Are the Resurrection Accounts Credible?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

The Resurrection of Jesus is often put forward as the proof of the legitimacy of Christianity. It is typically stated that there are multiple attestations of the event, thereby rendering it believable. It is the credibility of these several attestations that I intend to call into question. Please note that I am not rejecting ipso facto the idea of a dead body coming back to life. This was supposed to be a miracle, after all. Neither am I concerned with trivialities such as how many women went to the tomb. It is the credibility of the several accounts, and therefore the alleged fact of the resurrection, that I find lacking, for reasons other than simply the issue of a resurrection from the dead taking place.

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

The question for debate is therefore: Are the scriptural accounts of the resurrection of Jesus credible evidence that the resurrection took place?

Before I wade into this thread, what objective historical standard are you using to determine what constitutes credible historical evidence?

Without that standard, it seems to me, we are merely debating your personal reasons for thinking the accounts are not credible. When in fact, in relation to that standard, we may find the accounts should be considered credible (or not credible).

The Yale Law Journal presented these standards for an objective historian to meet. They were extracted from the proceedings of a trial involving a person who sued another person for publishing criticisms of the first person’s portrayal of history.

1) She must treat sources with appropriate reservations; (2) she must not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration: (3) she must be even-handed in her treatment of evidence and eschew “ cherry-picking� ; (4) she must clearly indicate any speculation; (5) she must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents; (6) she must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict her favored view; and (7) she must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/110-8/schneider.pdf

(1) She must treat sources with appropriate reservations

I could say that the only sources available concerning the resurrection are those offered by Christian churches who have a vested interest in the resurrection having happened and discount them on that basis. But I do not.

I could say that the stories involve a miracle and that the possibility of miracles needs to be established before the stories can be given any credence. But I do not.

I am willing to judge the stories on their own merits.

(2) she must not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration

I am not dismissing any counterevidence. I am examining all available evidence.

(3) she must be even-handed in her treatment of evidence and eschew “cherry-picking�

Did I leave out any evidence? Not that I know of.

(4) she must clearly indicate any speculation

The evidence I presented is straight out of scriptures. The conclusions are my opinions. I thought that was obvious.

(5) she must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents

I performed no translations myself. No controversies concerning the common translations as far as I know. Nothing was omitted. The scriptures I reference are widely available.

(6) she must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict her favored view

I am presuming the generally available scriptures are authentic representations of the originals.

(7) she must take the motives of historical actors into consideration

The motives of the characters in the several accounts is not really an issue. However, the motives of the authors are important.

Further, it seems to me your reasons for concluding the accounts are not credible if applied to other secular accounts would likewise render those secular accounts as not credible as well. For instance, your main argument, it seems to me, is from inconsistency between the accounts. You argue...

"They all disagree with each other in substantive ways that are mostly agenda driven."

Surely you are aware that ancient accounts are often inconsistent in the reporting of the secondary details of an event. Differences that can often be attributed to the agenda of the author. Are we to likewise render those accounts as not credible as well thereby demolishing most of ancient history?

These are not secondary details. I have no interest in trivial things like how many women went to the tomb or whether it was before dawn or light.

Matthew very plainly changes Mark’s story in a number of ways for a clear reason – that Mark’s story almost screams ‘grave robbery’. Changing a young man sitting in the already opened tomb into an angel ‘whose appearance was like lightning’ coming out of the sky and rolling back the stone is only one change Matthew makes to ‘fix’ mark.

Matthew focuses on Galilee throughout most of his account of the ministry of Jesus. Luke has Jesus focus on Jerusalem for most of that ministry. Galilee was a hotbed of revolution and the birthplace of the terrible Jewish War. Matthew has Jesus born King of the Jews worshipped by foreign dignitaries, Herod being the false Roman appointed King of the Jews. Luke has Jesus born in humble circumstances visited by humble shepherds. And while Jesus was being born, the Zealots were fomenting a revolt in Galilee over the new tax, while angels sang of peace to the shepherds, disassociating Jesus from the revolutionaries. Luke’s switching the post-resurrection scenes from Galilee to Jerusalem was plainly part of his overall agenda to subvert Matthew. (Luke does that in numerous other ways as well.) Notice that Jesus has disciples who were leaving turn around and go back to Jerusalem. And Jesus tells the disciples to stay in Jerusalem.

John 20 borrows Luke’s story of appearing in the midst of the Apostles in Jerusalem but doubles down on it in order to emphasis an important point – Jesus is not coming back any time soon. But keep the faith anyway. John 21 has that narrative about the disciples fishing in Galilee and running into Jesus. Odd story but it gives an excuse for knocking down the expectation of Jesus returning soon as found in the other Gospels.

It is not that the several accounts differ in detail. It is that that are clearly related – that is, not independent attestations – and they contradict each other in ways that are very plainly agenda related. Are there any secular narratives like that?

And all of this is supposed to provide ‘proof’ that the resurrection of Jesus really happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The scriptural accounts of the resurrection do not even qualify as ordinary evidence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 21 by Imprecise Interrupt]

The Yale Law Journal presented these standards for an objective historian to meet.

Out of curiosity, why are you looking to lawyers for what a historian should do or meet?

[JJ50]

Once a person is truly dead they don't come back to life again, including that chap Jesus, imo.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

[Replying to post 21 by Imprecise Interrupt]

The Yale Law Journal presented these standards for an objective historian to meet.

Out of curiosity, why are you looking to lawyers for what a historian should do or meet?

Do you have a problem with those standards? Do you have others you would like to share?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

Once a person is truly dead they don't come back to life again, including that chap Jesus, imo.

As I said in the OP, I am not ruling out the possibility of miracles, which would end the discussion at the beginning. The issue is whether the scriptural accounts provide credible evidence for the resurrection pf Jesus, even if miracles are allowed. I have been arguing that they do not.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

@rikuoamero

I find that actual evidence and logical argumentation stand a better chance of being taken seriously than snidely expressed ridicule. The latter is simply dismissed without consideration.

I do both. Most of my most recent response to you is logical argumentation, such as my point that Joseph of Arimathea wanders into the narrative precisely when the body of Jesus needs to get to a tomb (which wouldn't happen under Jewish high priest/Roman possession of it), so as to wander out of the tomb later and astonish the world at the power of God.

If he were inventing it all from whole cloth or even elaborating on a tradition, he would not have stopped as abruptly as he did with no one seeing the risen Jesus.

He very well could have. As a youth, I fancied myself a writer and took to writing stories. They all are unfinished. Perhaps the author of Gospel Mark was a struggling author?

I do not understand what you are referring to.

Off-hand, it may be when Jesus sends someone off to take some animals, saying that if the owner refuses, to say to him that Jesus needs them. I think these were the animals he performed carnival tricks on when he entered Jerusalem to fulfill the prophecy that the king would enter on two animals?

The Jewish high priests would have no legal claim over the body of a criminal executed by the Romans. But it is not impossible for a member of the Sanhedrin to suggest that because of the great crowds that welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem, it might not be a good idea for the body of Jesus to stay in plain sight. Best to bury it ASAP.

Mark, despite his less than terrific grasp of good Greek grammar and his penchant for sentence structure that works better in Aramaic than Greek, was rather clever and subtle in his construction. The ongoing imagery about garments signaling important points is one example. (Another Topic screaming to get out of my brain.) The Last Supper / Seder subtleties is another. This was not an amateur writer. An amateur would have built a story around Paul’s elaborate post-resurrection claim in 1 Corinthians. (Do not forget that Mark quotes from 1 Corinthians elsewhere.) Mark 16 sounds like another early tradition about Jesus of the kind he sprinkles throughout his Gospel. Keep in mind that Matthew, despite his elaborations on Mark’s narrative to make it less suspicious, still will not step outside the empty tomb meme. In none of the Gospels does anyone see Jesus come out of the tomb, no matter how many Easter cards suggest otherwise.

Matthew’s ‘two-animal’ entry into Jerusalem is an example of his obsession with scriptural justification. Mark already had Jesus enter on a colt (same word as for young donkey), Matthew has to dress this up with a specific scriptural quotation and to make it two because the quote uses poetic repetition. .Anyone could ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. But two of them? That is something special, And look! It says so in the scriptures! Must be a prophecy fulfillment.

Mark’s original version is not all that suggestive of prior complicity, simply that they knew who ‘the Lord’ was. Recall that there were mobs of people just ahead, waiting to welcome Jesus.

Mark 11
1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’� 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. 5 And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?� 6 And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go.

[Goose]

The Yale Law Journal presented these standards for an objective historian to meet.

Um, I think you may have misunderstood what I was asking you to provide. What you provided is fine as a criteria for ensuring the historian remains objective. And I will come back to it if I think there’s some reason to question your objectivity.

However, I didn’t ask for that. I asked for the objective historical standard you are using to determine what constitutes credible historical evidence.

Something along the lines of the standards proposed by various historians some of which can be found in this link to the Historical Method.

I’m happy to use any standard for determining the credibility of historical evidence proposed by a professional historian. If you see one in that link or have one you prefer I’m happy to use it. What I suggest we also do is run the evidence for another secular event, one which you think has credible evidence, through that same criteria as a type of bias control and way to establish an objective baseline. We may discover the evidence for the resurrection is at least as credible as the evidence for that other secular event. I suggest the evidence for the assassination of Julius Caesar as a control since it’s very well attested and a comparable event in terms of significance. But I’m open to suggestions of other events as well.

These are not secondary details.

Well actually they are. I’m surprised you think they are not. The core of the resurrection story is that Jesus died, rose, and appeared to his followers. Everything else is secondary detail to that core story. For example in regards to the appearances: where Jesus appeared, when he appeared, to whom he appeared specifically, and what he did or said during those appearances are all secondary details.

Every secondary detail could have been either embellished, invented, legendary development, reworked, or have simply been a mistake and the core of the story would remain. That Jesus died, rose, and appeared to his followers. And it’s that core story which is attested to across numerous sources – the letters of Paul, the Gospel narratives, the apostolic preaching recorded in the Book of Acts, and the letters of the early church fathers.

So let’s have a look at what you argue are not secondary details to the core of the resurrection story.

I have no interest in trivial things like how many women went to the tomb or whether it was before dawn or light.

Agreed. These would be secondary, and as you say, trivial details. You say here you have no interest in them. But, oddly, you then seem to go on to focus on them building much of your argument around them.

Matthew very plainly changes Mark’s story in a number of ways for a clear reason – that Mark’s story almost screams ‘grave robbery’. Changing a young man sitting in the already opened tomb into an angel ‘whose appearance was like lightning’ coming out of the sky and rolling back the stone is only one change Matthew makes to ‘fix’ mark.

This seems like a trivial detail though. It certainly has no bearing on the core of the resurrection story.

Further, your assumption here seems to be that Mark did not intend to portray the young man as a type of heavenly messenger. If that is an underlying assumption it is problematic. Mark doesn’t merely say it was a young man at the tomb. He says more than that.

�Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.� - Mark 16:5

White clothing was a signaling of heavenly beings and the supernatural. Compare Jesus’ clothing being made white at his transfiguration in Mark (9:2-3). The two messengers who appear at Jesus’ ascension are dressed in white clothing (Acts 1:10). Heavenly armies are clothed in white linen (Rev 19:14). The Ancient of Days wears a white garment (Daniel 7:9). Couple the signaling of white clothing with the amazement at the sight of the young man and we have good reason to think Mark was implying the young man at the tomb was some kind of an angelic messenger. If Mark did imply the young man was an angelic messenger it can’t be rightly argued that Matthew has “changed� the young man into an angel since he already was understood to be an angel.

Matthew focuses on Galilee throughout most of his account of the ministry of Jesus. Luke has Jesus focus on Jerusalem for most of that ministry. Galilee was a hotbed of revolution and the birthplace of the terrible Jewish War. Matthew has Jesus born King of the Jews worshipped by foreign dignitaries, Herod being the false Roman appointed King of the Jews. Luke has Jesus born in humble circumstances visited by humble shepherds. And while Jesus was being born, the Zealots were fomenting a revolt in Galilee over the new tax, while angels sang of peace to the shepherds, disassociating Jesus from the revolutionaries.

Interesting spin, but ultimately Jesus’ ministry location and his birth narrative are irrelevant to the core of the resurrection story.

Luke’s switching the post-resurrection scenes from Galilee to Jerusalem was plainly part of his overall agenda to subvert Matthew. (Luke does that in numerous other ways as well.) Notice that Jesus has disciples who were leaving turn around and go back to Jerusalem. And Jesus tells the disciples to stay in Jerusalem.

Another trivial detail – location of the appearances. But since you made the argument go ahead and provide support for this argument that Luke switched the post-resurrection scenes from Galilee to Jerusalem.

It seems to me this is simply Luke choosing to focus his account on appearances around Jerusalem. Why must this be a conspiracy on Luke’s part to “subvert Matthew�? At any rate, I think the simple fact Luke agrees with Matthew on numerous points safely rules out the conspiracy argument that Luke was trying to subvert Matthew.

John 20 borrows Luke’s story of appearing in the midst of the Apostles in Jerusalem but doubles down on it in order to emphasis an important point – Jesus is not coming back any time soon. But keep the faith anyway.

Walk me through this one with some supporting evidence. Where are you getting this idea “John 20 borrows Luke’s story of appearing in the midst of the Apostles in Jerusalem�? John is widely considered to be an independent literary work. And this particular account in John betrays no discernible signs of direct borrowing from Luke. There are some similarities in the core of the story to be sure. But there are also significant differences. Enough difference to rule out direct borrowing. So, borrowing here? I don’t see how you can make that argument with any strength.

John 21 has that narrative about the disciples fishing in Galilee and running into Jesus. Odd story but it gives an excuse for knocking down the expectation of Jesus returning soon as found in the other Gospels.

I don’t follow you here. How does this account give that excuse?

It is not that the several accounts differ in detail. It is that that are clearly related – that is, not independent attestations – and they contradict each other in ways that are very plainly agenda related.

Your “contradictions� aren’t really contradictions in the strict sense. They are better described as discrepancies in the secondary details. And that’s to be expected between different accounts. We expect the core of the story to be consistent but the details to differ. If the details don’t differ and the verbiage is too similar, we tend to think there was collusion. That’s what allows us to argue Matthew and Luke are dependent on and use Mark at points. The verbiage at these points is verbatim for lengthy passages that can’t reasonably be explained as easily recallable pithy statements.

Even granting that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark we still have literarily independent attestations to the resurrection from sources such as Paul letters, and the Gospels of Mark and John. And I will note you have said little, if anything meaningful at all, about the evidence from Peter and the early church fathers.

Lastly, I have no problem acknowledging that some of those discrepancies are agenda driven. As Overcomer has already rightly argued each author had an intended audience so it comes as no surprise that, for example, Matthew might rework details, add things, or omit things in order to appeal to the sensitivities of his Jewish readers.

Are there any secular narratives like that?

Almost all of them. Take any event from the ancient world where there is more than one narrative account and you’ll find disagreements between them in the secondary details. Some of those disagreements will be significant. Some of them could be argued are agenda driven. That’s just how ancient authors wrote. They wrote with agendas. So you are forcing us into an absurd position of rejecting most historical evidence as not credible if we accept your reasoning as valid.

Plutarch gives us some insight into the agenda driven methodology of ancient writers.

• â€�It is the life of Alexander the king, and of Caesar, who overthrew Pompey, that I am writing in this book, and the multitude of the deeds to be treated is so great that I shall make no other preface than to entreat my readers, in case I do not tell of all the famous actions of these men, nor even speak exhaustively at all in each particular case, but in epitome for the most part, not to complain. For it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, nay, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles when thousands fall, or the greatest armaments, or sieges of cities. Accordingly, just as painters get the likenesses in their portraits from the face and the expression of the eyes, wherein the character shows itself, but make very little account of the other parts of the body, so I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul in men, and by means of these to portray the life of each, leaving to others the description of their great contests.â€� – Plutarch, Life of Alexander

[Imprecise Interrupt]

I recall that Morisson started out stating that he did not originally believe in the resurrection and discusses that for a bit. Is that what you mean?

No. I have a copy of his book and when I read it I had the impression that events he discusses were all explainable without miracles. The naked young man in Mark and the young man in the tomb are compared, and may well have been the same person, which takes us away from miracles. But the conclusion is pro-resurrection. He concludes this, as you say, by postulating objections and arguing the case against each. He seems to think his list covers all eventualities, when it doesn't. I am not at all impressed by his treatise.[/quite]

Ditto

Jesus had contacts that the apostles seemed not to know, for he gave them instructions to go to various sources, which suggests pre-arrangement.

I do not understand what you are referring to. Is this something mentioned in Morisson’s book? If it is scripture, can you tell me where?

It's my own observation from Scripture. Matthew 21:2 "Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me."

Luke 22:10-14 10 He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11and say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 12He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there."

This tells us there is some background arrangement, not done with the disciples. It suggests Jesus had other people involved in whatever his plan was. Presumably this planning extended to his trial and to the arrangements for his sepulchre.

As I just commented in another post, getting the animal(s) before entering Jerusalem does not really suggest any pre-arrangement when you look at Mark’s original. I will repeast it here.

Mark’s original version is not all that suggestive of prior complicity, simply that they knew who ‘the Lord’ was. Recall that there were mobs of people just ahead, waiting to welcome Jesus.

Mark 11
1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’� 4 And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. 5 And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?� 6 And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go.

Meeting someone in Jerusalem who shows them where to prepare the Passover obviously is prearranged. However, one should be careful with anything related to the Passover Seder narrative. The utter improbability of the Sanhedrin having planned a trial on the first night of Passover combined with Mark’s use of Diaspora Seder customs points to this section being invention.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 1 by Imprecise Interrupt]

I certainly do not find the resurrection accounts credible. Sure there are inconsistencies in the story, some very minor, some not so minor, but it is the claim that someone was dead for a couple of days and then came back to life good as new is what makes it not credible. That lack of credibility is compounded by an account in Matthew that expects us to believe that at the time of the crucifixion graves opened up and the dead rose and wandered through the town, an event witnessed by many it said.
I find it strange that Matthew is the only account of such an event. You would think that such a mind-blowing event would have been documented by plenty of other people, but no, nothing.

The accounts of a man called Jesus being tried, tortured and finally crucified by the Romans are credible up to that point. All accounts post-crucifixion go sharply downhill in the credibility stakes.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

[Replying to post 1 by Imprecise Interrupt]

I certainly do not find the resurrection accounts credible. Sure there are inconsistencies in the story, some very minor, some not so minor, but it is the claim that someone was dead for a couple of days and then came back to life good as new is what makes it not credible. That lack of credibility is compounded by an account in Matthew that expects us to believe that at the time of the crucifixion graves opened up and the dead rose and wandered through the town, an event witnessed by many it said.
I find it strange that Matthew is the only account of such an event. You would think that such a mind-blowing event would have been documented by plenty of other people, but no, nothing.

The accounts of a man called Jesus being tried, tortured and finally crucified by the Romans are credible up to that point. All accounts post-crucifixion go sharply downhill in the credibility stakes.

My point was that even if one allows the possibility of a miraculous resurrection, the several accounts are not merely unconvincing, they are either very suspicious (Mark, the one with the best claim of being original) or sound very much like agenda-driven inventions unique to each author. In the case of the Gospels, the resurrections stories clearly derive in a straight line leading back to Mark.

Matthew’s passage about the events accompanying the death of Jesus is rather interesting.

Matthew 27
51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!�

Compare to Mark.

Mark 15
37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!�

Mark gives no credible reason for the centurion to say that. He would not have been able to see the Temple curtain get torn. Matthew dresses that up with elaborate events, just as he dresses up the resurrection narrative, to fix up the defects in Mark.

Matthew’s version is so much more dramatic. But it is the saints being raised from the dead that is a problem. “The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.� Jesus is supposed to be the ‘firstfruits’ as Paul puts it. Can’t have other people coming out of their tombs before Jesus. So even though the tombs are opened at the time of the crucifixion, they stay in their tombs until after Jesus comes out of his.

Another oddity in Matthew like the two-animal entry into Jerusalem. But as with the two animals, it is intended as a prophecy fulfilment.

Ezekiel 37
12 …Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves,

Notice the separation between opening the graves and the residents being raised. Again Matthew can say: See! Exactly like the scriptures said!