Discussion of motives for gospel authors, and to what extent they intended to be historically accurate, generally ignore the reaction of Jews who were implicated in the stories and should have dissented. This is particularly relevant for the accounts of Jesus’s trial, burial and resurrection appearances. The following people are some of those implicated:
King Agrippa II (27-92CE) was a great-grandson of Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and was just 17 when his father died so Emperor Claudius sent Fadus to rule over Judea. In 53CE, Agrippa II was appointed as king over territories to the east of the Jordan river and, in 55CE, Emperor Nero added Galilee to his realm. He tried to avoid war but was subsequently granted additional territory by Emperor Titus. The gospels, which were written during his reign, describe events which had occurred during his lifetime in his own territory and which depicted Herod Antipas, his grandfather’s step-brother, as a villain. It would be extraordinary if no-one in the king’s entourage brought the gospel stories to his attention. After all, Mark’s gospel was sufficiently distributed to have been copied by Matthew and Luke, so the stories were not secret. Agrippa II is also reported to have met Paul in about 60CE when he was imprisoned at Caesarea, so what did Paul tell the king? A false story about burial and resurrection after three days would have been ammunition for all those whose opposition to Paul was causing unrest.
Yohanan Ben Zakai (30-90CE) was the leader of the Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. Regarded as one of the most important Jewish figures of his time, he was a primary contributor to the core text of the Mishnah. He was particularly active in opposing the Sadducees interpretation of Jewish law. His home, at that time, was in Arav, a village in Galilee. With his extensive contacts, he should have known of Jesus and the claims of his resurrection. If the gospel story is false, this should have become Jewish tradition instead of the claim that the disciples stole Jesus’s body after burial.
According to Josephus, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem they escorted leading officials to the nearby town of Gophna. A person aged 60 would have been a teenager when Jesus was crucified so well able to remember events from that time. A principal aim of crucifixion was to make a public spectacle of the victim and it was extreme punishment rather than a routine form of execution. Josephus mentions crucifixions in Judea under Varus (4BC) and again on several occasions after 44CE but none during Jesus’s lifetime and Roman historian Tacitus says that, under Tiberius (Emperor from 14 to 37CE), “all was quiet in Judea and Galilee”. It seems that crucifixions in Jerusalem during this period were sufficiently infrequent to be noticed by the general population. It is therefore probable that some of the officials escorted out of Jerusalem knew what happened when Jesus was crucified. Their elders were villains in the gospels so it would be strange if they had not reacted to false reports.
If the disciples fled back to Galilee on Jesus’s arrest and then had life-changing visions which convinced them of his resurrection, did they tell tell family, friends and others about these experiences before returning to Jerusalem? If so, then these people or their children knew that the gospel accounts of an empty tomb and appearances in Jerusalem were false. Did none of them contact their local Pharisee or anyone else in authority to set the record straight?
There seems to be problems with the hypothesis that the burial and empty tomb story was invented by Mark. With so many people capable of knowing what actually happened, why do Jews say that Jesus’s followers stole his body after burial if it was actually left on the cross to rot?
Blackwell said
Discussion of motives for gospel authors, and to what extent they intended to be historically accurate, generally ignore the reaction of Jews who were implicated in the stories and should have dissented. This is particularly relevant for the accounts of Jesus’s trial, burial and resurrection appearances. The following people are some of those implicated:King Agrippa II (27-92CE) was a great-grandson of Herod the Great.
. . .
The gospels, which were written during his reign, describe events which had occurred during his lifetime in his own territory and which depicted Herod Antipas, his grandfather’s step-brother, as a villain. It would be extraordinary if no-one in the king’s entourage brought the gospel stories to his attention.
Are you sure that would be extraordinary?
But even if Agrippa knew the stories, maybe he didn’t care that some small movement was slandering his grandfather’s step-brother. Maybe he cared but thought the best response was not to dignify the story with a response. Maybe he did deny the story, but the reply wasn’t in writing, or maybe it was in writing but, like so many other writings from the first century, didn’t get preserved. And maybe he denied it, but the Christians ignored it because he had a vested interest and no proof.
After all, Mark’s gospel was sufficiently distributed to have been copied by Matthew and Luke, so the stories were not secret.
That other Christians knew Mark doesn’t mean it was in general circulation outside the Christian communities. Even if it was, it doesn’t mean that Agrippa responded to it or that his response would be extant.
Agrippa II is also reported to have met Paul in about 60CE when he was imprisoned at Caesarea, so what did Paul tell the king? A false story about burial and resurrection after three days would have been ammunition for all those whose opposition to Paul was causing unrest.
You mean in Acts? Do you trust Acts as an historical source? Even if you do, who knows what Paul told him? Maybe Paul did tell the story of the empty tomb, and maybe his enemies did seize on it.
According to Josephus, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem they escorted leading officials to the nearby town of Gophna. A person aged 60 would have been a teenager when Jesus was crucified so well able to remember events from that time. A principal aim of crucifixion was to make a public spectacle of the victim and it was extreme punishment rather than a routine form of execution. Josephus mentions crucifixions in Judea under Varus (4BC) and again on several occasions after 44CE but none during Jesus’s lifetime and Roman historian Tacitus says that, under Tiberius (Emperor from 14 to 37CE), “all was quiet in Judea and Galilee”. It seems that crucifixions in Jerusalem during this period were sufficiently infrequent to be noticed by the general population. It is therefore probable that some of the officials escorted out of Jerusalem knew what happened when Jesus was crucified. Their elders were villains in the gospels so it would be strange if they had not reacted to false reports.
I just find this reasoning a bit odd. To defend the historicity of the gospels, you are arguing that crucifixion was so rare during the period that a teenager at the time would, five decades later, have remembered an individual executed criminal and even how his body was disposed of. And yet, the gospels tell us that two other people, convicted of entirely different crimes, were crucified on the same day as Jesus. Was it just a remarkable coincidence that they ended up with three different criminals being convicted, at the same time, of crimes that called for this exceptionally rare execution?
It is hard to estimate from this one account how often crucifixions would occur in Jerusalem, but it is hard for me to imagine it as rare as you suggest. When Tacitus says that all was quiet in Judea, I’d take that as meaning “quiet” relative to those periods when there were uprisings that required significant military intervention, that led to considerable bloodshed, and that resulted in rebels being crucified by their scores or hundreds.
If the disciples fled back to Galilee on Jesus’s arrest and then had life-changing visions which convinced them of his resurrection, did they tell tell family, friends and others about these experiences before returning to Jerusalem? If so, then these people or their children knew that the gospel accounts of an empty tomb and appearances in Jerusalem were false. Did none of them contact their local Pharisee or anyone else in authority to set the record straight?
You are assuming that people investigate remarkable claims in a responsible way, but they don’t–at least not always. There is a very significant number of people today who are convinced that the US Government orchestrated 9/11, or at least covered the real story up (at the height of the movement it was almost half of the country). Something like 1/5th of Americans believe in an international cabal of liberal elites who engage in thinly veiled pedophilic sex-trafficking; I’m not talking about a handful of uber-wealthy pervs, but a network of basically all the wealthiest and most famous progressives literally selling kids as sex slaves on the Wayfarer website (in furniture that is listed under the kids’ first names) or holding them hostage in the backroom of a family pizza joint in northwest DC. Somewhere between 15% and 30% of Americans don’t believe that Obama was born in the US, even after he produced his birth certificate. A shocking number of people believe not only does 5G cell service hurt your health, but that it was designed to make the US population weak. We could go on and on with this stuff. And it is easier today, with the internet, to know better that it has ever been in the past.
There seems to be problems with the hypothesis that the burial and empty tomb story was invented by Mark. With so many people capable of knowing what actually happened, why do Jews say that Jesus’s followers stole his body after burial if it was actually left on the cross to rot?
This is an interesting point. Unlike Bart, I don’t think he was left on the cross to rot. I think he was buried (hastily and without usual honors) by the Jewish authorities in one of the tombs they kept precisely for the burial of executed criminals. Those hung on a tree had to be interred immediately, The Sanhedrin took this law seriously and applied it to the crucified. That could be an historical kernel to the Joseph of Arimathea story. And in that case, the story Matthew says that the Jews told makes sense.
The absence of response by groups implicated in gospel stories is a case of “The guard dogs which did not bark”. Suppose a hypothesis was that missing objects were stolen by a thief in spite of the presence of a guard dog. It would be reasonable to say that the dog must have been asleep. However, if there were four guard dogs and none of them signaled the presence of a thief, then the hypothesis should be reconsidered.
In the case of a false gospel story that the bodies of Jesus and two other people were buried on the day of crucifixion and Jesus’s body was missing three days later, several groups should have responded but did not do so. The hypothesis that the story is false should therefore be reconsidered.
Are you sure that would be extraordinary?
But even if Agrippa knew the stories, maybe he didn’t care that some small movement was slandering his grandfather’s step-brother. Maybe he cared but thought the best response was not to dignify the story with a response. Maybe he did deny the story, but the reply wasn’t in writing, or maybe it was in writing but, like so many other writings from the first century, didn’t get preserved. And maybe he denied it, but the Christians ignored it because he had a vested interest and no proof.
On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul was expecting trouble (Romans 15:31) and, as a result of riots which resulted from his visit there, he was taken into custody and imprisoned by the Romans at Caesarea. (Philippians 1:13).
Yes, it would have been extraordinary if Agrippa II was not aware of this troublemaker and his followers.
And yes, it is possible that the king and many others in his entourage knew that the gospel stories were false and this knowledge was lost, but it is more likely that they said nothing because they knew that the stories were basically true.
It is hard to estimate from this one account how often crucifixions would occur in Jerusalem, but it is hard for me to imagine it as rare as you suggest. When Tacitus says that all was quiet in Judea, I’d take that as meaning “quiet” relative to those periods when there were uprisings that required significant military intervention, that led to considerable bloodshed, and that resulted in rebels being crucified by their scores or hundreds.
It is indeed hard to estimate how often crucifixions occurred in Jerusalem as they tended to go in batches in response to military uprising, but it does not seem to have been a routine punishment. My guess is that the frequency was similar to that of the death penalty today, so maybe 4 or 5/year in any one city. Those crucified alongside Jesus are described as robbers but may actually have killed Roman soldiers. What made Jesus’s case memorable was the resurrection claims by his disciples. That did not happen for any of the other crucifixions.
You are assuming that people investigate remarkable claims in a responsible way, but they don’t–at least not always.
People do object to false claims which affect them personally. Consider the parents of the Sandy Hook children’s massacre for example.
Unlike Bart, I don’t think he was left on the cross to rot. I think he was buried (hastily and without usual honors) by the Jewish authorities in one of the tombs they kept precisely for the burial of executed criminals. Those hung on a tree had to be interred immediately, The Sanhedrin took this law seriously and applied it to the crucified. That could be an historical kernel to the Joseph of Arimathea story. And in that case, the story Matthew says that the Jews told makes sense.
Blackwell said
The absence of response by groups implicated in gospel stories is a case of “The guard dogs which did not bark”. Suppose a hypothesis was that missing objects were stolen by a thief in spite of the presence of a guard dog. It would be reasonable to say that the dog must have been asleep. However, if there were four guard dogs and none of them signaled the presence of a thief, then the hypothesis should be reconsidered.In the case of a false gospel story that the bodies of Jesus and two other people were buried on the day of crucifixion and Jesus’s body was missing three days later, several groups should have responded but did not do so. The hypothesis that the story is false should therefore be reconsidered.
Are you sure that would be extraordinary?
But even if Agrippa knew the stories, maybe he didn’t care that some small movement was slandering his grandfather’s step-brother. Maybe he cared but thought the best response was not to dignify the story with a response. Maybe he did deny the story, but the reply wasn’t in writing, or maybe it was in writing but, like so many other writings from the first century, didn’t get preserved. And maybe he denied it, but the Christians ignored it because he had a vested interest and no proof.
On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul was expecting trouble (Romans 15:31) and, as a result of riots which resulted from his visit there, he was taken into custody and imprisoned by the Romans at Caesarea. (Philippians 1:13).
Yes, it would have been extraordinary if Agrippa II was not aware of this troublemaker and his followers.
And yes, it is possible that the king and many others in his entourage knew that the gospel stories were false and this knowledge was lost, but it is more likely that they said nothing because they knew that the stories were basically true.
How much of Agrippa’s writings do we have–the sorts of writings in which we would expect him to have protested to the resurrection story?
How much anti-Christian writing do we have from any author of the first century?
And, if Agrippa (and all the other figures you mentioned) knew this whole rising from the dead story were true, why were they not Christians? after all they were in excellent positions to know the truth of the gospels. Were they all just profoundly morally reprobate? They knew Jesus was the messiah, but they decided to oppose the divine plan because they liked their authority?
It is hard to estimate from this one account how often crucifixions would occur in Jerusalem, but it is hard for me to imagine it as rare as you suggest. When Tacitus says that all was quiet in Judea, I’d take that as meaning “quiet” relative to those periods when there were uprisings that required significant military intervention, that led to considerable bloodshed, and that resulted in rebels being crucified by their scores or hundreds.
It is indeed hard to estimate how often crucifixions occurred in Jerusalem as they tended to go in batches in response to military uprising, but it does not seem to have been a routine punishment. My guess is that the frequency was similar to that of the death penalty today, so maybe 4 or 5/year in any one city. Those crucified alongside Jesus are described as robbers but may actually have killed Roman soldiers. What made Jesus’s case memorable was the resurrection claims by his disciples. That did not happen for any of the other crucifixions.
You are assuming not only that the story of the resurrection arose at the time (soon enough that it could have been investigated and found to be true of false) and that it was commonly known and not just a story among Jesus’ own followers. Only with those assumptions can we presume that a random Jewish teenager from Jerusalem would have known from his own memory whether the story was true or false decades later. If the story only arose decades later, or if it was only circulated among the disciples in Galilee, a random Jewish boy from Jerusalem wouldn’t have had any relevant memory of it in the second half of the first century.
You are assuming that people investigate remarkable claims in a responsible way, but they don’t–at least not always.
People do object to false claims which affect them personally. Consider the parents of the Sandy Hook children’s massacre for example.
What I meant here was that even if those personally involved had raised objections, or could have disproven key claims if they had just been asked, that wouldn’t necessarily have prevented the Christian movement from spreading its own version of events. You can’t make the argument that people would have known better if what the gospels record isn’t true, therefore the gospels wouldn’t have spread and been believed, because throughout history and in our own day we see stories going viral that that are easily refuted and demonstrably false.
Unlike Bart, I don’t think he was left on the cross to rot. I think he was buried (hastily and without usual honors) by the Jewish authorities in one of the tombs they kept precisely for the burial of executed criminals. Those hung on a tree had to be interred immediately, The Sanhedrin took this law seriously and applied it to the crucified. That could be an historical kernel to the Joseph of Arimathea story. And in that case, the story Matthew says that the Jews told makes sense.I agree that it is most probable that Jesus and two others were buried hastily by Jewish authorities. Not by Temple officials directly, but by servants. Onlookers would not have known the identity of those responsible. It does seem likely that Jesus’s body disappeared, otherwise why would Jews say that it had been stolen?
I don’t know precisely what happened. But it seems entirely plausible that the empty tomb story arose late, several decades after the events purportedly happened (the earliest evidence we have is Mark). In that case, the story of the stolen body as a refutation would make sense–none of the Jews remembered what had happened, they believed he had been buried, but they were confident Jesus hadn’t risen from the dead; so they offered what seemed like the most reasonable counter narrative–the disciples stole the body.
But the thing is I don’t know. Maybe the empty tomb story is real, and the body *did* disappear from the tomb. Maybe the empty tomb was an invention that only came into general circulation years later, at which point the non-Christians could only speculate about what had really happened.
I don’t think the evidence is conclusive, except on the point that Jesus may very well have been buried.
How much of Agrippa’s writings do we have–the sorts of writings in which we would expect him to have protested to the resurrection story?
How much anti-Christian writing do we have from any author of the first century?
And, if Agrippa (and all the other figures you mentioned) knew this whole rising from the dead story were true, why were they not Christians? after all they were in excellent positions to know the truth of the gospels. Were they all just profoundly morally reprobate? They knew Jesus was the messiah, but they decided to oppose the divine plan because they liked their authority?
Agrippa corresponded with Josephus. What Agrippa (and everyone else) probably believed was that Jesus was crucified and buried the same day by Temple officials. Three days later, the body was found to be missing, presumably stolen by the disciples who claimed resurrection. If there was ever a belief, shared by Paul and the disciples, that the body had remained on the cross then a false story involving Temple officials should have been used to discredit these troublesome Christians but instead the Jews kept on saying that the body had been stolen.
You are assuming not only that the story of the resurrection arose at the time (soon enough that it could have been investigated and found to be true of false) and that it was commonly known and not just a story among Jesus’ own followers. Only with those assumptions can we presume that a random Jewish teenager from Jerusalem would have known from his own memory whether the story was true or false decades later. If the story only arose decades later, or if it was only circulated among the disciples in Galilee, a random Jewish boy from Jerusalem wouldn’t have had any relevant memory of it in the second half of the first century.
Paul was persecuting believers before leaving for Damascus, so within a year or two of the crucifixion the resurrection story was already in circulation. A random Jewish boy would not have remembered the event after forty years but the sons of Temple officials supposedly involved in the trial, conviction and burial of Jesus might very well have recalled what their fathers told them.
Throughout history and in our own day we see stories going viral that that are easily refuted and demonstrably false.
Demonstrably false stories are refuted, but there is no record that anyone objected to Mark’s story.
I have doubts about the plausibility of the hypothesis that the empty tomb story arose late. If Jesus’s body was actually buried by Temple officials and did not disappear, there was no reason to counter resurrection claims by saying that the body had been stolen. On the other hand, if Paul knew or just assumed that the body had remained on the cross but believed that Jesus’s spirit had been resurrected after three days, then this is what he would have told his followers until his death. It seems implausible that just a decade later an entirely new story could have been invented by Mark and not only believed and copied by Matthew and Luke but also accepted without any record of dissent by Paul’s congregations across the diaspora.
The gospels make it seem as if the whole world held its breath during the momentous events of Jesus’ ministry. The truth is that the historical Jesus was a minor figure in his own time. He was probably executed because of an incident in the Temple. The trials make good theater but are unlikely. The “resurrection” was in the nature of private revelation. The fact that Jesus was crucified removed him from any serious consideration as a spiritual authority for most Jews. Paul is an obscure figure writing to small isolated congregations after decades of evangelism. At the end of the century Jesus’ followers became well known enough to come to Josephus’ attention, but he only knows the bare bones of the story. And he clearly considers John the Baptist as the more important figure. The Jesus movement impacted the wider Roman world only because of their refusal to participate in pagan social cultural practices.
I think it’s possible to wildly over estimate the actual affect Jesus had in the first century.
Jesus’s brother James was sufficiently well known that his execution on orders of High Priest Ananus was noted by Josephus. Paul wrote to people who were by definition literate, so among the top 5% of society. Paul’s activities caused disturbances which resulted in his imprisonment.
Although Jesus would almost certainly have been forgotten without Paul’s proselytizing, it is convenient to under estimate how well Jesus was known when he was crucified as this fits with the hypothesis that gospel stories were invented. If there were only a few dozen Christians all in one place when the gospels were written, this hypothesis would be credible, but it is not plausible if there were hundreds of people spread out across the diaspora.
Jesus should be treated like any other historical figure, with all options being considered, not just what is convenient.
Jesus’s brother James was sufficiently well known that his execution on orders of High Priest Ananus was noted by Josephus.
As I said but note he has no personal knowledge of Jesus. He repeats details he heard.
Paul wrote to people who were by definition literate, so among the top 5% of society.
You are conflating two elites here. Very few people could read or write but that doesn’t mean they were identical to the royalty and the rich. There was undoubtedly some overlap but illiterate royalty and the rich simply hired scribes or bought literate slaves. Paul, who made his living by leather working, was neither rich nor royalty. His letters were probably read aloud by one member of the congregation to the rest. Judging by the pastoral letters and the Pauline forgeries it was late in the century before you started having really rich converts and class differences became an issue in the church.
Although Jesus would almost certainly have been forgotten without Paul’s proselytizing, it is convenient to under estimate how well Jesus was known when he was crucified as this fits with the hypothesis that gospel stories were invented. If there were only a few dozen Christians all in one place when the gospels were written, this hypothesis would be credible, but it is not plausible if there were hundreds of people spread out across the diaspora.
The scholar who has taken the closest look at the sources we have, Rodney Stark, estimates an average growth rate of the church at 40% per decade. At midpoint in the first century, when Paul is writing his letters, there would have been about 1500 converts. By the end of the century close to 8000. A drop in the bucket in an empire of some 60 million souls.
Jesus should be treated like any other historical figure, with all options being considered, not just what is convenient.
Yes, indeed!
The scholar who has taken the closest look at the sources we have, Rodney Stark, estimates an average growth rate of the church at 40% per decade. At midpoint in the first century, when Paul is writing his letters, there would have been about 1500 converts.
Did Paul believe that Jesus had been buried in a tomb on the Friday of crucifixion and the tomb was found to be empty on the Sunday morning, or did he believe or assume that the Jesus’s body remained on the cross and that it was his spirit which was resurrected on the third day as he tells the Corinthians? There is no evidence that he ever changed his mind so whatever he believed is what he told his converts until he died.
If there were 1500 converts when Mark’s gospel was written a decade later, it is not plausible to suppose that a new story about burial in a tomb could have been accepted by all these people spread out across the diaspora without leaving any trace of dissent. The conclusion is that the story did not originate with Mark but was believed by Paul and the disciples.
This conclusion is consistent with the Jewish claim that the body was buried but supporters stole the body.
Did Paul believe that Jesus had been buried in a tomb on the Friday of crucifixion and the tomb was found to be empty on the Sunday morning, or did he believe or assume that the Jesus’s body remained on the cross and that it was his spirit which was resurrected on the third day as he tells the Corinthians? There is no evidence that he ever changed his mind so whatever he believed is what he told his converts until he died.
I’ve always wondered, with his views about Jesus’ resurrection body in I Cor, how much interest Paul actually had in the fate of Jesus’ physical corpus. In the resurrection the sarx (flesh) and the psyche (soul) wither away and the pneuma (spirit) is transformed into the resurrection body. All are components of the body but made of progressively finer stuff. The problem is that none of these terms have precisely the meaning they came to have. Even the sarx has a metaphysical aspect. The fleshly/spiritual dichotomy we inherited from the middle-platonists through the medieval scholastics is still centuries away.
It appears that the earliest form of resurrection belief was as an apotheosis. Jesus was made divine at the resurrection and ascended to heaven. His subsequent appearances to the disciples and Paul were visions. The view that came later, that Jesus’ sarx was resuscitated and given magical powers, was not the view of Paul and the earliest Christians. Paul demonstrates no knowledge of the empty tomb. Given his views of the resurrection body I wouldn’t expect him to. Whether or not Mark invented the empty tomb, he certainly bends it to his own use.
If there were 1500 converts when Mark’s gospel was written a decade later, it is not plausible to suppose that a new story about burial in a tomb could have been accepted by all these people spread out across the diaspora without leaving any trace of dissent.
It’s entirely possible given the dearth of original sources. We are in the sad situation of not knowing what we don’t know.
Blackwell said
If there were 1500 converts when Mark’s gospel was written a decade later, it is not plausible to suppose that a new story about burial in a tomb could have been accepted by all these people spread out across the diaspora without leaving any trace of dissent. The conclusion is that the story did not originate with Mark but was believed by Paul and the disciples.
I find this form of argument really unpersuasive. There is a ton about first century Christianity that we know we don’t know–we don’t, for example have the Gospel of the Ebionites, but we know it existed. Not only is it fundamentally an argument from silence, in a period where we know our record is not complete (I mean, there are even missing letters of Paul) there is a very serious problem of survival bias–things from first century Christianity tended to get preserved if and only if they fit fairly with later orthodoxy.
You made this sort of argument in your thread about Jewish reception, and this was one of the problems I pointed out there. Even without book burnings (which was later a thing), we are in the age of papyrus manuscripts–things had to be proactively copied if they were going to survive, and no one was dedicating resources to preserving what they judged heretical works. Loads of important non-orthodox writings are preserved only in a single manuscripts, which we just happened to stumble on (Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Peter, etc.) Even important, well known, anti-Christian works written by famous people centuries later have been lost.
…a very serious problem of survival bias–things from first century Christianity tended to get preserved if and only if they fit fairly with later orthodoxy.
Yeah. And there’s another problem. If what many current scholars think is true, that Paul influenced Mark, Matthew knew Mark and Luke knew both, and John knew at least Mark and possibly all the synoptics, then what we have are not multiple surviving independent literary streams but basically one surviving literary stream. That means many of the other streams of Christianity were oral and did not survive, not because their texts were lost or suppressed, but simply because nobody wrote anything down at all.
I don’t think the situation is hopeless but it should give us pause when we ask ourselves how accurate our knowledge of early Christianity really is.
I find this form of argument really unpersuasive. There is a ton about first century Christianity that we know we don’t know–we don’t, for example have the Gospel of the Ebionites, but we know it existed. Not only is it fundamentally an argument from silence, in a period where we know our record is not complete (I mean, there are even missing letters of Paul) there is a very serious problem of survival bias–things from first century Christianity tended to get preserved if and only if they fit fairly with later orthodoxy.
What I find really unpersuasive is the supposition that a new story about burial in a tomb could have been accepted without dissent by 1500 people spread across the Jewish diaspora. Dissent can only be suppressed in a small cult where all members are together. Otherwise, as with Shia and Sunni Muslims, Catholic and Orthodox churches, Catholics and Protestants and all the many Protestant groups, a remnant group splits from the mainstream. The churches that Paul founded did not have a central command to enforce orthodoxy.
In any case, if Paul and the disciples had acknowledged for forty years that Jesus’s body had remained on the cross to rot, why would Jews ever respond to a new story by saying that his body was buried and then stolen if this was not their initial claim? The hypothesis that Mark invented the burial and empty tomb story is not a matter of religious dogma and it would be really useful to consider alternatives.
What I find really unpersuasive is the supposition that a new story about burial in a tomb could have been accepted without dissent by 1500 people spread across the Jewish diaspora.
But you wouldn’t have to have your new story accepted by all 1500 of your contemporary believers. You would have to have your texts become authoritative over time so that at some point in the spread of the faith new believers simply assumed your account was definitive. This is exactly what happened with Paul and the gospels. Paul had lots of opponents in his own lifetime. He was one voice among many. Gradually after his death his voice took over and his opponents were marginalized.
In any case, if Paul and the disciples had acknowledged for forty years that Jesus’s body had remained on the cross to rot, why would Jews ever respond to a new story by saying that his body was buried and then stolen if this was not their initial claim? The hypothesis that Mark invented the burial and empty tomb story is not a matter of religious dogma and it would be really useful to consider alternatives.
In I Cor Paul is repeating a credo second hand. He probably had no idea what happened to Jesus’ body. As I’ve already suggested, given his views of the resurrection body, he might not have had much interest. As far as considering “alternatives” perhaps the stories of Jesus’ burial arose* in the beginning precisely because of his fate. The ancients had a special horror of body desecration. It would be easy enough to see how stories would arise* that Jesus must have been buried after all. The Empty Tomb would have been the culmination of this kind of speculation.
*I swear to Cthulhu that I only saw these awful puns after I posted my comments.
But you wouldn’t have to have your new story accepted by all 1500 of your contemporary believers. You would have to have your texts become authoritative over time so that at some point in the spread of the faith new believers simply assumed your account was definitive. This is exactly what happened with Paul and the gospels. Paul had lots of opponents in his own lifetime. He was one voice among many. Gradually after his death his voice took over and his opponents were marginalized.
This is exactly the argument that I find really unpersuasive because the normal consequence of a religious change is that opponents establish a splinter group. Changes are not accepted gradually over time, they are resisted immediately.
Blackwell said
But you wouldn’t have to have your new story accepted by all 1500 of your contemporary believers. You would have to have your texts become authoritative over time so that at some point in the spread of the faith new believers simply assumed your account was definitive. This is exactly what happened with Paul and the gospels. Paul had lots of opponents in his own lifetime. He was one voice among many. Gradually after his death his voice took over and his opponents were marginalized.This is exactly the argument that I find really unpersuasive because the normal consequence of a religious change is that opponents establish a splinter group. Changes are not accepted gradually over time, they are resisted immediately.
Early Christianity was full of splinter groups. It didn’t matter. Look at it in evolutionary terms. The reason the world is full of cockroaches and not T-Rexes is that T-Rexes didn’t leave any descendants. The opponents didn’t leave any descendants. We know the T-Rexes existed because we have fossils. We know the opponents existed because we have their fossils.
What is unreasonable is to hold on to a position clearly contradicted by the available evidence.
Paul said that Jesus was buried and was raised to life on the third day.
Paul also said that, before he left Jerusalem for Damascus, so just a year or two after the crucifixion, he persecuted people who were making this claim.
Jews have always claimed that Jesus was buried but supporters stole his body.
There is no evidence that any of the groups implicated in Mark’s burial story ever suggested that it was false.
Support for the hypothesis that Jesus’s body remained on the cross to rot is just speculation based on information about military action.
Blackwell said
What is unreasonable is to hold on to a position clearly contradicted by the available evidence.Paul said that Jesus was buried and was raised to life on the third day.
Paul also said that, before he left Jerusalem for Damascus, so just a year or two after the crucifixion, he persecuted people who were making this claim.
Jews have always claimed that Jesus was buried but supporters stole his body.
There is no evidence that any of the groups implicated in Mark’s burial story ever suggested that it was false.
Support for the hypothesis that Jesus’s body remained on the cross to rot is just speculation based on information about military action.
Oh, lord.
Someone beat you with a goofy stick or what?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert