EarlDoherty

My dear Ben…

Despite all your protestations about my statements on the Matthean guard at the tomb sequence and its concluding ‘editorial’ comment, the elephant in the room remains, the silence for over a century on any such Jewish spin that the disciples stole the body. You dismiss it as “oh yes…that argument from silence”. You call this typical of me, but this dismissal is much more typical of my opponents. It simply cannot be so blithely dismissed. If Christians were claiming an historical resurrection in anything like a universal fashion, and the Jews were countering with the stolen-body response (as Matthew claims), the need for the development of a Christian response to that would be compelling, and we should expect to find such a give-and-take in the wider record.

Silence by Justin and Tertullian on the guard “refutation” in Matthew does not quite carry the same weight as silence by everyone before Justin (meaning before Matthew became known) by over a century of Christian writers if the charge was being mounted by Jews for that amount of time. Justin’s remark about the stolen body is made as part of his enumeration of the broader activities of Jewish anti-Christian missionaries. To digress to offer Matthew’s rather elaborate scene to explain how this accusation could be countered might well have been felt unnecessary by Justin. In Tertullian, such a digression would be even more out of place. Have you actually read De Spectaculis XXX? Tertullian is exulting on how his faith gives him the anticipation of seeing the wretched Jews confined to Hell at the Judgment, the Jews who had visited such suffering and deceit upon Christ, who had made such irresponsible accusations against the Christians, one of which is that the disciples secretly stole away his body. Apologetics is the furthest thing from Tertullian’s mind in this passage. (And his juxtaposed reference to both Matthew and John, the stealing away and the gardener, shows that his source is simply the Gospels.)

It’s also curious, Ben, that in your post discussing both the Tertullian passage and Justin’s, you admit that it is quite possible that both are simply drawing on the Gospels, that there is little or no evidence that they knew of a separate Jewish accusation. Yet you seem so anxious to defend the idea that such an accusation was circulating in common knowledge right from the beginning, in order to justify Matthew’s apologetic explanation and his appended ‘editorial’ declaration that this accusation was circulating in his time, supposedly up to a century earlier than Tertullian. Isn’t there some kind of contradiction here? If Matthew was familiar with it before the end of the 1st century (presumably your preferred dating), why wouldn’t Justin and Tertullian, and every other Christian writer throughout the 2nd century, also have been familiar with such an accusation independent of Matthew’s Gospel. And yet we have no clear evidence of such a thing, by your own admission.

And keep in mind that we do not even have such independent witness to such a Jewish accusation from the Jews themselves! The Talmud, while it contains many rabbinic ‘spins’ on the Gospel story and character (such as accusing him of being a bastard son), does not contain this one! It certainly doesn’t back up the speculation that the Jews of Tertullian’s time were scouring the Gospels for “these sorts of charges” since nothing about this particular point ever surfaces in the rabbinic writings which began to be set down at that very time. So we have nothing to back up and provide any corroboration for your “middle ground” preference that Matthew witnesses to a Jewish claim at any time that the disciples stole Jesus’ body. I think my “sense of logic” is on pretty good ground, all things considered, in rejecting such a “middle ground” as untenable, regardless of whether scholars like to appeal to it, and regardless of whether Price and Wells have overlooked elements of the actual situation. As to whether I should have ignored such considerations, perhaps I shouldn’t have—but for the reason that they have opened the door for some very good argument for my contention that all of Matthew’s guard at the tomb scene, including its concluding comment, has to be rejected as having anything to do with historical actuality. It looks to be all part of his own invention. Thus I reject any claim that the ‘middle ground’ is “a completely logical medial position”

You (or was it someone else?) offered the view that Matthew wouldn’t step outside his story to offer an editorial comment unless he thought his readers were familiar with the accusation. I’m trying to get my brain around that. If they were, he wouldn’t need to make the remark at all, so it’s actually an indicator that the story was not known to his readers. You might ask, if it wasn’t known, was Matthew not chancing it that his readers might think him a liar? Hard to say, but in the context of an allegorical teaching document, it might not have seemed a problem to him. Why include it at all then? Who knows how the mind of an evangelist worked at any given point, there are many queries by scholars about why such and such was said by such and such an evangelist. And Toto’s suggestion is certainly feasible. The whole thing is the product of a later redactor, although even then, we possess, as I pointed out, no corroborating evidence that such a story was circulating among Jews even in the mid 2nd century outside of Matthew’s imagination, and those who accepted him as history.

You also dismiss my “author’s viewpoint” explanation for why Matthew included the “fictitious” guard scene as a counter to a “fictitious” charge that the disciples had stolen the body, that it made sense within the storyline as far as Matthew was concerned. Since he was creating allegory, he (at the time of writing) did not have to worry about ‘giving the enemy ammunition.’ For him there was no enemy, at least not one that would be taking the story seriously as history. Thus, bringing it up would not be “imprudent,” as you suggest it would. You say you will leave it to the reader to decide which option is more likely, Matthew refuting a real charge or Matthew proactively refuting an imagined charge. But if the former is strongly refuted by the evidence (including the lack of evidence), the latter becomes an inviting alternative, especially in the context of a Gospel which contains so much that is obviously Matthew’s product from midrash and from a wholesale reworking of Mark with no concern whatever for preserving ‘history’. Your lengthy observations about Matthew improving Mark, and reading into Mark the possibility that the body could have been stolen, are quite valid. Only your conclusion about the guards fits best in the context of Matthew improving Mark’s story with a better story of his own. Matthew (and or his editors) is a great storyteller, partial to color, and the guards certainly provide that. And just who is responsible for that final ‘editorial’ line is, again, impossible to identify—as are his motives.

As for Price’s view on John’s gardener, I was simply responding to your initial quotation of him, being unfamiliar with that particular article. His own discrediting of the gardener excuse (much like my own) was not at all evident from the excerpt you gave. As for Wells, I disagree with a lot of things Wells says. And it’s hardly the case that Wells, in the excerpt from him, is endorsing the idea that there was in fact a Jewish claim that the disciples stole the body. He is simply (once removed even, he is commenting on Schmiedel ) speculating on theoretical stages by which the Matthean guard sequence could have arisen. (And although we’re quibbling over irrelevancies here, Price and I do not agree if he regards the Johannine reference to the gardener as indicating that “the Matthean attempt is indeed clear. The story of the guards is a transparent rebuttal of the charge that the disciples had stolen the body.”)

I also find it specious that you, or anyone else, would argue that the Jews took on themselves, willingly and without qualification, the entire responsibility for Jesus’ death. That would be extreme masochism, considering the attacks that were being mounted against them by the Christians right across the board for failing to respond to Jesus. (Even Paul accuses them of a failure of response, though for him it is a lack of response to apostles like himself, not to a preaching Jesus. But the point here is, accusations began as early as Paul. ) Besides, if the Gospel story is in any way history, everyone would know that it was Pilate who really did it. And in the face of this, you claim that the Jews would still be proclaiming, “Yeah, we did it. We killed the bugger!” Talk about a death wish—one that was granted them for almost the next 2000 years!

As for the rabbis taking on full responsibility for Jesus death in the Talmud, this only makes sense if the Gospel story is not history, and their statements lacked any basis in remembered traditions. Instead, they have garbled what they gradually took out of Christian historicist developments which they only started to absorb in the later 2nd century. While their incompetence in so doing is certainly bizarre, the explanation may lie in how Frank Zindler presents the development of alleged Jesus references in the rabbinic writings, beginning in the 3rd century with references which were actually not to Jesus at all, but were only in later centuries interpreted as such by later rabbis.

And thanks to Johnny Skeptic for quoting Jeff Lowder in The Empty Tomb. Lowder actually adds another dimension to the doubt that there could have been in circulation such a Jewish spin as the disciples stole the body. If there were, it would have to have been part of a larger debate over whether in fact the tomb was empty. We can hardly think that if the Jews could come up with an accusation (falsely based or not) that the disciples stole Jesus’ body, that they would not also have come up with the accusation (falsely based or not) that “the tomb wasn’t empty!”. Indeed, that would have been the more likely one to offer, since it nips the issue in the bud. The Matthean contrivance has the Jews admitting by default that the tomb was empty! Would they have been liable to do this? But not only have we no independent record of there being an argument over stealing the body, we have no record of any argument over an empty tomb. We don’t even have Christians referring to an empty tomb before the Gospels come along.

If there were any disputes going on over tombs and stolen bodies such that Christians had to cope with Jewish denials of an actual resurrection, we can turn to the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 and ask, since Paul is proclaiming the necessity of believing in a “gospel” of Christ’s rising, and then dealing with the question of proving human resurrection by appealing to Christ’s own, if there were such disputes going on in the wider world which might present an obstacle to his readers’ unquestioning acceptance of that resurrection, why would he not have referred to such disputes and countered them in the way that Matthew has? Other passages in other epistles and early non-canonical writings prior to Justin should also have invited such references and yet we find them nowhere. That is the elephant in the room, and so far none of the arguments offered here have even begun to nudge it out the door.

Earl Doherty

Zeichman

Well, there are a lot that are clearly less than a lifetime, especially in the Greek ones. The shortest would probably be Exodus 7:15, which probably refers to an extremely short period of time. In Greek, likely Luke 16:16, which is between John and Jesus' percieved preaching of the verse.
Lists like that happen when college graduates don't have full-time summer jobs.

Amaleq13

Why assume the accusation was more widespread than Matthew's immediate environs?

Actually, I asked for a different explanation.

Given a readership aware of the accusation in their own time, the author is presumably offering new information by claiming that a) it is nearly as old as the resurrection, itself, and b) was an intentional lie the guards were paid to spread.

So you really don't have anything substantive to offer against this reading? Just speculation that the author "might" not have cared if no one had ever heard of it or we can't always understand how those kooky evangelists think or it might have been an interpolation though we have no evidence to suggest it?

That's all you have to reject the mere possibility that the author actually knew some Jews who were making what seems to be an entirely logical and reasonable accusation?


Doug

Ben C Smith

I wager it would not be typical of your opponents to dismiss your arguments from silence if it were not first typical of you to use them.

I get the feeling you are about to explain the silence on the guard refutation in a way you will not allow me to explain the silence on the Jewish charge.

Is this really the sort of answer you usually accept from your opponents when they are explaining the silences you have offered?

I mean, I understand it, but I do not think you usually do. Except now, when it suits you.

Of course I have.

Nothing curious about it. I (try to) call them as I see them. Even if the call does not further other interests of mine.

Are you sure you are reading me carefully enough? Where did I say that I thought it was circulating right from the beginning? As a matter of fact, I wrote to Toto (emphasis added):

I do not think I can demonstrate how early the charge started. All I can do is read Matthew and conclude that it was probably circulating in his area in his day.

Of course not. I do not use Justin and Tertullian as heavy support for the Matthean statement because I do not think I can demonstrate that they knew of the charge independently of Matthew. That does not necessarily mean they absolutely did not know it independently; it means I cannot demonstrate it. So I say so and move on to what I can argue.

I even went out of my way to dispute Price on that point, even though what Price had written about Tertullian in On the Spectacles 30 would have helped my case, right?

If that is not how you operate, how do you operate?

Also, just out of curiosity, hypothetically speaking, what kind of a reference to this Jewish charge in Justin or Tertullian (or in any other Christian writer) would convince you that the author was not just cribbing from Matthew?

First, again, I am not claiming that they were not familiar with the charge independently; I am claiming that I cannot demonstrate it. Second, I hold with those who think Matthew hailed from somewhere in or around Syria; why then would you or I or anybody else assume that Justin, from Asia Minor and then Rome, or Tertullian, from Africa, would necessarily be familiar with the same charge that had earlier circulated in or around Syria? For, in order for your argument from silence to even have a chance of working, that is what you must assume, you who just recently in another post reminded everybody that the first few centuries were hardly the internet age. Sometimes the traditions spread out; sometimes they did not.

Except Matthew.

Well, we find in the Toledoth Yeshu a scenario very similar to the disciples stealing the body; Judas steals the body from the tomb, sparking the resurrection belief.

As far as I can tell, you are correct. What of it? What spins does the Talmud contain about the resurrection story?

Nothing except a solid reading of Matthew itself.

Untenable. That is amazing.

I implied it once and stated it once, but Doug stated it more clearly yet.

So it appears to be your contention that, if the author knows the readers already know certain information, he is not compelled (would not need, to use your term) to write about it. I agree with that, but am a little surprised you would make such a statement.

Regardless, the claim is not that Matthew would need to make such a statement if he knew his readers knew about the accusation. Matthew can do what he wants, and the guard story already answers the accusation whether Matthew spells the accusation out or not. So it is certainly not a question of need.

It is a question of what we are to make of the statement, however unneeded, once it is there. That it is in the text implies that the readers knew about the charge already (otherwise, to bring it up would be to unnecessarily raise suspicions that had not yet been raised); had it been lacking from the text, we would not necessarily know one way or another, at least not as certainly as we do now.

Indeed. This is what we are reduced to when we ignore the most obvious reading of the text. If Matthew did not insert this line for the obvious reason, then who knows?

Toto said he was thinking of Jay Raskin and the Eusebian tell hypothesis. Are you saying that it is feasible Eusebius added this line to Matthew?

If we have no evidence for such a story either at the time of Matthew or at the time of our redactor, what is the advantage of the redaction hypothesis? Why did the redactor insert the line?

The parts of the guard story that remain within the storyline make perfect sense within the storyline. But this particular comment steps out of the storyline; that is what requires an explanation, and that is what nothing within the storyline, by definition, can explain.

How does the until this day line fit in with an allegorical reading? I mean, give us your reading.

This explains (or at least tries to) the story of the guards. I agree it is a nice addition to the story as story; and the author of the gospel of Peter must have agreed with me. But none of this says anything about the until this day line.

His motives are certainly not impossible to identify. In fact, they are all too obvious; he wishes to make absolutely certain his readers understand that the guard story refutes the rumor they have heard about the disciples stealing the body. Take away the obvious and I agree with you that we are left with nothing.

What about the link I gave? Here we are debating a Jewish story about what happened to the body of Jesus, and I link you to an article dealing with Jewish stories about what happened to the body of Jesus, and you do not even click the link? Exactly how interested in getting to the bottom of things are you, anyway?

Indeed, and I covered that angle. But the point is that Schmiedel is taking the Jewish charge seriously and Wells is quoting Schmiedel approvingly. Sure, it is possible Wells just forgot to mention that he vehemently disagreed with that part (a central part) of the reconstruction, but is that really probable?

He does not regard the Johannine gardener as indicating anything about Matthew; he regards basis behind the Johannine gardener as contrasting with the basis behind the Matthean guard story.

It would only have been masochism once Christians wielded the sword. Before that, the notion that Jesus got what he deserved would have been easy.

What, after all, do you think the implications are behind the Jewish charge of sorcery or magic, attested in Celsus and elsewhere? What was the Jewish law concerning such practices?

This is a non sequitur. If you do not see it, I do not have the time to walk you through it, since it is getting a bit off topic.

The folks who assembled the Toledoth would have had the same option, yet there it is, the stolen body motif.

They did exactly this in the Toledoth.

You and I agree that Paul preceded Mark, and I have already stated that it is possible nobody came up with any such story until Mark was written. I do not assume the charge preceded Paul, so I will decline to respond to the Pauline part of your response.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

He even called it untenable. Untenable because of (A) silence and (B) speculation.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Does your surprise have anything to do with this quote from Earl's website?:

:angel:

JoeWallack

JW:
A reference to "the Jesus of the Christian Bible". You seem blissfully unaware that the Textual evidence indicates "HaNotsri" is not original. I believe it is in one Manuscript (but an oldie and a goodie). Transmission of the Talmud did not have the controls the Jewish Bible had so this type of difference is common. It may be that the author just thought it should apply to the Jesus of the Christian Bible but was still afraid to say "the Jesus of the Christian Bible". It's also a long distance from "HaNotsri" to "of Nazareth". You first have to travel through Spin City. Critical translations normally put "Ha Notsri" in parenthesis to identify the variant. Apologetic sites normally just use "of Nazareth" with no mention of Textual Criticism.

You also have the Name problem. What was Jesus' Hebrew name? Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu? Do you know? And you have the detail problems:

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

JW:
So now the Jew is on the other foot. You want to use the Talmud here as evidence of Jesus but a literal reading indicates it can not be Jesus. Remember when I pointed out before that when people doubt the integrity of a Christian Bible section they also lose the ability to make a definite conclusion based on that section, and you holyheartedly agreed? How is my point different if it refers to the Talmud?

JW:
Which does not agree to the Christian Bible. Hence my Amazement that you can be so sure that "The Jews" would accept that they made accusations against Jesus. I continue to have the same main question:

What do you think was the accusation(s) the Jews made against Jesus?

How can you be sure that "The Jews" would accept they made an accusation if you are not sure what the accusation was?

JW:
Okay, so you still think "The Jews" would accept that they were responsible for Jesus being executed?



Joseph

TRIAL, n.
A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors. In order to effect this purpose it is necessary to supply a contrast in the person of one who is called the defendant, the prisoner, or the accused. If the contrast is made sufficiently clear this person is made to undergo such an affliction as will give the virtuous gentlemen a comfortable sense of their immunity, added to that of their worth. In our day the accused is usually a human being, or a socialist, but in mediaeval times, animals, fishes, reptiles and insects were brought to trial. A beast that had taken human life, or practiced sorcery, was duly arrested, tried and, if condemned, put to death by the public executioner. Insects ravaging grain fields, orchards or vineyards were cited to appeal by counsel before a civil tribunal, and after testimony, argument and condemnation, if they continued in contumaciam the matter was taken to a high ecclesiastical court, where they were solemnly excommunicated and anathematized. In a street of Toledo, some pigs that had wickedly run between the viceroy's legs, upsetting him, were arrested on a warrant, tried and punished. In Naples and ass was condemned to be burned at the stake, but the sentence appears not to have been executed. D'Addosio relates from the court records many trials of pigs, bulls, horses, cocks, dogs, goats, etc., greatly, it is believed, to the betterment of their conduct and morals. In 1451 a suit was brought against the leeches infesting some ponds about Berne, and the Bishop of Lausanne, instructed by the faculty of Heidelberg University, directed that some of "the aquatic worms" be brought before the local magistracy. This was done and the leeches, both present and absent, were ordered to leave the places that they had infested within three days on pain of incurring "the malediction of God." In the voluminous records of this cause celebre nothing is found to show whether the offenders braved the punishment, or departed forthwith out of that inhospitable jurisdiction.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Actually, I did not have a particular passage in mind (just a vague recollection of general philosophy of history), but this one will do.

That passage links to the following by Doherty (emphasis mine):

My thanks to William for a powerful refutation of the "no need to mention" argument put forward by J. P. Holding. I could hardly have put it better. One point Holding and others completely ignore is the factor of human nature. Whether there exists a need or not, the compulsion to speak of Jesus' words and deeds, especially in a context where there would have been an obvious advantage to offering them, such as providing divine support for the writer's argument and point of view, would have made a mention of such things natural and indeed inevitable—at least some of the time.

....

Was there no need for the inspiration that comes from repetition of the familiar? No need for the preacher to demonstrate his own knowledge, his own authority? No need or desire on the part of the reader or audience to be bathed in the images and warmth of contact arising from hearing about Jesus' words and deeds—the "glue of faith" even today, as William points out?

Compare what he wrote on this thread:

On the one hand, Doherty speaks of a compulsion to write down certain details, at least sometimes, even if giving those details would be repetition of something the readers are already familiar with. (Thus, writing the detail down has nothing necessarily to do with whether the readers have already heard it or not.)

On the other hand, Doherty asserts that sharing a detail is an indicator that the detail was not familiar to the readers. (Thus, writing the detail down depends on the readers not having heard it.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Actually, I was aware of the manuscript differences but had forgotten about them when I wrote (mainly because I was simply consulting my own page, which uses the Soncino edition). So thanks for the reminder; I have updated my Talmud testimony page accordingly, and have credited you in situ for pointing out the deficiency.

The Sanhedrin 43a reference is almost certainly to Jesus, even without the Nazareth part. It is one of the very rare Talmudic references that can be so confidently assigned to Jesus (unlike the ben Stada stuff and a host of other potential references).

Because even after the Nazareth part is thrown out then the rest still almost certainly applies to Jesus. (See Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 118, for example; he uses the text without Nazareth, by the way.) Your comments, at least as I understood them (and certainly as they applied to Doherty at the time), regarded the extent to which the text has been altered, especially without any trace in the textual tradition; here the extent is minimal (one descriptor added several times) and it is recorded in the textual tradition.

If it is your intention to dispute that this Talmudic passage even refers to Jesus at all, please count me out. I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate the point right now.

Thanks again for the textual observation(s).

Ben.

Doug Shaver

I really was hoping for a quotation, but that's OK.

I have not read the entire Contra Celsum, but I'm going to do it now. I'll return to this discussion when I've finished it.