Raymond Brown and the
“Reality” of the Resurrection of Jesus: A Critical Analysis of a Christian
Scholar’s Defense of Resurrection Theology
“And if
Christ has not been raised, our
preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
-
1 Corinthians 15:14
The alleged event of
the resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) is by far the most important aspect
of the Christian faith. Among other
things, it serves as “proof” to the faithful that Jesus was God and that by
conquering death, he was able to provide a way for mankind to be free of sin,
provided that mankind accepts his sacrifice.[1] Yet the resurrection remains one of the most
controversial and debated aspects of Christianity, with a gamut of viewpoints
on it, ranging from a priori skepticism to apologetic fanaticism.[2] On the other hand, this article will examine
a view which lacks the blind assumptions of liberal skeptics and the blind
acceptance of conservative believers: the scholarly view posited by the late
Catholic scholar Father Raymond E. Brown (d. 1998).[3] We will list Brown’s attempted refutations of
various claims against the historicity of the resurrection first and then
follow-up with an analysis of those refutations to test whether they hold any
merit.[4]
Raymond Brown and the “Reality” of the
Resurrection
It must of course be
stated from the get-go that Brown accepted the “historicity” of the
resurrection, as he was a faithful Catholic.
In fact, he was unequivocal in his acceptance of the “reality” of the
resurrection, as he stated in his book:
“…in my judgment, the evidence for the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is strong…”[5]
In his defense of the resurrection
story, Brown attempted to refute some of the most common criticisms made by
skeptics. In the section of his book titled
“General Objections to the Reality of the
Resurrection”, Brown dealt with the following claims:[6]
- The apostles
perpetrated a hoax (apostolic fraud) or credulously believed in the
resurrection (apostolic credulity),
- The resurrection
story is similar to pagan myths of the resurrection of various gods,
- The resurrection
was merely a “symbol of a spiritual truth”
and could only have been understood by the Jewish-Christians as such and
not as a literal bodily resurrection
- Medical science
shows that after death, certain “irreversible” changes occur to the body,
and hence the resurrection was impossible.
For the purposes of
this article, we will not deal with Brown’s responses to the third and fourth
claims.[7] Furthermore, in the section titled “Difficulties Arising from the Biblical Narratives of the
Resurrection”, Brown dealt with criticisms stemming from differences in
the books of the New Testament regarding the appearances of Jesus and of the
empty tomb.[8]
Apostolic Fraud/Credulity –
According to Brown, the accusation
of “apostolic fraud” (i.e. the apostles “invented the stories” or stole the
body) was first formulated in the time of the apostles themselves and was also
refuted by them. For example, he pointed
to Acts 10:41 to show that Peter challenged those who claimed that the apostles
were lying about the resurrection.[9] Brown also referred to Matthew 28:13 to show
that it was the priests and Pharisees who accused the apostles of stealing the
body, a charge that was refuted by Matthew “with
the story of the guards at the tomb”.[10] Moreover, Brown asserted that the concept of
the empty tomb “may have been implicit in the early
preaching”, pointing to such New Testament passages as 1 Corinthians
15:4 and Acts 2:29-31.[11]
As for the accusation of “apostolic
credulity”, Brown proclaimed that in response to this indictment, the Gospels
emphasized the initial disbelief of the disciples that Jesus had been
resurrected.[12] Therefore, he suggested that the
apostles could not have been the victims of their own gullibility because they
clearly were skeptical when Mary Magdalene (or the “women”, depending on which
Gospel we use) told them about the “risen Jesus”. Some even “doubted” even after Jesus appeared
to them at Galilee.[13]
Similarities to Pagan Stories of
Resurrection –
The next claim of skeptics that
Brown dealt with concerned the accusation that early Christians molded “the story of Jesus to the pagan legends and mystery
cults surrounding the dying and rising gods (Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Dionysius)…”[14] However, Brown attempted to refute this claim
by asserting that although Jesus rose in the spring (like the pagan gods), his
resurrection was different from the “annual natural
cycle of winter dormancy and spring flowering”.[15]
Differences Regarding the Appearances
of Jesus in the New Testament –
One of the most
common reasons given by non-Christians for rejecting the historicity of the
resurrection is the fact that the main sources on it tend to disagree over many
details. Among these are the differences
in the New Testament books about Jesus’ appearances after the
resurrection. As even Brown put it:
“…the resurrection tradition consists of
isolated appearances with little agreement among the various Gospels on
circumstances and details. A close study
of the reports in the individual Gospels shows how numerous the variations
are.”[16]
Moreover, he also
noted in a footnote:
“Readers should be alerted that scholars tend
to think of six different Gospel testimonies to the appearances: Mark 16:1-8;
Matt 28; Luke 24 (plus Acts 1:1-11); John 20; John 21; and Mark 16:9-20. In that arrangement there are two
assumptions. First, that Mark 16:9-20
was not written by Mark but was a later compilation (partly from material
similar to Luke) added to the Gospel-the ‘Marcan Appendix’…Second, that John
21, although composed within the Johannine school, was not by the same writer
as the rest of John, so that, despite a redactional attempt to make John 2o and
21 consecutive, John 21 contains an independent tradition about the appearances
of Jesus.”[17]
The “variations” that
Brown discussed concerned the people to whom Jesus appeared (just Mary
Magdalene, or Mary Magdalene and other women, or Peter and “other members of the Twelve”),[18]
and where he appeared (Jerusalem or Galilee).
But what matters most for the
purposes of the article is how Brown attempted to explain these “variations”
and why, in his view, they do not challenge the historicity of the
resurrection.[19] He stated:
“Each community would preserve the memory of
an appearance of Jesus to figures known to that community. The important Palestinian Christian
communities of Jerusalem and Galilee would retain the memory of appearances
with local associations, or perhaps would have adapted to the respective local
settings the tradition of a basic appearance to the Twelve. The individual evangelists drew on one or the
other of these local traditions. Thus if
one understands the function of the appearance narratives, the diversity in the
accounts of the appearances constitutes no argument against their historicity.”[20]
Differences Regarding the Empty Tomb in
the New Testament –
Brown noted that, unlike with the
appearance accounts, the Gospels agree that Mary Magdalene (along with other
women, according to a variant account) visited the tomb where Jesus had been
laid to rest after the Sabbath and found it empty. He also noted that there was agreement that
the tomb was empty because Jesus had been “raised
from the dead”.[21]
However, as both skeptics and the
faithful (including Brown) agree, the details of the empty tomb story in the
Gospels vary. Brown mentioned some of
these variations (mostly having to do with the discrepancies regarding the
angel/angels), and as with the disagreements regarding the appearances of
Jesus, he offered an explanation for why such variations exist and why they do
not necessarily disprove the historicity of the story:
“The simplest explanation is that in the
oldest tradition the discovery of the empty tomb in itself did not enlighten
those who found it as to the resurrection.
Only later when the risen Jesus appeared did it become clear why the
tomb was empty. When the discovery of
the empty tomb was made part of the narrative, that revealed explanation was
incorporated so that readers could understand the import of the tomb. An interpreting angel of the Lord was a
standard OT way of describing revelation and that was employed by the
Synoptics, while John 20:14 and Mark 16:9 retain, whether intentionally or not,
the original idea that the revelation came from the appearance of Jesus
himself. Understood properly, then, the
differences among the tomb narratives really do not call into question the
facticity of the emptiness of the tomb and what that contributes to the bodily
character of the resurrection.”[22]
Analysis of Brown’s
Defense of the “Reality” of the Resurrection
Having summarized
Brown’s responses to common arguments against the “reality” of the
resurrection, let us now examine his claims and see if they can stand up to a
critical analysis.
Apostolic Fraud/Credulity –
Brown took exception to the argument
made by some skeptics that the disciples were either liars or incredibly
gullible in accepting the resurrection story.
For the record, it should be stated that Brown is right to oppose the
“apostolic fraud/credulity” theory, but for all the wrong reasons.
He
claimed that the Bible shows that the disciples faced accusations of having
invented the resurrection story and defended themselves against such
accusations, as with the episode in Acts 10 when Peter claimed that not
everyone saw Jesus but only the “chosen” ones.
It is difficult to see how exactly this serves as a refutation of the
fraud theory. Assuming “Peter” actually
said this (or that he even witnessed a real “resurrection” for that matter),
who is to say that “Peter” was not lying?
One could argue that it was quite convenient that “all the people” did
not see the risen Jesus, but only his inner circle of devoted disciples!
Also,
appealing to the Bible’s claims about the disciples clearly does not prove
anything. Rather, perhaps the simplest
and best answer to the fraud theory (and also the credulity theory) is that it
was not the disciples who lied or were credulous, but those that came after them. The only sources for the resurrection theory
(and indeed the entire saga of Jesus’ life and teachings) in the New Testament
are the writings of Paul (a man who never met Jesus – aside from his alleged
encounter on the road to Damascus), and anonymous books that were only
attributed to the disciples or their students by later Christians. This is why it was stated above that Brown
was right to oppose the fraud theory, but for all the wrong reasons. We simply don’t even know what the disciples
actually believed, since we don’t have their actual first-hand testimonies, but rather only second-hand (or even third-hand) versions written by anonymous writers. Even Brown himself acknowledged this in his
other works. When discussing the issue
in an earlier work, Brown was abundantly clear on the authorship of the Gospels. When discussing the authorship of the Gospel
of Matthew and the Gospel of John, Brown admitted that:
“…in all likelihood neither the Gospel of
Matthew nor the Gospel of John was actually written by the apostle whose name
it bears – a position held by almost all the major Catholic commentators
today.”[23]
Furthermore, when
discussing the traditional attribution of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark,
Brown admitted (emphasis in the original):
“I would regard such arguments as totally
devoid of scientific value. The
ecumenical study Peter in the New
Testament was quite right in refusing to base any conclusions on the Papias
statement. Mark may be older than the
other Gospels, but we know nothing biographical about the writer. And there is no way to demonstrate that he
was directly dependent on any eyewitness preacher, e.g., on Peter.”[24]
Regarding the
authorship of the Gospel of Luke (and also the Book of Acts), Brown observed:
“The tradition that the author of Luke/Acts
was Luke, the companion of Paul, is often fixed in popular Catholic writing in
English, despite the clear mistakes that Acts make about the career of Paul.”[25]
Finally, perhaps
Brown’s clearest judgment on the issue of the authorship of the Gospels is
provided in his book The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of
Jesus:
“The Gospel accounts of the ministry of Jesus
were written anywhere from thirty to sixty years after the events they
narrate. The evangelists were
second-generation Christians who had not been eyewitnesses themselves. I accept the common scholarly opinion that
Mark was the first of our written Gospels (composed in the 60’s?). The author of the Gospel that we call
‘according to Matthew’ was not Matthew the tax collector and companion of
Jesus, but an unknown Christian who used as his source Mark’s Gospel (and other
traditions) and who may have written in the 80’s. Luke’s Gospel may be dated to the 80’s, give
or take ten years, and is also dependent in part on Mark. John’s Gospel was not written by the son of
Zebedee nor by the beloved Disciple (if he was not the son of Zebedee), but by
an unknown Christian who was a follower or disciple of the Beloved
Disciple. In its final form it was
probably written in the 90’s. Although
not eyewitnesses themselves, the evangelists drew upon early traditions about
Jesus.”[26]
It is clear, then,
that Brown did not regard the Gospels to be the actual first-hand testimony of
Jesus’ life and teachings, unlike his more conservative brethren who still tend
to deny the clear facts.[27] It is far more likely that the Gospels
were either, like many early Christian writings, written by people who claimed
to be authoritative figures (like the disciples),[28] or were erroneously
attributed to authoritative figures like the disciples of Jesus by later
Christians.[29] How then can they be used to determine
what Jesus actually said, let alone what his disciples said or believed about
him?
Before moving on to the next
section, it should be noted that Brown’s appeal to Matthew 28:13 is problematic
since the author clearly embellished and drew upon the material he took from
the Gospel of Mark.[30] The latter made no mention of the Pharisees’
instructions to the guards or that there were any guards at the tomb at
all! Mark 15:46-16:8 only states that
the body of Jesus was handed over to Joseph of Arimathea, who placed it in the
tomb and somehow managed to roll a big stone at the entrance. Further proof that “Matthew” added the guards
to the story can be seen from the fact that “Mark” has Mary Magdalene, Mary and
Salome going to the tomb in the morning and asking each other:
“Who will roll the stone away from the
entrance of the tomb?”[31]
Clearly, they were
not expecting any help, but if the guards were there, would it not be
reasonable to assume that the women could have at least considered asking them
to help roll the stone away?[32]
Furthermore, the 18th-century
revolutionary and philosopher Thomas Paine noted another obvious flaw in
“Matthew’s” version: how could the guards have known that the disciples stole
the body when they were asleep?! Paine
observed:
“…for though the guard, if there were any,
might be made to say that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and
to give that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same sleep
must also have prevented their knowing how, and by whom, it was done; and yet
they are made to say that it was the disciples who did it.”[33]
On
a side note, the Gospel of Matthew was not the only document to mention the
presence of guards at Jesus’ tomb. To be
sure, none of the other canonical Gospels mention the guards. Amazingly, the only other source to agree
with “Matthew” is a non-canonical Gospel (and an obvious forgery), known
as the Gospel of Peter, which was written in the 2nd century![34]
Given
these points, it should be clear that “Matthew” was embellishing the story for
his own purposes. Even Brown
acknowledged that “Matt” had a tendency to change “Mark” in certain places,
such as when the former altered stories in which the latter’s Jesus displayed “human weakness”, something that “Matt” was “uncomfortable” with.[35]
Finally, what about Brown’s claim
that the concept of the empty tomb “may have been
implicit in the early preaching”, and his appeal to such passages as 1
Corinthians 15:4 and Acts 2:29-31? Was
the concept of the empty tomb really based on “early preaching”? The answer depends on what we mean by “early
preaching”. Paul was certainly the
author of the earliest “canonical” books of the New Testament, but there is
little doubt among scholars that there was an even earlier source, known as the
Q Gospel. Even though there is no
surviving manuscript of this source, scholars know that it existed, whether as
a written source or as an oral tradition.
As Burton L. Mack states:
“…scholars discovered that both Matthew and Luke
had used a collection of the sayings of Jesus as one of the ‘sources’ for their
gospels, the other being the Gospel of Mark.
Scholars have known for over 150 years that something like Q must have
existed, but they took it for granted until recently.”[36]
Brown also agreed
with the scholarly consensus, though he questioned whether the Q Gospel “contained the oldest traditions about Jesus”,[37]
while according to Mack:
“It is the earliest written record we have
from the Jesus movement.”[38]
So what can the Q Gospel tell us
about the resurrection? As shocking as
it may be to Christians, it tells us nothing because the resurrection story
is actually completely absent from this early source! In fact, even later sources like the Didache,[39]
placed no importance on the resurrection and failed to even mention it,
indicating a gradual development of the concept among Christians. As Russell Martin explains:
“The Didache, the epistle of James, the Gospel
of Thomas and Sayings Gospel Q represent a stage in Christianity when the
crucifixion and resurrection had not yet achieved any importance. […] They show no significant interest in
miracles as proof of Jesus’ divine status, and little influence of the Pauline
teaching of justification by faith or the importance of the crucifixion or
resurrection.”[40]
So, Christianity
developed the concept of the resurrection over time! The early Q community did not have such a
concept. Rather, they emphasized the
teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the importance of attaining the “kingdom of God”.[41] As Mack explains:
“Instead of people meeting to worship a risen
Christ, as in the Pauline congregations, or worrying about what it meant to be
a follower of a martyr, as in the Markan community, the people of Q were fully
preoccupied with questions about the kingdom of God in the present and the
behavior required if one took it seriously.”[42]
Therefore, in the
light of the evidence, there is no reason to accept Brown’s appeal to 1 Corinthians
and Acts to show that the “empty tomb” story was “implicit in the early
preaching”. It clearly was not included
in the preaching of the Q community.
Finally, on a side note, it should
be mentioned that some researchers have observed that the appearance accounts
in the Gospels hint not at Jesus’ physical resurrection but rather his
“assumption”, which Professor John S. Kloppenborg of the University of Toronto defines
as “the taking up of the righteous”.[43] In addition, Kloppenborg observes
regarding the Q community that:
“…we can suggest that the Q people regarded
Jesus’ death as the death of a just man or a prophet whom God had ‘taken up,’
pending some future eschatological function.
This accounts for the fact that Q accords Jesus’ death no special
salvific significance, but jumps immediately to Jesus’ return as the one who is
to come…”[44]
Hence, it could be
that the “appearances” of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Gospels were not of
the resurrection of the previously dead Jesus but simply visions of a prophet
who had undergone “assumption”. For additional
details, see note #44.
Similarities to Pagan Stories of
Resurrection –
Many critics of the
Christian religion have attempted to argue that Christian theology has been
borrowed from pagan religions. For the
record, we do not hold to this view, for it simplifies a much more complex
issue. There is no evidence that the
early Christians simply “borrowed” elements of other religions and merged them
with Judaism and came up with their own religion. It just seems too convenient. Moreover, since Christians were critical of
the pagan myths, it is difficult to imagine that its leaders would have simply
copied those same myths and just hoped that their followers would be none the
wiser!
At
the same time, this does not mean that Christianity could not have been influenced by the myriad cults and
religions that circulated in the ancient world.
Indeed, as we will see shortly, most people (and certainly Christians)
have underestimated the influence of Hellenistic culture on the development of
Christian theology. But this does not
mean that a bunch of Christians came together and formed their own religion by
incorporating other religious beliefs that they were familiar with. Rather, what may have happened is that as
time progressed, Christian theology evolved and became more and more
Hellenistic in its outlook and drifted further away from the monotheistic roots
of the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).
To start, Brown rightly pointed out
that the theory of the borrowing of resurrection myths of such pagan gods as
Attis, Adonis, Osiris and Dionysius is without any foundation. If the Christians had simply “borrowed” these
myths, it stands to reason that there would be more similarities between these
myths and Christian theology (the myths refer to continuous resurrections of
the gods based on the changing seasons).
Yet, we find that they are vastly different in many regards, including
on the details of the “resurrection” narratives.
However, as we have already seen,
there is no doubt that the Christian story of the “resurrection” of Jesus
developed over time. Even into the early
2nd century, the resurrection was absent from some important documents like the
Didache. And certainly, in the early
years following the time of Jesus, the Q Gospel placed no importance on it. Why would this be so if the people who used
these documents actually believed that a supernatural and extraordinary event
such as the resurrection of their beloved prophet actually happened? Clearly, they must not have believed in
it.
But
is it possible that as Christianity developed in the shadow of the Roman Empire,
it began to be influenced by some of the many mystical and pagan beliefs that
circulated in those times? As is already
known, the belief in resurrections of both gods and men was very common in
antiquity, though with obvious differences from the Christian belief. We can see this in the cults of the pagan
gods previously mentioned. In fact, as
the skeptic Richard Carrier states:
“…gods were expected to be able to raise
people bodily from the dead, and physical resurrections were actually in vogue
in the very 1st century when Christianity began.”[45]
Carrier also points
to the obscure figure known as Zalmoxis, to whom some interesting myths were
ascribed. According to him:
“Then there is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries.
He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a
man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that
believers went to heaven when they died.”[46]
In a separate
article, Carrier has further clarified the Thracian myths regarding
Zalmoxis. He states that:
“…they believed their one and only god
Zalmoxis had visited a group of their ancestors, then died, and then appeared
risen from the dead as a proof of his teaching that believers would live
eternally with him in paradise. They must also have believed there was a sacred
meal attended by the founders of the cult in which drink was shared with their
god, sealing a promise that all who drank would receive eternal life. We can be
fairly certain of all this because the slanderous account can only be aimed at
explaining away these very beliefs--hence the conspicuous role of drink, on a
past occasion of importance, with the god actually being present and teaching
his disciples, then disappearing and being mourned as dead, and then appearing
and proving his defeat of death.”[47]
We can easily see
some parallels between the beliefs about Zalmoxis and those about Jesus (peace
be upon him). Both were believed to have
risen from the dead, signifying their “defeat of death”, and both were believed
to have shared a meal with their disciples.
But again, it must be stated that these similarities do not imply that
Christians simply came across the Zalmoxian religion and decided to incorporate
some elements of it into their own faith.
Rather, as Carrier explains:
“…none of this entails or is even meant to
argue that Christians "borrowed" from Zalmoxis cult the idea of an
incarnated, dying, and rising god promising eternal life through a sacred act
of drinking at a meal. But it does entail that those elements of Christianity
were not new, but had been elements of other cults long before (and possibly
still in their day).”[48]
Hence, the
similarities may not imply direct borrowing but perhaps the influence of such
beliefs on the later development of the Christian religion.[49]
Differences Regarding the Appearances
of Jesus in the New Testament –
As we saw, Brown did not deny that
there were contradictions between the Gospel accounts on the appearances of
Jesus (peace be upon him), because it is an obvious fact that no rational
person would deny. However, he still
argued that the differences did not in any way constitute proof “against their
historicity”, claiming that “[e]ach community would
preserve the memory of an appearance of Jesus to figures known to that
community.”
But even if this argument is
correct, what if “each community” was simply “preserving” a legend by applying it to “figures” that
they had likewise known only in legend? As we have already seen, the Gospels were
written by anonymous people who had no connection to the disciples of Jesus
(peace be upon him). We also know that
earlier groups like the Q community did not believe in the resurrection at
all.
Also, one would think that
differences regarding the details of an extraordinary event would serve as
obvious proof that the event was simply a legend that was interpreted and
embellished by different communities, based on their own points of view. Thus, Brown may be right that “[e]ach community would preserve the memory of an
appearance of Jesus to figures known to that community”, but to say that
this does not prove that the appearances were unhistorical is an assumption for
which no proof exists. If the
resurrection is so important for the salvation of humanity, the surely God
would have provided much more persuasive evidence for it, instead of
contradictory information based on hearsay evidence![50] If this is the best “proof” for the
resurrection, then what makes it more believable than other stories of
incredible events and why do Christians reject such stories? Would Christians be just as enthusiastic
about the Roman emperor Vespasian’s alleged miracles, for which there are
alleged “eyewitness” accounts and which are mentioned by at least two Roman
sources within a few decades of their occurrence (though with some
“variations”)?[51] Probably not!
Differences Regarding the Empty Tomb in
the New Testament –
As with the contradictions regarding
the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in the Gospel accounts, Brown did
not deny that there were contradictions regarding the empty tomb as well. And as with the former, he attempted to
dismiss the latter as constituting no proof against the historicity of the
empty tomb.
First and foremost, as we stated
above, if the empty tomb story is to be believed (given the alleged importance
of the resurrection to mankind’s “salvation”), then surely God would have
provided better proof than contradictory information from anonymous sources. And yet, that is all we have! Second, since the Q Gospel never mentioned
the death or resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him), then it obviously made
no mention of an “empty tomb” either.
Therefore, to the Q community, the “empty tomb” was irrelevant. Consequently, the only “evidence” we have
that there was an “empty tomb” and that it was eventually interpreted as
proving Jesus’ bodily resurrection are contradictory accounts in the New
Testament and the absence of such a narrative from a pre-Pauline source. How then is it a historically verifiable
event? Of course, the answer is that it
is not. It is strange then that scholars
like Brown acknowledged these difficulties and yet still insisted on the “reality of the resurrection”.[52]
Conclusion
In this article, we
have considered the views of the late Father Raymond E. Brown on the
controversial matter of the alleged resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon
him). While Brown embraced a scholarly
approach to the New Testament, he still became a victim of Christian dogma, as
we have seen. Indeed, he went to great
lengths to reduce the significance of the many difficulties regarding the
resurrection story, insisting that they did not disprove its “reality”. However, it should be clear to the reader that
the evidence that has been presented above has certainly proven that it is more
accurate to label the resurrection as a “legend”, rather than a “reality”. Only those who already believe will be
convinced that the resurrection actually happened. But for those seeking the truth, the
“evidence” for the “reality of the resurrection” is disappointingly weak for
something that has been declared by apologists (including Father Raymond Brown)
to be a historical fact that everyone should believe. Thus, it certainly does not behoove the
truth-seekers to stake their salvation on such flimsy foundations. And Allah knows best!
[2] By “a priori skepticism”, we mean the view of some people that the
resurrection could not have been a historical event because it involves the
“supernatural” and that because such things are not “real”, then it could not
have happened. This view is based not on
historical investigation but is simply an assumption. Proponents of this view seem to be content to
simply rejecting claims of the supernatural because they just don’t believe in
supernatural events. It is, ironically,
a type of faith-based ideology.
By “apologetic fanaticism”, we are referring to the
viewpoint of Christians who believe in the resurrection because it is part of
their religious beliefs and in spite of any evidence against it, whether from
the Bible itself or from outside of it.
This view is also based on an a
priori assumption.
[3] Specifically, the article will deal with Brown’s
brief defense of the resurrection in his book: An Introduction to New
Testament Christology (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1994), pp. 162-170.
[4]
Readers may ask why we feel the need to discuss Brown’s views on the
resurrection, given that he was obviously a Christian and indeed believed that
Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead three days later, and is thus
“biased” in some way. The answer is that
unlike most Christians, Brown was a respected scholar who was actually viewed
with suspicion and derision by many fundamentalist Christians, including fellow
Catholics. In fact, to some Christian
apologists, Brown was “the modern
Catholic heretic” (http://www.ukapologetics.net/13/brown.htm).
Hence, his views need to be considered since they are based
on a more scholarly approach to the story of the resurrection and not merely on
faith, an approach that earned Brown many detractors among his fellow
Christians.
[5] Brown,
op. cit., p. 163.
[7] The
reason for not discussing #3 is that it really does not have any relevance to
whether the resurrection actually happened or not, which is the main topic of
this article. However the Jews interpreted resurrection, whether bodily
or not, does not determine if the bodily resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon
him) actually happened.
The reason for not discussing #4 is that it is an argument
based on a priori skepticism. The assumption is that since there is no
medical explanation for the resurrection, it could not have happened. Yet this argument fails since the
resurrection clearly did not need to conform to medical explanations, as it was
meant to be a miraculous event. It is an
assumption that seeks to dismiss the event without any serious investigation.
[9] Ibid.,
p. 163. In Acts 10:41 (NIV), Peter
states:
“He was not seen by all the people, but by
witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he
rose from the dead.”
[10] Ibid.,
p. 163. In Matthew 28:13, the Pharisees
say to the guards:
“You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the
night and stole him away while we were asleep.”
[11] Ibid.,
p. 164. 1 Corinthians 15:4 states (NIV):
“…that he was buried, that he was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures…”
Acts 2:29-31 states (quoting Peter):
“Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently
that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on
oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he
spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the
realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.”
As we will see later, the idea that the resurrection, let
alone the “empty tomb”, was “implicit in the early preaching” is contradicted
by other sources.
[14] Brown,
op. cit., p. 164.
[15] Ibid.
While this may be true, we will see later why it fails to exonerate
resurrection theology.
[18] Brown
also claims (p. 167) that the Gospels “are much
more in agreement…that the risen Jesus appeared to Peter and other members of
the Twelve.”
[19] It is
not even a matter of contention that there are contradictions in the New
Testament accounts. No serious person
would deny that. Unfortunately, many
Christians, and especially the laypersons, still tend to deny any
contradictions. To attempt to respond to
such people would be a waste of time and is not worth any serious
consideration.
[20] Brown,
op. cit., p. 169.
[23]
Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible: How a Modern Reading of
the Bible Challenges Christians, the Church, and the Churches (Mahwah: Paulist
Press, 1981), pp. 69-70.
[25] Ibid.,
p. 71. In other words, there is good
reason to doubt that the author of the Gospel of Luke was the same person who
wrote the Book of Acts. And even if a
Pauline disciple named “Luke” wrote the books that bear his name, how does that
make him a reliable witness, when he (like his teacher), never met Jesus or
witnessed the crucifixion or the resurrection?
[26]
Raymond E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
(New York: Paulist Press, 1973), pp. 16-17.
[27] It is
easy to see, then, why many Christians were suspicious and critical of Father
Raymond Brown. He simply did not
subscribe to the conservative and traditional views regarding the origin and
history of the Gospels. Of course, as a
scholar, he had no reason to subscribe to such views.
[28] Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name
of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne,
2011), p. 9.
Such writings are classified as “pseudonymous”, meaning that
they were written under a false name. Shockingly,
Ehrman notes that (emphasis in the original):
“At present we know of over a hundred writings from the first four centuries that were claimed by
one Christian author or another to have been forged by fellow Christians” (p. 19).
[29] Ibid.,
p. 220. Ehrman is of the view that the
Gospels were written by anonymous people and were later ascribed to the
disciples (false attribution). Hence,
they were probably not outright forgeries like other early documents.
[30] There
is consensus among scholars that both “Matthew” and “Luke” used “Mark” to write
their respective books. Brown accepted
this view as well:
“…the writers of Matt and Luke independently knew and used Mark,
without knowing each other’s work” (Brown, An
Introduction to New Testament Christology, op. cit., fn. 34, p. 32).
[32] It
cannot be argued that they would have been unaware that the guards were
present, for Mark is clear that they witnessed Jesus’ burial in the tomb. They certainly would have witnessed the
guards as well.
[33] Thomas
Paine, The Age of Reason, ed. Moncure Daniel Conway (San Bernardino: Wildside
Press LLC, 2010), p. 135.
[34] Ehrman,
op. cit., pp. 58-59.
[35] Brown, An Introduction to New Testament
Christology, op. cit., p.
32. See also footnote 35 on the same
page.
[36] Burton
Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (San
Francisco, HarperOne, 1995), pp. 47-48.
[37] Brown,
An Introduction to New Testament Christology, op. cit., fn. 79, p. 62.
[38] Mack, op.
cit., p. 47.
[39]
According to Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
(CARM), the Didache was composed around 65-80 CE (http://carm.org/didache).
Burton Mack puts its composition in the early 2nd
century and also notes that there isn’t “…the
slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus” (Mack, op. cit., pp. 239-240).
[40] Russell
Martin, Understanding the Real Jesus (West Conshohocken: Infinity
Publishing, 2006), p. 111.
[41] Of
course, this does not necessarily mean that the Q Gospel was the authentic
version of Jesus’ life and teachings. It
simply means that the Q community, which predated both Paul and the canonical
Gospels, did not believe in the resurrection, which argues in favor of the view
that the resurrection story developed over time, and thus fails a key
historical test.
[42] Mack, op. cit., p. 240.
[43] John
S. Kloppenborg, Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original
Stories and Sayings of Jesus” (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2008), p. 82.
Naturally, some people may point out that if the Q people
believed that Jesus (peace be upon him) had died, then this contradicts the
Islamic position that he had not died but was raised by Allah (Glorified and
Exalted be He), as stated in the Quran, Surah An-Nisa, 4:157:
“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son
of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified
him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are
full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for
of a surety they killed him not:-” (Yusuf Ali Translation).
But as Kloppenborg observes, the Q Gospel “…lacks any explicit description of Jesus’ death”
(p. 65). So, it actually does not tell
us much about his last days anyway.
Moreover, Professor Daniel A. Smith of Huron University
College explains that:
“Assumption…was usually considered a bodily removal of a person
from earth to heaven while still alive” (The Post-Mortem
Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q (New York: T&T Clark
International, 2006), p.2)
Smith, however, did argue that Jesus’ “assumption” occurred
after he had died, basing this on “evidence from Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources
that assumption language could be applied to someone who had died”
(Ibid.). But it seems that Smith assumed
Jesus’ “death” from the beginning, rather than determining this from the Q
Gospel, which as we already pointed out, did not describe Jesus’ death at
all. Furthermore, as Muslim scholar
Shabir Ally observes, some scholars came to the conclusion that the Q Gospel
implied that Jesus had been raised alive. Commenting on Daniel Smith’s claim that the
assumption of Jesus occurred after his death, Ally states:
“But whereas Smith insists that Jesus was taken up dead in the
manner of Moses and Isaiah, his study also highlights the fact that the Q
Gospel which served as a source for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not
speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The German scholar Deiter Zeller
argues on the basis of the Q Gospel, that the early belief entailed the
assumption of Jesus alive, as was the case with Enoch and Elijah” (http://shabirally.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead/)
Therefore, the Q Gospel raises no serious objections to the
Quranic view that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not die.
Carrier points to the example of the pagan god Asclepius,
who was called “Soter”, which means “The Savior”, for being able to heal the
sick and also resurrect the dead. Due to
the similarity with the miracles ascribed to Jesus, Carrier surmises whether
they “implied a deliberate rivalry with Asclepius”. Indeed, Islamic scholars mention that
whenever a prophet was sent to a specific people, he was often given abilities
that would have relevance to the time in which he was sent. As the website “Darulfatwa” explains
regarding Jesus (peace be upon him):
“…Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) son of Lady Mariam was
supported with Miracles when he called the people to the religion of Islam and
to believe in the oneness of Allah. The people at the time of Prophet Jesus
were renowned for their high level of skill in Medicine. The people could not
match what he did by the will of Allah as He supported him with miracles such
as reviving the dead and curing blindness and leprosy” (http://www.darulfatwa.org.au/en/Friday-Sermons/the-miracles-of-the-prophets)
Of course, this does not mean that other prophets were
unable to perform miracles like healing the sick, for it is well-known that
Muhammad (peace be upon him) also healed people. What it means is that each prophet had
specific abilities which were relevant to the time, but could also have other
abilities. Hence, while Carrier seems to
be implying that the stories of Jesus’ miracles were deliberately invented to “rival” the cult of
Asclepius, he is actually on the right track (though for the wrong
reasons). Jesus (peace be upon him)
would have performed the miracles precisely because they were “in vogue” at the
time, and would have had the most effect.
Similarly, while Muhammad (peace be upon him) did perform miracles like
healing the sick, his greatest miracle was the Quran, which was presented as an
inimitable book to a people who were renowned for their literary and poetic
prowess.
[49] Some
people may argue that “influence” still implies “borrowing”. However, that is not necessarily true. It could be that the concept of the
resurrection of Jesus developed partly as a result of the influence of
Hellenistic converts to Christianity.
Scholars recognize, for example, that Paul was heavily influenced by
Hellenistic culture, despite the fact that he was a Jew. There is no doubt that his outlook had
Hellenistic overtones. As Professor Delbert
R. Burkett of Louisiana State University states:
“Paul’s ethical instructions may reflect the influence of
Hellenistic moral exhortation. In many
respects, Paul’s ethical teachings resemble those of Greek and Roman
philosophers in content, form, and terminology. […] Some scholars have
suggested that Paul’s teaching on baptism and the Lord’s Supper owes much to
Hellenistic mystery religions” (An Introduction to the New Testament
and the Origins of Christianity (Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge, 2002), p. 300).
Of course, it should not be surprising that because Jews
lived in the shadow of Hellenism, many of them eventually incorporated some
aspects of the culture into their worldview.
In modern times, we can see the influence of western, secular culture
leading to reinterpretations and “reforms” among some religious people (a good
example is the current controversy regarding homosexuality and gay marriage in
some churches). It is not surprising at
all that a dominant culture or society exerts considerable influence on the
people living in its shadow. That does
not mean that aspects of the culture are directly “borrowed”. So, with regard to the resurrection theology
of Pauline Christianity, it could be that as the resurrection story circulated
(possibly due to embellishments of the “empty tomb” story or simply a
misinterpretation of the visions of Jesus), it gradually took hold among some
Christians, and eventually became dominant.
It would explain why documents from the time show an inconsistent
approach to the resurrection. Some
documents simply failed to even mention it!
It could also be that as time went by, the early stories of
Jesus’ “assumption” (see note #44) were reinterpreted as his “resurrection”. In that regard, the Christians could have
interpreted the stories from a Hellenistic point of view, since resurrection of
gods and men were very common in the ancient Hellenistic religions.
For more on the influence of Hellenism on Christianity,
interested readers should see Mack, op.
cit., pp. 50-60.
[50] As the
late Biblical scholar Geza Vermes succinctly stated:
“To put it bluntly, not even a credulous nonbeliever is likely
to be persuaded by the various reports of the Resurrection; they convince only
the already converted. The same must be
said about the visions. None of them
satisfies the minimum requirements of a legal or scientific inquiry” (The
Resurrection: History and Myth (New York: Doubleday, 2008), p. 141).
Thomas Paine was even more “blunt”. He stated:
“…if the writers of these four books [the Gospels] had gone into
a court of justice to prove an alibi…and had given their evidence in the same
contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in danger of
having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the
books, that have been imposed upon the world as being given by divine
inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God” (Paine, op. cit., pp. 134-135).
[51] See
Tacitus, Histories, 4:81 and Suetonius, Life of Vespasian,
Chapter 7.
While Tacitus states that one of the men who pleaded with
Vespasian to heal him had a defect in his leg, Suetonius states that he had a
defect in his hand. Using Brown’s
attempted dismissal of the difficulty that “variations” in the
post-resurrection appearance accounts should invariably raise, it could be
argued that just because there are “variations” between Tacitus and Suetonius,
they constitute no argument against the historicity of Vespasian’s
miracles. Yet it seems unlikely that
Brown or other Christians would have been so generous!
[52] It is
understandable, then, why Geza Vermes criticized Brown as:
“…the primary example of the position of ‘having your cake and
eating it” (The Nativity: History and Legend (New York:
Doubleday, 2006), p. 21).
Brown was unwilling to reject outright the most important
stories of the Christian faith, like the nativity and the resurrection, while
simultaneously acknowledging the difficulties present in such stories. In the end, though Brown was a respected scholar,
he unfortunately became a victim of the same dogmatism of his more conservative
brethren, even though he recognized the evidence for the errant and uninspired
nature of the resurrection story unlike his brethren.
