Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[tabibito]

so you dont think that two or more people could conspire to falsehood?

You're not saying that you buy anything that 2 or 3 people says is true...

If two authors are in collusion, there is only one witness. Where one author cites another it is a little more complex.

[One Bad Pig]

First, thanks for actually looking it up. In the scholarly world (i.e. the world I'm in 95%+ of the time), this isn't even a question. The guards at the tomb are attested in only two sources, one of which is the Gospel of Peter (written about 150 CE).

From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.

[psstein]

I agree with you. The hypothesis of aliens stealing Jesus' body is possible in a world allowing for the supernatural, but highly implausible. However, wouldn't you agree that the hypothesis that Aramathea, Pilate, the family of Jesus, or a group of the Sanhedrin taking/moving the body is not only possible but also plausible? You may not believe that they are the most likely explanations, but still they are plausible, not implausible, right?

Going through them one by one:

Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.

Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.

Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.

I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.

[psstein]

From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.

You're not making a bad point, though here's why I disagree:
1. Matthew sets up the guard as a literary device to close the circle started by the Murder of the Innocents (which may or may not have happened). Just as Herod worked with the scribes and priests, so does Pilate. Matthew does have an anti-Jewish tone, so it does make sense.
2. The guard only exists to refute the Jewish polemic against the empty tomb (i.e. the disciples came and stole it away). Obviously, if the guard was even remotely competent, he would've seen the disciples taking the body out.

Poorly attested is not the same as ahistorical, that's true. Arguments from silence can be dangerous, but I think it's clear, at least in this case, that the guard is designed to refute the Jewish polemic. I find the fact it's not mentioned in Mark, John, or Luke rather troubling for its historicity.

[Gary]

From my perusal of Wintery Knight's article, it appears that people are equating "not well attested" with "ahistorical." And since when did facts have to be embarrassing to be true? I get that the guards are less defensible from a critical POV, but one should not forget that the charge of literary fiction is largely an argument from silence; we have no account attesting to an unguarded tomb, after all.

You do admit, however, that even if Matthew's account is historical, and that guards were there, they did not arrive until some time had passed and the stone had not yet been sealed. So there was still an opportunity for someone to have taken the body.

[Gary]

Going through them one by one:

Joseph of Arimathea: James Tabor advanced this in his Jesus Dynasty, which I'm told has some decent parts. Of all the reburial hypotheses, I think this is the most plausible. However, there are two issues. 1. Joseph is described as sympathetic to Jesus. He even asks for his body so he can bury him. I don't think Joseph is going to move the body and not tell the disciples.

Family: This one has the biggest problems. James, the brother of Jesus, becomes a leader in the Jerusalem church. Mary is present with the disciples when they replace Judas. If Jesus' family removed him, then neither Mary nor James knows about it. It seems rather odd that family members who thought Jesus insane wouldn't tell his mother and brother they took the body from the empty tomb and moved it elsewhere.

Sanhedrin: I don't see the Sanhedrin violating the Jewish laws and traditions regarding burial. Removing a body after its burial would be a huge violation and would render all of them ritually impure.

I think Joseph of Arimathea reburying the body is plausible, though highly unlikely. The family is possible though implausible. The Sanhedrin seems implausible as well, though more likely than the family.

I respect the fact that you are willing to admit that other explanations (or at least one) are plausible, even if you don't believe the explanations are probable.

Regarding Joseph of Arimathea, I think the claim that he was a follower of Jesus is an embellishment to the original story told by Mark.

Here is Mark's account:

"When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."

Could "waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God" mean that he was a follower of Jesus? I guess, but seems like a stretch.

Here is Luke's account:

" Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, 51 had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. 52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. "

Sounds pretty similar to Mark's statement. What devout Jew was not waiting for the kingdom of God?? Again, this statement does not infer necessarily that he was a follower of Jesus.

Now, here's Matthew's account:

"When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."

HUGE difference! Where did Matthew get this information that both Mark and Luke missed?

And here is John's account:

"After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission."

Gary's analysis: So Mark has Arimathea a member of the Sanhedrin and a devout Jew. Luke has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin, a devout Jew, AND a dissenter in the previous night's decision by the Sanhedrin to execute Jesus. Matthew has Arimathea as a member of the Sanhedrin and a follower of Jesus. Finally, John has Arimathea as a SECRET disciple of Jesus.

Sounds like an embellished story, to me. Why would John's Arimathea be afraid of the Jews when Luke's Arimathea had boldly stood up to the Jews the night before when they had voted to execute Jesus??

[Gary]

All of them condemned him as deserving death.

Gary: Last time I checked, "all" means "all". Are we to really believe that Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus who voted to execute him??

[psstein]

The discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.

Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.

It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.

[Gary]

The discrepancies suggest differing memories and differing tradition over who exactly Joseph of Arimathea was, but it seems fairly unanimous he was observant and buried Jesus.

Based on what we know of Second Temple practices, it seems really strange to suppose he would bury a body, move it, wait for it to decay, then put it in an ossuary, all without telling anyone else, especially the Sanhedrin. Burying a body then removing it was itself considered wrong, and why would he not tell anybody about it? Why would he just leave it a secret? To me, assuming Joseph of Arimathea reburies the body requires additional information we absolutely do not have. I also find Dunn's discussion of this compelling, the tradition largely tries to shift blame onto the Jews (the later works, like Peter, are very anti-Jewish), so the spontaneous development of an upper echelon Jew sympathetic to Jesus is unlikely.

It's also kind of tough to know Joseph's relation to the Sanhedrin. The trial scene is not very specific, and it seems unlikely Caiaphas would convene the entire Sanhedrin in the middle of the night.

I don't pretend to be an expert on first century Jewish burial customs, so let me run this hypothetical by you:

The Sanhedrin wanted all the bodies off of the crosses before sunset and the beginning of Passover, and it is almost sunset. Arimethea, a devout JEW (but not a follower of Jesus), mentions to the other members of the Sanhedrin that he has a tomb nearby in which they can temporarily bury Jesus (and the others) until the Passover ends Saturday at sunset. On Saturday after sunset, they can move the bodies to another location as Arimathea wants to use his hand-hewn rock tomb for himself in the future. The Sanhedrin is indifferent to the possibility of the disciples making a resurrection claim due to the empty tomb, as Jesus was not the "big deal" that the gospels make him out to be. He was just another petty trouble-maker, swiftly and efficiently dealt with. "Who cares what a handful of peasants from Galilee think."

I'm not trying to say this is what happened, just that there are possible explanations for Arimethea being willing to bury Jesus but not being a disciple and not wanting to keep the body in the tomb past sunset Saturday.

You didn't comment above about the most probable suspect to move the body: Pilate.

Pilate gives Arimathea the body of Jesus, but a few hours later realizes that he has just given a man executed for high treason against Caesar a proper, honorable burial. "What if Caesar finds out??"

Pilate orders soldiers to the tomb, during Passover, while all the Jews and Christians are either at home or in the Temple. The soldiers break the seal, move the stone, take the body, and toss it into a hole in the ground, the location of which is known only to them. The women show up Sunday morning...an empty tomb!

[psstein]

I forgot to mention Pilate. Oops, I've been doing this and other stuff most of today.

Pilate: The Romans largely honored the customs of the land they were in. Removing a body from a grave was considered improper, and seeing as how Passover had previously led to great bloodshed, I don't think Pilate would've done much to offend the Jewish population. Pilate may have been ruthless, but he was not stupid. Passover had been cancelled under (I think) Archelaus due to a riot that left 30,000 or so dead. On another note, Caesar was pretty indifferent to Judea. Judea was a backwater that occasionally spawned a rebellion.

Joseph was an observant Jew, and I really don't see him violating the burial laws. He would've been able to reuse the tomb either way! Once the body had decayed, the bones would've been put in an ossuary (a box, more or less) and stored in an alcove of the tomb. I also fail to see why this wouldn't have been mentioned early on, when the disciples started spreading the message of Jesus' resurrection.

Yet again, there are alternative explanations, hence the Resurrection not being "provable" in any strict sense of the word. History always leaves room for doubt.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm saying it would be highly highly inconsistent if someone truly devoted to YHWH lived such a lifestyle. Note I said also those who held exclusively to YHWH. When you have syncretists, the game changes. These people included YHWH in a pantheon. YHWH was one of many. Maybe He might be the highest, but He's still one of many.

Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.

Jesus is quoted several times regarding hell and heaven. He told the story of Lazarus and the Rich man and often tangled with the Jewish elite, no?

Yes He did tell that story. What's the point of it? It's not to give you the furniture of the afterdeath. It's to show a contrast. In the time of Jesus, the poor would be seen as under God's curse and the rich as receiving His blessing. Jesus talks about a rich man who was so rich even his underwear was of the finest material. There was a beggar so poor that he wasn't even buried when he died and dogs licked his wounds, a common medicine back then. The shock is that the rich man is under God's curse and Lazarus isn't. Also, Lazarus is named in this case I think because Jesus is pointing a contrast that Lazarus is worth talking about (And his name matches Abraham's servant also) and the rich man isn't.

I can't answer that because frankly, we don't know much about many of them. However, I think after about three years with Jesus, they would be educated and to spread the message, they wouldn't need to know how to write themselves. They'd just need a good secretary.

What Peter was pointing to was the empty tomb. Anyone could witness that. Anyone could go right down the street and see it. That also means that if this had been some trick on the part of the disicples, the last place they'd start the movement is ground zero. Also, I do not think you're accurate on how Peter's sermon was preached. More than likely, it's a synopsis. This was common in ancient literature. You didn't have to say word for word. You just had to give words that would have been said or get the thrust of the message. Note also a miracle had taken place.




Here's what to get. We think paying our bills is something drastically important today. For them, honor and shame was even more important.






No, but that's because the Iliad is a work of fiction and in that genre. The Gospels are in the genre of Greco-Roman bioi. Those are meant to be historical and we have found plenty historical in them.

No. I'm not saying all claims are equally plausible. That's your straw man. I'm responding to your idea that no historical evidence could convince you but only a personal experience.




The part about the weather.

You made the claim. I'd like to see you back it.




Your claim was the idea of fakes calls into question the real. The absence of real alone calls into question the real, and yet I've presented evidence for my claim and there are others in this thread who have said they have seen miracles. Upon what grounds do I disregard every miracle claim?

Serpents are wary of anything, always on the watch for danger.

And this does not go against the commentary I cited.






I think you look at the context. In the case of Jesus, it's all about YHWH. That's a miracle of raising the dead, something quite unique. Sometimes, it might not be as clear. Keener lists many times where it was seen and documented that someone was healed specifically after prayer in Jesus's name.

I would expect Jesus's miracle to be unique, but his wasn't a resurrection like that. His was a resurrection to a body that would never die. That's not meant for anyone else until the end.

Healing Steven Hawkins might be good trick. Win over your enemies is a pretty sound tactic.

And why should that be done?




It comes down to the evidence. It looks like you're saying you can take all the evidence but it won't matter because it's a miracle. That's no longer doing history. That's doing metaphysics.




It depends on the level of knowledge one wants. If one wants more, it is available. If one wants to ask questions, they should seek the best answers to those questions.

No. No assumption like that at all. I have never downplayed the sciences or technology or anything like that and in fact have often stated that each field must rely on the knowledge in that field. I consider the knowledge of God most important, but knowing the Trinity will not help you if you're a high school student wanting to learn algebra. You need a math book for that. Being able to quote the Nicene Creed backwards won't help a doctor make a right diagnosis.

But yes, we have more knowledge today than they did back then. Is that really news?

Not at all. What I'm asking is do we really care? The knowledge out there won't matter if people aren't using their brains and studying to apply that knowledge. By contrast, we have plenty of gyms and diet programs here in America today, but that doesn't mean we don't have a problem with obesity.






Why yes it is, because he has numerous ones and reasons why we should think they're valid and with medical documentation for many of them.

And it didn't work for a number of other people. It's been in the Bible that when miracles are most abundant, you find the most hostility. I really don't think a miracle would change your mind a bit.




Look back at what you're responding to. Did I mention the Bible? Nope. I said it speaks of God. It's general revelation.

[William]

I'm saying it would be highly highly inconsistent if someone truly devoted to YHWH lived such a lifestyle. Note I said also those who held exclusively to YHWH. When you have syncretists, the game changes. These people included YHWH in a pantheon. YHWH was one of many. Maybe He might be the highest, but He's still one of many.

Now could YHWH people stumble? Sure. David did. They would pick themselves up again. David did.

no, it's alright. It's looking like we're seeing eye to eye. So it was possible for people in the 1st century, even within an honor/shame culture, to do dishonorable things, shameful things, to be motivated by things other than honor or shame at times, in given situations. We also seem to agree that even within the same culture and place, people can define actions in terms of honor or shame quite differently, whether influenced more by one section of the population or the other (rich/poor, pagan/jew, etc).

[Apologiaphoenix]

But that could be said of any metaphor. It's raining cats and dogs today! How can I know you're using a metaphor? It just seems arbitrary! You can by studying the way the Jews spoke. Fire was often seen as both a purifier and a symbol of judgment. Hebrews says "Our God is a consuming fire." Okay. Does that mean God is a giant cosmic bunsen burner? Of course not. You also see that Hell has fire and darkness together. That doesn't add up. Flames light things up.

I honestly can't point to an evangelical scholar today who thinks the fire is real.

Probably one of the best articles on this right now is Mike Licona's in response to the charges of Norman Geisler. Am I sold on Mike's interpretation yet? Nope. Am I open to it? Yep. I come down hard on neither side.

That might have applied if some of these groups were not people who knew him well, such as disciples and the apostles and his own brother.





Never said they all did, but yet again the superstition card is played. Excuse me, but are you saying back then they did not know that dead people stay dead? As for scientology, we're not in an honor-shame society so that doesn't apply.

I have said we have more knowledge today than they did. How is that reluctance. What I am saying is that they knew that dead people stay dead. Even Jews who believed in resurrection buried their dead.

When did I say the majority were?



Evidence the disciples were distraught or confused.

Except they didn't. They prayed His Kingdom come on Earth. They were anticipating that coming in the future. Also, if their Messiah was dead, why did they not abandon Him or even better, go with His brother, a common tactic? They also furthermore claimed that Jesus was bodily raised.



Oh yes. There were shameful people in Israel. Never denied that. Also, Jesus would not be considered a demigod and saying that He was one would be even more problematic to the Jews and who is one of the writers who tells us that He was virgin born? Matthew. Matthew is quite likely the most Jewish writer of all the Gospel writers. Saying Jesus was born of a virgin would be an implicit claim that He was not born in the traditional way which would open Him up to charges of illegitimacy.

No. You assume I say that. I just say people did not deviate from honor and shame. Some would just see honor beyond their grasp.

One reason they killed him, I suppose.

If Matthew's account is correct, it was. Saying that is how the movement got started however is more referring to post-resurrection.

Makes me think of Deuteronomy 13.

IT's something along the lines of Lewis's trilemma.

People do weird things. Disciples could have stolen it to start a story about resurrection, I really dont know.

Why? They'd lose everything in the eyes of society and then eventually they'd lose the blessing of YHWH.

The Jews could have stolen it to prevent there from being a martyr monument (same reason USA dropped Bin Laden into the sea).

Crucifixion was enough to do that.

They're not taken that way because they go against Jewish burial customs of the time and we have no evidence that any of this happened.



Who's saying you're betting your life? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Still, Magness does not believe in the resurrection, but she accepts the account. If you think the evidence is bad, then you need to explain why all four Gospels agree on this one and why we have no competing theory early on. They only show up later.

I will believe something natural happened, until I actually see something unnatural happen.

Which means you're letting your philosophy dictate how your historiography goes. Do you really think that's valid?


Crossley also said he doesn't even prefer to describe them as hallucinations. Even if they were, here's what a hallucination would mean to them. It would mean the person was dead.

Even though you took it out of context? Even though you appeared to take it out of context deliberately? I had hoped we were above that.

I don't think I did. I think in any case the scholars know better because they know the language and they know the culture better.


No. It means that all things being equal, their opinion should be taken much more seriously and be given the benefit of the doubt. By all means we can disagree with experts, but our opinions are not equal to theirs.

Of course. We all have to. I take my car to the mechanic? He's a good guy and I trust him. The same with my doctor. We can ask questions all we want and we should, but in the end we listen to their judgment.

I think miracles are an extreme fringe position, which why I ask for more evidence beyond the claims of people who lived in very superstitious times, amongst all sorts of religions and superstitious ideas.

Except they're not. In fact, even in the early church, the opponents of Jesus never denied that He worked miracles. Never. More scholars are becoming more open to miraculous events, even if some of them think that it was really psychosomatic.








Then you're ready to say that everyone who claims one is delusional, lying, etc.?

In all of this, an argument they do not occur has been put forward. Skepticism is not an argument. It is a position. Your position as Earman shows in Hume's Abject Failure is one that would also kill modern science if we followed it consistently. I have put forward the evidence by pointing to the work of Keener. It's a scholarly peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and by a scholar in the field.





No. I am not saying that. If you can make a sufficient scholarly case, that is enough, but to make a case without citing the leading scholars and saying why the other scholars are wrong is ridiculous. Bart Ehrman has said it best talking to mythicists. 99.9% of scholars in the field are convinced Jesus existed. Now he says that is not proof Jesus existed, but if you want to argue against that, your evidence had better be pretty good. It would be the same with creationists wanting to argue against evolution.

No. It's not. I've never said to read only my select scholars. I've said repeatedly to read scholars on both sides of the fence. Read the pro case and read the con case. If you want to argue about the NT, be willing to read the best on the NT. Would it be reasonable of me to argue against evolution without bothering to read the best scientific work on both sides?

And honestly, I am still a little unsure as to how you define subject ,matter experts. You keep saying NT scholars, and by that do you mean the people who specialize in the NT, or do you include the non-religious who specialize in the time period and location?

Anyone with a Ph.D. in NT or classical literature of the time from an accredited university who has peer-review work. I don't give a rip about their worldview after that.

No. I treat the Bible with the same historical standard I do any other claim. One reason I can reject Islam easily is because of historical claims. It claims Jesus was never crucified. I don't trust Mormonism because there is zero evidence of Jewish people living over here that came over around the time of the Babylonian conquest. I also don't expect anyone to toss other religions aside. If you think the Koran might be true, by all means study it. If you think Buddhism could be true, by all means study it. If you want to learn about Islam, read the scholars of Islam. If you want to learn about Buddhism, read the scholars of Buddhism.

It's the same standard.








Why should we expect God to whisper in our ears? Once again, you have an expectation and saying you won't believe until you get an experience you want. My worldview does not depend on an experience.

[William]

What Peter was pointing to was the empty tomb. Anyone could witness that. Anyone could go right down the street and see it. That also means that if this had been some trick on the part of the disicples, the last place they'd start the movement is ground zero. Also, I do not think you're accurate on how Peter's sermon was preached. More than likely, it's a synopsis. This was common in ancient literature. You didn't have to say word for word. You just had to give words that would have been said or get the thrust of the message.

witnessing an empty tomb is not quite the same as witnessing a man who returned from the dead. I've seen empty graves before, but never though that must mean there was an undead person walking about.

and there's all the missing bodies in the world... I doubt you'd suspect that any of them had flown into heaven. And literacy among a population does not imply that they were not superstitious. those were undeniably superstitious times. You've even mentioned the tendency among everyone there to not only believe in YHWH but also the multitude of the Greek gods, and even others.

and there was already dissent among the jews, with the zealots, pharisees and saducees. Those people were accustomed to different views already.

Note also a miracle had taken place.

...a miracle that many of the witnesses did not find convincing...

[William]

Why should we expect God to whisper in our ears? Once again, you have an expectation and saying you won't believe until you get an experience you want. My worldview does not depend on an experience.

I may not have been clear. I wasnt trying to say that god should speak into our ears, I was trying to point out that since we dont have that, none of can KNOW for sure what God intended (or if it's even his book). God doesnt tell us, "you got it," we look and search and do what we think is right. It's our best effort. And despite our best effort and/or confidence, we could be as wrong as we believe the other to be.