resurrection

[rosey]

I have never really given much thought if any unto the resurrection until recently... so I was wondering, what is the prevailing theory against the resurrection today from modern Atheists? Thanks.

(I realize that this might get put in random ramblings or something for lack of a clear debate topic, but it just wasn't getting a lot of traffic in the A room. So if the moderators could leave it up for like 24 hours (assuming it's against the rules to post this in here), that would be great.)

P.S. Haven, that was a great post.

[pax]

I can list several of the views I have seen from other atheists.

You left out

• Stories of his resurrection were greatly exaggerated. They did not surface until decades after his death and the earliest stories were more about visions of him in heaven. The bit about a physical resurrection came later

The first written reference to the resurrection of Jesus is most likely in 1 Thessalonians. This “likely the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of AD 52, making it, so far as is now known, the first written book in the New Testament." (Ref)

Near the beginning Paul says:

1 Thessalonians 1
7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

The idea of a resurrected Jesus and the identification of Jesus as some kind of savior is already “out in the world� by 52 CE.

In 1 Corinthians, written sometime between 53 and 57 CE (Ref), Paul mentions witnesses to the resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The Gospel of Mark, which “most contemporary scholars now regard… as the earliest of the canonical gospels� and was “written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70� (Ref) contains the earliest resurrection narrative. But in its original form it mentioned no eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus except a stranger sitting in the tomb. Ref Mark appears to be based on much older traditions. “Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.� (Ref)

Later Gospels do tell of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus (not many and all believers) but disagree on numerous details: who saw what and when, and very importantly whether or not that all went to Galilee or stayed around Jerusalem. They sound more like authorial elaborations than factual accounts.

The absence of eyewitnesses in what seems to be the oldest tradition (Mark) and the greatly varying descriptions of who saw what in other sources cast grave doubts on their having been any such eyewitnesses in reality. However the oldest tradition (again Mark) and all of the other Gospel narratives do agree on one point. The tomb was empty on Sunday morning and a stranger(s) said that Jesus rose from the dead. The tradition of the resurrection seems to appear very early in proto-Christianity. Put Mark’s ‘empty tomb, end of story’ in that context and it sounds like the empty tomb part could be real and the rest invented. This would then explain the diversity of opinions about physical versus spiritual resurrection. It depended on how the individual author wanted to present it and/or the folklore they are incorporating.

Here is the problem.

We have testimony from the early 2nd century, Papias, that Matthew's Gospel was originally written "in the language of the Hebrews" and was the first Gospel written. Now, I know them modern(ist) Biblical scholars are working hard, working real hard, but the testimony of somebody from the early 2nd century trumps whatever they think they know through their textual criticisms.

Also, we do not have the original hagiographs. Ergo, we cannot know for absolute certainty that the Bible we hold today is identical to the Bible as written. We can be really close to certain, but we cannot be absolutely certain.

Now, Mark has 4 different endings which have come down to us from antiquity. Which one did Mark actually write (at the dictation of Peter)? Again, we must turn to the witness of the early Church. The long version is the correct version.

What does that do? It throws out the window the theory that because Mark is the shorter Gospel it is the first Gospel. We got shorter versions as time went on, not longer versions.

Anyways, I just thought I would throw that in there in case anybody is inclined to take modern(ist) Biblical scholarship as Gospel truth.

ETA: Why is the earliest date possible for a Gospel A.D. 70? Because that was the year the Temple was destroyed by Titus, and Jesus prophesied the dest4ruction of the Temple is some detail, and we all know that Prophets only prophesy after the fact

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

We have testimony from the early 2nd century, Papias, that Matthew's Gospel was originally written "in the language of the Hebrews" and was the first Gospel written. Now, I know them modern(ist) Biblical scholars are working hard, working real hard, but the testimony of somebody from the early 2nd century trumps whatever they think they know through their textual criticisms.

This is an example of the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition. Unfounded claims from a really long time ago to not automatically trump actual research into the texts.

[Student]

Also, we do not have the original hagiographs. Ergo, we cannot know for absolute certainty that the Bible we hold today is identical to the Bible as written. We can be really close to certain, but we cannot be absolutely certain.

Of one thing we can be certain, even if we possessed the ‘original’ hagiographs it would have no bearing on what we know of the contents of the New Testament. Why would biographies of the saints and ecclesiastical leaders i.e. the holy ones, have any bearing on the contents of the NT.

On the other hand, if we had the autographs, that would be a different matter.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We have testimony from the early 2nd century, Papias, that Matthew's Gospel was originally written "in the language of the Hebrews" and was the first Gospel written. Now, I know them modern(ist) Biblical scholars are working hard, working real hard, but the testimony of somebody from the early 2nd century trumps whatever they think they know through their textual criticisms.

This is absolutely correct. Papias indicated in the second century that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew for the Jews. "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekto-i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (he-rme-neusen—or "translated") them as best he could." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Writing in the early second century, Papias of Hierapolis recorded in his Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord that the Apostle Matthew "compiled the logia in the "Hebrew language", and each interpreted them as best he could." According to this account, Matthew's gospel was first written in the "Hebrew language" (which at the time was the closely related Aramaic; see also Aramaic of Jesus) and subsequently translated into Koine Greek. Irenaeus noted that this translation occurred at the same time as Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-Christian_gospels

The early Catholic church concluded that this occurred during the sixties, making Gospel Matthew the first gospel to be written, and Matthew has traditionally been the first book of the NT ever since. The problem is, the Gospel that has come down to us as Matthew was written in pure Koine Greek not Hebrew, and is in fact largely the Gospel of Mark which is contained in the Gospel of Matthew almost in it's entirety. The Gospel of Mark was also written in pure Koine Greek, as were both Gospels Luke and John. NONE OF THESE GOSPELS SHOW SIGNS OF TRANSLATION. The Koine Greek that they are written in is pure. It's also clear to scholars today that the gospel credited to Matthew in modern Bibles was written AFTER Gospel Mark, since Mark is in fact the foundation of Matthew. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and clearly was written third. For this reason these three Gospels are known as the synoptic gospels. The Gospel credited to Matthew in modern copies of the NT IS NOT therefore the gospel mentioned by Papias as written by the apostle Matthew. That work is widely considered to be the document known historically as The Gospel of the Hebrews, of which no examples exist today.

"The Gospel According to Matthew, (kata Matthaion euangelion, to euangelion kata Matthaion) (Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew) is one of the four canonical gospels, one of the three synoptic gospels, and the first book of the New Testament. It tells of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The version in use today was written in Koine Greek."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"The Gospel of the Hebrews, commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or simply called the Hebrew Gospel, is a hypothesised lost gospel, or lost version of Matthew's gospel, preserved in seven or more fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

[pax]

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

It was Matthew. He wrote one in Greek as well.

I do not think the nonsense you are tired of is coming from Christians.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It was Matthew. He wrote one in Greek as well.

If so he did it in secret. Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Eusebius all indicated that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, but mentioned nothing about a version written by the apostle in Greek. And why would the apostle Matthew, an undeniable eyewitness to all the events, base his own gospel almost entirely on the writings of Mark, who was not an eyewitness to anything? In truth there is nothing to connect the gospel which is contained in the NT to the apostle, other than twenty centuries of assumption by Christians.

[Goat]

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

It was Matthew. He wrote one in Greek as well.

I do not think the nonsense you are tired of is coming from Christians.

Actually, you are totally incorrect. It is the Christian biblical scholars who determined that the Gospel of Matthew that is in the bible was written in Greek. .. not translated, but written in.

[ThatGirlAgain]

We have testimony from the early 2nd century, Papias, that Matthew's Gospel was originally written "in the language of the Hebrews" and was the first Gospel written. Now, I know them modern(ist) Biblical scholars are working hard, working real hard, but the testimony of somebody from the early 2nd century trumps whatever they think they know through their textual criticisms.

This is absolutely correct. Papias indicated in the second century that the apostle Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew for the Jews. "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekto-i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (he-rme-neusen—or "translated") them as best he could." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"Writing in the early second century, Papias of Hierapolis recorded in his Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord that the Apostle Matthew "compiled the logia in the "Hebrew language", and each interpreted them as best he could." According to this account, Matthew's gospel was first written in the "Hebrew language" (which at the time was the closely related Aramaic; see also Aramaic of Jesus) and subsequently translated into Koine Greek. Irenaeus noted that this translation occurred at the same time as Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-Christian_gospels

The early Catholic church concluded that this occurred during the sixties, making Gospel Matthew the first gospel to be written, and Matthew has traditionally been the first book of the NT ever since. The problem is, the Gospel that has come down to us as Matthew was written in pure Koine Greek not Hebrew, and is in fact largely the Gospel of Mark which is contained in the Gospel of Matthew almost in it's entirety. The Gospel of Mark was also written in pure Koine Greek, as were both Gospels Luke and John. NONE OF THESE GOSPELS SHOW SIGNS OF TRANSLATION. The Koine Greek that they are written in is pure. It's also clear to scholars today that the gospel credited to Matthew in modern Bibles was written AFTER Gospel Mark, since Mark is in fact the foundation of Matthew. Gospel Luke contains elements of both Gospels Mark and Matthew, and clearly was written third. For this reason these three Gospels are known as the synoptic gospels. The Gospel credited to Matthew in modern copies of the NT IS NOT therefore the gospel mentioned by Papias as written by the apostle Matthew. That work is widely considered to be the document known historically as The Gospel of the Hebrews, of which no examples exist today.

"The Gospel According to Matthew, (kata Matthaion euangelion, to euangelion kata Matthaion) (Gospel of Matthew or simply Matthew) is one of the four canonical gospels, one of the three synoptic gospels, and the first book of the New Testament. It tells of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The version in use today was written in Koine Greek."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

"The Gospel of the Hebrews, commonly shortened from the Gospel according to the Hebrews or simply called the Hebrew Gospel, is a hypothesised lost gospel, or lost version of Matthew's gospel, preserved in seven or more fragments within the writings of the Church Fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

Your partial quote from Wikipedia cut off important information.

The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialekt�i—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could." On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation." Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialekt�i Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

It is not certain which document Papias may have been referring to, if he was in fact referring to one.

One document that survives only in quotes and descriptions is the Gospel of the Nazarenes. If this is what Papias meant, there is trouble brewing. It was definitely written in Aramaic and apparently mostly parallels the Greek Matthew. But most supernatural references are omitted including the first two chapters of Matthew. No Holy Spirit visit leading to a virgin birth, for example. This also means that Matthew’s meme of Jesus being the new Moses loses most of its content. It starts instead with John the Baptist doing his thing and Jesus saying that he does not want to be baptized by John.

It appears that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is even more Jewish in its orientation than Matthew. Jewish sects of Christianity generally made Jesus out to be no more than a very holy man. This would be a good reason for leaving out the divine aspects of Jesus, like him being a literal Son of God (the omitted Nativity sequence) and even Jesus becoming an adopted Son of God during the Baptism sequence. If this is in fact the original Matthew and if Matthew is indeed the first Gospel, then much of what we call Christianity was later invention.

We should note that Origen, also writing in the 2nd century, did not think that much of Nazarenes. In his Commentary on Matthew when discussing what commandments Jesus meant in the parable of the rich man, he mentions that Nazarenes has Jesus say �the law and the prophets�, that is, the entirety of Jewish Law. But in introducing Nazarenes, Origen says “if in any event anyone is inclined to accept it, not as an authority, but to shed some light on the question we have posed�.

Another document that Papias might have been referring to is the Gospel of the Hebrews. This was apparently a more complete parallel of Matthew (including what seems to be a rather elaborate Baptism scene that differs from Matthew’s), although even less of it survives than of Nazarenes. However the consensus is that it was written in Greek. Also it has an apparent Gnostic orientation. And again Origen has his doubts: “If anyone accepts the Gospel According to the Hebrews…�.

Ref
Ref

To summarize: It is not clear that Papias really meant that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. If he did mean to imply that, he may have been referring to a document that does not really fit the requirements. The testimony of Papias in this regard is far from conclusive.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It appears that the Gospel of the Nazarenes is even more Jewish in its orientation than Matthew. Jewish sects of Christianity generally made Jesus out to be no more than a very holy man. This would be a good reason for leaving out the divine aspects of Jesus, like him being a literal Son of God (the omitted Nativity sequence) and even Jesus becoming an adopted Son of God during the Baptism sequence. If this is in fact the original Matthew and if Matthew is indeed the first Gospel, then much of what we call Christianity was later invention.

Another document that Papias might have been referring to is the Gospel of the Hebrews. This was apparently a more complete parallel of Matthew (including what seems to be a rather elaborate Baptism scene that differs from Matthew’s), although even less of it survives than of Nazarenes. However the consensus is that it was written in Greek.

Neither of these are the Gospel of Matthew as contained in the NT though, are they? We don't actually know who wrote the NT Matthew. Which was my point.

[pax]

So who wrote the Gospel According to Matthew contained in your Bible? NO ONE KNOWS?

It was Matthew. He wrote one in Greek as well.

I do not think the nonsense you are tired of is coming from Christians.

It is the Christian biblical scholars who determined that the Gospel of Matthew that is in the bible was written in Greek. .. not translated, but written in.

Which is exactly what I said.

Do you actually read what I post?

Just checking.