Doubt Tradition
In his latest work, How Jesus Became God, Ehrman mentions the "doubt tradition" of the gospels. Various passages in Matthew, Luke and John claim that after Jesus appeared to his disciples, following his resurrection, some doubted it was him. Matthew 28:17 indicates not all believed, while Luke and John say Jesus had to prove his identity or reality. There is the famous story of doubting Thomas, who wasn't convinced until he examined Christ's crucifixion wounds. This is strange, Ehrman notes, because modern research indicates those who have visions tend not to doubt what they have seen.
In my opinion, the doubt tradition was invented to hide the awful truth, previously mentioned, that Jesus was eaten by scavengers.
Following the arrest or crucifixion of Jesus, the male disciples fled, probably back to Galilee. Mary Magdalene and other women stayed in Jerusalem. There they witnessed, or were informed about, the ravaging of Jesus's body.
The earliest and most original christian writings, by Paul, don't mention any resurrection appearances to women. Nor do they mention Joseph of Arimathea or an empty tomb. In Galilee, the male disciples believed they saw Jesus. They certainly did not doubt he had been exalted. Peter and others were fired with enthusiasm for their "risen lord." Returning to Jerusalem, they informed Mary Magdalene and others. No doubt, the women were the skeptics. They had very good reason to be. It wasn't just a matter of the inherent improbability of a dead person coming back to life. Jesus had been torn to pieces by crows and dogs. He had been devoured and his remains scattered and lost. How could he possibly come back to life?? But the male disciples were insistent. They were sure they had seen him. Far from doubting, they were so convinced they were willing to do anything to make converts. And they, not the women, influenced later writings.
To increase the likelihood of belief in the resurrection, it was essential to erase all hints of the destruction of christ's body. In part, this involved inventing an early death, and rapid burial of Jesus. Pilate is said to have "marvelled" at how quickly he died on the cross. Supposedly he was then interred in a rock tomb before sundown. Christian storytellers knew they had to make it appear Jesus was invulnerable to scavenging. Unless they got him buried by sundown he would've remained on the cross until Sunday morning (jews were forbidden to work on the sabbath). The buzzards would've had all day Saturday to feast on him. Not much would've remained to "resurrect" and it wouldn't have looked very pretty. Ergo the invention of "Joseph of Arimathea" and "the tomb."
But the effort to hide the truth involved more than a quick burial. It is noteworthy that in the gospels, the male disciples are the ones with doubts whereas the women have none. Luke wrote that when the women reported Jesus had been raised, the men dismissed it as an "idle tale." John says Peter refused to believe Mary Magdalene that the tomb is empty.
These stories turn the truth on its head. For the storytellers, it was important that the women, in the best position to know the fate of Jesus, had no doubts about the resurrection. In fact they had plenty.
In my opinion, the doubt tradition was invented to hide the awful truth, previously mentioned, that Jesus was eaten by scavengers.
Following the arrest or crucifixion of Jesus, the male disciples fled, probably back to Galilee. Mary Magdalene and other women stayed in Jerusalem. There they witnessed, or were informed about, the ravaging of Jesus's body.
The earliest and most original christian writings, by Paul, don't mention any resurrection appearances to women. Nor do they mention Joseph of Arimathea or an empty tomb. In Galilee, the male disciples believed they saw Jesus. They certainly did not doubt he had been exalted. Peter and others were fired with enthusiasm for their "risen lord." Returning to Jerusalem, they informed Mary Magdalene and others. No doubt, the women were the skeptics. They had very good reason to be. It wasn't just a matter of the inherent improbability of a dead person coming back to life. Jesus had been torn to pieces by crows and dogs. He had been devoured and his remains scattered and lost. How could he possibly come back to life?? But the male disciples were insistent. They were sure they had seen him. Far from doubting, they were so convinced they were willing to do anything to make converts. And they, not the women, influenced later writings.
To increase the likelihood of belief in the resurrection, it was essential to erase all hints of the destruction of christ's body. In part, this involved inventing an early death, and rapid burial of Jesus. Pilate is said to have "marvelled" at how quickly he died on the cross. Supposedly he was then interred in a rock tomb before sundown. Christian storytellers knew they had to make it appear Jesus was invulnerable to scavenging. Unless they got him buried by sundown he would've remained on the cross until Sunday morning (jews were forbidden to work on the sabbath). The buzzards would've had all day Saturday to feast on him. Not much would've remained to "resurrect" and it wouldn't have looked very pretty. Ergo the invention of "Joseph of Arimathea" and "the tomb."
But the effort to hide the truth involved more than a quick burial. It is noteworthy that in the gospels, the male disciples are the ones with doubts whereas the women have none. Luke wrote that when the women reported Jesus had been raised, the men dismissed it as an "idle tale." John says Peter refused to believe Mary Magdalene that the tomb is empty.
These stories turn the truth on its head. For the storytellers, it was important that the women, in the best position to know the fate of Jesus, had no doubts about the resurrection. In fact they had plenty.
posted by starman at 5:06 AM
3 Comments:
According to some accounts, Pontius Pilate did not want to have Jesus crucified. However, there was a lot of pressure put on him to do so.
The later the gospel, the greater the emphasis on alleged jewish responsibility for christ's death. Early christians didn't want to offend the Romans, so they blamed the jews.
But this is irrelevant to the issue here. The gospel writers did everything possible to prevent any suspicion christ was eaten by dogs or crows. They inverted the truth by making it appear the women, who remained in Jerusalem hence were in the best position to know what happened, had no doubt the resurrection (i.e. of an intact body) occurred. One or more women went to the "tomb" and found it empty. The male disciples supposedly had doubts, which is absurd considering their zeal.
I'd like to add something. Ehrman noted the resurrection narratives are the most contradictory of the new testament. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John disagree on what women visited the "tomb" and what they saw there.
John says Mary Magdalene went there by herself, Mark says she went with two other women, Luke says she went with several others.
Matthew says they saw an angel, Mark a man, Luke says two men. And there are other discrepancies e.g. what the women were told.
The accounts vary so much because they were all made up. Even the original account in Mark can't be true because it mentions no appearances to the men and says the women told nobody what they saw. Surprising that christianity arose....
Actually the claim that the women told nobody what they had seen is accurate. What they REALLY saw was the body of jesus eaten by scavengers. This was hushed up but Mark's last statement preserves part of the truth...
Post a Comment
<< Home