Tweet
What happened to the body?
As this is my first post here, I thought I'd kick it off with a surprisingly easy question for any atheist to answer: If Jesus of Nazareth was not raised by God then where did his body go?
We have a whole range of options, those often put forward by apologetics are unlikely and convoluted scenarios designed to push us towards the theory of bodily resurrection. One of the key pieces of evidence against a bodily resurrection however is that the earliest writers of the New Testament (Paul and the author of Mark) do not appear to know anything about it. "James" says nothing about it either (in fact everything James seems to know about Jesus comes straight from just one sermon he gave, interesting that). It's not a part of their belief-set, even though it is a part of the belief-set of Matthew, Luke, and John (or whoever wrote those gospels). Once we know this we're laughing. It's important to note I'm not saying that Paul and Mark did not have the belief that Jesus was raised to the celestial realm after his death, only that they say nothing about him appearing to people for forty days before that. And they simply believe in a spiritual resurrection of the dead, not a physical resurrection which is what is meant by the term when Christians use it. The closest that Paul comes to this is 1 Corinthians 15, but as we know that is just an early creed - and Jesus could not have appeared to Paul within the 40 day window because Paul had not yet been converted to Christianity, therefore he must be talking about something else. He spends the rest of that chapter going on about how terrestrial bodies are different to celestial ones, and that the terrestrial body cannot go and live in the celestial realm which is a direct contradiction to the doctrine of resurrection. I'm not convinced that Paul even believes he has had a vision of Jesus, since outside of the creed he never mentions it - even when talking directly about his conversion experience (Galatians 1) where he "received a revelation about Jesus Christ". That's hardly a statement claiming he had a vision, much less that he met the resurrected Jesus in the 40 days before the supposed ascension.
In answering this question, we really need to decide just how literally we want to take the gospel accounts. Some people think the Romans would have taken the body down and burned it - it's an interesting hypothesis, but I haven't seen anything in the way of credible scholarly evidence to suggest such a scenario was likely. Still, if they did do this it would be easy to understand why it was left out of the gospel accounts. We also know from scholars/classicists/other historians that it is a mistruth to claim that the Jewish authorities would have had any influence over the application of Roman law. Indeed they point out that the Jews would not have needed to petition Pilate because Jesus himself created a public nuisance by going into the Temple and disrupting business. That's certainly an act the Romans would not have tolerated. So we know the gospels are not entirely accurate in their description of the crucifixion anyway, because of an introduced anti-Semitic theme during the trial.
What we can say though is that Jesus was crucified, and after he died we don't know for certain where the body went. I think that's as far as any atheist needs to go. We can postulate that it is quite reasonable to assume his family took the body and laid it to rest in Nazareth. The gospels claim that a disciple named Joseph of Arimathea put the body in a freshly-cut stone tomb, but even if that were the case it doesn't preclude him handing possession of the body to his family so it can be moved to Nazareth which would have taken up to five days by foot! If the Sabbath was going to occur any time during their journey home then they might well have decided to wait for the Sabbath before beginning the journey. This is all the more likely by the fact that the use of temporary tombs was quite common at the time, and the tomb's description is one of a temporary place where a body can decompose to be later laid to rest alongside other family remains in a tomb. Also, it is permissible under Jewish law to move a body from a borrowed tomb. So the family would not have been breaking any Jewish law if indeed Joseph of Arimathea had loaned the use of his tomb to the family of Jesus.
What about those who claim that the gospels fail to mention the tomb being "borrowed"? Well we have at least two possibilities at this point, not just one. Perhaps the body was taken by the family and put straight into a family tomb some place, or perhaps it was placed in a tomb that the mysterious Joseph of Arimathea owned and then it was moved from that tomb to a family tomb or grave. But if the tomb was borrowed, surely the gospels would say so? Here we have two interesting problems: firstly the gospel writers obviously did not know the tomb was borrowed, because they believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that left his tomb empty. So from the subjective beliefs of the writers it can be shown they would not think of the tomb as borrowed. Secondly, we can work from the opposite assumption which is that although no reason for the use of said tomb is given, there must have been a good reason. And then we can ask: what is that reason? Is it more likely that the tomb was borrowed so the family could move it later, or is it more likely that the family didn't want to take the body and lay it in their tomb? The answer is very simple: burials are a family matter, and where we have an account that excludes the actions of the family we should be sceptical when asking if the account is complete.
So how did the resurrection myth get started? I think by now we know precisely why, but not so much how and I don't think we need to answer that question. We do know why: the followers of Jesus have just had their leader executed, and they are trying to come to terms with it and reinvent their movement. How? Well perhaps they really didn't know where the body went and it started rumours amongst them. Or the version I prefer, is that belief in a spiritual ascension snowballed into the belief in the resurrection. But there is an interesting question we can ask here, and that is if it is true that the location of the body of Jesus was a mystery why doesn't Paul concern himself with it? Paul knew the relatives of Jesus and his disciples - so we can assume he knew where in Nazareth (or where ever) Jesus was laid to rest. So if he was the one to say "his body is not on Earth because it was taken to the celestial realm" then that would be a problem. But he doesn't say anything at all that would suggest the body of Jesus was not in a grave or tomb some place. Indeed he simply believes the spirit of Jesus was raised to the celestial realm, not the physical body. In fact he goes on and on about this in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says there are "terrestrial bodies" and "celestial bodies", take note of verse 50 where he says specifically "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable", as mentioned earlier this is a direct contradiction to the later Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
So in essence, the only authors (Paul & maybe James) who could be eyewitnesses are silent when it comes to a bodily resurrection. Funny how apologists claim "eyewitness accounts", but what they actually have is hearsay by the gospel writers.
We have a whole range of options, those often put forward by apologetics are unlikely and convoluted scenarios designed to push us towards the theory of bodily resurrection. One of the key pieces of evidence against a bodily resurrection however is that the earliest writers of the New Testament (Paul and the author of Mark) do not appear to know anything about it. "James" says nothing about it either (in fact everything James seems to know about Jesus comes straight from just one sermon he gave, interesting that). It's not a part of their belief-set, even though it is a part of the belief-set of Matthew, Luke, and John (or whoever wrote those gospels). Once we know this we're laughing. It's important to note I'm not saying that Paul and Mark did not have the belief that Jesus was raised to the celestial realm after his death, only that they say nothing about him appearing to people for forty days before that. And they simply believe in a spiritual resurrection of the dead, not a physical resurrection which is what is meant by the term when Christians use it. The closest that Paul comes to this is 1 Corinthians 15, but as we know that is just an early creed - and Jesus could not have appeared to Paul within the 40 day window because Paul had not yet been converted to Christianity, therefore he must be talking about something else. He spends the rest of that chapter going on about how terrestrial bodies are different to celestial ones, and that the terrestrial body cannot go and live in the celestial realm which is a direct contradiction to the doctrine of resurrection. I'm not convinced that Paul even believes he has had a vision of Jesus, since outside of the creed he never mentions it - even when talking directly about his conversion experience (Galatians 1) where he "received a revelation about Jesus Christ". That's hardly a statement claiming he had a vision, much less that he met the resurrected Jesus in the 40 days before the supposed ascension.
In answering this question, we really need to decide just how literally we want to take the gospel accounts. Some people think the Romans would have taken the body down and burned it - it's an interesting hypothesis, but I haven't seen anything in the way of credible scholarly evidence to suggest such a scenario was likely. Still, if they did do this it would be easy to understand why it was left out of the gospel accounts. We also know from scholars/classicists/other historians that it is a mistruth to claim that the Jewish authorities would have had any influence over the application of Roman law. Indeed they point out that the Jews would not have needed to petition Pilate because Jesus himself created a public nuisance by going into the Temple and disrupting business. That's certainly an act the Romans would not have tolerated. So we know the gospels are not entirely accurate in their description of the crucifixion anyway, because of an introduced anti-Semitic theme during the trial.
What we can say though is that Jesus was crucified, and after he died we don't know for certain where the body went. I think that's as far as any atheist needs to go. We can postulate that it is quite reasonable to assume his family took the body and laid it to rest in Nazareth. The gospels claim that a disciple named Joseph of Arimathea put the body in a freshly-cut stone tomb, but even if that were the case it doesn't preclude him handing possession of the body to his family so it can be moved to Nazareth which would have taken up to five days by foot! If the Sabbath was going to occur any time during their journey home then they might well have decided to wait for the Sabbath before beginning the journey. This is all the more likely by the fact that the use of temporary tombs was quite common at the time, and the tomb's description is one of a temporary place where a body can decompose to be later laid to rest alongside other family remains in a tomb. Also, it is permissible under Jewish law to move a body from a borrowed tomb. So the family would not have been breaking any Jewish law if indeed Joseph of Arimathea had loaned the use of his tomb to the family of Jesus.
What about those who claim that the gospels fail to mention the tomb being "borrowed"? Well we have at least two possibilities at this point, not just one. Perhaps the body was taken by the family and put straight into a family tomb some place, or perhaps it was placed in a tomb that the mysterious Joseph of Arimathea owned and then it was moved from that tomb to a family tomb or grave. But if the tomb was borrowed, surely the gospels would say so? Here we have two interesting problems: firstly the gospel writers obviously did not know the tomb was borrowed, because they believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that left his tomb empty. So from the subjective beliefs of the writers it can be shown they would not think of the tomb as borrowed. Secondly, we can work from the opposite assumption which is that although no reason for the use of said tomb is given, there must have been a good reason. And then we can ask: what is that reason? Is it more likely that the tomb was borrowed so the family could move it later, or is it more likely that the family didn't want to take the body and lay it in their tomb? The answer is very simple: burials are a family matter, and where we have an account that excludes the actions of the family we should be sceptical when asking if the account is complete.
So how did the resurrection myth get started? I think by now we know precisely why, but not so much how and I don't think we need to answer that question. We do know why: the followers of Jesus have just had their leader executed, and they are trying to come to terms with it and reinvent their movement. How? Well perhaps they really didn't know where the body went and it started rumours amongst them. Or the version I prefer, is that belief in a spiritual ascension snowballed into the belief in the resurrection. But there is an interesting question we can ask here, and that is if it is true that the location of the body of Jesus was a mystery why doesn't Paul concern himself with it? Paul knew the relatives of Jesus and his disciples - so we can assume he knew where in Nazareth (or where ever) Jesus was laid to rest. So if he was the one to say "his body is not on Earth because it was taken to the celestial realm" then that would be a problem. But he doesn't say anything at all that would suggest the body of Jesus was not in a grave or tomb some place. Indeed he simply believes the spirit of Jesus was raised to the celestial realm, not the physical body. In fact he goes on and on about this in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says there are "terrestrial bodies" and "celestial bodies", take note of verse 50 where he says specifically "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable", as mentioned earlier this is a direct contradiction to the later Christian doctrine of the resurrection.
So in essence, the only authors (Paul & maybe James) who could be eyewitnesses are silent when it comes to a bodily resurrection. Funny how apologists claim "eyewitness accounts", but what they actually have is hearsay by the gospel writers.
Comment