Bart Ehrman takes on DCP’s empty tomb

[Physics Guy]

So the success of Christianity was possible because its message — i.e., the sayings attributed to Jesus plus the beliefs formulated in the wake of his death — clicked with a small but significant subset of the Roman populace. Whatever events inspired the resurrection stories were only important insofar as they caused those beliefs to be formulated.

Sure, but my feeling is that we downplay the importance of those first couple of decades after Jesus, just because history can say so little about them. It's an era that can't get much space in any book, because there's almost nothing to write besides speculation, but the fact that we're missing this story doesn't mean that there was nothing to see. How did all those sayings get collated and preserved? Why was there even anything for the Roman populace to hear?

I figure it's kind of like a multinational company that grew from a storefront. To outsiders the company looked pretty ordinary until that remarkable boom from regional chain to global enterprise, but the founders will tell you that it was the early years that were remarkable, and that by the time anyone else was starting to notice them, they knew what they had and it was only a matter of time.

Accounts like that can be biased by nostalgia, and the later growth probably wasn't really inevitable, but the fact that it was a company with those particular early years that went on to make that big expansion probably wasn't just a coincidence, either.

[Chap]

... How likely is it the gospels are reliable when they claim Pilate turned over Jesus to be crucified by the Jews? ...

Sorry, but where do the gospels say that? It is clear from the gospels that they assume that Roman soldiers were on guard during the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:54

ο δε εκατονταρχος και οι μετ αυτου τηρουντες τον ιησουν ....

KJV translates as "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching
Jesus ..."

The Romans crucified Jesus as they had many another person.

[MG 2.0]

Trying to make out that nothing at all unusual happened with Jesus's death is also dubious, though. It makes the subsequent growth of Christianity more of a weird fluke than even quite weird flukes would be.

This is why Mormonism appeals so much to me. It’s an insight into how these flukes and movements that spring out of them happen.

That IS interesting, isn’t it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Christianity [is] more of a weird fluke than even quite weird flukes would be.

That seems to be the case. The question then becomes why.

Fluke?

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but on the other hand weird things do happen occasionally, and some amount of weirdness is inescapable in early Christianity. Whatever happened to Jesus's body, his movement really did recover from his death. It may seem easy enough in hindsight, knowing what actually happened, to nod and say that of course the time was ripe for just this kind of Neo-Jewish mystery cult or whatever it was to spread through the Roman Empire yada yada yada world religion. Thinking that things like that just happen by default seems naïve to me, though.

The most likely explanation for Christianity would seem to me to include some kind of unlikely event around Jesus's death. That unusual thing would have given super-charged confidence and enthusiasm to the dead leader's followers. If the time isn't ripe for something to grow, a core of committed supporters won't be enough to make it grow in spite of conditions, but without that committed group of people, I don't think anything as abstract as a religious movement is going to just spread by itself like a virus, no matter how ripe the conditions. Put a hot spark in dry tinder, though, and things can take off. Something weird about Jesus's death would be the kind of thing one should expect, I would say, given what happened next.

By no means would this unusual thing have to have been a literal, bodily resurrection. It could have been something as gruesomely banal as Jesus's body getting devoured by stray dogs. Or it could have been just a bizarre confusion, too cockeyed to affect anyone but stunned and terrified people, about what was supposed to have happened to Jesus's body. It could have been all kinds of things, that would have given Jesus's followers some real if misleading experience on which their faith could be based. That's the bad news for attempts to support the Resurrection with reason. Even wildly implausible flukes, that no historian would consider seriously even though they might be technically possible, are bound to be more probable, a priori, than a real Resurrection.

Trying to make out that nothing at all unusual happened with Jesus's death is also dubious, though. It makes the subsequent growth of Christianity more of a weird fluke than even quite weird flukes would be. It plays into the hands of the apologetic arguments, in fact, by accepting a false dilemma between a world religion just springing up for no adequate reason and a real Resurrection. "Something kind of weird happened" is the third alternative, embracing all kinds of somewhat weird but non-supernatural possibilities. It's not a very satisfyingly concrete hypothesis, but I think it's the most likely class of scenarios, given the evidence.

Jesus' death, claimed resurrection...actually virgin brith, miracles...were just expected stories to tell about a god or hero of that era. The surrounding stories included the same elements. It would definitely not take anything near an actual death of an actual person to start or expand a religion or cult following in that era. By the second century Christianity was not only gaining strength but seemingly was ready to revise its history to fit all the more into the environment. Along comes Luke (seond century authorship has gained such steam that it is basically the maintstream or even consesus view now) and Acts, the forged documents of Paul. But in all of these were 90 some odd other gospels that needed filtering out for the religion to survive, apparently.

All that was really needed was myth to get the religion going and to get it to succeed in the era. No doubt after the second century it took off like wildfire and no doubt many extenuating and convenient circumstances caused that to be so. History allows all possibilities, sure. Even the oddest of sounding things could have really happened. But we need evidence, and need that evidence to fit the odd stories moreso than not. That's just certainly not the case for the resurrection, nor even for the claimed life of Jesus.

[MG 2.0]

History allows all possibilities, sure. Even the oddest of sounding things could have really happened.

And many have. Some maybe not so odd. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.

In my view, however, I am interested in a worldview that looks towards something other than the here and now. To think that this is all there is seems to be unreasonable in the sense that we live, progress, we become wise…and then we die. I would LIKE to think that we carry what we’ve learned and experienced to the ‘next level’.

Christianity…and Mormonism in particular…provides that roadmap/plan that acts as a catalyst in this life and a template for eternity. And does a pretty good job of it. More so than some of the ‘fuzzy’ almost incomprehensible alternatives.

Resurrection. Odd? Sure.

But that doesn’t entail throwing everything into the same basket and looking at death as the end.

Jesus’s resurrection narrative has stood the test of time. One has to wonder at that. Chance/fluke?

Or a divine plan. We’re left to choose.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

... How likely is it the gospels are reliable when they claim Pilate turned over Jesus to be crucified by the Jews? ...

Sorry, but where do the gospels say that? It is clear from the gospels that they assume that Roman soldiers were on guard during the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:54

ο δε εκατονταρχος και οι μετ αυτου τηρουντες τον ιησουν ....

KJV translates as "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching
Jesus ..."

The Romans crucified Jesus as they had many another person.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

Ehrman notes that the gospels are inconsistent on this, and that as the story gets retold the Jews are more and more responsible for Christ’s death. This makes the story more and more historically implausible.

[huckelberry]

Sorry, but where do the gospels say that? It is clear from the gospels that they assume that Roman soldiers were on guard during the crucifixion.

Matthew 27:54

ο δε εκατονταρχος και οι μετ αυτου τηρουντες τον ιησουν ....

KJV translates as "Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching
Jesus ..."

The Romans crucified Jesus as they had many another person.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

Ehrman notes that the gospels are inconsistent on this, and that as the story gets retold the Jews are more and more responsible for Christ’s death. This makes the story more and more historically implausible.

drumdude, what story do you refer to here? Maybe I am just confused for a moment.

Oh yes Ehrman was discussing the likelyhood of Jesus having been buried. He doubts it because it would be an unaccounted for departure from normal procedure for Romans crucifying political problems. Chap is furthering that point with you by pointing out that it was Roman soldiers under Roman authority that were handling the affair not Jews who might have had scruples about a dead Body hanging up unburied. People have wondered if Pilate made an exception out of conscious which Ehrman doubts due to the changes in retelling of the story of he Pilate's conscience. People suspect Pilates imagined scruples grew as friction grew between Jewish authorities and Jesus followers.

Ehrman's observation is without a burial Jesus body could have been lost due to natural causes. (I would expect Chap agrees)

[huckelberry]

As I remember Crossan in '"Jesus Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" clearly proposed that the body of Jesus was eaten by dogs but the generally unpleasant and disrespectful quality of this narrative caused it to be forgotten and replaced in time with the burial story. I can see a logic in the observations. On the other hand it might be mentioned that the first version of the story , Mark, has Pilate being rather indifferent about Jesus and toying with the Jews . Mark reports burial of Jesus.

[Chap]

My point in my post above commenting on part of drumdude's post is a simple one, and nothing that has been said by way of reply appears to contradict it: Pilate did not hand over Jesus to 'the Jews' to be crucified. He is represented at one point as saying Jesus is innocent, and that he has no responsibility for his death. But it is still the Roman soldiers under his command who then proceed to carry out the process of a Roman-style criminal execution.