Why the Resurrection narratives cannot be eyewitness testimony with a challenge

[AchillesHeel]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another and grow in the telling in chronological order. This is not expected from reliable eyewitness testimony but is more expected from a legend developing over time. In order to show the resurrection narratives evolve like a legend developing, I'm going to compare the ways Jesus is said to have been "seen" or experienced after the Resurrection in each account according to the order in which most scholars place the compositions. Remember, these accounts are claimed to be from eyewitnesses who all experienced the same events so we would at least expect some sort of consistency.

Beginning with Paul (50s CE), who is our earliest and only verified firsthand account in the entire New Testament from someone who claims to have "seen" Jesus, he is also the only verified firsthand account we have from someone who claims to have personally met Peter and James - Gal. 1:18-19. Paul does not give any evidence of anything other than "visions" or "revelations" of Jesus. The Greek words ophthe (1 Cor 15:5-8), heoraka (1 Cor 9:1) and apokalupto (Gal. 1:16) do not necessarily imply the physical appearance of a person and so cannot be used as evidence for veridical experiences where an actual resurrected body was seen in physical reality. In Paul's account, it is unclear whether the "appearances" were believed to have happened before or after Jesus was believed to be in heaven, ultimately making the nature of these experiences ambiguous. Peter and James certainly would have told Paul about the empty tomb or the time they touched Jesus and watched him float to heaven. These "proofs" (Acts 1:3) would have certainly been helpful in convincing the doubting Corinthians in 1 Cor 15:12-20 and also help clarify the type of body the resurrected would have (v. 35). So these details are very conspicuous in their absence here.

Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Mark (70 CE) adds the discovery of the empty tomb but does not narrate any appearances so no help here really. He just claims Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. This is very unexpected if the account really came from Peter's testimony. Why leave out the most important part especially, if Papias was correct, that "Mark made sure not to omit anything he heard"? Did Peter just forget to tell Mark this!? Anyways, there is no evidence a resurrection narrative existed at the time of composition of Mark's gospel circa 70 CE.

Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. 

Matthew (80 CE) adds onto Mark's narrative, drops the remark that the "women told no one" from Mk
16:8 and instead, has Jesus suddenly appear to the women on their way to tell the disciples! It says they grabbed his feet which is not corroborated by any other account. Then, Jesus appeared to the disciples on a mountain in Galilee, another uncorroborated story, and says some even doubted it! (Mt. 28:17) So the earliest narrative doesn't even support the veracity of the event! Why would they doubt when they had already witnessed him the same night of the Resurrection according to Jn. 20:19? Well, under the development theory - John's story never took place! It's a later development, obviously, which perfectly explains both the lack of mention of any Jerusalem appearances in our earliest gospels plus the awkward "doubt" after already having seen Jesus alive!

Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Luke (85 CE or later) - All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. Jesus appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then suddenly vanishes from their sight. They return to tell the other disciples and a reference is made to the appearance to Peter (which may just come from 1 Cor 15:5 since it's not narrated). Jesus suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports! Luke omits any appearance to the women and actually implies they *didn't* see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. There is no evidence that Luke intended to convey Jesus ever appeared to anyone in Galilee. Moreover, Luke leaves no room for any Galilean appearance because he has Jesus tell the disciples to "stay in the city" of Jerusalem the same night of the resurrection - Lk. 24:49. It looks as though the Galilean appearance tradition has been erased by Luke which would be a deliberate alteration of the earlier tradition (since Luke was dependent upon Mark's gospel).

Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.

John (90-110 CE) - the ascension has become tradition by the time John wrote (Jn. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17). Jesus appears to Mary outside the tomb who does not recognize him at first. Then Jesus, who can now teleport through locked doors, appears to the disciples minus Thomas. A week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke his wounds. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" you will be blessed. Lastly, there is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21 in which Jesus appears to seven disciples. None of these stories are corroborated except for the initial appearance (which may draw upon Luke). It looks as though the final editor of John has tried to combine the disparate traditions of appearances.

John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.

Challenge: I submit this as a clear pattern of "development" that is better explained by the legendary growth hypothesis (LGH) as opposed to actual experienced events. Now the onus is on anyone who disagrees to explain why the story looks so "developed" while simultaneously maintaining its historical reliability. In order to achieve this, one must provide other reliable sources from people who experienced the same events but also exhibit the same amount of growth and disparity as the gospel resurrection narratives.

Until this challenge is met, the resurrection narratives should be regarded as legends because reliable eyewitness testimony does not have this degree of growth or inconsistency.

[AchillesHeel]

In an attempt to counter argue against the reliability of the Gospels you were the one who first tacitly appealed to the reliability of Irenaeus to provide information on the composition of the Gospels.

Yet you appealed to Irenaeus to bolster your argument. Now you seem to be implying you don’t believe anything he said.

Like I said, you appealed to Irenaeus first.

The point is, you must think Irenaeus is reliable. After all, you appealed to him to bolster your counter argument. Now, when Irenaeus works against you, you seem to suggest he isn’t reliable.

I appealed to Irenaeus to counter the claim of the person who said the gospels were written within the lifetime of the disciples. And, as I explained, I'm under no obligation to believe anything Irenaeus said due to this being an internal critique.

You sure do if you want to establish the antecedent in the premise: what Irenaeus says is true. How do you propose to establish that what Irenaeus says is true without Irenaeus’ reliability?

I was assuming the person I was responding to endorsed Irenaeus' reliability. If he did, then we are able to derive a contradiction.

But that doesn’t get you your consequent that Mae von H’s claim is at least partially false. And that’s the claim you are trying to disprove since it supports the reliability of the Gospels.

Under the condition, if what Irenaeus said was true (what I was assuming Mae von H endorsed) then the claim they made is at least partially false. This is independent of my own judgment of Irenaeus' reliability.

Papias wasn’t necessarily his only source. I’ve argued Irenaeus’ comparative reliability on the grounds of 1) temporal proximity to the Gospels and 2) being connected to John and eyewitnesses through Polycarp.

First of all there were 3 or 4 different "Johns" cited in the church fathers. Does Irenaeus ever explicitly call John, "John, the son of Zebedee?" He may have believed that he was but the point is different "Johns" were posited as the author behind the Gospel of John and Irenaeus is only one source on that. There was also a tradition of John being written by the gnostic Cerinthus. See Found Christianities: Remaking the World of the Second Century CE By M. David Litwa, pp. 39-43.

As far as what other sources Irenaeus was using, those "sources" have never been demonstrated to contain reliable information. That's why internal evidence should be preferred over uncertain and late church father testimony. The internal evidence has to be at least consistent with eyewitness testimony, and it's not....

Not only are the growth and discrepancies quite suspicious but historical literature always made sure to cite eyewitness testimony when it was available.
viewtopic.php?p=1096100#p1096100

That rules out Mark and Matthew. Luke at least attempts to mimic the historical standard in his prologue but we can tell from how he redacts Mark, he's not telling the truth. John has an anonymous "we" group claim that a disciple wrote this stuff down and they know his testimony is true but that's obviously not convincing and would be expected by a group trying to usurp authority or in pseudepigraphical writings as detailed in the apocryphal gospels.

Your internal evidence is itself uncertain and hinges on a number of debatable premeses (Paul's view of Jesus' resurrected body, chronology of the Gospels, Markan priority). It doesn’t seem you have much of a counter argument here and are essentially arguing in a circle, your argument is true therefore evidence against it is false.

The main point, which you didn't cite, is that the testimony itself isn't consistent with how other eyewitness accounts look. It doesn't matter what order they were written in. Please just find one example that shows otherwise. The chronology and Markan priority are consensus positions and so have the most scholarly support. That's hardly a cause for concern here.

I don’t see anything you’ve listed here that can’t be reasonably explained as simply a difference in reportage. That Mark pared the accounts down also explains this data.

Really? That's your explanation? Is there any evidence where ancient authors "pared the accounts down" when what their source said would have been important for them to mention?

Where is another example where this type of "difference in reportage" happens in what we would reasonably call reliable sources?

Prevailing views change. The two source hypothesis has come under serious criticism in recent decades. That’s one of the problems with your over arching argument. It hinges on the assumption that Markan priority and the two source hypothesis are effectively proven true. They aren’t and they have competing theories that also explain the data.

Since the synoptics show evidence of shared verbatim Greek, that's proof of copying. So why would the author of Mark read Matthew 28 or Luke 24 and end his gospel with this?

Mk 16:8
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

That would make him quite the liar wouldn't it?

It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

The salient point here is there is no clear and consistent progression of legendary growth. Something like a continual increasing of the number angels at the tomb from one Gospel to the next. Further, you aren’t addressing the elements of the story that were dropped (or regressed), even though we would expect them to grow if your argument holds water. In other words you aren’t addressing the evidence against your argument. For instance, John drops the darkening of the sun and tearing of the temple veil found in Luke.

This is all a red herring. We are investigating the veracity of the Resurrection appearance narratives. So the comparison was in regards to how each consecutive account says the Resurrected Christ was seen/experienced by the disciples. You appealing to other tangential details is just a distraction from this problem.

Oh I see, so basically your argument is true until proven otherwise. That’s sounds dangerously close to an Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

I'm responding to apologists who claim that we should believe what the gospels say because they're reliable documents. Well, the burden of proof is on you to provide other reliable documents that have this degree of discrepancy! No one has offered a single example yet which speaks volumes. These type of drastic discrepancies simply aren't found in accounts we would consider "reliable" in any other context. Please feel free to provide a single counter example that satisfies two criteria:

1. The differences in reportage have the same degree of discrepancy (basically tell entirely different stories of what took place)
2. The sources are considered reliable in what they report.

But merely arguing it’s ambiguous or that Paul didn't say what you think he should have said doesn’t by default establish that Paul understood Jesus’ resurrection as immaterial. And that’s what you need to establish in order to get your first premise off the ground. You have to argue immaterial resurrection (Paul) to material resurrection (Gospels) in order to show some kind of “growth” starting with Paul. If Paul held to a material, bodily resurrection of Jesus your entire argument begins to crumble.

I never said Paul believed Jesus' resurrection was "immaterial." I'm challenging the fact that what Paul (our earliest and most reliable account) says regarding the veracity of the appearances. The appearances are the only evidence that proved Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead. If the earliest evidence is insufficient to establish the appearances were even veridical, then that shatters the whole foundation of the claim. The burden of proof is, again, on you to show Paul definitely meant veridical sightings of a physically resurrected person in physical reality. I maintain the earliest evidence is insufficient to establish that claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

sorry, duplication.

but since it is here, I'll mention other problems swept under the rug. I have already done the discrepant story of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the tomb. Mark says they ran away and said nothing to anyone.

That wouldn't do, so the other writers had to invent more. The Synoptics parked an angel there to tell us what we are supposed to believe. But John has no such thing and Mary doesn't meet Jesus until the disciples have gone to check the tomb.

This is obviously even more at variance with Matthew who says they ran into Jesus on the way to tell the disciples, and I hardly need dwell of the shabby efforts to rewrite the Bible (leaving even more contradictions) in order to concoct a unified tale.

But a universally overlooked problem (If the lauded Ehrmann has noted this, please let me know) is that Luke has altered the angel's explanation so the command to go to Galilee is gone, changed to what Jesus said in galilee. And we even know why; Luke had to write acts because he knew the disciples did not spread the word to all nations, but they stayed put in the Jerusalem are and it was Paul alone who started off Gentile - friendly Jewish messianism or (in Greek) Christianity.

That also explains why nobody else has the ascension. And I needn't rehearse the excuses made to try to explain why this wasn't worth mentioning by anyone else but Luke. Just, he saw Paul's letters and nobody else did.

This even explains his adding Jesus appearing to Simon, not described in Luke (he gets us out of the way, on the road to Emmaeus just so the appearance can happen without having to describe it). Because Luke only knows that Jesus appeared to Simon but doesn't know how.

Again, I could be wrong, but this explains every problem, whether anyone else has noticed them or not.

[AchillesHeel]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

One can grant that Paul and the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection but it is a non-sequitur to conclude "therefore, they really saw the physically resurrected Jesus."

I see this conflation a lot when making this criticism of Paul's view of the Resurrection. What type of bodily resurrection Paul believed in is entirely separate from the type of appearances. But it's only the appearances that can actually serve as evidence for the Resurrection. A mere belief in a physical resurrection is not evidence one occurred.

Paul's resurrection theology seems to imply instant exaltation to heaven - Phil. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20. So if they believed the ascension happened simultaneously with or immediately after the Resurrection, then that means there were no earthly appearances and instead they were all understood as post-ascension like Paul's experience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Goose is right that IF Paul is not talking about a solid - body resurrection (to make the point clear) then it has to be something else, because on my assessment of Paul earlier letters at least, I am convinced he was a real person, talking about real disciples who followed a (probably) real Jesus, whom they eved resurrected.

If it was not as in the gospels, it must be something else.

Fortunately loking honestly at Paul's reference it IS something else. It is visionary and therefore imaginary.

Not only does that give us transition from a walking Jesus to a spiritual (imaginary) resurrection, but it is supported by the (oft overlooked) difference and explains the contradictions in the gospel accounts - the were invented to turn an imaginary claim into a real event.

That explains why Mark doesn't have such a full account. The excuses such as everyone knew the story, it is effective as it was, or the ending got lost (so did the nativity, apparently) have to recognised as such: a faithbased rejection of unwelcome evidence.

One can grant that Paul and the early Christians believed in a physical resurrection but it is a non-sequitur to conclude "therefore, they really saw the physically resurrected Jesus."

I see this conflation a lot when making this criticism of Paul's view of the Resurrection. What type of bodily resurrection Paul believed in is entirely separate from the type of appearances. But it's only the appearances that can actually serve as evidence for the Resurrection. A mere belief in a physical resurrection is not evidence one occurred.

Paul's resurrection theology seems to imply instant exaltation to heaven - Phil. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20. So if they believed the ascension happened simultaneously with or immediately after the Resurrection, then that means there were no earthly appearances and instead they were all understood as post-ascension like Paul's experience.

Yes. I think we are dealing with three different things, called by the same name.

1. Spirit or visionary resurrection, of Jesus. Give or take the Gabriel stone, I propose that the disciples thought Jesus' spirit has resurrected, and I believe, also expected his spirit to return at the Last days.

(2) the Pharisee resurrection. This is the Last trump resurrection, which of course conflicts with the Judgement after death belief of Christianity, though they try to pretend both are true and never mind contradictory beliefs. Paul's talk of the dead rising to meet Jesus is when he (in a new form, I suppose) returns at the Last days and is the idea put into Jesus' mouth when he tells the Sanhedrin he'll come in power with ticker tape and a marching band. This rising of the zombies does not mean that Jesus (spirit) resurrection has to be solid body, too.

(3) Jesus walking. I won't go into my argument that the solid body resurrected Jesus was elaborated in different and contradictory ways, but the theory has to explain how a (claimed or hypothesised) messianic spirit - belief by the disciples and Paul became a walking corpse. It has to be because a risen spirit claim with the dead body still there is a claim with no force. I suggest the body itself had to vanish and be seen to vanish, which is why the original stopry of the empty tomb became a thing, with the women visiting because there had to be witnesses.

If indeed one argues that the empty tomb is true, that just leaves that the disciples took it away - no doubt for burial in Galilee. Resurrection is not the go - to explanation and never was.

[JehovahsWitness]

... why would the author of Mark read Matthew 28 or Luke 24 and end his gospel with this?

Mk 16:8
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

That would make him quite the liar wouldn't it?

It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

What exactly is the lie you suggest is contained in Mark's short conclusion?

[JehovahsWitness]

Observation and thesis: The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another ...

As has already been pointed out, this is a vague, unsubstantiated opinion based statement. The baseline ( the acceptable degree of deviation) has not been established, doubtless because it is probably an impossible premise given the multitude of editorial choices available to any writer.

[AchillesHeel]

... why would the author of Mark read Matthew 28 or Luke 24 and end his gospel with this?

Mk 16:8
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

That would make him quite the liar wouldn't it?

It makes more sense that Matthew and Luke expanded upon Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

What exactly is the lie you suggest is contained in Mark's short conclusion?

For starters, there is the fact that Matthew and Luke say the women told the disciples which is an explicit contradiction of Mark 16:8. There is also an immediate appearance of Jesus to two women right after they leave the tomb in Matthew. Oh, and then there are appearances to the Eleven and the witnessed ascension. Anything other than Markan priority doesn't make sense of this.

As has already been pointed out, this is a vague, unsubstantiated opinion based statement. The baseline ( the acceptable degree of deviation) has not been established, doubtless because it is probably an impossible premise given the multitude of editorial choices available to any writer.

No, we have multiple written examples of people who all witnessed the same historical event. None of them have the same degree of deviation as the Resurrection narratives (they basically tell entirely different stories of what took place). So the baseline is what we see in other accounts that no one doubts are reliable. Now we have an idea of what we'd expect to see when dealing with a set of reliable eyewitness testimony. Well, the Resurrection narratives completely violate that expectation so the most probable explanation is that something else is going on here. Given the obvious growth and progression, I've argued it's due to legendary embellishment. This explains the data perfectly.

Again, if you disagree you should be able to find an example that shows otherwise. If the Gospel resurrection narratives are as "reliable" as apologists say they are, then that entails other examples of this phenomenon exist in other sources we have no trouble calling "reliable". So where are they?

[JehovahsWitness]

For starters, there is the fact that Matthew and Luke say the women told the disciples which is an explicit contradiction of Mark 16:8.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction


That is hardly "an explicit contradiction". And claimed "contradiction" depends on if one reads Mark statement to be relative or absolute. What proof do you have that the writers intentions were the latter? Unless you lay claim to mind reading capacities, any response you provide is a mere supposition, hardly catagoric and verifiable "proof".

Supposition does not a contradiction make.



RELATED POSTS

Did the women tell anyone what happened?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 95#p908395

Did the women report seeing Jesus or angels ( Cleopas)?
viewtopic.php?p=1039084#p1039084

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

... an immediate appearance of Jesus to two women right after they leave the tomb in Matthew.

Which specific words in the book of Mark are you claiming constitute a lie in this regard? A biblical reference would be helpful.