On the Missing Corpse of Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say Jesus hopped up and left that cave there, after he was dead.

Others'll say the missing corpse of Jesus can be better explained by the actions of the living.

For debate:
Which explanation is best? Why?

[EduChris]

...how did you get the Greek font to work? It keeps switching over to garbled English letters on me.

Do you have charmap.exe on your computer? If so, you should be able to find unicode Greek letters to cut and paste. You can also select from the Greek alphabet listed below:

α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω

Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω

If you have Greek Software, you can also cut and paste from that--but typically this will require that your readers must have a Greek font installed on their own computer. The unicode letters, above, should display fine on any computer that uses unicode--as most do, nowadays.

[d.thomas]

Starboard Tack wrote:

It seems pretty much like most atheists. God can't exist, therefore God doesn't exist. A circular argument that is fallacious, but if it's all you got, it's all you got.

This seems like something most theists would say: "God can exist and therefore God does exist"; a circular argument that is fallacious, but if it's all you got, it's all you got.

Starboard Tack wrote:

But I'm curious about something. You have said that by my stating that there appears to be sufficient evidence for a belief in God and of Christ's resurrection I am evangelizing. You have said that nothing that Christ said is worth noting and that anyone who believes otherwise is a child. Are you evangelizing then about your religious beliefs? Curious minds want to know.

You both seem to be engaged in un-evidenced propaganda. Many things that Jesus said are worth noting; but such attributed teachings don't prove him a 'God' of any sort.

.



I agree, Jesus allegedly said many things that were noteworthy, that much is rather obvious and anyone that says that I said that nothing that Christ said is worth noting and that anyone who believes otherwise is a child is a liar. And no, stating that their is evidence for a belief in God and of Christ's resurrection is not evangelizing, that's just more lies on the part of Starboard Tack.


.

[Student]

As I said in my previous post, the gospels are all written in colloquial, idiomatic Koinē.

I disagree strongly with much of posts 135 and 127.

Mark and Luke were written in Greek for a Greek audience. Mark is clumsy Greek – the worst in the NT with the possible exception of Revelations. The Greek of Mark is far worse than the Septuagint. Luke, along with Acts and Hebrews, is the best Greek in the NT and was clearly written by someone with a good education and who spoke Greek most of his life.

However, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew cites the OT more often than any other NT book except Hebrews. He makes no effort to explain Jewish customs or traditions. He makes references that only someone with thorough knowledge of Israelite history and culture would understand. For instance, the genealogy in the first chapter follows the Jewish practice of a symbolic (as opposed to literal) genealogy in which the author only includes generations he want to include to make a point.

The author of Matthew then uses that symbolic genealogy to make “14� generations between Adam and David, “14� generation from David to the exile, and “14� generations from the exile to Christ. In Hebrew, (where numbers are also letters) the number 14 can spell the name “David.� The entire thing would be meaningless in Greek and lost on a Greek audience. The letter must have been written for an audience that thought in Hebrew.

Matthew is written in excellent Greek – in the NT only Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are written in better Greek. Matthew must have been written for Jews whose primary language was Greek, or (I find this second choice more probable) Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek either by the original author or (more likely) by someone else who was skilled in the Greek language.

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

I don’t have the time at present to respond in detail to your post (and that of Starboard Tack). However, as you clearly whish to present yourself as an expert in Greek you won’t object if I point out one of the more glaring errors in your post. You said:

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

As I’m sure you know, the text of Mt 26:64 is as follows:

λέγει α�τῷ � Ἰησοῦς, Σὺ εἶπας: πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπ' ἄ�τι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ�ώπου καθήμενον �κ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ��χόμενον �πὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ ο��ανοῦ.

Transliterated for those without benefit of Greek fonts:
legei aut� ho Iēsous su eipas plēn leg� humin ap’arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthr�pou kathēmenon ek dexi�n tēs duname�s kai erchomenon epi t�n nephel�n tou ouranou.

You mistakenly draw attention to the first two words of the verse, legei aut�, which are correctly translated as “he is saying to him� and not your hopeless attempt, “you have said it�. (the conjugation of the verb leg� is third person singular, present, active, indicative for goodness sake, how can it be “you have said�?)

You completely missed the fact that I was referring to the Greek idiom, su eipas, which are words five and six; su = you, eipas = say. Only in Greek does this mean the affirmative, “yes�.

So when the Chief Priest asks Jesus if he is the son of the living god, Jesus says “yes�, which explains the Chief Priest’s reaction.

I will address the remainder of your post, and Starboard Tack’s, later in the week.

[bjs]

As I said in my previous post, the gospels are all written in colloquial, idiomatic Koinē.

I disagree strongly with much of posts 135 and 127.

Mark and Luke were written in Greek for a Greek audience. Mark is clumsy Greek – the worst in the NT with the possible exception of Revelations. The Greek of Mark is far worse than the Septuagint. Luke, along with Acts and Hebrews, is the best Greek in the NT and was clearly written by someone with a good education and who spoke Greek most of his life.

However, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew cites the OT more often than any other NT book except Hebrews. He makes no effort to explain Jewish customs or traditions. He makes references that only someone with thorough knowledge of Israelite history and culture would understand. For instance, the genealogy in the first chapter follows the Jewish practice of a symbolic (as opposed to literal) genealogy in which the author only includes generations he want to include to make a point.

The author of Matthew then uses that symbolic genealogy to make “14� generations between Adam and David, “14� generation from David to the exile, and “14� generations from the exile to Christ. In Hebrew, (where numbers are also letters) the number 14 can spell the name “David.� The entire thing would be meaningless in Greek and lost on a Greek audience. The letter must have been written for an audience that thought in Hebrew.

Matthew is written in excellent Greek – in the NT only Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are written in better Greek. Matthew must have been written for Jews whose primary language was Greek, or (I find this second choice more probable) Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek either by the original author or (more likely) by someone else who was skilled in the Greek language.

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

I don’t have the time at present to respond in detail to your post (and that of Starboard Tack). However, as you clearly whish to present yourself as an expert in Greek you won’t object if I point out one of the more glaring errors in your post. You said:

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

As I’m sure you know, the text of Mt 26:64 is as follows:

λέγει α�τῷ � Ἰησοῦς, Σὺ εἶπας: πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπ' ἄ�τι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ�ώπου καθήμενον �κ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ��χόμενον �πὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ ο��ανοῦ.

Transliterated for those without benefit of Greek fonts:
legei aut� ho Iēsous su eipas plēn leg� humin ap’arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthr�pou kathēmenon ek dexi�n tēs duname�s kai erchomenon epi t�n nephel�n tou ouranou.

You mistakenly draw attention to the first two words of the verse, legei aut�, which are correctly translated as “he is saying to him� and not your hopeless attempt, “you have said it�. (the conjugation of the verb leg� is third person singular, present, active, indicative for goodness sake, how can it be “you have said�?)

You completely missed the fact that I was referring to the Greek idiom, su eipas, which are words five and six; su = you, eipas = say. Only in Greek does this mean the affirmative, “yes�.

So when the Chief Priest asks Jesus if he is the son of the living god, Jesus says “yes�, which explains the Chief Priest’s reaction.

I will address the remainder of your post, and Starboard Tack’s, later in the week.

You are correct that I wrote the wrong Greek words. Sorry about that. Jesus did say “su eipas� which means “you have said it.� I find “you have said it� a better translation than “you say� because "eipas" is in the aorist tense.

I am far from an expert on Greek. I do know Greek and Hebrew, and the phrase “you have said it� makes sense in both languages.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.

that's just more lies on the part of Starboard Tack.

In civil debate, we do not accuse others of lying. They may misunderstand or be mistaken, but let us, at least for form sake, presume that others are not deliberately trying to deceive.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Student]

This seems absurd.

As I said in my previous post, the gospels are all written in colloquial, idiomatic Koinē. There is not the slightest hint that they could be translations from an Aramaic/Hebrew prototype. You may think that this is absurd, but you will be hard pressed to find a recognized authority on Koinē Greek who would disagree with me.

If the gospels were written in Aramaic, why, when it is possible to discriminate between sources, are the quotations of Old Testament invariably taken from the Septuagint? In other words, why when the Septuagint disagrees with the Hebrew text, does the New Testament follow the version found in the Septuagint. This would not be possible if the gospels were translated from an Aramaic/Hebrew prototype faithful to the Hebrew text of the OT.

How can you account for the numerous Greek idioms that cannot be a translation from Aramaic/Hebrew. For example, the clear assonance of the common Greek idiom α�τῷ Κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει α�τούς “aut� kakous kak�s apolesei autous� (Matthew 21:41 "He will put the wretches to a wretched death")?
How could this Greek idiom possibly have been derived from an Aramaic original?

Just to show it is no coincidence the author of Matthew uses the device again at the end of the verse α�τῷ τοὺς κα�ποὺς �ν τοῖς και�οῖς α�τῶν, “aut� tous karpous en tois kairois aut�n� (“to him the fruits in their season�)

What was the original Aramaic phrase that was translated as σὺ εἶπας, “su eipas� (“you say�, Matthew 26:64) How can it be possibly derived from Aramaic when it is only in Greek that the idiomatic meaning of the affirmative, “yes�, becomes apparent?

On this basis, the bi lingual reporter from Isvestia interviewing a witness to 911 is not providing eye witness accounts to their readers in Moscow?

A truer analogy would be of our Russian reporter writing his copy in bar in St.Petersburg, after interviewing another Russian who was related to someone who had seen a collage of events on television some months previously.

On this basis, my copy of the English Standard Version which is syntactically correct for modern English means that the original texts were written in English.

I don’t know where you learnt English grammar but the ESV shows considerable variance from idiomatically correct English. Take for example the ESV’s take on Matthew 5:36 “And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black�.

Could any native English speaker mistake this for something originally spoken in English?

Still completely unconvincing. "Fourscore and seven years ago...." Could any native English speaker mistake this for something originally spoken in English? Oh, right....

To you this idiom from the Gettysburg address may sound archaic but it was a very common English idiom until quite recently, and would be recognised as such by any well read native English speaker. For example, from the nursery rhyme Sing a song of sixpence, there is a line "Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie".

I've not seen this challenge before, perhaps because it is as lame as it appears to be, notwithstanding the Peanut Gallery's "attaboy", it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Maccabean revolt was against the Hellenization of Israel, so I'm not sure why it should come as a surprise to you that the official written language of the time was Greek. In looking into this briefly, I came across this as an explanation for why the Gospels are in Greek and not Aramaic, and I'll leave it as a sufficient response:

"Greek was the international language of the Roman Empire, and was spoken publicly in the majority of Roman provinces. Aramaic was the native language of most Jews living in Judea, Galilee and Babylon. But Aramaic was typically restricted to communication among family members behind closed doors. In public they spoke Greek. The same was true of Latin - it was spoken within the homes of native Romans, but they spoke Greek in public discourse, even on the streets of Rome.

Additionally, Galilee was not the small-town rural backwater that Victorian scholars imagined. Galilee was heavily Hellenized. They were surrounded by several major Greek-speaking cities, and nearly all of their commerce depended on the Greek-speaking communities and Greek-speaking merchants in the region.

In the case of Jesus, any public speaker at the time would have delivered his discourses in Greek, not Aramaic. Several members of Jesus' inner circle went by their Greek names, and Jesus himself (according to the Gospel of John) spent as much as two years traveling in the Greek Decapolis bordering Galilee.

The internal evidence in the Gospels also suggests that many of the statements attributed to Jesus were originally composed in Greek, and the Gospels go out of their way to point out the few times that Jesus actually spoke Aramaic in public. When Jesus quoted the Jewish Scriptures he quoted the Greek translation word-for-word (except when he quoted the book of Job, which was arguably an inferior translation).

Among the Jews, the majority of the population was scattered all over the Roman world, and Greek was their first language. Aramaic was only the first language of Jews in Judea, Galilee and Babylon. Everywhere else they spoke Greek in public and private conversations, and even used a Greek translation of the Scriptures.

So it is not surprising that the Gospels were written in Greek. There was a rumor for a while that Matthew may have been composed in Aramaic, but there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate that view, and it has been abandoned by modern academic consensus. The only reason anyone believed it in the first place is that a single fragment of a 2nd century Christian writing mentioned that Matthew wrote an account of the life of Christ in Hebrew."

For an additional Jewish Christian perspective, see: http://www.levitt.com/essays/language.html

It would appear from your references that you concede my points including:

a. “there is no evidence that the Gospels were written originally in any other language but Greek.�

b. “The internal evidence in the Gospels also suggests that many of the statements attributed to Jesus were originally composed in Greek�

and

c. regarding an Aramaic prototype of Matthew, “there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate that view�

Unfortunately, the reasons given by your anonymous source, as to why the gospels might have been originally written in Greek, are conjecture, with no references to substantiate his/her claims.

While you may think your post represents a “sufficient response� I feel that an anonymous quotation trawled from an unknown source on the internet can hardly be considered a well reasoned rebuttal.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 822AAWzvBL

For all we know perhaps you are Moondoggy, the author of this article!

[Student]

As I said in my previous post, the gospels are all written in colloquial, idiomatic Koinē.

I disagree strongly with much of posts 135 and 127.

Mark and Luke were written in Greek for a Greek audience. Mark is clumsy Greek – the worst in the NT with the possible exception of Revelations. The Greek of Mark is far worse than the Septuagint. Luke, along with Acts and Hebrews, is the best Greek in the NT and was clearly written by someone with a good education and who spoke Greek most of his life.

However, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew cites the OT more often than any other NT book except Hebrews. He makes no effort to explain Jewish customs or traditions.

BJS, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here other than to re-establish your already tarnished Greek credentials.

He makes references that only someone with thorough knowledge of Israelite history and culture would understand. For instance, the genealogy in the first chapter follows the Jewish practice of a symbolic (as opposed to literal) genealogy in which the author only includes generations he want to include to make a point.

The author of Matthew then uses that symbolic genealogy to make “14� generations between Adam and David, “14� generation from David to the exile, and “14� generations from the exile to Christ. In Hebrew, (where numbers are also letters) the number 14 can spell the name “David.� The entire thing would be meaningless in Greek and lost on a Greek audience. The letter must have been written for an audience that thought in Hebrew.

Either your sources are deficient or you are simply making things up as you go along.

It is my understanding that the number 14 is represented by the Hebrew letters (reading right to left) yod, dalet (יד). This is nothing like how “David� is written in Hebrew which is דוד dalet, waw, dalet.

So, according to your hypothesis of symbolic genealogy, not only would the symbolism be lost on a Greek audience, it would also leave an audience that “thought in Hebrew� thoroughly mystified.

Matthew is written in excellent Greek – in the NT only Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are written in better Greek. Matthew must have been written for Jews whose primary language was Greek, or (I find this second choice more probable) Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek either by the original author or (more likely) by someone else who was skilled in the Greek language.

To be brutally honest, I don’t think that you are equipped to express an opinion on the matter.

John was written in Greek and probably for a Greek audience, but seems to be written by someone who still thought in Hebrew. The Greek is choppy and repetitive, as we might expect from someone for whom Greek is a second language.

One the clearest example of this is John 2:4. At the wedding feast, after they run out of wine, Mary approaches Jesus. Jesus responds “Te emoie kai soi� which means “what to me and you?� The phrase makes as much sense in Greek as it does in English. However, it is a Hebrew idiom meaning, “What do we have in common (on this topic)?�

I really do despair at your attempts to transliterate Greek. There is no epsilon ε (e) at the end of τί (ti) or �μοὶ (emoi).

The idiom you mention in John 2:4 is also found in Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28. With ἡμῖν (emin = to us) for �μοὶ (emoi = to me) it is found in Matthew 8:29, Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34.

Although previously considered by some to be a Semitism, and is frequently claimed as such on apologist Christian websites, it is not.

It occurs in wholly secular Classical Greek, for example Demosthenes and Xenophon.

“1470. Here belong the phrases (1) τί (�στιν) �μοὶ καὶ σοί; what have I to do with thee?; cp. τί τῷ νόμῳ και τῇ βασάνῳ; What have the law and torture in common? Demosthenes 29.36. (2) τί ταῦτ’�μοί; what have I to do with this? Demosthenes 54.17 (3)τί �μοὶ πλέον; what gain have I? Xenophon Cyropaedia 5.5.34.� (Smyth; Greek Grammar for Colleges; p.341)

Blass also notes that it is found in the writings of Epictetus and Maximus Tyrius. (Blass & Debruner; A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; p.157)

According to C. F. D. Moule:

“It is not always possible to determine where to draw the line between a clear, alien ‘Semitism’ and a term or idiom which is indeed reminiscent of a characteristically Semitic equivalent but which is none the less good or tolerable Greek.

Obviously, too, this problem is complicated by the question of how far the generally understood, secular koinē had unconsciously absorbed and, so to speak, naturalized what were originally alien elements from Semitic populations.

There is also the problem of distinguishing between direct Semitisms (owing to their existence to the direct impact of Hebrew or Aramaic upon the writer’s own vocabulary) and indirect or secondary Semitisms mediated by the Septuagint or other translation Greek.

The problem is particularly prominent in the Lucan writings, for it looks uncommonly as though Luke were ignorant of Semitic languages himself, but could adopt at will a ‘Septuagintal’ style, just as a modern English writer may copy the style of the authorised version including its Hebraic idioms, without himself knowing any Hebrew.� (Moule; Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 171)

So, your example of a Semitism in John is no such thing. It is as much a Greek idiom as it is Hebrew. Had you a greater acquaintance with Greek you might have discovered this for yourself.

I would not go so far as to say that John was originally written in Hebrew, but he was clearly recording events that took place in Hebrew and throughout the Gospel maintains a Hebrew mindset.

You refer to “events that took place in Hebrew� but, according to any number of authorities e.g. Metzger, Robertston, Moule, Moulton, etc. , not to mention Starboard Tack’s anonymous source Moondoggy, first century Judeans & Galileans didn’t speak Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. So anything written in Hebrew would be of no use to the majority of the population of Palestine.

[Student]

As I said in my previous post, the gospels are all written in colloquial, idiomatic Koinē.

I disagree strongly with much of posts 135 and 127.

Mark and Luke were written in Greek for a Greek audience. Mark is clumsy Greek – the worst in the NT with the possible exception of Revelations. The Greek of Mark is far worse than the Septuagint. Luke, along with Acts and Hebrews, is the best Greek in the NT and was clearly written by someone with a good education and who spoke Greek most of his life.

However, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. Matthew cites the OT more often than any other NT book except Hebrews. He makes no effort to explain Jewish customs or traditions. He makes references that only someone with thorough knowledge of Israelite history and culture would understand. For instance, the genealogy in the first chapter follows the Jewish practice of a symbolic (as opposed to literal) genealogy in which the author only includes generations he want to include to make a point.

The author of Matthew then uses that symbolic genealogy to make “14� generations between Adam and David, “14� generation from David to the exile, and “14� generations from the exile to Christ. In Hebrew, (where numbers are also letters) the number 14 can spell the name “David.� The entire thing would be meaningless in Greek and lost on a Greek audience. The letter must have been written for an audience that thought in Hebrew.

Matthew is written in excellent Greek – in the NT only Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are written in better Greek. Matthew must have been written for Jews whose primary language was Greek, or (I find this second choice more probable) Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek either by the original author or (more likely) by someone else who was skilled in the Greek language.

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

I don’t have the time at present to respond in detail to your post (and that of Starboard Tack). However, as you clearly whish to present yourself as an expert in Greek you won’t object if I point out one of the more glaring errors in your post. You said:

I also want to note that the examples from Matthew given in post 135 are not Greek idioms. For instance, Matthew 26:24 actually says, "legae atoe" which means “You have said it.� The phrase means the same in Greek, Hebrew and English.

As I’m sure you know, the text of Mt 26:64 is as follows:

λέγει α�τῷ � Ἰησοῦς, Σὺ εἶπας: πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπ' ἄ�τι ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ�ώπου καθήμενον �κ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ��χόμενον �πὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ ο��ανοῦ.

Transliterated for those without benefit of Greek fonts:
legei aut� ho Iēsous su eipas plēn leg� humin ap’arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthr�pou kathēmenon ek dexi�n tēs duname�s kai erchomenon epi t�n nephel�n tou ouranou.

You mistakenly draw attention to the first two words of the verse, legei aut�, which are correctly translated as “he is saying to him� and not your hopeless attempt, “you have said it�. (the conjugation of the verb leg� is third person singular, present, active, indicative for goodness sake, how can it be “you have said�?)

You completely missed the fact that I was referring to the Greek idiom, su eipas, which are words five and six; su = you, eipas = say. Only in Greek does this mean the affirmative, “yes�.

So when the Chief Priest asks Jesus if he is the son of the living god, Jesus says “yes�, which explains the Chief Priest’s reaction.

I will address the remainder of your post, and Starboard Tack’s, later in the week.

You are correct that I wrote the wrong Greek words. Sorry about that. Jesus did say “su eipas� which means “you have said it.� I find “you have said it� a better translation than “you say� because "eipas" is in the aorist tense.

I am far from an expert on Greek. I do know Greek and Hebrew, and the phrase “you have said it� makes sense in both languages.

Although introductory Greek grammars suggest translating the Aorist as the simple past, this is an oversimplification of the true state of affairs. “The aorist is well named; it is a-orist, without a place, undefined. It simply refers to the action itself without specifying whether the action is unique, repeated, ingressive, instantaneous, past or accomplished.� (Carson; Exegetical Falacies; p.68)

Moulton made a special study of Matthew concerning the translation of the aorist. Under the heading of “things that just happened� he speaks of “cases where an aorist indicative denotes present time�.( J.H Mouton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek.)

Robertson amplified Moulton’s point:
“The Aorist sometimes occurs where the context “implies completion before the main action�. This use of the aorist is particularly common in subordinate clauses (relative and temporal and indirect discourse). It must be emphasised that in this construction the antecedence of the action is not stressed in the Greek. The Greeks neglected to mark the priority of one event to another, leaving that to be gathered from the context. Strictly therefore the aorist is not used for the past perfect.� (A.T.Robertson; A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research; p840)

Robertson has more to say on the subject: “The aorist in Greek, particularly in dialogue, may be used for what has just happened….. So we translate it by the present indicative.�(ibid)

Hence my translation of the word εἶπας (eipas) as “say�.

However, while “you have said� might be an acceptable approximation, I await with keen anticipation your explanation of why the pronoun “it� is included in your translation, when it is entirely absent from the Greek.

[Flail]

Peter and the other apostles, Paul, and James are named. Sorry, but the others appear to not have left affadvits, notarised or otherwise.

Can you quote these eyewitness accounts so that we can see them here?

Consult 1 Peter, Acts, and John.

Please quote the eyewitness attestations you are referring to.

Yes, your contention is that no one in Greece could be bothered to ask whether it was true that someone had been raised from the dead after declaring to be God. That presumes that Paul's audience was brain dead, which is not likely, so yes, this is a rebuttal to your contention.

I do not understand the basis for your rebuttal. What are you talking about? Who exactly do you think the people in Greece would have asked?

It doesn't assume Paul's audience is brain dead, it assumes Paul's audience lived on a different continent and would have had no way to confirm the existence of "500 eyewitnesses" whose names and locations were unknown to them.

Yes, it is. See www.religioustolerance.org. You really must stop saying this, as it is so clearly false.

You seem to be confusing "biblical scholars" with "theologians." Religious Tolerance is talking about theologians. I referenced wikipedia which is talking about biblical scholars (ie. people who are actually experts in the field we are discussing). When I am talking about "scholars" and "most scholars" and what not I am talking about biblical scholars, not theologians. The opinion of theologians is not relevant to textual and historical criticism.

We don't see sober history, we see evangelical religious documents. The author of Luke makes this clear enough when he states that he is writing in order to reaffirm the faith of his reader.

There is virtually universal acceptance that the Gospels are written in the tradition of biography, a.k.a. history. You are wrong.

Universal acceptance among who? This is a bare assertion with nothing to support it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "different versions of the Gospels", what do you have in mind exactly?

What I mean is that if the Gospels were written very long after the events described, there would be versions that would support one position or another that would help resolve doctrinal questions rampant in the church 100 to 300 years after Christ's resurrection. We don't, just eye witness accounts that support each other, written in the form of historical accounts.

Why would we expect documents written in the first century to address doctrinal issues from the second century onwards? I don't understand your point.

This is not quite true. The "resurrection account" in 1st Corinthians doesn't contain nearly as many elaborate and fantastic elements as would later appear in the gospels. It seems quite a bit of "legendization" may have occurred.

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ was doctrinal from within a few years of Christ's death, and it was.

Is the fact that the story becomes more elaborate and incorporates more fantastic elements as the years went by not indicative of "legendization" in your eyes?

Sorry, you have misunderstood what I was asking evidence for. Can you provide evidence for this: "25 years...is far too short a time for legendization to occur."

This has been studied, I believe by A.N. Sherwin-White. But the concept is common sensical. Legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive. A single lifespan is the minimum for this to happen, but it requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

Wouldn't you need to take geography into account? Isn't it possible for a legend to develop abroad while those who were there at the time are totally unaware?

Proving the historicity of the Gospels is irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus Christ was the son of God, so I agree with you.

I don't think I said that?

However, you will note that most liberal Christians who call themselves Christians do not believe in the resurrection, the virgin birth, or the necessary atonement of Christ for 'getting right with God.' I have listened to debates between scholars like D'Souza, Hugh Ross or Bill Craig and Jesus Seminar types like Bart Ehrman, John Crossan or John Spong. While the latter are probably very nice people who obviously think Jesus said some nice things, they most certainly are not Christians since they do not think him divine. Maybe he isn't. The evidence indicates he is, so rationally, I'm going with that. But you are quite right, believing that the Gospels were written by the names on the book jacket is irrelevant to salvation.

Bart Ehrman isn't Christian. As for the others, I think if you did some research you would find that you are painting with an extremely broad brush. I also find it troubling when a Christian takes it upon themselves to be the arbiter of who is a true Christian and who is not. This fails to take into account the incredibly varied and dynamic history that your religion has.

Also you throw up strawman arguments, once again. Who is claiming that the church fathers were "in cahoots to trick the gullible"? There are plenty of reasons for people to believe things that don't involve malice.

And furthermore, I do not know what point you are trying to make by citing Religious Tolerance. I do not recall ever even bringing up the "near consensus among liberal, and some mainline theologians."

I think there must be two Fuzzy Dunlops. The one who wrote: "Yes, that's what happens when you agree with the majority of scholars. That's what mainstream means", referring to the basis for his opinions, and the one who wrote "I do not recall ever even bringing up the "near consensus among liberal, and some mainline theologians". You repeatedly assert things on the basis that your assertion agrees with "mainstream" scholarship, just like SlopeShoulder, and just like SlopeShoulder, the facts don't support the premise.

Just to reiterate, you seem to think that I am including theologians when I talk about "most scholars" in relation to these issues. I am not. If we were debating theology I would expect theologians to be relevant, but we are not debating theology. We are debating the biblical text, hence the relevant scholars are biblical scholars, not theologians.

Finally, appealing to the religious conviction or lack thereof of scholars as a reason for doubting their conclusions is an ad hominem argument.

Agreed. That is why I have criticized Slope for doing exactly that.

So what exactly is your motivation for pointing out that certain scholars aren't Christian in your eyes?

Excellent points here. And as to the 500 witnesses, doesn't that smack of fiction or exaggeration; why didn't Paul name and identify a few of these supposed witnesses and explore their specific first hand witness reports? But I suppose after more than three decades there wasn't much point.

And as to legend; why did it take 35 years for Paul to write and 60 years for the Gospel writers? Seems about the right amount of time for legend to grow by word of mouth, gossip and rumor and for anything factual to be confused and controverted to the extent that fiction writers and believers bent on propaganda would be free to stretch the truth. With something so amazing as a virgin birth and a resurrection, one would expect something to be reported and recorded by identifiable witnesses more contemporaneous to the events.

[Starboard Tack]

Excellent points here. And as to the 500 witnesses, doesn't that smack of fiction or exaggeration; why didn't Paul name and identify a few of these supposed witnesses and explore their specific first hand witness reports? But I suppose after more than three decades there wasn't much point.

While he did name a number of people who interacted with the risen Christ, you're right he didn't recite the names of any others who also interacted with him through direct withness. But I don't think that is too surprising. Paul states that some of those 500 are now dead, but most are alive, which is what you would expect after the passage of time. If he was making it up, why not name a bunch of dead people as witnesses, or list fictiousness names that couldn't be verified? Liars do that sort of thing, don't they?

And as to legend; why did it take 35 years for Paul to write and 60 years for the Gospel writers? Seems about the right amount of time for legend to grow by word of mouth, gossip and rumor and for anything factual to be confused and controverted to the extent that fiction writers and believers bent on propaganda would be free to stretch the truth. With something so amazing as a virgin birth and a resurrection, one would expect something to be reported and recorded by identifiable witnesses more contemporaneous to the events.

A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead. In 1 Cor, Paul refers to a creed he received within 5 years of the resurrection. He names people still alive who saw the resurrected Christ. He states that there are hundreds of other witnesses. He acts as if he is talking to people who are well aware of the truth of what he is saying because what he says is presented in a matter of fact, "here's what you all know happened" kind of way. For an example of what the Gospels would look like if subjected to legendization enhancements, see the Gospel of Peter. In it, the witnesses are waiting outside the tomb for Christ to be risen, the tomb opens, and two angels with heads that reach to the heavens help out a risen Christ whose head reaches up beyond the heavens, with the cross in tow that speaks. Now that is legend. Instead we have a story of women, who were deemed so unreliable that they couldn't give testimony to anything, who are the first to see not a Jesus Christ walking out of a tomb, but an empty tomb, with the linens carefully folded up in a corner. If the Gospels are made up, they should read like they were made up, but they don't. They read like factual accounts from witnesses who wanted to get their recollection of the story on paper before they died, which is why it took awhile for the actual writing to occur.

You also have to remember that this was not a literate society. Memory was perfectly sufficient for the recordation of most history, and again, most all scholars believe that the Gospel writers used earlier oral sources to supplement their own recollections, or those who accounts they were recording.

The late dating of the Gospels is based almost entirely on a tautology. Most liberal Christian scholars argue that since Jesus Christ was not resurrected (falsifying Christianity as Paul noted would be the case), accounts of his resurrection had to be metaphor, made up by later writers. Their presuppositions dictate their conclusions. They further argue that the absence of remarks on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which would date the synoptics earlier than 70 AD is not really an absence, and point to a single prophetic teachings by Christ on the destruction of Jerusalem (the most important event in most of Jewish history) as evidence that the teachings were made up since as everyone knows, prophecy is bunk, even from the son of God, who they aren't real sure is the son of God in any meaningful way. So, I think your dates are wrong, but even if right, don't change what I think is the reasonable conclusion that the resurrection story is described as it happened.