I've finally finished reading Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright. It was good, but didn't half take some getting through (all 700+ pages of it). So now I'm deep in other stuff, all so I can write an essay about the resurrection.
I thought it would be easy - believing the resurrection happened was (and still is) the cornerstone of my faith. I'm with St Paul on this one - if the resurrection didn't happen, then we are to be pitied. Not necessarily for still being dead in our sins, but for being complete idiots. The more I read, the more I realise what a stupid idea Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead is. Surely ANYTHING has to be a more sensible explanation than that?
So far the alternative explanations I've come across are:
1) Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the Muslim view - that Jesus was assumed directly into heaven (cf Elijah, Enoch) and someone else was crucified instead. God simply would not let one of His messengers get treated so disgracefully.
2) Jesus didn't really die, he revived in the tomb. The problem with the 'swoon' theory is that firstly Romans were pretty good at killing people - they had had alot of practice crucifying people - and secondly how would an almost dead Jesus convince his disciples that he was the Lord of life? I've seen people with major blood loss, and they don't exactly look bursting with health.
3) Jesus did die, but his body was tossed into an unmarked communal grave. It explains why the tomb was empty (no body there in the first place) and also why the body couldn't be produced. But it has to be combined with something else to explain why the disciples suddenly started preaching resurrection.
4) Someone stole or moved the body - Joseph of Arimethea, the disciples, the authorities - take your pick! Again, it explains an empty tomb, but not preaching resurrection.
5) some sort of hallucination/ vision. In this version, saying Jesus is risen means "I've had an experience of Jesus and he's still with me" and no physical resurrection is involved. Or it was a bereavement phenomenon. Stories about the empty tomb were later fabrications.
6) a combination of 5 AND either 3 or 4
NT Wright was really helpful in explaining that at the time Jesus lived, there was belief in a bodily resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time. Ongoing existence of the soul was not called resurrection. And there was no hint that any one individual would be resurrected before the general resurrection. So if that's the case, why would anyone interpret a vision as meaning Jesus was resurrected? Other visions in the Bible don't get interpreted like that, they are understood to be visions, and accepted as such. Similarly, when Rhoda opens the door to Peter after he gets out of prison, she doesn't conclude he's been resurrected, she thinks he's a ghost.
There is an unspoken imperialistic strand in alot of what I've been reading: "In our modern scientific age, of course we know better than to believe such stupid things. They were uneducated and lived in premodern conditions and therefore naturally believed all sorts of outdated things". Except, according to the gospels, seeing the empty tomb didn't make any one think Jesus had risen. They thought someone had stolen the body, or moved it elsewhere. When Jesus appears to them, he does things to prove he's not a ghost. Which to me, suggests that the disciples (including the women) knew that dead people stay dead.
Of course, you then get in to the whole question of how reliable are the gospels, when were they written, how much is hearsay etc etc etc
But alot of that discussion depends on presuppositions as to what is 'reasonable' and what isn't. As does the disussion about the resurrection. Ultimately it boils down to whether you think that if there is a God they might intervene in the affairs of the universe on occasion (ie perform a miracle). If you do, then the resurrection is more plausible than the alternative explanations. If you don't, then even being there yourself as an eyewitness at the actual moment of resurrection wouldn't convince you.
Any thoughts gratefully received (especially if you don't agree with me - just keep them polite ;-) )
Iconic
10 hours ago
My doubts about the reliability of ancient tales of supernatural events are not based on any assumption that ancient people were more naïve or gullible about such things than modern people. Rather, my assumption is that they were no less naïve or gullible than the 19th Century Americans who were taken in by Mormonism and Joseph Smith’s tales of golden plates and magic seer stones or the 20th Century Americans who were taken in by Scientology and the delusions of L. Ron Hubbard. I think that people have always wanted to believe that their lives have some transcendent meaning and that people will sometimes accept the most fantastic of claims without any evidence whatsoever in the hopes of finding that meaning.
ReplyDeleteN.T. Wright’s argument seems to depend on the notion that 1st Century Jews and pagans were unique among all people throughout recorded history in that not only would none of them believe a bizarre supernatural tale without adequate empirical proof, they would abandon any such belief the minute that contrary evidence was offered.
Hi Vinny
ReplyDeleteI'd not though of approaching it from that angle! But in that case, what did happen to Jesus' body? Or are you assuming the resurrection story didn't occur until much later?
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI think it most likely that the movement started with somebody who had an experience which he interpreted as an appearance of the risen Christ. My guess is that there would have been skeptics who dismissed the stories as the product of dreams or drunkenness and believers would have responded by adding details to the stories to reinforce the idea that the appearances were physical encounters. I suspect that the empty tomb was a detail that was added later.