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]

I agree. The gospels were written in the lifetimes of the witnesses.

I think you meant to say "I believe the gospels were written in the lifetimes of the witnesses". Otherwise, you would have to now back up that claim with some evidence.

New Testament scholarship disagrees with you and I'm more likely to side with the consensus of experts in the field unless shown something that gives good evidence otherwise.

There are lots of references to follow in this article. As usual, fact check them yourself and feel free to provide counters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... ewitnesses.

Most scholars agree that they are the work of unknown Christians[58] and were composed c.65-110 AD.[59] The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[60] but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.[61][62]

There’s no evidence of it growing.

You mean besides the scripture itself as pointed out in the OP. Your are of course free to see or not see what's been pointed out. When one story has additional details added to an existing story, by definition the story has grown. In the gospels, we not only see a growing story, but a changing story as has been already pointed out in the OP.

Story A: Santa Clause, a jolly fellow who lives at the North Pole, delivers presents to children on Christmas Eve.

Story B: Santa Clause, a jolly fellow who lives at the North Pole, delivers presents to children on Christmas Eve. Santa uses a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer to accomplish this amazing task.

Story B has grown from story A. The gospels do the same thing. Though in a 'worse' way since they also change details that seem important to the author to either correct a previous theology or simply try and make the story more 'real' with actual sightings, etc. All covered in the OP.

But truthfully, if they were all exactly the same, the atheists would cry, “unbelievable because they’re the same!!”

Yes, you are correct! I suggest researching the Synoptic Problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_ ... %20written.

This is one of the very reasons we know pretty much beyond a doubt that we have authors "cut and pasting" previous work into their own. That makes them dependent NOT independent accounts. It also clearly shows these are not witness accounts (at least the later ones since they copy directly from the earlier ones).

Since they demonstrate the normal differences that occur when witness who didn’t collude together, the atheists cry, “unbelievable because there are slight differences!”

Incorrect. See above.

As an atheist, this is NOT my position. So you are simply wrong.

What we expect is what we see happening today. Different people tell their story of the same event using different words (see back to Synoptic Problem). In fact, we even expect differences in the story, but these should not materially change the overall story.

Example:

A group of people witness a small plane do an emergency landing into a field. It is a successful emergency landing and everyone walks away unharmed.

Person A: On Tuesday I saw an airplane land in the field behind the Grover High School. When the plane finally stopped, I saw 5 people get out and walk towards the school.

Person B: On Jan 3rd I witnessed a plane crash! The plane came down into the field across from Home Depot. The Home Depot near Grover High. I saw some smoke pouring out of the plane as it was landing. Thankfully it seems everyone survived the crash because I saw 5 people walking away.

Person C: My buddy Trevor had an engine failure in his Cessna 185. Apparently he blew a piston just after taking off. I was circling overhead in my Cessna 182 and witnessed the whole event. He called a Mayday over the radio and then proceeded to execute a successful emergency landing into a field between a Home Depot and a school. Everyone was fine. The plane was eventually trailered out and taken back for an engine overhall.

From the above, we can see that the overall story remains the same. A plane went down and landed in a field. Person A gives just the basic details. Person B (not a pilot obviously) thinks it was a 'crash', but this is normal for non pilots witnessing an emergency landing. Person C is both a pilot and witnessed (and heard) the entire event and provides some extra useful details.

This is the kind of thing we expect when reading multiple witness accounts of an event. The gospels are not even close to this.

What no atheist wants to admit is that to a man, those 12 witnesses died horrible deaths or suffered torture that could have been ended had they recanted. No man suffers torture for what he knows to be a lie. And christians have done this down through the millennia. They would rather suffer than deny the truth. No one does this for a lie.

This is the tired "no one would die for a lie" apologetic. This is clearly not true. Plenty of people die for their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the belief itself is true.

By using this apologetic, you are opening yourself up to the logical conclusion that all personal beliefs must be true. Clearly we know that's false. You will have to come up with something better (and more logical)

[AchillesHeel]

Doubtful. A full 40 years after the event Peter and Paul were dead.

And what source says they died 40 years after the event? I cited Irenaeus on this but you took issue with that and said he was unreliable. So did you just unknowingly endorse Irenaeus' testimony on their deaths?

So they definitely wrote their pieces while they lived. And they weren’t about to die. They didn’t write after they were dead. You can decide to doubt eye witnesses read the accounts, but that’s a personal choice. Since the deaths aren’t referred to, it dates the pieces much earlier.

First of all, we don't actually have any writings from Peter. The Petrine epistles are regarded as forgeries but, in any case, they don't give any details about the Resurrection, other than it possibly being spiritual - 1 Peter 3:18-22.

Itenaeus wrote Jesus died in his 50s. His information source is extremely dubious since he got that one wrong.

Uh-huh. Again, where did you get the idea that Peter and Paul died 40 years after the Resurrection? I think you'd be interested to know Irenaeus is the main source on that.

But that’s not the start of the historical account. You start years after the Resurrection, decide for no reason Paul had a “mystical” experience he, himself DOESNT say in full denial of his report of his experience.

Paul himself says he had a "revelation" in Gal. 1:16 and Acts 26:19 says it was a "vision from heaven." So, whatever it was, Jesus' body was no longer located on the earth to be seen per your own commitment to what Scripture says. Visions and revelations, by definition, are mystical experiences regardless if you believe they are veridical or not.

Moreover, Paul places his "vision" right next to the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 all while using the same verb - ophthe (appeared) as if to equate them. The "physical" appearances are not in Paul's letters. They develop later as I demonstrated in my comparative analysis.

They report a catch of fish which you arbitrarily decide is “unsubstantiated” upon no grounds at all. What do you require for it to be “substantiated??” You decide there’s change over time even though many authors wrote one piece with no second to demonstrate change.

I mean they are only attested in one account (when we have multiple from other people who were purportedly present for witnessing the same event). Multiple independent attestation raises historical likelihood. Most, if not all, of these stories do not pass this criteria which is a strike against historicity.

Where is the development within the mind of ONE author maybe a few minutes or hours later?

I'm comparing the development across all authors. John saying there are more stories than can fit in this book looks like a pretty open and shut case of legendary growth since the author seems to even admit to it!

What do you mean “other eye witness sources?” There are the gospels.

I'm talking about other eyewitness accounts from other events throughout history. You said the differences are "normal" and "slight" which entails you must have other examples where this type of phenomena happens. Well, let's see them then? If not, then you have no evidentiary basis for calling it "normal."

So what did they believe they were willing to die for rather than deny and how do you know?

For the majority of the apostles, we don't actually know how they died or if they were "willing to." You're just swallowing an apologetic trope hook, line and sinker without actually doing any research into the sources. Martyrdom only proves beliefs were sincere. It doesn't prove beliefs are true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Again, the denial of what the Bible actually says. The ignoring of serious contradictions as little disagreements. And the elephant in the room - the belief that if they deny everything, they win. It has to be bigger than that. The debunks of the lies that the Bible apologists have been telling for decades have to get out. It isn't even about winning the debates here.

So much seems to have been missed, particularly about the resurrection. I swallowed the idea that it was substantially a reliable report for a long time, until I actually compared them. But once one realises that Luke really does debunk Matthew's claim that the women ran into Jesus, and so does John, that the aftermath diverges with Matthew having the disciples go to Galilee (as the message said) while in Luke they stay in Jerusalem, with the message altered to say that (even aside from realisation that it was seeing Paul's letters that changed the narrative) and that Like debunks John's tall tale of Thomas by saying the 'eleven' (minus Judas) were there, then waving it away as little differences is seen as not just denial but treating others as fools.

Even the stuff about the draft of fish is denial. It is in Luke at the calling of disciples, but in John after the resurrection. Even worse, it crops up as a poetic simile (yes, we know them when we see them) in Matthew (Parables of the Kingdom). I'd say the go -to answer is 'floating stories'. Some simile or parable going the rounds comparing the church to a fisherman who nets fish for Jesus. The simile is even turned into an actual even with a prophecy stuffed into Jesus' mouth. I have said that I credit not a word of the gospels as Jesus' actual words. It is all Pauline Christian propaganda.

It is pretty obvious when you see it, like a trick you though must 'really be magic' until it is explained, and then you won't be fooled again, and fooling us is what the apologetics try to do, even when we know how the trick is done.

[1213]

It is a misperception based on the false belief that the Bible is the default hypothesis and all that is needed is to deny everything and the Bible wins.

It is the basic logical flaw that makes pretty much all Bible apologetics invalid, logically.

There fact of an equally valid rebuttal theory means that there is no good reason to believe the faithclaim, ...

You should understand that this is more about correcting the false accusations that atheists make, than about making people to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a misperception based on the false belief that the Bible is the default hypothesis and all that is needed is to deny everything and the Bible wins.

It is the basic logical flaw that makes pretty much all Bible apologetics invalid, logically.

There fact of an equally valid rebuttal theory means that there is no good reason to believe the faithclaim, ...

You should understand that this is more about correcting the false accusations that atheists make, than about making people to believe.

From someone who posted a combined resurrection narrative but with the bits omitted that validated my case, you don't get to point the accusing finger at atheists.

[1213]

...but with the bits omitted...

There was no part omitted. Everyone who has the skill to read the text, can see it easily.

[TRANSPONDER]

...but with the bits omitted...

There was no part omitted. Everyone who has the skill to read the text, can see it easily.

As I recall, you omitted where Luke said it was Mary Magdalene and the others who saw all the things that happened. There is refutation of the 'They split up' argument. I think you may heve left out John's bit where Mary saw nothing and didn't know what had happened to Jesus. I can't recall, but the fact is therse with matthew contradict. The contradiction is real, serious and terminal, and the fact that you knew which bits to omit shows that you know it, too. I'd say you have been totally shown up.

If you want to ID the post you made of the whole thing, I'll check and apologise if I misremembered, but I'm sure I remember.

[1213]

As I recall, you omitted where Luke said it was Mary Magdalene and the others who saw all the things that happened. ...

Luke says:

Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:10

That is not the same as Mary saw all the things.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I recall, you omitted where Luke said it was Mary Magdalene and the others who saw all the things that happened. ...

Luke says:

Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:10

That is not the same as Mary saw all the things.

Terrible, vterrible, You may deceive yourself - that;'s up to you - but how dare you try to deceive others, and yet (said he standing atop a rock, arms outstretched ) I forgive you as it is religious Faith that makes you do that.

You are playing with words to mislead yourself and others. It does not relate at line 10 what she told to the disciples, but the rest of the passage says when she and the others saw, and that ius what (Luke says) she told the disciples (and CCleophas repeats what she said she saw)

Luke 24. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

It also does not day "They did not run into Jesus on the way back', not does it say "But John's gospel says nothing about an angelic message".

It doesn't need to; the contradictions can be seen without the Bible itself drawing attention to it. It is a wretched attempt to mislead, and I get that you will never admit what is plain, but I won't let you get away with trying to bamboozle the people who look in.

[Difflugia]

There was no part omitted. Everyone who has the skill to read the text, can see it easily.

The contradiction is real, serious and terminal, and the fact that you knew which bits to omit shows that you know it, too. I'd say you have been totally shown up.

No, all the verses are there, but the contradictions are either papered over ("Note!") or ignored. Did the stone rolling away happen before the women got there as in Mark and Luke, or was it while they were standing there ("Behold!") as in Matthew?

Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb.

If the text doesn't have to say what it actually says, then there are no contradictions. The end result becomes a situation like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. One can either know that the text is true and inerrant or what the text means, but not both. Did the women in Mark tell the disciples about the resurrection? "And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid." That, however, causes a problem with the other Gospels, so the solution is to claim it really says something else.

Note!, some think that this means they never told about the matter to anyone ever. If that would be the case, we would not have this story. That is why it is reasonable to think they only didn’t tell on their way about it.

Then, we have people arriving at the tomb, leaving, then returning, including events in the middle that happened "in the country" and "after these things." It's the same exercise as trying to reconcile the travel itinerary of the Jesus family in the nativity stories. There's not enough time for all of the required events, but that doesn't matter if one can say them with a straight face.