The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #1: Before and After Jesus's crucifixion, His Disciples lost Hope
Former leading atheist Antony Flew once asked Gary Habermas why Jesus's Disciples should have fallen out of faith because of Jesus's arrest and crucifixion. "...if the Resurrection predictions had been given by their teacher, if he'd said he was going to be put to death and going to rise, who should the believers despair...?" (1) But for starters, the Disciples couldn't make any sense out of such teachings (see for example Mark 8:31-33; 9:10, 31-32; Matt. 16:21-23). What's more, a Jesus who taught such seems like one who would know it would be true. I will explain why I think that in part 2 of answering alternative theories, but suffice it now to say that Ehrman doesn't think Jesus ever made such claims. They don't pass "the criteria of dissimilarity" (or so it is argued), which is also known as embarrassing testimony(2). This is the basic principle that someone wouldn't invent a claim which makes them (either primarily the believer or through their leaders) look bad.
BUT it does verify the faithlessness of the Disciples.
The Disciples did have a moment of courage at Jesus's arrest, one even going so far as to strike off the ear of the servant of the high priest Caiaphas, but then "they all deserted Him and fled" (Mark 14:50-52; Matt. 26:56).
Peter did follow Him, however, but it was at a distance. Then he denies knowing Jesus three times because of his cowardice (Mark 14:54, 66-72; Matt. 26:69-75; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27).
Of all people, it is the women (looked down on in 1st century Judaism as presented in part 1 on the empty tomb) who are prominent at the crucifixion, burial, and discovery of His resurrection (Mark 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-6; Matt. 27:55-56, 61; 28:1-10; Luke 23:48-49, 55-56; 24:1-10; John 19:25-27; 20:1-2, 11-18).
Only in the Gospel of John, which according to skeptical belief is supposed to be the most legendary, is there 1 of the Disciples (who goes unnamed but is known as "the Disciple whom Jesus loved;" the early church understands this as John) who is reported as being at the crucifixion and staying with Jesus at the trial (18:15; 19:26).
Luke 24:11 says "But they did not believe the women, because their words to them seemed like nonsense." Cross-reference John 20:9. Keep Luke's account in mind, as it will appear again to support the empty tomb.
Only the unnamed Disciple in John believes because of the grave clothes, so even his faith didn't last after the crucifixion. There is no hint that Peter did as well, but the other is explicitly explained (20:3-8). Actually, especially if Ehrman is right that Luke 24:12 didn't belong in the original manuscript, or even if it's describing an event after the later account, it very plausibly could show the only good interpretation of John: "...he went away, wondering to himself what had happened."
Only lesser known Disciples were out and about (to at least some degree), and even they didn't believe (Luke 24:13-21). On the other hand, Peter and his gang seemed to be hiding out by being all together in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33). John explicitly says they had locked the doors "for fear of the Jewish leaders" (John 20:19).
Even when Jesus appeared to them, at least some of the group doubted (Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:36-45; John 20:24-28). John's account of the first group appearance extensively differs from Luke in detail. However, it is surely implied that they doubte d because first Jesus announced Himself, showed them His scars (which Thomas needed to be convinced), and only after all that is it said the Disciples were "overjoyed." (John 20:19-20)
In the next post that proves the crucifixion, it will be shown why this all makes sense. Here I will just say that a crucified Messiah (not just simply killed) is the very worst one that could ever appear to Jews. The crucifixion has the power to crush a Jew's confidence like someone getting their skull battered in, knocking them to the ground dead and the brains splatter out onto the sidewalk. (Or like someone beaten so badly they are a bloody pulp, you can at least somewhat make out some bones, and they are about to die... by being nailed to a cross. That literally is crucifixion.)
Now I must introduce two other pieces of evidence for a reliable church tradition: multiple independent attestation is when two or more different sources that didn't conspire together report the same thing, and contextual credibility is when a claim has something which fits the historical context.
It can be difficult to determine when different Gospels have different sources, because Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, but John is said to have very little to do with Mark. But these reports do have significant differences sometimes (like Luke and John lacking an explicit mention of the Disciples falling away), and not everything is in all the Gospels (like Luke is the first with the Disciples doubt over the empty tomb).
All the Gospels give us implicit and explicit multiple independent attestation of this very embarrassing claim, which highly fits contextual credibility. Sometimes I feel like I've known all my life that even very skeptical scholars know this is a fact. Some examples I have are here:
Michael Goulder said, "Finally when Jesus was arrested, he [Peter] ran away with the others. ... Finally his lord let him down: instead of establishing the kingdom of God, he just died like any criminal on the cross." (3)
Ehrman has a number of considerations:
"No Jew would come away from the crucifixion thinking that this one was the messiah. The crucifixion radically disconfirmed Peter's deepest hopes." (4)
"But soon the bravado [defending Jesus at His arrest] melts away. We're told in the Gospels that Peter did not flee the scene directly but followed the crowds who took Jesus off to stand trial before the Jewish court on charges of blasphemy. The flight of the other disciples make sense: if their leader was a criminal, what does that make them? Peter, however, is said to have 'followed at a distance' (Mark 14:54), evidently to see how things would turn out." (5)
"...the disciples had all betrayed, denied, or fled from Jesus during his hour of need..." (6)
Now I am aware that some of this can be explained by theology theory. Theology theory is what I call the idea that some Gospel material was invented to fit theological purposes, and so it's not intended to give a strict historical account by any necessary means. Even then though, the skeptical view that legend (even theological legend) can overlap history is interesting to consider. For example, why were only the lesser known Disciples not hiding out with the others in Luke? Perhaps Luke invented the story but wasn't willing to defeat the historical truth that Jesus's main followers weren't so flexible.
Something Ehrman said about Peter's embarrassments being present in all the Gospels (more than just his denial) intrigued me: "Whether or not all of these stories are historically accurate descriptions of what took place, they occur with enough frequency to make one suspect that Simon was widely known for having a brash and rather disposition." (7)
So things that are supposedly completely legendary (like Bart Ehrman thinks of the accounts where the Disciples doubt in Jesus after He appears to them[8]) can still indicate a truth: like the Disciples were in a position to doubt if they heard that Jesus was back.
Finally, I can think of a counter-example to the Disciples doubting and being in despair: Luke 24:34 says they all proclaimed that "It is true!" because "The Lord is alive and has appeared to Simon!"
I will explain what I think about this in part 2 of examining alternative explanations (it goes along with Jesus prophesying His resurrection). I feel completely comfortable doing that, because all the evidence for my first claim which supports the actual, historical resurrection of Jesus, makes it very implausible as an invention (so greatly outweighing one verse in one Gospel).There is enough evidence to convince even very skeptical scholars like Ehrman, so it should be enough for me as well.
1. Gary Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, edited by Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 87.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.