Legend, Glamor, and the Resurrection -- Why is There No Account of Jesus Coming Out of the Tomb?
In the Gospels, the resurrection narratives describe a risen Jesus as appearing to certain people, but notice that there is no record of the exact moment Jesus came out of the tomb. Supposedly, none of the witnesses of Christ' resurrection actually witnessed Jesus coming out of the tomb. What significance does this have for the credibility of the resurrection narratives?
LEGEND AND GLAMOR
The thoughts of John Kennedy (not to be confused with the president) are worth considering:
"it is admitted that none of those who were the witnesses of His resurrection to the world, actually saw Him rising. We hold, however, that the history is all the more worthy of credence, because it does not say that they did. If the history of the actual appearances of Christ after He was risen owes anything to legend or myth or invention, we may be sure that legend or myth or invention would have given us a great deal more. On the coming forth from the grave, it would especially have expended its fancy or its ingenuity...But we have nothing of this sort in the history, because it is a history and not a romance" [1].
While more needs to be said regarding the resurrection event, I, personally, find this to be a compelling line of thought. The simplicity of the narratives and their lack of "glamor" regarding the moment of the resurrection is interesting. It is especially interesting when compared to later gospels that have the earmarks of legendary accretion. Consider this excerpt from the gospel of Peter (likely written in the second half of the second century):
"now in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulcher. The stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulcher started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulcher was opened, and both the young men entered in. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders - for they also were there to assist at the watch. And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulcher, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying 'Thou hast preached to them that sleep?', and from the cross there was heard the answer, 'Yea.'"
SELF-DAMAGING DETAIL
More than lacking a talking cross, the gospel narratives do not depict the disciples as if they were courageously expecting Jesus' resurrection. On the contrary, they were hiding and were not anticipating a resurrected Lord. The narratives are unabashed about the ignorance or the disciples on this matter. Kennedy writes the following:
“The demand for witnesses who should be able to say that they had seen Christ come forth from His grave overlooks the fact that the disciples did not expect Him to rise. After they had seen Him risen they remembered and understood what He had foretold. But until He was actually risen their hopes were buried in His grave. And they had no inducement on the morning of the third day to gather around a spot which, thought very sacred to their hearts, could only deepen the gloom of their spirits. The love of the women who had ministered to Him of their substance during His life brought them early to the grave; but it was not to see Him rise, it was to perform an office which implied that He was gone from them for ever" [2].
This has ties to a particular criteria used by historians to assess the historicity of ancient texts -- the criteria of self-damaging details. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy write that "The presence of self-damaging details in a document usually suggests to historians that the author was willing to risk damaging his own cause for the sake of remaining faithful to history. Thus, all other things being equal, the presence of such material in a document should increase our confidence in its historical veracity" [3].
CONCLUSION
In my estimation, then, the gospel's lack of a glorified resurrection moment coupled with the text's humble -- if not embarrassing -- depiction of the state and expectation of the disciples on the third day after the death of Jesus speaks positively, to some extent, of the intention of the tradents to remain faithful to historical events. In other words, this consideration bolsters the probability that the gospel tradents were not trying to doctor up the narrative about the moment of the resurrection, nor were they trying to doctor up the key witnesses who would become the main leaders and teachers of the new faith. Rather, the nature of the accounts seem to be what we would expect if they were trying to remain faithful to history. The lack of a narrative about the moment of the resurrection and the absence of courageous and informed disciples may, in all probability, suggest that "the history is all the more worthy of credence."
_____________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
LEGEND AND GLAMOR
The thoughts of John Kennedy (not to be confused with the president) are worth considering:
"it is admitted that none of those who were the witnesses of His resurrection to the world, actually saw Him rising. We hold, however, that the history is all the more worthy of credence, because it does not say that they did. If the history of the actual appearances of Christ after He was risen owes anything to legend or myth or invention, we may be sure that legend or myth or invention would have given us a great deal more. On the coming forth from the grave, it would especially have expended its fancy or its ingenuity...But we have nothing of this sort in the history, because it is a history and not a romance" [1].
While more needs to be said regarding the resurrection event, I, personally, find this to be a compelling line of thought. The simplicity of the narratives and their lack of "glamor" regarding the moment of the resurrection is interesting. It is especially interesting when compared to later gospels that have the earmarks of legendary accretion. Consider this excerpt from the gospel of Peter (likely written in the second half of the second century):
"now in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulcher. The stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulcher started of itself to roll and gave way to the side, and the sepulcher was opened, and both the young men entered in. When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders - for they also were there to assist at the watch. And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out from the sepulcher, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying 'Thou hast preached to them that sleep?', and from the cross there was heard the answer, 'Yea.'"
SELF-DAMAGING DETAIL
More than lacking a talking cross, the gospel narratives do not depict the disciples as if they were courageously expecting Jesus' resurrection. On the contrary, they were hiding and were not anticipating a resurrected Lord. The narratives are unabashed about the ignorance or the disciples on this matter. Kennedy writes the following:
“The demand for witnesses who should be able to say that they had seen Christ come forth from His grave overlooks the fact that the disciples did not expect Him to rise. After they had seen Him risen they remembered and understood what He had foretold. But until He was actually risen their hopes were buried in His grave. And they had no inducement on the morning of the third day to gather around a spot which, thought very sacred to their hearts, could only deepen the gloom of their spirits. The love of the women who had ministered to Him of their substance during His life brought them early to the grave; but it was not to see Him rise, it was to perform an office which implied that He was gone from them for ever" [2].
This has ties to a particular criteria used by historians to assess the historicity of ancient texts -- the criteria of self-damaging details. Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy write that "The presence of self-damaging details in a document usually suggests to historians that the author was willing to risk damaging his own cause for the sake of remaining faithful to history. Thus, all other things being equal, the presence of such material in a document should increase our confidence in its historical veracity" [3].
CONCLUSION
In my estimation, then, the gospel's lack of a glorified resurrection moment coupled with the text's humble -- if not embarrassing -- depiction of the state and expectation of the disciples on the third day after the death of Jesus speaks positively, to some extent, of the intention of the tradents to remain faithful to historical events. In other words, this consideration bolsters the probability that the gospel tradents were not trying to doctor up the narrative about the moment of the resurrection, nor were they trying to doctor up the key witnesses who would become the main leaders and teachers of the new faith. Rather, the nature of the accounts seem to be what we would expect if they were trying to remain faithful to history. The lack of a narrative about the moment of the resurrection and the absence of courageous and informed disciples may, in all probability, suggest that "the history is all the more worthy of credence."
_____________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
[1] Kennedy, John. The Resurrection of Christ as an Historical Fact. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 1882. Web. 1 Jan. 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Boyd, Greg, and Paul Eddy. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment