Home - Scholarly Article

Mary does not recognize Jesus because she is overwhelmed with grief and not expecting a resurrection.
She assumes he is the gardener.
Recognition only comes when Jesus speaks her name.

Mary Magdalene’s failure to recognize Jesus is best explained by a combination of emotional, psychological, and contextual factors rather than any physical impossibility.

She is described as weeping outside the tomb, already convinced that Jesus’ body has been taken, not that he has risen.

Within that expectation, she interprets the man she sees as the gardener, a reasonable assumption given that the tomb was located in a garden setting.

Recognition in the narrative is triggered not by sight alone, but by personal address, when Jesus speaks her name, “Mary,” which immediately reframes her understanding of the situation.

This suggests that her initial non-recognition is tied to expectation and perception, not necessarily to any change in Jesus’ appearance.

Mary is crying, and is not expecting Jesus’s resurrection, ands so she assumes that the man addressing her is the gardener.

The fourth Gospel reports:

Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her. (ESV, John 20: 11-18)

As Legacy of Adam producer Roger Gihlemoen comments: “Mary Magdalene is overwhelmed by grief and shock. She is not expecting Jesus to be alive. The episode shows that resurrection is not something people are prepared for—it breaks normal expectations.”

Note that the fourth Gospel’s depiction of Mary meeting the resurrected Jesus presupposes its own earlier report that “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:41-42, ESV.) Interestingly, in 2025, a group of archaeologists led by Professor Francesca Romana Stasolla of La Sapienza University showed that

As the quarry ceased to be exploited and before the church [of the Holy Sepulcher] was built, [as well as for several tombs] part of the area was used for agriculture. “Low stone walls were erected, and the space between them was filled with dirt . . .” The presence of olive trees and grapevines was identified through archaeobotanical and pollen analysis on samples retrieved from the excavations under the floor of the ancient basilica. From the archaeological context and strata, it belongs to the pre-Christian era . . . “The archaeobotanical findings have been especially interesting for us, in light of what is mentioned in the Gospel of John, whose information is considered written or collected by someone familiar with Jerusalem at the time. The Gospel mentions a green area between the Calvary and the tomb, and we identified these cultivated fields.[901]

Jesus is not rejecting Mary.
He is telling her not to cling to him as before.
A new phase has begun, leading to his ascension.

When Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him, the Greek wording is better understood as “Do not cling to me” rather than a strict prohibition of physical contact. This suggests that the issue is not touch itself, but Mary’s attempt to hold on to Jesus in the same way as before his death. The statement reflects a transition: Jesus is alive, but his relationship with his followers is changing as he prepares to ascend to the Father. Rather than remaining physically present in the same way, his presence will soon take on a different form. This moment marks a shift from earthly companionship to a new mode of presence and mission.

Jesus is telling Mary Magdalene that she can’t hold onto him as before because he will soon ascend to God the Father.

In this episode, in an incident based on the fourth Gospel, Jesus says to Mary Magdalene: “Wait, do not touch me yet, for I have not yet risen to my father.” However, the Greek of the report in John 20:17 would be better translated as “Do not cling to me” or “Do not hold on to me.” As Legacy of Adam producer Roger Gihlemoen explains:

Jesus is not rejecting Mary. He is showing that something has changed. She wants to hold on to him as before, but Jesus explains that a new phase has begun. He is alive, yet his presence will no longer be limited to one place. This moment marks the transition from Jesus being physically with his followers to being present in a new way.

The disciples still expect a political kingdom.
They have not yet understood Jesus’ teaching.
Their expectations are shaped by their cultural context.

The disciples’ expectation of overthrowing the Romans reflects a common first-century Jewish hope for a political Messiah who would restore Israel’s national independence.

Even after the resurrection, they have not yet fully grasped that Jesus’ kingdom is not an earthly political power competing with Rome.

This aligns with the broader historical context, where many Jews anticipated a deliverer who would bring political liberation.

The disciples have yet to come to terms with Jesus’s teaching about his kingdom not being an earthly political power in competition with other earthly political powers.

As Legacy of Adam producer Roger Gihlemoen explains:

Even after the resurrection, some disciples still expect a political kingdom. The episode shows that understanding takes time. Resurrection does not instantly correct all expectations, but it begins a process of learning what God’s kingdom truly is.

There is a strong historical case for Jesus’ resurrection.
Key facts are widely accepted across scholars.
The main debate is how to explain those facts.

The resurrection of Jesus is historically plausible based on several key facts acknowledged by scholars, regardless of their personal beliefs. These include:

• Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion and the disciples’ subsequent grief and disillusionment.
• The discovery of the empty tomb, which, while not universally accepted, is considered probable by the majority of scholars.
• The transformation of the disciples after experiencing what they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus, leading them to proclaim His resurrection and establish the early church.
• The conversion of former skeptics, such as James (Jesus’ brother) and Paul, after their own encounters with the risen Christ.

Post-burial appearances of Jesus are documented in multiple early, independent sources, involving both individuals and groups. These accounts describe sensory experiences—sight, touch, and conversation—with Jesus. Notable appearances include those to Mary Magdalene, the women at the tomb, Cleopas and Mary on the Emmaus Road, Peter, the disciples (including Thomas), and Saul (Paul) on the road to Damascus.

The appearances meet criteria of authenticity, such as embarrassment (e.g., women as primary witnesses), historical verisimilitude (e.g., Aramaic terms like Cephas and Rabboni), and eyewitness testimony (e.g., John’s accounts). The resurrection hypothesis is argued to be the best explanation for the historical data, offering simplicity, explanatory scope, power, plausibility, and minimal ad hoc elements. Scholars like N.T. Wright emphasize its unrivaled ability to account for the empty tomb, appearances, and the origins of Christianity.

There is a strong historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.

Christian philosopher Gary R. Habermas lists some of the relevant facts that are generally acknowledged by the relevant scholars, regardless of their personal worldview:

The vast majority of critical scholars . . . whatever their personal beliefs . . . at least concede that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion and that his disciples experienced grief and disillusionment at his death, usually allowing that Jesus’ burial tomb was later found empty. Then, due to experiences that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus, the disciples were transformed, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith. At a very early date they began to proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the church was born shortly afterward, founded on this gospel message. Even a few former sceptics, such as James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul, became believers after they, too, believed that they had seen the risen Jesus.[902]

Writing with New Testament historian Michael L. Licona, Habermas notes that:

although the empty tomb lacks the nearly universal acceptance by critical scholars that these other events enjoy, the majority of scholars still clearly seem to think that it is probably also a historical fact.^[903]

With respect to the testimony concerning purported resurrection appearances, Licona comments:

that subsequent to Jesus’ execution, a number of his followers had experiences, in individual and group settings, that convinced them that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them in some manner . . . is granted by a nearly unanimous consensus of modern scholars. . . . Scholars differ, however, on the perceived nature of the experiences.^[904]

The figure below lists specific post-burial appearances of Jesus referenced by the NT in their apparent historical order and notes the sensory modes reportedly involved in these appearances.^[905]

Fig. Post-burial Appearances of Jesus.

From this data, it appears we should take notice of eleven or twelve distinct reports of post-mortem appearance events (depending on whether the appearance to the five hundred is the same event as the appearance to the eleven disciples in Galilee):

• We have multiple early, independent sources^[907] for at least one individual and three group appearances.
• The appearance to Peter is multiply attested in different forms^[908] and additionally passes the criterion of historical verisimilitude^[909] (see 1 Cor 15:5’s use of the Aramaic Cephus instead of the Greek Petros^[910]).
• The appearance to Mary Magdalene passes the criteria of embarrassment^[911] and historical verisimilitude (note the popularity of the name Mary, and the Aramaic Rabboni in John 20:16).
• The group appearance to the other women passes the criteria of embarrassment and historical verisimilitude (the most common female name at the time was Mary).
• The appearance to the two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (husband and wife Cleopas and Mary^[912]) also passes the criteria of embarrassment (Luke 24:25) and historical verisimilitude.^[913]
• The appearance to the group of ten male disciples^[914] (plus others) is multiply attested in different forms, and is reported by an eyewitness (i.e., John).
• The multiply attested group appearance to the eleven including Thomas passes the criteria of embarrassment, and is likewise reported by an eyewitness (i.e., John).
• The group appearance to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee is reported by an eyewitness (i.e., John). Moreover, the specific count of fish (John 20:11) is an unintentional sign of historicity.^[915]
• The group appearance to the eleven disciples (or more) in Galilee passes the criteria of embarrassment due to its mention that although “they worshiped [Jesus], some doubted” (Matt 28:17).
• The appearance to Saul is multiply attested in different forms, including a source containing the Aramaic of Saul’s name (“Saoul, Saoul, why do you persecute me?” Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14), and the eyewitness testimony of the formerly hostile Saul himself. This testimony reaches us second-hand through Paul’s sometime travelling companion Luke in his book of “Acts,” but also first-hand (albeit without the details given in Acts) through the first of Paul’s undisputed letters to the Corinthians (i.e. 1 Cor 9:1; 1 Cor 15:8).

As for the multi-sensory content of these reports:

• Jesus was reportedly seen on at least eleven occasions.^[916]
• At least nine reports concern appearances to groups of two, four, seven, ten, eleven, and even five hundred people.
• While Jesus purportedly appeared to Saul rather than to his travelling companions, they nevertheless both saw the bright light and heard a voice without understanding it (perhaps they didn’t speak Aramaic - see Acts 26:14; or perhaps they simply couldn’t make out what the voice said).^[917]
• On ten separate occasions, it is reported that people either heard Jesus or talked with Jesus (i.e., held a conversation involving both hearing and speaking to Jesus).
• Matthew reports an appearance in which the women touch Jesus.
• Luke and John narrate additional appearances in which various people might be taken to touch Jesus.

Fig. Criteria of authenticity that nine reported resurrection appearances pass in addition to being early, historically coherent reports of memorable events.

Using criteria of authenticity to validate specific historical evidence like this is compatible with thinking that the sources containing that evidence are generally unreliable.^[918] However, the greater application these criteria find in those sources, the more they indicate their general reliability.

With the evidence in hand, one can turn to the task of assessing different competing theories of how best to explain that evidence. Were the disciples deceivers, deceived, or deluded? Did someone steal Jesus’s body from the tomb? Were Jesus’s reported post-mortem appearances hallucinations? And so on. As philosopher Angus Menuge explains:

Historians do not use induction (which applies to generalizations of repeatable effects) but abduction, an inference to the best explanation of a singular event. According to the logic of abduction, given the available data, we are to select the best of competing explanations.^[919]

The warrant of any historical explanation (including the Christian doctrine of Jesus’s resurrection) depends on a combination of explanatory factors, including its simplicity, explanatory scope (covering the relevant facts), explanatory power (the degree to which it raises the probability of the facts to be explained), explanatory plausibility (the degree to which our background knowledge implies an explanatory hypothesis), degree of explanatory disconfirmation (avoiding conflict with our background knowledge), and degree of explanatory ad hoc-ness (the fewer contrived, un-evidenced hypotheses, the better).^[920]

For example, the resurrection hypothesis offers a relatively simple^[921] explanation of the historical evidence pertaining to Jesus’s death, burial, empty tomb, reported appearances, and the origins of Christianity; an explanation that combines excellent explanatory scope (i.e., if the resurrection happened, it would explain “why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being”^[922]) and power (i.e., if God chose to resurrect Jesus, then his empty tomb, reported post-mortem appearances, and the early origin of belief in Jesus’s resurrection all become highly probable) with a fair degree of plausibility and low degrees of disconfirmation and ad-hoc-ness (especially if one already accepts theism). In a careful comparative analysis with alternative explanations, the relevant evidence is best explained by the hypothesis that Jesus was resurrected by God.^[923] As noted theologian N. T. Wright argues, the resurrection hypothesis “possesses unrivalled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity.”^[924]

The ascension shows that Jesus is no longer physically present on earth.
It marks his return to the Father.
The event functions as a visible sign for the disciples.

The ascension of Jesus is reported in multiple early sources, most clearly in Luke and Acts, and is also referenced elsewhere in the New Testament. This gives the event a degree of historical grounding through multiple attestation across different writings.

At the same time, the way it is described, rising and disappearing into the clouds, likely carries symbolic meaning for the disciples. In ancient Jewish thought, clouds and upward movement were associated with divine presence and the heavenly realm. Thus, the physical movement can be understood as a visible expression of a deeper reality: Jesus’ transition from earthly ministry to being with the Father.

Rather than describing a change of location in a modern, physical sense, the event communicates a change in status and mode of presence.

Jesus rising up into the sky and disappearing into the clouds is a multiply attested historical event that symbolised to the disciples that Jesus was no longer physically present on earth, but was now with God the Father.

The so-called “ascension” of Jesus is narrated twice by Luke (in Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-10), and it is also mentioned by the apostles John and Paul (see John 20:17 and 1 Timothy 3:16). This event therefore passes the historical criteria of multiple independent attestation, in multiple forms, and at an early date after the reported event (the fourth Gospel is from the end of the first century,[925] Luke’s works are both from the middle of the mid-century,[926] and Paul’s first letter to Timothy being traditionally dated around 64/65 AD[927]).

Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis sees Jesus’s physical motion into the sky as an enacted symbol of his spiritual ascension into the non-physical heavenly realm: “a symbolic act performed for the sake of the disciples. . . . The ascension of Jesus . . . was visibly symbolized for the disciples by a change of location.”^[928] As Legacy of Adam producer Roger Gihlemoen explains:

The ascension shows that Jesus’ work on earth is complete . . . He returns to the Father for a coronation and to be seated next to God. The episode presents this as the moment when Jesus is fully revealed as the Savior of the world.

There is a cumulative case for Jesus’ divinity.
His claims, character, and impact must be explained together.
The main question is how best to account for them.

One classical argument is that Jesus’ claims about himself force a choice: if false, he would be either deceptive or deluded, yet his character does not fit either category.

Many scholars, including critics, agree that Jesus appears morally serious, coherent, and sincere, making the “mad or bad” options difficult to sustain.

This leads to the well-known “Mad, Bad, or God” framework, which argues that if Jesus truly made divine claims and was neither insane nor deceptive, those claims deserve serious consideration.

The main point of debate is whether Jesus actually made such claims, but even skeptics often concede that at least some evidence points in that direction.

Beyond this argument, the case is cumulative: it includes Jesus’ teachings, reported miracles, perceived fulfillment of earlier traditions, and especially the early belief in his resurrection.

Taken together, these factors form a historically grounded argument that has persuaded many, though it remains contested.

Conclusion:
 Belief in Jesus as the Son of God rests not on a single proof, but on how one explains the total pattern of evidence surrounding his life and legacy.

There is a reasonable cumulative case for the Christian view that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God.

Why believe that Jesus really is the incarnate Son of God? One reason is, as philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig argues, “If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then he was either a charlatan or a madman, neither of which is plausible.”^[929] Jesus’s claims about himself were astonishing enough to invite charges of insanity (if his claim was sincere) or blasphemy (if his claim was insincere). But the evidence appears to show that Jesus was both sane and sincere. This paradox, which is more to be expected on the hypothesis of the incarnation than its denial, lies at the heart of an ancient argument for the divinity of Jesus summarized in Latin as “aut deus aut malus homo,” that is “either God or a bad man.” As philosopher Peter Kreeft explains:

The first premise is that Christ must be either God, as he claims to be, or a bad man, if he wasn’t who he claims to be. The second premise is that he isn’t a bad man. The conclusion is that he is God . . . he either believes his claim to be God, or he doesn’t. If he does [and the claim is false], then he is intellectually bad . . . because that’s a pretty large confusion! And if he does not believe his claim, then he is morally bad: a deceiver and a terrible blasphemer.^[930]

Philosopher Stephen T. Davis comments:

Virtually everyone who reads the Gospels . . . comes away with the conviction that Jesus was a wise and good man . . . Jesus shows none of the character traits usually associated with those who have delusions of grandeur or “divinity complexes.” Such people are easily recognizable by their egotism, narcissism, inflexibility, predictable behaviour, and inability to relate understandingly and lovingly to others . . . We live in an age when scholars confidently make all sorts of bizarre claims about the historical Jesus. But few scripture scholars of any theological stripe seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar.^[931]

Davis formalizes these observations into what he calls the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument:

1. Jesus claimed, either explicitly or implicitly, to be divine
2. Jesus was either right or wrong in claiming to be divine
3. If Jesus was wrong in claiming to be divine, Jesus was either mad or bad
4. Jesus was not bad
5. Jesus was not mad
6. Therefore, Jesus was not wrong in claiming to be divine
7. Therefore, Jesus was right in claiming to be divine
8. Therefore, Jesus was divine.^[932]

The main challenge to this argument comes from those who question the first premise. For example, while British atheist Richard Dawkins affirms that Jesus was “a great moral teacher,”^[933] and concedes that “there’s no evidence Jesus himself was barking mad,” he reckons “the evidence that Jesus claimed any sort of divine status is minimal.”^[934] Note that even Dawkins doesn’t deny there is some evidence that Jesus claimed some sort of divine status! Contra Dawkins, sufficient warrant for accepting that Jesus did indeed claim “either explicitly or implicitly, to be divine” (premise 1 of the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument) comes from a combination of direct evidence, concerning Jesus’s explicit and implicit claims about himself, and indirect evidence, concerning the need to explain what other people believed about Jesus.

Dawkins’ risible suggestion that the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument overlooks the possibility that Jesus was merely “honestly mistaken”^[935] about his divinity constitutes a backhanded compliment to the strength of the argument. As Davis comments: “It is not easy to see how any sane religious first-century Jew could sincerely but mistakenly hold the belief: I am divine.”^[936]

At the very least, then, the “Mad, Bad, or God” argument seems to provide some warrant for the conclusion that Jesus “was . . . who he claimed to be.”^[937] In other words, the argument should at least chip away a certain amount of skepticism about the Christian view of Jesus, making those who know the argument more open to additional arguments for the same conclusion. The paradox of Jesus’ claims in the context of his character should be considered in the context of arguments for and from his fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, arguments about the historical evidence for his exorcisms and miracles, and most especially arguments for the miracle of his resurrection from the dead. These arguments combine to form a cumulative, historically grounded case for the Christian view of Jesus.

According to theologian Robert M. Bowman Jr., Muslim’s rejection of the Christian understanding of Jesus as the incarnate divine “Son of God” largely stems from misunderstandings:

For example, since the objections in the Qur’an to Jesus being God’s “son” come in the context of his human birth from Mary, those objections assume that the idea involves God physically procreating someone. At one point it even asks rhetorically, “How can He have a son when He hath no consort?” (6:101). According to Muslim apologist Shabir Ally, since “God is not a physical being,” he does not have sons or daughters [Shabir Ally, Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No (Toronto: Al-Attique Publishers, 1997), 33]. Of course, Christianity teaches that Christ has been the Son of God from eternity past and that this title expresses his likeness and relationship to God, not a physical origin. Related to this mistake is the fact that the Qur’an appears to understand the three members of the Trinity to be Allah, Jesus, and Mary [see Surah 5:116]. Christians need only assure Muslims that Christianity does not teach these false ideas.

Muslims sometimes misunderstand the doctrine of the incarnation—that Jesus is God incarnate—to teach that Jesus is the Father. Ally, for example, argues from Matthew 23:9 that Jesus “is not the Father.” [Shabir Ally, Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No (Toronto: Al-Attique Publishers, 1997), 32.] Quite so—but orthodox Christians agree. . . . According to Ally, all of the biblical passages in which Jesus is called the “Son” of God, or where he calls God “Father,” were the result of changes in the biblical text. [Shabir Ally, Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No (Toronto: Al-Attique Publishers, 1997), 38.] Frankly, this claim has no credibility whatsoever. Even if we omit the few places in the New Testament where some manuscripts omit the title “Son of God” (e.g., Mark 1:1), there are still hundreds of places where the text uniformly calls Jesus the Son or refers to God as the Father. In fact, every book of the New Testament except the very short epistle of 3 John refers to the Father, and 19 of the 27 New Testament writings explicitly refer to Jesus as God’s “Son” (all of the exceptions are short epistles). This evidence cannot be explained away by appealing to the possibility of mistakes in the copies (or by blaming Paul for introducing the idea of Jesus as God’s Son into Christianity, as some Muslims do).

The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is worthy of all divine honors including worship (e.g., Matt. 28:17–19; Luke 24:50–51; John 5:23; Phil. 2:10–11; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 1:6; 1 Peter 3:14–16; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 5:14). Muslims are right in saying that no creature should be associated with God in religious honors. However, the New Testament explains that Jesus is not merely a creature, but is the eternal, divine Son who humbled himself to share in our humanity to redeem us by his death (Phil. 2:5–8). This teaching, far from detracting from the glory due to God, magnifies God’s glory (Phil. 2:9–11).[938]