The Conspiracy Theory as a Persuasive Device
Walt Nusbaum errancy@infidels.org
Mon, 03 May 1999 16:27:28 -0500 (00925784848, 372E14C0.2B17@airmail.net)
WALT
Farrell Till wrote:
(Snip Conspiracy Theory)
> In recent weeks, we have been seeing OSM's resort to a variation of the
> conspiracy theory in the matter of the Roman guard that was allegedly posted
> at the tomb of Jesus. The extraordinary claim of the gospel writers that
> Jesus had actually risen from the dead certainly needed persuasive devices
> to make it credible, and Matthew filled his crucifixion/resurrection part of
> his gospel with such devices: (1) A Roman centurion seeing events that
> happened at the time of Jesus's death allegedly said, "Truly this was the
> son of God." This was the familiar device of corroborating testimony from
> hostile sources. (2) An earthquake allegedly opened the tombs of many
> saints, who rose from the dead and went into the city where they appeared to
> many witnesses. This, of course, would be the device of eyewitness
> testimony (which in this case turns out to be only uncorroborated hearsay).
> (3) Witnesses allegedly saw the body being wrapped in linen cloth and placed
> in a tomb.
>(4) A Roman guard was allegedly put at the tomb as a precaution
> to keep the body of Jesus from being stolen from the tomb.
WALT
It is not clear(to me) whether Pilate provided Roman soldiers to guard
the tomb.
Matt 28:62....the chief priests and the Pharisees came together unto
Pilate.
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, while he was yet
alive,
After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the Sepulchre be made sure until the third
day, lest
his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the
people,
He is risen from the dead.......
65 Pilate said unto them, *Ye* have a watch: go your way and make it as
sure
as *ye* can.
66 So *they* went, and made the stone sepulchre sure, sealing the stone,
and
setting a watch. (*) for emphasis.
The priests are asking Pilate to "command" the sepulchre be made secure.
Pilate's
reply was, "Ye have a watch; go your way, make it secure as ye can". Was
Pilate giving
them operational command and control of Roman soldiers, or was he saying
that
this was the priest's show and *they* had permission to do what they
thought needed
to be done?
After all, *they* went, *they* sealed the tomb, and *they* set a watch.
Since the priests had permission to "make it as sure as ye can", why
wouldn't
they have put their *own* trusted people, or even assumed the watch
themselves,
to ensure complete control of the tomb?
However, in Matt 28:11....*some* of the watch came into the city, and
shewed unto
the priests all the things that were done.
What exactly did "some" of the watch say to the priests?(They were
apparently awake
all night since they allegedy were bribed to say they slept). The
priests had
personally sealed the tomb, and left it in the care of Roman soldiers
who were in
no way followers of Jesus. What did these dimwits need to convince them
that a
miracle had indeed occurred? Mathew provides no account of the lively
dialogue
that *must* have taken place between the elders, priests, and soldiers.
Best wishes,
Walt
The difference between genius and stupidity is that
genius has its limits.
Unk.
>(5) Witnesses allegedly saw the tomb opened and an angel telling them that Jesus had risen
> from the dead. (6) The guards were allegedly bribed to say that the
> disciples of Jesus had come and taken the body of Jesus out of the tomb
> while they slept. At this point, Matthew turned to the device of accusing
> the enemies of Jesus of conspiring to hide the truth from the general public.
>
> There is no reason at all why #6 cannot be viewed as just a variation of the
> conspiracy theory, which Matthew used for no other reason than to give some
> semblance of credibility to an otherwise unbelievable tale. In the
> resurrection narratives, the gospel writers were saying, without actually
> spelling it out, "You see, these things did happen, because people saw
> them," but in Matthew's case, he provided the added device of the conspiracy
> theory. He was telling his readers, even the enemies of Jesus know that
> these things happened, and to keep the public from knowing that Jesus had
> risen from the dead, they conspired to hide the truth by bribing the Roman
> guards to say that the disciples of Jesus stole the body while the guards
> were sleeping. There is no more reason to believe that the bribery of the
> guards actually happened or even that a guard was placed at the tomb than
> there is to believe that a Roman centurion actually said, "Truly this man
> was the son of God." or that an earthquake opened the tombs of many saints
> who were resurrected and seen by many people inside the city. OSM likes to
> talk about such and such having "the ring of truth." Well, in my opinion,
> this tale about the Roman guards and their bribery has the "ring" of just
> another persuasive device that a writer used to try to give some semblance
> of credibility to an unbelievable story.
>
> OSM has said that if this tale about what the guards had said were not true,
> then those who had lived at the time of the events would have said, "Hey, I
> don't remember ever hearing anyone say anything about guards who claimed
> that the body had been stolen," but I will be commenting on this is another
> posting about attempts to prove the incredible on the grounds of what would
> have or would not have happened if the claim were not true.
>
> Just one more comment is in order concerning the tale that Matthew spun
> about the Roman guards. Besides the absurdity of thinking that Roman guards
> would have sealed their fate by saying that they had gone to sleep on duty,
> there is the matter of a serious flaw in what the guards were allegedly
> bribed to say. The chief priests and elders said to the guards, "Say that
> his disciples came by night and stole him away WHILE WE SLEPT" (Matt.
> 28:13). In concocting this persuasive device, Matthew showed little respect
> for the intelligence of the general public, because anyone with any ability
> at all to reason critically would wonder, "Well, if the guards were asleep,
> how could they know what happened to the body?" After seeing this flaw in
> the tale the guards were telling, what would have kept people from thinking
> that since guards who were asleep would not be able to know what had
> happened to a body that had vanished, maybe Jesus, as his disciples were
> claiming, had indeed risen from the dead while the guards, by their own
> admission, were asleep. Hence, Matthew was actually saying that the guards
> had accepted a bribe to say something that would probably have resulted in
> their death but would not in any way have proven that Jesus did not rise
> from the dead as his disciples were claiming. If OSM wants to see this as
> some kind of wonderful evidence that the resurrection happened as claimed,
> then all I can say is that there is no law against gullibility, but he
> shouldn't assume that everyone else is as gullible as he is.
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net