The Alleged Resurrection of Jesus

[Haven]

Evangelical Christian apologists often assert that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the "minimal facts" "evidence" -- the existence of Jesus, his preaching ministry, his execution, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection "visions" of the apostles. Apologists point out that the majority of modern non-evangelical academic Biblical scholars who reject the resurrection (for instance, Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman) accept these "minimal facts" events occurred. This so-called "minimal facts approach" is pushed by academics and fundamentalist apologists such as W.L. Craig, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, who claim only a physical resurrection could explain these facts. They point out (correctly, in my opinion) the flaws in popular naturalistic or pseudo-naturalistic hypotheses, such as the "stolen body view" (which states the disciples stole Jesus' body), the "visionary hypothesis" (which states God caused the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus), the "Jesus myth view" (which states Jesus never existed), and the "hallucination hypothesis" (which attributes the resurrection appearances to mass hallucinations by the apostles).

However, even if we grant the apologists' "minimal facts," which are based on nothing but the interdependent, inconsistent religious writings known as the gospels, this is not the case for several reasons:

1) Apologists depend on an inerrant reading of the gospel accounts to defend their resurrection belief. They assume that the gospels accurately report on the "post-resurrection appearances" and the apostles' visions, when in fact, it is likely such visions and appearances were legendary accretions. Contrary to the claims of apologists, legendary accretion can occur in a relatively short period of time. For instance, legends about Elvis' survival sprung up within a year of his death, and numerous individuals have reported seeing Elvis alive over the past 35 years. As most scholars agree the gospels were written between 40 and 70 years after Jesus' execution, they could certainly contain legendary accretions. Additionally, the Elvis legends sprung up in the age of television, radio, telephones, and computers, when such legends would have been trivial to debunk, unlike the Jesus legends, which sprung up in the premodern era.

2) Even if the tomb was empty (which is disputed by many scholars), there exists a perfectly plausible explanation for the missing body. The tomb's owner, identified as "Joseph of Arimathea" in the gospels (this name is unlikely, as "Arimathea" was almost certainly a fictional location), did not desire to inter the body of an executed "criminal" in his family's gravesite. Therefore, he moved Jesus' body shortly after it was left there by the disciples. When Jesus' followers returned on "Sunday" (Saturday according to the gospel of John), they found the body missing and eventually surmised that he came back from the grave.

Debate question: Do you agree that these explanations explain the so-called "resurrection" of Jesus? Is a bodily resurrection the "best explanation of the evidence?" Do you have an alternative explanation for what happened to Jesus' body?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

One, I think the ability to write in those days was limited to those fortunate enough to have an education. An education was not standard like it is today. Among the Jewish people I think it was standard to hire a scribe if you wanted something written down. This would cost money. So if there were 500 witnesses, they would not have written down what they saw, necessarily. Nor would it have survived if they did, because noone recognized the implication of it, which leads us to point two. Noone had any idea we would be arguing about it 2000 years later.

Do you notice how Christians claim that they have overwhelming "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. And then when it is pointed out to them that in fact no one recorded any of it for about a quarter of a century, suddenly the answer becomes; "Well you wouldn't really expect a lot of written evidence, would you, because most people in those says couldn't read and write." It's called trying to have your cake and eat it too. The bottom line here is that you believe and are trying to convince others of the unavoidable truth of a corpse returning to life and flying away in the face of ZERO evidence provided at the time of any such occurrence which you are also arguing we really shouldn't expect to find anyway!

[ThatGirlAgain]

All good points. As you said, the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do not have the post-resurrection material. And the later ones that do include it sound a lot like a capsule summary of the later Gospels, carefully avoiding the contradictory details in those Gospels.

For what it’s worth, the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 do include post-resurrection material. The earliest manuscripts include Mark 16:6-8, which says:

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'" Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Mark 16:9-20 is not found in the earliest manuscripts. However, the first half of Mark chapter 16, which includes post-resurrection material, is found in the earliest manuscripts.

True. I was not specific enough. Mark tells us that someone said there was a resurrection. But he offers no supporting evidence, like identifiable eyewitnesses of a risen Jesus. All of the subsequent, more elaborated post-resurrection narratives differ considerably on details. As I opinionated above, Mark may very well have had an eyewitness source for at least some of his story, yet he neglects to provide any significant evidence of a resurrection. That there was belief in a resurrection before Mark wrote is clear. That there is any credible evidence of it happening is not at all clear.

[Moses Yoder]

One, I think the ability to write in those days was limited to those fortunate enough to have an education. An education was not standard like it is today. Among the Jewish people I think it was standard to hire a scribe if you wanted something written down. This would cost money. So if there were 500 witnesses, they would not have written down what they saw, necessarily. Nor would it have survived if they did, because noone recognized the implication of it, which leads us to point two. Noone had any idea we would be arguing about it 2000 years later.

Do you notice how Christians claim that they have overwhelming "evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus. And then when it is pointed out to them that in fact no one recorded any of it for about a quarter of a century, suddenly the answer becomes; "Well you wouldn't really expect a lot of written evidence, would you, because most people in those says couldn't read and write." It's called trying to have your cake and eat it too. The bottom line here is that you believe and are trying to convince others of the unavoidable truth of a corpse returning to life and flying away in the face of ZERO evidence provided at the time of any such occurrence which you are also arguing we really shouldn't expect to find anyway!

I am here for two reasons. To entertain myself and to educate myself. The fact that you assume I am trying to convince you of the reality of the resurrection, which I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to do if I lived a million years, says something about your judgment of Christians.

[Moses Yoder]

One, I think the ability to write in those days was limited to those fortunate enough to have an education. An education was not standard like it is today. Among the Jewish people I think it was standard to hire a scribe if you wanted something written down. This would cost money. So if there were 500 witnesses, they would not have written down what they saw, necessarily. Nor would it have survived if they did, because noone recognized the implication of it, which leads us to point two. Noone had any idea we would be arguing about it 2000 years later.

Certainly some of the 500 witnesses could read and write, and they almost certainly would have left a written record of seeing Jesus alive. The fact that no such records exist is strong evidence against the historicity of the 500 witnesses story.

Additionally, even if there were 500 written testimonies of seeing Jesus alive, there would still be a reasonable case for skepticism. After all, there have likely been far more than 500 Elvis sightings since his death in 1977 (some people have even taken photos of "Elvis"), but Elvis is obviously still dead.

The Jews mis-interpreted the Old Testament. They were looking for a King, Messiah, who would rule their earthly kingdom and free them of Roman rule. Instead this man Jesus shows up and tells them they are a stiffnecked and rebellios generation, they need to be born again to be saved, they need to give away all their wealth, etc. Even Jesus' disciples thought He was going to be an earthly ruler. They were shocked when He was killed. They had staked their lives on Him, given up their vocations. When they saw Him after His death, they had no idea what it meant. They did not trust their eyes. It took them years before they fully realized what had actually taken place, the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb for the world. When Paul was visited by his vision he spent a number of years, I forget how much, in studying and relearning the Bible and according to him being instructed by Jesus before he started preaching at the various churches, writing his letters to them, etc. This lack of understanding of what had actually taken place is why it took so long before the Gospels and Paul's letters were written.

This is a Christian interpretation of the events; the Jews have a vastly different take on Jesus' non-fulfillment of Messianic prophecies. In fact, many modern Jews don't believe in a literal Messiah.

I see you are one of those people who assumes Elvis is dead, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I am here for two reasons. To entertain myself and to educate myself. The fact that you assume I am trying to convince you of the reality of the resurrection, which I know for a fact I wouldn't be able to do if I lived a million years, says something about your judgment of Christians.

Do you acknowledge then that the story of the flying reanimated corpse is a frankly rather absurd thing to believe in? And that your acceptance of it as true is based more on your lifetime of Christian indoctrination and your desire to be included in the club, rather than any real over concern whether it actually occurred or not?

[Student]

I'd further suggest that extrapolating from common Roman practice regarding victims of crucifixion, to the 'likelihood' that the local governor would require that corpses be left hanging outside Jerusalem over Passover to be mauled by crows (including one who'd apparently gained something of a following) is not particularly sound logic, to my mind at least.

It is not a matter of logic, but of history.
The whole point of crucifixion was not just to dispose of the condemned but as a means of maintaining Roman control over its subject people and slaves i.e. rule by terror.

It was intended as a means to demonstrate the appalling consequences of defying Roman rule. Consequently, to gain the maximum ‘publicity’, it was necessary to leave the body on display for an extended period. To emphasis the humiliation, the body would be allowed to rot where the execution had taken place; and the place of execution was usually on the main road into the town/city so that the casual visitor would be left in no doubt as to the consequences of rebellion.

Despite the many tens of thousands of people executed by crucifixion in Pallestine under Roman rule, and the thousands of burial sites excavated, the buried remains of only one certain victim of crucifixion has ever been discovered. This surely demonstrates how uncommon it was for the victims of crucifixion to receive a decent burial and perhaps also the potential risk associated with requesting the body for burial.

The authors of the gospel account were clearly aware of the risks associated with daring to request the release of the body of a condemned rebel (let alone giving the body a decent burial). The Roman Prefect would himself have come under suspicion should he have acquiesced to such a request. He would also have to answer for failing to punish someone who clearly sympathised with a known rebel leader. The most likely outcome would have been for the petitioner to join the lately deceased on an adjacent cross.

To overcome this problem the evangelists employed a literary device – the kind hearted mysterious stranger, in this case one “Joseph�, apparently a rich and influential Jew from the town of Arimathea, who most conveniently, has an unused tomb in Jerusalem. Prior to the event we never hear of him; and afterwards he swiftly returns to obscurity, no doubt taking up residence in the otherwise unknown town of Arimathea.

At least the gospels are consistent with regard to Joseph of Arimathea. The subsequent details of the resurrection accounts cannot agree on the time of day the empty tomb was discovered, how many women visited the empty tomb, who these women were, how many angels were at the tomb, whether an earthquake occurred, what the woman/women did after discovering the empty tomb etc.

Considering this is supposed to be the most significant moment in the history of the Christian Church it is surprising that there is so little consistency in the various accounts, perhaps indicating the degree of literary invention involved.


P.S. which of the crows gained something of a following - does he/she have a name?

[Clownboat]

Evangelical Christian apologists often assert that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the "minimal facts" "evidence" -- the existence of Jesus, his preaching ministry, his execution, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection "visions" of the apostles. Apologists point out that the majority of modern non-evangelical academic Biblical scholars who reject the resurrection (for instance, Marcus Borg and Bart Ehrman) accept these "minimal facts" events occurred. This so-called "minimal facts approach" is pushed by academics and fundamentalist apologists such as W.L. Craig, J.P. Moreland, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, who claim only a physical resurrection could explain these facts. They point out (correctly, in my opinion) the flaws in popular naturalistic or pseudo-naturalistic hypotheses, such as the "stolen body view" (which states the disciples stole Jesus' body), the "visionary hypothesis" (which states God caused the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus), the "Jesus myth view" (which states Jesus never existed), and the "hallucination hypothesis" (which attributes the resurrection appearances to mass hallucinations by the apostles).

Here is the link for the first of the seven part You Tube video where William Land Craig makes his case for the unavoidable truth that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. And of course it's RUBBISH.

Craig begins by asserting that most scholars today accept that the core story of the traveling rabbi who is accused, executed, and placed in a tomb which subsequently proved to be empty is likely historically accurate. I happen to agree with this analysis. The cult of the crucified carpenter appeared too abruptly and is too well formed to be completely mythological. Like other legends, King Arthur his knights for example who was probably historical, the legend of Jesus is best explained if centered on an actual historical person and some measure of actual events. And as with the magic elements associated with the legend of Arthur, it's not necessary to give all aspects of the story equal credibility.

Craig then asserts that it is "a fact which is universally acknowledged today by NT scholars" that individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Well horse hockey! It is most certainly NOT TRUE that "most" NT scholars accept this claim as undeniably true at all. It is a claim which is easily dispelled.

Far from hundreds of eyewitness claims to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Craig claims exist we have in fact only five claims: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Paul's account in 1 Corinthians.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul has provided us with A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses, but we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. First Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the very earliest mention historically of the risen Jesus. Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some quarter of a century after his death. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, there is no information one way of the other concerning Jesus at all, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe.

So we are left with the empty tomb, and, as it is pointed out in the video, the fact that Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. Now Craig does something telling. HE ATTEMPTS TO USE THE FORCE ON HIS AUDIENCE by briefly addressing the various alternate possibilities, including the possibility that the body was taken by the followers of Jesus, which he dismisses with a wave of his hand and an amusing anecdotal story of an exchange he once had with someone who tried to make a case that Jesus had an identical twin brother. And the audience had a good laugh as he moved on.

Well, not so fast. Let's have a look at what Craig glossed over. We have an empty tomb and a missing corpse. The first and most obvious conclusion is NOT that the corpse came back to live and wandered off on it's own, but rather that SOMEONE LIVING TOOK IT.

Actually a perfectly natural explanation for the story of the crucified and resurrected carpenter exists in the pages of the Gospels and Acts, if one simply takes the time to piece them together. According to the claims, the corpse of Jesus not only became reanimated, it ultimately flew away, up into the sky. For this perfectly absurd conclusion to have even the slightest potential for being true all possible natural explanations must be thoroughly ruled out. Since the most obvious cause for an empty tomb and a missing corpse is that it was the result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, we need to first determine from the story whether there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to have taken the body.

Do the Gospels supply us with any candidates with a motive for moving the body? YES! In fact Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to do that very thing. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! Joseph of Arimathaea is specifically described as being a "secret disciple" of Jesus. Nicodemus, another disciple, is also depicted as being involved. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, THEY HAD THE BODY, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. Curiously, only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard being placed at the tomb. But Gospel Matthew also informs us that the guard wasn't placed at the tomb until sometime THE NEXT DAY. Nor did the priests open the tomb at that time to verify that the body was in fact actually still there. The tomb was sealed, and a guard was set. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple assumption that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed. Which is what proved to be true the next day. The tomb was EMPTY.

John 19:41-42
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Joseph's new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. It was simply a convenient "nigh at hand" place prepare the body. And the body was very well prepared indeed, according to John 19:39-40, heavily wrapped and coated with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic herbs and spices. Certainly enough to mask the scent of corruption on a journey of several days. A journey to where? Well, where does one normally transport a body for it's final resting place? Usually that would be HOME. Which for Jesus of Nazareth meant Galilee. And where did the eleven remaining apostles go immediately following the crucifixion?

Matt. 28
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

This mountain would presumably be Mt. Tabor which dominates the southern Galilee region and which is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration of Jesus.

Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb. This is actually a very good bar bet. Most people would bet money that Mary the mother of Jesus was at the tomb on Easter Sunday morning. Not so. Although various Marys are mentioned, Mary the mother of Jesus IS NOT. She IS clearly indicated in the Gospels as being at the crucifixion. Where do we pick her up again?

Acts 1
"[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

There is Mary the mother of Jesus with the disciples, some six weeks or so (Acts 1:3) AFTER the crucifixion NEWLY RETURNED TO JERUSALEM. And it is at this point the disciples began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the resurrected man flew off up into the sky. So FROM THE VERY BEGINNING the claim is an empty one, with no actual resurrected dead man on hand to verify the assertion.

So the question is this: which is the more likely? That a group of men quietly took the body of their dead friend and journeyed, along with the dead man's mother, back to the deceased man's family home for burial, and then later returned to spread the false and rather preposterous rumor that the man had returned to life? Or is it more likely the corpse actually became reanimated and eventually flew away? The answer is obvious of course. As long as the obvious answer to the missing corpse and the story of the resurrected Christ is that it was all the result of actions taken by the living, as one would normally suspect, rather that actions taken by the corpse, then there is no more reason to suppose that a corpse came back to life and flew away then there is to suppose that Santa actually has a team of flying reindeer, or that there is a place over the rainbow full of flying blue monkeys.

Just a few comments to make on this.

One, I think the ability to write in those days was limited to those fortunate enough to have an education. An education was not standard like it is today. Among the Jewish people I think it was standard to hire a scribe if you wanted something written down. This would cost money. So if there were 500 witnesses, they would not have written down what they saw, necessarily. Nor would it have survived if they did, because noone recognized the implication of it, which leads us to point two. Noone had any idea we would be arguing about it 2000 years later.

The Jews mis-interpreted the Old Testament. They were looking for a King, Messiah, who would rule their earthly kingdom and free them of Roman rule. Instead this man Jesus shows up and tells them they are a stiffnecked and rebellios generation, they need to be born again to be saved, they need to give away all their wealth, etc. Even Jesus' disciples thought He was going to be an earthly ruler. They were shocked when He was killed. They had staked their lives on Him, given up their vocations. When they saw Him after His death, they had no idea what it meant. They did not trust their eyes. It took them years before they fully realized what had actually taken place, the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb for the world. When Paul was visited by his vision he spent a number of years, I forget how much, in studying and relearning the Bible and according to him being instructed by Jesus before he started preaching at the various churches, writing his letters to them, etc. This lack of understanding of what had actually taken place is why it took so long before the Gospels and Paul's letters were written.

I'm curious, what Bible did Paul study at this time?

[Goat]

The Jews mis-interpreted the Old Testament. They were looking for a King, Messiah, who would rule their earthly kingdom and free them of Roman rule. Instead this man Jesus shows up and tells them they are a stiffnecked and rebellios generation, they need to be born again to be saved, they need to give away all their wealth, etc. Even Jesus' disciples thought He was going to be an earthly ruler. They were shocked when He was killed. They had staked their lives on Him, given up their vocations. When they saw Him after His death, they had no idea what it meant. They did not trust their eyes. It took them years before they fully realized what had actually taken place, the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb for the world. When Paul was visited by his vision he spent a number of years, I forget how much, in studying and relearning the Bible and according to him being instructed by Jesus before he started preaching at the various churches, writing his letters to them, etc. This lack of understanding of what had actually taken place is why it took so long before the Gospels and Paul's letters were written.

How very insulting. 'Jews don't understand their own religious writings, but we Christians understand it for them'.. to understand the Jewish scriptures, you have to ask a protestant.

[Mithrae]

One, I think the ability to write in those days was limited to those fortunate enough to have an education. An education was not standard like it is today. Among the Jewish people I think it was standard to hire a scribe if you wanted something written down. This would cost money. So if there were 500 witnesses, they would not have written down what they saw, necessarily. Nor would it have survived if they did, because noone recognized the implication of it, which leads us to point two. Noone had any idea we would be arguing about it 2000 years later.

Certainly some of the 500 witnesses could read and write, and they almost certainly would have left a written record of seeing Jesus alive. The fact that no such records exist is strong evidence against the historicity of the 500 witnesses story.

While I see no particular reason to believe the 500 witness claim, Moses raises an interesting point. Not only would few of the alleged witnesses have been able to write down what they'd seen, but I wonder who and why they'd write to about it rather than simply telling them? Would we expect any of them, for example, to have the proficiency in written Greek and the chutzpah to immediately start sending encyclicals throughout the diaspora? Or might the best we could hope for be a quick note in Aramaic to let ol' Mum know the rumours of Jesus' death are not the whole story? How many of those, I wonder, could be expected to survive through the centuries, including two rebellions against Roman rule?

--

On the other hand, Paul’s emphasis on the importance of the resurrection, something apparently already familiar to his several audiences, tells us that this was a widespread belief before Mark was written. I have always suspected (personal opinion alert!!!) that Mark knew altogether too much about Jerusalem practices and politics in the post-Hillel, early Shammai Pharisaic era than would be expected of someone whose Greek was mediocre and whose native language was apparently Latin. That strongly hints at living in the Western Empire. It sounds like maybe he got at least part of his story from someone who was there at that time. This could explain why he includes an empty tomb but no post-resurrection appearances.

Agreed. I don't think I've come across the idea of Latin as his native language though, unless it's inferred from the idea that he was Peter's interpreter in Rome? Mightn't we alternatively speculate that his recollection and explanation of Aramaic terms (5:41, 7:11, 7:34) would come more easily to a speaker of that language than to one who'd needed them explained to him also?

--

According to the earliest gospel, Jesus' brothers were James, Joseph, Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3). As you point out, Jesus' mother is shown to be at the crucifixion, along with Mary Magdalene and Salome - she's called Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mark 15:40). Those same three women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome) went to the tomb on Sunday morning (16:1). Best guess of course is that at the close of his earthly life Mark, like John (19:25-27), preferred not to portray her as the mother of God's Son - Matthew seems to go even further and dismissively calls her "the other Mary" (27:56/28:1). As you note from Acts, Luke appears to have no such reservations (or perhaps simply more concern for his readers' understanding) and calls her the mother of Jesus even after he's ascended, though he follows Mark's lead in his gospel.

So it's your opinion that the grieving mother visiting the tomb of her dead son Jesus is referred to by both Mark and Luke as Mary the mother of the dead man's brother? And if this is the case it would mean that Gospel Matthew refers to Jesus' grieving mother dismissively as "the other Mary," while Gospel John fails to mention her entirely. This is a pretty serious lack of respect for the dead man's grieving mother and the woman known to the world as the Virgin Mary it would seem. And it is incorrect.

"In the New Testament, the name "James the Less" appears only in connection with his mother "Mary" in Mark 15:40, who is also the mother of Joses. "Mary the mother of James" is referred to in two other places, but he is not called "James the Less" there. This "Mary" may have been Mary of Clopas, mentioned only in John 19:25. It is unlikely to be Mary the mother of Jesus since she is only called the mother of James the Less and Joses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Less

Note that the Wiki page begins by saying that he "may or may not be James the Just" - the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church for thirty years after his death. After three decades there's every possibility that she would be known more commonly as the mother of James than as the mother of God's Son. It might be your opinion that this is disrespectful, but I think you'd have a hard time showing that respect for Mary was a primary concern of the gospel authors or that she was even alive when they were written! On the other hand, as I've pointed out, John's gospel specifically includes a scene in which Jesus, however lovingly and respectfully, all but disowns Mary as his mother (19:25-27). The fact that later Christians ended up calling her Mother of God, Co-Redeemer and Queen of Heaven may go some way towards explaining why John, Mark and Matthew were hesitant to explicitly call her mother of the risen Christ.

We could certainly imagine that Mark saw fit to mention some otherwise unknown Mary at Jesus' cross who he identified as the mother of two sons with the same names as Jesus' oldest brothers. I'm simply pointing out that if you're speculating on alternative 'resurrection' scenarios, that's a rather weak point in the theory. More likely, whichever disciples perpetrated the hoax were fooling Jesus' mother along with the other women.

--

I'd further suggest that extrapolating from common Roman practice regarding victims of crucifixion, to the 'likelihood' that the local governor would require that corpses be left hanging outside Jerusalem over Passover to be mauled by crows (including one who'd apparently gained something of a following) is not particularly sound logic, to my mind at least.

It is not a matter of logic, but of history.
The whole point of crucifixion was not just to dispose of the condemned but as a means of maintaining Roman control over its subject people and slaves i.e. rule by terror.

It was intended as a means to demonstrate the appalling consequences of defying Roman rule. Consequently, to gain the maximum ‘publicity’, it was necessary to leave the body on display for an extended period. To emphasis the humiliation, the body would be allowed to rot where the execution had taken place; and the place of execution was usually on the main road into the town/city so that the casual visitor would be left in no doubt as to the consequences of rebellion.

Despite the many tens of thousands of people executed by crucifixion in Pallestine under Roman rule, and the thousands of burial sites excavated, the buried remains of only one certain victim of crucifixion has ever been discovered. This surely demonstrates how uncommon it was for the victims of crucifixion to receive a decent burial and perhaps also the potential risk associated with requesting the body for burial.

In other words, historical studies have yielded a definite precedent for the burial of a victim of crucifixion.

If we want probabilities, we'd have to look at the period 63BCE to 67CE (since the prospect of burial would be drastically reduced during and probably after the revolt). How many people were crucified in Palestine during that period divided by the total number of deaths in Palestine during that period would give us an estimate of crucifixion ratios. With over one million Jews killed in the first revolt, we might estimate some two million inhabitants prior to that, or around 600 thousand per generation. Our 130-year time-frame covers over six generations, so as a very rough estimate there were maybe 4 million deaths over that period. You haven't provided very precise data, but if one out of 'thousands' of excavated remains was a certain victim of crucifixion, and 'many tens of thousands' were actually crucified (though you may be including the revolts in that, I'm not sure), the statistics suggest perhaps 1 in 20 buried victims of crucifixion. (That's assuming some 2000 excavated remains, or 1/2000th of total deaths, and assuming some 40,000 crucifixions in the period a 100% burial rate would mean we'd expect to have found 20 such corpses so far.)

Your wording suggests that there are some remains who might have been crucifixion victims, and of course my figures are probably quite inaccurate so feel free to correct them. But even if more accurate statistics were to suggest that only one in 30 or one in 50 victims of crucifixion in pre-revolt Palestine were allowed a burial, would that represent a sound argument that Jesus was not one of them?

The authors of the gospel account were clearly aware of the risks associated with daring to request the release of the body of a condemned rebel (let alone giving the body a decent burial). The Roman Prefect would himself have come under suspicion should he have acquiesced to such a request. He would also have to answer for failing to punish someone who clearly sympathised with a known rebel leader. The most likely outcome would have been for the petitioner to join the lately deceased on an adjacent cross.

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a rebel leader?

You seem to be ignoring what little evidence we have available and working with the idea that common practice may as well be considered universal practice. The gospels (and Paul) portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and religious teacher, highly critical of the Jewish religious status quo - both the Saducees and Shammai's Pharisees. If he'd gained even a fraction as much popular support as the gospels imply, then started causing disturbances in the temple during Passover, they could be expected to want to do something about him. They weren't allowed to execute anyone, but however insensitive he may have been to the nuances of Jewish religion can you really claim that Pilate would not have granted a request by the priesthood to nip a potentially unsettling situation in the bud? Was he so very concerned about justice that he wouldn't execute a two-bit rabble-rouser from Galilee? Or did he hate the priests so much that he'd leave them and this preacher to keep on agitating the crowds further?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We could certainly imagine that Mark saw fit to mention some otherwise unknown Mary at Jesus' cross who he identified as the mother of two sons with the same names as Jesus' oldest brothers. I'm simply pointing out that if you're speculating on alternative 'resurrection' scenarios, that's a rather weak point in the theory. More likely, whichever disciples perpetrated the hoax were fooling Jesus' mother along with the other women.

Mark 16:1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

That's one of the problem with your theory. The author of Mark DOES NOT mention a Mary who happened to have two sons with the same names as the brothers of Jesus as going to the empty tomb on Sunday. He mentions a Mary who has a son named James. The name James, rather like the name Mary, was a very common name. Salome for example, also sometimes known as Mary Salome, was the mother of James and John. None of the Gospels specify that Mary the mother of Jesus was present at the empty tomb which they could have easily done had they wished to. Besides Jesus' brothers James, Joseph, Judas and Simon were the half brothers of Jesus from an earlier marriage by Joseph and was not the actual son of Mary at all, because as every good Catholic knows Mary remained a virgin to the end of her days and had no other sons but Jesus. I'm joking just so that you will know, but that does represent yet another reading of this material, and one that is maintained as canon by about a billion Catholics. One way or another, Mary the mother of Jesus is not represented by any of the four Gospels as being present at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. She is however clearly depicted at the crucifixion and then again as being with the disciples newly returned to Jerusalem in Acts.