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]

Yes. We have brains, and we can solve problems. We are not five year old children who (supposedly) can't understand anything unless it is spelt out.

The contradictions are excused in various ways. And the idea it to deny everything on the grounds that it is minor, forgotten, unimportant or explainable.

That's why one angel or two is almost irrelevant and I suspect was an apologetics trick to distract with an easy - to - dismiss problem from the Biggies.

It's like evolution That all the evidence points to evolution is held to be irrelevant. It had to be proven with undeniable proof. The cetan sequence does that. It doesn't matter that Genesis literalists demand a camera team filming it happen or they won'tr accept it. Evidence that would stand up in court is good enough and we just have to expect denial.

The point being, one case - contradiction or speciation being effectively proven - the others are validated, too, and the excuses and denials are invalid.

Same with the gospels. It is puzzling that Mark has no Jesus appearance. But shrug that off (everyone knew the story, anyway) and if Matthew has no evening appearance, that doesn't mean there wasn't one, and let them hope that the Joe publics won't compare the accounts.

Jesus rolls up and tells them to stay until the Holy spirit descends, so they go to Galilee where Jesus meets them and tells them to convert all nations. They then return, Jesus comes back and gives a month - long scripture lesson, ascends, and then they hand the mission to the Gentiles over to Paul.

The apologists can fiddle all that together so long as the Joe Publics don't see how they contradict.

But the one about the appearance of Jesus to the women and John having no such, and not even the angel saying Jesus has risen, and in fact a flat denial of that, even without Luke in the middle contradicting both, and it doesn't matter that the Bible apologists deny everything. To anyone not sunk in denial, it is undeniable - the Resurrections are demonstrably invented, independently, and that means there never was such a story (The ones in Paul ore mental visions) and that of course explains why Mark doesn't have one. The empty tomb and the angel tethered there to tell us what to think was good enough for that first attempt.

[Goose]

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

That's debatable. They were written 40-60 years or more after the supposed events and their provenance is uncertain so we don't actually know if any eyewitnesses actually read these published stories. Irenaeus says Mark wrote after the deaths of Peter and Paul which took place in the mid 60s. All the other gospels came after Mark.

Irenaeus also says...

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” – Against Heresies 3.1

Irenaeus would be direct evidence against your main contention that the resurrection accounts are not based on eyewitness testimony.

[Difflugia]

Irenaeus would be direct evidence against your main contention that the resurrection accounts are not based on eyewitness testimony.

It would be indirect evidence, at best. Irenaeus doesn't tell us how he came by his information, but his claims about Matthew and Mark are nearly identical to a claim that Eusebius attributes to Papias. Papias, however, seems to be referring to documents other than our Matthew and Mark. While Irenaeus quotes from our Matthew and Mark, Papias doesn't and the descriptions that Papias gives don't really match either of the documents we have. This is compounded because the tradition that Papias knows for Judas' death is incompatible with the one in our Matthew. Even if Papias knew our Matthew, he didn't think at least one of its stories was historical.

Since Irenaeus doesn't offer any sources for his information about Luke and John, we can't assume that those sources are any more reliable than the one for Matthew and Mark. We can have the same level of confidence for Irenaeus being right as we do for any modern apologist that mistakes tradition for fact.

[AchillesHeel]

Irenaeus also says...

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” – Against Heresies 3.1

Irenaeus would be direct evidence against your main contention that the resurrection accounts are not based on eyewitness testimony.

Usually when I debate people who believe this stuff, they assume the Church Fathers are reliable. I'm under no obligation to believe anything they say. I'm simply making an internal critique based on what they are arguing vs what the sources say. He tried to throw Irenaeus under the bus when it contradicted his belief on the dates of the gospels but was unknowingly committed to what Irenaeus said elsewhere! If you don't think Irenaeus is reliable like him then that's fine.

Irenaeus was dependent upon Papias for that tradition but Papias' descriptions do not match our canonical Mark and Matthew. This, plus the empirical observation of Matthew's additions to Mark's narrative is enough to doubt historicity. I put a higher priority on internal evidence vs external. Matthew is clearly writing fiction when he adds a earthquake, a descending angel and says tombs of people opened up and that they "appeared to many." You'd think the other gospel authors would've noticed this stuff....

[The Nice Centurion]

Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

I counter that with Psalm 137:9

Psalms 137:9
“Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Psalms-137-9/

[1213]

...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?

Matthew doesn't really tell did the women see the rolling. It is possible that the information game for example from the guards.

Did the women in Mark tell the disciples about the resurrection? "And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid." ....

Sorry, I didn't find the scripture that says that, please tell where is that in the Bible?

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." ...

Why would they all move exactly the same way? If we would make a story about how the writings in this debate was formed, it would be as complex, because that is how things go, when multiple people are involved. Why assume that it would have been some kind of simple day?

[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.

Terrible, vterrible, You may deceive yourself - that;'s up to you - but how dare you try to deceive others

Deceive? I showed what is actually said and now you want everyone to not believe their own eyes and instead accept your baseless interpretation.

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

Luke leaves many things open. For example because it doesn't exactly say who saw what and when.

When they came back from the tomb, many thing would have happened on that trip, it all is just not said in the book of Luke, who, by his own words told only what he had heard from others.

Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning the matters having been borne out among us, as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,
Luke 1:1-2

Do you have some good, intelligent, reason to assume that everything that happened the day, was written in the Luke's Gospel? I don't think there is any good reason to make the assumptions you make, especially when for example John says:

And there are also many things, whatever Jesus did, which if they were written singly, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books having been written.

John 21:25

I think is is wrong and baseless assumption to think they are exclusionary. They all can be true at the same time, only small part of the whole events.

[Difflugia]

Matthew doesn't really tell did the women see the rolling. It is possible that the information game for example from the guards.

How do you imagine this happening? According to Matthew's story in 28:1-8, the women arrived, there was an earthquake, an angel that looked like lightning and dressed in white appeared, then rolled away the stone. The guards then passed out stone cold. The angels talked to the women, then the women immediately left.

So, your synthesis of these events is that the women were standing at the tomb and didn't notice the earthquake or a lightning-like angel rolling the stone away? Is that really how you harmonize this story with the ones that say the women arrived after the stone had already been rolled away?

"Well done, my good and faithful servant!"

Did the women in Mark tell the disciples about the resurrection? "And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid." ....

Sorry, I didn't find the scripture that says that, please tell where is that in the Bible?

Mark 16:8

Why would they all move exactly the same way? If we would make a story about how the writings in this debate was formed, it would be as complex, because that is how things go, when multiple people are involved. Why assume that it would have been some kind of simple day?

Who said I'm looking for "simple?" I'm looking for plausible, which I think is a reasonable expectation. The fact that you have to mischaracterize my expectations reinforces that you seem to know exactly why your harmonization is as implausible as it is.

[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

Deceive? I showed what is actually said and now you want everyone to not believe their own eyes and instead accept your baseless interpretation.

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

Luke leaves many things open. For example because it doesn't exactly say who saw what and when.

When they came back from the tomb, many thing would have happened on that trip, it all is just not said in the book of Luke, who, by his own words told only what he had heard from others.

Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning the matters having been borne out among us, as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,
Luke 1:1-2

Do you have some good, intelligent, reason to assume that everything that happened the day, was written in the Luke's Gospel? I don't think there is any good reason to make the assumptions you make, especially when for example John says:

And there are also many things, whatever Jesus did, which if they were written singly, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books having been written.

John 21:25

I think is is wrong and baseless assumption to think they are exclusionary. They all can be true at the same time, only small part of the whole events.

It is valid assumptions based on what the Gospels say. Sure, Mark doesn't have any account of anyone seeing Jesus. Does that mean it didn't happen?' It does not say so' only suits you when you like.

Aside from your irrelevant appeal to Luke swearing we have to believe his fiddled and fudged account, the women find the tomb open and encounter an angel or angels inside our outside the tomb. They are told that Jesus is risen.

They run back to the disciples, meeting Jesus on the way, according to Matthew, and Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and the others who related all these things.To try to suggest that this means something other than all the women reported what they had been told by the angel is trying to sucker us in a pretty disrepectful way. Though I get that Biblefaith makes you act like that.

Luke had Cleophas repeat to Jesus what they had seen - angels who said Jesus was alive. This contradicts Matthew, who said that they had run into Jesus. It is absurd to think that Cleophas would have left that out.

It means of course that Matthew has invented that rather pointless encounter. On top of that, John has no angel or message and Mary (and another implied by her saying 'we' do not know where they have put him'), contradicts the Synoptics and their explanatory angel. Quite apart fromLuke altering the message to suit his amended narrative.

Luke saying Mary Magdalene and the others saw all these things clobbers the attempt to invent the women splitting up.

All the rest of your post is just attempts to fiddle your way out of the plain facts - the resurrections are so contradictory in significant ways, that they cannot be taken as eyewitness or reliable.

You may fiddle, fudge and deny as much as you like, but to anyone who cares more about truth than Faith, the conclusion is slam, dunk. The contradictions are real, undermine the credibility of the account, and imply that a walking, talking, resurrection (rather than the in -the -head visions in Paul) was given a narrative individually and differently - because there originally wasn't one, which is why Mark doesn't have one.

Let those with ears to hear, hear, and don't let Bible apologists bamboozle you -all.

[Goose]

Irenaeus would be direct evidence against your main contention that the resurrection accounts are not based on eyewitness testimony.

It would be indirect evidence, at best.

Although a tangential point of contention, I disagree. Historically speaking, the evidence from Irenaeus directly supports the contention that the resurrection accounts are based on eyewitness accounts, which argues against the main contention of the OP. An example of indirect evidence against the main contention of the OP would be that John is never explicitly named in John’s Gospel whereas more obscure members are and John the Baptist is simply referred to as John.

Irenaeus doesn't tell us how he came by his information, but his claims about Matthew and Mark are nearly identical to a claim that Eusebius attributes to Papias.

Are you talking about these claims?

"This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." – Papias, as recorded by Eusebius

”Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” – Irenaeus

If so, those hardly seem “nearly identical” to me. To be sure there are some common elements (the highlighted bits) which we might expect from independent sources. But nearly identical is quite a stretch.

Papias, however, seems to be referring to documents other than our Matthew and Mark. While Irenaeus quotes from our Matthew and Mark, Papias doesn't and the descriptions that Papias gives don't really match either of the documents we have. This is compounded because the tradition that Papias knows for Judas' death is incompatible with the one in our Matthew. Even if Papias knew our Matthew, he didn't think at least one of its stories was historical.

Much of what you argued here is debatable and irrelevant to the point I’m making.

Since Irenaeus doesn't offer any sources for his information about Luke and John, we can't assume that those sources are any more reliable than the one for Matthew and Mark.

In fairness, Irenaeus, like many ancient authors on various claims, doesn’t explicitly offer his sources for his information about any of the Gospels’ authorship. So your argument here is essentially moot.

We can have the same level of confidence for Irenaeus being right as we do for any modern apologist that mistakes tradition for fact.

We could say the same for virtually every writer from antiquity. Is there a meaningful argument to be made here?