1. A priori rejection of miracles
One characteristic of Bultmann’s rejection of the supernatural is that he failed to provide any actual reasons for his rejection; he simply assumed that such things do not happen. We have already seen in an earlier chapter how John Macquarrie, a leading commentator, specifically chides Bultmann for rejecting the resurrection due to “an entirely arbitrary dismissal . . . because of some prior assumption in his mind.” Macquarrie then adds that “Bultmann does not take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective-historical event. He assumes that it is a myth.”13
Bultmann’s rejection of the resurrection really does appear to be arbitrary and a priori. He does not even think that we should be interested in the historical question at all.14 Interestingly, the Jesus Seminar takes a similar route. We have already noted that they are honest enough to state at the outset their aversion to the supernatural, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus, preferring to think that the modern scientific worldview simply rules out such matters.
By way of explanation and justification, the Seminar scholars provide more than three dozen “rules of written evidence”15 and often report that various sayings of Jesus are editorial summations. To be fair, we should not require that they always provide reasons for their comments. But the fact is they seldom attempt to provide reasons in order to justify their opinions. Rarely is there an attempt to verify their rules, except to say that certain things are accepted by scholars. Throughout, like Bultmann, their theological method is assumed and their conjectures can be thoughtfully challenged throughout. In short, we might say that these scholars exhibit a flare for the a priori.
For example, we are regularly told that since a certain passage fits the particular writer’s motif, this indicates that the saying was not uttered by Jesus.16 But how do we know this to be the case? Does the presence of a certain theme require that it did not originate with Jesus? Does not the critical method itself indicate that the writer may have presented the message, perhaps in his own style and words, precisely because it was the teaching of Jesus? We are certainly not required to imitate the Seminar leap from authorial motif to the subsequent invention of the message!
2. Genetic fallacy
Another point of logic concerns the Seminar’s commission of the genetic fallacy, which occurs when one challenges the origin of an idea without actually addressing its facticity. In other words, if it is thought that merely attributing a Gospel report to the author’s style, or to other ancient parallels, or to a pre-modern mindset thereby explains it away, this is a logical mistake.17 These charges do not preclude historicity.
However, it is noteworthy that the Seminar scholars are not unanimous in their dismissal of the supernatural. While Crossan rejects the existence of demons,18 Bruce Chilton perceptively observes that although rejecting the existence of demons sounds attractively rational, “it would seem to reduce history to a priori notions of what is possible.”19 Again, while Crossan asserts that Jesus never really healed a disease or raised the dead,20 Marcus Borg is not quite so sure. Much more guardedly, Borg thinks that we do not know whether Jesus resuscitated some who were actually dead.21
For our purposes, we will conclude at this point that it solves nothing to state one’s views to be correct, regardless how vociferously the claim is made. However helpful it may be to report the conclusions of other scholars, neither does this solve the issue unless one also provides reasons why their views are correct. Additionally, to reject rival positions in an a priori manner is likewise illegitimate. Both believers and unbelievers could respond this way, revealing why these detrimental attempts need to be avoided. Such approaches are inadequate precisely because they fail to address the data. There is no substitute for a careful investigation of the possibilities.
The Death and Burial of Jesus
We have argued that the Jesus Seminar fails to adequately evidence its claims concerning its rejection of the supernatural, such as the miracles of Jesus. Before turning to their treatment of Jesus’ resurrection, we will view the events that led to it.
Initially, it should be pointed out that the Seminar Fellows do not deny the death of Jesus. In keeping with the first phase of their research, they commented only on the words attributed to Jesus as he died on the cross.22 Yet, no objections are raised concerning Jesus’ death by crucifixion and other member publications confirm the acceptance of at least the main outline of these events.
For example, Crossan affirms this event in the strongest terms: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be,” and this event resulted in Jesus’ death.23 In an earlier volume he states: “I take it absolutely for granted that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” This is followed, interestingly enough, by reasons for this conclusion.24 Borg agrees: “The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel.”25
But when it comes to Jesus’ burial, Crossan takes a rather peculiar approach. He surmises that, consistent with crucifixion customs, Jesus was either left on the cross after his death to be torn apart by wild beasts or buried in a shallow grave where dogs would still have found the body. Thus, Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb and his body was most likely consumed by animals. In the end, he asserts that “by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?”26
Critique
But Crossan’s approach is marred by numerous shortcomings. (1) All four Gospels agree on the basic burial scenario, which potentially provides even further confirmation if these texts are otherwise corroborated. (2) On the other hand, no early documents dispute these reports. One might ask Crossan for the specific data that support his thesis, especially from the first century. A challenge such as his cannot rest on a surmisal, or even on a generalized practice among Jews.
Also, (3) are we to believe that the Jewish leaders, who had tried for so long to get rid of Jesus, would have paid no attention to his burial? Moreover, (4) Crossan’s suggestion that the soldiers would merely have forgotten the location where they buried the body just a few days before is also preposterous. They should have remembered where they buried anyone. But contrary to Crossan’s contention that Jesus was a “nobody,” the interest occasioned by his preaching, his popularity, his trial, and his death would have insured both their work as well as their memory. After all, might they not be called upon later to evidence the death and burial of this famous insurrectionist?
Another major factor in favor of Jesus’ burial and the empty tomb is that (5) both are actually admitted by the Jewish polemic against the Christian message. The response of the Jewish leaders is not only recorded in Matthew 28:11-15, but we are told by both Justin Martyr27 and Tertullian28 that this continued to be the Jewish message at least through the second century. It would be incredible that this would be their report instead of what Crossan thinks is the more likely scenario, if the latter had, indeed, occurred. Why was not this simpler thesis employed?