Fodor’s RHBS naturalistic model on the resurrection: Reburial, Hallucinations, Biases, Socialisation
Part I: Reburial of Jesus’ Body as an Explanation for the Empty Tomb
This article will assess James Fodor’s (2018) RHBS model. It has many similarities with other naturalistic models like those proposed by Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann. I have responded to these here.
One of the strengths of Fodor’s approach is his more detailed discussion of the psychological literature. I also appreciated, in his book Unreasonable Faith (Fodor, 2018), that he assessed many of William Lane Craig’s arguments for theism. He covers a great deal of ground and writes well. Fodor’s argument combines four elements:
· Reburial (R): he allows, for the sake of argument, that Jesus’ tomb was empty when his disciples visited it. His favoured option for explaining these data, is that Jesus was temporarily interned in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb and removed before the disciples’ visit.
· Hallucinations (H): Fodor also grants that Jesus’ disciples experienced something — that led them to believe Jesus was raised from the dead. He argues that one or more disciples may have experienced a hallucination about Jesus, perhaps as a result of the bereavement process.
· Biases (B): Fodor proposes several potential biases that may have led to the disciples’ belief that Jesus was raised from the dead. These biases include distorted memories and mass hysteria.
· Socialisation (S): he finally posits that socialisation factors may explain the persistence of the belief despite counter evidence.
As there is a lot of ground to cover, I will break up my response into two or three parts. This first part, reflects on Fodor’s arguments for the plausibility of Jesus’ reburial. He offers two main possibilities:
- Joseph of Arimathea was not a follower of Jesus
- Joseph was a sympathizer of Jesus
Reburial Option 1. Joseph was not a follower of Jesus
Although Fodor (2018) offers arguments for another scenario, that Jesus’ body was stolen by tomb robbers, I will focus on his reburial argument. For my response to arguments that Jesus’ body was removed by tomb robbers, see here.
This option can be summarised with the following four points:
a) Jewish law required that even executed criminals must be buried on the same day (Deuteronomy 21:23).
b) It was the Sabbath, so to avoid violating Jewish laws, Jesus was buried temporarily in Joseph’s tomb. This was for convenience sake, as it was nearby and offered a private place away from the crowds.
c) Jesus’ body was removed before his disciples’ visited the tomb.
d) Therefore Jesus’ disciples found Joseph’s tomb empty.
Joseph of Arimathea a follower or not?
Andrew Loke (2020) argues it is unlikely the Gospels would claim Joseph was a follower, if he was not a sympathizer:
It is implausible that the Gospels’ authors would portray him as such, because such a portrayal involving the prominent Sanhedrin could easily be falsified by their opponents if it were untrue. (pp. 124)
Additionally, why would Joseph, if he had no sympathy for Jesus, offer his tomb? Fodor acknowledges that this would bring great inconvenience and shame on the family. Why would he go to such efforts for an executed criminal?
Jewish Law Required it?
Deuteronomy 21 makes clear the usual pattern is for executed criminals to be buried on the same day. Fodor suggests burial in Joseph’s tomb was the only option out of this conundrum. However there were options available that would not require Joseph the ignominy of having an executed criminal temporarily stored in his family tomb:
- “Joseph could have easily enlisted the help of Gentile servants to bury Jesus and thus avoided desecrating himself on Passover Friday.” (Loke, 2020, 125)
- Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:6 (a tractate on Jewish law probably written in the second or third century) points out that there were circumstances where burial could be delayed without transgression. “The mishnah adds that if the delay was for the sake of the dead person, to arrange a proper burial, then no negative commandment is transgressed.” (see Sefaria commentary on this verse)
Burial Practices in Second Temple Judaism
Although reburial was common in second temple Judaism, I think Fodor’s scenario is inconsistent with burial practices in first century Palestine.
There are few, if any, examples where the body of an executed criminal was interned in a tomb of an unrelated person, let alone a member of the Sanhedrin, followed by burial after 2–3 days.
A passage in the Hebrew Bible (2 Samuel 21:10–13) claims that David commanded Saul and Jonathan’s bones be removed (presumably from a burial place) and placed in their family tomb. Yet this occurs at least three years after their death when their bodies had decomposed (Olyan, 2015, pp. 612). In addition, the point of this story is that David sought to honour Saul. Yet, if Joseph was not a follower of Jesus, it appears unlikely that he would want to honour an executed criminal in that manner.
Similarly, in the second temple period, “Secondary burials were performed only after the body had decomposed.” (Burger, 1992, pp. 118–119) Importantly, Jewish scholar Saul Olyan (2015) points out, “remains are moved to a different location within a tomb, in contrast to their transfer from one tomb to another.” (pp. 613) Fodor’s proposal, that Jesus was interned in Joseph’s tomb before being moved two to three days later, is inconsistent with this pattern.
Exceptions to the rule?
Fodor rightly acknowledges that Jewish law was generally against reburial and removal of the corpse to a different location. But he argues Joseph may have relied upon an exception to this general rule to justify reburial. He cites the Encylopaedia Judaica to support this assumption, which in turn cites Schulchan Arukh, a sixteen century Jewish law code rooted in the traditions of the Sephardic Jews in Spain and Portugal:
If he is not safe in this grave, for there is apprehension that heathens may take him out, or that water may enter therein, or that it is a grave that has been found. (Schulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 363:1)
Halakha (Jewish law) has evolved over time since the Talmud. There is no evidence that such an exception applied in first century Palestine, nor is there evidence a few hundred years later in the Jerusalem (Moed Katan 2:4) or Babylonian Talmud (Semachot 13).
Why didn’t Joseph quash the rumour of Jesus’ empty tomb?
If Joseph was not a follower, he could have quickly quashed the rumours of Jesus’ resurrection, as he knew where the body was. Fodor questions whether a body could have been produced, however NT scholar Dale Allison (2021) points out (citing Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5–6) it was common to store and then collect the bones of executed criminals:
After the executed transgressor is taken down he is buried, and they would not bury him in his ancestral burial plot. Rather, two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court: One for those who were killed by decapitation or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned. Once the flesh of the deceased had decomposed, they would gather his bones and bury them in their proper place in his ancestral burial plot.
If this is the case, then it is likely there were systems in place to identify remains of the dead, even after they had decomposed. Fodor offers a few additional explanations of why Joseph may not have chosen to debunk the early church’s rumours. For example, Joseph may have died before he told anyone. This is possible but we have no way of evaluating how likely.
Alternatively, he suggests Joseph and his fellow Sanhedrin members may not have been interested in refuting the claim. In my view this lacks plausibility, if the Sanhedrin were motivated enough to lobby for Jesus’ execution, why were they less concerned about the disciples’ claim he was raised from the dead?
Reburial Option 2. Joseph as a sympathizer
Fodor offers an alternative option, which assumes Joseph was more sympathetic to Jesus’ cause:
a) Joseph intended to bury Jesus in his tomb
b) He changed his mind either after pressure from family, or perhaps from the Sanhedrin
c) He moved Jesus’ body elsewhere
d) Therefore when Jesus’ female disciples visited Joseph’s tomb it was empty
The first, perhaps most important limitation, is that there is no evidence to support this scenario, it is inherently speculative. In response to William Lane Craig, Fodor argues there is insufficient information about Joseph to speculate about his personality or motives. However, if that is the case, it is unclear how Fodor’s scenario escapes this same critique. If we lack information about Joseph’s personality or motives, how can we weigh up the plausibility that he changed his mind about Jesus’ burial?
We do not need to know much about Joseph to understand the risks he was taking when identifying with an executed criminal. It is possible he changed his mind, but we would be naïve to think he was surprised by opposition.
A further difficulty, is that this would appear to be inconsistent with Jewish law at that time, moving Jesus’ body before it had decomposed.
Summary and Conclusion
In summary, I think Fodor’s proposal, that Jesus’ body was interned in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb and later removed, lacks plausibility. Fodor’s strongest argument, that Joseph was acting according to a well known exception in Jewish Law, fails to show relevance to the first century context. In the next part of this response, I will begin with Fodor’s arguments for hallucinations.
Bibliography
Allison, Dale. The Resurrection of Jesus. T&T Clark, 2021.
Burger JA. Tombs and burial practices in ancient Palestine. Old Testament Essays (1992) 5: 103–123.
Fodor, James. Unreasonable Faith. Hypatia, 2018.
Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Routledge, 2020.
Meader, Nick. Resurrection. Wipf&Stock, 2024.
Olyan, Saul M. Some Neglected Aspects of Israelite Interment Ideology. Journal of Biblical Literature (2015) 4: 601–616.
*** Disclaimer: I receive royalties for my book linked above
