What were those disciples thinking?
Apparently 17% of Canadians think Jesus' death was faked. I am realizing the ingenuity of this argument, obviously false though it is. The historical evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth (bone boxes aside) is overwhelming. Moreover, the crucifixion (next to his birth, though that nature of this is disputed) is the most basic element of this life: Jesus from Nazareth existed and was crucified. The faked death theory is wrong, but ingenius because it undercuts all arguments for resurrection--which are quite strong. In essence if the resurrection happened, then so did the life of Jesus. The resurrection proves what it assumes.
This got me thinking about another argument for believing in the resurrection: It was a stupid ploy for those to invent Jesus' resurrection when they had religious resources to think otherwise. First, as good second-temple Jews, influenced by good Pharisaical theology, the disciples believed in a resurrection at the end of time [so, Martha says about Lazarus, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day," (John 11:24)]. After the crucifixion, the disciples, no doubt, would have been disappointed by Jesus' death and his being a failed Messiah, but still would have hoped to see this great prophet at the last day. Second, messiahs had come before and would come again, and so their disappointment, great though it was, would not have led to craziness.
Their dead friend could have remained dead and their lives have gone on with the resources of their own theology. What makes absolutely no sense, however, is for them to invent a resurrection story, against their own theology, to the detriment of their nationalist hopes. Proclaiming a resurrected and ascended Messiah leaves them with proof against the claim of resurrection (look in the tomb) and extreme skepticism of the belief in an ascended Messiah (most kings worth following tend to be present or have 'images' present--or standing armies).
If the disciples did indeed invent the resurrection story, they have cut off from themselves,
a. their theology (future resurrection is now not an option for their friend), and
b. their messianic hopes (if this fellow was the messiah as they proclaimed, they could not follow another); and have given their enemies two significant resources: a. a tomb to investigate, and b. a significant source of doubt of an absent king.
If you want people to believe your stories, you don't put yourself that far behind the 8 ball.
This got me thinking about another argument for believing in the resurrection: It was a stupid ploy for those to invent Jesus' resurrection when they had religious resources to think otherwise. First, as good second-temple Jews, influenced by good Pharisaical theology, the disciples believed in a resurrection at the end of time [so, Martha says about Lazarus, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day," (John 11:24)]. After the crucifixion, the disciples, no doubt, would have been disappointed by Jesus' death and his being a failed Messiah, but still would have hoped to see this great prophet at the last day. Second, messiahs had come before and would come again, and so their disappointment, great though it was, would not have led to craziness.
Their dead friend could have remained dead and their lives have gone on with the resources of their own theology. What makes absolutely no sense, however, is for them to invent a resurrection story, against their own theology, to the detriment of their nationalist hopes. Proclaiming a resurrected and ascended Messiah leaves them with proof against the claim of resurrection (look in the tomb) and extreme skepticism of the belief in an ascended Messiah (most kings worth following tend to be present or have 'images' present--or standing armies).
If the disciples did indeed invent the resurrection story, they have cut off from themselves,
a. their theology (future resurrection is now not an option for their friend), and
b. their messianic hopes (if this fellow was the messiah as they proclaimed, they could not follow another); and have given their enemies two significant resources: a. a tomb to investigate, and b. a significant source of doubt of an absent king.
If you want people to believe your stories, you don't put yourself that far behind the 8 ball.
posted by Aaron Perry at
2:30 PM
2 Comments:
Bang-o AP. The only problem with the swoon theory (apart from the fact that it never seems to go away) is that, when it is looked at in the light of the evidence, it is actually harder to believe than that the resurrection occurred in space and time.
If one is not going to believe, the best option is J D Crossan's: There is no body because it was devoured by dogs and crows--like all other crucified criminals. Give me such full blodded unbelief anyday!
SGFMB
Fantastic post! I learned much. Thanks.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home