The Conspiracy Theory
| Teachings |
The Conspiracy Theory
The Conspiracy Theory is an attempt to explain both the empty tomb and the various accounts of having seen the resurrected Jesus. Basically it says that after the crucifiction the disciples decided to collude together and steal the corpse of Jesus from the tomb. They would then dispose of His body and proclaim that He had risen from the dead. Each of them would variously describe their own account of having seen the resurrected Jesus. Therefore this one theory can explain both the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances.
However, there are a number of very substantial difficulties with any theory that proposes that the disciples were liars.
1) If we are to try and argue that the disciples were liars then we have to explain why they were prepared to die for their lies. Nothing proves sincerity like martyrdom.
Admittedly people from many different religions are prepared to die for their faith - the disciples were not special in that respect. However, what does make them different is that they alleged to have seen the evidence for themselves first hand. Someone might possibly die for something they believe to be true - but would someone die for something they know to be false? Even more to the point - would so many people be prepared to die for something they know to be false? Remember that 10 of the remaining 11 disciples (Judas killed himself) were killed for their faith.
James(Half-brother Of Jesus): stoned and clubbed to death
Paul: beheaded
Simon Peter: crucified upside down
Andrew: crucified
Matthew: killed by the sword
John: died of natural causes in exile
James: (son of Alphaeus) crucified
Phillip: crucified
Simon: crucified
Thaddeus: killed by arrows
Thomas: killed by spear thrust
Bartholomew: crucified
James(Sons of Zebedee): killed by the sword
2) If we want to argue that the resurrection accounts were a network of lies then we need to be able to explain why not one of them ever `broke ranks` and told the truth. Common experience shows that such intrigues are inevitably exposed. Not a single disciple at any point said anything that could have led to the suggestion that this was a conspiracy.
Blaise Pascal said:
"The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out." (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310)"The "cruncher" in this argument is the historical fact that no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians." Quote taken from website http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/.
3) The disciples were changed men. Remember that on Jesus' arrest the disciples fled in fear. Peter tried to follow Jesus - but ended up denying him 3 times. Yet within a very short time they were all changed men. They changed from fear to faith, despair to confidence, confusion to certitude, runaway cowardice to steadfast boldness under threat and persecution. This not only proves their sincerity - but also testifies to some powerful cause of it. Is it really conceivable that such as changed could be `manufactured` to fit in with their lie? Could a lie cause such a transformation?
4) What motive would the disciples have had for such a lie? Whilst one might be able to understand their broken pride and sense of humiliation on the death of Christ being a possible motive - when you pause to consider this it becomes a nonsense. By preaching Christ resurrected they put themselves in immediate conflict with both the Jewish and Roman authorities. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage. What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their "lie" ? They were hated, scorned, persecuted, excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, crucified, beheaded, disemboweled and fed to lions -- hardly a catalog of perks.
Just read what St. Paul had to say on the subject;
"I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked."
2 Corinthians 11v23-27
5) Why didn't the authorities just produce Christ's body and refute this wild account from the outset? All they had to do was get to the tomb and get it. The only possible answer to this is that the disciples had previously stolen the body themselves. But is this really credible?
6) Is it really conceivable that if the resurrection had never occurred that the disciples could have proclaimed it in the streets in Jerusalem within weeks of it having taken place? There would have been too many potential witnesses around - and too much first hand evidence to be checked out (i.e. the tomb, the cross, etc). See the section on "If I faked a resurrection".
"The Gospels were written in such a temporal and geographical proximity to the events they record that it would have been almost impossible to fabricate events....The fact that the disciples were able to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem in the face of their enemies a few weeks after the crucifixion shows that what they proclaimed was true, for they could never have proclaimed the resurrection (and been believed) under such circumstances had it not occurred." (Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection, chapter 6)
Because of the absurdity of the theory that the disciples were lying, we can see why almost all scholars today admit that, if nothing else, the disciples at least believed that Jesus appeared to them.