gavriel said
I don’t think that belief in resurrection was normal 200o years ago neither that that Jesus brought people back to life. I think people knew the difference between being dead and near death for one simple reason: people died close to there relatives and everybody knew the difference between life and death. The idea that the disciples saw Jesus as a patient and thought that he had been resurrected is distilled bunkum. Ask any surgeon if it is possible to walk the week following the event that your heel bones have been pierced by solid nails. I do not know when the disciples returned to Jerusalem, but according to Paul, they were present around 36 CE. According to the gospel stories, they actually spent some time in Galilee. That is what we have to build on.
It seems that part of this argument results from different understandings of the meaning of “resurrection”. I mean simply the bringing back to life of someone who was dead, without additional change in status such as being elevated to the right hand of God. I suggest that before his arrest, Jesus had several hundred supporters in Jerusalem who believed his prediction of an imminent apocalypse when God would send an envoy to kill all the powerful bad guys and replace them with good guys (Jesus and his disciples). These supporters, encouraged by Jesus’s talk, were creating disturbances so, to put an end to it, the authorities arrested Jesus and crucified him. Everyone (except of course Joseph of Arimathaea and his helpers) thought that Jesus had died and been buried so when the disciples saw him alive after the crucifixion, they concluded that God must have brought him back to life. I agree that it is unreasonable to suppose that the disciples believed that Jesus had been elevated to the right hand of God as a result of meeting him in his injured condition, but I do not suggest that this is what happened. The initial message was simply that they had seen Jesus alive, nothing more, and no indication that his status had changed. He was still the same person as before his arrest but his “resurrection” was taken as a sign that the apocalypse was now more imminent than ever and his promise to return when he had recovered was enough to excite his supporters. The matter of who cared for him in the meantime was irrelevant. Joseph of Arimathaea did not trust the disciples (after all, one of them had betrayed Jesus a few days previously) and their relation to him was probably limited to a couple of servants, so they had no way of knowing if Jesus had really died (and nor did Jesus, since he had been unconscious). With regard to his injuries, there is no evidence that he was actually nailed through the feet: this is just a common assumption. John’s gospel mentions nails in his hands but nothing about his feet.
I will add my two cents to this discussion. What I see here are two opposing hypotheses regarding the resurrection stories. Either visions of Jesus along with other fabrications led to the belief that he was resurrection, or Jesus survived his crucifixion and visited with some of his followers afterward to get the story started. Each side seems to think the other side’s position is either impossible or ridiculously improbable.
Blackwell’s position seems to be that the “visions” hypothesis is impossible since it does not provide consistent and possible answers to such questions as “when and where did the visions occur?” How can this be a criteria for hypothesis testing? I could make up consistent and possible answers to the questions but they would be just that, made up. The gospels do provide several instances of “visions”, Mary Magdalene at the tomb, Peter shortly after, several other examples, but is frustratingly vague about others instances. I don’t believe many of Paul’s remarks about the subject because of the lack of specificity, but this does not mean that they are automatically untrue.
The opposing “Jesus survived crucifixion” position is described as highly improbable, mostly because Jesus is described as having died on the cross by multiple, apparently independent sources. And what are the chances of surviving crucifixion anyway? Typically thought of as impossible to survive, or at best chances are very, very low. But human error, including incorrectly concluding that someone is dead, happens All The Time. And things that have very low probability for any given situation happen regularly. Think of getting hit by a car while crossing the street. Very highly unlikely that that will happen any given time, yet someone gets hit by a car while crossing the street somewhere in the world quite often.
I look at it this way, in the modern context. Suppose you are a juror on a murder case where some mob hit men are accused of killing some guy and dumping his body in a river. The body was never found yet the prosecution makes a very strong case that the victim was murdered. Yet the defense presents some witnesses that say they saw the person alive after the incident. If just one witness who is not completely credible, convict the hit men. If several witnesses, some very credible, that’s enough for reasonable doubt. This leaves lots of questions unanswered but what else is new? Juries have to make decisions with incomplete information all the time.
So I have what I consider a reasonable doubt that Jesus actually did die on the cross. Can I prove it? Of course not. Can I assert that written accounts of Jesus’s walking around after crucifixion are credible, especially given that the written accounts are far removed from the actual witnesses? All I can say is that I find them somewhat credible. Can I say for sure that accounts are not the result of visions or fabrications? No, so the “visions” hypothesis cannot be dis-proven. Are all questions answered with any hypothesis? Of course not. What happened to Mary Magdalene after “resurrection” will probably remain a mystery that is never solved regardless of the resurrection hypothesis that is believed.
I believe that Jesus survived his crucifixion for some period, long enough to show himself to some of his followers. I believe this not because I think the “visions hypothesis” is demonstrably wrong. I think it is totally plausible. But I think more than just visions and fabrications would have been required to convince enough people of the resurrection to start a religion that eventually spread world wide. Then again, maybe in the future people will worship Elvis based on the Elvis sightings that occurred after his death. Who knows?
mreichart, some clarifications are in order I think.
Yes, I think the “survival” hypothesis is highly improbable given what we know about Roman practice and the likely impact this would have had on Jesus’ followers (for them resurrection was much more than simply surviving crucifixion). BUT, this doesn’t mean that I’m totally committed to the “vision” hypothesis either. I just think of these two choices a “vision” is most likely. And we shouldn’t assume these are the only two choices.
mreichart: to clarify some of your points:
I do not think that the vision hypothesis is impossible, just inconsistent and incomplete.
The idea of any person being “elevated to the right hand of God” is inconsistent with traditional Jewish thought. The hypothesis that the disciples fled Jerusalem in fear of their lives is inconsistent with the suggestion that they returned a few weeks later openly preaching about Jesus’s resurrection. Alternatively, if they did not soon return, it is unreasonable to suppose that anyone would accept their claims and inconsistent with Paul’s claim that he persecuted them. If the disciples had individual visions at different times and in different places, that is inconsistent with them soon returning to Jerusalem with a coherent story. Alternatively, if they all had a simultaneous vision, that is inconsistent with the absence of any reference to such an extraordinary event.
If you or anyone else can make up consistent and possible answers to the questions I have posed, I would be interested to consider them. So far, no-one has done so.
Okay, I will take a shot at your questions Blackwell. First, I have no idea when followers started thinking Jesus was “elevated to the right hand of God” so don’t know why that belief would be part of the discussion.
As far a disciples fleeing in fear from Jerusalem only to return openly preaching, this is not at all inconsistent with human nature. How many times have soldiers fled from a battlefield in fear only to return much more courageous? A little bit of inspiration, leadership, shame, whatever else, can certainly inspire people to face their fears.
I don’t understand your next point. You are saying that if disciples did not return to Jerusalem nobody would have believed them and Paul would not have persecuted them? But it seems they did return. So what is your point?
We don’t know what experiences the disciples had except what is related in the Gospels, besides the vague claims of Paul which I tend to discount as hearsay. In one of these experiences (in John 21), showed himself to several disciples at the sea of Tiberius. Okay, there you have your group vision.
I don’t know why you (Blackwell) have a particular problem with the vision hypothesis. The New Testament accounts in their entirety are incomplete and inconsistent. Why are the disciples fishing in the sea of Tiberius when they have already seen Jesus and presumably been given their marching orders? And why would they seem surprised to see him at the lake shore? Did any of his followers stay with Jesus or see where he went after each appearance? I guess if you believe the divine resurrection hypothesis you think Jesus kind-of teleported himself wherever he wanted to go.
The entire period following Jesus’s crucifixion in clouded in mystery and contradiction. I would love it if a “Finding Jesus” episode, or some other historical documentary, would do a good hard look at the time period. To me it seems there are only a few possibilities:
1 – All accounts of Jesus being seen after the crucifixion are fabrications.
2 – Jesus did not actually die on the cross, instead survived for some period of time (with help from some followers), stayed mostly hidden but met with some disciples over a period of time. This could explain some documented appearances but not all, the others being visions, mistaken identity, and fabrications.
3 – Jesus did die on the cross but his body cared for and hidden, thus leaving the “empty tomb”. Some combination of good-faith “visions”, mistaken identity, and fabrications led many people to believe that he had risen from the dead.
Of course there is the divine resurrection hypothesis but I will stay away from supernatural explanations.
If you can think of any other explanations Stephen, let us know.
mreichert said
Okay, I will take a shot at your questions Blackwell. First, I have no idea when followers started thinking Jesus was “elevated to the right hand of God” so don’t know why that belief would be part of the discussion.
Traditional Jewish belief was that God was so holy that people could not even mention his name, so it would be extraordinary for the disciples to consider that Jesus, who they had long known as an ordinary person, had become equal to God. I have explained previously why I think this idea came from Paul.
As far as disciples fleeing in fear from Jerusalem only to return openly preaching, this is not at all inconsistent with human nature. How many times have soldiers fled from a battlefield in fear only to return much more courageous? A little bit of inspiration, leadership, shame, whatever else, can certainly inspire people to face their fears.
If the disciples really fled in fear of their lives, why were they not arrested if they returned a few weeks later? Do you think they were mistaken and not really in danger after all? Or do you think they stayed away long enough for danger to pass?
I don’t understand your next point. You are saying that if disciples did not return to Jerusalem nobody would have believed them and Paul would not have persecuted them? But it seems they did return. So what is your point?
If the disciples did not return for a couple of years, no-one would have believed their resurrection claims, and they would not have been in time to be persecuted by Paul. How long do you think they stayed away?
We don’t know what experiences the disciples had except what is related in the Gospels, besides the vague claims of Paul which I tend to discount as hearsay. In one of these experiences (in John 21), showed himself to several disciples at the sea of Tiberius. Okay, there you have your group vision.
Do you suggest that the “vision” at the sea of Tiberius was entirely imaginary and there was no-one actually there besides the disciples (which is what visions are)? If so, did the disciples all imagine the same thing simultaneously? If not, how did they agree what had happened?
I don’t know why you (Blackwell) have a particular problem with the vision hypothesis. The New Testament accounts in their entirety are incomplete and inconsistent. Why are the disciples fishing in the sea of Tiberius when they have already seen Jesus and presumably been given their marching orders? And why would they seem surprised to see him at the lake shore? Did any of his followers stay with Jesus or see where he went after each appearance? I guess if you believe the divine resurrection hypothesis you think Jesus kind-of teleported himself wherever he wanted to go.
The overall objective is to find the most probable complete and consistent hypothesis for the origin of biblical documents which exist today, including explanation for the inconsistencies in these accounts. The particular problem with the vision hypothesis is that it is incomplete and inconsistent, as these questions illustrate.
The entire period following Jesus’s crucifixion in clouded in mystery and contradiction. I would love it if a “Finding Jesus” episode, or some other historical documentary, would do a good hard look at the time period. To me it seems there are only a few possibilities:
1 – All accounts of Jesus being seen after the crucifixion are fabrications.
2 – Jesus did not actually die on the cross, instead survived for some period of time (with help from some followers), stayed mostly hidden but met with some disciples over a period of time. This could explain some documented appearances but not all, the others being visions, mistaken identity, and fabrications.
3 – Jesus did die on the cross but his body cared for and hidden, thus leaving the “empty tomb”. Some combination of good-faith “visions”, mistaken identity, and fabrications led many people to believe that he had risen from the dead.
Of course there is the divine resurrection hypothesis but I will stay away from supernatural explanations.
If you can think of any other explanations Stephen, let us know.
There is no mystery or contradiction in the survival hypothesis which was posted on February 14th in this topic. Jesus did not die on the cross. He was unconscious when removed by Joseph of Arimathaea, who put his body in a temporary tomb until it could be transported to a secret location after dark. After regaining consciousness, Jesus asked to see the disciples and they were led by a servant to meet him. He promised to return to Galilee when he recovered but died of his injuries a few days later. This was the only genuine post-crucifixion contact between Jesus and his disciples. All other reports are the result of mistaken identity, hindsight, false memory, illusions and visions.
Thank you for the suggestion Stephen, I took you up on it. We will see if Bart responds.
For Blackwell what I say is: Of course there is mystery with the survival hypothesis. How long did he survive? Where was he buried? Who attended him at his death? Was Peter there or any other of the primary disciples? If not, why not? If Peter was there, how was he able to keep watching Jesus die a second time a secret? How many other people did Jesus see? Did he make it to Galilee as attested to in one of the stories? The resurrection story is by necessity full of unanswered questions that we can only speculate about. Even in the modern day uncertainty about much publicized events abound. Did O.J. Simpson kill his wife or not? Sure seems so to me but the jury did not convict him.
The survival hypothesis does not provide a for-sure believable scenario any better than the vision hypothesis.
mreichert said
Thank you for the suggestion Stephen, I took you up on it. We will see if Bart responds.
For Blackwell what I say is: Of course there is mystery with the survival hypothesis. How long did he survive? Where was he buried? Who attended him at his death? Was Peter there or any other of the primary disciples? If not, why not? If Peter was there, how was he able to keep watching Jesus die a second time a secret? How many other people did Jesus see? Did he make it to Galilee as attested to in one of the stories? The resurrection story is by necessity full of unanswered questions that we can only speculate about. Even in the modern day uncertainty about much publicized events abound. Did O.J. Simpson kill his wife or not? Sure seems so to me but the jury did not convict him.
The survival hypothesis does not provide a for-sure believable scenario any better than the vision hypothesis.
These questions have all been answered previously in this topic, but just for your benefit: 1. Jesus died a few days after the disciples were taken to meet him at the house where he had been taken by Joseph of Arimathaea, so within a week of his crucifixion. 2. He was buried in the garden of this house. 3. None of the disciples were with him when he died since Joseph did not trust them (after all, one of them had betrayed Jesus a few days previously). None of the disciples even knew that Jesus had died. 4. Apart from the disciples, the only people that Jesus saw were a couple of servants who were caring for him. 5. Jesus never made it back to Galilee. See my February 16th posting for an explanation of the origin of the stories in The Matthew and John gospels.
There is no mystery or contradiction in the survival hypothesis which was posted on February 14th in this topic. Jesus did not die on the cross. He was unconscious when removed by Joseph of Arimathaea, who put his body in a temporary tomb until it could be transported to a secret location after dark. After regaining consciousness, Jesus asked to see the disciples and they were led by a servant to meet him. He promised to return to Galilee when he recovered but died of his injuries a few days later. This was the only genuine post-crucifixion contact between Jesus and his disciples. All other reports are the result of mistaken identity, hindsight, false memory, illusions and visions.
These questions have all been answered previously in this topic, but just for your benefit:
1. Jesus died a few days after the disciples were taken to meet him at the house where he had been taken by Joseph of Arimathaea, so within a week of his crucifixion.
2. He was buried in the garden of this house.
3. None of the disciples were with him when he died since Joseph did not trust them (after all, one of them had betrayed Jesus a few days previously). None of the disciples even knew that Jesus had died.
4. Apart from the disciples, the only people that Jesus saw were a couple of servants who were caring for him.
5. Jesus never made it back to Galilee. See my February 16th posting for an explanation of the origin of the stories in The Matthew and John gospels.
Blackwell I was right to stop arguing with you. How the hell do you know any of this? You’re just making this up. Forget serious historical discussion. Go write that novel.
Stephen said
Blackwell I was right to stop arguing with you. How the hell do you know any of this? You’re just making this up. Forget serious historical discussion. Go write that novel.
I do not claim to know that any of the statements are true, just that they are possible. They are a hypothesis, a possible explanation for the existence of the gospel records. Unless you can show that the statements are impossible or can provide a complete and consistent alternate hypothesis, there is no point in further discussion.
I tend to agree that there is no further point in this discussion, but I will give one last shot. Blackwell says that he has a believable hypothesis. Okay, though having no evidence that any of his 5 statements are true casts lots of doubt and mystery at the hypothesis. And it is still easy to poke holes into this hypothesis. How did Joseph of Arimathaea keep the disciples away from Jesus? Threaten them at swordpoint? This would have caused a bit of a ruckus that likely would have been documented.
And since it seems okay to make up facts not in evidence, I can take a shot at the “vision” hypothesis.
1. Joseph of Arimathaea buries the body of Jesus at an unknown location in order to keep his body from being disturbed by followers.
2. Mary Magdalene goes to the non-used grave site as described, finds it empty, then mistakenly (either through a vision or mistaken identity) thinks she sees Jesus alive. The encounter is very simple but later gets conflated to what has been recorded.
3. Mary tells Peter (the only one still in the area since the others have fled to Galilee already) but he goes back and sees nothing but any empty tomb. Desperate to share Mary’s vision, he catches up with his fellow disciples and tells them he saw Jesus as well. They don’t believe him and continue on to Galilee to take up their old lives.
4. A group of disciples, Peter included, have a vision of Jesus on the shores of the sea of Galilee. This convinces enough of them to go back to Jerusalem and begin preaching Jesus’s message.
5. Other stories of Jesus appearing to people are fabrications.
Okay, here is a somewhat credible “vision” hypothesis, not bullet-proof of course but as plausible as any other.
mreichert said
I tend to agree that there is no further point in this discussion, but I will give one last shot. Blackwell says that he has a believable hypothesis. Okay, though having no evidence that any of his 5 statements are true casts lots of doubt and mystery at the hypothesis. And it is still easy to poke holes into this hypothesis. How did Joseph of Arimathaea keep the disciples away from Jesus? Threaten them at swordpoint? This would have caused a bit of a ruckus that likely would have been documented.
To mreichert
I don’t think it is worth continuing this blog discussion, but if you have any further comments, check your INBOX tab at the top of this discussion forum, just below the titleblock.
For the record, the answer to the question above is that the disciples did not know how to contact Joseph of Arimathaea. In those days Jerusalem was a maze of alleys and every big house was surrounded by a wall with just one gate. The disciples were led to and from the house after dark so they didn’t know exactly where they had been taken.
And since it seems okay to make up facts not in evidence, I can take a shot at the “vision” hypothesis.
1. Joseph of Arimathaea buries the body of Jesus at an unknown location in order to keep his body from being disturbed by followers.
2. Mary Magdalene goes to the non-used grave site as described, finds it empty, then mistakenly (either through a vision or mistaken identity) thinks she sees Jesus alive. The encounter is very simple but later gets conflated to what has been recorded.
3. Mary tells Peter (the only one still in the area since the others have fled to Galilee already) but he goes back and sees nothing but any empty tomb. Desperate to share Mary’s vision, he catches up with his fellow disciples and tells them he saw Jesus as well. They don’t believe him and continue on to Galilee to take up their old lives.
4. A group of disciples, Peter included, have a vision of Jesus on the shores of the sea of Galilee. This convinces enough of them to go back to Jerusalem and begin preaching Jesus’s message.
5. Other stories of Jesus appearing to people are fabrications.
Okay, here is a somewhat credible “vision” hypothesis, not bullet-proof of course but as plausible as any other.
Just saying “A group of disciples, Peter included, have a vision of Jesus on the shores of the sea of Galilee” does nothing to explain what they imagined, what they thought Jesus said, why they should have been convinced to go back to Jerusalem and what this has to do with the story in John’s gospel. If other stories are fabrications, then how were they fabricated?
I do not intend to post further on this topic
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)