Dr. James McGrath offers an interesting naturalistic analysis of how belief in the resurrection might have begun among Jesus’ first followers.
The Pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed says:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,” (1 Cor. 15:3-5)
If Mark read Paul, and John read at least one of the Synoptics, then the account of the crucifixion/burial/resurrection of Jesus may go back to only one source, the author of The Pre-Pauline Corinthian Creed, who cites only visions (hallucinations?) and scriptures as sources.
But McGrath says that, rather than speculating on the genealogical pre-history of these traditions in an attempt to attribute them to a single point of origin, it might be more persuasive to note what Paul explicitly says: that the first person to have the kind of religious experience was Cephas, whose failure in relation to Jesus would naturally create precisely the kind of psychological state that leads to some sort of experience that would help him alleviate his guilt and find catharsis. Once one person has a powerful experience, they may in turn facilitate others doing likewise. One can offer a naturalistic account of how things unfolded without any need to deviate from the depiction in our earliest sources.
On the other hand, I’d be willing to bet $5.00 that the whole empty tomb thing got started because some drunk, bored teenagers decided to play a prank and steal Jesus’ body from the grave, and then start the rumor that it was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun), and that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead. You could imagine Jesus’ followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them.
john76 said
On the other hand, I’d be willing to bet $5.00 that the whole empty tomb thing got started because some drunk, bored teenagers decided to play a prank and steal Jesus’ body from the grave, and then start the rumor that it was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun), and that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead. You could imagine Jesus’ followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them.
For instance, the humorous scenario I proposed isn’t contradicted by what we know about the origins of Christianity, and may even be hinted at in the text:
(1) My scenario was: The whole empty tomb event could have gotten started because some drunk, bored teenagers who were tired of listening to Christians prattling on about the end of the world decided to play a prank and stole Jesus’ body from the grave, and then started the rumor that Jesus had been seen raised from the dead, and it actually was the end of the world (that the general resurrection had begun). You could imagine Jesus’ followers hearing this rumor and out of joy that Jesus had been raised, and terror that the end of the world had begun, hallucinating that the raised Jesus had appeared to them. lol
(2) And the idea of bored teenagers stealing Jesus’ corpse and starting rumors as a prank that (a) Jesus was raised and (b) that the general resurrection had begun, may even be suggested by the text. After all, the rumor was started by the teenager in Jesus’ empty tomb in Mark:
“…But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, even though it was extremely large. When they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here! See the place where they laid Him.… (Mark 16:5).”
(3) The point is, this scenario is a “possible” scenario used to construct a naturalistic account of how faith in the resurrected Jesus began. There are many other models. But as Dr. Carrier says, we don’t want to overstep the bounds of reason by saying we have a “possible” explanatory framework, therefore we have a “probable” explanatory framework. These reconstructions of the possible reasons behind the arising of faith in the resurrection are “only possible,” and therefore merely speculative.
Well the mythicists have a definite need for there to have been a minimum number of dependent sources for these stories because multiple independent sources undercuts their fictional constructed Jesus scenario(s). Unless you’re willing to believe that several people simultaneously all the same bright idea.
The simplest explanation for belief in the resurrection is that some of Jesus’ followers had visions of him after his demise. Wouldn’t have had to have been many, just a few, even one or two. In the face of such little evidence the temptation to speculate is irresistible. (Many of the mythicists would be better of writing fantasy novels rather than attempting historical criticism.)
Here’s some speculation. What if it wasn’t the “leadership”that had the visions of Jesus? Maybe this explains the privileged position of the women in the stories? Maybe only later did the tales spring up that Peter and James saw postmortem Jesus? They were the “pillars”, surely they must have seen the risen Jesus! When in fact they got caught up in the enthusiasm and didn’t want to lose their leadership positions by denying the claims of others.
Did Cephas actually have a “failure in relation to Jesus” and was there actually a tomb, let alone an empty one, or did Mark just make it all up?
The first case contradicts the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion and in the second case, why did none of Paul’s opponents (the Jerusalem disciples, other proto-christian groups, orthodox Jews, Romans, etc.) register opposition to a story from one his followers?
If “only later did the tales spring up that Peter and James saw postmortem Jesus”, how did eleven disciples manage to put together such a coherent and detailed account as is found in Mark’s gospel? Did they do all this even before Paul started to persecute them?
Blackwell said
Did Cephas actually have a “failure in relation to Jesus” and was there actually a tomb, let alone an empty one, or did Mark just make it all up?The first case contradicts the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion and in the second case, why did none of Paul’s opponents (the Jerusalem disciples, other proto-christian groups, orthodox Jews, Romans, etc.) register opposition to a story from one his followers?
If “only later did the tales spring up that Peter and James saw postmortem Jesus”, how did eleven disciples manage to put together such a coherent and detailed account as is found in Mark’s gospel? Did they do all this even before Paul started to persecute them?
Not that I would expect an honest reply, but Peter’s failure is, I’m pretty sure, his three denials. I don’t see how that would contradict “the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion”.
So why didn’t any of Paul’s opponents ” register opposition”
Not sure how your using the word register, but it’s not clear why you think none was made. The historical record, by definition, is fragmentary. Add to that that most people at the time weren’t writing books.
Further, the question has an apologetic design. It’s not at all clear that the ” eleven disciples manage[d] to put together such a coherent and detailed account as is found in Mark’s gospel…” Not only do we not have accounts from the “eleven disciples to compare with Mark, but we don’t even know if all the remaining disciples accepted the resurrection. Further, it’s not clear why “coherence” is proof of authenticity.
In deed, we have modern examples of people seeing someone alive after their death. Elvis Presley is a prime example.
spiker said
Not that I would expect an honest reply, but Peter’s failure is, I’m pretty sure, his three denials. I don’t see how that would contradict “the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion”.
So why didn’t any of Paul’s opponents ” register opposition”
Not sure how your using the word register, but it’s not clear why you think none was made. The historical record, by definition, is fragmentary. Add to that that most people at the time weren’t writing books.
Further, the question has an apologetic design. It’s not at all clear that the ” eleven disciples manage[d] to put together such a coherent and detailed account as is found in Mark’s gospel…” Not only do we not have accounts from the “eleven disciples to compare with Mark, but we don’t even know if all the remaining disciples accepted the resurrection. Further, it’s not clear why “coherence” is proof of authenticity.
In deed, we have modern examples of people seeing someone alive after their death. Elvis Presley is a prime example.
And it’s not just people! A friend lost her beloved cat and was telling me last week about feeling her cat’s presence at moments when she is alone and grieving for it. She went on to tell me there is someone she has scheduled to get her in touch so that she can communicate with it. This is someone highly educated and a very regular person in every other way!
Judith said
And it’s not just people! A friend lost her beloved cat and was telling me last week about feeling her cat’s presence at moments when she is alone and grieving for it. She went on to tell me there is someone she has scheduled to get her in touch so that she can communicate with it. This is someone highly educated and a very regular person in every other way!
That’s interesting and one has to wonder if this is what the disciples were talking about
spiker said
Not that I would expect an honest reply, but Peter’s failure is, I’m pretty sure, his three denials. I don’t see how that would contradict “the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion”.
So why didn’t any of Paul’s opponents ” register opposition”
Not sure how your using the word register, but it’s not clear why you think none was made. The historical record, by definition, is fragmentary. Add to that that most people at the time weren’t writing books.
Further, the question has an apologetic design. It’s not at all clear that the ” eleven disciples manage[d] to put together such a coherent and detailed account as is found in Mark’s gospel…” Not only do we not have accounts from the “eleven disciples to compare with Mark, but we don’t even know if all the remaining disciples accepted the resurrection. Further, it’s not clear why “coherence” is proof of authenticity.
In deed, we have modern examples of people seeing someone alive after their death. Elvis Presley is a prime example.
Peters three denials occur in descriptions of an elaborate show trial involving important people, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion.
For the origin of the resurrection belief, two hypotheses are:-
1. Some people originally had visions but Mark made up the story about the trial, the empty tomb and subsequent appearances.
In this case, did anyone object that the story was untrue?
2. Some people originally had visions and then the disciples agreed that the story about the trial, the empty tomb and subsequent appearances was true.
In this case, when could this have happened? Could it have happened before Paul started persecuting them?
If the body of Jesus was stolen from a tomb, then how did it get there?
Contrary to Christian apologist who think that the belief originated with eyewitness to the resurrection,I think the belief originated with Mary Magdalene, Peter and Paul at different times. They had visions or hallucinations. As for the empty tomb I think It was made up later in oral traditions. It is by far a better explanation to what happened than some guy coming back from the dead.
The arguments by William lane Craig , mike Licona, Gary habermas , or any other apologist are terrible and is hard to take them seriously.
Blackwell said
Peters three denials occur in descriptions of an elaborate show trial involving important people, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that Jesus’ body was discarded after crucifixion.
For the origin of the resurrection belief, two hypotheses are:-
1. Some people originally had visions but Mark made up the story about the trial, the empty tomb and subsequent appearances.
In this case, did anyone object that the story was untrue?
2. Some people originally had visions and then the disciples agreed that the story about the trial, the empty tomb and subsequent appearances was true.
In this case, when could this have happened? Could it have happened before Paul started persecuting them?
If the body of Jesus was stolen from a tomb, then how did it get there?
Actually no, the Trial of Jesus was certainly not a show trial. But whether important people were involved (I don’t even think the NT makes that claim, but since you’re making stuff up, what the heck! Whether the trial involved important people- it probably did not- isn’t in the least bit inconsistent with disposal of his corpse in a common pit no matter how many times you repeat it.
And here we are again at the misrepresentation.
I never argued that Mark made anything up or that ppl had visions, but what the heck lies are more convenient, eh Blackwell?Anything for the cause, right?
The same goes for your second point. Again, if your just going to make stuff up, we’re done here. I would think that would have been clear from our previous exchange.
Jimmy said
Contrary to Christian apologist who think that the belief originated with eyewitness to the resurrection,I think the belief originated with Mary Magdalene, Peter and Paul at different times. They had visions or hallucinations. As for the empty tomb I think It was made up later in oral traditions. It is by far a better explanation to what happened than some guy coming back from the dead.The arguments by William lane Craig , mike Licona, Gary habermas , or any other apologist are terrible and is hard to take them seriously.
I have to agree. Gary is probably better at it. And he does(If he is the originator,) get credit for some originality in the apologetic desert. Of course, most of his training was secular.
john76 said
But McGrath says that, rather than speculating on the genealogical pre-history of these traditions in an attempt to attribute them to a single point of origin, it might be more persuasive to note what Paul explicitly says: that the first person to have the kind of religious experience was Cephas, whose failure in relation to Jesus would naturally create precisely the kind of psychological state that leads to some sort of experience that would help him alleviate his guilt and find catharsis. Once one person has a powerful experience, they may in turn facilitate others doing likewise.
Can you provide an URL?
There’s at least something there worth considering, but that wouldn’t explain Paul’s experience. The other question is whether Peter’s “failure” was made up
What is the picture of the resurrected Jesus painted by the gospels? If we ask ourselves what could have prompted the gospel authors (and those who carried the oral traditions before them) to present the narrative in the form they did, we see a very different image from the theologians’ magic figure who walked through locked doors, or the myth/legend of the victory over death that is largely rejected by historical scholars.
Jesus was so badly battered that his disciples did not recognize him (Mary M, travelers on the road to Emmaus, the fishermen). And he was so damaged neurologically that he did not recognize his companions. (“Hi, guys, it’s me!” would have solved the problem.) Viewed with modern medical insight, this is a portrait of a severely injured survivor, disorientated and confused, who sought out friends he could barely remember, and probably succumbed to septicemia and multiple organ failure in about a week or 10 days as infection spread from his wounds.
Any suggestion that Jesus survived by a process other than divine intervention is usually dismissed along with the ridiculous Swoon Theory from the 19th century. Yet today we see survivors of natural disasters lying unconscious and immobile for many hours before regaining consciousness and being rescued when their cries are heard from amidst the rubble. And tales of patients found dead by hospital staff awakening in the morgue as startled technicians are preparing a place in the cold storage. And even the medical Lazarus Phenomenon where patients recover many minutes after an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation has been abandoned.
Is it time to reassess the prospect that Jesus might actually be the one among 10,000 victims of crucifixion who actually survived? The gospel picture of a wounded survivor does not match the expectations of 1st century apocalypticism, where the resurrection (of which Jesus was the “first fruits”) should have restored him to health and strength. Might it have been founded less upon mythological expectation than upon eyewitness experience?
Trevelyan said
What is the picture of the resurrected Jesus painted by the gospels? If we ask ourselves what could have prompted the gospel authors (and those who carried the oral traditions before them) to present the narrative in the form they did, we see a very different image from the theologians’ magic figure who walked through locked doors, or the myth/legend of the victory over death that is largely rejected by historical scholars.
Jesus was so badly battered that his disciples did not recognize him (Mary M, travelers on the road to Emmaus, the fishermen). And he was so damaged neurologically that he did not recognize his companions. (“Hi, guys, it’s me!” would have solved the problem.) Viewed with modern medical insight, this is a portrait of a severely injured survivor, disorientated and confused, who sought out friends he could barely remember, and probably succumbed to septicemia and multiple organ failure in about a week or 10 days as infection spread from his wounds.
Any suggestion that Jesus survived by a process other than divine intervention is usually dismissed along with the ridiculous Swoon Theory from the 19th century. Yet today we see survivors of natural disasters lying unconscious and immobile for many hours before regaining consciousness and being rescued when their cries are heard from amidst the rubble. And tales of patients found dead by hospital staff awakening in the morgue as startled technicians are preparing a place in the cold storage. And even the medical Lazarus Phenomenon where patients recover many minutes after an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation has been abandoned.
Is it time to reassess the prospect that Jesus might actually be the one among 10,000 victims of crucifixion who actually survived? The gospel picture of a wounded survivor does not match the expectations of 1st century apocalypticism, where the resurrection (of which Jesus was the “first fruits”) should have restored him to health and strength. Might it have been founded less upon mythological expectation than upon eyewitness experience?
Except recognition had nothing to do with how brutally Jesus died.
You’re making the asumption Jesus ACTUALLY appeared. I don’t think yherr are ANY accounts detailing injuries until much later
John 20:24? If this is a first account of such things, it’s worth remembering that they COULD be artifacts of debates rather than factual accounts.
Most of your argument isn’t really anchored in the biblical accounts.
Take the road to Emmaus story. I don’t think there’s anything in that story indicating Jesus knew these men when he was alive.
It’s more likely that ppl failed to recognize Jesus because of mistaken identity rather than anything else.
P.S You make it sound like 10,000 ppl survived crucifixion.
spiker said
Trevelyan said
What is the picture of the resurrected Jesus painted by the gospels? If we ask ourselves what could have prompted the gospel authors (and those who carried the oral traditions before them) to present the narrative in the form they did, we see a very different image from the theologians’ magic figure who walked through locked doors, or the myth/legend of the victory over death that is largely rejected by historical scholars.
Jesus was so badly battered that his disciples did not recognize him (Mary M, travelers on the road to Emmaus, the fishermen). And he was so damaged neurologically that he did not recognize his companions. (“Hi, guys, it’s me!” would have solved the problem.) Viewed with modern medical insight, this is a portrait of a severely injured survivor, disorientated and confused, who sought out friends he could barely remember, and probably succumbed to septicemia and multiple organ failure in about a week or 10 days as infection spread from his wounds.
Any suggestion that Jesus survived by a process other than divine intervention is usually dismissed along with the ridiculous Swoon Theory from the 19th century. Yet today we see survivors of natural disasters lying unconscious and immobile for many hours before regaining consciousness and being rescued when their cries are heard from amidst the rubble. And tales of patients found dead by hospital staff awakening in the morgue as startled technicians are preparing a place in the cold storage. And even the medical Lazarus Phenomenon where patients recover many minutes after an apparently unsuccessful resuscitation has been abandoned.
Is it time to reassess the prospect that Jesus might actually be the one among 10,000 victims of crucifixion who actually survived? The gospel picture of a wounded survivor does not match the expectations of 1st century apocalypticism, where the resurrection (of which Jesus was the “first fruits”) should have restored him to health and strength. Might it have been founded less upon mythological expectation than upon eyewitness experience?
It is just possible that Jesus survived crucifixion, but it is not credible to suppose that he could then have walked around unaided and unrecognized. Mistaken identities are obvious cases of hindsight and the gospel burial and resurrection story has several examples. The story does however have peculiar inconsistencies. Joseph of Arimathaea, described as a member of the temple council, openly declares support for Jesus by taking custody of his body after crucifixion. Such rebellion against an authoritarian regime risks his wealth, reputation and probably his own life, but he naively leaves the body in a nearby tomb, observed by the public. How could anyone but a complete idiot consider that this was a suitable permanent resting place? Then, after risking so much, when the body disappears he does nothing. Why did he not contact the disciples, especially if they started claiming that they had seen Jesus alive? The story makes no sense. A more sensible interpretation is to suppose that Joseph of Arimathaea only ever intended the tomb to be a temporary resting place until the body could be moved a few hours later under cover of darkness to a safe and secure secret location, which is why he did not complain when it disappeared.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert