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.

[benchwarmer]

... the Atheist Axiom is 'when people have been shown how a magic trick works, they won't be fooled by it ever again'.

This is a great point and one that I kind of have to bring up every time a Christian thinks they are going to re-convert me. They are under some allusion that I must have just been mad at God, wanted to sin, or misunderstood some simple thing.

Once you have seen how the sausage is made, you can't unsee it. I can't "not see" all the contradictions I've found and researched. I can't "not see" the Synoptic Problem and what that really means. I can't "not see" all the horribly contrived apologetics, denial, tap dancing, circular arguments, and just plain refusal to accept facts. I can't forget my journey and what led me to where I am.

In an ironic twist, it's almost as if some believers are the ones being deceived by some spirit to continue swallowing bad arguments and faith claims while staring at hard evidence.

[Mae von H]

These assumptions ignore the fact that the authors were old and feeble or already dead at the time the authorship is accredited to them. The internal information provided in the texts themselves shows the above to be completely absurd. What we see here is cherry picking what the author likes to prove his a priori position.

What is being "cherry picked" exactly? When investigating the veracity of the resurrection claim, it makes sense to investigate the texts which speak of the resurrection, correct? What else are we supposed to look at? You still have no explanation for why the story looks like it evolved over decades...

The dating of the texts presented shows a lack of looking at all the information and cherry picking out some reports ignoring the internal content of the New Testament and its obvious timing from that information. But no one is going to believe the Resurrection from reading the presentations of those who doubt it.

What all of this continues to show me is that the words of Jesus are so true. If anyone wants to know the truth of what is written in the Bible, he must be willing to do what Jesus taught. That is the only way. Those who have done so can testify that they have come to know the truth thereby and have laid down their lives rather than embrace a lie. Atheists refuse to do as Jesus teaches even though it is superior morally and ethically to the "survival of the fittest" moral code evolution teaches and so they do not know the truth. The above is another reason not to do what it takes to find the truth.

Ah yes. When all else fails, start preaching....

But it is true. Those who do not believe the New Testament is a true account, to a man, do not live out those teachings. That is my observation. So i was observing, not preaching.

[AchillesHeel]

The dating of the texts presented shows a lack of looking at all the information and cherry picking out some reports ignoring the internal content of the New Testament and its obvious timing from that information.

Taking issue with the dating of the sources is a red herring. Give whatever date you want to them. They still cannot be reconciled with what we know about reliable eyewitness reports. The dates I gave are the scholarly consensus, meaning most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree on those dates. Do you happen to know something the experts don't?

But no one is going to believe the Resurrection from reading the presentations of those who doubt it.

All I did was compare what each account says. It's not my fault the stories look the way they do.

[TRANSPONDER]

... the Atheist Axiom is 'when people have been shown how a magic trick works, they won't be fooled by it ever again'.

This is a great point and one that I kind of have to bring up every time a Christian thinks they are going to re-convert me. They are under some allusion that I must have just been mad at God, wanted to sin, or misunderstood some simple thing.

Once you have seen how the sausage is made, you can't unsee it. I can't "not see" all the contradictions I've found and researched. I can't "not see" the Synoptic Problem and what that really means. I can't "not see" all the horribly contrived apologetics, denial, tap dancing, circular arguments, and just plain refusal to accept facts. I can't forget my journey and what led me to where I am.

In an ironic twist, it's almost as if some believers are the ones being deceived by some spirit to continue swallowing bad arguments and faith claims while staring at hard evidence.

Exactly and yep. The believers can't see out of the Box, and because they can't they think there is nothing valid beyond. Which is a messy way of saying, we can see where the problems are, and they can't or won't. Of course it looks dishonest to me, but it's more like the inverse of the materialist default - we assume an answer to an unknown will be a natural one as it always has been so far, and appeal to unknowns is No evidence for a god, Jesus or Bible.

But they think it is because they assume their God religion and Holy Book is the default, and all they need to do is suggest that new Evidence will turn up to show that the 6/7 AD census was actually in 5 BC. or there was a good reason why Cleophas tell Jesus that the women while telling the disciples they'd seen angels who said Jesus was alive, didn't bother to mention they'd actually ran slap into Jesus himself; I mean, why would they bother to mention that?

Is is that Faith that has them rush to an apologetics site that comes uup with some trash like 'women's testimony wasn't valid' or 'Mary ran off and didn't go into the tomb' and they think that will fool the critics, or shut them up at least, because it isn't about thee evidence reasoning or even what it says in the Bible, but clinging to Faith and denying everything else.

I don't even get onto the obverse of poking holes in or misrepresenting science (especially evolution -theory) and thinking that the science we all rely on will cease to be valid, or even the suspicion that they know their lies are lies, but as you say, once others have seen how this sleight of hand is done, they won't be fooled by it. Unless they want to be.

Which is why it comes down to the browsers, the people and the voting demographic, because if they vote religion into the temples where it belongs, then how long can it be before they are taxed as a business - which they are.

[Mae von H]

The dating of the texts presented shows a lack of looking at all the information and cherry picking out some reports ignoring the internal content of the New Testament and its obvious timing from that information.

Taking issue with the dating of the sources is a red herring. Give whatever date you want to them. They still cannot be reconciled with what we know about reliable eyewitness reports.

I’ve read professional detective’s evaluations and they said they fit on with those parameters. That’s merely you not wanting it to be so.

The dates I gave are the scholarly consensus, meaning most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree on those dates. Do you happen to know something the experts don't?

No, they are not. The unbiased scholarly consensus is not that they are fake written after the known author was dead or so feeble they couldn’t walk. But this does demonstrate a very desperate desire to discredit the source of a movement that cannot be stopped. The Bible has brought millions and millions of people peace and forgiveness and courage to address the evils men do and your side is pointing to a date as though it’s all bunk.

But no one is going to believe the Resurrection from reading the presentations of those who doubt it.

All I did was compare what each account says. It's not my fault the stories look the way they do.

Millions don’t see the problems you want to be there. You don’t just “point out” matters, you imagine them and very much want them to be there.

[AchillesHeel]

The dating of the texts presented shows a lack of looking at all the information and cherry picking out some reports ignoring the internal content of the New Testament and its obvious timing from that information.

Taking issue with the dating of the sources is a red herring. Give whatever date you want to them. They still cannot be reconciled with what we know about reliable eyewitness reports.

I’ve read professional detective’s evaluations and they said they fit on with those parameters. That’s merely you not wanting it to be so.

The dates I gave are the scholarly consensus, meaning most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree on those dates. Do you happen to know something the experts don't?

No, they are not. The unbiased scholarly consensus is not that they are fake written after the known author was dead or so feeble they couldn’t walk. But this does demonstrate a very desperate desire to discredit the source of a movement that cannot be stopped. The Bible has brought millions and millions of people peace and forgiveness and courage to address the evils men do and your side is pointing to a date as though it’s all bunk.

But no one is going to believe the Resurrection from reading the presentations of those who doubt it.

All I did was compare what each account says. It's not my fault the stories look the way they do.

Millions don’t see the problems you want to be there. You don’t just “point out” matters, you imagine them and very much want them to be there.

"Professional detectives" are not historians and, yes, 90-95% of the experts date the documents the way I do in my post. You're free to believe in fringe dating theories but please don't lie about the reality of the matter.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is a lot of debate about the dates of the gospels, and disagreement . One can pick'Authorities' and Scholars' like translation -shopping, to fit ones'own preferences.

The valid Scholars are the ones we agree with and the Biased ones are the ones we don't. Works both ways.

On evidence, I'd say the Original story common to the three Synoptics as well as John has to be late 1st c early 2nd, because it is after the Jewish war, which is predicted throughout.

Believers will of course say they are prophecies, but it also works as well -or better - if they are retrospective Christian claims after the Jewish war ended.
That's the story pre - Mark, which has its' own additions and cannot be the 'original the others copied'. Sure they copied an original which itself was Post 80 AD, and Mark was later than that, and Matthew and Luke later still. We are looking at 2nd c AD or later (which is a common date for the Ryland fragment of John, too).

Apart from this, the dating can only be informed guess work, and those who try to make "Mark" a reliable account taken down in aramaic shorthand as Peter or John recounted his memoirs are just expounding a faithbased bias.

[Mae von H]

The dating of the texts presented shows a lack of looking at all the information and cherry picking out some reports ignoring the internal content of the New Testament and its obvious timing from that information.

Taking issue with the dating of the sources is a red herring. Give whatever date you want to them. They still cannot be reconciled with what we know about reliable eyewitness reports.

I’ve read professional detective’s evaluations and they said they fit on with those parameters. That’s merely you not wanting it to be so.

The dates I gave are the scholarly consensus, meaning most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree on those dates. Do you happen to know something the experts don't?

No, they are not. The unbiased scholarly consensus is not that they are fake written after the known author was dead or so feeble they couldn’t walk. But this does demonstrate a very desperate desire to discredit the source of a movement that cannot be stopped. The Bible has brought millions and millions of people peace and forgiveness and courage to address the evils men do and your side is pointing to a date as though it’s all bunk.

But no one is going to believe the Resurrection from reading the presentations of those who doubt it.

All I did was compare what each account says. It's not my fault the stories look the way they do.

Millions don’t see the problems you want to be there. You don’t just “point out” matters, you imagine them and very much want them to be there.

"Professional detectives" are not historians and, yes, 90-95% of the experts date the documents the way I do in my post. You're free to believe in fringe dating theories but please don't lie about the reality of the matter.

I have read scholarly evaluations by Biblical scholars and simply put, don’t believe you. The texts themselves show the unlikelihood of these dates, the authors being then dead or feeble.

But go ahead and believe the dates you prefer. They don’t stand up to scrutiny but your team doesn’t want that anyway.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say ( Post 55) - "The Bible has brought millions and millions of people peace and forgiveness and courage to address the evils men do and your side is pointing to a date as though it’s all bunk"

-----

It is good to see a theist gain some traction on this site. I am trying to get where you are coming from, with great difficulty.

Take the above quote for example..Accept that millions and millions would find peace and forgiveness and courage against evil without the existence of the Bible. I believe that the vast majority of people are essentially good and that they lean towards love rather than hate.

Also counterbalance your quote with the millions and millions of poor people who have suffered unhappiness as a direct misuse of Biblical words. I can give you examples if you want.

Surely this becomes a subtraction event and atheists or even the most neutral of observers would not miss the Bible, in any shape or form.

Would we be better off without the Bible?

The OT belongs to the Jewish Faith....that is their call, enough said.

The 4 Gospels contain a teaching and a narrative regarding a Jewish theist person called Jesus. That ,to me is like reading about the beginnings of Buddhism..ie, it is very precious and warrants as much preservation as is possible. Their differences are helpful, imho. There needs to be a root and branch 'clean-up', of the Gospels and informed Skeptic energy, combined with vested theological interests, can arbitrate with historical Ist Century experts


There is a central blockage to all this that appears fatal. I believe that people are wonderful, I can go with a sense of Spirituality, I can go with wonder and awe, I can go with re-generation and hope and re-birth After that I will struggle to breath
I totally reject the Miraculous, the Mystical, . the Divine as portrayed in a Personable form. I do this because I have never ever seen it or experienced it. I have not got the capacity to construct it either. If you deconstruct the Gospels by removing these elements you will end up with a theism for the here and now..That would never ever, be agreed to , no matter how much compromise was invested by all parties. And so, we have what we have!

The rest of the Bible is a treachery, and it should not even be in the Bible. Church history, and it's vagaries are for the reference section. Historical circumstance effecting the direction of a doctrine that is for posterity, is transparently stupid. It is extrapolation and confusion that Buddhism appears to have avoided.

Cutting the Bible to shreds is legitimate if you are up to the task, but if it is done with a hoofed foot it can only make apology stronger. The two can grow together. Turmoil begets folly!
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say ( Post 55) - "The Bible has brought millions and millions of people peace and forgiveness and courage to address the evils men do and your side is pointing to a date as though it’s all bunk"

-----

Also counterbalance your quote with the millions and millions of poor people who have suffered unhappiness as a direct misuse of Biblical words. I can give you examples if you want.

EXAMPLE : WOMEN

Thanks