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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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? ...

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

... and then there are appearances to the Eleven and the witnessed ascension.

What is problematic about this appearance? Perhaps you can explain in a sentence why you are mentioning this in response to my inquiry about lies in Mark.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

1. Even if this were true* what proof do you have that the above is an "acceptable degree of deviation"? Arguably, a lesser "degree of deviation" than is evident in the gospels could be considered inacceptable since it could indicate copying and or a lack of independent observation

... evidence of shared verbatim Greek, that's proof of copying.

* I'd be interested in your proving this to be true by presenting "multiple [independent] written examples" from antiquity with a lesser degree of deviation than the four gospels. Two or three examples would be sufficient.

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

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

... it's only the appearances that can actually serve as evidence for the Resurrection. ...

That is your opinion which is illogical. Evidence is any information that supports a given conclusion, so any manipulation of the environment, any communication of any kind can be considered evidence of a resurrection even if no physical appearances occurred.

[JehovahsWitness]

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...

It goes without saying that all the dates in the OP can be contested, but even If we accept Paul's letters to to have predated at least 3 of the four gospels, its clear from what he writes that he was not a witness of the gospel events. If he doesnt refer to the resurrection events (and merely testifies to his faith therein), then we are bumped back to the gospels for written eyewiteness report of events.

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.

Are you suggesting your interpretation of the aforementioned verses must be accepted as correct? If so why ?






JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE MOSIAC LAW and ...THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLE PAUL

[TRANSPONDER]

All that, JW old pal, is evasion and strawmans (not strawmen ).

Dates of Paul, crucifixion or the nativity don't matter, even if they are true things.

What matters is the narrative, even if we know people are real, Paul, the 12 and Jesus too,

We know about a degree of disagreement. We know about witness error and about Chinese whispers. Which only means nothing can be trusted, not that the gospel story should be trusted.

But the way the law used to work is that evidence is evaluated and the probability of the story or claim being reliable is argued, summed up and decided by Joe public.

Public, not mr denialist Christian, has to decide whether mark, knowing (as by any and all reason he should) about Jesus appearing to the women was worth a mention or not.

They excuses do not wash. As one of the first iterations of the story, it should have been there. The women rushing from the tomb, met Jesus.

Our other pal 1213, did his best to make the splitting up story work.

It doesn't, as it requires Mary Magdalene to have rushed off as soon as she spotted the angel, AND she didn't even mention it to the disciples afterwards (John) though Luke says she did, and heard the angelic message and it was Mary Magdalene an the others who saw and heard all this - so Cleophas reports.

But nothing about the women seeing Jesus.

This is stretching lapses of memory too far, never mind inventing excuses not in the Bible and even rewriting it to make it say what is wanted.

I'm an atheist and Bible critic, but I treat the Bible with more respect than that.

But there it is, and there is more - Mary in John hasn't seen Jesus until after the disciples rush to the tomb.
Luke refers to the eleven and attempts to make that generic are simply taking the public for idiots. The 12 was generic until another could be elected to fill it and Luke uses the eleven to say they were all there minus Judas, but including Thomas.

Demial aside - as the believer or Bible apologist has every right to make their case - the honest setting out for the honest person with an open mind must conclude, these stories were concocted in isola\tion, and that is why they contracict, not because they didn't know, or forgot about it or didn't think it important - they made up these stories whicvh are described in detail with reported discussion but which utterlu y contradict,

And - unlerss you dearly want to believe, and never mind the evidence - do not let these True believers peddle you a load of hogwash. Look for yourselves; compare the narratives. I don't tell you haw to think, I only tell you how to look and fact - check.

[Difflugia]

If he doesnt refer to the resurrection events (and merely testifies to his faith therein), then we are bumped back to the gospels for written eyewiteness report of events.

This is C&A. The Gospels aren't eyewitness reports, either. First Corinthians 9:1 is the closest we've got to an eyewitness report of Jesus in any capacity.

[AchillesHeel]

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

You cannot have the women "leave and tell the disciples" while at the same time "leave and tell no one." That is an explicit contradiction.

If you pull this "absolute" nonsense, you could literally use that excuse to get out of any apparent contradiction so nothing is contradictory anymore - an absurd conclusion. The overall point was to show Matthean priority (Mark's dependence on Matthew) doesn't make sense due to this. Rather, Markan priority makes more sense of the discrepancy due to Mark's unsatisfactory ending.

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

If Mark had knowledge of Matthew and Luke's ending but decided to end his narrative with what's in Mk. 16:8, that makes him quite dishonest. What rational reason can you give for this decision? Again, all this goes away once you admit it's more probable Matthew and Luke were expanding on Mark's disappointing cliffhanger

[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.

You cannot have the women "leave and tell the disciples" while at the same time "leave and tell no one." That is an explicit contradiction.

You are simply repeating your original claim. Repetition does not a counterargument make. I Will ignore this first statement for this reason.

...this "absolute" nonsense

• Are you suggesting the very notion of making statements that are true relatively do not exist? You believe such a notion is ficticious? Or ...

• Are you suggesting that normal everyday interaction always (or even predominently) involve statements that are to be taken literally in the absolute? If so, argue your case.

• Or do you acknowledge the existence and use of the various types of speech but are applying some "special pleading" to this text? If so , argue your case.

Please clarify the above

The overall point was to show Matthean priority (Mark's dependence on Matthew) doesn't make sense due to this.

You have yet to prove the "this" (a claim if an explicit contradiction). You presented a premise based on a faulty (linguisticaly weak/ arguably untenable) premise and have yet to address (provide evidence) that your premise should not be dismissed as supposition.




JW

[JehovahsWitness]

If Mark had knowledge of Matthew and Luke's ending but decided to end his narrative with what's in Mk. 16:8, that makes him quite dishonest. What rational reason can you give for this decision? Again, all this goes away once you admit it's more probable Matthew and Luke were expanding on Mark's disappointing cliffhanger

I am not a mind reader but then I hasard a guess, neither are you. We dont need to read the author's mind we just have to acknowledge the existence of editorial choices, which include the choice to omit information. Your posting seems to indicate you fail to do the above.

Once we admit the existence of the choice to omit, even if that choice can be argued to harm the narrative, then the dichotomy you present disappears.

The idea that the Judeo-christian movement, that was evidently already well established by the time the writer put pen to paper, was originally established without a risen Messiah demands more evidence than some a personal dislike of stylistic decision.

[JehovahsWitness]

Beginning with Paul (50s CE)

I'm struggling to understaand what your point is here:.

• Are you suggesting that the Christian movement did not exist until some 20 years after the death of its declared leader ?

• Or are you suggesting that the judeo-christians did exist but their tradition did not include a risen Messiah?

• Or is your point that Christians did believe in a risen Messiah but they didn't know why as they had no authoratative narratives testifying to this ?

In any case , short of pointing out that letters that are clearly not claiming to be a narrative of the events following of Jesus death... don't relate the events following Jesus death ... what is the point being made? WHAT began with Paul?!


RELATED POSTS

Can Pauls letters be considered the first testimony of the events following Jesus death ?
viewtopic.php?p=1154603#p1154603