Now imagine that grieving family
and friends of Jesus appeal to you with the startling news that his newly dead
body, that of a convict, executed by the Romans - is missing from its tomb. They want your help in figuring out what
happened. What questions will you
ask? What conclusions will you draw from
what you do hear and what you don't hear, from the consistencies and the
discrepancies of your sources and the evidence? Bear in mind, that as a
contemporary witness, you know nothing about the later theologies of the Resurrection or the
Trinity. You just know that an itinerant
Jewish teacher, seen by some authorities as a rabble-rouser, was arrested and
rapidly condemned to a particularly ignominious death, and now his family and friends say his body is missing. Hmmmmm!
Now, fast forward 2000 years. You are still a detective, but this time, a
sociological, religious detective. You
sift through the early Christian documents (the canonical gospels and the
apocryphal ones and various letters that were circulating then as well), and Jewish documents and political ones. These
writers had choices about what to include and what to leave out. What do you notice about the choices that the
writers made? What conclusions do you
draw about the documents, the writers, and the believers?
We
will play both of these roles, first as contemporary detective and then as literary/historical detective. We will look at many of the same passages, first
in one light and then in the other. What do you conclude? What questions remain? Do they matter to you?
The format for this detection relies on "who, what, when, where, why" questions.
The first question is likely to be
"when." Detectives like to know if a client's mystery is an old one with a dead
trail or a fresh one? "When did you
discover that the body was missing?"
Part I:
When-historic: the mystery is new. Jesus was crucified on Friday and was
discovered on Sunday or Monday, depending on different sources, which in the Canonical Gospels, variably
say "on the third day" and "after three days."
That number of days could
be cited to reasonably prove that Jesus was dead as opposed to comatose, fainted, or
concussed.
When- mythic: "Three days later" is obviously
symbolic and not to be taken literally.
Three is a highly significant, religious number. Peter denies Jesus
three times, Jonah remained for three days in the belly of the fish, angelic
announcements occur in threes. There are numerous examples. In addition, this language was written at least one and possibly two generations after Jesus's death in order to
reinforce a Christian Sabbath day that would distinguish it from the Jewish Sabbath, when the Christians and Jews decided that they were different religions (officially observed by Rome).
Who discovered the empty tomb- historic? This answer is remarkably consistent. All sources say that the women close to Jesus discovered the empty tomb, and in those sources that name women, which are most of them, Mary Magdalene is ALWAYS among them, or among various sources, sometimes with another Mary, or with Salome or Drusiana. John, the last gospel written, mentions two men, too: Peter and "the beloved disciple," interpreted but unnamed, as John. This consistency is important to a detective of 30 CE. First of all, it is sensible that the women would have gone to the tomb, as it was the female family members who attended to both birth and death events. In Jewish families, it would have been the wife and mother and sisters and aunts who would have washed and wrapped the body for burial. The fact that Mary Magdalene is so prominently associated with this role is one of the strongest indications that she was, in fact, Jesus' wife. Let's face it. The man was 30 years old and Jewish in a period when the life expectancy was 40. Celibacy was rare. Those Jews, like the Essenes, who may have practiced celibacy, although recent archeology disputes it, did so away from society, whereas Jesus was clearly ministering to people in situ. It would have been normal for him to have been married and unusual for him to have been single at that age, in that culture.
Who discovered the empty tomb- historic? This answer is remarkably consistent. All sources say that the women close to Jesus discovered the empty tomb, and in those sources that name women, which are most of them, Mary Magdalene is ALWAYS among them, or among various sources, sometimes with another Mary, or with Salome or Drusiana. John, the last gospel written, mentions two men, too: Peter and "the beloved disciple," interpreted but unnamed, as John. This consistency is important to a detective of 30 CE. First of all, it is sensible that the women would have gone to the tomb, as it was the female family members who attended to both birth and death events. In Jewish families, it would have been the wife and mother and sisters and aunts who would have washed and wrapped the body for burial. The fact that Mary Magdalene is so prominently associated with this role is one of the strongest indications that she was, in fact, Jesus' wife. Let's face it. The man was 30 years old and Jewish in a period when the life expectancy was 40. Celibacy was rare. Those Jews, like the Essenes, who may have practiced celibacy, although recent archeology disputes it, did so away from society, whereas Jesus was clearly ministering to people in situ. It would have been normal for him to have been married and unusual for him to have been single at that age, in that culture.
Who - mythic: In myths and religious stories, it is often
the "little" people, the underappreciated, like elves and children
and hunchbacked old crones who bear significant news, only to be
disbelieved. Although there is
historical merit for women first approaching the tomb, it is also mythically
and literarily consistent that women would bear the news to those who would
become the leaders of the institutional church.
In the resurrection stories, it is repeatedly less important who first heard the
news at the tomb than who first believed it among the disciples. The
gospels were written between 70 – 100 CE.
By that time, and particularly since Jerusalem was destroyed in the 60s CE, the first AND second generation of Jesus’ followers
could no longer be validated. The importance was in the hearing and
believing, not in the seeing any longer. And this remains so, among the faithful centuries later.
It is sadly interesting that the
early writings mention Mary Magdalene's key role without apology or explanation
as if it is implicit, but it is later versions and church tradition that
describe her more derogatorily, particularly to align her with the unnamed prostitute in one Gospel. Where did that connection come from? These
efforts to explain away a wife in a culture that prized family is a far cry
from the Jewish culture in which Jesus lived, and possibly one of the saddest elements in
Christian theology, which attempts to segregate Jesus from the culture in which
he likely lived.
Two Where Questions: Where was the tomb and where were his followers?
Where was the tomb: The answers to this are highly
problematic. Mark, the least romantic
and fantastic gospel, refers simply to a "rock tomb." Matthew and Luke identify the tomb as that of
Joseph of Arimethea. John puts the tomb
in a garden, which would be a pretty snazzy location, indeed, particularly
startling for a convict. These are three
very different versions. One is
anonymous, another named, and a third in the best burial ground in town. Where was this tomb? Whose tomb was it? And why can't anyone point to it later on?
Another “where" question is
this: Where were the men and women of
Jesus' group when he died? The women are
reported to be watching the crucifixion from "afar." The men are reported to have scattered,
afraid for themselves after Jesus was arrested and convicted. Despite heart wrenching paintings of Mary and
John at the foot of the cross, most of the written documents indicate that
Jesus died alone, abandoned by his family and followers.
Where -
mythic: We know
where Grant's tomb is. We know where Mohammed
ascended to heaven. We have traditions
about the location of Abraham's tomb. Do
you think that if ANYONE knew where Jesus was buried there wouldn't be a
parking lot and a hotel there? Wouldn't
Christians be lining up to be healed at the site of the man who "beat
death" instead of at Lourdes or other places? No one knows where Jesus was buried. This is very significant. From a Protestant symbolic standpoint, this
indicates that it is not his death, but his resurrection that is important
- witness the empty cross in Protestant
churches. However, for Catholics, it is
the suffering and dying on the cross as a sacrifice to us that is
significant. Hence the often grisly depictions
of a writhing, suffering Jesus on that cross.
Catholics have built a Church of the Holy Sepulcher on a site outside
the old walls of Jerusalem in a location associated with convict executions and
mass graves. However, it doesn't attract
the attention of the sites for Mohammed in Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina that
are accorded historical significance.
1) What were they going to do at the tomb? The answer to this is rather troublesome, on several counts. First of all, several versions contend that the women were going to the tomb to anoint a body three days dead. This is a little late in a warm climate. Second, one of the gospels indicates that the body wrappings were lying in the tomb and another that Joseph and Nicodemus took care of the body. Too many inconsistencies. Third, Jesus is reported to have died much earlier in the day than anyone expected. There was plenty of time to claim the body and prepare it for burial before sundown and Sabbath, as one version said. But fourth and most importantly, crucified convicts’ bodies were routinely left on the crosses for the flies and the vultures as a warning to the rest of the city. This horrific image was part of the humiliation of that punishment, designated for a certain segment of prisoners found guilty of crimes against Rome. This was particularly heinous for a culture that honored family burials. Fifth, it is true that Jews often appealed to authorities to claim and bury their relatives, but in the story of Jesus, it is significantly reported that NO FAMILY members did so. Some writings say "the Jews" pleaded for the body and others say that Joseph of Arimathea did so, for burial in his own or his family's tomb. But the latter would be highly unusual for a non-family member - either to be able to claim a body or to bury it in a family tomb. (Imagine going to a state penitentiary and trying to claim a death row convict unrelated to you.) Furthermore, Joseph's role, like the angels’, varies and grows in various documents, from that of a "Jew," to a "good Jew" to a "rich Jew" to a member of the Sanhedrin (which condemned Jesus to death) who became a Christian convert. Another Gospel identifies him as a secret follower. The whole story of Joseph sounds spurious.
2)
What did they find there:
According to various sources, either one or two angels or the unrecognized
Christ greeted the women at the tomb and announced that Jesus had risen. Sometimes he appeared as a ghost or a light;
in other versions he appeared more solid.
In all cases, the heavenly visitor(s) told people to tell others that
Christ would appear to them. In all cases, the women were amazed, often
afraid. When they did tell the other
disciples of their experience, they were not believed until Jesus appeared to
them himself.
Let’s now turn to two questions key
to the question of Easter: Why did Jesus
die and how did he rise from the dead or disappear from his tomb. Remember, these are the questions of
a detective at that time and place.
What did they find at the tomb? I have no
difficulties with the inconsistencies of who announced the risen Christ: one or two angels, or a "young man in
white" (clearly an angelic messenger in Mark) or an unrecognized Christ,
or a Jesus appearing directly to Mary. This was an astonishing moment. Details get fuzzy in the face of strong
experiences and emotions! How many of us remember every factual event when our
children were born or when we married or when we were in a car accident or
witnessed a crime! Although criminal
attorneys love eye-witnesses, they are apparently highly over-rated. So even if
these events were historically, journalistically true, the variances at this
point wouldn't bother me.
However, I don't happen to believe
them. I agree with most scholars who
believe they were written generations later according to religious and literary
conventions. What happens when miracles
occur? Angels show up! Of course! They say "Do not be
afraid," and they announce things.
We should be no more surprised by this convention than if I started a
story with, "Once upon a time…"
or “I was so poor that…” or “the
storm was so bad that…” These literary
devices and the similes and metaphors that follow reinforce the message; they
aren’t the meat.
--------------------------------------------------------Why did Jesus die? - historic The answers are not helpful. They don’t make sense. Although the arrest/trial/conviction stories are quite consistent across the gospels, no Jesus supporters were in attendance; none could have witnessed anything beyond Judas’s betrayal. Second, the Romans had different levels of punishment, including different kinds of death penalties, for various crimes and the social status of the criminal. Lower echelon criminals were crucified. Thieves, rabble-rousers, rebelling slaves. Perhaps Jesus and his followers were blamed for behaviors that have been purged from the Christian records. Perhaps the name, Iscariot, which is so similar to the term for assassins (iscarii), reflects other roles for him or those with whom he was associated, at least according to the Romans. Any family with a hanged horse thief in the background may have shaded history and relationships, too. In any case, it certainly wasn’t for many of his religious messages that Jesus was killed. The great Rabbi Hillel with some similar "golden rule messaging" is a near contemporary who died of natural causes, in bed, at an advanced age. Whatever the reasons for Jesus's conviction, they have been obscured.
Why - mythic: Let's cut
the chase. Historicity is never going to
be satisfied. So, the WHY question is
not so much “why did it happen” as “why do Christians want to believe in a
risen Christ?" Why is important to
differentiate Hillel, as a great rabbi who died in bed, from Jesus, who was crucified, died, buried, and rose to
heaven to sit on the right hand of God?
This is the crux of Easter. This
is a question that defines Christianity and that Unitarians in a Christian
culture can fruitfully consider.
Whereas Judaism implied that success reflected God's favor, people knew from evidence all around them that this couldn’t be so. Some people bore greater sorrow than they warranted and others enjoyed material success despite despicable moral character. Life isn't fair. Romans and Greeks dealt with this obvious inequity through stories of meddlesome, often petulant gods favoring some humans and hindering others. Christianity admits that life isn't fair and offers a parting salvo: it isn’t fair but that is because God has a plan: He separates the wheat from the chaff in heaven. This was hugely comforting! Life might stink down here, but it will all even out up there. That is where the good are rewarded. People loved this!
This Christian world view matched
people's perceptions of reality in a way that found resonance with those
disconnected from Judaism and other religions of the Roman Empire. In addition, it offered the same attractive,
ethical monotheism of Judaism and was easier to join. Christianity imposed fewer rules and
prohibitions and no circumcision, so it seemed much more inclusive. A second distinction of Christianity was its
democracy. Judaism was a home grown
religion that did not particularly encourage converts. Christianity proclaimed, "Have we got
good news for all of you – any of you, Jews or Zoroastrians or Romans or
Egyptians! There is more to life than
you think and you are going to be OK!
Come join us and we will tell you more!" Rather than exterminate or exclude
unbelievers, they wanted to invite converts.
How did he rise from the dead?
This was not inconceivable to that era. Medical knowledge was not a science. Jesus himself was described as a faith healer. He supposedly raised Lazarus from the dead after three days. In Jewish tradition, some very holy people were exalted - taken up to God rather than having an earthly tomb: Enoch and Elijah were two. The Romans had a similar conception: Augustinian coins show Julius Caesar's spirit ascending toward heaven as a shooting star. Heracles was taken up to Mount Olympus by his father, Zeus, after he burned to death. So the language and imagery was familiar. From the various witnesses’ accounts, Jesus was a body, a spirit, or an unrecognized man when seen after his death, suggesting various interpretations of this “how” question.
As a detective, you have gathered a lot of data. What conclusions do you draw?
One or two generations after the fact, stories have family members claiming that the body is missing from the tomb, but it appears unlikely that they know where the tomb was. Despite Jesus's subsequent fame, NOBODY identifies a location. According to Roman regulations for crime and punishment, it is likely that Jesus and other crucified criminals were left on their crosses as a warning to others and then tossed into a mass grave. It is highly unlikely that the body of a convict was claimed by a non-family member to be buried in his own family’s tomb. The conviction, the ignominious death, and the humble burial or awful spectacle of no burial would have been horrible to any friends and family, especially those who had believed that Jesus was a new leader of a new order now cut short. Undoubtedly, they felt emotions ranging from guilt to grief, rejection to bitter disillusionment, fear to anger. What might such people do? What is psychologically feasible? Afterwards might they pretend that they took care of his body, that they weren’t hiding under a bed somewhere? Or since they couldn’t find the body anyway, claim that he rose from the dead? Think of people who claim to have been close to Martin Luther King or other charismatic leaders… and made a career of that alleged association.
An unlikely
alternative is that Jesus's followers purposely stole the body in order to
foment this story of a risen Christ.
Frankly, this seems pretty remote given the way convicts’ bodies were
handled, and the repeated story in the Gospels themselves that no one believed
the women’s stories that he was gone.
Maybe, as the detective, you would conclude that the followers really
don’t know what happened to the body, feel guilty about that, and desperately
want some closure that renders his life and death meaningful.
Now let's take on the role as detective of history,
literature, and religion, instead of as a contemporary detective. Let's review the same set of questions, but
from the perspective that these documents were written by writers who selected
what to include and what to exclude, not so much for history as for a faith
story. This distinction is important. For
example, I would not discount any of you
who claimed to have the most beautiful or brilliant grandchild in the
country. Nor would I argue with anyone
who said that his wife was better than the sun and the moon and the stars.
Language is most limited when it is used to describe intense emotions. Easter is THE faith story of Christianity. Although we have questioned historical
details, none of them is likely to concern a person with this faith, any more
than you would be concerned if I showed you photos of five cuter children or
ten other husbands who claimed that their wives were more wonderful than the
sun, the moon, and the stars. Faith is NOT in the details of the wife, the
grandchild or the God. Faith is in our
own feelings and how we try, often feebly, to express it.
What: So after
all of this discussion, what happened to Jesus?
Here's my perspective: I don’t think that question is all that important. Much more important are the questions, “What
happened to his followers?” and "Why is a particular belief important to those believers?"
I think that Jesus's death
terrified his followers. The Christian documents (and
those are the only sources we have - no 'dispassionate" contemporary accounts) indicate that they hid in locked rooms for fear of
their own deaths. We have already
indicated that there is a credibility gap between what we know about Jesus’s
teachings and the kinds of people who were crucified. Either they were guilty of behavior purged
from Christian documents, causing them to hide, or they were gathering together
for literary reasons. If historical, picture the wake, which is rather what
those hidden dinners must have been like. They are described in eucharistic
terms because they were written so much later, by believers. But cull them down
to the bare essentials: they were dinners, maybe Sabbath dinners, shared by
reunited followers. Can’t you imagine
the conversations that transpired, having been in such gatherings? They remember Jesus. They miss him or are angry. They argue about
what he said and what he meant as a leader and as a teacher. Some of his teachings
have more poignancy because he is now dead.
These followers argue about who among them was more and less loyal. They jockey for positions of blame and gain
and leadership.
Clearly some of Jesus’s followers
were inspired and later, inspirational in their own right. Just as the grief
stricken of any era will often talk and talk about the deceased, the disciples
began to preach Jesus’s message, and to expand their own understanding of his
teachings in light of his death and the changes that generated in his
followers. How much their interpretation
of his life and teachings was influenced by guilt, and how that feeling of
guilt and unworthiness permeates Christian theology is a ripe topic for another
day. But clearly the compelling
Christian message is something along this line, “a vote for Jesus is a vote for
yourself.” He doesn’t ask for a temple tax, he doesn’t require 636 rules of
good behavior, doesn’t require circumcision.
He taught that ones innate goodness on this earth will be rewarded in
heaven. And so the early Christians
developed social structures to put those good works in action, developing one
of the earliest welfare systems in the Mediterranean world, after the Jews. No
wonder the religion attracted adherents.
So whether Jesus’s appearances were
ghost stories or hallucinations or dreams of his followers or metaphorical
stories told by subsequent generations to convey the faith story is open to
interpretation.
I don't think it really matters if
Jesus was thrown into a mass grave, and if his followers were so embarrassed by
their failure of spirit that they obscured that fact with a little heroic
embellishment. What is important is that
Jesus's view of humanity and life and death gave comfort to millions who had
lacked it before, by granting dignity to those toiling for good without ever
realizing any earthly gain. If his
followers wanted to characterize him as a hero, in the heroic terms of their
era, so be it. Maybe there are a few lessons here for
us, believers or unbelievers, worth considering.
The sermon is excellent. Excellent. Can't wait to pass it along to friends who ask, "How in the world does your church observe Easter?" I've been coming up with a one word answer: "Thoughtfully," but that doesn't seem to get it. Jesus's followers would have to deplore the current use of the cross as a symbol of their faith. What a foul way to die. - Dodie
ReplyDelete