Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible History, Bible Study, Christianity, God, Historical Jesus, Religion, Truth

Jewish Disciples Wouldn’t Have Created the Idea of the Resurrection, So It Must Have Really Happened… Right?

Nate

If you’ve discussed the resurrection with Christians before, then you’re probably familiar with the above argument. Since first century Jews didn’t believe in a bodily resurrection like Jesus’s, then they’re no way the disciples would have believed it without actually witnessing it for themselves. William Lane Craig has used this argument several times:

He made the case again in a 2005 debate at California State University. At the 29 minute mark, he says that Jews like the Pharisees believed in a resurrection that would happen to everyone at the end of time. They never believed that an individual could have a bodily resurrection within the course of human history.

But recently, while I was reading Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, he pointed out something that I hadn’t thought of before. It turns out that there are a couple of New Testament passages that really throw a wrench in Craig’s claim. For instance, Mark 6:14-16 says:

King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

Here, we have a number of people who are ready to believe that Jesus is actually a resurrected John the Baptist, Elijah, or some other prophet from antiquity. And we find similar passages in both Matthew and Luke as well. So now we have a problem. Either Craig’s argument is totally false, and the idea of a bodily resurrection from the dead is something that people in Jesus’s time were ready to believe with virtually no evidence, or the writers of the synoptic gospels were lying or mistaken. Either way, it illustrates how an actual resurrection is the least likely explanation for the resurrection story.

If you’d like to read about other issues with the resurrection, you can check out this article.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

110 thoughts on “Jewish Disciples Wouldn’t Have Created the Idea of the Resurrection, So It Must Have Really Happened… Right?”

  1. “after all, Jesus was clearly old enough to have been alive while John was still alive”

    Most reputable NT scholars believe that the Gospel of John, written anonymously, was done so somewhere between 95 CE and 105 CE. This means that if pseudo-John were born the day Yeshua died, he would have been 65-75 when he published his book, and would have just missed meeting the man. Had he been born 10 years earlier, he would have been 75-85, using the memories of a 10-year old.

    I’m not really sure you thought that one through, Unk.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I believe he meant Jesus and John the Baptist were contemporaries, not Jesus and the gospel writer. According to the Bible John the Baptist baptized Jesus, and furthermore their mothers were friends who became pregnant within a few months of each other, so UnkleE is correct. Herod later had John the Baptist executed and shortly afterwards people began saying that Jesus might be John the Baptist come back to life.

    In that passage, he is quoting hearsay, and that hearsay itself might have come from people who had never met either man in person, but only heard reports of them. The point of bringing it up was simply to demonstrate that regardless of the mainstream religion’s stance on resurrection, there were other views out there. So it doesn’t really matter whether it made sense for Jesus to be John the Baptist or not; the mere fact that people speculated proves that, as in all diverse societies, you cannot make sweeping claims about what everyone in it found plausible and implausible.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. “I believe he meant Jesus and John the Baptist were contemporaries, not Jesus and the gospel writer.” – It’s entirely possible that he DID mean that, but he could have been clearer.

    It’s my personal belief that Yeshua was believed by some to have been the Messiah, but the Messiah was expected to fulfill one of three roles, according to whom you spoke – he was to become a military leader, like David, destined to throw off the yoke of Rome and free Israel; others expected he would be a supernatural cosmic judge of the earth, while yet others (especially, the Essenes) expected he would be a priestly ruler who would provide the authoritative interpretations of his god’s law for his people.

    At no point was he ever expected to be a dying and rising savior, and when he did die, those who believed in his Messiaship scrambled to find an explanation in past prophecies. As we all know, if you lie on your back and gaze long enough at the clouds above, you can eventually see anything your mind can conceive.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. We’re stuck, having to rely on speculations about what ancient, superstitious people may, or may not, have found believable, and then we’re supposed to use those speculations as a great evidences for the God that these men makes claims about.

    If one would assume that a perfect and all powerful being would act in such a manner in order to deliver his vastly important message to all of mankind, then man is capable of believing anything.

    It sounds crazy because it is.

    We may all have crazy beliefs even if we don’t share this one.

    But anything can be “validated” the way people try to validate the Bible. And the more I hear it, the more I read it, the crazier it sounds.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Everyone argues over the un-witnessed Resurrection of the character, Jesus of Nazareth. Why?

    Why not argue over the Resurrection of Lazarus?

    Now this was a bring-back-to-life miracle performed by the character, Jesus in a very public fashion and witnessed not only by the disciples but also some of Lazarus’ family and friends and also some of Jesus detractors.

    There is no hiding with this one. It was right out there in full view.

    Jesus wanders into town like the lone gunslinger and tells his pal, Lazarus to get his bandaged arse out the hole and step into the light. And he does, too! Nw just how damn cool is that

    One could almost imagine Jesus saying in Aramaic:

    ”In your face, Mithras! And how do like them apples, eh?”

    This is so much easier to discuss as there is bound to be oodles of contemporary, extra biblical evidence of this account, yes?

    I mean, Lazarus was walking about happy as Larry and fit as a fiddle. A story like this must have spread faster than an STD in a Roman whorehouse, for the gods’ sake.

    I am not completely au fait with how they went about recording stuff in the Old Days, – did they still chisel on stone tablets atop mountains? But I am sure Unklee will be able to direct us to the written non-Christian testimony of this miraculous event, proving that bringing someone back from the dead is a walk in the park.

    What about it Unklee?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Why would an all powerful deity allow errors in his testimony to humanity which was intended to cause them to believe?

    1. Because he was a complete dick and just didn’t have the time to check on everything … sheesh.

    2. Deep down he’s a nice guy really and he was just having a bit of fun.

    3. It is all make believe and the only true dicks are those who believe this nonsense?

    I’m torn, what do you lot think?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Ark, Christian theologians see the situation with Lazarus as a resuscitation not a resurrection. The difference being that Lazarus still grew old and died, but in the case of Jesus it was meant to be into a new eternal body that would never age or die.

    But anyway as you mention the Lazarus resuscitation, it is mentioned nowhere except in one book of the New Testament, not even in the other Gospels. Yet there was supposed to be a huge crowd who witnessed the event. Certainly ranks high on the list of likely totally fabricated events.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hi Nate & Powell,

    I think I have said all I want to say about where I think Nate’s argument is weak. I don’t want to be a pain and go on and on. But it is an interesting discussion, and I’d like to at least answer your questions.

    “UnkleE, I’m kind of surprised we see this so differently.

    Nate, I think the key point for our disagreement may be your characterisation of the argument, as in the title of your post. But that isn’t the argument. His argument goes something like this:

    1. There are a small bunch of (“minimal”) facts which the majority of secular scholars agree on, including that the disciples had visions of Jesus after he died and these visions led them to think that he had been resurrected.
    2. This wasn’t an easy step for them to take because there was no tradition within Judaism for that sort of resurrection. They wouldn’t have taken it if the experiences weren’t very convincing.
    3. Therefore this is one reason why we should believe in the resurrection.

    You have omitted #1, so obviously that makes the argument much weaker.

    “I’m not sure why you keep hammering the point on the fact that Herod’s views are not the mainstream Judaism view.”

    Powell, yes I am a Protestant, though I’m a disbeliever in denominations.

    I keep saying this because it is important for WLC’s actual argument, not the truncated argument Nate has put in his post title. See my comment to Nate above. The argument doesn’t require that there be absolutely no resurrection belief by any Jew anywhere, as Nate’s argument implies, but simply that such belief wasn’t very influential, or common, or respected, so that it means that the resurrection appearances must have been strong experiences to engender this belief.

    Like

  9. Hi Nate,

    I think that this is a great argument and when you brought it up under your last post, I borrowed it in my discussions with Christians on Theology Web. In addition, I pointed out to my Christian friends on TW that many Jews in the first century believed that John the Baptist was Elijah come back from the dead; and all of Judea was aware of the “raising” of Lazarus, it was even reported to the Sanhedrin (who then sought to kill Lazarus). And of course there is the raising of Jairus’ daughter; and the people in the OT that were raised from the dead by Elijah, Elisha, and Elisha’s bones.

    So even though “raisings from the dead” were rare, they weren’t unheard of in first century Judaism. And by raising Jairus’ daughter and Lazarus, Jesus put himself on par with Elijah and Elisha! And if Elisha’s bones could raise someone from the dead, why can’t Jesus raise himself from the dead?? I don’t see any reason why any Jew would be at all shocked by Jesus’ raising from the dead, due to the prior precedents.

    Well, guess what was the Christians’ answer: “Stupid Atheist, Jesus was “resurrected” from the dead, Lazarus was “raised” from the dead. Have you even read the Bible?? Jews of the first century would know the difference! Why don’t you go read some actual scholarship!”

    ???

    How would any first century Jew know the difference between a “raised” body and a “resurrected” body? Jesus did plenty of magic tricks prior to his death, such as walking on water and flying to the top of the temple, and he did magic tricks after his “raising”: he walked through locked doors and teleported between cities. WHAT’S THE FRICKIN’ DIFFERENCE?? And if you say that Jesus’ resurrected body didn’t need to eat, drink, or use the toilet…how would the disciples know that if the “resurrected” Jesus was always asking for a broiled fish lunch?

    Liked by 2 people

  10. And if you say that the difference between a “resurrected” body and a “raised” body is that the resurrected body is immortal; it will never die…how would anyone know that until the “raised” person actually…died…a SECOND time?? Wouldn’t the Jews have been completely unaware of Jesus “resurrected” status because he disappeared forty days later! If he had lived on…and on…and on…and on…and on, century after century…then they would have known that he was resurrected, but he disappeared into…thin air…

    For all they knew, Jesus was sitting on the top of the highest point of the temple again or walking on water in the middle of the Mediterranean…

    Liked by 3 people

  11. “Everyone argues over the un-witnessed Resurrection of the character, Jesus of Nazareth. Why?”

    It goes back, Ark, to what I said earlier – Yeshua didn’t fit the Messiah paradigm, he didn’t fulfill any of the three qualifications I mentioned earlier. In fact, one could easily ask why a god would allow his alleged son to die such an ignominious death. That’s when the spin doctors took over and found a way to turn a negative into a positive – their god had allowed his son to die so that he could resurrect him and prove that he was the real deal! After all, the resurrection of Lazarus is reported by only one anonymous gospel author, whereas all four plus Paul maintain that the resurrection really happened – it HAD to have, otherwise their entire house of cards would come a-tumblin’ down. Without the resurrection, there IS no Christian religion, just another prophet who ran afoul of the law and got his ass handed to him.

    We both know that nothing supernatural happened, the body was either slipped out of the tomb that first, unguarded evening, or entirely fabricated.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Note specifically, Peter, how Yeshua deliberately waited four days, so there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Laz was really dead. I loved the line, “He stinketh.”

    At any rate, ask Ark – that’s how drama is created. But then again, how would he know –?

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Resuscitation and not Resurrection? Really?
    So, Jesus’ miracle raising a four day old corpse was simply part and parcel of the day to day comings and goings of a 1st Century Jerusalem Paramedic was it?
    Thank god he didn’t to perform the kiss of life in this case. That would have been enough to make an imaginary god like Jesus to throw up!

    One thing I cannot understand is why unklee bothers.
    Truly.

    He has been a Paulinite (”Christian”) since my Grandad fell off the bus and yet here he is, mixing it with normal people (mostly – not you Arch) arguing the toss over historical fiction that normal people have absolutely no truck with,

    And not only that , he is ”championing ” Christianity’s Number One Arsehole, Mister Kalam Divine Command Theory, himself, Senor Dipshit,William Lane Craig.

    Apologists like unklee are secretly atheists. There can be no other reason why he feels the need to continually enter an atheist arena such as this and blather on in a pitiful attempt to justify his belief in this garbage.
    I am convinced he is really crying out for help, for someone – anyone to show some empathy and welcome him into the arms of normal people.

    Just say the word, unklee. We’re here for you.
    You don’t need ”saving”, you aren’t a (gag) ”sinner”. Honestly, your already fair dinkum, mate.

    Hang up the theological boxing gloves, unk. Most people here have been in your shoes,so you are in good company.

    Ark.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Dude, I think the criticism of his logic was valid, but talking about him as a person like that really bothered me. The whole “you’re really not a believer” thing was patronizing, and I’ve been on the receiving end of attitudes like that plenty of times, as I’m sure you have. It is not fun. This whole time he has been respectful of us as people, even as he disagrees with us, and I think we should do likewise.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Lane, I can’t help but ask … have you had much contact with unkleE?

    Many on this blog have and while we may not feel towards him to the extreme level as Ark, we do understand where he’s coming from. His manipulative attitude and so-called “superior knowledge” (based on his “extensive study” of scholars) gets old after awhile.

    I’m sure he’s a nice enough person in real life, but on the internet, he can bring out the worst in people.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. I suspect that Land is still at that stage where he sees good in everyone, which died in me when my best friend killed my puppy.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. *Smile* – you must be a newbie if you are unfamiliar with unklee’s condescending and often sycophant delivery style.
    With a friend on board like you he will be grinning from ear to ear at your naivety and will gleefully welcome you to his fan club – and I’m sure he waive the fees. … ”dude”.

    But stick around…. you’ll learn. And remember you heard it here first.

    😉

    Liked by 1 person

  20. @Nan.

    I’m sure he’s a nice enough person in real life, but on the internet, he can bring out the worst in people

    Worst? No, unklee brings out the best . in me! He loves me so much he banned me.

    Remember, Wally has affirmed I am the Son of Satan! lol …

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Nan; I haven’t had that much contact with UnkleE, but I have known a lot of people like that. And I get that it’s annoying. In fact, I won’t pretend that some of his comments in this very thread didn’t make me roll my eyes. So I do understand where Ark is coming from. But I still felt like he crossed the line from disagreeing with ideas into personal attacks, and I think that’s a line worth defending.

    Archaeopteryx1; “I suspect that Lane is still at that stage where he sees good in everyone.” Damn straight. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment