Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-12-2009, 08:03 PM

Justin Martyr and Tertulllian both suggest this story.

Justin Martyr, "Trypho"

Quote:

CHAPTER CVII -- THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST DID NOT CONVERT THE JEWS. BUT THROUGH THE WHOLE WORLD THEY HAVE SENT MEN TO ACCUSE CHRIST.

"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Tertullian, De Spectaculis:

XXX

Quote:

But what a spectacle is that fast-approaching advent of our Lord, now owned by all, now highly exalted, now a triumphant One! What that exultation of the angelic hosts! What the glory of the rising saints! What the kingdom of the just thereafter! What the city New Jerusalem! Yes, and there are other sights: that last day of judgment, with its everlasting issues; that day unlooked for by the nations, the theme of their derision, when the world hoary with age, and all its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame!...

I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the play-actors, much more "dissolute" in the dissolving flame; of looking upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows; unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin, in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury vented itself against the Lord. "This," I shall say, "this is that carpenter's or hireling's son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no harm from the crowds of visitants!" What quaestor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in such things as these?

Neither one refers to Matthew's Gospel when they refer to the Jews saying that Jesus' body was stolen. Neither do they refer to the bribing of the guards. This suggests that the bribing incident was added to Matthew after Justin and Tertullian, post 200.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Matt 28:12-15 -- 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day... Is there any evidence from Jewish historians or writers (other than Matthew) that this story had been widely circulated up to the end of the first century?

aa5874 · 04-12-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Neither one refers to Matthew's Gospel when they refer to the Jews saying that Jesus' body was stolen. Neither do they refer to the bribing of the guards. This suggests that the bribing incident was added to Matthew after Justin and Tertullian, post 200.

It is hardly likely that Justin Martyr would have mentioned gMatthew since he only referred to the gospels as "memoirs of the apostles."

And the writer called Tertullian appears to have known a gospel written by a disciple called Matthew as mentioned in "Against Marcion".

But, it is interesting to note that up to or around 150- 200 CE, that the stolen body story as found in gMatthew was known by Jesus believers, so was probably written earlier.

I wonder why the authors of Mark, Luke and John seemed to have abandoned the stolen body story? Perhaps they thought the stolen body story did not make sense.

PhilosopherJay · 04-13-2009, 02:46 PM

Hi aa5874,

Celsus, writing probably about 180, seems unaware of the stolen body story.

In Book LV of "Against Celsus," a Jew speaking to Christians says this:

Quote:

Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself."

Since Celsus has a Jew arguing against Christians in his work, one may well suppose that Trypho is a response wherein a Christian defends Christianity against Jews. We must also note that Celsus says that Christians only recruit slaves and stupid people. It makes sense that Christians would respond with a dialogue in which a philosopher defends Christianity. If Trypho is a response to Celsus, this would place the stolen body story between 180 (Celsus) and Tertullian (200).

Celsus seems to be familiar with only the Gospel of John. This suggests that the synoptics came afterwards.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Neither one refers to Matthew's Gospel when they refer to the Jews saying that Jesus' body was stolen. Neither do they refer to the bribing of the guards. This suggests that the bribing incident was added to Matthew after Justin and Tertullian, post 200.

It is hardly likely that Justin Martyr would have mentioned gMatthew since he only referred to the gospels as "memoirs of the apostles."

And the writer called Tertullian appears to have known a gospel written by a disciple called Matthew as mentioned in "Against Marcion".

But, it is interesting to note that up to or around 150- 200 CE, that the stolen body story as found in gMatthew was known by Jesus believers, so was probably written earlier.

I wonder why the authors of Mark, Luke and John seemed to have abandoned the stolen body story? Perhaps they thought the stolen body story did not make sense.

aa5874 · 04-13-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Celsus, writing probably about 180, seems unaware of the stolen body story.

In Book LV of "Against Celsus," a Jew speaking to Christians says this:

Quote:

Or do you imagine the statements of others not only to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself, but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination bad formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosophe Jay

JSince Celsus has a Jew arguing against Christians in his work, one may well suppose that Trypho is a response wherein a Christian defends Christianity against Jews. We must also note that Celsus says that Christians only recruit slaves and stupid people. It makes sense that Christians would respond with a dialogue in which a philosopher defends Christianity. If Trypho is a response to Celsus, this would place the stolen body story between 180 (Celsus) and Tertullian (200).

Celsus seems to be familiar with only the Gospel of John. This suggests that the synoptics came afterward.

I thought that Justin Martyr was earlier than Celsus or Tertullian and he mentioned that the disciples stole the body of Jesus as found in Justin's "Trypho".

Once an earlier writer mentioned the stolen body story, then it can only be said that Celsus did not write about the stolen body story. It is not certain if he was unaware of it.

Also, it cannot be said that Celsus seems to be only aware of the Gospel of John when the darkness and earthquake stories are only found in the Synoptics.

So, based on Against Celsus by Origen, Celsus was aware of gJohn and the Synoptics or some writings of similar content at around the time of writing.

PhilosopherJay · 04-14-2009, 02:01 AM

Hi aa5874,

Thanks for pointing this out.

Note that Celsus is sarcastically pointing out an appropriate ending (he means a correctly dramatic mythological one) which contains four elements:
1. the voice from the cross,
2. when he breathed his last,
3. in the earthquake
4. and the darkness?

Only the Gospel of Peter seems to have all four of these elements.

Quote:

[15] But is was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. [For] it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said: 'Give him to drink gall with vinegary wine.' And having made a mixture, they gave to drink. [17] And they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head. [18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.

[20] And at the same hour the veil of the Jerusalem sanctuary was torn into two. [21] And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth; and all the earth was shaken, and a great fear came about. [22] Then the sun shone, and it was found to be the ninth hour. [23] And the Jews rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he was one who had seen the many good things he did. [24] And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph.

[25] Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, having come to know how much wrong they had done themselves, began to beat themselves and say: 'Woe to our sins. The judgment has approached and the end of Jerusalem.' [26] But I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the sanctuary. [27] In addition to all these things we were fasting; and we were sitting mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.

[28] But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, having gathered together with one another, having heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying that 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,' [29] feared (especially the elders) and came before Pilate, begging him and saying, [30] 'Give over soldiers to us in order that we may safeguard his burial place for three days, lest, having come, his disciples steal him, and the people accept that he is risen from the death, and they do us wrong.' [31] But Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher. And with these the elders and scribes came to the burial place. [32] And having rolled a large stone, all who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, placed it against the door of the burial place. [33] And they marked it with seven wax seals; and having pitched a tent there, they safeguarded it. [34] But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

This would suggest that Celsus was aware of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter.

If we consider Celsus' description of Mary, it seems unlikely that he was familiar with any of the synoptics (anti-Celsus, 1:28):

Quote:

"born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

Since the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are trying to rehabilitate Jesus from the charge of being a bastard child, we may assume that Celsus was probably reading from an earlier gospel that Matthew and Luke were responding to. It was probably from the Gospel of Peter, but it might have been a proto-John gospel. One can easily see why a Christian would change a gospel story from Jesus being born a bastard into a Jesus as son of God story, but it is hard to see why any Christian (including gnostics and Marcion) would change Jesus from being a son of God into a bastard. Therefore, Celsus in 180 C.E. is reading a gospel that is most likely prior to Matthew and Luke.

Further, in book 4, chapter 22, Celsus says, "and that the Jews hating chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath." Again, Celsus reveals that he is seemingly reading the Gospel of Peter, as that is the only gospel where the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus by giving him gall to drink. However, since, Celsus also tells us that only Mary and possibly one other saw the risen Christ, which is not the case in either Peter or John as we have it, we may conclude that he is reading a more primitive gospel that has elements of both Peter and John in it.

This suggests a period of 180-200 for the synoptic gospels, or at the very least, post Gospel of Peter.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Celsus, writing probably about 180, seems unaware of the stolen body story.

In Book LV of "Against Celsus," a Jew speaking to Christians says this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosophe Jay

JSince Celsus has a Jew arguing against Christians in his work, one may well suppose that Trypho is a response wherein a Christian defends Christianity against Jews. We must also note that Celsus says that Christians only recruit slaves and stupid people. It makes sense that Christians would respond with a dialogue in which a philosopher defends Christianity. If Trypho is a response to Celsus, this would place the stolen body story between 180 (Celsus) and Tertullian (200).

Celsus seems to be familiar with only the Gospel of John. This suggests that the synoptics came afterward.

I thought that Justin Martyr was earlier than Celsus or Tertullian and he mentioned that the disciples stole the body of Jesus as found in Justin's "Trypho".

Once an earlier writer mentioned the stolen body story, then it can only be said that Celsus did not write about the stolen body story. It is not certain if he was unaware of it.

Also, it cannot be said that Celsus seems to be only aware of the Gospel of John when the darkness and earthquake stories are only found in the Synoptics.

So, based on Against Celsus by Origen, Celsus was aware of gJohn and the Synoptics or some writings of similar content at around the time of writing.

aa5874 · 04-14-2009, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Thanks for pointing this out.

Note that Celsus is sarcastically pointing out an appropriate ending (he means a correctly dramatic mythological one) which contains four elements:
1. the voice from the cross,
2. when he breathed his last,
3. in the earthquake
4. and the darkness?

Only the Gospel of Peter seems to have all four of these elements.

I cannot follow your reasonning. We only have excerpts of Celsus through Origen. I think it is very difficult to make specific claims about what Celsus knew of the Gospel of Peter by these excerpts alone.

Just by implying that Celsus knew the Gospel of Peter you may have inadvertently dated the same Gospel erroneously. Even if Origen's statements attributed to Celsus are true, the Synotics, gJohn and the memoirs of the apostles may have been Celsus' sources.

Quote:

[15] But is was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. [For] it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said: 'Give him to drink gall with vinegary wine.' And having made a mixture, they gave to drink. [17] And they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head. [18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.

[20] And at the same hour the veil of the Jerusalem sanctuary was torn into two. [21] And they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth; and all the earth was shaken, and a great fear came about. [22] Then the sun shone, and it was found to be the ninth hour. [23] And the Jews rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he was one who had seen the many good things he did. [24] And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph.

[25] Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, having come to know how much wrong they had done themselves, began to beat themselves and say: 'Woe to our sins. The judgment has approached and the end of Jerusalem.' [26] But I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers and as wishing to set fire to the sanctuary. [27] In addition to all these things we were fasting; and we were sitting mourning and weeping night and day until the Sabbath.

[28] But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, having gathered together with one another, having heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts, saying that 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,' [29] feared (especially the elders) and came before Pilate, begging him and saying, [30] 'Give over soldiers to us in order that we may safeguard his burial place for three days, lest, having come, his disciples steal him, and the people accept that he is risen from the death, and they do us wrong.' [31] But Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher. And with these the elders and scribes came to the burial place. [32] And having rolled a large stone, all who were there, together with the centurion and the soldiers, placed it against the door of the burial place. [33] And they marked it with seven wax seals; and having pitched a tent there, they safeguarded it. [34] But early when the Sabbath was dawning, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the surrounding area in order that they might see the sealed tomb.

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

This would suggest that Celsus was aware of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Peter.

But the passages from gPeter you just quoted do not have the stolen body story, so it may be that all Celsus was aware of was the memoirs of the apostles, the synoptics and gJohn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

]If we consider Celsus' description of Mary, it seems unlikely that he was familiar with any of the synoptics (anti-Celsus, 1:28)...

Again, I differ here. This is my opinion.

Celsus' story of Mary may have been a rebuttal to the Jesus story of Mary as found in gMatthew, the same gospel that has the stolen body story or even a rebuttal to the memoirs of the apostles where Justin mentioned the same theft and that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopy Jay

Since the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are trying to rehabilitate Jesus from the charge of being a bastard child, we may assume that Celsus was probably reading from an earlier gospel that Matthew and Luke were responding to. It was probably from the Gospel of Peter, but it might have been a proto-John gospel. One can easily see why a Christian would change a gospel story from Jesus being born a bastard into a Jesus as son of God story, but it is hard to see why any Christian (including gnostics and Marcion) would change Jesus from being a son of God into a bastard. Therefore, Celsus in 180 C.E. is reading a gospel that is most likely prior to Matthew and Luke.

But having read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, it would appear to me that Isaiah 7.14 was already isolated as the fundamental conception of Jesus Christ from the beginning.

If it is assumed that the Septuagint already had a mis-transliterated version of Isaiah 7.14 then from the start a special being may have conceptualised that was called Jesus the Saviour, son of God.

Jesus was supposed to be a Holy Thing offspring of God and virgin, certainly not a bastard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosophy Jay

Further, in book 4, chapter 22, Celsus says, "and that the Jews hating chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath." Again, Celsus reveals that he is seemingly reading the Gospel of Peter, as that is the only gospel where the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus by giving him gall to drink. However, since, Celsus also tells us that only Mary and possibly one other saw the risen Christ, which is not the case in either Peter or John as we have it, we may conclude that he is reading a more primitive gospel that has elements of both Peter and John in it.

This suggests a period of 180-200 for the synoptic gospels, or at the very least, post Gospel of Peter.

But, you see the problem with your suggestions is that you are implying that there are other writings of which you do not know the content, yet at the same time still maintaining that gPeter is the only source with certain events.

From my perspective, I can only say that gPeter is similar in some respects to the memoirs of the apostles, the Synoprics and gJohn but I cannot be certain that Celsus did use gPeter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.