Real debate of the evidence for resurrection

[Zzyzx]

.
From a current thread:

Testimonials are worth nothing in debate.

Which is why there is so little real debate in any of these forums...opinions abide.

Let's really debate the presence or absence of verifiable evidence that Jesus died and came back to life -- excluding testimonials and opinions.

[The Tanager]

You cannot legitimately say what people would do. The most you can legitimately say that it seems to you as though people seeing evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

I think that should be understood. You don't always say "It seems to me that..." when sharing your opinion on something.

Can you cite reports from Christian sources OTHER than the Gospel tales with personal knowledge of the resurrection? (Note: 'He said that she saw or She said she saw� is NOT a report from personal knowledge)

The primary sources we have that mention Jesus' resurrection are the four Gospels (which themselves were composed from earlier sources, written and oral), Acts, some of Paul's letters, 1 Peter, and Hebrews. Whether that fits what you consider "personal knowledge" or not doesn't matter, it's what historians use as primary sources all the time.

[The Tanager]

Okay, so I think the case for the Resurrection being historical is an inference to the best explanation and is made in two steps. Step 1, agree upon the historical data. Step 2, assess the various theories in regards to explaining the data. In step 1, I believe there are at least three pieces of historical data but feel free to suggest more.

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. Jesus' tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.


I like to take things one at a time, so we can start with 1.

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Note, this point is just that the disciples claimed Jesus resurrected and appeared to them. The earliest sources we have confirm this. We have the all four Gospels, including Luke-Acts, some of Paul's letters, 1 Peter and Hebrews as primary sources. Hebrews and 1 Peter only mention the resurrection in passing and, so, while not that helpful on the details of the Resurrection itself, still show that Jesus' disciples were proclaiming Jesus' resurrection.

Most scholars think Mark was written by John Mark and that he got his information from Peter. That Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, getting info from Paul and other eyewitnesses, and probably including listening to apostolic preaching such as with the speeches in Acts 2, 10, and 13 that mention or imply Jesus' resurrection. The author of John at least got much of the information from the apostle John, may have been a minor disciple, or possibly even the apostle John. While Matthew probably didn't write the gospel named after him, he did probably play a big part in the material.

Paul claims to have been a eyewitness to the risen Jesus, knew the leading apostles in Jerusalem, made sure his message concerning Jesus was compatible with theirs, and claims it was. This is corraborated by Clement of Rome and Polycarp who were most likely acquainted with the apostles Peter and John, respectively. They heap praise on Paul and his message in their writings.

These appearances occur on multiple occasions and under different circumstances by different individuals and groups of Jesus being alive after the being dead.

The earliest source, which most scholars date to within 5 years of Jesus' resurrection is found in 1 Corinthians 15, and is an oral creed or tradition which Paul received and passed on. With this Paul lists the appearances to Peter, the 12, more than 500, James, all the apostles, and himself. The gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. The appearance to Peter is attested by Luke. The appearance to the 12 by Luke and John. Mark, Matthew, and John are witnesses to Galilean appearances. Appearances to the women are found in Matthew and John. These aren't one Christian source just copying another Christian source, but different Christian sources both telling of the appearances.

From the gospel it appears that James, the brother of Jesus, didn't believe in him during his lifetime. He later becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church, dying for his faith in the late 60s, according to Josephus. It is very likely that the conversion came about through the appearance of the risen Jesus that Paul talks about.

1. The reporters claimed that the disciples claimed. We must trust that the reporters are reporting accurately.

We have good reason to believe that the authors knew the disciples, if they were not the eyewitnesses themselves. The communities in which these sources were circulated would have included eyewitnesses and others who knew the eyewitnesses, therefore, knowing if the disciples did not actually claim such things.

If we examine other reports from them and find exaggerations, this damages point 1. Read Matthew on the hour of Christ's death.

First, we cannot be sure they are exaggerations, even if they are hard to believe. I mean we are talking about the possibility of a God-man being raised from the dead. If that is possible, then Matthew's account is also possible. To act as though supernatural events are impossible from the get go would be begging the question. Now, I don't think that you, Marco, are simply doing that because you've expounded on this in another thread, but I don't think that expounding has established these events are clearly exaggerations.

Second, but let's assume they didn't really happen. It's possible that Matthew trusted a source who said this and he shouldn't have. That alone shouldn't mean throwing out Matthew's account on every detail. Or even if you do, you still have multiple, independent attestation that the disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus. It's also possible that Matthew was purposefully using apocalyptic imagery, as other ancient writers did, to symbolize that a great king had died or, like other Jewish texts, that the day of the Lord had come. This should not cause us to discount everything Matthew said, but even if you do, we still have other multiple, independent attestation that the disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

The Fatima children, and Zzyzx's comments on this piece of historical data in post 32, fit in step 2 of this discussion for they don't dispute that the disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus, but try to explain those experiences. I have saved them to respond to at that time in our analysis.

[Zzyzx]

.

You cannot legitimately say what people would do. The most you can legitimately say that it seems to you as though people seeing evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

That's understood.

Is it understood? It seemed to be assumed in your argument that people who saw evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

What 'evidence' could people see?

You don't always say "It seems to me that..." when sharing your opinion on something.

Feel free to call that to my attention when / if it happens.

Can you cite reports from Christian sources OTHER than the Gospel tales with personal knowledge of the resurrection? (Note: 'He said that she saw or She said she saw� is NOT a report from personal knowledge)

The primary sources we have that mention Jesus' resurrection are the four Gospels (which themselves were composed from earlier sources, written and oral), Acts,

'Composed from earlier sources' = “He said that she saw or She said she saw� – hearsay, 'that heard from others'.

Folklore is no assurance of truth and accuracy – witness Paul Bunyan tales. Can it be determined that Gospel folklore is any more truthful and accurate than Bunyan?

Of course, most people recognize that tales of clearing forests from the northeastern United States to the Pacific Ocean are wildly exaggerated folk tales. However, many people consider comparable supernatural feats attributed to Jesus (including being born to a virgin, curing blindness with spit and mud, coming back to life) as absolute, unvarnished truth.

some of Paul's letters, 1 Peter, and Hebrews.

Did Paul/Saul have personal knowledge of the events and conversations attributed to Jesus? Did he witness those things? Did he see 'miracles' performed?

Whether that fits what you consider "personal knowledge" or not doesn't matter, it's what historians use as primary sources all the time.

“Personal Knowledge� has specific meaning

Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience. www.definitions.uslegal.com

Do you prefer a different definition?

[The Tanager]

You cannot legitimately say what people would do. The most you can legitimately say that it seems to you as though people seeing evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

That's understood.

Is it understood? It seemed to be assumed in your argument that people who saw evidence of 'resurrection' would convert.

My point was that it should be understood that when I say something, that I'm saying "that it seems to me that such-and-such is true," not that what I'm saying should be simply accepted as true.

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

“Personal Knowledge� has specific meaning

Personal knowledge means knowledge of a circumstance or fact gained through firsthand observation or experience. www.definitions.uslegal.com

Do you prefer a different definition?

As I shared in post 42, we have very good reason to believe that the accounts have accurate information about what Jesus' disciples claimed, namely, that many of them had experiences of appearances of a resurrected Jesus. Some of the sources may have been those disciples with personal knowledge themselves and others drew on those with personal knowledge, writing in communities that included those who knew the disciples, where the accounts would not have caught on if they told a different story from Jesus' disciples.

[Zzyzx]

.

My point was that it should be understood that when I say something, that I'm saying "that it seems to me that such-and-such is true," not that what I'm saying should be simply accepted as true.

Perhaps we should all use IMO when intending a statement to be an opinion rather than a statement of fact.

As I shared in post 42, we have very good reason to believe that the accounts have accurate information about what Jesus' disciples claimed, namely, that many of them had experiences of appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Specifically, which of the Gospel writers can be shown to have had personal knowledge and experience with the 'resurrected Jesus'?

In attempting an answer, one would first need to know the identity of Gospel writers – which is much in dispute by Christian theologians and scholars. Since they do not know, or cannot agree on identity of writers, HOW can any claim be rationally made that the writers had personal knowledge or experience with the 'resurrected Jesus'?

Some of the sources may have been those disciples with personal knowledge themselves

Can any of the Gospel writers be shown to have been 'disciples with personal knowledge themselves'? Which ones?

and others drew on those with personal knowledge,

How does that differ from hearsay? Or folklore?

writing in communities that included those who knew the disciples, where the accounts would not have caught on if they told a different story from Jesus' disciples.

OH? Were Gospels written 'in communities that included those who knew Jesus'? Do you have verifiable evidence to support this claim?

What I read indicates that the Gospels were likely to have been written in communities FAR from Judea and decades or generations later.

[The Tanager]

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Specifically, which of the Gospel writers can be shown to have had personal knowledge and experience with the 'resurrected Jesus'?

In attempting an answer, one would first need to know the identity of Gospel writers – which is much in dispute by Christian theologians and scholars. Since they do not know, or cannot agree on identity of writers, HOW can any claim be rationally made that the writers had personal knowledge or experience with the 'resurrected Jesus'?

People dispute things all the time. That doesn't mean that some views aren't more plausible and likely than others. I think the scholarship leans towards John Mark writing the gospel of Mark and got information directly from Peter. Luke traveled with Paul and some of Jesus' earliest disciples, the book of John, at least, got info from the apostle John, and Matthew the disciple likely contributed information that was incorporated into the gospel of his name. Paul converted shortly after Jesus' crucifixion and would have been aware of the various eyewitnesses. Scholars date the earliest source speaking of Jesus' earliest disciples claiming resurrection appearances to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion. I think from this it is most plausible to think the earliest disciples actually claimed to have experienced a resurrected Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

.

I think the scholarship leans towards John Mark writing the gospel of Mark and got information directly from Peter.

Luke traveled with Paul and some of Jesus' earliest disciples,

the book of John, at least, got info from the apostle John, and

Matthew the disciple likely contributed information that was incorporated into the gospel of his name.

Scholars date the earliest source speaking of Jesus' earliest disciples claiming resurrection appearances to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion

Can you provide references for each of these? I am interested to learn what scholars and theologians say on those matters.

Paul converted shortly after Jesus' crucifixion and would have been aware of the various eyewitnesses.

Does Paul/Saul provide information about eyewitness resurrection accounts?

I think from this it is most plausible to think the earliest disciples actually claimed to have experienced a resurrected Jesus.

Do claims by earliest disciples of seeing a 'resurrected Jesus' assure that he came back to life?

Are they any more valid as proof of resurrection than reports of post-mortem sightings of Elvis or Hitler? If so, how and why?

[benchwarmer]

Okay, so I think the case for the Resurrection being historical is an inference to the best explanation and is made in two steps. Step 1, agree upon the historical data. Step 2, assess the various theories in regards to explaining the data. In step 1, I believe there are at least three pieces of historical data but feel free to suggest more.

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. Jesus' tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.

Sorry, a little late to the party, but the bit I bolded above caught my eye.

Are we free to suggest less?

I rather see it as:

1. We have claims that disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. We have claims that Jesus tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.

Which leaves us with only 2 things. 1) Many claims about (often other people) claiming something. i.e. second hand hearsay and 2) The rise of the Christian faith.

In other words, the only things we know for sure are that people wrote some stuff down and today we have various sects of Christianity. The writings themselves, for the most part, do not even claim to be direct witnesses nor do they claim who is writing them. Add in all the other problems with the written record that we have, which has been debated ad nauseam in other threads, and it's a pretty shaky house of cards IMHO.

[The Tanager]

1. Jesus' disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.

Sorry, a little late to the party, but the bit I bolded above caught my eye.

Are we free to suggest less?

I rather see it as:

1. We have claims that disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus.
2. We have claims that Jesus tomb was found empty.
3. The rise of the Christian faith.

Which leaves us with only 2 things. 1) Many claims about (often other people) claiming something. i.e. second hand hearsay and 2) The rise of the Christian faith.

In other words, the only things we know for sure are that people wrote some stuff down and today we have various sects of Christianity. The writings themselves, for the most part, do not even claim to be direct witnesses nor do they claim who is writing them. Add in all the other problems with the written record that we have, which has been debated ad nauseam in other threads, and it's a pretty shaky house of cards IMHO.

Suggesting less is the same thing as contesting the ones I've named. And, of course, you are allowed to contest them. As I've already shared, I think we have good reasons to believe that not only is it claimed that disciples claimed to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus, but that the we have good reason to believe that the disciples did in fact claim to have experienced appearances of a resurrected Jesus. Scholars largely agree but, more importantly than that, the reasons they agree are good ones.

I think the scholarship leans towards John Mark writing the gospel of Mark and got information directly from Peter.

Luke traveled with Paul and some of Jesus' earliest disciples,

the book of John, at least, got info from the apostle John, and

Matthew the disciple likely contributed information that was incorporated into the gospel of his name.

Scholars date the earliest source speaking of Jesus' earliest disciples claiming resurrection appearances to within 3-5 years of the crucifixion

Can you provide references for each of these? I am interested to learn what scholars and theologians say on those matters.

First, some of those I believe who accept the general historical data were are discussing (that the disciples claimed appearances of a risen Jesus):

Borg (The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, 1998, 135)
Braaten ("The Resurrection Debate Revisited" in Pro Ecclesia, 1999: 147-158)
Carnley (The Structure of Resurrection Beliefs, 1987, 224)
Charlesworth (The Historical Jesus, 2008, 113)
Craffert (The Origins of Resurrection Faith: The Challenge of a Social Scientific Approach, 2002, 99-100)
Dunn (Beginning from Jerusalem, 2009, 212-13)
Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, 1999, 230-32) or his blog at https://ehrmanblog.org/questions-on-the ... ppearances (you need a membership, but I think it's free for a limited time because of Covid-19).
Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews, 1999, 264)
Ludemann (The Resurrection of Jesus, 1995, 80)
Montefiore (The Miracles of Jesus, 2005, 105)
EP Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, 280)
Vermes (The Resurrection, 2008, 149)
Viney ("Grave Doubts About the Resurrection" in Encounter, 1989, 126)
Wedderburn (Beyond Resurrection, 1999, 13)
Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, 710)

On the traditional authorship of the Gospels:

Blomberg (The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, 2001, 22-41
Dunn (Beginning from Jerusalem, 2009, 114) [concerning Matthew and John]
Robert Gundry (in Copan and Tacelli, eds., Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?)
Keener (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2003, 1:81-115, 139)
Kostenberger, Kellum, and Quarles (The Crade, the Cross, and the Crown, 2009) [Matthew in 180-84, Mark 231-34, Luke 258-61, John 295-98]

Hagner argues Matthew is responsible for much of the content in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary, 2002, lxxvii)

Witherington argues a disciple of Jesus is author of John's gospel (John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 1995, 11-18) as does Bruce (The Gospel and Epistles of John, 1983). Pagels argues significant eyewitness testimony from an original disciple (Beyond Belief, 2003, 59).

Some argue that some of John's traditions are oldest in the Gospels:

Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John"
Just in Anderson, Just, and Thatcher, in John, Jesus, and History, volume 1, 2007, 292;
Keener (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2003, 1:46)
Segal (Life After Death, 2004, 455)
Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, 679)

On the dating of 1 Cor 15 oral tradition:

Barnett ("The Apostle Paul, the Bishop of Neward, and the Resurrection of Jesus in Crux, 1994,6) - within 2-3 years
Burridge and Gould (Jesus Now and Then, 2004, 46) - a few years
Dunn (Jesus Remembered, 2003, 855) - formulated within months of Jesus' death
Engelbrecht ("The Empty Tomb in Historical Perspective" in Neotestamentica, 1989, 244) - within 5 years
Funk and Jesus Seminar (The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?, 1998, 466) - 2-3 years at most
Goulder (in Copan and Tacelli, eds., Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, 2000) - 2 years
Grant (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, 1977, 177) - "very early"
Hays (First Corinthians, 1997, 255) - within 3 years
Koester (History and Literature of Early Christianity, 2000, 90) - within 5 years
Ludemann (The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, 2004, 31) - within 2 years

Does Paul/Saul provide information about eyewitness resurrection accounts?

I think Paul was an eyewitness of Jesus since he was probably trained in Jerusalem, lived there, and visited Jerusalem on many other occassions before his conversion, and claims to have experienced the risen Jesus (although not in the same bodily sense as others). He also brings us things like 1 Cor 15 that is dated so early.

Do claims by earliest disciples of seeing a 'resurrected Jesus' assure that he came back to life?

Are they any more valid as proof of resurrection than reports of post-mortem sightings of Elvis or Hitler? If so, how and why?

No, the claims alone do not. Whether or how they help us make sense of what happened two milennia ago is a question for step 2. We need to establish all the pertinent historical data first.

[Clownboat]

I doubt anyone would believe that Jesus really rose from the dead and not become a follower.

The Tananger in post 31:
"Josephus was biased. He's trying to sell a competing car, to keep the analogy up."

This informs us that Josephus did not believe that Jesus really rose from the dead. If he didn't know it to be true, how can anyone from this day pretend to know that it is true?