burial in a rich man's tomb? Could not the shame of a dishonorable burial just as easily been avoided by a pre-burial resurrection of Christ? [13] There are afterall examples of crucified bodies vanishing mysteriously before being removed from the cross, as seen in The Testament of Joseph of Arimathea (4:1), "And I Joseph begged the body of Jesus, and put it in a new tomb, where no one had been put. And of the robber on the right the body was not found..." All of this serves as evidence that an appeal to a "missing-body" motif cannot be used as a necessary condition for inventing the burial of Jesus. 

 What is Expected Versus What is Observed

Using a Bayesian understanding of predictive power, even if we are to depose of the incorporation of actual numbers, we can estimate how these two competing hypotheses create expectation for the data actually observed. Let us call these the Hypothesis of Literary Creation (HLC) and the Hypothesis of Historical Reportage (HHR).

As argued above, one would expect the HLC to follow in accordance with previously established motifs found in the Old Testament Scriptures pertaining to the suffering of the innocent servant of God. There are about 4 conceivable scenarios involving the burial of Jesus that one could expect a priori before examining the textual evidence: 

1. The whereabouts of Jesus's corpse were unknown and Christians invented a narrative using the Scriptures.

2. The body of Jesus was dishonorably buried and Christians kept the tradition (along with the shame of crucifixion) in accordance with Scriptural motifs.

3. The body of Jesus was dishonorably buried and Christians invented an honorable burial to hide the shame of such embarrassment.

4. The body of Jesus was honorably buried and Christians preserved the tradition with minimal changes.

The HLC fits options 1 and 3, though if choice 1 predicts heavy use of the Scriptures, then we would expect an explicitly dishonorable burial narrative. This does not account for the Gospel data. Option 3 would account for the narrative for in Mark 15:42-47 but, as argued above, goes against the grain of the motifs that the Gospel authors are trying to follow. It thus cannot adequately explain the sudden reversal of expectation that contrasts Mark's prior use of Scripture. 

The HHR falls under options 2 and 4. The former choice is highly expected yet contradicts the data that all of our sources denotate to the reader. Option 4 is initially surprising but posteriorly most simply explains the data we observe. The choice, then, seems fairly clear: the Gospel of Mark wrote that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in rock-hewn tomb simply because that is what was initially observed and transmitted by the early Christin community. 

Concluding Thoughts

The New Testament narrative of Joseph of Arimathea burying the body of Jesus in his personal family tomb stands out as quite unusual and unexpected. The sheer strangeness of it has led many to suspect literary fiction on behalf of Mark rather than historical reportage, yet as argued above the evidence and literary expectation to the contrary makes the invention hypothesis untenable. There are significant reasons to conclude that the honorable burial of Jesus is generally lacking embellishment. 

I have argued that a narrative depicting a dishonorable burial of Jesus would have been preserved by the Church had it occurred, or probably constructed had the whereabouts of the corpse been unknown. To summarize the arguments:

1. The dishonorable disposal of a wrongfully executed servant of God fits the motifs found in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, scriptures that were heavily used by early Christians in reflecting on Jesus's passion. Likewise is the case with the dishonorable burial of wicked Kings in the Talmud, which would have furthered Mark's theme of portraying Jesus as a dishonored king. 

2. Christians did not show averseness to Jesus's shameful death by crucifixion, instead turning it into a crucial aspect of their theology. Paul's language in 1 Corinthians 15 also seems to further the idea that our "sowing" will be dishonored but that our resurrection will be glorious, in direct comparison to Jesus. This indicates that Christians would not have tried to hide the shameful burial of their master but would have used it to their advantage.

3. The honorable burial of Jesus is still quite reserved, being private and quiet in nature rather than public and regal. Only minimal attention is given to Jesus's burial in the tomb of a wealthy man, opting out of having a more royal depiction of burial consistent with the Markan motif of Jesus's kingship. This is surprising if the narrative is trying to invent honorable elements to hide the embarrassment of the grave. 

4. Judaism knew of stories of post-mortem vindication, both bodily and otherwise, without needing a proper burial. The lack of a rock-hewn tomb would not have been problematic for Christians wanting to speak of Christ's vindication.

To culminate, arguments in favor of the Gospels inventing the honorable burial of Jesus do not hold much water. The strangeness of the account is implicit of a memory being recounted rather than later legend. 

.........................................

References

[1] For an overview of scholars who have doubted the historicity of Jesus's burial by Joseph of Arimathea and see it as a later legend, see the following: Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. Harper, 1994, pg. 123-158; Spong, John Shelby. Resurrection: Myth or Reality? HarperOne, 1995, pg. 225-229; Aus, Roger David. The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, and the Death, Burial, and Translation of Moses in Judaic Tradition. Univ. Press of America, 2008, pg. 139-171; and Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. HarperOne, 2015, pg. 157-161.

[2] For a general literature review of scholars who have argued in favor of the historicity of Jesus's burial by Joseph of Arimathea (or at least accept the account as plausible), see the following: O'Collins, Gerald, and Daniel Kendall. "Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?." Biblica 75, no. 2 (1994): 235-241.; Craig, William Lane. "Was Jesus Buried in Shame? Reflections on B. McCane's Proposal." The Expository Times 115, no. 12 (2004): 404-409.; Magness, Jodi. "Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James." Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 1 (2005): 121-154; Evans, Craig. "Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3, no. 2 (2005): 233-248; Cook, John Granger. "Crucifixion and Burial." New Testament Studies 57, no. 2 (2011): 193-213.; and Allison Jr, Dale C. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021. pg. 94-115. For commentators who accept the general historicity of Jesus's internment by Joseph (or the Sanhedrin) in a tomb or grave but express skepticism towards the details of honorable burial, see the following: Fuller, Reginald Horace. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. Fortress Press, 1971, pg. 54;.Brown, Raymond E. "The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15: 42-47)." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50, no. 2 (1988): 233-245; McCane, Byron R., "'Where No One Had Yet Been Laid'. The Shame of Jesus' Burial." in Chilton, Bruce and Craig A. Evans. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (1999): 431-452; Carrier, Richard C. "The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law." in Price, Robert and Jeffrey Jay Lowder, The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Prometheus Books, 2005. pg. 369-392; and Dijkhuizen, Petra. "Buried Shamefully: Historical Reconstruction of Jesus' Burial and Tomb." Neotestamentica 45, no. 1 (2011): 115-129.

[3] A term coined by Mark Goodacre in "Prophecy Historicized or Tradition Scripturalized? Reflections on the Origins of the Passion Narrative." The New Testament and the Church: Essays in Honour of John Muddiman 532 (2016): 37-51.

[4]  Crossan, Jesus, pg. 123-158.

[5] Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, pg. 157-161.

[6] Marlowe, W. Creighton. "The Wicked Wealthy in Isaiah 53: 9." The Asbury Journal 64, no. 2 (2009): 68-81, esp. 73-74.

[7] See pg. 20 of Kim, Hyukki "Textual Tradition in Hebrew and Greek: Isaiah 52: 13-53: 12". Textual Traditions of the Old Testament (Masters and PhD Seminar), 2008: 1-32. Retrieved from http://torontosarangchurch.com/sermon/Isa53%20in%20Hebrew%20and%20Greek.pdf. Other commentators have noted the vengeful nature of Is. 53:9b, where the rich are seen as oppressors defaming God's servant. See for example pg. 228-229 of Watson, Francis B. "Mistranslation and the Death of Christ : Isaiah 53 LXX and its Pauline Reception.", in Translating the New Testament :Text, Translation, Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) 2009:215-250.

[8] This is derived from a combination of the burial tradition found in the Gospel of Peter, along with my own creative tweaking using Psalm 22:15 and Is. 53:9b.

[9] See Chapter 3 of the Sepher Toledot Yeshua, a translation of which can be found at https://lost-history.com/toldoth.php. 

[10] McCane, et al. "Where No One Had Yet Been Laid."

[11] For more conservative defenses of the argument that the honorable elements of the burial were not invented, see Shea, George. "On the Burial of Jesus in Mark 15:42-47" Christendom, 17, no. 1. 1991; and Craig, "Was Jesus Buried in Shame?"

[12] As the Gospel of Peter 6: 25-27 states, "Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, having come to know how much wrong they had done themselves, began to beat themselves and say: 'Woe to our sins. The judgment has approached and the end of Jerusalem.' But I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the sanctuary. In addition to all these things we were fasting; and we were sitting mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath."

[13] It can be pointed out that early Christians did not seem averse to venerating martyrs dishonorably buried; later tradition has it that James the brother of Jesus was stoned by the Pharisees and buried on the spot by the Sanhedrin in front of the temple, yet Christians still allegedly noted the location as a site of reverence decades later. See Hegassipius's narrative as quoted by Eusebius in Ecc. His. 2.23

A Brief Review of Wesley Hill's Paul and the Trinity

It is often taken as axiomatic in New Testament studies that Paul was not a Trinitarian. There is plenty of variation among the views scholars hold regarding the intersection of Paul's theology, christology, and pneumatology—from those which posit a lengthy legendary development from an angelomorphic or similar christology to the trinitarian dogmas of the later church, to those which argue for an early high (but not trinitarian) christology—but the Trinity is widely seen as a later development: perhaps an adequate synthesis of Pauline material, but nonetheless not derivable from the apostle himself.

Wesley Hill's book Paul and the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2015) challenges this view from a unique perspective. Rather than simply arguing that Paul's writings are trinitarian, Hill argues that trinitarian conceptual resources, culled from the writings of later church fathers, provide a fresh hermeneutical angle from which to consider Paul's christological texts. In doing so, new light is shed on complicated passages. The ease with which later trinitarian categories can unlock Paul's christology thus brings it closer to full-fledged trinitarianism. The entire project calls for the rewedding of biblical exegesis and systematic theology and an exploration of the ways in which they can illuminate each other.

Hill argues that the notion of high christology vs low christology is misguided. In employing that conceptual framework, scholars assume Paul's monotheism as a given—the fixed point against which his christology is measured. God is at the top, so to speak, and christology is the project of determining where Paul put Jesus on the scale from creature to God. Was it halfway up, where Jesus mediated between humanity and God, had some authority from God, but didn't encroach on the divine identity? Or was it basically at the top, where Jesus shared in the divine name and ruled from heaven as divine? Or, perhaps, Jesus started out lower and was then exalted higher? Hill argues that this approach fails to take into account Paul's "meshing" of the identities and relations of God, Jesus, and the Spirit. After surveying the history of Trinitarian dogma with an emphasis on the differing traditions of East and West, specifically as it concerns the priority of the three divine persons or the one God, he argues that the best way to interpret Paul involves recognizing how the identity of each divine person requires the existence of the others. In other words, it is impossible to refer to merely one of the divine persons, because to refer to one is to refer to all of them—their identities are mutually constitutive. Thus, since picking out Paul's monotheism as the given, which can be described with or without Christ, requires isolating God and Christ, a better approach should be proffered.

Hill supports his thesis through exegesis of, among other verses, Romans 4:24, Romans 8:11, Philippians 2:6-11, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, and Romans 1:3-4. Along the way, he shows how well trinitarian conceptual categories offer fresh perspectives on contested Pauline texts. For example, he discusses the conflict between Philippians 2:11a and 11b—here Paul is ascribing the divine name to Jesus and yet the worship Jesus receives is for the glory of God. Jesus cannot be lower than God, because he has received the divine name, but then why is the glory given to God? The solution, Hill argues, involves the trinitarian concept of "redoublement". Gregory of Nazianzus put it thusly in his Orations 31.9: "The Three are One from the perspective of their divinity, and the One is Three from the perspective of the properties." In other words, the divine persons have both identical and distinct identities in terms of essence and personhood. In this way, Paul can speak unabashedly of the sharing of the divine name and yet retain distinctions between Jesus and God (one of the Son's distinctives is glorifying the Father). 

My criticisms of the book are fairly minor. For one thing, I would have appreciated engagement with more texts. The volume is a slim two hundred pages and could certainly have examined more than a representative sample of Pauline texts. Second, and this is a point picked up on by Chris Tilling in his essay "Paul the Trinitarian" in Essays on the Trinity, Hill shows very little engagement with Second Temple Jewish literature and the mediatorial figures presented therein. In arguing that a Trinitarian conceptuality is the correct way to interpret Paul, Hill must show how it is preferable to the schemes found in such literature.

My elucidation of Hill's argumentation is bound to fall short, and I encourage anyone interested to purchase a copy of his book and read it for yourself. It represents an important new perspective in the debate over Paul's christology.

"This is My Body": An Analysis of Eucharistic Miracles

 In the New Testament, Jesus famously declared to his disciples that bread and wine (ceremonially presented as the Eucharist) were representations of His flesh and blood (Matt. 26:26-28, Mk. 14:22-24, Lk. 22:19-20, Jn. 6:22-59). Christian denominations throughout history have interpreted this declaration in different ways; Protestants (depending on the denomination) consider it to be metaphorical in the sense that communion represents the flesh and blood of Christ, but does not literally become it. Catholics on the other hand take this affirmation literally, and believe that the Eucharist actually becomes the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Such a notion has been deemed understandably strange to many, and has gained the ridicule of both protestants and atheists alike. Sam Harris, a famous opponent of Christianity, comically snided that, "If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is gonna turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, ok, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic." [1]

In juxtaposition to the skeptic's cynicism, historically the Eucharist has had many demonstrably miraculous aspects attributed to it. Exorcists for example will on occasion conceal the Eucharist to see if an allegedly possessed individual will be able to sense the presence of the Blessed object. If a person believed to be possessed by a demon can determine whether or not the Eucharist is present, that is believed to be certification of both the individual's inoculation by an unclean spirit and the sanctity of the Eucharist as the body of Christ.

Other kinds of Eucharist miracles involve remarkable properties of the host itself. An old but requisite example is the Miracle of Faverney, which took place in Eastern France over the course of three days in 1608.[2] That Sunday (May 25) the communion wafer was put into a monstrance (a shrine that displays the eucharist for veneration) in celebration of Pentecost. A fire broke out from oil lamps in the church, and much of the building was set ablaze. Monday morning the shrine was seen completely untouched by the flames and, more incredibly, was floating in the air. The miracle was a very public event that was investigated by the locals, having quickly gathered a very large crowd. Thousands of people in the area visited the church to see the monstrance levitating. On Tuesday May 27 the shrine eventually descended onto the alter, having been in the air for a total of 33 hours. [3] The event was eventually declared a miracle by the local bishop. Another modern example was publicized only a few days ago, involving a host from a parish in Guadalajara, Mexico, allegedly pulsating like a heart within the monstrance. The phenomenon was caught on video and the witnesses interviewed by the head of the diocese. Though it has been determined that the video was not tampered with, the bishop has yet to declare the event a miracle. One may suppose that some sort of optical illusion, coupled with religious enthusiasm, sparked the episode, though a source for such illumination has yet to be demonstrated.

Bar none, the most well-known of these categories of Roman Catholic miracles involve the supernatural transformation of the host. This is derived from the theological dogma of transubstantiation, in which Catholics believe the communion wafer and wine transform into the essence of Christ's body, albeit in a manner invisible to the senses. However, such a claim is not necessarily built merely on faith. Reports of communion wafers transforming into human flesh and blood have been reported for well over 1,000 years. The well-known 13th century Church Father Thomas Aquinas commented on a Eucharist miracle in his own day.[4]

Aquinas's disciples down the line have followed suite in these claims, and reports of this nature are still not uncommon today. Below is a summary of the more notable cases of more modern cases of alleged Eucharist transformation and the evidence used to support their legitimacy. One does not have to go to the Medieval period to find stories of communion wafers transforming into flesh and blood. One 2001 case in Chirattakonam, India not only had blood form on the communion wafer, but the blood shaped to make the face of a man (presumably, Jesus Christ). [5] 

Eucharistic miracle of Chirattakonam, India, 2001

Many researchers have sought to gain as much data on this strange phenomenon as possible. Perhaps most notably would be Dr. Franco Serafini, a cardiologist and graduate from Bolgna University, who has done extensive research on various Eucharist miracles.[6]  Serafini has traveled to places like Italy, Poland, Argentina, etc to analyze this phenomenon, and has interviewed the scientists involved in studying the Eucharist samples. What impressed Serafini was the consistency of the reports; for example, in the 5 cases he investigated, all involved Eucharists that contained heart tissue, contained AB blood types,[7] and all showed signs of a heart under intense stress and pain (samples resembled hearts that underwent heart attacks).[8] Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez is a psychologist who has also conducted research in this area, and provided samples of the Eucharist for doctors to examine.[9] In cases occurring in Mexico and Argentina, a communion wafer began to bleed, and doctors were sent to investigate. Gomez had multiple specialists look at the wafer, and all concluded that the sample was of a human heart, and that it contained white blood cells (which usually deteriorate within 15 minutes).

Of these more recent Eucharist miracles, a few in particular stand out as noteworthy and will be briefly discussed below.

 

The Miracle of Lanciano 

Perhaps the most famous miracle of this kind would be in Lanciano, Italy where a communion wafer reportedly became flesh and blood in the 8th century AD when a priest who doubted the doctrine of transubstantiation suddenly witnessed the supernatural transformation. Investigation into the miracle (at least, investigations that we have documentary evidence of) did not occur until hundreds of years later in the 1500s onward. This is problematic due to the fact that we have virtually no evidence that the sample in the 16th century shrine actually dates to the 8th century, "The first document [of the Lanciano miracle), unfortunately, only dates from 1636 and therefore it has but relative value, being much later than the miracle itself."[10] During examinations of this time, a new miracle was realized: the seperate pieces of the transformed communion wafer, which were all different sizes, were all equal in weight. Likewise, when placed together, they weight of the total pieces was equal to the weight of each individual piece. This, however, has not been replicated in modern analysis of the wafer. [11]

In the 20th century, the flesh of Lanciano was investigated using modern technology. Dr. Odardo Linoli, who was the former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo, examined and photographed the material of the Eucharist to determine its composition. His findings were published in the Italian medical journal  Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and his study claimed that the sample examined was indeed human flesh, specifically from the heart.[12] The blood type was AB, which is the same type of blood found in various Catholic relics like the infamous Shroud of Turin [13], and as will be seen below, is a common element shared among these accounts. Due to the precision and shape of the flesh, Linoli stated that it was unlikely that the cells could have come from a dead body, "Supposing that the heart was taken from a dead body, we have to consider that only a trained hand in anatomic dissection could have obtained, with no difficulty, from a cave organ an "even and continuous slice" considering that the first anatomic dissections on human body, have been made after the 14th century."[14] In other words, in the judgement of the doctor, there was no surgical equipment from the 8th century AD that could replicate the precision found in the Lanciano sample. 

Further studies were conducted up until 1981 by Rugerro Bertelli from the University of Sienca, and rendered similar results. Another study was published in a journal on medieval science in 2016 defended Linoli's study, though without itself attempting to replicate his findings, “In 1970-1981 works of Prof. Linoli on the samples extracted in 1970 have proved that Meat and Blood belong to the AB group, the Meat is a section of the heart, impossible to make in the eighth century." [15]  The Lanciano Eucharist is therefore considered miraculous for many reasons: 1) the wafer is actual flesh and blood from a human heart, 2) it is cut and formed in such a way that a person from the 8th century would be unable to reproduce, 3) the different sizes and pieces of the specimen are all equal in weight. The first of these facts seems indisputable, the second is an idiosyncratic judgement that has yet to be extensively scrutinized, and the third is a claim that from the 16th century that has not been replicated or verified with modern instruments.

                                                             Miracle of Buenos Aires

The Buenos Aires Eucharist miracle occurred in August of 1996, where a host appeared to bleed after being placed in water.[16] Photographs were taken around 2 months later, and investigations were allowed in 1999.[17] Dr. Frederick Zugibe, a pathologist from Columbia University, examined slides provided by journalists Mike Willesee and Ron Tesoriero. He stated in a signed letter that, "prior to rendering my opinion, I was not informed of the history of the material." Zugibe confirmed that the sample was from a human heart that was in distress, appearing as if it had suffered a heart attack or a blow to the chest. Ron Tesoriero claims that he witnessed Zugibe state that the material was still living, and that he stated that the phenomenon was medically inexplicable; however, this detail was not found in the original letter provided, and I am unaware of any evidence of this apart from Tesoriero's testimony.[18] Photographed scans of Zugibe's letter can be found online, with the first page presented below. [19] DNA testing was also performed on the sample (the scans of the original forensic documents are present on the Internet), but results were inconclusive. [20] Though it does nothing in terms of effecting the credibility or incredibility of the Eucharist's legitimacy, I will point out (merely as a point of interest) that the investigative process to examine the Buenos Aires miracle was overseen by then-bishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is now the current Pope Francis. 

Photo of Buenos Aires Eucharist, 1999

Published analysis of Buenos Aires Eucharist, signed on March 26th, 2005 by Frederick Zugibe

Miracle of Tixtala

A Eucharist transformation reportedly occurred in Tixtala, Mexico in 2006 that also was allegedly investigated scientifically. [21] Dr. Eduardo Sanchez, in a signed letter, claimed not only that the Mexican eucharist was a human heart, but that the blood excretions came from inside the host, rather than simply covering the Eucharist with blood, [22]

"The possibility of bleeding coming from the outside to the inside [of the host] is ruled out, since the histological structure that is shown and observed of the host presents various means of absorption, and these do not allow the entrance of the blood towards its interior confirming the first theory, that comes from the interior of the host"

 

Photographs of the Tixtala Eucharist are readily available, and Dr. Sanchez's letter discussing its microscopic properties can be found online.[23] Photographed tests on the host revealed that it, like other Eucharist miracles, was of the blood type AB.[24]; however, one test revealed that the blood belonged to a woman,[25] a rather strange conclusion if in fact this was the "body of Christ." Perhaps the religiously pious could argue that this is because Jesus was born of a virgin, and so He may lack the Y Chromosome in His blood needed from his father Joseph. Whether this explanation is ad hoc is up for debate, yet if this were the case why did other Eucharist blood samples not derive similar results?

The Miracle of Sokolka

Perhaps the most intriguing and best documented of these modern miracles would be the Eucharist in Sokółka, Poland. In October of 2008, during a mass a communion wafer was accidently dropped on the floor. As per custom, it was placed in a cup to dissolve. However, the wafer began to be covered in a blood-like substance, and an investigation was conducted. Samples were sent to two different scientists from the Medical University of Białystok to get independent analyses of the substance in question.  Those conducting the study were Professor Maria Elżbieta Sobaniec-Łotowska and Professor Stanisław Sulkowski. They were not told where the sample had come from, and were subsequently surprised to learn about that it had originated from a communion wafer. The fact that the research was independent and that the researchers were unaware of the sample's origin was emphasized by inquisitors to diminish the possibility of bias or wishful thinking. 

The results were similar to that of Lanciano: the sample was from a heart and had a similar blood type. However, this case was particularly unique to the the fact that the flesh was discovered to be intertwined to the bread; the blood had not merely been placed on the wafer, but it was coming from it as if the wafer itself was bleeding, and the cells of the bread were inseparable with those of the blood. Likewise, the heart did not appear to be from a dead body, but from a living person "in agony", ie enduring great stress or pain. Both professors who examined and photographed the Eucharist would summarize their findings in a co-authored article published by the Polish journal Teologia i Człowiek. [26] A (translated) lengthy excerpt from the article is published below, emphasis mine,[27]

"[The commission of the Church] investigate[d] the Eucharistic Event in Sokółka. The commission heard witnesses of the event, analyzed the whole event theological matter, drew up a protocol and conclusions from the protocol was presented to the public. All documentation remained then sent to the Apostolic Nunciature in Poland...Undoubtedly, the fragments of tissue observed under the microscope  belong to the human heart and look as if a sample has been taken from the heart of a living man in agony...Pathomorphological research, in compliance with all the rules of art, carried out independently by two experts, employed by two separate organizational units of MUB [medical university], because science is subject to the principle of verifiability. What one discovers or observes scientists, it must be considered an objective fact if another scientist independently observes the same. The research results obtained by Prof. Maria E. Sobaniec-Latvia (from the Medical Pathomorphology Department of the Medical University of Bialystok) and by Prof.  Stanisław Sulkowski (from the Department of Pathomorphology General UMB) are consistent and indicate the presence of human heart tissue...They both note that the matter of which the communicator is composed, in natural conditions, after when put into water, it dissolves quickly. This was not the case in the case under examination.

 

 Instead, a more unusual phenomenon was observed: the heart tissue that appeared on the Communication was forming an unbreakable structure with a delicate hem left around the perimeter white host. This phenomenon is well visible even macroscopically, i.e. without the use of microscopic magnification. So found mutual penetration of the heart muscle fibers with the structure of the Communication. [Because of the] connections of muscle tissue with the host material, according to scientists, it excludes the possibility of human interference to artificially obtain such an effect.... Since the announcement of the Church Commission in October 2009, there has been no influence from the academic community substantive reservation as to the method of sampling, methodology the research carried out and the scientific credibility of the results of the expertise. It should therefore be assumed that - according to the noted testimony of many people - before October 19, 2008, the tested material consisted of particles of bread typical for communicants, while after that date in its structure contains a significant amount of tissue of the human heart muscle with characteristic morphology. One can therefore speak of a scientific confirmation of God's supernatural interference, which cannot be recreated in laboratory conditions or described with mathematical models."

My Doubts

While one can praise the careful scientific research that the Church puts into investigating miracle claims like the Eucharist transformations, one should admit that such methodology is not without its limits. The miracles are usually displayed in shrine in cathedrals, and so the Church is emphatic on keeping enough of the wafers in tact to display. The fact that communion wafers are usually very small in size means that there is a very limited amount to extract a sample from for scientific analysis. Likewise, Catholics regard the relics as sacred, and see any extensive tampering or sampling as disrespectful to the body of Christ. Thus, there are unfortunately only a handful of studies that can be done on the miraculous substance. Generally in science, peers will attempt to replicate and critique data they receive. The scientists who studied the Poland Eucharistic miracle expressed this view, "...science is subject to the principle of verifiability. What one discovers or observes scientists, it must be considered an objective fact if another scientist independently observes the same." Although there were multiple researchers independently analyzing the communion, one could always wish that we had more scientists to come and verify the results of these experiments. Science is about peer-review and cross checking of data; the reverence of the Eucharist entails that the bishops that oversee these relics are in no hurry to allow open examination to any curious scientist who may be less than accepting of the initial published reports.

The Church, in investigating healing miracles of canonization and Lourdes, typically require a panel of medical professionals, not just one or two scientists as is the case with these sorts of 'miracles'. [28] These physicians need not be affiliated with the Church or identify as Catholic; indeed, the Vatican is no stranger to seeking the professional advice of even non-religious scientists to supervise the process of investigation.Likewise with the investigations into the Shroud of Turin, to which much scrutiny and study has been given precisely because the Vatican allowed scientists of different backgrounds to study the object and publish their findings. We do not see this level of replication or cross-checking in the case of Eucharistic miracles, which are investigated on a local level rather than having any affiliation with the Vatican.

Why not engage in the same form of peer-review with these Eucharist miracles?  And why are the vast majority of these findings not published in scientific journals? While medical verification is appreciated, every field can have its fringe theorists. Such is the very reason the review process exists: findings need to be checked and repeated by multiple people in the field attempting to falsify it, not just one or two academics whose testimonies we cannot cross-check.  Such a scenario would be even better evidence than what we have at the moment. Due to the aforementioned limitations, we may have to be content with the data currently available. 

Likewise, though I am unaware of any direct evidence debunking any of the Eucharist miracles mentioned in this text, there are a fair number of other examples where such claims of miraculous transformation turned out to be bogus. On occasion, "blood" that appears on an old wafer has turned out to be mold or fungi, [29] and other Eucharist miracles have not withstood proper scrutiny.[30] Skeptics have suggested fraud or theft, perhaps of a human heart from a medical lab, could account for miracles like Sokolka.[31] Admittedly, there is no hard evidence that the Eucharist samples are a result of grave robbing, yet in most cases there is no direct data that could falsify the fraud hypothesis either. And as for the alleged intertwinement of yeast and blood that "bleeds" from these miraculous wafers, is it possible that such interpretations are subjective and espoused by devout scientists who see what they want to see? Having several skeptical cardiologists verify this finding would be beyond helpful. 

 I am at a roadblock in regards to the theological implications to this miracle, if it in fact were demonstrable. It is my conviction that God would perform a miracle primarily for two conceivable reasons: 1) as a demonstration of answered prayer that entails an act of benevolence and mercy and/or 2) as vindication of a particular theological teaching or as vindication of a prophet. The former encompasses the vast majority of miracle claims, which almost always involve inexplicable recoveries from illness. The latter are far more exceptional and rare, involving things like Jesus's resurrection or Christ's ability to walk atop the Sea of Galilee. Neither of these are intrinsically acts of mercy, but rather are meant to substantiate Jesus of Nazareth as God Incarnate. 

Eucharist miracles are obviously of this second category, and if they were legitimate it would be strong evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation. And since the Roman Church is the sole affirmer of this particular doctrine, ipso facto a miracle of this nature would act as God's stamp of approval of Catholic authority and dogma. Yet in spite of this apparent pipeline for conversion to the Church of Rome, I have yet to see many Catholic apologists take up this mantel and argue for such miracles as evidence for the validity of their faith. [32] Is this, perhaps, because they too are hesitant to affirm a miracle with so many uncertainties entailed into it? Maybe they know something I don't. 

And if Eucharist miracles are meant to be seals of vindication from Christ Himself, why do they happen to occur only in heavily Catholic contexts where parishioners are already enthusiastic in their belief? Would not a vindication miracle by its very nature occur for the purpose of converting, rather than acting as reinforcement for those already firm in their faith convictions? Christian miracles, both hisotrically and recently,  are well-known for their ability to convert unbelievers in unevangelized areas, yet Eucharist miracles do not seem to hold this kind of conversion power. Hugh Farey, a well-known skeptic of Catholic relics, noted this point, [33]

"But a question that should be asked, I think, is what is a miracle for? A particular blessing on an individual might be one reason, or the demonstration of the sanctity of a putative saint might be another, but I'm a loss to see the point of eucharistic miracles, as they (nowadays) invariably occur within the context of the converted. The 'original' [Lanciano] if I recall correctly, occurred in the presence of disbelievers, who were thus converted. That would give it a purpose; but more recently they seem to be little more than status symbols, which raises doubts." 

To conclude, Eucharistic miracles act as an interesting contribution to the theological literature surrounding debates on the Eucharist, though they serve better as an excursus than a full chapter. I for one reserve judgement on the matter, yet remain intrigued by the consistency and quantity of such miracles. I admit that I do not have a direct explanation to account for such phenomenon, but on the other side of the coin, there are enough features to allow my flags to be raised. Perhaps it is my Protestant bias, or maybe it is a skeptical intuition that may be on to something after all. Only time will tell. I will let the reader reach their own conclusions.

References

[1] Transcript of Harris's debate with Craig at the University of Notre Dame on April 7, 2011. http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/transcript-sam-harris-v-william-lane-craig-debate-%E2%80%9Cis-good-from-god%E2%80%9D.html

[2] This is discussed in multiple publications: Varry, Dominica. "The Introduction of the Capuchins in Franche-Comté and the 'Miracle "of Faverney" in Around the Miracle of Faverney (1608): National Conference .2008; Marchal, Corinne and Manuel Tramaux. The Miracle of Faverney (1608). The Eucharist: Environment and Time of History. Franche-Comté University Press, 2010; and Gomez-Géraud, Marie Christine. "The Victory of the Body-God: Structures and Functions of Eucharistic Miracle Accounts in the Time of the Counter-Reformation." in The Miracle of Faverney (1608). 2010, pg. 311-326.

[3] Some point out that this length of time is significant, considering that Jesus is typically considered to have lived to the age of 33. The Catholic theology of the Eucharist being the body of Christ Himself acts as an interesting parallel to this number's importance.

[4] Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 76.8 ad 2

[5] 'Eucharisitc Miracle of Chirattakonam' The Real Presence http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Chirattakonam.pdf. I cannot help but be reminded of devotees who see the Virgin Mary appear on their toast; the depiction of an all too traditional European-looking Christ on an unleavened wafer is hardly remarkable enough to rule out parodelia.

[6] Serafini, Franco. Un Cardiologo Visita Gesù: I Miracoli Eucaristici Alla Prova Della Scienza.  ESD Dominican Studio Editions. 2018.

[7] Though one cannot rule out this being a result of aging on the blood, contamination, among other factors. Some argue that the examinations of the blood from the wafers lacked proper controls to prevent antibodies from resembling AB blood. See Kearse, Kelly. "The Shroud of Turin, the Relics of Jesus, and Eucharistic Miracles: The Significance of Type AB Blood", who culminates that "the results of blood type AB for such miracles are inconclusive on several levels."

[8] The pained nature of the heart is stated in many of the examinations; Zugibe's statement described the Buenos Aires sample as "consistent with a recent heart attack" or a "severe blow to the chest over the heart." The Sokolka sample was described as being the "heart of a living man in agony." 

[9] Gomez, Ricardo. Castañon Crónica De Un Milagro Eucarístico: Esplendor en Tixtla Chilpancingo, México. Grupo Internacional Para La Paz. 2014

[10]  Giovannini, Renato. "The Eucharist Relics of Lanciano in Biological Research" SINDON  no. 17. 1973: 30-33, esp. pg. 30. 

[11] Nickell, Joe. Relics of the Christ. University Press of Kentucky, 2007, pg. 172. Costantino Sigismund in  "Misure di Massa nel 1574 del Sangue del Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano." Gerbertvs, International Academic Publication on History of Medieval Science 9 (2016): 21-26, defends the original measurements provided from the 16th century analysis as being of equivalent weight. 

[12] See Linoli, Odoardo. "Histological, Immunological and Biochemical Research on the Flesh and Blood of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano". Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica, 1971. For an English translation of the article, see the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20060831022730/http://www.negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/tableofcontents.html

[13] Kearse, "Significance of Type AB Blood"

[14] Linoli, "Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano", pg. 671. Translated from Italian. Nickell in Relics of Christ pg.173 attempts to counter Linoli's judgement by calling it "subjective and overstated." While I can concur with Nickell that this argument would be stronger with more analysis should have been done on the substance, preferably by several independent scholars, Nickell's response here is far too brief. A more thorough lay out of the objection would have sufficed more handsomely. 

[15] Sigismund, "Misure di Massa" pg. 25-26. The study also mentions a 1976 report from the World Health Organization, however I have been unable to find confirmation that such a report existed and have seen other sources refer to it as a hoax. In all likelihood, the WHO report is a forgery, as has been demonstrated by Serafini, Cardiologo.

[16] Tesoriero, Ron. Reason to Believe: A Personal Story. n.p. 2007 and Idem, Unseen New Evidence: The Origin of Life Under the Microscope. n.p. 2013.. See also Gomez, Castañon Crónica.

[17] Doctors purportedly consulted for these investigations included the following: Dr. Robert Lawrence (forensic histopathologist), Professor John Walker (University of Sydney) and Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Columbia University). See Gomez, Ricardo “Il est Vivant!” (He is Alive), found at the following site, https://emmanuel.info/en/the-eucharistic-miracle-in-buenos-aires/ 

[18] Zugibe's testimony is partially caught on film, see 7News Spotlight, "Science Investigates Signs of Jesus Christ". Youtube, March 30, 2021. https://youtu.be/mWmdXqIhjSs. The show originally aired on April 9, 2017. His convictions are not overtly clear, and other sources close to the doctor imply that he may have been at least partially misrepresented by the film crew. An organization centered around holy relics recently clarified that although Zugibe did analyze the slides of heart tissue presented to him, there was no confirmation or proof that in fact the slides had come from the Buenos Aires Eucharist; see International Crusade for Holy Relics, "Clarification". April 18, 2020. https://fb.watch/62ixYnNEfJ/ 

[19] The letter is shown in the following link, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zG2PPPGYnBQEjNEDpDXo9QbFUwnuRTg3/view?usp=sharing. The original document is derived from Ron Tesoriero's book. 

[20]  For photos of the DNA test results, see the 3:42 timestamp of the following video: The Joy of Faith, "Inspired By Carlos Acutis- Scientific Evidence for Eucharist Miracles." September 4, 2020. https://youtu.be/soCkftBBsBo

[21]  Gomez, Castañon Crónica

[22] This quote is derived from a letter by Dr. Sanchez, which can be found at the 1:23 timestamp of "Inspired By Carlos Acutis"

[23] See the prior footnote for the citation of the letter. Photos of the host can derived from Gomez, Castañon Crónica 

[24] "Inspired By Carlos Acutis", timestamp 3:49.

[25] This is the conclusion of Mike Willesee's documentary; see the 30 minute mark of 7News Spotlight, "Science Investigates Signs of Jesus Christ". 

[26] Jacyna-Onyszkiewicz, Zbigniew & Sobaniec-Łotowska, Maria & Sulkowski, Stanisław & Kakareko, Andrzej & Rucki, Miroslaw. “Eucharistic Miracle From the Scientific Perspective.” Teologia I Człowiek. Vol 43. 2019: 81-98.

[27] Ibid, 87-88. Online there can be found an interview with the scientists who performed the analysis of the Sokolka eucharist; see the Catholic Association of Journalists, "We Saw the Heart in the Host From Sokółka." Katolickie, 2009. http://www.katolickie.media.pl/component/content/article/956-widzielismy-serce-w-hostii-z-sokolki

[28] For an analysis of the Church's in-depth treatment of assessing healing miracles, see Duffin, Jacalyn. Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. Oxford University Press, 2009, who was herself an atheist physician recruited by the Vatican to blindly review a case of alleged healing at the intercession of Marguerite d'Youville. Healings at Lourdes are overseen by a medical bureau made up of roughly 30 doctors of various specializations, though they are considered an independent entity and have no affiliation with the Vatican. 

[29] As one example, see Ferraro, 'Communion Host Turned Blood-red Due to Fungus, not Miracle'. Twin Cities Pioneer Press, Nov. 12, 2015. https://www.twincities.com/2011/12/13/archdiocese-communion-host-turned-blood-red-due-to-fungus-not-miracle/ 

[30] See Nickell, Joe "Eucharist 'Miracles" The Skeptical Inquirer 32, no. 3 May/June 2008.

[31] For example, in response to the Sokolka miracle, the Polish Rationalist Association suggested that a police report should be filed and that the possibility of theft of a human heart should be investigated.

[32] One exception being my acquaintance Matthieu Lavagna, whose French apologetic book Soyez Rationnel, Devenez Catholique, (Marie de Nazareth, 2022) incorporates Eucharist miracles as an argument for Catholicism.

[33] Hugh Farey, personal correspondence via email, January 28th, 2022.