neilgodfrey

Ha, I have coincidentally just blogged on this very point. The criterion of embarrassment clearly "establishes" as fact Matthew's assertion that some of Jesus' inner disciples did not believe in the resurrection -- even when they had the same "witness" experience as their companions.

By the criterion of embarrassment this is just as certain a fact of history as the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. No argument.

As with the respective John the Baptist narratives we can even trace how the different gospels attempted to address this embarrassing but unavoidable detail.

Mark left the question of Jesus' appearance to the disciples ambiguous. Did he see them or not? Make of his ending what you will.

Matthew bit the bullet and admitted the fact head on. He had nothing to gain, so we know it was true.

John, assuming John 21 is the ending, as good as goes along with Matthew's declaration, but narrates it more positively by naming at least 5 of the 7 disciples who were there at the end for a final appearance of Jesus.

If we treat John 20 as the final chapter, John still attempts to get around the embarrassment by avoiding any mention of how many disciples Jesus actually appeared to after his resurrection. He speaks only vaguely of "disciples". (The last we read of Peter specifically is when he went back home after not knowing what to make of the empty tomb.)

Luke simply lies to hide the fact. Although one might wonder if he is alluding to something uncomfortable when he says the disciples did not believe "for joy", whatever that means.

All this casts Paul's assertion about the 500 witnesses in a questionable light. How many of them actually believed in the so-called appearance of Jesus to them all?

The strange thing is that in Matthew, Luke and John we read that "the disciples" were nonetheless sent out or commissioned to preach about Jesus. The reader is left to decide if the nonbelievers were among those sent out. Paul did not mind either way if Christ was preached honestly or hypocritically (Philippians 1:18), so it is probably a moot point in the end.

Neil

Julio

Loved the last two posts. Very, very interesting. More, please. Thanks.

Julio

Presuming that the sentence is genuine from Matthew’s pen [which is impossible to establish] it represents a most incredible depository of truth.
That is, Matthew arrived at the end of his production with a heavy conscience after telling his readers so much unverifiable tripe that the only way to rescue himself from subsequent accusations was to post those last three words as his postscript!
I have no problem imagining Matthew going back to read what he had spent hours, days and weeks HANDwriting, and instead of scrapping the entire script, decided to add those three mysterious words as a confession of his incredulity over the entire farce.
The other possible explanation is that those three words are not genuine material.
Some “funny” hand decided to mock the entire choreography presented in the previous pages by adding them!
I would do that myself, to throw a ray of light over the entire travesty. Had I read the text to its last words “they worshiped”, I would have no remorse to add “BUT SOME DOUBTED.”
Is this too fictional of me?

storytime

Wasn't their turning back due to Jesus telling them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood as qualification for being his disciples?

This evidently disgusted many who had followed Jesus, but doesn't indicate the twelve who remained with him.

spamandham

Why do you think some were disgusted by this? Surely everyone in Hellenistic culture knew there was no cannibalism involved in eating the flesh of a god.

Julio

Yes; and yet the text [John 6:66] says that MANY left him. Some apostles? I wonder. Later, in Acts, some anonymous writer is supplying the names of eleven, but that is only a technicality, I think.

spamandham

It seems to me they were turned off by Jesus' confusing monologue rather than disgust at the concept of eating his flesh. To equate belief with eating flesh is certainly a bizarre and confusing equivocation in modern times.

Amaleq13

That is what the text seems to indicate, yes, though it may be a reaction to the "predestination" of 6:65.

I see no indication of disgust but there are signs of confusion. The author depicts the "Jews" and the doubting disciples as interpreting him literally and either not understanding or simply walking away.

kcdad

One thing is that the "miracles and wonders" performed are most likely myths added later, otherwise doubt becomes lunatic. The resurrection and appearances must have been myth and added later otherwise doubt is impossible.

OR... the entire mythology of Jesus as a religious leader must be replaced with that of an economic and political radical promoting an entirely different way of life must be considered. THAT people could doubt. "What? Give up all my possessions and go out and help the poor? Live in communal groups? Allow empire to flourish around me without my participation in it? How can that make my life or the world better?"

spamandham

While this is certainly possible, I don't see a good reason to view it as the simplest solution. If we accept that the authentic writings attributed to Paul really are earlier than the Gospels, which are in turn earlier than the remainder of the NT, then what we see is detail being added as time progresses.

The simplest explanation of that is not the mythicizing of a historical person, but the historicizing of a mythical person. There was no collective memory of a real Jesus, so they had to invent details.