Bart and others –
What are your thoughts on the most obvious explanation regarding the Resurrection narrative? Specifically, Mary Magdalene lied about where Jesus was buried. That’s it. That is all we need. Maybe you can say two people had to lie (the other Mary). Everything can be explained by this simple idea – and that’s assuming you agree the gospel stories have truth to them. The rest can be explained by simple hallucinations by just a few believers, or obvious exaggerations by the gospel authors (Matthew and the add-on John in particular). Even if you agree guards were posted at the tomb (in Matthew), they had to be told where to guard, and the tomb was already sealed by then. And the “big” appearances, like the 500, could be nothing more than one person pointing to a reflection on a hillside and saying “Look! There is the Lord!”.
Consider:
According to Matthew:
Only Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” know where Jesus is buried.
Only Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” see the empty tomb. However, there are guards posted there. Somehow they know where Jesus is buried, assuming that even if true, they are told by the above three people. They witness an angel moving away the stone, and are paid off the stay quiet.
Jesus appears to these two Mary’s, and also to the eleven disciples at Galilea (although some doubted)
According to Mark:
Only Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph know where Jesus was buried.
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome saw the empty tomb.
No appearances.
According to Luke:
Joseph of Arimathea, and “the women” (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and ‘the others’) saw where Jesus was buried.
The same women saw the empty tomb, and then Peter went to the tomb after he was told it was empty.
Jesus appears to two disciples (Cleopas and another), and then to the disciples (but they do not recognize him at first).
According to John:
2 people knew where Jesus was buried: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus
Only Mary saw the original empty tomb.
Jesus appears to Mary and again the disciples, but some (Thomas in particular) doubt.
In what seems to be an added on story, Jesus feed 500.
Clearly, given the above, it all can be explained by Mary Magdalene lying about the location of the tomb. It all fits. Clearly a single lie told by someone with a motive is a much better explanation than some crazy miracles.
Why don’t we hear about this theory? Seems so obvious to me.
Thanks in advance.
I think you are putting more historical reliability in the gospels that Bart would. He doesn’t even think Jesus was buried in a tomb; the whole empty tomb story came about later, after people were already convinced he had risen.
It has occurred to me that if I were to trust the historicity of the empty tomb (I don’t), I would find it suspicious that the only person that all gospels place at its discovery was a person who had been possessed by seven demons–i.e., a person who we would likely identify as having a history of fairly serious mental health problems.
It doesn’t really contribute to embarrassment though, because the people writing presumably accepted the phenomenon of diabolical possession, and in the story, Jesus had cast out her demons; so as far as they were concerned, she would have been compos mentis by the time she served as a witness of the resurrection.
I suspect Mark invented the story of the women at the Empty Tomb because it fits so neatly into his theme of the unreliability of the disciples, and presents an ironic juxtaposition between having Jesus spend the gospel commanding silence about his true nature with the command for the women to tell and then have them remaining silent. It’s telling that our only pre-gospel source, Paul, knows nothing about either an enpty tomb or the women. The other gospel wrtiers are following Mark. It’s literature folks.
@Porphyry “It doesn’t really contribute to embarrassment though, because the people writing presumably accepted the phenomenon of diabolical possession, and in the story, Jesus had cast out her demons; so as far as they were concerned, she would have been compos mentis by the time she served as a witness of the resurrection.”
But they would only have believed she was cured of the demons if she had in fact regained compos mentis and your suspicions would be unfounded. Either the history of her mental illness matters or it doesn’t. If it does matter than it would be embarrassing for the gospel authors to admit to it.
@Stephen “I suspect Mark invented the story of the women at the Empty Tomb because it fits so neatly into his theme of the unreliability of the disciples, and presents an ironic juxtaposition between having Jesus spend the gospel commanding silence about his true nature with the command for the women to tell and then have them remaining silent.”
But in Mark Jesus had already announced publicly to the sanhedrin who he was. “Are you the messiah the son of the blessed one. ‘I am'”
“Paul, knows nothing about either an enpty tomb or the women”
Paul knows about the empty tomb; 1 Cor 15 “Christ died … he was entombed, he awakened on the third day and was seen by Peter and then the twelve.” He doesn’t admit to the women because its embarrassing.
they would only have believed she was cured of the demons if she had in fact regained compos mentis and your suspicions would be unfounded. Either the history of her mental illness matters or it doesn’t. If it does matter than it would be embarrassing for the gospel authors to admit to it.
Plenty of mental illnesses, even serious ones, don’t manifest continuously. They can come in episodes.
She may have regained normal, or mostly normal, function under circumstances that they interpreted as Jesus casting out her demons, while the underlying condition persisted, able to manifest again at any moment–maybe triggered by something traumatic, like watching you friend and messiah brutally executed.
Yes but as per Matthew 12 and Luke 11 the ancients would have known just as well that evil spirits can return.
“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, I will return to the house I left. When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.”
When the man who had cleansed her of the demons had been executed would they not have been embarrassed at the possible return of the demons the the woman who had been cleansed?
I agree my original post begins with the assumption that the gospels have some historical reliability. However, my key point is that even with assumptions, all you still need is just Mary Magdalene lying about the location of the tomb. Perhaps she saw the depression in the apostles and realized a lie would “keep things going”. Maybe it was even a mistake – in the earliest gospel (Mark), she doesn’t see Jesus. Maybe she really was actually just saying “we’ve got the wrong tomb”, and Peter, in his despondence, jumped on that and ran thinking Jesus was risen.
I think we need to look at the gospels in the order they were written. Why are there no appearances in Mark? Why then guards in a gospel written 20 years later? Why would Pilot give the body away if he then would post guards? Imagine Al Quadea asking for the body of Bin Laden, and President Obama saying yes – but THEN asking the marines to be stationed in Afghanstan to guard the new burial site. It’s ridiculous. I think it would be very simple for either Mary to not have known the location of the tomb, lied about, or as stated, the body was never buried at all. It seems such a simple solution that basically fits with the gospels – and that is IF you give historical credence to them.
Brenmcg no need for us to keep going round and round. You regard the gospels as reportage, accounts of more or less historical events. Consequently for you the effort is make the crooked straight and the rough places plain. I accept there is a historical basis for the ministry and fate of Jesus but regard the gospels as literary efforts to create a theologized narrative shaped by an agenda based on that ministry and fate. I doubt any of the actual narrative details described in the gospels are historical. What Mark had was probably a creed or frame story. The skeleton of the tale so to speak. The flesh of the tale is literary invention. And the rest of the gospel authors are relying on Mark, probably even John.
However I am curious about your rather idiosyncratic translation of 1 Cor 15:4-5.
… he was entombed, he awakened on the third day and was seen by Peter and then the twelve.
Is this yours? If not where did you get it?
Paul seems incapable of ever being embarrassed about anything. But your characterization requires access to his motivations which are completely occluded to us. The simplest explanation is that he didn’t know about the tomb and the women because that part of the story hadn’t been invented yet.
Stephen “Is this yours? If not where did you get it?”
Its mine. The nearest I could find to it is the God’s Word translation “He was placed in a tomb. He was brought back to life on the third day as the Scriptures predicted”. But its an entirely legitimate translation.
The verb “awakened” is the same as used in Mark 4:38 “But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion and they *woke* him and said to him”
“Paul seems incapable of ever being embarrassed about anything” Really? he seems to be embarrassed of his previous life where he persecuted christians.
“But your characterization requires access to his motivations which are completely occluded to us.” You’re making an argument against the use of the Criterion of Embarrassment itself. If what you’re saying is correct no one should be allowed use it.
mrjama100 **”Why are there no appearances in Mark?”** Why then guards in a gospel written 20 years later?”
There are appearances in Mark
Mark 14:28 “But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
Mark 16:6 “He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
**”Why then guards in a gospel written 20 years later?”**
In Matthew the guards and temple authorities know about the resurrection but dont become christians. The later gospel authors didn’t like the Jesus could be so openly denied. For them the truth had to have been hidden from disbelievers.
Paul is using the verb form (etaphē) of the noun used by Matthew (taphos). Matthew says ‘put in a tomb’ Paul says ‘en-tomb-ed’.
Luke uses a different word for tomb than Matthew (mnēma).
But in Acts 2:29 uses Paul’s verb to describe how David was put in this ‘mnēma’
“David died and was buried (etaphē – entombed), and his tomb (mnēma) is here to this day.”
So “entomb” for 1 Cor 15:4 should be considered a completely acceptable translation.
–
‘he awakened’ can always be understood in a passive sense (people tend not to actively wake themselves). And ‘he was seen by … ” is passive.
Yes Matthew uses both terms but this shows that whatever Matthew believed Jesus was put in can be described as either a mnémeion or a taphos.
This object can be described as either a tomb or place of remembrance. But what’s important is that its translated in the same way for Matthew and Paul. They’re two 1st Century greek speaking chritstians, describing the same event using the same noun/verb root.
If Matthew thinks he was put in a tomb then Paul thinks he was en-tombed.
“He was entombed” or “He was placed in a tomb” is not a good translation. It is merely an attempt to make Paul sound more like the synoptic accounts. 1 Cor 15,4 merely says that ‘he was buried,’ without any specific reference to a tomb. Also, ἐγήγερται is better understood as a passive in context. Jesus was buried (passive), raised/awakened (passive), made to appear (passive). Paul consistently speaks of God raising Jesus, not of Jesus waking up.
What Robert said. I will merely add that Paul’s comment is totally consistent with a view of the resurrection as an apotheosis rather than a fleshly resuscitation. Subsequently Jesus appeeared to his disicples – and Paul – in visions. Being “buried” could just as well mean that Jesus’ corpse was thrown into a common grave, the ususal fate of crucified persons.
“Being “buried” could just as well mean that Jesus’ corpse was thrown into a common grave, the usual fate of crucified persons.”
The point is that Paul mentions what happens to the corpse. Its an important part of the story. If its just an apotheosis it doesn’t matter what happens to the body.
‘He died, he went to sheol, he was raised to the seventh heaven’ that would be apotheosis.
But “he was buried” refers to Jesus himself. Its not just the body that’s buried, its Jesus himself that is also buried. But he is raised/roused/awakened; same word that all 4 gospel writers use. Same word John used about Lazarus being raised from the dead. Paul is talking about a bodily resurrection.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)