>>Contradictions undermine the reliability of an account. When your only
>>possible evidence is so hopelessly inconsistent, how can you claim that the
>>Resurrection happened? Not with very good evidence IMO.
["hopelessly inconsistent" cliche - agreed]
>I do, however, commend you for qualifying this statement as your opinion. I
>agree with the notion that contradictions undermine any given evidence. I
>would be a disgrace to all the trial lawyers in my family, if I denied
>this. However, there must be a clear distinction, as in a trial in the
>court of law, between a differing account and a contradicting account. On
>numerous occasions I have asked, "Does a differing account necessitate a
>contradiction?".
What do you mean by differing accounts?
If our two accounts are like this:
Luke: "I saw the guy in the blue car, Jim, speeding down the street at about
50 mph in a residential area in Fullerton. He crashed into the yellow car so
hard that it sent the other guy across the street."
Matthew: "I saw the guy in the blue car, Kirby, speeding down the road at
about 55 mph near a school in Placentia. He wrecked the grey car up pretty
bad."
Now, it turns out that the guy's name is Jim Kirby. The speeds are close
enough. There happens to be a place where Fullerton and Placentia meet, with
a school on one side and a residential zone on the other. Yellow and grey
are pretty similar. These accounts are not too inconsistent.
But if they are like this:
Luke: "The woman in a red sports car was speeding down the 51 freeway in Los
Angeles at about 100 mph. She suddenly braked and the man in the purple van
behind her slammed into her."
Matthew: "The woman in a red sports car was pulling out of her driveway in
her San Diego home. The man in the purple van wasn't paying attention and
slammed into her."
At least one of our witnesses has a serious problem with the truth.
Now, later we find out that Matthew and Luke relied on a man called Mark.
(Quite odd for eyewitnesses to do that instead of rely on their own memory,
don't you think?) Here is what he had to say.
Mark: "The man in the purple van slammed into a woman in a red sports car."
Quite simple, direct, and to-the-point, without any of the details that the
*more indirect* sources had. Now we see why Luke and Matthew obviously
agreed on certain points - they copied. Apparently, they independently
embellished the story in different directions, resulting in the
contradictions we have before us.
But it turns out that Mark himself wasn't actually an eyewitness. No, all of
our reports rest on the testimony of a certain businessman named Simon, not
known for his integrity, who himself had first heard of the accident from
some women, including a prostitute, although the identities of any other
women, if any, are uncertain. The women themselves claim to have inferred
the accident, not from actually seeing it, but by seeing some skid marks on
the road three days later.
Somehow I'm no longer sure there was an accident at all.
[cannot prove the "Resurrection"]
>1.) Jesus of Nazareth lived
>2.) He was crucified
Some atheists would dispute this, but I consider the arguments for the
historicity of Jesus to be conclusive (although I doubt he came from Nazereth
:-).
>3.) He was laid in the tomb of a Joseph of Arimathea
>4.) Three days later the body was found to be missing, much to the dismay
>of the Jews, Romans, and Christians.
I don't know how you are going to provide evidence that it was "much to the
dismay of Jews, Romans and Christians," so why don't we remove that clause.
:-)
>It is with these simple (and definitely in need of further explanation)
>events that I believe one can formulate an accurate historical hypothesis.
>It is with that hypothesis that we then compare it to such other
>postulations (not necessarily true hypotheses though) as you have mentioned.
Agreed.
>>Before that question matters, you need to provide evidence that (1) the
tomb
>>was full and (2) the same tomb was empty three days later.
>
>Very true.
>
>How do we know that the tomb "was full".
>
>First, let's look at the time factor. Though I believe it to be, let's not
>consider the New Testament to be an inspired book, but rather a set of
>alleged historical sources about this man, Jesus of Nazareth. Now we know
>that this man was most likely crucified in or around 33 A.D.
Agreed, although I think that some argue for the date of 30 A.D. All that is
certain is that it took place under Pontius Pilate.
> Most if not
>all NT scholars date the Gospels within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses of
>Jesus' life. The latest proposed dating must be prior to the destruction of
>the temple in 70 A.D.
Orthodox historians go with 50-67 A.D. for genuine Pauline epistles, 70 A.D.
for Mark, 80-90 A.D. for Matthew and Luke-Acts, and 90-100 A.D. for John.
The hypothetical Q document dates 50-60 A.D., and the Gospel of Thomas dates
around the same time. The Didache may date in the 60s. If you want to date
them earlier, please give some evidence.
> What does this mean? That we have clear and
>widespread testimony to a miracle working,
Paul never mentions any miracles (or can you cite chapter and verse?).
Neither do the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, or Q. Miracle-working doesn't
appear until 40 years later with the Gospel of Mark (which, BTW, put great
emphasis on proving Jesus' power over nature).
> supernatural, resurrected Jesus
>no later than fifteen to twenty years after the events of His life.
I do not doubt that they believed in "the resurrection" within fifteen to
twenty years after his death. That is a rather vague belief. Then the
legend grows over time - Mary turns into a virgin, Jesus starts rocketing
into heaven, and Thomas puts his hand in the side of Jesus. Then when we get
into the apocryphal gospels of the second century it is even more insane.
The child Jesus miraculously lengthens a leg of a bed made in Joseph's shop
(Infancy Gospel of Thomas), John effectively commands the bedbugs to sleep
peacefully in a corner of his room so that he might rest well (Acts of John
60-161), and the child Jesus turns other kids into goats because they
wouldn't play with him (The Arabic Infancy
Gospel). Legends can and do accrue over time.
>Furthermore, many of the NT writings contain heavily Semitic hymns,
>phrases, and statements, which by the way translate easily back to Aramaic
>from Greek. It is crucial to understand that these statements, phrases and
>such existed prior to NT because we do not find them as readily used in
>Pauline writings of a decade or two later.
Hold up. "Many of the NT writings contain X" but "we don't find X in Pauline
writings"? Just where are these "heavily Semitic hymns, phrases, and
statements, which by the way translate easily back into Aramaic from Greek"?
I am familiar with only one example (1Cor 15:3-7), which, by the way, is in
Pauline writings.
>Finally, there are very good
>reasons to believe that the Acts account of the Apostle Peter preaching of
>the miracle working, supernatural risen Jesus can be dated just five weeks
>after His death.
I would like to know these "very good reasons." I suspect that Pentecost is
the invention of Luke. No other Christian writer of the time mentions it.
Quoting from my NAB by Catholics:
"Luke considered especially sacred the interval in which the appearances and
instructions of the risen Jesus occurred and expressed it therefore in terms
of the sacred number forty (cf. Dt 8:2). In his gospel, however, Luke
connects the ascension of Jesus with the resurrection by describing the
ascension on Easter Sunday evening (Lk 24:50-53). What should probably be
understood as one event (resurrection, glorification, ascension, sending of
the Spirit - the paschal mystery) has been historicized by Luke when he
writes of a visible ascension of Jesus after forty days and the descent of
the Spirit at Pentecost. For Luke, the ascension marks the end of the
appearances of Jesus except the extraordinary appearance to Paul. With
regards to salvation history, the ascension also marks the end of the time of
Jesus (Lk 24:50-53) and signals the beginning of the time of the church."
>Again, what all of this indicates from strictly a historical perspective,
>that there was a clear, widespread picture of a miracle working,
>supernatural Jesus who rose bodily from the dead within several weeks after
>His death, and at the latest within the first decade. So what implications
>do the time factor have? There was just not enough time for the facts of
>Jesus' life, death, and resurrection to be forgotten and replaced with lies
>and/or myths.
But what are the facts? The fact could be that Peter saw a vision one night.
Another disciple thinks he saw Jesus on the horizon while they were fishing.
Rumors spread. A cult forms based on this. Paul turns it world-wide. The
story grows over time. Second or third generation Christians write the
gospels. Fourth or fifth generation Christians spin even more fantastic
tales. What is unlikely about all this?
>It has even been suggested that as short of a span as two
>generations is typically insufficient time for legend or myth to take over
>hard historical evidence.
Suggested? Of course. With evidence? Show me. Are you suggesting that
there are no counter-examples of myths developing in a single generation?
Take the claims of Elvis rising from the dead, for example.
>Now that we have briefly considered the internal evidence for the full,
>then empty tomb,
Your only argument was that a legend couldn't develop that fast. I think
legends can and do. I'll need another line of argumentation.
>First, the plausibility of Jesus' burial and tomb have been verified quite
>adequately by archaeological discoveries. Tombs, similar to those described
>in the Gospels have been found in Jerusalem and were the burial places for
>Jewish holy men. Which leads me to my second point.
>
>In those days when a Jewish holy man was buried, in such a tomb, he was
>venerated. Granted, most Jews of the day likely could care less about the
>veneration, much less the burial, of Jesus. But the NT does not give
>account for them, but rather for Jesus' disciples, namely this Joseph of
>Arimathea (of whom I will mention more later). these would no doubt have
>wanted to venerate the body, but be it as it were they would have to have
>waited because of the Passover/Sabbath until Sunday. So it is quite likely
>that they made very sure as to the location of the tomb. Reasonable? I
>believe so.
OK. It's plausible, I'll grant that. But did it happen? "Three days" seems
rather symbolic. The apologetic value of the tomb is obvious. These kind of
legends do crop up.
>Joseph of Arimathea is an interesting sort. He was a member of the
>Sanhedrin, yet a secret follower of Jesus. Surely a fictional Christian
>creation of such a man would have been refuted by the conservative and
>outspoken Sanhedrin. Furthermore, if he were fictional, then why such
>incidentals as he was rich, probable considering his social status, how
>about that he was from Arimathea, where? Why would a fictional character be
>made to come from a town of little or no scriptural importance let alone
>any other importance. And of course his sympathetic nature towards Jesus,
>of whom Mark says the whole Sanhedrin council voted for condemnation (Mark
>14:55. 64; 15:1)
So maybe(!) a "Joseph of Arimathea" existed. He seems to be as good as any
person to pick among the Sanhedrin. Picking someone from the Sanhedrin,
which was hostile to Jesus, has the apologetic value of refuting people who
seem to have been claiming that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, or not the
right tomb. But did he really lay the body of Jesus in a tomb? That's what
I want to know.
>Lastly, why would a fictionalized account of the resurrection be told to
>have women as the first to find the tomb empty? Women were at such a low
>social status in the day that they were not even allowed to give legal
>testimony. Certainly, a fabricated plan would have used men to have been
>among the first to find the empty tomb. What's more Paul's resurrection
>formula in I Cor. leaves out the women's testimony, no doubt because of his
>evangelizing intention. The point of this is that the Gospel writers (with
>the slight exception of John) intended to recount for the growing church in
>detailed fashion what happened in the life of Jesus and his death, burial
>and resurrection.
I think too much emphasis has been given to the women being the first to find
the tomb. It seems that at least Matthew and Luke found Mark's story
unacceptable, and made the women go back and tell them so the men can check
it out for themselves. Perhaps women were the first to start the rumors
about the Resurrection. Or perhaps Mark didn't consider the women good
evidence anyways. You'll note that he does end his story with "they said
nothing to anyone." (Mk 16:8)
>>Quite possibly it was laid in a shallow grave (I think that was the common
>>practice for crucified criminals).
>>Or perhaps it was eaten by dogs.
>
>True, it was common practice for common criminals to have been laid in
>shallow graves. What do you consider a common criminal by, though.
>Certainly, Jesus was not a common criminal. this is reasoned by the fact
>that he had a at least a couple hundred disciples, including Joseph of
>Arimathea, and Nicodemas, a Pharisee, both of which, not to mention the
>other hundreds, would have demanded the body for a proper burial
>considering they believed Jesus to be innocent, and therefore not a common
>criminal and wrongly crucified.
How do we know that Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemas were his disciples? It
seems that Jesus preached mostly to the rabble, Galilean fishermen and
peasant women and the like. They could probably not afford it, and they
could probably not get the body from the Romans. And even if these problems
are overcome, there is little to no evidence that Jesus actually was laid in
a tomb.
[snip]
>They already believed that, regardless of whether it was true or not.
This is a good definition of "blind faith."
>When Paul says "Christ died, was buried, and rose on the third day",
Actually, he says "Christ died for our sins *in accordance to the
scriptures*; he was buried; he was raised on the third day *in accordance
with the scriptures*." Note that he says "in accordance to the scriptures,"
not "according to eyewitnesses." This smacks of midrash.
>he is only
>summarizing what the Corinthain church already knew in detail, thus their
>salvation according to Paul.
Knew in detail? People there were claiming that there was no resurrection
from the dead. But they knew the story in great detail as well?
[snip]
>As for whether some one else stole the body, who? The Jews?
"The Jews" are not one large, organized body. The early Christians were
Jews. Perhaps one disciple of Jesus stole the body to fulfill Jesus'
"prophecy" that he would rise from the dead, and the women went to the tomb
and spread the rumor to the Twelve. Who knows? The whole thing seems lost
to the mists of time.
>Then why did they not provide the body later to refute the claims of The
Way?
The main reason Jewish authorities weren't going to produce a body is
probably that it would require them to take the claims of this new sect
seriously. Why don't you go dig up the body of Elvis? And even if they did,
the rumor will revive, and the cult will persist, in spite of "hostile
witnesses."
>Could the Romans have taken the body? Why would they?
I agree that the Roman or Jewish authorities aren't good candidates for
body-stealing. That requires that they took this "new and mischeivous
superstition" (Suetonius' _Lives of the Caesars_ 26:2), the "tribe of
so-called Christians" (Josephus' _Antiquities_ 18:3:3), such a "pernicious
superstition" (Tacitus' _Annals_ 15:44) as having a serious claim to truth.
>Why would they order the tomb to be guarded and then steal the body?
I seriously doubt they went to the trouble of employing a guard. Again, it
requires that they took Xianity seriously. The only one who mentions the
guard is the author of Matthew, who is notorious for adding details for
heightened effect (the earthquake, the 500 saints, etc.).
>As with the Jews, why did the Romans
>not produce the body when having to deal with social irritations of the The
>Way? Just some obvious question to look into when considering these options.
See above. There is no evidence that Roman or Jewish authorities were trying
to refute Christians but failing in their attempts.
Cheers,
Peter #16