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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Bias confirmation by convinced Bible scholars means nothing. I was struck by the author of a very erudite analysis of Matthew who, when he got to the two donkeys, went blindfaith -denialist. So I care nothing for the opinions of Bible 'Scholars', who have ignored plain sight contradictions for hundreds of years and are still lying to anyone who doesn't look for themselves.

Professional detectives, I don't know about but I am convinced that the Gospels (especially the resurrection accounts) would fail if tried in a court of law, as indeed they fail when put on trial here, even if True believers deny everything. But I trust the court of public opinion - if only they get to hear both sides.

[1213]

.... The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another

How is the right amount of deviation defined?

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.

Bible doesn't claim they all experienced the same things. It clearly shows different people saw different things. And even when they were witnessing same event, they were not always at the same spot. For example when Jesus died, some of them were closer to Jesus, which would explain the small differences in what people tell about the event.

But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magda-lene. Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
John 19:25-26

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to freeride6 in post #62]

That is a complete fiddlement. You have shifted Luke's remark of Mary Magdalene and the others coming from the tomb to the disciples, having seen and heard all these things, thus debunking your claim that the women split up, and shifted it to something that happened after the disciples had gone to check the tomb.

But Luke contradicts this, too, with Cleophas telling Jesus that the women saw a vision of angels who said Jesus was alive (but no mention of them meeting Jesus) and the disciples went to check the tomb and reported back (leaving Mary Magdalene there as in John's version) and Cleophas (according to Luke) heard what they had to say before leaving for Emmaeus.

Your attempt to fiddle the text to shift the women running into Jesus (for that is what that is) while running to the disciples after hearing the angelic message (which isn't in John at all) to after the disciples had gone to check the tomb, fails when examined in context.

I know you dearly want to fiddle the context make the gospels work, so I'll be forgiving or understanding at least, but this blatant attempt to fiddle the text in this way is not going to work or do a single thing to eliminate the glaring contradictions that show that the resurrection accounts were independently invented and that is why they contradict.

.... The resurrection narratives are not reliable historical reports based on eyewitness testimony because they deviate too much from one another

How is the right amount of deviation defined?

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.

Bible doesn't claim they all experienced the same things. It clearly shows different people saw different things. And even when they were witnessing same event, they were not always at the same spot. For example when Jesus died, some of them were closer to Jesus, which would explain the small differences in what people tell about the event.

But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magda-lene. Therefore when Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!"
John 19:25-26

What one has a right to expect in consistency with purported witnesses. Especially, bearing in mind that the gospels are not supposed to be reporters' notebooks jotted down at the time, but remembering by people who heard what others had to tell. The excuse that nobody else heard the penitent thief even though the others heard them reviling Jesus, is beyond credibility. They were close enough to hear the thieves calling out Jesus but not close enough to hear one repent? No, this is just Luke making up a story himself, and it is not the only time he makes such changes. In your post above, you ignore the change he makes to the angelic message.

There is also the discrepancy, not to say contradiction, of those who were near enough to hear the thieves damning Jesus, not mentioning Jesus giving his mother away to the other disciple (which is beyond credibility as the rest of Jesus' family had hardly all died off) as well as not mentioning the spear thrust, which Luke tacitly denies at the resurrection when Jesus shows hands and feet but not the side. Never mind all 11 being there, refuting John's tale of Thomas not being present.

It is clear as day that additions have been made to a basic common story, and they cannot be fiddled together nor explained away. Not for anyone not determined to believe it no matter what the evidence against gospel veracity is.

Attempts at epistemological fiddling to try to make anything and everything uncertain is not going to work, either. That is when i learned early on that mere lists of contradictions wouldn't move believers but the Biggies would cause them some bother.

That is why the two angels gambit is a cheat, as it explains away a minor discrepancy fairly easily, but ignores the more problematical contradictions, which I never hear, though 'two angels' is an iconic Explained contradiction'.

It is indeed about what excuse people will swallow, and not about how much denial the Faithful can produce. And somehow the contradictory nature of these supposed eyewitnesses has been kept from people, just as the true contradictions of the two nativities has been disguised in a neatly edited little Christmas card with shepherds and wise men turning up together, when it was (arguably) a year or more apart, in the supposed chronology.

I'm aware that even apart from Believers, people may not be happy to realise that a story they all credited, give or take a few minor slips (as I did myself, once) is a pile of piffle and they didn't realise it. But I have Faith in humanity that they like to believe what they trust is reliable, they hate to be fooled and misled, and once they realise they have been fed a string of lies, their abreaction is terrible.

[AchillesHeel]

How is the right amount of deviation defined?

By comparing other reliable eyewitness accounts of the same event. They do not have the same amount of deviation as these obvious fictional stories.

Bible doesn't claim they all experienced the same events. It clearly shows different people saw different things.

Matthew, Luke and John all say the Eleven were present for the events described in their narratives.

And even when they were witnessing same event, they were not always at the same spot. For example when Jesus died, some of them were closer to Jesus, which would explain the small differences in what people tell about the event.

This post wasn't about the death narratives. It was about the post-mortem appearance narratives.

[1213]

This post wasn't about the death narratives. It was about the post-mortem appearance narratives.

Also that is witnessed in different ways and the stories show that the people were not all the time in the same place, which explains if they has slightly different knowledge about the matters.

[JehovahsWitness]

This post wasn't about the death narratives. It was about the post-mortem appearance narratives.

Also that is witnessed in different ways and the stories show that the people were not all the time in the same place, which explains if they has slightly different knowledge about the matters.

I agree; and would add that since the biblical narratives rarely place events being recorded chronologically in relation to other reports (and never ever put exact times ) it is difficult or even impossible to prove chronological conflicts or contradictions. Further since when a report is recorded (written) is not necessarily a reflection of when the event happened, the earliest written account does not necessarily mean the earliest report of the event.

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew, Luke and John all say the Eleven were present for the events described in their narratives.

There is no scripture that says all the Eleven were present for ALL the resurrection events in their narratives. Further it may well be the term "The Eleven" is used on occassion, as a title for representatives of the group, rather than an actual head count. (Rather like the press use the term "the Senate" or "The government ")

[TRANSPONDER]

This post wasn't about the death narratives. It was about the post-mortem appearance narratives.

Also that is witnessed in different ways and the stories show that the people were not all the time in the same place, which explains if they has slightly different knowledge about the matters.

I agree; and would add that since the biblical narratives rarely place events being recorded chronologically in relation to other reports (and never ever put exact times ) it is difficult or even impossible to prove chronological conflicts or contradictions. Further since when a report is recorded (written) is not necessarily a reflection of when the event happened, the earliest written account does not necessarily mean the earliest report of the event.

Your effort to fiddle the various elements together do not work. It is clear that your deliberate attempt to show the women running into Jesus on the way to report to the disciples was actually after they had reported to the disciples and (apparently) had gone with them to the tomb to link that up with Mary meeting Jesus at the tomb in John.

But Luke refutes that as Cleophas tells Jesus the women came from the tomb telling of angels who said Jesus was alive, and the disciples came back from checking and Jesus they did not see. You cannot make that bit of the women running from the tomb to the disciples into the women running into Jesus at the tomb after the disciples had gone there.

And that was not your argument in the first place which was the women had indeed run into Jesus but Mary Magdalene had gone a different way and that explained why she doesn't know what has become of Jeses.

I refuted that because Luke shows that Mary Magdalene and the others all reported back to the disciples together and they had not seen Jesus (inJohn she hadn't even heard the angelic explanation).

So you failed there and are trying to ship the whole thing to after e when the disciples had gone to the tomb. But that fails as it is still Luke having Mary and the others telling the disciples that the angel)s) said Jesus was alive, but not that they had seen him

You cannot fiddle these elements together to try to eliminate the real contradictions which show the resurrections were invented separately.

But thanks for your efforts, as it shows just how discrepant the stories are and the lengths Bible apologists will go to to mislead people to push the claims of Christianity.

I have Faith that people, when they realise they have been lied to all this time, will switch and vote the other way. it is where half of atheists come from.

[AchillesHeel]

This post wasn't about the death narratives. It was about the post-mortem appearance narratives.

Also that is witnessed in different ways and the stories show that the people were not all the time in the same place, which explains if they has slightly different knowledge about the matters.

Every member of the Eleven was said to witness the Galilean appearance in Matthew which is not mentioned in Mark, Luke or John.

Every member of the Eleven was said to witness the Jerusalem appearance and Ascension in Luke which is not mentioned in Mark, Matthew or John.

Every member of the Eleven was present for the Doubting Thomas story in John which is not mentioned in Mark, Matthew or Luke.

[AchillesHeel]

Matthew, Luke and John all say the Eleven were present for the events described in their narratives.

There is no scripture that says all the Eleven were present for ALL the resurrection events in their narratives. Further it may well be the term "The Eleven" is used on occassion, as a title for representatives of the group, rather than an actual head count. (Rather like the press use the term "the Senate" or "The government ")

Careful now. You're running the risk of some of the Eleven not being eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Christ.

If someone wants to salvage the historicity of these narratives, they must answer the challenge at the end of the original post. So far, no one has even attempted to do so. This alone makes the special pleading obvious for all to see.