Jesus and the Early Church

[liamconnor]

This OP has a slightly different bent than my previous (historical evidence); but in truth, what follows was what I always intended for the other. I am guilty of falsely advertising that thread by the title. You will see the title of this thread is posed as a question, and the term "Resurrection" does not occur.

My proposal is that, applying basic historical methodology (which is a fancy term for common sense) to the relevant texts (canonical and non) we can gleam quite a bit about Jesus and the movement which followed his death.

NOte that I am not interested at all in defending the resurrection here; but I do think we need to be responsible in assessing the data. Even if you think ANY explanation is better than a MIRACULOUS one, still, surely you think some natural explanations are better than others, and that some are just plain silly?! It is my hope that the majority of members here have the intellectual honesty (and curiosity!) to weed out the more ridiculous ones.

(I should add, I have met only one member on this forum who proves the exception. He said, quite explicitly, that he did not care whether the explanation was good or bad, so long as there was even one; that was some time ago. If you fall into this class, then we are immediately at an impasse).

I quote, as a guiding principle for history, E.P. Sanders (an agnostic, and one of my favorite, if not my favorite, historians of the period) "One should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points."

I give what amounts to a consensus among scholars by quoting the eminent skeptic Bart Ehrman; I can give other names upon request. I then provide what theories these positions exclude.

One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.

This means that, according to Ehrman and others, arguments against the historicity of Jesus are off the table.

I dont doubt at all that some disciples claimed (to have seen the risen Jesus). We dont have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about 25 years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I dont think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event (i.e. the crucifixion)

So then, according to Ehrman, Paul is 1) a historical person, 2) is not fabricating the entire list in 1 Cor. 15; perhaps he was tricked by some, but he was honest.

You see that Ehrman grants that Paul had visited the Jerusalem church, and met with at least Peter. I think we can infer with a very high degree of probability that something like that list in 1 Cor. 15 therefore goes back to 36 AD. It is highly doubtful that when Paul visited Peter, the two played craps. The term Paul uses in Galatians 1:18 ("Then, three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days" NAS) is pronounced historeo, from which is derived our term "History". It has the connotation of "inquire, investigate, search".

There is no doubt that Paul believed that he saw Jesus real but glorified body raised from the dead.

This means that Paul was not a fraud. Delusional, perhaps, but not a liar. It should also be noticed that Paul believed he saw Jesus' "glorified" body. Some on this forum talk of the resurrection as if it were mere revivification. This is not true. What the disciples preached was that what all Jews (well, the majority) believed their god would do at the end of times, he did for Jesus in the middle. The Jewish resurrection was into a new mode of bodily life.

I give a list of historians who concede an empty tomb, but do not believe in the resurrection: Dale Allison, Bostock, Carnely, Ehrman, Fisher Grant and Vermes. I am familiar with Vermes, Ehrman and Allison. The three others I have not read, but have found them cited in scholarly works.


So then, two questions:

Which of these conclusions do you agree/disagree with and why?

What else do you think we can infer from the data (and please back it up)?

[Zzyzx]

.

True, also he would probably been aware of enemies that would have just loved for Jesus' body to be tossed like so much rubbish in Gehenna... with other thieves, murderers and unmentionables. That he had the means to at least deny those that were waiting to cast this final humiliation on Jesus and his followers would, I belive have been an honour for someone that valued Jesus message.

I do not disagree that according to Bible stories a rich man valued the message of Jesus.

Joseph of Arimathea is said to have been a rich man " in Bible stories. Is there mention of him or his tomb in sources of the era other than Bible tales?

[Danmark]

The answer is, "Joseph was an aristocrat. He had money. Purchasing a new family grave would have been nothing. And no better way to honor a respected one than bury him in the vicinity of the capital, Jerusalem."

True, also he would probably been aware of enemies that would have just loved for Jesus' body to be tossed like so much rubbish in Gehenna... with other thieves, murderers and unmentionables. That he had the means to at least deny those that were waiting to cast this final humiliation on Jesus and his followers would, I belive have been an honour for someone that valued Jesus message.

JW

And an opportunity to have some control so the body could be disappeared.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I don't know what you mean by "Bible Stories"? That to me is like saying, "Ancient Roman Stories". What we have are four documents that agree upon this element of Jesus' death. They just happen to be bound together in a single book called the Bible. There was a time when they were not. You see what you are doing, yes? You are not treating these documents neutrally, as an historian does. They are "guilty until proven innocent". But how is that REASONABLE DOUBT.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I don't know what you mean by "Bible Stories"? That to me is like saying, "Ancient Roman Stories". What we have are four documents that agree upon this element of Jesus' death. They just happen to be bound together in a single book called the Bible. There was a time when they were not. You see what you are doing, yes? You are not treating these documents neutrally, as an historian does. They are "guilty until proven innocent". But how is that REASONABLE DOUBT.

You continue to repeat the same errors.
"Ancient Roman Stories," just like ancient Bible stories, may or may not be true. Each must be judged individually.
One factor is whether the story teller is anonymous.
Another is whether they are reporting something they saw directly.
A 3d factor is bias.
A 4th is whether they are consistent with other sources.
a 5th is whether they report events that seem impossible.

Many of the Bible stories in the gospels fail on all these points.
There are many "Ancient Roman Stories" that also fail on one or more of these factors.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to liamconnor]

The answer is, "Joseph was an aristocrat. He had money. Purchasing a new family grave would have been nothing. And no better way to honor a respected one than bury him in the vicinity of the capital, Jerusalem."

As I have already pointed out, these sorts of crypts were not intended to be single occupancy. Typically a ledge would be cut into the stone where the body would be laid out. After a couple of months the family would make a ceremony of collecting the bones and placing them into stone boxes called ossuaries. The ossuaries would then be placed into niches carved into the stone. This way whole generations of family members would be interred together.

We know nothing of Jesus' deceased relatives; whether he had occupied tombs near Nazareth.

The documents show that Jesus' own family (excepting, perhaps Mary) were cold towards Jesus. They would've been extremely embarrassed at this point.

When Mary died it would've been perfectly reasonable, preferred, to be buried near Jerusalem.

There has to be a first in a tomb; Jesus was the first in this tomb. That doesn't mean others would not join him.

It really doesn't matter that much since we are discussing the "empty tomb". Whether the tomb was empty or not come Sunday morning. This was your choice.

But you seem to concede that. So I am not sure why you chose this topic.

At any rate, it seems you and i can move on to another topic, having agreed that the "Empty Tomb" is historical bedrock.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

I don't know what you mean by "Bible Stories"? That to me is like saying, "Ancient Roman Stories". What we have are four documents that agree upon this element of Jesus' death. They just happen to be bound together in a single book called the Bible. There was a time when they were not. You see what you are doing, yes? You are not treating these documents neutrally, as an historian does. They are "guilty until proven innocent". But how is that REASONABLE DOUBT.

You continue to repeat the same errors.
"Ancient Roman Stories," just like ancient Bible stories, may or may not be true. Each must be judged individually.
One factor is whether the story teller is anonymous.
Another is whether they are reporting something they saw directly.
A 3d factor is bias.
A 4th is whether they are consistent with other sources.
a 5th is whether they report events that seem impossible.

Many of the Bible stories in the gospels fail on all these points.
There are many "Ancient Roman Stories" that also fail on one or more of these factors.

I will take this backwards:

5) "an empty tomb" is not supernatural.
4) "this means that where direct contradictions occur, we may or may not be able to decide on that precise detail. Perhaps there are other factors which allow us to rule out one or more of the variants. Perhaps not. Perhaps the other sources are wrong. Perhaps they are right.
3)Bias: This is relatively low on the "problem chart" of historians. Everyone writes with a bias. It doesn't mean what is presented is necessarily false. Bias is useful in explaining why a falsehood occurs, it does not logically mean it is a falsehood. If someone accused my wife of adultery, I certainly would have a bias in her favor. And if it turned out she was unfaithful, that bias would easily explain why I ignored or misinterpreted numerous clues--but someone would have to first point to the clues. If it turned out she was innocent, my bias would be REASONABLE.
2) Eyewitness: This is courtroom logic; not historical canon. If I am a journalist, and I investigate victims of a hold up, I write an article. I myself was not there. Readers are getting eyewitness reports "second hand". If that is not good enough for you, you have just retired every university professor of ancient Roman antiquity.
1) Slapping a name on a document does not make its contents more or less probable: it still has to be judged by its content. Luke/Acts begins from the first person perspective; would you really trust him more if he said, I, Luke, wrote to you Theophilus..."? My guess you would go on scrutinizing to the same degree.

(I am a little tired of doing historical theory. theories are best shown in practice).

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 32 by Danmark]

So then, you agree that the tomb was empty. You are an advocate of the "robbery theory", correct? Or are you just throwing darts at any board? As said above, I am only interested in discussing positions that people sincerely hold.

Do you hold that someone stole the body?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 32 by Danmark]

So then, you agree that the tomb was empty. You are an advocate of the "robbery theory", correct? Or are you just throwing darts at any board? As said above, I am only interested in discussing positions that people sincerely hold.

Do you hold that someone stole the body?

I don't know if the tomb was empty or not or when or how it got emptied if it did. It's fine with me if you don't want to discuss things. But if you make a claim without support, I will point that out.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 35 by liamconnor]

We know nothing of Jesus' deceased relatives; whether he had occupied tombs near Nazareth.

Matt.1
[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

So it seems that we DO know something of the deceased relatives of Jesus after all. Except of course Joseph was not Jesus' true father at all according to Christians. But that is another argument entirely.

As has already been noted by both of us, it was the common Jewish practice for family members to be buried together. And if we are crediting the Gospels with having the potential to contain accurate information, then Jesus had living family members.

Mark 6:
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?

And of course his mother was still alive. Uncles and aunts? Nieces and nephews? Undoubtedly true. The point is, he had family a few days walk away. And the best way for his supporters to have honored him would have been to transport his body back home to his family for burial.

The documents show that Jesus' own family (excepting, perhaps Mary) were cold towards Jesus. They would've been extremely embarrassed at this point.

I will allow this allegation to stand without comment, because I fully expect it to come back to haunt you.

When Mary died it would've been perfectly reasonable, preferred, to be buried near Jerusalem.

Are you suggesting that Mary left behind physical remains? Any Catholic can tell you that Mary was physically taken up to heaven, as was Jesus. They know this to be true with all certainty, and with the same physical evidence to justify their claims.

There has to be a first in a tomb; Jesus was the first in this tomb. That doesn't mean others would not join.

Joseph used his new tomb to wash and prepare the body of Jesus because it was close to the place of execution and was convenient. That is no indication that he would choose to inter Jesus in his personal family crypt as if he were a member of his family. That would be most unusual, even if Joseph actually thought that highly of Jesus. Typically the only non blood relatives buried in such family crypts were the wives. Jesus had his own family within a few days walking distance away.

It really doesn't matter that much since we are discussing the "empty tomb". Whether the tomb was empty or not come Sunday morning. This was your choice.

All four Gospels are consistent in claiming that Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on Sunday morning. Since we are crediting the Gospels with the potential, at least, for containing some measure of accuracy, and since an empty tomb is not in itself an obvious violation of any natural law, then there is no particular reason to discount the story of the empty tomb in my opinion. It is potentially true.

At any rate, it seems you and i can move on to another topic, having agreed that the "Empty Tomb" is historical bedrock.

I wouldn't call it "historical bedrock." There is no particular reason to dismiss it.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 36 by liamconnor]



5) "an empty tomb" is not supernatural.

Agreed.

4) "this means that where direct contradictions occur, we may or may not be able to decide on that precise detail. Perhaps there are other factors which allow us to rule out one or more of the variants. Perhaps not. Perhaps the other sources are wrong. Perhaps they are right.

Agreed.

3)Bias: This is relatively low on the "problem chart" of historians. Everyone writes with a bias. It doesn't mean what is presented is necessarily false. Bias is useful in explaining why a falsehood occurs, it does not logically mean it is a falsehood. If someone accused my wife of adultery, I certainly would have a bias in her favor. And if it turned out she was unfaithful, that bias would easily explain why I ignored or misinterpreted numerous clues--but someone would have to first point to the clues. If it turned out she was innocent, my bias would be REASONABLE.

People believe what they believe. Agreed.

2) Eyewitness: This is courtroom logic; not historical canon. If I am a journalist, and I investigate victims of a hold up, I write an article. I myself was not there. Readers are getting eyewitness reports "second hand". If that is not good enough for you, you have just retired every university professor of ancient Roman antiquity.

People draw their conclusions on events that they did not personally witness from the accounts of other. Agreed.

1) Slapping a name on a document does not make its contents more or less probable: it still has to be judged by its content. Luke/Acts begins from the first person perspective; would you really trust him more if he said, I, Luke, wrote to you Theophilus..."? My guess you would go on scrutinizing to the same degree.

Anonymous accounts are inherently untrustworthy. But it is possible to suppose that the author of Gospel Luke/Acts, although not a personal eyewitness to the events he recorded, drew his material on events that he did not personally witness from the accounts of others, and fully believed himself that the accounts he wrote were true and accurate.