Yeah, I’m guessing Oliver Sacks didn’t write about the resurrection? 🙂
Again, your defensiveness is noted. And your desire to prove the existence of hallucinations is unneeded. I’ve said repeatedly–on this very thread, and elsewhere–that I agree Jesus’ followers had dreams and hallucinations, and that is also my explanation for Paul’s vision, but none of this is terribly helpful, because we still have to ask why Jesus and not someone else.
And you don’t want to ask that question, because you don’t want to deal with the possibility that there might have been anything terribly remarkable about Jesus, the connection between him and his followers, the message he presented, the way he presented it, and of course absolutely nothing of note could have happened to inspire the stories about him. If we believe his followers could see him alive after he was dead, why can’t we believe they also believed they saw him do miracles when he really was alive? You’ve made him so small in your mind that it seems impossible to believe anyone cared he was dead.
My point is that if you try to debunk everything, you end up with nothing. The problem is that you want to negate the entire story, and you can’t. You’d be better off with Carrier, since he says the story never happened at all. That’s a much simpler (and stupider) argument to make.
I’m afraid we have to deal with the fact that it’s not called The Greatest Story Ever Told for nothing. No matter how talented the first Christians were, they still had to have something to inspire them to the heights they achieved–and that something was an itinerant self-educated rabbi from Nazareth.
Who will never be forgotten. But we will.
Like the song says, there are flies on you. There are flies on me. There ain’t no flies on Jesus.
A select bibliography
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Oliver Sacks wherein among other things he points out that a hallucination of a recently deceased loved one is one of the most common reported “visionary” experiences. (Note: A small unscientific survey revealed one relative and one acquaintance who have had this experience. Also I was previously aware of a former girlfriend who described such. And as if to one untimely born I’ve had this experience myself.)
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Leon Festinger. A classic in the sociological literature wherein it is revealed that apocalyptic groups who have their hopes disconfirmed do not collapse as one would expect but actually double down on the intensity of their belief.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Frank Kermode, a classic literary/cultural study wherein the influence of apocalyptic mindset on our culture and the reasons for its attractiveness are explicated.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** is the larger work from which the essay is derived.
I conclude with a brief ** you do not have permission to see this link ** about English usage.
I offer these works to those who may find benefit.
Hngerhman wrote
Said peeve is one of my pets as well… My intro logic prof went on a rant about it way back when. But I myself am also loose with leave and let, being from the south originally. I appreciate the forbearance of my fiends here that they let me alone! Ha.
Well if you’re referring to my note on usage it’s not simply pedantry. The informal logical fallacy is encountered so frequently in our media that it seems important not to muddy the issue with a rather pretentious euphemism.
godspell, you’re so vain, I bet you think this song is about you.
I literally had this happen in my own family. My uncle, who was a priest, died. A relative claimed to have had a vision of him in the arms of the Virgin. My father, who was religous but hardly given to displays of superstition, believed it, got angry when someone questioned the vision (my uncle drowned–it was a shock). But after the grief and loss subsided, he never referred to it again. I think he was embarrassed.
I have said many times, here and elsewhere, that grief and loss were the reasons Jesus’ followers had these visions, but that still doesn’t explain why it didn’t subside. Why it kept growing. And certainly not why it didn’t also happen with other religious leaders and potential messiahs of that time period, at least not in a lasting way. John the Baptist’s followers may well have ‘doubled down’, but they still faded (your posts about the Mandaeans notwithstanding). So do most cults. The Mormons survived after Joseph Smith was lynched (and hightailed it for Utah, because Missouri wasn’t safe), but nobody claimed he’d risen. And nobody who isn’t Mormon is ever going to quote him. Mohandas Gandhi quoted Jesus rather a lot. Because Jesus is quotable. Unoriginal people tend not to be.
We agree Jesus didn’t rise, so that’s not the issue. The issue is you want to belittle him, say it was all fake, there’s no there there. That’s every bit as much an emotional overreaction as believing all of it.
Why did it happen differently, just this one time? Bart Ehrman, like other scholars in his field, hasn’t satisfactorily answered this question, but at least he thinks about it.
Can you at least acknowledge that they must have loved him one hell of a lot? And that maybe he loved them too? Pretty rare for cult leaders to die instead of their followers.
Stephen said
Well if you’re referring to my note on usage it’s not simply pedantry. The informal logical fallacy is encountered so frequently in our media that it seems important not to muddy the issue with a rather pretentious euphemism.
I am in total agreement. Not pedantry in the least. And, people don’t seem to realize that they just repeat their view of the very issue in question, but increasingly louder.
My problems are more allergic in nature. I’ve gotten pretty good at avoiding colds, most of the time.
Have you ever tried a neti pot?
My problem with oral decongestants has been that I get too strong a reaction even to phenylephrine, which some studies say does no more than a placebo. (Maybe I should try an actual placebo–can you get a scrip for that?)
To bring this back on topic, Palestine has a dry climate, so Jesus probably didn’t have to worry so much about congestion. Lucky.
tompicard said
I believe this is a valid question for scholars to discuss, has anyone done so?It does not include any miraculous claims , nor does it speculate on the thought process of any person
————
3 days after the crucifixion ?
if so, then we would assume it was begun by one of Jesus’ direct followers: one of the Marys or John or Peter? correct ?
it is a pretty spectacular claim and if part of the Christian tradition from three days after the crucifixion I would suspect it would be quickly and widely circulated.
and if so why would Paul not have heard of it? or if he had heard of it why would he never mention it?
Even if the empty tomb tradition started this early, there still is no necessity to consider it supernatural – it could be someone moved the corpse and people were confused, or it could be that Jesus revived or there may be other possibilities
————-
if on the other hand the tradition began after or even concurrent with Paul’s ministry, I would assume empty tomb was created for theological purposes
The tradition of the empty tomb began that Sunday. The fact that Paul doesn’t mention something doesn’t mean he didn’t know of it. He doesn’t mention the virgin birth story, but like every Jew in Israel, he would have heard of it.
The claim of a risen Messiah is mentioned in the Old Testament by people like David and Isaiah. That He would rise again and be satisfied with his sacrifice. And as Daniel put, he would not die for himself but for his people. And prophets from Jacob onwards spoke of Israel ending with the Messiah. I take that as “supernatural”, else, what are the odds of getting this right?
Hngerhman said
Poohbear said
…the virgin birth story, but like every Jew in Israel, he would have heard of it.Hi Poohbear – like the handle!
Curious, how would have ‘every Jew in Israel’ have heard of the virgin birth story?
Because at one stage the Jews told Jesus he was “born in fornication.”
Meaning they knew something about Jesus’ own birth.
Poohbear said
Because at one stage the Jews told Jesus he was “born in fornication.”
Meaning they knew something about Jesus’ own birth.
Thanks!
– which text do you intend to mean that, John 8:41? Or do you have something else in mind?
– would the leader of a small band of folks making its way from Galilee to Jerusalem have touched the awareness of all Israelites? I’m not meaning to mince words, but I’m trying to understand if by “all” you mean “all those he came into contact with directly (and some indirectly)” or literally “all”?
Hngerhman said
Thanks!
– which text do you intend to mean that, John 8:41? Or do you have something else in mind?
– would the leader of a small band of folks making its way from Galilee to Jerusalem have touched the awareness of all Israelites? I’m not meaning to mince words, but I’m trying to understand if by “all” you mean “all those he came into contact with directly (and some indirectly)” or literally “all”?
Shouldn’t have said “every Jew” of course. “Every” Jew as in the body of Jews who knew of Jesus in a negative light.
Yes, John 8:41. It’s clear from this verse they “knew” something about Jesus’ background. They didn’t have to know this, it’s obvious that the story was freely offered by Jesus, His family or those preaching the Gospel. As an aside, when the Jews said that the Messiah must come from Bethlehem where David was – it doesn’t say that Jesus offered any explanation. He REJOICED that “these things are hidden from the wise and prudent.”
One way to look at the question is when did one of the sources used by the gospel writers use a crucifixion-tomb story. Whether Jesus of Nazareth was real or not, the gospel clearly used motifs from the OT.
Jesus son of Nun, in the book of Jesus (Joshua) chapter 10:
kills the king of Jerusalem (Jesus Nazareth had a King of the Jews sign placed over his head in Mark);
by hanging him on a tree (Paul compares Jesus’ death to being hung on a tree, as does the book of Acts 3x);
taking him down at sunset (same as gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion);
putting his body in a cave (many tombs were carved out of the soft rock);
put large stones in front of the cave (stone rolled in front of Jesus Nazareth’s tomb);
the stones are there to this day (stone rolled away and Jesus Nazareth is gone).
The key differences here is that Jesus Nun is the violent warrior who kills the king of Jerusalem, while Jesus Nazareth is the one killed by the chief priests of Jerusalem. More important however, is the fact the king of Jerusalem stayed dead and Jesus Nazareth arose from the dead.
It is hard from my perspective, seeing the source of the material that Mark is clearly using, to determine if any of Mark’s description derive from an actual adventure that occurred in the past. What part is based on the source and what part is based on reality. Especially once you add in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 as sources… well, anyway, the question was asked when the empty tomb came into being, and the earliest source of the tomb narrative, imho, is in Jesus 10.
I think all the early Christians believed that Jesus actually died on the Cross. It’s an open question but I’m sympathetic to the idea that Mark invented the Empty Tomb. I definitely think he used it for his own literary and theological purposes whether or not he actually invented the original story himself. Of course we don’t have the “original story” even assuming it existed. All we have is interpretation. And it’s useful to remember that Paul could present a fully formed, quite sophisticated Christology without the Empty Tomb or a Virgin Birth.
If Paul’s Christianity not only ignores the empty tomb but contradicts it, then Mark feels free to contradict Paul version of the Christian understanding of resurrection for the sake of his tale.
I would say that Paul’s resurrection of the body would not have included the carne that went missing in the empty tomb. Paul’s resurrection was more of a physical body composed of the finest particles of matter, invisible to the naked eye. Though I don’t think anyone can say with certainty exactly what the bodily resurrection described by Paul comprises of.
Though I don’t think anyone can say with certainty exactly what the bodily resurrection described by Paul comprises of.
Here’s a really fine stab at it.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Paul seems to have had the view of the body shared by most intellectuals of his day. The body consisted of material aspects on a gradient from the most unrefined, the flesh, to the most subtle, the spirit. In the resurrection the flesh, sarx, and the mind, nous, wither away and the spirit, pneuma, is transformed into the resurrection body. (The problem for us is that none of these concepts quite meant for the ancients what they do to us. For example, for Paul even the sarx has a metaphysical aspect.) This is why I wonder if Paul would have been overly concerned with the fate of Jesus’ fleshly corpse. In his famous credo when he says that Jesus was “buried” I think he probably just means that Jesus was a human being who actually died, not a reference to an Empty Tomb.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)