Encyclopedia > Talk:Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Article Content

Talk:Resurrection of Jesus Christ

For earlier discussion, see Talk:Resurrection of Jesus Christ (archive).

I honestly do not understand this debate. It seems obvious to me that when a non-Christian describes RoJC as a "belief," what they mean is that Christians (or many Christians) believe that God brought Jesus back to life after Jesus was crucified. It seems equally obvious to me that when a Christian says "God brought Jesus back to life after Jesus was crucified" that person really believes that it happened. "Belief" is not necessarily the opposite of "fact."

Steve, what you say here is obviously true. There is no debate, as such; Ben Baker just doesn't care. He is rewriting this entry as a Christian catechism because he is either unable or unwilling to talk reasonably about this topic with non-Christians. He is trying to make Wikipedia into a tool for proselytizing his faith. Your only error is in trying to uncover the reason why Wesley and myself and you have been unable to make our points clear to Ben. There is no misunderstanding. Ben simply has an agenda here, and your discussion of the issue is a threat to his worldview. RK

again, RK wants to attack me. I assume because he rarely runs into people who truly, deeply disagree with his opinions. Or perhaps he has run into people who disagree with him and don't allow for the idea that he won't change his mind. I don't know. It certainly isn't true that I am using Wikipedia as a tool for proselytizing. Of course, RK may think that, regardless of what I say. I do stubbornly believe that Wikipedia shouldn't have blatantly anti-christian bias. (I'm not sure this is one of those cases, by the way.) I also have been around long enough to be open to the fact that people exist who will never agree with me, no matter how I feel about it, or think. --BenBaker

I am pretty sure that everything I believe in I believe in because I believe it to be true. I believe that today is Tuesday. I believe that evolution occurs. I believe physicists when they tell me that we are made up of atoms. I DO see one way in which "belief" and "fact" are different, or rather, should be used differently. Sometimes people disagree as to the facts. In that case, to say "I believe" means "I think this is a fact, but I know others do not agree that it is a fact." So I cannot understant why a Christian would object to RoJC being described as a belief. I understand completely that many Christians really do believe that it happened. But don't they understand that many people believe that it didn't happen? For them to describe it as a belief doesn't mean that they don't really believe it happened, it merely signals their recognition that not other people do not share their beliefs about this "fact."

If we are talking about a doctrine or a belief that was not based on a historic event, I'm sure your argument be stronger. Since we are talking about a belief that is historical, I'm not sure it makes sense to say that it either is just believed or not believed. If the calendar says Dec 26th,2001 A.D. is Wednesday, and you believe it is Tuesday, then it is a historic fact that it is Wednesday. You are still free to do as you like and believe as you like, but it would be inaccurate for you to claim all people should simply say it is a belief that December 26th,2001 A.D. is Wednesday. I'm trying to work with your example here. I wonder if I need to qualify my statement as to Gregorian Calendar etc. The RoJC is an event that isn't even dependent on a man-made artifact like a calendar. incidentally, I also am pretty sure that everything I believe in, I believe in because I believe it is true. I would also say that just because I believe something is true, that it automatically becomes true. --BenBaker

I guess I wasn't being clear. I am definitely talking about "historic events." What does it mean to say that "December 26th is Wednesday" is a "fact?" That 12/26/01 is Wednesday is so because of a social convention. I admit that it would be hard to change this convention, but if everyone in the world wanted to, 12/26 could be a different day. If we want to say that "12/26 is Wednesday" is a "fact," all we mean is that it is avery strong social convention, i.e. practically everyone agrees with this. I think it is clearer to say that it is a "fact" that practically everyone agrees that 12/26/01 is Wednesday.

In fact, NOT everyone agress that Jesus was resurrected. In fact, a minority of people believe this.

It is true that the RoJC either happened or did not, and it does not matter what people believe happened -- i.e., if it happened, it happened even if no one believes it. But by the same logic, if it didn't happen, it didn't happen even if EVERYONE believes it! SO: that the RoJC is, as you put it, a "historical event" by which I think you mean "something that happened" does not in and of itself prove that it did or didn't happen.

I know that you believe that it did happen. But I have to repeat my question: don't you know that there are many people who believe that it didn't happen? This is why it makes a LOT more sense to say "12/26/01 is Wednesday" is a "fact" -- in this case, fact means uncontroversial. But RoJC is very controversial, and I don't see that it makes sense to use the same word to describe both things.

What is the "fact" about the RoJC? Just as it is a fact that practically everyone believes that 12/26 is Wednesday, it is a fact that many people believe that JC was resurrected, and many people believe that he wasn't. It is a fact that you CLAIM that the RoJC is a fact. It is a fact that many people CLAIM that the RoJC is a fact. But it wouldn't be right for an article on the RoJC to say that "it is a well-established fact that JC was resurrected," -- that simply isn't true. -- SR

I'm going to work hard to ignore that last sentence; I have no idea in what context it would make sense. To repeat what I said elsewhere, I think the resurrection is a disputed historic event, not an undisputed or indisputable event. Let's compare this to, I don't know, say the murder of JFK. The standard historical account is that he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Oswald was acting alone. A number of people think that someone else was involved, based on the number and location of shots fired, and so on and so forth. Just look at any murder trial where the defendant pleads innocent, and perhaps claims to have been far away from the scene of the crime at the time it happened. Assuming a body was found, no one doubts that a murder took place. The prosecution and defense will offer different versions of how the murder happened and who committed it. This is why police officers and journalists refer to the defendant as "the defendant" or "the alleged perpetrator" rather than as "the killer." They need to maintain the semblance of a neutral point of view while they're sorting out the facts. The prosecutor will go ahead and call the accused the murderer, but everyone knows that the prosecutor isn't trying to be perfectly objective, but is trying to present the case in as one-sided a way that she can. And the defense will also seek to present as favorably biased a view of events as possible. While writing Wikipedia articles, we need to assume the voice of journalists, not that of defense or prosecuting attorneys. --Wesley

It is a fact that heaven and hell do not exist. At least, I believe it is a fact. I do understand that some people believe that it is a fact that heaven and hell do exist. So I will say "I do not believe in heaven and hell." Please do not misinterpret me to mean that my belief about heaven and hell is somehow wishy-washy, trivial, or should not be taken seriously for some other reason, just because this is what I "believe." -- SR

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead by God three days after his Crucifixion?. Most Christians affirm the historical nature of this event, and celebrate it each year at Easter. A few Christians and most non-Christians view it as an ahistorical myth.

I'm pretty happy with the wording above in the current version of the article. The three-sentence structure works well as a unit. -- The Anome

I'm happy with it. -- BenBaker

I am deleting "ahistorical" which I think is misleading in two ways. First, the myth, such as it is, IS about a moment in history; second, the myth itself has a history. If anything, it is a historical myth. But I think the word "myth" alone suffices, as long as people understand the word "myth" in the academic sense of a story that has truth-value based on personal or social meaning (and often metaphorical or allegorical), rather than literal facticity. -- SR

Argh! Please bring back 'ahistorical' or 'non-historical' - it is needed to balance the 'historical' in the second sentence. -- The Anome

I'm trying to not edit the document, as every change I make seems to be

controversial. --BenBaker

I tried another rewrite -- it is the best I can do and I now leave it to others, including BenBaker, to continue to improve it. I may have sacrificed some symmetry for clarity and accuracy, but, well, I tried. Here is the previous version -- if people think it is better, you can put it back in, SR

is the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead by God three days after his Crucifixion. Most Christians affirm the historical nature of this event, and celebrate it each year at Easter. A few Christians and most non-Christians view it as an historical myth.

From the article:

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an event recorded in the New Testament and commemorated and celebrated each year at Easter. Most Christians accept this as an accurate historical account of an event that is central to their theology. Some Christians and most non-Christians view this account as a myth.

OK, happy again. -- The Anome

Well, the current rewrite doesn't give any details of what this event is supposed to be. just that it is an event. Can someone else non-controversially, just put back in the description of the event? Or do we just let the reader figure it out from the rest of the article? -- BenBaker

In my rewrite I removed the detail, but only because I sincerely believe that everyone knows what "resurrection" means (i.e. raising from the dead); I have no objection to restoring it but honestly, I think it would be redundant. I do not think the details of the event are controversial, I just think details -- even more details than this -- are better off in the body of the article, not the first paragraph. That said, I hope that you otherwise find the revised opening acceptable (i.e. fair and not offensive) -- SR

I've never been offended by another person's beliefs being different than mine. When I was younger, I was confused by it, but not offended. One advantage of the defining statement is that it afforded a natural link to the Crucifixion, the three days, etc. If no one else objects to my putting that into the article, I will, but as I said before, the seems to be a long controversy over every change I make to this article. -- BenBaker

It's a good thing that you think twice before posting to an article. I think it's a very good practice, especially on subjects where there is wide disagreement. I try to do it myself, although I'm not perfect, and I think everyone should. I hope in time you will get better at using npov language to make sure each article includes a Christian viewpoint without stating it as if it were a generally held fact. I'm not Christian, but I want to see your pov included in articles. It can be hard, I know, to walk that fine line without crossing over into exhortation of beliefs when they are so strongly held. --Dmerrill

I skimmed the above debate and found it to be a perfect example of a case in which subtle misunderstandings of what the neutral point of view requires can lead to heated arguments. In this case, it seems that the main sticking point is whether we want to refer to the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Well, we can't do that, because lots of people don't think it was a historical event. If you don't like that, you don't like the neutrality policy. On the other hand, we of course cannot say or imply that it is a myth, that it didn't happen, because many (hundreds of millions) of Christians believe it did.

This should be a very easily solvable problem, not a difficult conundrum. The neutrality policy says that, in such cases, we talk about what people believe (or think they know, if you prefer), rather than about the thing itself. The present text is pretty good at doing exactly this:

I see a very slight problem here (not a serious problem), though. To say that something is an "event" is not unlike writing as if a name refers to a person, which is ordinarily understood to mean that the event, or person, exists (or existed). This makes the text sound as if the resurrection occurred (despite what the next sentences say). The best way to avoid this implication is to reword the sentence entirely, as I will do (hold onto your hats).

OK, I'm done making a few changes. You'll see that I have reworded the first two paragraphs so that it is perfectly obvious that no claims at all are being made by Wikipedia about the historicity of the resurrection. This makes the last sentence of the old version, "Some Christians and most non-Christians view this account as a myth," as more or less going without saying. If we were to add that sentence there at the end of the very first paragraph, it makes it sound to me somewhat as if we're trying to distance ourselves from the claim that the resurrection actually happened; we don't want to distance ourselves from the claim. We don't want to take any stand on it whatsoever! So I moved and expanded that sentence to its own paragraph, the third.

I'm sure it's still not done, but I hope it's better now, anyway. --LMS

Thanks for your work, LMS. I certainly appreciate the spirit behind the changes. I still don't think there should have been any problem calling it an 'event' given the surrounding disclaimers, but not enough to want to change it back or anything. --Wesley

In general, I like the subheadings. I think this one could be reworded though:

The Resurrection of Jesus compared with other cultures

This seems to imply that the Resurrection is a culture that can be compared and contrasted with other cultures. Whatever else it might be, it's not a culture. Could this be reworded? --Wesley

Thanks, and yes, I think the rewording is a little clearer. In the spirit of submitting potentially controversial material here instead of on the main page, here's a draft of some text I'd like to add to this section:

Others would observe that while many believers in the various "mystery religions" in the first and second centuries of the Roman Empire freely borrowed from each other, Christianity was not founded by any of these, but by Jews, a people who were generally adamant about maintaining the purity of their faith. Paul of Tarsus, who authored much of the New Testament, was himself a Jew, a Pharisee who had been trained by Gamaliel, one of the leading Jewish theologians of the time. In each town that Paul visited, he preached in the Jewish synagogues before preaching to the Gentiles or non-Jews. This would make it unlikely that the resurrection story would be invented or borrowed in order to appeal to Gentiles. Any appeal that it might have had did little to mitigate the persecution the Christians received for the first 275 years or so of the religion.

Since the articles suggest some borrowing for the sake of appeal, I thought I'd bring up some reasons that this seems unlikely, at least to me. Let me know if this is the wrong place to bring up these arguments, if I need to phrase it more neutrally or provide some attribution, or whatever. It's not cut and paste, the words and ideas are essentially my own. This is just draft text, so any help editing it is welcome. If putting it on the main page would make it easier to edit, that's ok too. --Wesley

Thanks for offering that here in a spirit of cooperation. With that also in mind, I think what you wrote is a very good description of how those who believe in the Resurrection would state their belief. I would drop the last sentence which seems out of place and not npov, and change "Others" to "Christians" because that is the "Others" you're speaking of, and change "This would make it unlikely" to "Therefore, Christians think it unlikely". --Dmerrill

Thanks; that's exactly the sort of criticism I was looking for. Regarding the last sentence, I'd rather rewrite or even expand it than drop it entirely. The articles to which it's responding suggested that the Christian story was designed to appeal to a wider audience. The fact that most of the Apostles and many of the other leaders were executed, along with many other persecutions, suggests that the appeal didn't work on a large scale. If there's a better way to make that point than that last sentence, and still somehow phrase it as NPOV, I'm still open to further suggestions. And oh, I do plan to incorporate the other suggestions. Thanks, --Wesley

Hey, I'm probably stirring the water a bit, but I think I like the statement by Larry. It's not just Christians who say the resurrection happened. It's a document, believed to be true by Christians. It's much more direct to say it is the New Testament that says it. I'm putting that back in. (and of course, we can debate it some more, like we seem to always do.... (grin) -- BenBaker

The first paragaph looks good to me. However, I made some changes to the section on resurrestion compared to other cultures. My biggest change was deleting this sentence about Jews "a people who were generally adamant about maintaining the purity of their faith." Aside from being a huge generalization, there are a number of things im my opinion wrong with this assertion. It is certainly true that Jews are adamant about monotheism. They are also adamant about not worhiping idols, and came to blows with Romans when the empire wanted to put a statue of their gods/emperor in the Temple. That said, I must point out, as the article on Judaism and on comparing/contrasting Judaism and Christianity makes clear, that Judaim is not primarily about faith. There are three examples I can give that show that whatever Jews say, in practice they are not such fanatics about "purity" of faith.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My responses are interspersed below. --Wesley

1) The Tanach draws on many diffeent i.e. non-Hebrew traditions -- the flood story, which was borrowed from the Sumerians via the Babylonians, for example. Also the three main festivals probably have their origin in non-Hebrew agricultural festivals (although of course a Hebrew meaning was grafted onto them).

2) In the post-Biblical period Jews were also influenced by outsiders. It is quite likely that Talmudic and later references to a life after death were influenced by Christianity or other religions (since the Tanach makes no mention of a life after death -- except for the enigmatic apparition of Saul's ghost -- and Kohelet is explicit that there is no life after death). Today three of the four major movements in Judaism ordain women as rabbis. Although some advocates of women as rabbis argue that this does not violate Jewish law, it clearly owes more to the influence of modern American feminism than some purely indigenous tradition

I think you mean the ghost of Samuel that appeared to Saul. Besides that, I think there are a couple other references to life after death. Didn't Elijah raise from the dead the son of a widow who had helped him? There's also Ezekiel's vision of a valley of bones who were restored to become a living army of soldiers; granted it was a vision, but it still contains the idea of being restored to life after having died. I would have to look for additional references. But I acknowledge your more general point about Jews being influenced by outsiders. I think that some have said that the Jews also picked up some ideas about angels and demons from the Persians during their exile there? --Wesley

3) Aside from borrowing from non-Jewish sources, Juduaism is internally heterogeneous. This is written into Jewish tradition in the Torah itself, which draws together four sometimes contradictory accounts, and in the Talmud, which records majority opinions, minority opinions, and other dissents. At the time that Jesus preached, Jews were divided into Pharisees (the founders of modern Judaism), the Saducees, and other sects like the Essenes.

These are my reasons for objecting to my people being characterized as adamant about purity (unless you mean ritual purity, like keeping kosher -- which I don't think this sentence meant, in context!).

No, I didn't mean ritual purity. (smile) I think you're right on this point. I would be curious as to whether Jews were freely borrowing from the mystical traditions of the time, or if they were being converted entirely to any of those other religions. I was just assuming that such cases would be rare, but I could be wrong. --Wesley

The larger issue is of course claims about the resurrection of Jesus. I certainly would not be surprised if some Jews at the time of Jesus were influenced by other Near-Eastern religions and mystical traditions that preached resurrection. I think the Pharasees, my own spiritual ancestors, rejected it. But they were one group among many. So I grant that it is possible that the claim that God resurrected Jesus appealed to Jews who were themselves influenced by other traditions.

As I understand them, the Pharisees at the time were zealous for keeping the Law, so they would seem likely to reject major outside religious influences. If the Pharisees didn't buy into the mystical resurrection stories, it's far more unlikely that the Sadducees did, since they didn't believe resurrection was possible. As for the Essenes, weren't they a relatively isolated desert community? If so, they may have had relatively few opportunities to even learn about the newest resurrection stories in vogue in the empire. Who does that leave? Jews in urban centers around the empire, far from Jerusalem but close to believers in these other religions?? Would such Jews likely be Pharisees, Sadducees, both, or some other sect? --Wesley

Nevertheless, I still believe that this would have appealed more to non-Jews. And I still hold to my opinion that early Christian leaders -- after Paul, certainly not before Paul -- wanted to appeal to non-Jews. Wesley made an argument against this opinion, and I ask him if he has amy concrete historical evidence. I ask not to be churlish or defensive -- I admit that I have no concrete historical evidence. Wesley may be right. But if he has no further evidence, I simply find the reasons he listed above non-compelling.

Of course the Christians wanted to appeal to non-Jews, both before and after Paul. Christ commanded them to preach the good news beginning in Jerusalem, extending to the ends of the earth (Acts 1). On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, there were many Jews from different parts of the empire present who became Christians. I believe that after a time in Jerusalem, they returned to their homes and continued to share the gospel there with Jews and Gentiles. Peter went to the home of a Gentile, Cornelius, early on. My original claim in this regard is that the earliest Christians did not set out to make up a story that would appeal to non-Jews, since the first audience of their story was Jews. IF they were going to make something up, it would need to appeal to Jews first. And it would need to appeal to Jews who cared enough about their religion to travel from a far country to Jerusalem for Pentecost, no less. I suppose the book of Acts will be dismissed as a fabrication, but I would still put it forth as the best historical record available unless you have a better one. --Wesley

1) The first Christians were Jews. There is some historical evidence that they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected.

Really?? What could they possibly have believed?? The article already lists early Christian authors who attested to the resurrection. What evidence is there, and what could such a religion possibly profess? And how could such a religion be connected to the Christianity of the New Testament? If it exists, I would almost have to think it was another mystery religion, and might at best be an indication that Jews actually were influenced by the mystery religions. --Wesley

2) Saul was Jewish and originally a Pharisee, but when he changed his name to Paul it was to signal a break with the Pharisees (you know, Martin Luther was once a Catholic. But given the specifics of his life, you cannot use that fact alone to argue that the Catholic church supported the Protestant Reformation, or that Luther and other leaders during the Sixt Years war were trying to work within Catholic traditions and theology). Yes, he preached to Jews. But my point is, he preached to non-Jews too -- something other Jews, e.g. Pharisees and Saducees, did not do. In the first years of Christianity a non-Jew had to become Jewish to become Christian; men would have to be circumsized and they would then have to keep Kosher etc. Paul changed that.

You're right, I can't use that fact alone. I would also point out that in his epistles, Paul quotes extensively from the Septuagint, as do many if not all of the early church fathers. Right or wrong, Paul believed the message he was preaching was consistent with Judaism, that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. If the New Testament contains any references at all to the mystery religions (I think it does include a couple of Greek sayings), they are far outweighed by the many references to the Old Testament. Again, if they were making up a religion to appeal to non-Jews, it wouldn't make sense to rely so heavily on Jewish scripture. --Wesley

3) It is true that Romans persecuted Christians for centuries, but this does not mean that Christians were not trying to appeal to non-Jews. For one thing, they were persecuted for very different reasons than Romans persecuted Jews. Romans persecuted Jews by doing things they did to everyone in the empire -- they imposed taxes and erected statues of their gods and emperors. Jews couldn't stand this, and rebelled, and Romans attacked Jews when Jews rebelled against the political might of Rome. Romans persectued Christians for other easons, included Christian intolerance (Jews had no objection to Romans worshiping Jupitor, but Christians did). But I'd like to suggest another reason Romans might have persecuted Christians: because Christians were increasingly successful in converting non-Jews (i.e. most subjects of the empire) to Christianity. That Romans persecuted Christians does NOT mean that Christianity did not appeal to non-Jewish Romans; it only means that it did not appeal to Roman elites. -- SR

The point of my argument was again, that IF the early Christians were trying to make up a religion to compete with the others, they could have made up a religion that didn't get so many of them imprisoned or killed. Many of the competing mystery religions set up their main spokesperson as somehow divine, or as the key prophet of the divine. In this way the spokesperson grew in social power and prestige. (see Irenaeus' 2nd century work, Against Heresies). The early Christian leaders did enjoy some prestige within the Christian community, but in exchange they were beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and killed. Some of the other religions also underwent some persecution from the Romans for various reasons, but none of them lasted as long as Christianity. This suggests that what the Christians preached, they at least thought was true, and was worth dying for; if they were going to make something up, they surely would have been smart enough to come up with a better story. However, I thought I left this part of the argument out of the main article, as Dmerril suggested. Better re-read what's there.

SR, you have ably pointed out that the paragraph in question is based in part upon speculation. I'm trying to conduct an honest inquiry as well, though my own beliefs are clearly shading what I read. The biggest historical questions in my mind, are (1) is there evidence that the Jews were incorporating elements from contemporary mystery religions into their religious beliefs and practice in the first century? I'm assuming not (giving them the benefit of the doubt actually), but could be wrong; and (2) is there any credible evidence that Christians ever did NOT believe that Christ was resurrected? If so, what's the evidence, and what makes them Christians? Ultimately, of course, I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone in particular; I just want to offer an explanation for similarities between the different resurrection stories that's a tiny bit deeper than "Christians dismiss such suggestions". :-) --Wesley

Wesley, I appreciate your very thoughtful and detailed response to my comments. By the way, you are right -- I meant Samuel's ghost, not Saul. BTW by "life after death" I really meant something like heaven. Elijah's revival of a dead kid does not necessarily suggest that Israelites at the time believed that while the child (if I recall correctly) was dead, his soul was in heaven. It is, of course, a miracle that prefigures Jesus' revival of Lazarus.

Anyway, I admit that my remarks are speculative. As you rightly observe, we simply need more evidence and I do not have enough of a grasp on this period of Jewish/Roman/Near Eastern history to add much, except questions. I agree that Pharisees and Saducees would have rejected claims to the resurrection. You ask, "who does that leave," and I answer -- I honestly do not know, and would defer to a historian. BUT I do believe that most of the history of Judea that we have comes from very few sources (e.g. Josephus) and I would not be surprised if the history we have is largely the winners' history, i.e. the history that the Pharisees wanted to tell. Were the Pharisees (or even the Pharisees and the Saducees) as hegemonic as the record suggests? Maybe -- I just wouldn't take a historical record they created and perpetuated at face value.

Since I asked that question, I've found mention of Zealots and I think Essenes, and possibly more. But by the early to mid second century, the picture seems reduced to only Pharisees. Perhaps the other parties became Christians, perhaps they became Pharisees, probably at least some of each. I agree there is reason to be cautious about the historical record. --Wesley

I want to make just two more points. I claimed that the first Christians did not believe Jesus was resurrected. I may be wrong. I just recall reading a review of some history books of the period in the New York Review of Books that suggested this. I realize it is a controversial claim. I do not have support at hand to back it up. I can only appeal to others who really are experts to address this. I know that this is a serious point, and understand why it is especially serious for contemporary Christians. I'd like to withdraw the claim but re-assert it as a question.

Finally, you call attention to the massive number of quotes from the Tanach in the New Testament. I do not want to question the sincerity of Paul's claim that the Tanach prophesizes Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. I certainly do agree with you that this is evidence that Paul and/or the other authors of the New Testament wanted to appeal to Jews. BUT I have to insist that although they were claiming conitnuity, their use of these quoted verses (like any anachronistic use of verses, e.g. in the Talmud as well) is also an act of interpretation. I firmly believe that Paul was creating a new religion drawing on the old one for raw material. Whether he was also drawing on contemporary mystery religions as well? I do not want to argue the point, but I do want to keep the possibility open. You write that "If the New Testament contains any references at all to the mystery religions (I think it does include a couple of Greek sayings), they are far outweighed by the many references to the Old Testament." My point is that references or appeals to mystery religions do not have to take the form of specific explicit references. My point is that perhaps ironically Tanach verses can be used -- when placed in a new context to new purposes, and thus reinterpreted -- to evoke not only the Tanach mut contemporary mystery religions as well.

I agree that Paul and other converts interpreted the Tanach in ways that contemporary Jews did not. Yes, appeals to mystery religions would not have to be as explicit; they are either not there, or there but alluded to more subtly than the Tanach references, or we modern readers aren't catching some blatant references because we're not familiar with the texts then commonly used by the various mystery religions. Interestingly enough, it appears that Justin Martyr, a second century Greek philosopher who became a Christian, believed that the Greeks and other pagan religions borrowed heavily from the Tanach prophecies of Christ, leading to the apparent similarities. --Wesley

I am not qualified to say much more on this topic. I think we have opened up much larger issues and I hope that another Wikipedian (or you?) can take this discussion as ian invitation to create a new entry, or expand a current one, on issues in Biblical history -- SR

Yes, Biblical history could certainly be a topic unto itself, with an archaeology subsection among others. --Wesley

I've been trying to avoid getting into subject matter directly related to my field, but this demands some attention. Pharisee theology--borrowed, in part, from Persian religious beliefs--did believe in the concept of resurrection. The Sadduccees did not. (see the final chapter in Tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud) This is in keeping with the general distinction (misunderstood by many Christians) that the Pharisees were a reformist movement comprised of peasants and artisans, while the Saduccees were mainly aristocrats and priests who maintained a more rigid interpretation of biblical law. Nevertheless, even the Pharisees recognized that claiming the resurrection of the dead to be of biblical origin was problematic. The aforementioned talmudic citation opens as follows: All people have a share in the world to come, except for people who claim that ... the resurrection of the dead is not foretold in the Bible (there are others, as well, but this is not the place to get into that). The Talmud then attempts to find those biblical "sources" that affirm a belief in resurrection. The fact is that it has a hard time doing that and does not come up with any one conclusive bit of evidence.

As for the meaning of resurrection in more modern Jewish tradition, this is also problematic and has been interpretted in a number of ways. It is generally conceived as encompassing all mankind, but Maimonides, in one of his letters, cautions that we know nothing about it so we should not engage in guessing what it is.

As for quoting Josephus on the matter, the text about Jesus does not appear in all editions. In fact, its earliest appearance is in a translation of Josephus into Church Slavonic. While the translator may have had some earlier sources, most scholars agree that this is a later interpolation to account for the blatant absence of Jesus in Jospehus's account of the period.

Just some thoughts on the matter. Danny

I'm not an expert on this matter, I just google for material on the internet. Still, from what I can tell, there isn't any one position that "most scholars" agree on, regarding the authenticity of the quote. Some say it's all a later insertion, some say it was amended by Christians (and these have specific ideas on what was amended), some say it's all original Josephus. In any case, it was quoted in full by Eusebius in 324 A.D., which is more than 500 years before Cyril and Methodius invented Church Slavonic in the late 800s. (Or did Church Slavonic actually evolve later than Cyril and Methodius?) So if it was changed at all, it had to have been changed before 324. At least that's what I read online. I couldn't find any reference to actual manuscripts or copies that didn't contain it, just speculation saying it was unlikely that Josephus would have actually written that, for various reasons. If anyone had the energy, we could probably devote an entire article just to the Testimonium Flavianum and the speculation surrounding it. Wesley

Some of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels appear to be memories of Jesus after the resurrection by suppressed/killed-outright gnostic christians. Nothing is mentioned in the article about them--there are "other sources." Also there's a tantalizing new slant bubbling up in the minds of modern NT Theologians: Mary Magdalene may have actually written the gospel of John and later been usurped as the original leader of the 12 Disciples! If one could go back in time just before Paul began his missionary journeys, we might find Magdalene in charge, the men bitching as they always did, and the women at the Cross reminding them how they ran like scared rabbits at the crucifixion, whereas some who had faith(the women) stayed with Our Lord until it was all done.

How about non-Christian historical references to the resurrection? --Chuck Smith

Josephus is about the only one who records that Christ rose from the dead. He was a Jewish historian, and is mentioned in the article already. As Danny pointed out, his account is disputed; some think it unlikely that a non-Christian would say that Christ rose from the dead, therefore Josephus must not have actually written that. I think that there are other pagan references that attest that Christians thought Jesus rose from the dead, but of course that's not quite the same thing. Wesley

I guess that's what happens when I write from memory after two days of no sleep. The Church Slavonic is another quote, this one, I believe from The Jewish War, also deemed spurious. As for the Testimonium--yes it is quoted by Eusebius but to my recollection, by no one earlier than him. The text itself makes no sense, since it would imply that Josephus was a Christian or at least a Jewish Christian. The wording is also highly questionable ("he was the Christ"). The claims for Jesus being a wise man also appear for Solomon, while "miracle worker" is used to describe Elisha. The two are not related causally, i.e., in those instances Elisha did not work miracles because he was a wise man, nor do they lead to any claims by Josephus that they were more than human.

As for some of the other points you raised above, I've already touched on the Pharisees and Sadducees. What I think is needed is a religious demography of the Roman Empire in that period. Yes, there was anti-Jewish sentiment in the Roman Empire (see Tacitus, for example), but there was also a large group of people that sought an alternative to traditional Roman religion. There were many converts to Judaism from all classes of Roman society, but there was an even larger group of people who were drawn to the theology, but were not willing to adhere to a rigid regimen of rituals (such as circumcision, Sabbath, etc.). I believe (based on evidence, mind you) that it is to this group of people that Paul directed his teachings. Certainly there was an appeal to certain concepts derived from mystery and Persian religions. They permeated Pharisaic Judaism, and influenced Christian theology as well (see my comments above on resurrection, and there were others). As for the preponderance of Jewish sources in the New Testament and a dearth of other religious traditions, that is simply because the Old Testament (whether in Hebrew or in Greek) was the text that the New Testament authors knew best and its theology was the underpinning of their own theology.

Finally, you mentioned the Zealots and the Essenes above. Zealots were a political offshoot of the Pharisees, who supported all-out war against the Romans in order to reassert Jewish independence. Essenes were essentially a monastic-like community that lived a chastely in anticipation of an impending End of Days (I would argue that was a response to the political situation at the time, but this is not the place for that). They flourished briefly and died out--anecdotally, when explaining the Essenes, I usually draw comparisons with the Shakers in the U.S. Did some Essenes become Christians? Certainly, but that is not the reason for their disappearance. After the defat of the Jews in the Jewish Revolt, the Sadducees disappeared because their ritual was Temple-oriented and there was no more Temple, the Zealots got what they wanted and lost, and the Essenes found that they had more common ground than before with the now-Temple-less Pharisees, who were establishing a new form of Jewish life revolving around study and prayer, two main components of the Essene experiment. Danny

Regarding the Josephus quote, is there any extant manuscript that does *not* have the passage in question? I understand the arguments about the likelihood of Josephus writing what he did, and like I said before, I can find scholars in three different camps on the issue, not just one. The argument seems rather circular: There are no historical references to the Resurrection of Christ by non-Christians, because if there were, they must have been forged by Christians.

As for the rest, it's certainly informative but... I just re-read most of this Talk section, and I'm still a little lost as to what your point is about Paul's appealing to this or that group? Are you suggesting that he "invented" Christianity in order to win converts? Is there even evidence that Christianity had significantly less rites and rituals than Judaism at the time? I thought I read that at first, they continued keeping the Sabbath and even attending the synagogues for a time; although circumcision was discontinued, many other rules, including fasting, almsgiving, meeting together for prayer, keeping certain fasts and feasts, and so forth, were maintained. How would this part of our discussion result in the article being different, one way or the other? Wesley

The following material was added by an anonymous user as a minor edit. It's a major addition, not a minor edit, in my opinion, and should be reviewed before adding it back in -- it may need work; a little NPOVing at least (although it's not too bad in that respect). If I've barged in somewhere, my apologies, but marking this addition as a minor edit seemed suspect and misleading. --Sam

Christianity is the only religion that bases its claim to acceptance upon the resurrection of its founder. For any other religion to base its claim on such a doctrine would be to court failure. Test all other religions by this claim and see.

In his chapter on the resurrection (1 Cor. 15) Paul makes Christianity answer with its life for the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That the body of the founder of the Christian religion did not lie in the grave after the third day is fundamental to the existence of the religion of Christ: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (v. 14). "If Christ be not raised . . . ye are yet in your sins" (v. 17). "Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished" (v.18). Remove the resurrection from Paul's Gospel, and his message is gone. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an appendage to Paul's Gospel; it is a constitutive part of it.

The importance of this doctrine is very evident from the prominent part it played in the preaching of the Apostles: Peter--Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 1 Peter 1:21, 23. Paul--Acts 13:30, 34; 17:31; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:21. It was belief in such preaching that led to the establishment of the Christian church. Belief in the resurrection of Christ was the faith of the early church (Acts 4:33). The testimony to this great fact of Christian faith was borne in the midst of the fiercest opposition. Nor was it controverted, although the grave was well known and could have been pointed out. It was in this fact that Christianity acquired a firm basis for its historical development. There was not only an "Easter Message," there was also an "Easter Faith."

Our Lord's honor was, in a sense, staked upon the fact of His resurrection. So important did He regard it that He remained forty days upon the earth after His resurrection, giving many infallible proofs of the great fact. He appealed to it again and again as evidence of the truth of His claims: Matt. 12:39, 40; John 2:20-22.

Both the friends and the enemies of Christianity admit that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is vital to the religion that bears His name. The Christian confidently appeals to it as an incontrovertible fact; the sceptic denies it altogether as a historical reality. "If the resurrection really took place," says an assailant of it, "then Christianity must be admitted to be what it claims to be--a direct revelation from God." "If Christ be not risen," says the Apostle Paul, "then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." The one tries all he can to do away with the proofs submitted for the accepted fact; the other plainly says that if the resurrection cannot be believed, then Christianity is nothing but a sham. If the resurrection of Christ can be successfully denied, if it can be proven to be absolutely untrue, then the whole fabric of the Gospel falls to pieces, the whole structure of the Christian religion is shaken at its foundation, and the very arch of Christianity crumbles into dust. Then it has wrought only imaginary changes, deluded its most faithful adherents, deceived and disappointed the hopes of its most devoted disciples, and the finest moral achievements that adorn the pages of the history of the Christian church have been based upon a falsehood.

Nor must we ignore the prominent place the resurrection of Jesus Christ occupies in the Scriptures. More than one hundred times is it spoken of in the New Testament alone.

On a similar note, many stories in the Torah, held sacred by both Jews and Christians, also are noted by historians to have close parallels to earlier pagan myths and stories. Liberal Jewish and Christian denominations agree that this is likely the case, and have theologies that do not depend on this finding. Many traditional Christians and Orthodox Jews reject any similarities. Justin Martyr suggested in his First Apology that these earlier pagan myths had themselves borrowed from Hebrew prophecies concerning Christ, which prophecies were made "first 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; for in the succession of generations prophets after prophets arose." (See also The First Apology of Justin, chapters 54 - 64.)

Interesting, but it's got almost nothing to do with the ressurection. Martin

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!