Ask the Atheist

I never thought I'd be the one defending the apostles against a Christian, but that's the way this cookie is crumbling.

Iens, "Are you serious?" is not a refutation. It's ridicule, which is not the same thing. It's not even good ridicule, because you're painting events in a way neither of us thinks is likely.

The apostles were poor, sure, and they made a point of being humble, but if they were illiterate they didn't stay that way. At least four of them eventually wrote Gospels (if indeed it was them). They had brains, they had a purpose and they had one heck of a leader to inspire them.

If the apostles had any doubts whatsoever about Jesus' ability to resist arrest and prosecution, or any inkling of his willingness to submit to it, they wouldn't have waited for his capture to plan for the future. Jesus, knowing as he must have that the soldiers would one day come for this upstart Messiah, would have planned with the apostles, or at least tried to prepare them for his absence.

The apostles never intended to actively and immediately offer their lives like Jesus did (except maybe Peter when he cut off the soldier's ear in Gethsemane). They might have accepted that their actions would one day get them killed by someone or other, but they did each try to live as long as they could without compromising their message. The period immediately after Jesus' death was a particularly dangerous time when even their own disillusioned followers might have come for them, so I don't blame them for hiding.

To re-emerge and survive in the public eye they needed a positive message, a new rallying cry. If they came up with the story in their desperation, or they had it ready in advance, or even if it really happened, the Resurrection was that message. The other followers, bitterly disappointed by Jesus' death, would have been desperate for a way to bring back the hope he represented. Suddenly the Messiah was back, in (Holy) spirit, and the Romans could never catch him again. Brilliant.

If you don't buy the idea that the apostles simply wanted to make the world a better place, there are other motivations we could look at. Take the simple idea of a legacy: their names went down in history along with that of Jesus. People endanger themselves to get famous all the time. I'm trying to assume the very best intentions, but I might not be so trusting. Can you really think of no other earthly reason for these penniless nomads to want to be part of a lasting legend?

The apostles did pretty well in the end: not counting Judas, the first death of an apostle was eleven whole years after the Crucifixion. (It was James.) Others held on for thirty or forty years. They had to, to write the Gospels. That was a good, long life in those days. It wasn't all suffering and persecution. It would seem that some of the general benefits of the spread of Christianity trickled down to some of them while they were still alive, which would have been gratifying.

As I must regularly say, the evidence for either your or my version of this story is barely there, if that. It's true that those who think Jesus didn't exist at all are in the minority, but there's a dearth of support for any of the actual events in his life. There's no legal record of his trial, for instance, and no physical evidence or location for his tomb. (Christians were the first to rip James Cameron a new one when he thought he'd found it.) Same goes for any given apostle.

That said, I think I've reasonably justified the apostles' supposed behaviour in a scenario where Jesus stayed dead. (Any third opinion on this is welcome.) If I'm completely off track, then it's the fault of my own lack of imagination and someone with a better understanding of human nature may improve on my ideas. To insist that it happened one way and that any other way is ridiculous or impossible, without citing evidence one way or the other, is to invite unlimited attempts by all comers to imagine alternatives. And that's before you take into account that your way involves magic.

Thanks, I'm aware of that. There is a persistent belief nonetheless that at least some of the Gospels, like John's, were written by the apostles themselves. That's the traditional view of all Gospels, and how well it has survived depends on which one you're talking about.

The apostles' lifespans, however, are the subject of considerably less debate. If they lived, then some lived for a long time and had ample opportunity to educate themselves.

If you say so, then fine, I stand corrected: Mark's account isn't first-hand even if you believe the others are.