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.

[SiNcE_1985]

That's not the Synoptic Problem. It's obvious that the Synoptics share some form of literary dependence. The Synoptic Problem lay in determining the form and direction of that dependence.

That, and to explain the similarities and differences.

It is all in the same ballpark.

They're different. Whether or not they're "too different" is mostly meaningful to dogmatic inerrantists. The relevant question to scholars is who made specific changes and why.

A change can be made for the better, or for the worse.

What matters is that, when all the smoke clears and the dust settles, are the accounts actually true.

That's what matters.

Unbelievers who won't believe regardless of how/what was written should just simply stay out of this, because it does not concern them.

[benchwarmer]

Unbelievers who won't believe regardless of how/what was written should just simply stay out of this, because it does not concern them.

Readers, note how our interlocutor wants those of us presenting facts and counter arguments that undermine a preferred faith position to go away.

That should tell everyone something.

When I see my interlocutor making bad arguments and/or attacking me instead of the evidence I absolutely want them to stay and keep pushing those bad arguments. It only helps me drive home to readers what's happening.

Basically, what our interlocutor wants here is to let the choir preach to the choir in peace and not be bothered by anything inconvenient. I suggest that those who want to debate like that move to Holy Huddle, but honestly I prefer they stay here and keep revealing their cards for everyone to see.

[Difflugia]

That's not the Synoptic Problem. It's obvious that the Synoptics share some form of literary dependence. The Synoptic Problem lay in determining the form and direction of that dependence.

That, and to explain the similarities and differences.

It is all in the same ballpark.

If you're interested in a scholarly treatment of the Synoptic Problem, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is free online at archive.org with the blessing of the author and publisher. Mark Goodacre argues that Luke had both Mark and Matthew, thus dispenses with Q.

What matters is that, when all the smoke clears and the dust settles, are the accounts actually true.

That's what matters.

If that's all that matters, then it's easy: the accounts can't be true together. As an infant, Jesus can't both have traveled to Egypt and Jerusalem. Judas can't have died both to suicidal hanging and having his guts explode.

If, on the other hand, the exercise is to make it true anyway, then it's kind of like a crossword puzzle where some of the intersections don't work with a single letter. "Stoat" and "berth" look to the rest of the world like the two answers, but maybe you can convince yourself that there's a small mammal called a "stort" or that some sailors sleep in a "beath."

Unbelievers who won't believe regardless of how/what was written should just simply stay out of this, because it does not concern them.

I like conspiracy theories, too, even though I'm not concerned that the chemtrails might get me. I might argue that my lack of belief makes me more qualified to discuss them, rather than less.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you're interested in a scholarly treatment of the Synoptic Problem, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze is free online at archive.org with the blessing of the author and publisher. Mark Goodacre argues that Luke had both Mark and Matthew, thus dispenses with Q.

Okey dokey.

If that's all that matters, then it's easy: the accounts can't be true together.

Opinions.

As an infant, Jesus can't both have traveled to Egypt and Jerusalem.

What was stopping him? Your disbelief that he did?

Judas can't have died both to suicidal hanging and having his guts explode.

A discomposing corpse that is hanging and becomes overweight and bloating with gases can certainly fall and guts explode.

If, on the other hand, the exercise is to make it true anyway, then it's kind of like a crossword puzzle where some of the intersections don't work with a single letter. "Stoat" and "berth" look to the rest of the world like the two answers, but maybe you can convince yourself that there's a small mammal called a "stort" or that some sailors sleep in a "beath."

Sounds like copyist error stuff..and within context, even a 12-year old will know what the word was supposed to be.

I like conspiracy theories, too, even though I'm not concerned that the chemtrails might get me. I might argue that my lack of belief makes me more qualified to discuss them, rather than less.

Mind if I PM you?

[Difflugia]

If that's all that matters, then it's easy: the accounts can't be true together.

Opinions.

Only if one stretches the word "opinions" to mean everything that we know. The Gospels contradict, even in the inerrantist logic puzzle kind of way.

As an infant, Jesus can't both have traveled to Egypt and Jerusalem.

What was stopping him? Your disbelief that he did?

The timing in the narratives is specific enough that the details can't all be fit together. If they go to both Jerusalem and Egypt, the Jerusalem trip must be before the trip to Egypt because after Herod died, they didn't enter Judea. The only time that isn't accounted for in Luke's narrative and could accommodate the Egypt trip is during Mary's purification time. That would put the Egypt trip before the Jerusalem trip, though, and the Jerusalem trip can't happen afterward. They contradict.

Judas can't have died both to suicidal hanging and having his guts explode.

A discomposing corpse that is hanging and becomes overweight and bloating with gases can certainly fall and guts explode.

Those are usually the details that inerrantists focus on, but there are more irreconcilable details than that. Aside from the theologies of the stories being irreconcilable (remorseful suicide vs. the smiting by a vengeful god), there are at least two details that are irreconcilable by even inerrantist logic puzzle rules:

• The harmonization of what happened to the money and who bought the field doesn't work in Greek. The word ἐκτήσατο, "acquired," aorist middle voice of κτάομαι, was never used to mean that somebody else acquired something for the subject. According to Acts 18, Judas acquired the estate (not just a field) himself.
• There are contradictory reasons for why the Field of Blood is called the Field of Blood (place to bury strangers, Judas' guts exploded in a bloody mess) and both Matthew and Acts call it "the reason."

Here's a link to a lexicon entry for κτάομαι at archive.org.

Here's what "middle voice" means in Greek:

Sounds like copyist error stuff..and within context, even a 12-year old will know what the word was supposed to be.

Which details of the infancy narratives and deaths of Judas are copyist errors that a 12-year-old could spot?

I like conspiracy theories, too, even though I'm not concerned that the chemtrails might get me. I might argue that my lack of belief makes me more qualified to discuss them, rather than less.

Mind if I PM you?

If you need to, go ahead.

[SiNcE_1985]

Only if one stretches the word "opinions" to mean everything that we know. The Gospels contradict, even in the inerrantist logic puzzle kind of way.

I need specifics, not generalities.

The timing in the narratives is specific enough that the details can't all be fit together. If they go to both Jerusalem and Egypt, the Jerusalem trip must be before the trip to Egypt because after Herod died, they didn't enter Judea. The only time that isn't accounted for in Luke's narrative and could accommodate the Egypt trip is during Mary's purification time. That would put the Egypt trip before the Jerusalem trip, though, and the Jerusalem trip can't happen afterward. They contradict.

Not so fast.

Agreed, the timing is specific enough to whereas, if we use our brains, we can understand that..

1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and within 8 days, Jesus and his parents were in Jerusalem for Jesus' circumcision and presentation at the Temple, and remained in Jerusalem between 1-33 days (assuming for the purification of Mary's childbirth uncleanliness). Then they returned to Galilee/Nazareth.

This is all according to Luke 2:22-24, 39

2. At some point, after (however long) of a stint in Nazareth, the family traveled back to Bethlehem, which is where Mark 2 picks up the story. Then they are visited by the Magi, warned of impending dangers, then off to Egypt they go.

Next..

Those are usually the details that inerrantists focus on, but there are more irreconcilable details than that. Aside from the theologies of the stories being irreconcilable (remorseful suicide vs. the smiting by a vengeful god), there are at least two details that are irreconcilable by even inerrantist logic puzzle rules:

• The harmonization of what happened to the money and who bought the field doesn't work in Greek. The word ἐκτήσατο, "acquired," aorist middle voice of κτάομαι, was never used to mean that somebody else acquired something for the subject. According to Acts 18, Judas acquired the estate (not just a field) himself.
• There are contradictory reasons for why the Field of Blood is called the Field of Blood (place to bury strangers, Judas' guts exploded in a bloody mess) and both Matthew and Acts call it "the reason."

Here's a link to a lexicon entry for κτάομαι at archive.org.

Here's what "middle voice" means in Greek:

I don't get it.

Which details of the infancy narratives and deaths of Judas are copyist errors that a 12-year-old could spot? [/quot

Whichever one I was responding to when I said it.

I'm saying this respectfully, not meant to be brash.

If you need to, go ahead.

I shall.

[Difflugia]

I need specifics, not generalities.

And a double-standard, apparently.

Not so fast.

OK. I can slow down.

1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and within 8 days, Jesus and his parents were in Jerusalem for Jesus' circumcision and presentation at the Temple, and remained in Jerusalem between 1-33 days (assuming for the purification of Mary's childbirth uncleanliness).

They went to Jerusalem after the eight days and the purification, not before (Luke 2:22).

Then they returned to Galilee/Nazareth.

Their hometown, where Jesus grew up (Luke 2:39-40). Yes.

This is all according to Luke 2:22-24, 39

2. At some point, after (however long) of a stint in Nazareth, the family traveled back to Bethlehem, which is where [Matthew] 2 picks up the story.

This trip didn't happen. Not only isn't it mentioned, but if Matthew 2 began after Luke 2:39, then a bunch of Matthew 2 becomes nonsense. According to Matthew 2:1, the Magi part of the story takes place in Bethlehem because that's where Jesus had just been born. If they returned to live in Nazareth first, then Matthew 2:1-8 is wrong.

Then they are visited by the Magi, warned of impending dangers, then off to Egypt they go.

After which, they "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23). This isn't strictly a contradiction in the logic puzzle sense, but this is Luke introducing the city, as though for the first time. If they had already been dwelling in Nazareth, then that verse makes no sense. It already kind of doesn't, but one could argue that it applies to Jesus, who having been born in Bethlehem, hadn't yet been to Nazareth. If the Jesus-laden family had already been back-and-forth, though, then it's nonsense.

Next..

Your apparent confidence is adorable.

I don't get it.

"Next!"

Just kidding.

English has two verbal voices, active and passive. "The child sees" is in the active voice, because the subject, "the child," is performing the action. "The child is seen" is in the passive voice, because the subject is being acted upon by another.

In addition to active and passive, Classical Greek has a middle voice. Middle voice is when the subject is both acting and being acted upon. Here are a couple of illustrative examples:

The first example is Luke 12:37:

Blessed are those servants that the lord finds awake when he comes. I tell you truly that he will dress himself, have them sit, and will come and serve them.

The verb dress in that verse is in the middle voice, indicating that he is dressing himself. In fact, "himself" isn't a separate word, but is implied by the verb in the middle voice, giving the verb a strictly reflexive form. "He dressed himself," "he showered himself," and "he drove himself" would all be expressed in the middle voice.

The second is Matthew 15:2:

Why do your disciples violate the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands when they eat bread.

Wash is in the middle voice. There's an explicit direct object ("your hands") and therefore it's not reflexive (i.e. "wash yourself"), but in Classical Greek, middle voice is often used when the subject is otherwise intimately involved in the action.

This second form is what we see in Acts 1:18.

Now, this man obtained property with the reward of his iniquity

The verb obtained is in the middle voice, indicating that Judas performed the acquisition himself. The standard apologetic argument, that the property Judas acquired in Acts 1:18 is actually the field that the the priests bought in Matthew 27:7, isn't allowed by the Greek of Acts.

Which details of the infancy narratives and deaths of Judas are copyist errors that a 12-year-old could spot?

Whichever one I was responding to when I said it.

I need specifics, not generalities.

[SiNcE_1985]

They went to Jerusalem after the eight days and the purification, not before (Luke 2:22).

Yup, that is correct. My bad.

This trip didn't happen. Not only isn't it mentioned, but if Matthew 2 began after Luke 2:39, then a bunch of Matthew 2 becomes nonsense. According to Matthew 2:1, the Magi part of the story takes place in Bethlehem because that's where Jesus had just been born. If they returned to live in Nazareth first, then Matthew 2:1-8 is wrong.

Not so fast.

The text doesn't say how long they lived in Nazareth on their second return..and the fact that King Herod sought to kill all male children in Bethlehem who were ages two and younger (Matt 2:16), goes to show that a considerable amount of time may have passed since the family had moved back to Nazareth and the trip back to Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem for the Matt 2 events.

After which, they "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matthew 2:23). This isn't strictly a contradiction in the logic puzzle sense, but this is Luke introducing the city, as though for the first time. If they had already been dwelling in Nazareth, then that verse makes no sense. It already kind of doesn't, but one could argue that it applies to Jesus, who having been born in Bethlehem, hadn't yet been to Nazareth. If the Jesus-laden family had already been back-and-forth, though, then it's nonsense.

There were at least 3 mentions of Nazareth in these contexts.

1. Joseph and Mary traveled from Nazareth, to Joseph's hometown in Bethlehem for registration (Luke).

2. After Jesus' presentation at the temple in Jerusalem (and Mary's purification), the family returned to Nazareth (Luke).

3. The family returned to Nazareth after they were told to leave Egypt and return to the land of Israel (Matt).

The command to return to the "land of Israel" wasn't specific, which suggests they were given leeway to go wherever they wanted in the land, and of course they chose Nazareth because they had apparent ties there.

There is no contradiction here, is what I am trying to say.

Just kidding.

English has two verbal voices, active and passive. "The child sees" is in the active voice, because the subject, "the child," is performing the action. "The child is seen" is in the passive voice, because the subject is being acted upon by another.

In addition to active and passive, Classical Greek has a middle voice. Middle voice is when the subject is both acting and being acted upon. Here are a couple of illustrative examples:

The first example is Luke 12:37:

Blessed are those servants that the lord finds awake when he comes. I tell you truly that he will dress himself, have them sit, and will come and serve them.

The verb dress in that verse is in the middle voice, indicating that he is dressing himself. In fact, "himself" isn't a separate word, but is implied by the verb in the middle voice, giving the verb a strictly reflexive form. "He dressed himself," "he showered himself," and "he drove himself" would all be expressed in the middle voice.

The second is Matthew 15:2:

Why do your disciples violate the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands when they eat bread.

Wash is in the middle voice. There's an explicit direct object ("your hands") and therefore it's not reflexive (i.e. "wash yourself"), but in Classical Greek, middle voice is often used when the subject is otherwise intimately involved in the action.

This second form is what we see in Acts 1:18.

Now, this man obtained property with the reward of his iniquity

The verb obtained is in the middle voice, indicating that Judas performed the acquisition himself. The standard apologetic argument, that the property Judas acquired in Acts 1:18 is actually the field that the the priests bought in Matthew 27:7, isn't allowed by the Greek of Acts.

I appreciate your breakdown, but I still don't get it.

I need specifics, not generalities.

[Difflugia]

I appreciate your breakdown, but I still don't get it.

In most situations, a verb conjugated as middle voice has an implied "himself" or equivalent. If we place this in Acts 1:18, we read, "this man acquired property himself with the reward of his wrongdoing." This contradicts any statement that somebody else acquired it for him or on his behalf.

[SiNcE_1985]

I appreciate your breakdown, but I still don't get it.

In most situations, a verb conjugated as middle voice has an implied "himself" or equivalent. If we place this in Acts 1:18, we read, "this man acquired property himself with the reward of his wrongdoing." This contradicts any statement that somebody else acquired it for him or on his behalf.

I understand now.

Before I respond to this, question for ya..

Have you ever seen the movie "Another 48 Hours", starring Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte?

It is the sequel to 48 Hours.

Did you see it? And if you did see it, how familiar are you with it?

I am asking because I am gonna draw a parallel between something that happened in the movie and the conundrum presented in the two Judas/field/money accounts.

Whether or not you saw the movie won't prevent me from making the parallel, but I'd still like to know if you seen it.