The Historicity of "Post Resurrection" Jesus

[Diogenes the Cynic]

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

Carrier does not think aliens resurrected Jesus. He doesn't think Jesus existed at all. I believe (IIRC) that he was only pointing out that aliens are not as improbable as magic.

[Sheshbazzar]

But them aliens have been around for billions n' billions of years fer christs sake, and have super-duper-pooper advanced technological abilities that look like miracles to us poor ignorant savages .
Jezuz really was an alien visitor sent down to earth from heaven above. When he completed his mission of teaching and influencing us, was levitated back up to the mother ship, which is now parked out of sight behind Uranus, waiting and watching us ripen. When we are ripe enough, like he told us yokels, his invasion fleet will arrive en-mass to harvest our brains.
Because Jezuz and all them there resurrected zombies he's bringing back along with him are just starving fer our juicy brraaainzzz.

[MrMacSon]

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

"common thread in the Bible" - bwahahahahahahaha

textural criticism: the text is criticized.

[Stephan Huller]

John T: 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

But surely it is not too much to claim that we don't have ALL of the gospels of antiquity, nor those which were important to the traditions outside of the Catholic Church (or at the very least 'the true' or 'great Church' as defined by Irenaeus and those who followed him). To this end, we have to decide whether or not it matters that this has been taken away from us. If, as I am sure you would assert, God 'cleansed' the world of 'false' scriptures then the loss is not great. But if we are to be fair and objective, it is certainly a loss of at least some magnitude when we don't know exactly how traditions which existed before or at the same time as the surviving 'Catholic' tradition arrived at their assumptions about Jesus.

I can't possibly see how we know that God or 'fate' or 'progress' was at work in the eradication of these texts. It seems a rather silly assumption born from inherited prejudices about 'good' working in the world and through history. More information is always better IMO (except when facing an impending crisis of some sort) .

[DCHindley]

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.

Perhaps, but Crossan's chicken nuggets are formed from pieces and parts, not strips cut from whole chicken breast. Some while back, perhaps the archives still contain it, was a discussion about this on the now long-dormant Crosstalk2 (XTalk) discussion list. I seem to recall that Crossan's case for the bodies always being left for the birds and dogs was not anywhere near as firmly established as he implied.

Besides, what about Josephus in War, book 4, section 317?

Nay, they [the Idumeans] proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their [Ananus' & Jesus'] dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those who were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

Since the Judean authorities could not execute criminals themselves, it must have been the Romans who were doing it for them. Romans were not averse to adopting the methods of justice, among other things, to fit the traditions of the people over whom they governed.

DCH

[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.

Perhaps, but Crossan's chicken nuggets are formed from pieces and parts, not strips cut from whole chicken breast. Some while back, perhaps the archives still contain it, was a discussion about this on the now long-dormant Crosstalk2 (XTalk) discussion list. I seem to recall that Crossan's case for the bodies always being left for the birds and dogs was not anywhere near as firmly established as he implied.

Since when?

Even Bart Ehrman has now changed his mind and says he does not believe there was an empty tomb.

Besides, what about Josephus in War, book 4, section 317?

These were actions done in defiance of Roman law during a revolt.

[MrMacSon]

Besides, what about Josephus in War, book 4, section 317?

These were actions done in defiance of Roman law during a revolt.

Which revolt? When?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The first Jewish Revolt. This passage specifically referred to the Zealot Temple Siege of 68 CE.

If you can get to the members section, Ehrman has a blog post on specifically this passage:

http://ehrmanblog.org/josephuss-cleares ... d-victims/

[ficino]

^^^^^

Can you sum up his argument in the pay-wall part of the post, without violating any agreements?

[andrewcriddle]

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.

IF Paul is claiming that the burial itself is in fulfillment of scripture (I'm unsure), then the most obvious scripture would be Isaiah 53:9

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Andrew Criddle