Stolen body hypothesis

:"This is a sub-article of Death of Jesus.According to the stolen body hypothesis, the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons.

Critique of the stolen body hypothesis

The Toledoth Yeshu, (a compilation of early Jewish writings), alludes to stolen body hypothesis, as does the record of a second century debate between a Christian and a Jew, i.e [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew] chapter CVII: "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."

Interestingly though, instead of contradicting the Biblical narrative of the resurrection as intended, the Toledoth Yeshu actually harmonizes with the New Testament account. In the Gospel of Matthew, the Bible clearly states that the chief priests, upon hearing the testimony of the soldiers guarding the tomb, stated "...You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep..." and "this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day"." (Mt. 28) Consequently, by the time the theory was addressed by the Toledoth Yeshu, it had already been well established in the Gospel account of Matthew. As was aluded during [http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew] , it would have undermined the very religion Matthew's Gospel sought to proclaim.

Rebuttal of the stolen body hypothesis

Both Eusebius and church tradition hold that a vast majority of the apostles were martyred for their faith; therefore it is unlikely that they would preach and ultimately die for something they knew to be false. [http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN500APOSTLES%20FATE.htm] [http://www.direct.ca/trinity/disciples.html]

J.N.D. Anderson, dean of the faculty of law at the University of London, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the same university said, "This [the stolen body theory] would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle." [http://www.ldolphin.org/kellyd.html]

In fact, the Biblical account states clearly that the tomb was not only guarded, but the entrance was sealed, "And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone" (Matthew 27:66). Undoubtedly, this would make any attempt at robbery foolhardy and unproductive. Apologists argue that it couldn’t be accomplished without awaking the sleeping guards and bringing certain death to the alleged thieves.

Apologists argue they in turn had no compelling reason to fabricate a resurrection story because they earnestly believed (at that time) Jesus was not who he claimed to be. As J.N.D. Anderson eludes in his work, the disciples simply didn’t anticipate the resurrection and were surprised by the physical presence of the risen Christ. This is further emphasized by the disciples fearful response upon seeing Jesus for the first time after his resurrection, "...They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost" (Luke 24:37). They seemingly failed to realize that the resurrection was considered a part of ancient Messianic prophecy. Since the apostles didn’t expect that Jesus would be resurrected, they would have no logical purpose in robbing the body of Jesus from his tomb in order to prove it. This point is expanded further in the Gospel of John. After receiving the report that Jesus had risen, the apostles ran to the tomb to verify the news. Upon arriving to the grave and finding it empty, they then believed the resurrection had indeed occurred. In his Gospel account describing this event, the Apostle John wrote, "...Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead…" (John 20:8-9). Clearly then, the Gospel account records that the apostles had no foreknowledge that Christ was to be resurrected. Consequently, theologians conclude that the apostles would have never risked life and limb to rob the body in order to fabricate a resurrection story they themselves had no knowledge of.

Additionally, Hollywood motion picture depictions of the resurrection often portray the tomb of Jesus as being guarded by only two Roman Soldiers. We have to assume the guards were Roman Centurions because the New Testament account states that the Jewish authorities entreated Pontius Pilot to provide the guard for them (see Matthew 27:62-64). However, in contradiction with the popular proposal of two lone guards who casually safeguarded the tomb (who could have easily fallen asleep during the dark hours of the night), the Gospel account of Matthew eludes to numerous men who were assigned to guard the tomb, "...some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened"(Matthew 28:11). Clearly then, according the Gospel text, "some" must mean that more than two guards were present at the resurrection. Conclusively, apologist conclude that the probability of all these men falling asleep at the same time is extraordinarily small. It's important to also note that J.N.D. Anderson, along with countless Theologians, have admitted that the apostles of Jesus were reportedly not men of capable means. They were fisherman at best, tax collectors at worst. To conclude that these lowly men could devise an ingenious robbery scheme, snatch the body of Jesus from a sealed tomb and outwit numerous Roman guards in the process is in itself a grand proposal. In fact, it’s almost harder to believe that the apostles could have accomplished such a heist than to submit to the probability (given the circumstances) that Christ could have indeed been raised from the grave.

Also, apologists see the records of the stolen body claim, including Matthew 28:11-15, as an acknowledgement that the tomb was empty, with an attempt to explain it away.

Matthew 28:12-13 states that the chief priests, upon hearing the testimony of the soldiers guarding the tomb, 'gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'"'.This clearly states that the stolen body claim was purposely circulated to prevent the soldiers from getting in trouble and to satisfy the governor with a reasonable solution.

Some information contradicting both the theory and its rebuttal

Stolen body hypothesis

The disciples, as practicing Jews, could not and would not come at or near a dead body. So they could not have stolen His body in the night.There were 2 exceptions to coming near or handling a dead body. Exception 1) -- the nearest male relative could claim a dead body. No one of the surviving eleven disciples claimed Jesus' body. Exception 2) -- females could come near and handle a dead body. The point that women were in the tomb area on the third day is not unusual, given the knowledge of Jewish customs.

It can be replied that Jesus made what was unclean clean.

The 'sleeping guards' proposal

Matthew, the only gospel to mention guards at the tomb, states that the Jewish priests asked Pilate for soldiers to assure that Jesus's body was not stolen. Pilate's reply: "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can." is unclear whether Roman soldiers were used, or if the priests were to use their own temple guard. Nevertheless, Christian tradition has generally claimed that Roman guards were used.

If Roman soldiers fell asleep on duty, it was a punishable offense. For the guards to admit sleeping on duty would have resulted in their immediate punishment and given the particular circumstances, their probable execution. Since no extant Roman document exists attesting to their execution, this portion of the stolen body hypothesis is suspect. Second, for someone to state that they bribed the guards to allow the removal of the body would also result in an investigation and execution. Again, no Roman document or other record exists to support this portion of the theory either.

The place of execution

"Now in that place wherein Christ was crucified was a garden and in that garden was a tomb which had not been used." The place of execution was in a garden with a wall and a source of water (well or spring). But the fact that an unused tomb was near the place of execution means that the stories of execution on a barren hill called Place of the Skull should bear closer scrutiny. The place of execution was known as the Wheel Press. It was a round stone that sealed the tomb. "Who shall roll away the stone so that we may prepare His body?". Only a round stone rolls. Round stones were used to press wine and olive oil and sesame.

Other info

Scholar Bart Ehrman contends that while the stolen body hypothesis is unlikely, from a historical perspective it is far more probable than the resurrection. He also notes that there are plenty of motives for stealing the body. Maybe Jesus' family wanted buried in the family tomb. [ [http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? A debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman.] ]

E.P. Sanders agrees with apologists that it is unlikely that the disciples would create a fraud but looks at it differently. He claims:

"It is difficult to accuse these sources, or the first believers, of deliberate fraud. A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story. Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'so did I,' 'the women saw him first,' 'no, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. Moreover, some of the witnesses of the Resurrection would give their lives for their belief. This also makes fraud unlikely." [ "Jesus Christ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 10 Jan. 2007 ]

The Grave-Robbery Ordinance

An imperial inscription, discovered by archaeologists at Nazareth in the late 19th century, expressly forbids grave robbing, making in a capital offense. The inscription is undated, and the Roman emperor who gave the edict is identified only as Caesar. The most likely candidate however is Claudius, and some have speculated that the ordinance was given in response to the “Chrestus riot” at Rome in 49 mentioned by Suetonius. If Chrestus is interpreted to refer to Jesus, this would likely be the first time the emperor would have heard about Christianity. Following the theory, if the emperor investigated he would have heard the Roman view that Jesus’ body was stolen. The inscription, then, is his attempt to curb what he saw as an atrocity and a crime taking place in Palestine. This evidence does not prove or disprove the views on this hypothesis, it only supports the position that the pagan Romans, and other non-believers, would have explained the Christian story by claiming that the body stolen.

References