magpie said
Hi Spikes,you are correct, of course, Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code is very popular, but surely there is enough material to come up with another good book. It has been years since I read The Da Vinci Code, perhaps there are others out there that I am not aware of. Even if some of the main characters might be roughly the same, a different tale could be told, eh?
Excellent point!
magpie said
Assuming that Jesus did survive the cruxifiction, how does this hypothesis play out? He recovers enough to walk and to talk with his disciples and various other folks, but what is the denouement of these events? At some point he must either die a corporeal death or be taken into heaven. How do you see it?
Interesting post, Mags. Perhaps you can answer a point which Trev lacked an answer for.
We have it on reasonably good authority, that Jesus was scourged, beaten and hung on a cross for at least 6 hours; yet upon meeting him, people don’t conclude that he survived, but that he came back to life
Spiker asks why, if Jesus was showing the wounds of his crucifixion as he wandered along the road to Emmaus and met the disciples who did not recognize him, there is no mention of this in the texts? In fact, injuries are hardly mentioned at all in the gospel accounts of resurrection appearances. Luke records that Jesus asks his disciples to look at his hands and feet to prove he is not a ghost. John has Jesus telling Thomas to put a hand into his side. But that is about all the detail we have.
This seems to be symptomatic of the striking lack of description in the gospels, all the way through, not just in the post-crucifixion appearances. The gospels record events and dialog, but seldom specify the appearance of any person or place. John the Baptist wearing camel hair and eating locusts is about as vivid as it gets.
Part of this must be linguistic in origin. Hebrew and Aramaic, the vernacular of the oral traditions which were translated by the scribes into the Greek of the gospel texts, are poor in adjectives compared with languages of the Indo-European tradition (Greek, Latin, modern English…). Scan the pages of the gospels for adjectives. Unclean spirits, green grass and men in dazzling apparel seems to be the limit of the authors’ descriptive repertoire. The poverty of the Semitic languages must be partly to blame, but surely cannot account entirely for the stylistic deficits of the gospels.
My guess is that the poverty of description reflects the fragmentary nature of the sources: oral traditions springing from the verbal accounts of eyewitnesses and passed from person to person down the decades until they reached the ears of the gospel authors.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Part of this must be linguistic in origin. Hebrew and Aramaic, the vernacular of the oral traditions which were translated by the scribes into the Greek of the gospel texts, are poor in adjectives compared with languages of the Indo-European tradition (Greek, Latin, modern English…). Scan the pages of the gospels for adjectives. Unclean spirits, green grass and men in dazzling apparel seems to be the limit of the authors’ descriptive repertoire. The poverty of the Semitic languages must be partly to blame, but surely cannot account entirely for the stylistic deficits of the gospels.
Well readers of the Hebrew Bible might dispute your comment about “the poverty of Semitic languages” not to mention the rich Akkadian/Assyrian/Babylonian literature discovered through the decipherment of cuneiform in the 19th century.
Trevelyan said
Spiker asks why, if Jesus was showing the wounds of his crucifixion as he wandered along the road to Emmaus and met the disciples who did not recognize him, there is no mention of this in the texts?
Actually, no that was not my question.
It’s hardly about what appears in the text. If this was an actual event, I find it hard to believe that meeting someone of good health would cause the same impression as meeting someone who was subject to traumatic near fatal injury. People are bound to react differently to each example. Indeed while a person with dementia might go unnoticed, a man with traumatic injuries, could hardly go unnoticed. In the first instance, you have someone with brain damage of one kind or another while the latter was reportedly scourged, beaten and, to use Josephus’ description ” tormented with all sorts of tortures” prior to being crucified. Even your own discussion of the mechanics of crucifixion implies physical exhaustion; something that would not be characteristic of an elderly person with dementia.
To begin with, assume, Jesus survived crucifixion and was laid in a tomb. maybe he wakes up at some point the next day (or even two to 3 days later) and you think he would have the ability to get up and walk six or more miles, because some people who haven’t undergone the same experience have done so. If we grant that he could do just that, we then have people who meet him, but are unimpressed by either his wounds or what would have had to be physical exhaustion and we would plausibly add severe dehydration. In other words, a man who was nearly dead, but managed to survive SOMEHOW doesn’t appear at all different from someone who just happened to be out for a stroll.
The problem here is that explanations aren’t based on could have, but on plausibility; what is most consistent with the known facts. If we went by coulds, we’d all have taste testers because our next meal COULD be poisoned.
The question is what is the most likely explanation. Fortunately, Prof Ehrman gives us a large piece of the puzzle when he indicates that Luke seems to be more interested in telling a good yarn than being historically accurate.
OK, Spikes! What do you think is most probable? And least probable? Let us try to list all the explanations of the Road to Emmaus story:
1. There is no real basis for the story and Luke assembled it in a semblance of logic (as he does so well) from fragments based on hallucinations, dreams, imagination or plain wishful thinking. This would fit with it being only singly attested (by Luke, the Mark mention being a late scribal addition). And there is no hint of it in our earliest source, the creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
2. The travelers did meet someone, roughly as described, but this person was not Jesus. Instead, it was a close associate who spoke vividly about the teachings of Jesus and the travelers later did a double-take and thought they’d seen Jesus. Schonfield, in the sensationalized 1965 book, The Passover Plot, suggests the “beloved disciple” as the one mistaken for Jesus, but any close friend might have fitted the bill.
3. The travelers did meet an injured survivor limping along, and helped him on the way, but the story fragments are so slim in detail that no mention of injuries, or the degree of help he needed, was preserved. Did the travelers have an ass, or camel? Were they artisans or tent makers carrying goods to sell… or just apocalyptic preachers wandering from village to village, living on the charity of those they encountered? Luke doesn’t tell us.
4. Jesus was (supernaturally) restored to life, with a reasonably functional body and brain. He was careful to conceal his identity, being anxious about further betrayal to the Sanhedrin or the Romans, only revealing his identity when he had established the good intentions of those he met. This story makes logical sense only if we grant miracles, and many in our modern pragmatic world reject such ideas out of hand.
5. The resurrected Jesus was some kind of immaterial being, spirit rather than flesh, appearing and disappearing at will. Again miraculous. And fits with Paul’s ideas of an exalted post-resurrection existence for all of us. But both Luke and John mention wounds and seem at pains to point out that Jesus was flesh and bone, rather than a ghost.
That roughly covers the spectrum of ideas, I think… Scholars cluster at the two extremes, 1 and 4/5, according to their inclinations as theologians or historians. My problem, in trying to assess this, is that with the extreme poverty of detail in the gospel accounts, I struggle to find anything that would differentiate between the various interpretations.
Finally, Spikes, you emphasize the contrast between “survival” and “resurrection.” But the problem I have with differentiating those concepts on the basis of the gospels is that resurrection was such a central idea in 1st century Jewish apocalypticism that anyone who was seen apparently dead and then later alive would be said to be resurrected. My suggestion in this blog, that Jesus MIGHT have survived, is making a distinction which makes sense to us today, but I don’t think would have figured in the thinking of the disciples of Jesus, or our gospel authors.
It is simply not possible to survive a crucifixion if the crucifixion is carried out in the normal fashion. The process would have had to be interfered with at some point, as with Josephus’ buddies (and two of them died anyway). To say that Jesus “survived” the crucifixion is to pile ad hoc hypotheses on top of one another.
I think there was a historical Jesus for sure but I am on the minimalist side of things. I think very few of the pre-Easter stories in the Gospels have any basis in history and none of the post-Easter stories do. Luke found a great story and had to include it.
As to whether or not any disciples had actual visions of the risen Jesus, Prof Ehrman’s speculations are compelling given what we know now about human psychology. But the idea presented by other folks that Peter had some kind of psychological break because of his “betrayal” and that this is the origin of the resurrection seems too neat to me, too novelistic. If I’m writing the novel I have the visions begin with the faithful women followers (following Mark) and then spreading among the disciples ending with the chief disciples finally claiming to have had the visions just so they wouldn’t lose their places of authority (again honoring Mark’s dim view of the disciples).
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Prof. Challenger and Brigadier Gerard, was also a spiritualist who saw materialized spirits. “I have seen my mother and my nephew, the young Oscar Hornig, as plainly as ever I saw them in life – so plainly I could almost have counted the wrinkles of one and the freckles of the other.” “I have seen spirits walk around the room in fair light and join in the talk of the company.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Memories and Adventures 392-94 (1924).
These are eyewitness statements by a keen observer and a man of impeccable character – better evidence of a supernatural event than anything in the New Testament. My point is this. People see things that are not there. We may never know exactly why, but it happens all the time.
People see things that are not there. We may never know exactly why, but it happens all the time.
Yes. Psychologists and neuroscientists report that seeing a recently deceased loved one in a vision or a dream is one of the most common experiences people have even today in our secular materialistic age. I have had such an experience myself where a loved one who unexpectedly died appeared to me in a vivid dream a few weeks afterward and spoke words of comfort. And I was comforted even though I am satisfied with a psychological explanation rather than a supernatural one. One part of my brain provided the rest with an experience that “I” needed. In short I was provided with the opportunity to say goodbye, an opportunity denied me in waking life. It was an extremely vivid dream, visionary even, and I have no doubt that if I lived in ancient times when dreams were considered divine revelations I would look at it from that perspective.
Lawyerskeptic said
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Prof. Challenger and Brigadier Gerard, was also a spiritualist who saw materialized spirits. “I have seen my mother and my nephew, the young Oscar Hornig, as plainly as ever I saw them in life – so plainly I could almost have counted the wrinkles of one and the freckles of the other.” “I have seen spirits walk around the room in fair light and join in the talk of the company.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Memories and Adventures 392-94 (1924).These are eyewitness statements by a keen observer and a man of impeccable character – better evidence of a supernatural event than anything in the New Testament. My point is this. People see things that are not there. We may never know exactly why, but it happens all the time.
HA! Good Show, as the Brits might say. It’s interesting that you bring this up! I had been watching the BBC series Sherlock and did a little reading on Sir Arthur! Apparently he was friends with Houdini and believed Houdini had super natural powers. Houdini for his part tried to dissuade him of this notion and that supposedly lead to a falling out between them. I guess even keen observers are prone to ignore the facts.
Trevelyan said
OK, Spikes! What do you think is most probable? And least probable? Let us try to list all the explanations of the Road to Emmaus story:
1. There is no real basis for the story and Luke assembled it in a semblance of logic (as he does so well) from fragments based on hallucinations, dreams, imagination or plain wishful thinking. This would fit with it being only singly attested (by Luke, the Mark mention being a late scribal addition). And there is no hint of it in our earliest source, the creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
What is “a semblance of logic” something that looks like logic, but is not? Are you suggesting Luke’s Gospel is “based on hallucinations, dreams, imagination or plain wishful thinking.”? What evidence do you have that this is a later scribal insertion?
It’s widely believed that Mark’s gospel ends at chapter 16 verse 8 so I suppose you could offer that; yet that is also consistent with a lost ending, but maybe this is what you mean by a semblance of logic. But let’s leave this aside and look at what Mark says
Mark 16: 12-13
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
I’m going to go ahead and accept the judgment of “the rest” and say that the story, if it is, in fact the same story, was not believable. Also, I think I will skip the other “explanations since they seem equally problematic. However, I suppose I could be convinced to go through them, if you really want me to.
Finally, Spikes, you emphasize the contrast between “survival” and “resurrection.” But the problem I have with differentiating those concepts on the basis of the gospels is that resurrection was such a central idea in 1st century Jewish apocalypticism that anyone who was seen apparently dead and then later alive would be said to be resurrected. My suggestion in this blog, that Jesus MIGHT have survived, is making a distinction which makes sense to us today, but I don’t think would have figured in the thinking of the disciples of Jesus, or our gospel authors.
I don’t recall doing that, but will accept your word for it. Your problem is you let your suggestion drive your analysis; thus you seem to think a man who endured scourging, beatings, and all sort of tortures before being hung on a cross for at least 6 hours (and who by 1 account was stabbed through the side with a spear) could just get up and walk six or more miles .
But why would you have a problem “differentiating those concepts on the basis of the gospels” when the rest of your argument isn’t based on them? Yes, Resurrection was certainly crucial in Apocalyptic thinking and yet it was a GENERAL resurrection; Jesus “resurrection” as Geza Vermes put it seemed to hit the disciples out of the blue. BUT even if they thought in terms of individual resurrections, I don’t see how when confronted with a fatally wounded man who walked to Emmaus SOMEHOW, would be thought of as ressurected. According to the story, these men believe Jesus is dead, they run into this fatally wounded and physically EXHAUSTED individual and their first thought isn’t looks like this guy survived, but HE WAS RESURRECTED!! Simply amazing.
Stephen said
People see things that are not there. We may never know exactly why, but it happens all the time.Yes. Psychologists and neuroscientists report that seeing a recently deceased loved one in a vision or a dream is one of the most common experiences people have even today in our secular materialistic age. I have had such an experience myself where a loved one who unexpectedly died appeared to me in a vivid dream a few weeks afterward and spoke words of comfort. And I was comforted even though I am satisfied with a psychological explanation rather than a supernatural one. One part of my brain provided the rest with an experience that “I” needed. In short I was provided with the opportunity to say goodbye, an opportunity denied me in waking life. It was an extremely vivid dream, visionary even, and I have no doubt that if I lived in ancient times when dreams were considered divine revelations I would look at it from that perspective.
This may sound like a joke, but it isn’t. As a teenager, I had an auditory hallucination of Jean Seberg singing the song “A Million Miles Away Behind the Door” from the movie “Paint Your Wagon.” It was clear as a bell, I will never forget it, but certainly didn’t rise from any great emotional depth. Just weird.
Based on that one experience, I would say that sometimes people see things or hear things, and it is a fools errand to try to find any cause or meaning.
spiker said
HA! Good Show, as the Brits might say. It’s interesting that you bring this up! I had been watching the BBC series Sherlock and did a little reading on Sir Arthur! Apparently he was friends with Houdini and believed Houdini had super natural powers. Houdini for his part tried to dissuade him of this notion and that supposedly lead to a falling out between them. I guess even keen observers are prone to ignore the facts.
There is a good book on the subject. Massimo Polidoro, Final Séance: The Strange Friendship Between Houdini and Conan Doyle (Prometheus Books 2001).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)