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.

[Difflugia]

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've seen it, but it's been years. The main thing that I remember is that I didn't like it as much as 48 Hours. I like Eddie Murphy in general, though. I just watched Beverly Hills Cop again last weekend.

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.

Do your thing and we'll see where it goes.

[SiNcE_1985]

I've seen it, but it's been years. The main thing that I remember is that I didn't like it as much as 48 Hours. I like Eddie Murphy in general, though. I just watched Beverly Hills Cop again last weekend.

Funny because, I never saw the first one, but the sequel is one of my all time faves.

Do your thing and we'll see where it goes.

Bet.

This isn't an exact parallel because obviously, the circumstances are different..but the concept is the same.

Now, in the movie..

Eddie Murphy: Plays the character Reggie Hammon, convicted felon.

Nick Nolte: Plays the character Jack Cates, police detective.
....

Based on whatever happened in the first movie, Reggie Hammon has just served 5 years in prison, and is getting ready to be released from prison tomorrow.

Before Reggie served his 5 year sentence, he asked Jack to "hold" a large sum of money for him until he was released, which Jack gave his word that he would.

While Reggie is serving his sentence, Jack has been investigating a supposed drug dealer, known as the "Iceman".

Jack finds out that the Iceman put out a hit on Reggie, and since the case has been cold as of recent, this new information is a great lead on the investigation for Jack.

The day before Reggie is to be released from prison, Jack goes to visit Reggie in prison, to find out why the Iceman wants him dead.

Jack asks Reggie to assist him in the investigation, but Reggie vehemently refuses.

Reggie tells Jack that he won't assist him, but asks that Jack give him his money after he is released tomorrow, as they agreed upon.

Jack tells Reggie that unless he assists him in the investigation, he won't give him his money.

Reggie, obviously furious, punches Jack.

Now, do you follow so far?
....

Now, long story short..

Reggie ultimately agrees to help Jack in the investigation, and Reggie finds out that Jack purchased a new Cadillac with his money.

The two begin to discuss the investigation, where it is revealed that the money that Reggie told Jack to hold for him, was money that he stole from the Iceman.

Now, here is the kicker..

Reggie told Jack that the Iceman "bought" Jack's new Cadillac.

What does this mean? This means that since it was, technically speaking, the Iceman's money...that the Iceman "bought" the car...which, from that perspective, is actually true.

Just all depends on how you look.
......

I said all that to say this; we can take this concept and apply it to the Matt/Acts accounts.

This suggestion has been offered by many and I think the movie illustrates this very point.

Now, if that explanation ain't good enough, then uh..add it to the list of reasons why you don't believe and we can leave it at that.

I say this because I hold the strong, firm belief that unbelievers and skeptics won't believe in the Bible REGARDLESS of whether there are perceived contradictions or not...which makes convos like this..irrelevant.

Although, fun.

[Difflugia]

What does this mean? This means that since it was, technically speaking, the Iceman's money...that the Iceman "bought" the car...which, from that perspective, is actually true.

First, the Greek phrase in question uses a conjugation that doesn't even exist in English and conveys more information than your English phrase. I've linked a lexicon page for the verb κτάομαι multiple times. Just like in English, when the verb is conjugated differently, it takes on subtly different meanings. The middle voice means that the subject him- or herself acquired something for him- or herself.

Second, even with different conjugations, the main focus of κτάομαι is on the act of procuring. It could be meaningfully used of the subject acquiring something for someone else, but not of someone else acquiring something for the subject. Even if conjugated differently, it's just not the right word to claim that Judas acquired a piece of property through the action or agency of someone else.

Third, it's clear that the author of Acts meant that Judas acquired his property through his own agency because even though it's short, the narrative in Acts is of divine retribution. Instead of remorsefully throwing the money into the treasury in an act of self-loathing as Matthew's Judas did, Luke's Judas remorselessly used the proceeds of his betrayal to buy some property where God smote him ("God-smote" is a popular form of death in Acts).

In short, the wordplay you quoted from the movie could certainly be written in Greek, but it would be written differently. If it were written the way Acts 1:18 is, it would just be confusing instead of funny.

I say this because I hold the strong, firm belief that unbelievers and skeptics won't believe in the Bible REGARDLESS of whether there are perceived contradictions or not...which makes convos like this..irrelevant.

And the believers will believe anything as long as they can convince themselves that it supports their dogma.

[SiNcE_1985]

First, the Greek phrase in question uses a conjugation that doesn't even exist in English and conveys more information than your English phrase. I've linked a lexicon page for the verb κτάομαι multiple times. Just like in English, when the verb is conjugated differently, it takes on subtly different meanings. The middle voice means that the subject him- or herself acquired something for him- or herself.

Second, even with different conjugations, the main focus of κτάομαι is on the act of procuring. It could be meaningfully used of the subject acquiring something for someone else, but not of someone else acquiring something for the subject. Even if conjugated differently, it's just not the right word to claim that Judas acquired a piece of property through the action or agency of someone else.

In short, the wordplay you quoted from the movie could certainly be written in Greek, but it would be written differently. If it were written the way Acts 1:18 is, it would just be confusing instead of funny.

Like algebra, I'll break this down in the most simplistic form..

"My sources/Greek scholars disagree with your sources/Greek scholars."

I'm sticking with my original assessment; Another 48 Hours.

Third, it's clear that the author of Acts meant that Judas acquired his property through his own agency because even though it's short, the narrative in Acts is of divine retribution. Instead of remorsefully throwing the money into the treasury in an act of self-loathing as Matthew's Judas did, Luke's Judas remorselessly used the proceeds of his betrayal to buy some property where God smote him ("God-smote" is a popular form of death in Acts).

A lot of unjustified adding to the text. I mean sure, if that's what you believe, believe it.

I'll tell you what I believe; the field was purchased with "blood money" as Matt described it.

The chief priests didn't want anything to do with with this dirty money, so they separated themselves from the money by buying a potters field with it, under the guise of what they may have perceived to be a "good cause"..and they may have purchased the field under Judas' name, to further separate themselves from it.

If the field was purchased in Judas' name, then on paper, Judas had indeed owned/bought the field.

That's what I believe.

And the believers will believe anything as long as they can convince themselves that it supports their dogma.

Touché.

Well, to paraphrase the Godfather..

"We (believers) wish you guys (unbelievers) the best in your godless lives...just so long as your business dont conflict with ours."

[Difflugia]

"My sources/Greek scholars disagree with your sources/Greek scholars."

Which sources or Greek scholars disagree with me?

I'm sticking with my original assessment; Another 48 Hours.

Because what else do you have, right?

Third, it's clear that the author of Acts meant that Judas acquired his property through his own agency because even though it's short, the narrative in Acts is of divine retribution. Instead of remorsefully throwing the money into the treasury in an act of self-loathing as Matthew's Judas did, Luke's Judas remorselessly used the proceeds of his betrayal to buy some property where God smote him ("God-smote" is a popular form of death in Acts).

A lot of unjustified adding to the text. I mean sure, if that's what you believe, believe it.

What do you think I added? If you think I'm unjustified in reading the text the way I do, what do you think was the author's purpose when he wrote Acts 1:18?

I'll tell you what I believe; the field was purchased with "blood money" as Matt described it.

I believe that, too. I believe that in Matthew's story, the priests bought the field with money that Judas threw into the temple.

I also believe that in Luke's story, Judas is the one that bought some property and he did it with the money he was paid to betray Jesus, instead of throwing it into the temple.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your own idea of inerrancy is more valuable to you than the Word of God itself. Is it?

The chief priests didn't want anything to do with with this dirty money, so they separated themselves from the money by buying a potters field with it, under the guise of what they may have perceived to be a "good cause"..and they may have purchased the field under Judas' name, to further separate themselves from it.

What were you saying about unjustified adding to the text?

[benchwarmer]

The chief priests didn't want anything to do with with this dirty money, so they separated themselves from the money by buying a potters field with it, under the guise of what they may have perceived to be a "good cause"..and they may have purchased the field under Judas' name, to further separate themselves from it.

What were you saying about unjustified adding to the text?

I love it when apologists do this.

"Don't add extra things to the Word of God!!!!!"

Proceeds to add extra things to avoid what's actually written in "the Word of God".


Rather than tackling the actual text, they would rather torture an interpretation to fit whatever religious notion they already have. Watching different groups of Christians doing the exact same thing with different desired results is really the nail in the cross for everyone else paying attention.

[SiNcE_1985]

"My sources/Greek scholars disagree with your sources/Greek scholars."

Which sources or Greek scholars disagree with me?

Well, maybe not Greek scholars, per se.

But sources that are knowledgeable enough about the Greek texts and who believes in Biblical inerrancy.

To name a few guys on my side...

Craig Bloomberg
Peter J. Williams
Ben Withington

To name a few.

All three are prominent Biblical scholars and believe in Bible inerrancy, and do not view the subject matter as a mistake or inaccuracy.

Plus, again, my sources on my end provides a different logical and linguistic perspective on the subject matter..so like I said, my sources disagree with yours.

Because what else do you have, right?

I draw from whatever well has the water.

What do you think I added? If you think I'm unjustified in reading the text the way I do, what do you think was the author's purpose when he wrote Acts 1:18?

Purpose? His purpose appeared to be, to provide a brief account of "Where is he (Judas) now"?

The context is that Peter had just told his listening audience about how Judas betrayed Jesus, and that's when the author of Luke stepped in and shared the the brief little paragraph of "Oh, by the way, see, what had happened to Judas was.."

Nothing more, nothing less...at least from what I can tell.

I believe that, too. I believe that in Matthew's story, the priests bought the field with money that Judas threw into the temple.

I also believe that in Luke's story, Judas is the one that bought some property and he did it with the money he was paid to betray Jesus, instead of throwing it into the temple.

Free will = free belief.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether your own idea of inerrancy is more valuable to you than the Word of God itself. Is it?

The word of God = inerrant.

Inerrant = the Word of God.

What were you saying about unjustified adding to the text?

Offering what I believe to be a rational response to an alleged inconsistency, that is my justification.

As for you, I don't know what it was you were doing.

[benchwarmer]

"My sources/Greek scholars disagree with your sources/Greek scholars."

Which sources or Greek scholars disagree with me?

Well, maybe not Greek scholars, per se.

But sources that are knowledgeable enough about the Greek texts and who believes in Biblical inerrancy.

To name a few guys on my side...

Craig Bloomberg

A professor that works at a school with a statement of faith that must be adhered to.

https://faithlife.com/craig-blomberg/about

https://denverseminary.edu/about/who-we ... -of-faith/

Peter J. Williams

Seems to not be restricted by a statement of faith, so perhaps one decent source.

https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/

Ben Withington

Another one who works under a statement of faith:
https://www.benw3.com/
https://asburyseminary.edu/about/theolo ... -of-faith/

To name a few.

All three are prominent Biblical scholars and believe in Bible inerrancy, and do not view the subject matter as a mistake or inaccuracy.

Plus, again, my sources on my end provides a different logical and linguistic perspective on the subject matter..so like I said, my sources disagree with yours.

Well, two of them are restricted by the statement of faith they must adhere to at their workplace. Not the best group of people to cite as sources. You may as well just link to the statements of faith and call it a day.

Because what else do you have, right?

I draw from whatever well has the water.

Seems to be a poisoned well. When researchers are limited by guard rails, one can't expect them to actually follow wherever the data may lead.

[SiNcE_1985]

A professor that works at a school with a statement of faith that must be adhered to.

https://faithlife.com/craig-blomberg/about

https://denverseminary.edu/about/who-we ... -of-faith/

Peter J. Williams

Seems to not be restricted by a statement of faith, so perhaps one decent source.

https://tyndalehouse.com/about/staff/peter-j-williams/

Ben Withington

Another one who works under a statement of faith:
https://www.benw3.com/
https://asburyseminary.edu/about/theolo ... -of-faith/

To name a few.

All three are prominent Biblical scholars and believe in Bible inerrancy, and do not view the subject matter as a mistake or inaccuracy.

Plus, again, my sources on my end provides a different logical and linguistic perspective on the subject matter..so like I said, my sources disagree with yours.

Well, two of them are restricted by the statement of faith they must adhere to at their workplace. Not the best group of people to cite as sources. You may as well just link to the statements of faith and call it a day.

I draw from whatever well has the water.

Seems to be a poisoned well. When researchers are limited by guard rails, one can't expect them to actually follow wherever the data may lead.

Yeah, just like I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

It is the same kinda thing.

And I say that without even agreeing with your assessment of them.

[POI]

Yeah, just like I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

Can you please define your version of ID? Many, under this umbrella term, will place an argument from "irreducible complexity" and go from there. Others might go down a differing route or path. I'd really like to know your specific rationale, and then 'follow the data' accordingly. Thanks.