After an extensive review of the historical evidence that comprises over 250 pages of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Michael Licona identifies three facts concerning Jesus’ fate. These facts form the historical bedrock of any reconstruction and, as such, must be accounted for in any hypothesis that attempts to explain the rise of early Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection:
- Jesus died by crucifixion.
- Very shortly after Jesus’ death, some of his disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim that Jesus had been resurrected.
- Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Paul converted to the Christian movement after experiencing what he interpreted as a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to him.
Licona acknowledges clearly at this point that, while historians can ask whether Jesus rose bodily from the dead, they “cannot answer whether it was God who raised Jesus or whether Jesus’ resurrection body was incorruptible, powerful, glorious, or empowered by the Holy Spirit” (468). This statement struck me because I had understood Licona to be saying something different earlier in the book during his discussion of miracles. His comments here sound similar to the view of John Meier, a position Licona seemed to criticize (see my post here on this point).
Which hypothesis offers the best account of the three facts comprising the historical bedrock? Licona offers five criteria for weighing all historical hypotheses: 1) plausibility; 2) explanatory scope; 3) explanatory power; 4) less ad hoc; and 5) illumination. The first three of these carry the most weight. A hypothesis can be awarded historicity when it meets these five criteria better than competing hypotheses, and does so by a significant margin.
In my next post we’ll begin looking at the six hypotheses examined by Licona to see how each fares in accounting for the three historical facts mentioned above. These are the proposals from Geza Vermes, Michael Goulder, Gerd Ludemann, John Dominic Crossan, Pieter Craffert, and the “resurrection hypothesis.”
Suppose I were sitting on a jury in a murder trial and the prosecutor demanded that I decide the case based on three undisputed facts: (1) the victim was dead; (2) the defendant detested the victim; and (3) the defendant was seen near the victim’s house at the time of his death.
Suppose I asked the prosecutor about cause of death, other people with motive, and alibis, and he said to me “All those things are in dispute. I want you to decide the case based on the undisputed facts.”
If knew nothing else, I might agree that the best explanation for those facts is that the defendant murdered the victim, however I could never decide the case on that basis. There are too many other issues that might change my mind. In fact, I might well conclude that some of those facts are irrelevant to the conclusion that I would draw. It might well be that the best explanation had nothing to do with the defendant’s feelings about the victim or his whereabouts at the time the victim died.
Vinny – One distinction between a murder trial and a historical hypothesis is that of the burden of proof. Thankfully, in the USA the burden of proof is on the prosecution – innocent until proven guilty. This, however, is not the way that historical reconstruction works. We don’t assume that nothing happened until it can be proved that something did happen. Rather, we look at the evidence available (sometimes none exists, though) and make an attempt to formulate a hypothesis that best accounts for the available evidence. Therefore, history is typically done by arguing to the best explanation rather than by showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt (e. g., murder trials). We believe many historical claims that do not meet the reasonable doubt standard of criminal trials.
Tim,
In my experience, supernatural stories are usually the product of some combination of human foibles such as superstition, ignorance, wishful thinking, prevarication and gullibility. In choosing an unprecedented explanation over a common ordinary one, I think I am not unreasonable to ask for a little higher standard of proof.
Nevertheless, we can make it a civil trial if you like where the victim’s wife is suing the defendant for wrongful death. While I might concede that those three facts pointed towards the defendant, I would still be unable to say that it was more likely than not that he was responsible for the victim’s death. I would still find the proof insufficient because there are too many facts that I don’t know.
If I open the Book of Mormon, I will find that eleven people besides Joseph Smith claim to have seen the Golden Plates. If their claim was the only thing I had to go on, I might conclude that there were really that many people who had seen the Golden Plates. However, when I consider everything that is known, those claims seem less impressive.
I especially like “A hypothesis can be awarded historicity when it meets these five criteria better than competing hypotheses, and does so by a significant margin.” there are people out there that feel that so long as they can imagine another hypotheisis the best one can not claim historicity, or, even more strangly, if a better hypothesis can be imagined to exist even if no one can articulate it.
Vinny, sometimes juries take your approach, most of the the time they don’t. That is why Stacy Anthony’s aquital was such a surprise and why Scott Peterson is on death row. In history we aren’t even sending hypothesis to death row. No one says you must beleive any conclusion if you can offer a reasonable counter.
Michael,
The problem is in reaching a conclusion based on three cherry picked facts. It’s the kind of thing that the 911 Truthers do. They carefully pick a handful of video clips and bits of testimony and they declare that no theory is valid unless it explains those “facts” and no others. Not surprisingly, the only theory that fits the bill is their claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition engineered by the government. Of course, when all the facts and evidence are taken into account, their conclusion is absurd.
To me, the fact that a person who was hostile to Christianity 2000 years ago converted after claiming to have a vision is pretty insignificant. The fact that I don’t know the exact details of what happened isn’t sufficient reason to think that a supernatural event took place.
Vinny – I don’t think it’s an accurate characterization to refer to the three facts as “cherry-picked.” What are the most important other relevant facts pertaining to this issue?
“If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then f*** him!” Stanley Hauerwas, via Kyle Roberts…. one of two curse words I heard professors say during a class in seminary:-)
LOL… I heard dozens of curse words when I took classes at a seminary other than the one from which I graduated, though all further details will be kept classified in this forum.
Tim…I know…me too….but Kyle’s point (and Hauerwas’) is that being Christian makes no sense if the resurrection isn’t reality… Not in the judicial sense but in the God is making everything new/redeeming creation/defeating death sense….if Jesus was just a good guy or gifted teacher, then I should just be Jewish or something…
What was the nature of the experiences that the disciples have? When did they have them? Where did they have them? Did they all claim to have the same experience or were they different? How many first hand reports do we have? Was anyone else around when these events were supposed to have occurred?
These are all matters upon which the scholars may not agree. Does it really make any sense to base a theory on the the fact that scholars agree that some indeterminate number of disciples had an undetermined experience at an undetermined time and place which they thought was appearance of the risen Christ?
Tens of thousands of people are reported to have seen the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima. If I only knew that, I might think that something spectacular had occurred. However, the number of actual first hand reports are much fewer and they are not consistent. There were also many people who said that they didn’t see anything.
Vinny – I agree that some of those questions you raised are important, and it sounds like you think they are unanswerable, at least with any degree of confidence. My original question, though, was whether you thought there were any other *historical* facts that you believe can be known with a good degree of confidence that are relevant to this issue. My guess is that you don’t (but correct me if I’m wrong), and that agnosticism is the only good option for this matter. And I think that’s certainly a valid position.
I wouldn’t agree with the framing of your question in your second paragraph, so I couldn’t answer it accurately.
As for the Miracle of the Sun (at least as I recall the details of that event), a significant difference between that and the alleged appearances of Jesus is that the people went to Fatima expecting to see something miraculous. Didn’t some kids predict that Mary was going to appear there, and that’s why so many were gathered? The opposite seems to have been the case with Jesus. The disciples (and Paul) don’t seem to have expected that Jesus was going to appear to them or that he was going to rise from the dead. Jews didn’t have a concept of a single individual being raised from the dead before the general resurrection of all God’s people. The power of suggestion was present at Fatima, but it doesn’t seem to have been present in the case of Jesus.
Tim,
Your question was “What are the most important other relevant facts pertaining to this issue?” It was not “What are the most important other relevant facts pertaining to this issue that can be known with a good degree of confidence?” The problem I have identified is that there are many important issues that are the subject of considerable dispute. If there is not enough evidence to obtain a good degree of confidence about many important issues, then I think we should admit that we cannot be sure about what happened.
I think it is quite reasonable to suppose that the first person who had an experience that he interpreted as an appearance of the risen Christ did not expect it. By the same token the children who first went to Fatima did not expect an appearance of the Virgin Mary. Once the story of the first appearance was circulated and believed, however, I don’t think that we can say that any subsequent appearances were necessarily unexpected.
Tim, I’ve watched Licona make this argument in his debates against Bart Ehrman, available on YouTube. The argument strikes me as terrific rhetoric but not great history. In real life, if (1) you saw Mr. X struck by a truck and pronounced dead at the scene by the paramedics, and (2) later heard from witnesses you consider trustworthy that they saw Mr. X buying milk at the local grocery store, you would not conclude that Mr. X had been resurrected. Instead, you’d go back and reconsider (1) and (2). Maybe Mr. X had not died on the scene as the paramedics had assumed, or maybe these normally reliable witnesses had not been reliable in this particular case. In the final analysis, you’d probably conclude that SOMETHING highly unusual had taken place, but you could not jump to a resurrection assumption.
Licona’s case turns on his assumption that miracles are just as susceptible to rational human investigation as any other kind of cause leading to observable effects. This simply isn’t true. One definition of a miracle is something that defies natural explanation. Unfortunately, there’s a huge amount of stuff out there that we cannot explain, whether it’s the fundamental conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, or the collapse of the Boston Red Sox last September. To prove a miracle, Licona has to do more than to argue that the miracle is the best available explanation for the given facts. He also has to prove that the occurrence of a miracle is more likely than the possibility that there’s a natural explanation for these facts that we have not been able to puzzle out. Licona never considers the “we don’t know” possibility, and I think this is fatal to his argument.
There’s another problem. Assume for the moment that we conclude that a miracle caused Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. We have no ability to determine the nature of the miracle. Perhaps the miracle was resurrection. Perhaps the miracle was that Jesus never died on the cross, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Perhaps the miracle was that God provided a look-alike for Jesus who died on the cross in Jesus’ place. Perhaps God warped space-time to cause the Jesus from before the resurrection to appear to witnesses after the resurrection. This is God we’re talking about; there’s no means of intervention beyond God’s power, nor is there any way for us humans to argue which avenue of Divine intervention is the most likely.
We also have to consider that the intervening agent might not have been God. To assume that God is the only supernatural agent out there is to make a theological assumption, not an historical one. Moreover, there may be advanced natural beings in the universe with the power to intervene in earthly affairs in a way that would strike us as supernatural.
I think that my first argument is the best one, which is that there’s no amount of natural proof sufficient to prove the occurrence of a supernatural event.
The resurrection claims about Jesus cannot be considered in a vacuum.
They occurred within the context of his entire life-work and the impact this had on the witnesses to the resurrection.
The plausibility, scope, and power of what they said must incorporate the entire apostolic experience, prior to and following the crucifixion.
We need not understand the mechanism of the supernatural to decide there is sufficient evidence for it.
And “There’s no amount of natural proof sufficient to prove the occurrence of a supernatural event” is not an “argument.” It’s an assumption that further assumes the omniscience of the person who believes it.
Bobby, our back and forth indicate that you and I do not see eye to eye. I am happy to discuss my thoughts with you, but the tone of your comment suggests that you simply want to place an objection to my comment on the record. You’ve done that, and I acknowledge your objection.
I suspect that what happened during the first century was apocalyptic madness, fear and trembling, and disgust at the Roman occupying force which was getting the Jews so mad they wanted to fight against the power of Rome or die trying. That’s a pretty insane state of mind to begin with, suicidally insane in fact. And it bred messiahs of all sorts from religious ones to military ones, and sparked not one but two major rebellions against Rome. Rome wasn’t fighting anywhere else in the Empire at that time–the time of the Pax Romana. Her full forces could be marshalled against every Jew in Palestine. So you had to have an insane amount of confidence. It was during that time when Jesus and his followers and stories of Jesus arose. The book of Daniel was popular as well, and even Josephus mentions the role it played in the first major Jewish revolt, some verses providing a spark that incited the apocalyptic frenzy further. “God,” was going to right all the wrongs, the first would be last, the last first, and everyone should fear Him who can cast both body and soul into hell. Be baptized for your sins, repent! The end is near! Love God more than your mother, father, sister, brother.
Susan Sorek in The Jews Against Rome: War in Palestine AD 66-73 (Continuum, 2008):
“There were a variety of underlying causes that helped spark [the 70 CE] revolt; social tensions, bad Roman procurators, the divisions amongst the ruling class, the rise of banditry and poor harvests, but perhaps the most significant feature of all was the apocalyptic storm brewing over first-century Palestine.
“Of all the messianic movements one in particular drew the most attention; the . . . community that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, based their calculations on the ‘end of days’ on a prophecy from the book of Daniel. Josephus says that the major impetus inspiring the Jewish revolt of 70 CE against Roman rule was an ‘oracle found in the sacred scriptures.’ This oracle effectively said when the time came ‘one from their own country would become ruler of the world.’ The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls calculated that the year 26/27 CE would usher in the messianic age. There was never a time previously quite like it, and there has never been one since; two messiahs, one king one priest would rule over Palestine. The fervor with which many fought against the greatest power of the ancient world could only have come from such beliefs; that the end of days was nigh. . . .
“Some anti-Roman Jewish extremists equated the Evil Kingdom of Daniel’s prophecy with Rome and the end of days (‘In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever’ Dan 2:44, NIV).”
See also Dead Sea Scroll 1Q33 (1QM) = 1Q War Scroll:
(Column 1) “The first attack by the sons of light will be launched against the sons of darkness, against the army of Belial [Belial = supernatural evil figure]… The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah and the sons of Benjamin [in other words, “The Hebrews”], will wage war against them. . . against all their bands . . . And there will be no escape for any of the sons of darkness . . . And the sons of justice shall shine to all the edges of the earth, they shall go on shining. . .
“There will be a battle, and savage destruction before the God of Israel, for this will be the day determined by Him since ancient times for the war of extermination against the sons of darkness . . . It will be a time of suffering for all the nation redeemed by God. Of all their sufferings, none will be like this, hastening till eternal redemption is fulfilled . . . The army of Belial will gird themselves in order to force the army of light to retreat. There will be infantry battalions [so large as to] melt the heart [at their sight], but God’s might will strengthen the heart of the sons of light . . . And God’s great hand will subdue Belial and all the [evil] angels of His dominion and all the [evil] men of his lot . . . He [God] will [show Himself] to assist the truth, for the destruction of the sons of darkness. . . “
Licona is willing to admit that stories about miraculous events accompanying people’s deaths are found in both early rabbinical and Hellenistic literature. Hence Licona raises some excellent questions concerning the historicity of Matthew’s story of the many raised sants. But Licona neglects to continue asking questions about other events listed only in Matthew’s telling of the resurrection. Only Matthew features an earthquake that opens the tombs of many saints who arise, features the Roman centurion and soldiers with him seeing this and being so frightened by it as to say aloud together that “surely this is the Son of God,” and only Matthew has guards at the tomb of Jesus and another earthquake and an angel that comes down out of heaven to sit on the stone outside the tomb, and has the Jews pay the guards to lie about what really happened. So Matthew has two earthquakes where the other Gospels have none. Matthew alters the reaction of the centurion, adding his fright, and that of other soliders, adding even their chorus of recognition of Jesus instead of a singular soldier saying so. Neither do any other Gospels have guards and an earthquake at Jesus’ tomb, and an angel coming down out of heaven and sitting on the rock outside, and lying Jews with hush money. Doesn’t the addition of all that raise even an eyebrow from Licona? Mark has no sealed tomb, and in fact the women are carrying spices to anoint the body and their only concern is who will move the rock for them. No fear of guards being there. Matthew changes the women’s motivation from anointing to just “see the tomb.” Why? Because he’s added the guards. Heck, comparing Mark then Matthew then Luke and John one might also note that Mark only has a young man inside the tomb when the women reach it, Matthew is the first to introduce and angel, then Luke and John each introduce two angels. That would be the chronological succession of the story if Markan priority is true as many assume. Furthermore, keeping Markan priority in mind, Mark’s story resembles a host of ancient translation stories involving missing bodies found throughout the Hellenistic world and that is how Hellenistic readers would certainly have understood the ending of Mark’s Gospel. See “Mark’s Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity” by Richard C. Miller, JBL 129, no.4 9 (2010) If Licona can point out all the ancient stories of miracles accompanying someone’s death and hence question Matthew’s “raising of the many” tale, then let’s go back a bit further to Mark, upon which Matthew was based, and look at the wealth of similarities between the empty tomb and missing body story in Mark and other heavenly translation legends in classical antiquity.
Licona recently interviewed Timothy J. McGrew on the topic of hidden gems in old apologetic literature. Apparently Licona was impressed by McGrew’s defense of the authenticity of Gospels stories including miracle stories via “the argument from undesigned conicidences.” But anyone who has studied the Gospels can’t help asking further questions, lots of them:
THE MIRACULOUS FEEDING OF A MULTITUDE?
1) WHERE DID IT TAKE PLACE? In the earlest Gospels, Mark and Matthew the location is unknown, it’s only an “isolated remote” location that Jesus disembarks from by boat. But the time Luke was composed the location had rec’d a name, Bethsaida, but in Luke Jesus apparently got there by foot not boat. John builds on the story from there.
2) WHO ASKED THE QUESTION? In the earliest three Gospels it was the apostles who asked a question of Jesus as to “where to buy food,” not Jesus asking Philip as in the last written Gospel. One might suspect that the fourth Gospel author wanted Jesus to be more in command of the situation, even setting up qusetions, being the one to ask the question, also in John only Jesus hands out the food, see below.
3) WHO HANDED OUT THE FOOD? In the previous three Gospels it is the apostles handing out the food to the multitude. Only in John does Jesus hand out the food to all 5000. Perhaps that’s because John lacks a last supper scene in which Jesus prays and hands out the bread to his disciples, so John has Jesus handing out the bread to everyone earlier, during his feeding miracle and only John adds an explanation soon thereafter that Jesus himself is “the bread of life,” and you must “eat of his body and drink of his blood or you will not have life within you.” Compare the message in the earlier three Gospels at the final Passover meal (that John lacks) in which Jesus hands out bread and wine and says, “Take eat, this is my body and this is my blood.” John lacked a final passover meal with Jesus because John has Jesus dying a day before Passover–with the lambs. This “lamb connectin” is all part of John’s theology, even starting by having John the Baptist in the fourth Gospel recognize Jesus as the “Lamb of God.” So Jesus “the lamb of God” couldn’t have a last Passover meal with his disciples and also BE the Passover lamb, dying the same day as they did before Passover. So the fourth Gospel retrojects Jesus’ last prayer and handing out of bread to the time of the “feeding of the multitude,” and drops the last supper scene in the earlier Gospels. That’s why Jesus (not the apostles) is handing out the bread to the multitude in the fourth Gospel.
4) HOW MANY WERE THERE? Interestingly, as Aus points out Mark says it was 5000 “men,” Matthew says it was about 5000 men “with women and children” besides, so maybe 15,000 people or more. It looks like they have trouble with their math if this is an “authentic eyewitness” testimony. See Roger David Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 (Studies in Judaism. He raises questions concerning the historicity of the feeding stories, and lists Hebrew and Hellenistic influences that probably gave birth to such a miracle story. MacDonald notes that there are many broad mimetic parallels with Homer in the Gospel of Mark, and that interestingly, Homer also features two feeding stories just as Mark does, and both are preceded directly by a boat trip, and that in the first Homeric story the people fed are all “men” as in Mark, something like 4,500 men in fact. Besides MacDonald, Aus also does a good job explaining the function of Mark’s “seating parties” in his book.
5) HOW THOUGHTLESS WERE THESE PEOPLE? The question arises, didn’t any of these folks in the large crowd who were “coming and going” per Mark have the forethought to bring their own food or drink along with them to this “isolated remote” place? Even dumber if they were on a long and arduous “Passover” journey (John’s version) and didn’t bring along any food or drink. They packed nothing?
6) WHO PERCEIVED THAT A MIRACLE HAD OCCURED? In Mark, the ostensibly earliest version of the story, there is no record of anyone in the crowd perceiving that a miracle had occurred. It’s only the apostles who perceive it to have been a miracle, and only after they had collected all the baskets of uneaten food. Jesus tells them in the boat later to remember all the food they had collected, and asks them whether they understood. Apparently no one actually saw any food being multiplied, they had to assume it from the quantity of “leftovers.” And apparently only the apostles assumed it in the earliest version of the story, rather than the crowd assuming that a miracle had occurred.
7) HOW MANY APOSTLES WERE FROM BETHSAIDA? The “undesigned coincidence” argument claims that the story in John is the true one, and that Jesus was not asked by the other apostles where they could buy food as in the previous three Gospels, but instead Jesus asked Philip where they could buy food because, as that same Gospel also explained, Philip was from “Bethsaida.” But that’s too many assumptions to take seriously. On the matter of Bethsaida, the author of John could have been familiar with Luke’s placing of the feeding story in Bethsaida and used that info, and also made that city Philip’s home town since we only read that in John as well. Neither does the “undesigned coincidences” argument take into account the story in Matthew that Peter and Andrew were fishermen living in Capernaum. (Matthew 4:13). Instead John says Peter and Andrew were, like Philip, from Bethsaida. (John 1:44) “Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.” Which means that according to John there were at least three disciples who were fishermen and whom John says were all from Bethsaida, and Jesus could have asked ANY of those three and one could shout, “undesigned conicidence!” Of course you’d first have to harmonize that with Matthew’s story in which Peter and Andrew were NOT from Bethsaida but from Capernum.
But let’s assume that most of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen. The early synoptic Gospels also mention Jesus being raised in Nazareth but later lived in Capernum. So people moved around a bit in that area. Note the area itself. Capernum and Bethsaida are located on either side of where a northern river enters the Lake of Galilee. Fishing villages were located there since the river water enters the lake and contains fresh nutrients that help organisms grow that the fish eat. Probably more than just three of Jesus’ apostles were from Capernum or Bethsaida, since Jesus himself is depicted in the earliest Gospels as sticking to those two towns during his preaching career in Galilee, along with neaby Chorazin which was inland a bit. Together those three towns formed the “Evangelical Triangle” as it is called, where Jesus did most of his preaching per the earliest Gospels. So really, Jesus could have called upon nearly anyone, John mentions three who were from Bethsaid, not just Philip. And more than just three of Jesus’ disciples probably worked as fisherman who probably sold their fish at either town on either side of the above mentioned river.
The authenticity of such miracles lay in the eyes of the writers and readers of such tales. But the tales themselves prove nothing. Jesus’ main ministry in Galilee consisted of walking from Bethsaida that only had a couple thousand residents to Chorazin and Capernum, both of which were smaller towns than Bethsaida. And for all his preaching in that “Evanglical Triangle” and nearby towns there appears to have been a mixed reaction at best, some Gospel authors boasting that Jesus “healed everyone” (Matthew), while Mark mentions at least one place where Jesus “could not do ANY miracles” (though Matthew upgrades that statement to “could do only SOME miracles”), and in another place Matthew (I think) has Jesus speak woes upon all three towns lying his little “Evangelical Triangle,” Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernum, shaking their dust from his feet since they weren’t impressed enough by his preaching and miracles. Maybe the truth is that not enough people in those cities even believed he WAS a miracle worker?
Any if Jesus wanted to perform miracles why not go to truly big cities like Seporis, only a few miles away? Or Ceasaria? Or just start performing lots of miracles as soon as he got to Jerusalem in front of enormous crowds, or show himself raised from the dead to every one in Jerusalem and ascend into heaven in their sight? Heck, fly to Rome and show yourself to the Senate too. Instead when we read about the most fabulous miracles of Jesus, who do the Gospels says saw them? Who saw the stilling of the storm, the walking on water, the transfiguration on top of a mountain? Only a handful of apostles. The ones in the boat. And only three allegedly saw Jesus transfigured on a mountain top, and in Mark, the earliest version, Jesus tells the three who saw the transfiguration not to tell anybody.
I’d say it’s possible that the apostles couldn’t accept that their crucified teacher was really and truly dead, that their mission for which they’d surrendered all, left wife and families and livelihood, was at an end, that God’s will had worn itself out. They couldn’t accept that, or maybe it was just one of them who truly couldn’t accept it, and he convinced the others to keep going. I suspect they still were imbued with an apocalyptic spirit, fear of Him who can cast both body and soul into hell, Him who would make the first last and the last first, and that they found within themselves the hope that everything had not run down to nothing but that they continued to expect great things just as their fellow Jews expected their people to defeat the Romans with God’s help and usher in a new age in which Israel would rule. So the apostles went away to Galilee. Acts says they remained in Jerusalem for seven weeks. But Acts is later than Mark that says “He has gone before you to Galilee, for there ye shall see him.” And at some time they began to preach that Jesus was not dead but sitting at the right hand of God. When exactly did they begin to preach such a thing? Acts might not be accurate. Stories could have been circulating about Jesus after his death, stories from anyone who heard or saw him when he was alive, and those stories of his parables and miracles, and the apocalyptic hope of resurrection and of final judgment and God setting up a new kingdom on earth kept the first Christians together. Were they bold? Did they convert many miraculously on Pentecost? Or were they no more bold than other apocalyptic preachers coming through Jerusalem during holy celebrations? The difference being that most tales about Jesus tales took place in far off northern Galilee, so seven weeks or more later, the apostles got their second wind, they couldn’t accept that Jesus was dead and his message for which they’d followed him, was over. And they or others continued to accrue stories about Jesus, stories that spread. I’m not even sure that the empty tomb story was the earliest such tale. Mark ends by adding that the first people to discover the tomb empty told no one. So no one may have known of such a tale until later, around the time when other tales also arose about Jesus performing miracles only in front of his apostles and followers. The idea early on was probably that Jesus had been vindicated in heaven, sitting at God’s right hand. And the times being what they were, the insane apocalyptic atmosphere, the message continued, and the destruction of Jerusalem only seemed to herald greater changes ahead, including a return of Jesus. I say, it seemed to herald such things, at least to the author of Mark and his little apocalypse chapter.
Speaking of miracles, one of the funniest bits in the Gospels to me is where the apostles ask Jesus whether he wants them to rain down fire and brimstone on a town that had rejected their message. As if they were so certain they had such power, or as if the author of that story was sure they did.
Pingback: Biblioblog Carnival February 2012 « Cheese-Wearing Theology