How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?

[orlando]

Please forgive me for quoting another source, but I have a headache and the detailed analysis would make my head explode.

 

thanks for that; interesting

[mwc]

By what MWC, do you say that crucifixion at passover was uncommon? What is your evidence for that claim? (I am not arguing, I just have never read that before and I am curious about it).

There are some stories we can look to but none that specifically answer your question I don't think:

3. Now, upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread, which the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews at this time, which feast is called the Passover [...]

 

And as Archelaus was afraid lest some terrible thing should spring up by means of these men's madness, he sent a regiment of armed men, and with them a captain of a thousand, to suppress the violent efforts of the seditious before the whole multitude should be infected with the like madness; and gave them this charge, that if they found any much more openly seditious than others, and more busy in tumultuous practices, they should bring them to him.

 

But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done, they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands. Now Archelaus thought there was no way to preserve the entire government but by cutting off those who made this attempt upon it; so he sent out the whole army upon them, and sent the horsemen to prevent those that had their tents without the temple from assisting those that were within the temple, and to kill such as ran away from the footmen when they thought themselves out of danger; which horsemen slew three thousand men, while the rest went to the neighboring mountains. Then did Archelaus order proclamation to be made to them all, that they should retire to their own homes; so they went away, and left the festival, out of fear of somewhat worse which would follow, although they had been so bold by reason of their want of instruction.

So Herod's son, at his very first Passover of being "king," before even officially taking the throne from his dead father has a bit of a problem at Passover. There was a little issue with an eagle in the temple that Herod had and this is left-over from that. So he has a problem during Passover. Lots of people get killed. He calls the whole thing off. Varus eventually has to crucify 2000 Jews to end the uprising that grows up from this "incident" and transfer of power.

 

But that story isn't good enough. The better story I'll just post in its entirety:

3. Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude, which put those that saw him into a furious rage, and made them cry out that this impious action was not done to approach them, but God himself; nay, some of them reproached Cumanus, and pretended that the soldier was set on by him, which, when Cumanus heard, he was also himself not a little provoked at such reproaches laid upon him; yet did he exhort them to leave off such seditious attempts, and not to raise a tumult at the festival. But when he could not induce them to be quiet for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as

we have said already, which overlooked the temple; but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies followed them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival, they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping; so great an affliction did the impudent obsceneness of a single soldier bring upon them.

20,000 people died during Passover because a single soldier decided to wave his dick around (the alternate is his ass)? But these people readily tolerated crucifixion during a time of peace? I'm not sure if a crucifixion (or multiple crucifixions) would be taken better or worse than this.

 

Now I do believe that at different feasts that crucifixions had taken place in the past. I recall a mass crucifixion during the time of Alexander when he had a war against his brother and killed a bunch of Pharisees but this was 1 century BCE stuff. I think this was during booths so it was at the end of the year. I don't remember anything specifically during Passover and not during a war (there were crucifixions during the wars).

 

mwc

[mwc]

Because even if I disagree with your conclusions, you always seem to be a fountain of knowledge.

Um, well, I appreciate that. It helps to have people that know a lot themselves to keep me on my toes.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

Doesn't the bible say something about how they wanted to execute Jesus before the Passover started to avoid starting a riot?

[mwc]

Doesn't the bible say something about how they wanted to execute Jesus before the Passover started to avoid starting a riot?

Don't you have a good memory? You bet it does...

Mark 14

 

1 It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; 2 for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people."

 

Matthew 26

 

2 "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified."

 

3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca'iaphas, 4 and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people."

 

Luke 22

 

1 Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death; for they feared the people.

These last Jews simply "feared the people" and that's why they wanted him killed. Timing doesn't matter so much to them.

 

The time line becomes more important however so maybe it should be checked.

Mark 14

 

1 It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; 2 for they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people."

...

12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"

...

16 And the disciples set out and went to the city, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the passover.

17 And when it was evening he came with the twelve.

...

15:1And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

...

8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them.

...

11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barab'bas instead.

...

13 And they cried out again, "Crucify him."

...

25 And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.

...

29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!" 31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

...

37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.

...

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

The story starts out two days before the Passover and the Jews are worried about a riot. That changes later on.

 

The disciples then go out and find the place where they hold the last supper, which is actually the Passover sedar. This is clear from the story. They prepare the meal and after sundown, on Passover, is when everyone arrives to celebrate. It's a traditionally long meal and then they go out to the garden where they are ambushed.

 

The illegal trial takes place all night and at dawn they go to Pilate. This is still Passover since it will go from sundown to sundown (the previous sundown, when they took the meal, to sundown this day, the one that just started). The crowd comes together and rather than being afraid of some riot or "tumult" (in this translation) they actively get the crowd going. They push for a crucifixion. How things change in just two days. So it's granted.

 

The cross goes up and within a few hours he drops dead. During that time the crowds, priests and scribes do what the disciples/apostles and even Mary, the mother of old "jesus" simply do not and that is they remember and recount all his little sayings and prophecies. They seemed to have them down and use them against him. They mock him good. Not too long though as I said. It's strange that everyone except his own committed followers, and mother, remember these things. What can you do?

 

Once he's dead this other Joseph comes for him because it's the day of preparation before the sabbath and he doesn't want to leave him up there. Is that the only reason? Josephus, in Wars offers this:

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

Who to believe? Was this an exceptional event or something the Jews just used to do before the setting of the sun? Not that it matters to our time line so much.

 

The events happen so that we're supposed to avoid a riot caused by any incidents during the feast but as it turns out they specifically take him on the very first day of the feast and apparently try to incite a riot as well. No one cared either way. I guess they covered his "naughty bits" when they took his clothes because that causes huge riots with massive deaths.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

It's strange that everyone except his own committed followers, and mother, remember these things. What can you do?

 

 

 

I don't think it's strange because I think that at this point the gospels are clearly in the realm of pure fiction. Even if one believes in the historical Jesus as I do, the gospels themselves state that all the disciples of Jesus had fled at this point, so how can any of this account of the trial of Jesus be reliable if no one was around to write it? I think at this point the gospel authors are writing nothing but pure antisemitic propaganda. That's why I think no one appeared to defend Jesus because they're trying to vilify the Jews and make them out to be as horrible as possible to shift the blame of Jesus' death on the Jews instead of the Romans. Even most scholars who believe in the historical Jesus at this point agree that the accounts of the trial of Jesus are pure fiction made up to blame the Jews for Jesus' death.

[mwc]

I don't think it's strange because I think that at this point the gospels are clearly in the realm of pure fiction. Even if one believes in the historical Jesus as I do, the gospels themselves state that all the disciples of Jesus had fled at this point, so how can any of this account of the trial of Jesus be reliable if no one was around to write it? I think at this point the gospel authors are writing nothing but pure antisemitic propaganda. That's why I think no one appeared to defend Jesus because they're trying to vilify the Jews and make them out to be as horrible as possible to shift the blame of Jesus' death on the Jews instead of the Romans. Even most scholars who believe in the historical Jesus at this point agree that the accounts of the trial of Jesus are pure fiction made up to blame the Jews for Jesus' death.

Because no one was writing this to begin with so it's all the same?

 

We're told that:

Mark 15

 

40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me, 41 who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

and

Matthew 27

 

55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.

and

Luke 23

 

49 And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance and saw these things.

and

John 19

 

25 So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.

All of them. All four gospels have the women standing around at varying distances being witness to this event.

 

If the idea that "witnesses" to this all important event could be invented then the Roman who played a role in all this could be invented. The people who were part of the crowd could be invented. Many, many parts could be invented. I hesitate to list all the parts that *could* be invented. I'll leave that to someone else.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

But none of the gospels state that the women were at the actual trial. They were only there after the trial had already took place but given that the gospels earlier stated all the disciples fled, I think that again these accounts of the women being at the cross are propaganda myths and not likely historical. Is it even plausible for Jesus to have lengthy conservations with his mother and the disciples while he's struggling to barely breath on the cross?

[mwc]

But none of the gospels state that the women were at the actual trial. They were only there after the trial had already took place but given that the gospels earlier stated all the disciples fled, I think that again these accounts of the women being at the cross are propaganda myths and not likely historical. Is it even plausible for Jesus to have lengthy conservations with his mother and the disciples while he's struggling to barely breath on the cross?

So this part is myth?

 

Strange things happen during crucifixion including not dying:

But Vespasian had a suspicion about this deserter, as knowing how faithful the Jews were to one another, and how much they despised any punishments that could be inflicted on them; this last because one of the people of Jotapata had undergone all sorts of torments, and though they made him pass through a fiery trial of his enemies in his examination, yet would he inform them nothing of the affairs within the city, and as he was crucified, smiled at them.

 

However, the probability there was in the relation itself did partly confirm the truth of what the deserter told them, and they thought he might probably speak truth. However, Vespasian thought they should be no great sufferers if the report was a sham; so he commanded them to keep the man in custody, and prepared the army for taking the city.

So how confident are you in this crucifixion story? Pilate, we're told, didn't want the guy dead. Vespasian apparently used crucifixion as a means of trying to gather information and kept his "victim" in custody afterward. I suppose he could have dragged a dead man around but that seems unreasonable. More reasonable is this man was crucified and then was put into custody. Death was not the inevitable outcome of the procedure as many seem to assume.

 

If I were to argue *for* a human "jesus" I would take this bit of information and combine it with the notoriously short length of time that he's known to be on that cross and conclude that no one died at all but the crucifixion was simply an extension of the tortures already being given to this person. If we assume that they were supposed to be someone that had "abilities" above and beyond the normal person then the mockeries at the end of G.Mark would make reference to those abilities and after this person failed to "save himself" to the satisfaction of those in charge he was let down after his public shaming and humiliation.

 

But I'm not arguing that point.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

I've actually argued it myself that Jesus could have survived the cross and never even died on it and maybe that's how the resurrection myths spread. I recall reading that Josephus also knew some people who were crucified but survived the cross and he took them into his care afterwards. I don't think the swoon theory is as implausible as many Christians make it out to be. There was also a movie made that was based around this idea:

[Guest Valk0010]

I've actually argued it myself that Jesus could have survived the cross and never even died on it and maybe that's how the resurrection myths spread. I recall reading that Josephus also knew some people who were crucified but survived the cross and he took them into his care afterwards. I don't think the swoon theory is as implausible as many Christians make it out to be. There was also a movie made that was based around this idea:

Richard Carrier, argued once, and I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, that, the odds of the swoon theory actually happening in regards to Jesus are like 1 in 1000-something.

[Neon Genesis]

But it has in fact happened before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Survival

Since death does not follow immediately on crucifixion, survival after a short period of crucifixion is possible, as in the case of those who choose each year as a devotional practice to be non-lethally crucified.

There is an ancient record of one person who survived a crucifixion that was intended to be lethal, but that was interrupted. Josephus recounts: "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered."[34] Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of the crucifixion of his three friends before their reprieve.

[mwc]

I've actually argued it myself that Jesus could have survived the cross and never even died on it and maybe that's how the resurrection myths spread. I recall reading that Josephus also knew some people who were crucified but survived the cross and he took them into his care afterwards. I don't think the swoon theory is as implausible as many Christians make it out to be. There was also a movie made that was based around this idea:

But those friends of Josephus were destined to die and he had the power, at that time, to have them taken down from their crosses (and they didn't all live). The example I just provided has Vespasian basically using the whole thing as a torture to extract information. This is not the same thing.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I probably shouldn't have posted that splurge of stuff, but it might interest someone I guess - it was just the main verses I came across a year or two back when I was looking at those letters taken by most scholars are genuine, and seeing if there were passages that suggested Paul thought Jesus was a flesh and blood historical figure, as opposed to those Jesus Myth people who claim that as he says little about a historical Jesus he must therefore have just seen him as existing in some spiritual realm. To my mind the passages I found don't suggest such an idea.

 

I'm not sure where I got the idea that Paul believed dead Christians went to Heaven to be with Jesus in spirit form, though the letters may say so somewhere, I can't remember. However it was certainly believed by some of the early Christians. However there were probably several ideas going around, as in Judaism - annihilation after death and before the resurrection, or at least some kind of unconscious "soul sleep", or going to Sheol (or the "Bosom of Abraham") etc, among them. The rest of what I said seems reasonable to me still. It wasn't meant to be proof of the historical Jesus though - but it does hint at it, as one of the arguments used by Mythers is the one that Paul is an early source and he allegedly rarely ("never" in some exaggerated Myther claims) mentions a historical Jesus, therefore this must mean there wasn't one. In fact he does seem to have believed in one. If he didn't say more about him it could be for several reasons - ie. talking about Jesus's life wasn't really the main thrust of what he wanted to do in most of his letters (he was rebuking and disciplining, boasting, giving reminders of his teachings etc), his main interest was in the died and risen Jesus as the supernatural saviour who was coming back to usher in the Kingdom, not the nitty-gritty about his earthly life, and he didn't meet him personally when he was alive, therefore he was more interested in the revelations he believed he had received directly from him, through visions, and these things were therfore the ones he focussed on telling people about.

So how would you explain the following?

Romans 15

 

19 By signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have given all the good news of Christ; 20 Making it my purpose not to take the good news where Christ was named, so that my work might not be resting on that of others; 21 But as it is said in the holy Writings, They will see, to whom the news of him had not been given, and those to whose ears it had not come will have knowledge. 22 For which reason I was frequently kept from coming to you:

Paul went from Jerusalem, in Judea obviously, all the way to Illyricum, near Macedonia (it's worth checking the link to see the map if you're not sure where it is but it's just short of Italy).

 

He states he went all around there and he didn't go where "Christ was named." An odd statement. I thought "christ" was "named" somewhere in Galilee or Judea (in Bethlehem or Nazareth...possibly somewhere in his travels with his disciples around the Sea of Galilee, along the Jordan or even Jerusalem depending on how we interpret "named"). The Acts says the term "Christianity" was coined in Antioch (of Syria) but that doesn't seem to be what he's saying (it seemed good to mention it for completeness though). What he means by "named" is unclear. Does he mean a literal name or, like in the story in the Acts, is he referring to stories referencing "unknown gods" and simply inserting his "christ" in as he is able? As it stands it almost appears that he is speaking about an actual name. In his statement it appears we go from the furthest point, Jerusalem, and come to the closest point, Illyricum where he stops. He doesn't go where "Christ was named." Seemingly into Italy.

 

He doesn't want his work "resting on that of others." Another curious statement. If we are talking about there being only 11 original apostles and they are the sole source for this story then he would have to rely on them like it or not. He must want his missionary work to go into regions that have had no one going before him then? But that doesn't explain Jerusalem. That would be the source of the entire story with Rome being more of a frontier but he speaks as if it's the other way around. The statement would be more that he went from Italy all the way to Syria but did not enter into Galilee so as not to have his work rest on that of others.

 

He then cites a scripture that explains why he never came to Italy. He had others to attend to. Those who had never heard had to hear and so on. So he had to go to all the places that hadn't been exposed to any of this already. Again, why is Jerusalem in his list? There were 11/12 other guys launching the story from that location.

 

He continues:

23 But now, having no longer any place in these parts and having had for a number of years a great desire to come to you, 24 Whenever I go to Spain (for it is my hope to see you on my way, and to be sent on there by you, if first I may in some measure have been comforted by your company)-- 25 But now I go to Jerusalem, taking help for the saints. 26 For it has been the good pleasure of those of Macedonia and Achaia to send a certain amount of money for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. 27 Yes, it has been their good pleasure; and they are in their debt. For if the Gentiles have had a part in the things of the Spirit which were theirs, it is right for them, in the same way, to give them help in the things of the flesh. 28 So when I have done this, and have given them this fruit of love, I will go on by you into Spain.

He has to make a quick stop in Jerusalem to drop off some cash and then he's off to Spain (possibly via Italy).

 

I guess you're right when you say that Paul didn't care about the actual life of any supposed human "jesus" because he has no problems ignoring those in Judea who supposedly knew this "jesus" first-hand but taking care not to step on any toes of these people in Italy.

 

mwc

[orlando]

I would guess the "where Christ was named" bit is maybe not a good translation, and it just means, as he said elsewhere that he went to places where most people didn't know about Christ, to spread the word. He mentions Jerusalem and a place near Italy to illustrate the large swathe of territory he has preached across.

 

[PS. re Paul believing the dead go to Heaven before the final resurrection, in Philippians he says "I want to be gone and be with Christ" so that seems to suggest this]

[mwc]

I would guess the "where Christ was named" bit is maybe not a good translation, and it just means, as he said elsewhere that he went to places where most people didn't know about Christ, to spread the word. He mentions Jerusalem and a place near Italy to illustrate the large swathe of territory he has preached across.

Could be a crappy translation alright.

 

He starts off with "ohutōs de philotimoumenon euangelizesthai" which would be "in this way and [my] ambition to proclaim."

 

Then it does say "ouch hopou ōnomasthē Christos" which is basically "not where name Christ" so I can see where confusion might come it. The word for "named" here is aorist which indicates it is a past tense. So we should use "was" or similar when referencing it.

 

And it does say, after that, "hina mē ep' allotrion themelion oikodomō," which works out to "that not on another's foundation to build."

 

I know these are really rough word-for-word translations on my part but I want to show what's there.

 

I pretty much see "And in this way it is my ambition to proclaim, not where Christ was named, that not on another's foundation I build."

 

Still awkward. I could pretty it up some more. I won't because the translations that are in the bible's we have are already pretty good.

 

But maybe you have your own version you'd like to put out there since you're the one that said it was possibly a bad translation?

 

Now, if he didn't want to go where others had gone before him, so he wouldn't be building on their work, then why Jerusalem? This is the very seat of the movement...isn't it? Why the desire to go to Rome (Italy) if there's already an established church there?

 

[PS. re Paul believing the dead go to Heaven before the final resurrection, in Philippians he says "I want to be gone and be with Christ" so that seems to suggest this]

I don't recall talking about this. Is this directed to me? We may have spoke about it but I've simply forgotten what this is about.

 

mwc