The Historicity of "Post Resurrection" Jesus

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The passage in 1 Corinthians is generally regarded as material told Paul by earlier Christians. If so, the belief in a tomb would be very early.

Andrew Criddle

Paul says nothing about a tomb. He also says he got his information purely from revelation and "not from any man." He says he never even met the Jerusalem pillars until 3 years after his epiphany.

Actually for the "he was buried and raised on the third day" line he cites scripture. There is no such scripture, but he appeals to it anyway.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Now, which one of those do you think was the predominate belief held by the first generation of Christians and writers of the gospels?

We don't know what they believed because we don't have any writings from them. The closest we have is Paul who said that physical resurrections were impossible, never mentions a tomb and says that Jesus was turned into a spirit.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Paul never claimed to be a witness to the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus simply because he was not there. However, as I stated before, when Paul proclaims to believe in the resurrection (empty tomb) as first told by eye witnesses, i.e. Peter, then you can safely infer he believed in the empty tomb even though he did not put ink to paper about it.John T

Paul denied getting any information from witnesses and we don't know what Peter claimed anyway.

[Stephan Huller]

Does Galatians 1:11 - 12 really mean that the entire written narrative was received by a heavenly revelation or the core message that Jesus was preaching was revealed to him from heaven? If you think Paul didn't have a written gospel it can't mean that. But I think I've at least demonstrated that the ancients did not necessarily deny Paul a written gospel. So that becomes the first crossroad here - does Paul mean written gospel or oral teaching?

The second crossroad (once you choose to believe Paul had a written gospel) is whether 'the preaching of the gospel' here means 'the message within the gospel' or the preaching about or pertaining to the written gospel.

I know self-described mythicists or at least those who modify their positions and interpret any passage so as to strengthen their a priori positions about the gospel as myth will want to MAKE the passage mean something akin to 'the whole gospel was fiction.' But I don't know if that is what is really meant here. But what? The ancient sources speak of Paul writing a written gospel 'adding' to a narrative or understanding originally established by Peter. Because of the Letter to Theodore (and my belief that Paul = Mark) I tend to think Paul is saying something similar to what Clement understands Mark to have carried out with his 'more spiritual' gospel. That's my presupposition. I don't know if it is necessarily the right interpretation though.

So there was a 'gospel of Peter' and perhaps the rest of the apostles. Then this figure 'Mark' or 'Paul' has a revelation and writes something 'more spiritual' with or by a superior gnosis and this becomes the text Paul is speaking of here. That text was revealed by revelation, but it still depends in someway on a shorter narrative which presents Christ crucified (cf. 1 Cor 2:1 - 8). Both are now lost to us. The canonical gospels in some way try and reconcile or 'correct' the heresy associated with these two texts or the hostility between communities associated with each text (even though they were nevertheless originally related to one another in some way).

[DCHindley]

Actually, there are at least 3 different ways to view it.
1. The belief that Jesus died and was buried but never rose from the dead is one belief.
2. The belief that Jesus died was buried but the body removed/stolen is another.
3. The belief that Jesus died was buried and rose from the dead (empty tomb), is also a belief.

To get to the belief that Jesus died and actually rose from the dead, it seems we have to start with a dead Jesus.

Seems to me that the only realistic way to get "3" is to have
a) a human Jesus die on a cross, and
b) Jesus' dead body must have disappeared from wherever it was supposed to have been.

Let's perform a little analysis ...

If Jesus was dead, what could have happened to his corpse?

A) He was NOT subsequently buried:

A1a) He rotted on the cross and eaten by vultures and dogs (a la' Crossan).

B) He was "buried" in some way:

B1) In that period and area, a normal burial meant removing the corpse, before sundown, to take to a place, such as a mausoleum or cave away from inhabited areas, where his body could decompose, with the remaining bones eventually being stored in a small box in a niche of the mausoleum/cave.

B1a) This would normally be the duty of family and/or followers if he was regarded as a teacher.
B1b) The Judean authorities might have took it upon themselves to do this without the family's/followers' knowledge, keeping the location secret to prevent his resting place from becoming a shrine attracting seditionists.

B2) His body was dumped into a common grave in a place like the Valley of Hinnom - "gehenna" - just outside of Jerusalem to the south, where the city's garbage is supposed to have been burned.

B2a) The Romans might have done something like this, as a special sign of disrespect, although risking popular backlash for violating Judean burial customs.
B2b) Those who did not respect him as a bona-fide Judean might also have done something like this (like the Zealots did with the HP Ananus and the chief priest Jesus during the latter half of the Judean revolt).

C) Jesus body was not found where family/followers, other interested Judeans, and/or Judean/Roman authorities expected it to be:

C1) Somebody took it:

C1a) Who wished to give it a proper burial.
C1b) They probably did give him a proper burial.

C2) Who wished to deprive the Romans of their object lesson.

C2a1) They may have buried him.
C2a2) They may not have buried him.

DCH

[toejam]

Just because Paul failed to write down important details that does not mean those details were not common knowledge back then.

I agree. But it doesn't show he believed in the empty tomb narrative either. Like I said, I'm 50/50 on whether or not there was actual empty tomb and/or whether Paul was aware of the story of one.

For example, crucifixion is mention in the Bible as well as secular sources but as far as I know, no accounts say just how it was done. So, should we say then, Jesus was not crucified by the Romans because there is no surviving documents detailing the standard procedure or that the Bible is a myth because it doesn't give precise details of the crucifixion?

The gospels evidently contain unhistorical material - virgin births, dead people rising from their graves and wandering Jerusalem, magical multiplication of bread etc.

It is not my view that the gospels are entirely mythical from top to bottom (though this isn't completely implausible). But let's be real. If you actually believe these things happened as described then there is little I can say to persuade you otherwise I suspect. Such claims in my view are completely implausible, breaking everything we know about the way the world works. On the other hand, they make great sense as either lies, misunderstandings, allegory, legend or myth (or some combination of these factors). In light of this mass amount of falsehoods in the gospels, it's not as easy as simply "inferring" that Paul believed in an empty tomb narrative when we have no trace of evidence to suggest such a belief preceded him. Like I said, I don't know if he did or not.

[Sheshbazzar]

With god alone knows how many pseudo-Paul's, and editors contributing their beliefs to these texts, how could anyone pretend know just what parts of any text are the words of the original Paul, and which words and ideas have been added (or deleted) by latter self-styled 'Paul's' and editors?
There are inconsistencies of thoughts and views present in even the believed to be 'authentic' Epistles. Was 'Paul' so addle brained and confused about his own thoughts and teachings that he was prone to be inconsistent, as loony as a Marshall Applewhite, as has been suggested?
Or are these apparent flip-flops the result of others inserting their ideas into Paul's writings?

When I look at a verse of text, or a statement claimed to have been written by 'Paul', any latter added or subtracted material does not light up in glowing letters. Does it for anyone else?
How do you determine if in an apparently self-contradicting text it is just Paul being scatter brained, ...or indicates someone else inserting their thoughts and ideas?
I know no way of determining what words actually originated with the Paul (if any) with certainty, other than having certifiably original monographs, which to the best of my knowledge, no one has.
Some are so confident in asserting that a real Paul wrote this or that thing. How do they know??? Simply because they are respected 'authorities' capable of making pronouncements, that are to be accepted as being authoritative because they are the 'authorities' and being such don't need to back up their pronouncements with material evidence ?

There is not one paragraph within the entire NT that I can honestly assert to be authentic, or to have originated with whatever person that it has traditionally been credited to.


Sheshbazzar

[John T]

Once again on this forum it seems (in general) to work like this: If you don't want to concede to a common thread in the Bible you simply say we don't have the original manuscripts therefore we can't know for sure or worse, say it is completely made-up because we don't have the original manuscript to prove otherwise. Unless of course there is some fluffy lint from vague scriptures and that is perfectly o.k. to use to weave a whole garment to claim vindication of ones own personal belief.

What passes for textual criticism on this forum is just amazing.

John T

[John T]

Actually, there are at least 3 different ways to view it.
1. The belief that Jesus died and was buried but never rose from the dead is one belief.
2. The belief that Jesus died was buried but the body removed/stolen is another.
3. The belief that Jesus died was buried and rose from the dead (empty tomb), is also a belief.

To get to the belief that Jesus died and actually rose from the dead, it seems we have to start with a dead Jesus.

Seems to me that the only realistic way to get "3" is to have
a) a human Jesus die on a cross, and
b) Jesus' dead body must have disappeared from wherever it was supposed to have been.

Let's perform a little analysis ...

If Jesus was dead, what could have happened to his corpse?

A) He was NOT subsequently buried:

A1a) He rotted on the cross and eaten by vultures and dogs (a la' Crossan).

B) He was "buried" in some way:

B1) In that period and area, a normal burial meant removing the corpse, before sundown, to take to a place, such as a mausoleum or cave away from inhabited areas, where his body could decompose, with the remaining bones eventually being stored in a small box in a niche of the mausoleum/cave.

B1a) This would normally be the duty of family and/or followers if he was regarded as a teacher.
B1b) The Judean authorities might have took it upon themselves to do this without the family's/followers' knowledge, keeping the location secret to prevent his resting place from becoming a shrine attracting seditionists.

B2) His body was dumped into a common grave in a place like the Valley of Hinnom - "gehenna" - just outside of Jerusalem to the south, where the city's garbage is supposed to have been burned.

B2a) The Romans might have done something like this, as a special sign of disrespect, although risking popular backlash for violating Judean burial customs.
B2b) Those who did not respect him as a bona-fide Judean might also have done something like this (like the Zealots did with the HP Ananus and the chief priest Jesus during the latter half of the Judean revolt).

C) Jesus body was not found where family/followers, other interested Judeans, and/or Judean/Roman authorities expected it to be:

C1) Somebody took it:

C1a) Who wished to give it a proper burial.
C1b) They probably did give him a proper burial.

C2) Who wished to deprive the Romans of their object lesson.

C2a1) They may have buried him.
C2a2) They may not have buried him.

DCH

Of course there are many other possibilities. For example; ancient astronaut theorists (History Channel) belief Jesus was resurrected by space aliens. Richard Carrier now seems to support that view as well.

Isn't it amazing how some claim they refuse to believe in the super-natural, i.e. resurrection of the dead but they believe in space aliens that can resurrect the dead?

The wonders of hypocrisy never ceases to give me a good laugh.

John T

[Diogenes the Cynic]

B1) In that period and area, a normal burial meant removing the corpse, before sundown, to take to a place, such as a mausoleum or cave away from inhabited areas, where his body could decompose, with the remaining bones eventually being stored in a small box in a niche of the mausoleum/cave.

This was not normally permitted for crucifixion victims. They got left on the cross or buried in common pits. There is no reason to think Jesus' body got treated any differently than the body of any other crucified insurgent (including the bodies of the lestai allegedly crucified with him.