Why did the Jews lie about Jesus?

[brewer]

If one drops ideas of biblical inspiration and the like in favour of mining historical data, one can go a little bit beyond mere hair splitting.

The Early Church didn't invent the story from nothing; if you're trying to persuade folk that something very strange has happened, you don't bundle it up with a ready-to-serve alternative explanation. The Xians wouldn't want to put the idea in people's heads that they had stolen the body, unless they had little option but to discuss it.

It seems far more likely that the Jews of Matthew's day actually were using the story as a counter-apologetic. The Xians were making a claim about Jesus' body, and the Jews were providing an easy alternative explanation. Justin (Dial. 108) reports that the story was still being used by Jews against Xians in the mid second century.

One thing that emerges from all this is that whatever the origin of it, the Early Church's claim was all about a physical body vanishing.

You might be correct. It's more likely that they stole/borrowed the resurrection story from other religious tall tales.

[Fake Messiah]

The Xians were making a claim about Jesus' body, and the Jews were providing an easy alternative explanation.

Yeah, you obviously didn't read the 1s post and the passage from the "Matthew" that claims how Jews knew Jesus resurrected but despite of the "evidence" they decided to lie. And the question was what was their motivation to lie. Why would the knowingly want to bury the "truth" so much that they were even paying people to stay quiet?

[Jehanne]

or maybe it's a story made up by the Catholic Church

My point is that the early so-called resurrection of Jesus was viewed as being non-physical, more of a phantom experience than a corporeal one.

[chimp3]

The Xians were making a claim about Jesus' body, and the Jews were providing an easy alternative explanation.

Yeah, you obviously didn't read the 1s post and the passage from the "Matthew" that claims how Jews knew Jesus resurrected but despite of the "evidence" they decided to lie. And the question was what was their motivation to lie. Why would the knowingly want to bury the "truth" so much that they were even paying people to stay quiet?

Mathew (or the writer) was a fucking liar. Scapegoating is a consistent Christian practice.

[Jehanne]

Yeah, you obviously didn't read the 1s post and the passage from the "Matthew" that claims how Jews knew Jesus resurrected but despite of the "evidence" they decided to lie. And the question was what was their motivation to lie. Why would the knowingly want to bury the "truth" so much that they were even paying people to stay quiet?

Mathew (or the writer) was a fucking liar. Scapegoating is a consistent Christian practice.

It wasn't "Matthew", the so-called disciple of Jesus.  The disciples, as the Gospels themselves attest, were illiterate, and spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

[Vicki Q]

In fact, it is probably fair to say that his contribution to the Gentile understanding of Jewish aspirations among those within the Christian cultural framework has been without parallel.

E.P.Sanders/Geza Vermes?

---

Where is this claimed, in the "early Church," and, by whom?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

---

Yeah, you obviously didn't read the 1s post and the passage from the "Matthew" that claims how Jews knew Jesus resurrected but despite of the "evidence" they decided to lie. And the question was what was their motivation to lie. Why would the knowingly want to bury the "truth" so much that they were even paying people to stay quiet?

I did read it, but chose to make a different point. However, to answer with the OP, Matthew never claims the Jewish authorities knew/believed Jesus had been resurrected. They were proceeding with a strategy to kill off reports that something odd had happened.

[fredd bear]

or maybe it's a story made up by the Catholic Church

My point is that the early so-called resurrection of Jesus was viewed as being non-physical, more of a phantom experience than a corporeal one.

 Interesting. I didn't know that.

At the Catholic school I attended we were taught that  Christ had literally risen from the dead.  The 'doubting Thomas" passage in the gospels is obviously there to ram that point home.

Not the least bit surprised though. From the very beginning, the small Jewish  sect which became Christianity has been exceedingly, umm,"flexible ".-------I can think of two pretty egregious examples; Saul of Tarsus sticking his oar in, and changing the very nature of the sect. Not for nothing to scholars often refer to Christianity as "Paulism"-

Next was the first Nicene council.(325) Called by Constantine, its purpose was to restore the Roman church as the central power in Christianity, rather than Constantinople. The method was genius in its simplicity; the council arbitrarily decided exactly what books would form the Christian canon,  and to get the 'Arian heresey' sorted.  For the canon, they used a handy list composed by one man;  bishop Athanasius of Alexandria. Next time happened was at TheCouncil of Trent, (1545-1563)

It has been my view for some time, that the Christian church  became corrupt after about 100 years, when it became a hierarchical organisation. That it hit its stride  after it became the official state  religion  under Theodosius. It was at that time the Church started killing anyone it didn't like. That practice continued until until the seventeenth century.

So, nothing about the essential mendacity  and pious humbug of the Christian churches to this day, surprises me.

[The Grand Nudger]

That eventually became the view of christian authority, after competing camps (and their competing christologies) were merged.

[fredd bear]

If one drops ideas of biblical inspiration and the like in favour of mining historical data, one can go a little bit beyond mere hair splitting.

The Early Church didn't invent the story from nothing; if you're trying to persuade folk that something very strange has happened, you don't bundle it up with a ready-to-serve alternative explanation. The Xians wouldn't want to put the idea in people's heads that they had stolen the body, unless they had little option but to discuss it.

It seems far more likely that the Jews of Matthew's day actually were using the story as a counter-apologetic. The Xians were making a claim about Jesus' body, and the Jews were providing an easy alternative explanation. Justin (Dial. 108) reports that the story was still being used by Jews against Xians in the mid second century.

One thing that emerges from all this is that whatever the origin of it, the Early Church's claim was all about a physical body vanishing.

You might be correct. It's more likely that they stole/borrowed the resurrection story from other religious tall tales.

 The dying and reborn god is a neolithic idea.  Common in fertility cults; IE the death of winter and the reborn spring.

More closely pre Christian is the Isis and Osiris myth.

Christianity had no new ideas.  Some was traditional Judaism, some possibly  lifted  from the mystery religions .EG"Turn the other cheek" was certainly at odds with Mosaic law, with its emphasis on compensation, but hardly original. The Buddha had gone even further 600 years earlier with the concept of  'ahimsa'

It is often hard to work out the origins of beliefs/customs/ideas.  Correlation does not prove causation. The simplest explanation is that people commonly have similar ideas at the same time, in different parts of the world. That seems to have occurred with some major inventions of the 20th century .

[Jehanne]

To give a brief summary, the earliest traditions of Jesus do not allude to a bodily resurrection; the latter traditions are embellishments.