Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[tabibito]

Ah - it links right back to your own post so it must be true.

[Sparko]

Ah - it links right back to your own post so it must be true.

The best arguments are circular.

[tabibito]

They're good arguments to be sure ... but nothing like as compelling as
appeals to authority with a splash of ad hominem

[Sparko]

They're good arguments to be sure ... but nothing like as compelling as
appeals to authority with a splash of ad hominem

There's also the time traveling pranksters from the future argument. They came back and one of them pretended to be Jesus (who never actually existed). Then just as he was supposed to die, they beamed him up to their Tardis, and then fixed him in their Autodoc, then beamed him back alive and well to fool the yokels.

I can do this all day.

[Roy]

The best arguments are circular.

The best arguments are best!

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Who did Jesus appear to, in what order, and where?

In the earliest and only firsthand account 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul tells us that Jesus appeared in a particular order.

He says "Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη* to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to the 500. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

• PAUL'S ORDER: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
  
  *NOTE: The word ὤφθη doesn't necessarily mean they "physically" saw anything since it can mean that they just "spiritually saw/experienced" something. So in the case of group appearances it could have been referring to people that had an ecstatic worship experience just like people today in church who pray, sing, or speak in tongues together. Their experience doesn't necessarily rely on sensory perception. This interpretation is made more probable considering Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture and that the appearance to Paul was a vision which he places in the same list using ὤφθη without making a distinction.

Next we have Mark in which the original ends at 16:8 without an appearance report. All he says is that Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee. Gosh, if we go by the traditional view and we're actually dealing with Peter's preaching in Mark then it's quite strange that he omits the resurrection appearance to Peter or that Peter went to check the tomb as we find out later in Luke/John. Peter surely wouldn't have failed to mention these most important and intriguing details.

• MARK'S ORDER: Not applicable. Appearance predicted to be in Galilee.

Now we come to Matthew who says Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary after they discover the tomb - Mt. 28:8-10. Then Jesus appears to the "eleven" (not the Twelve) in Galilee - Mt. 28:16-20. Notice in verse 17 it says that "some doubted" which doesn't speak very well to the veracity of the experience.

• MATTHEW'S ORDER: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Next is Luke and the first appearance narrated is to two disciples on the Emmaus Road - Lk. 24:13-35. They say that no one saw him at the tomb - Lk. 24:24, contradicting Matthew's depiction of the appearance to the women - Mt. 28:8-10. When they return to Jerusalem they hear there was an appearance to Peter which is never actually described - Lk. 24:34. This looks to have been lifted directly from 1 Cor 15:5. Then Jesus appears to the rest of the (eleven) disciples in Jerusalem - Lk. 24:33; 36-49. Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee since he has them "stay in the city" until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4. This contradicts Matthew's depiction and Mark's prediction of an appearance in Galilee.

• LUKE'S ORDER: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

Lastly, we have John where Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene - John 20:16-18 contradicting Luke 24:24. Then he appears to the eleven disciples - John 20:19-23 and a week later appears again to the disciples plus Thomas - John 20:24-29. These appearances seem to take place in Jerusalem while in the Johannine appendix (chap. 21) the appearances happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. Jesus appears to seven disciples in this episode - John 21:1-14.

• JOHN'S ORDER: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, 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.

Now let's compare the lists:

• PAUL'S ORDER: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

• MARK'S ORDER: Not applicable. Appearance predicted to be in Galilee.

• MATTHEW'S ORDER: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

• LUKE'S ORDER: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

• JOHN'S ORDER: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, 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.

Notice how none of the gospel appearance reports match the primitive tradition preserved by Paul. It's kind of strange that none of the gospels authors thought the appearance to the 500 was important enough to mention. The appearances to Peter and James are never described in detail. In Matthew and John, Jesus appears to two women or a woman first. In Paul, Jesus appears to Peter first and in Luke the appearance to the women is entirely written out and instead replaced by an appearance to two male disciples first. Paul mentions no women at all. Luke deliberately alters the venue of the appearances to be Jerusalem instead of Galilee. Despite all the inconsistencies and the contradictions, I guess these reports still represent actual history though, right?

[seer]

It doesn't matter, memories fade, one might not remember exactly when and where they met their once dead friend, but what they never would forget is that they actually did meet their once dead friend - alive again...

[37818]

One writer's omission of an event does not mean the intervening event or detail had not taken place. For example neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke give account that Mary Magdalene immediately ran off upon seeing the stone was rolled away. And was not with the women when they entered the tomb and saw the angels. Many interpreters miss that detail, which can only be understood from John's account. Paul does not mention the women who were the ones who saw Jesus first, before the 12 (Matthias being one of the other disciples among them).

[Tassman]

It doesn't matter, memories fade, one might not remember exactly when and where they met their once dead friend, but what they never would forget is that they actually did meet their once dead friend - alive again...

According to the later, non-eyewitness accounts they did. But according to the earliest accounts the most that can be said is that they "experienced" the postmortem Jesus in their lives...as many Christians believe they do today.

[Kbertsche]

In the earliest and only firsthand account 1 Cor 15:5-8, Paul tells us that Jesus appeared in a particular order.

A minor but important correction: the earliest account is the early creed, 1 Cor 15:5-7, written within just a few years of the events. Vv 8ff were Paul's add-on, some 20 years or so later.

...

• LUKE'S ORDER: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

So far, so good. But you have completely ignored Luke's second volume! In Acts 1:1-11, Luke adds that there were multiple appearances to the apostles over the space of 40 days. Luke strongly implies in Acts 1:21-26 that at least two other non-apostles had been with them during this period and had seen Jesus.

...
Now let's compare the lists:

• PAUL'S ORDER: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

• MARK'S ORDER: Not applicable. Appearance predicted to be in Galilee.

• MATTHEW'S ORDER: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

• LUKE'S ORDER: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

• JOHN'S ORDER: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, 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.

Notice how none of the gospel appearance reports match the primitive tradition preserved by Paul. It's kind of strange that none of the gospels authors thought the appearance to the 500 was important enough to mention. The appearances to Peter and James are never described in detail. In Matthew and John, Jesus appears to two women or a woman first. In Paul, Jesus appears to Peter first and in Luke the appearance to the women is entirely written out and instead replaced by an appearance to two male disciples first. Paul mentions no women at all. Luke deliberately alters the venue of the appearances to be Jerusalem instead of Galilee. Despite all the inconsistencies and the contradictions, I guess these reports still represent actual history though, right?

Do you REALLY expect every eyewitness account to be identical?? Different observers and reporters focus on different things.

The early creed (quoted by Paul) and Luke agree that Peter saw Jesus before the rest of the 11 apostles did so. (The early creed uses the term "the twelve" even though there were only 11 remaining original disciples. Either "the twelve" was a technical moniker, synonymous with "the apostles", or the creed meant to include Matthias, who was Judas' replacement.)

Luke focuses on Jerusalem, where the apostles resided. He doesn't DENY appearances elsewhere, but this is not his focus.

Matthew and John mention women. The other accounts don't DENY appearances to the women; they simply don't mention them.

The early creed adds a group of 500. The other accounts don't DENY this; they simply don't mention it.

Likewise with the other differences that you have noted.

Yes, the details in the accounts are different. But they are complementary, not contradictory.

[The Pixie]

PAUL'S ORDER: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.

Let us suppose this is broadly true; Jesus appeared to Peter first, the the rest of the twelve, then to large numbers of people. Later James sees Jesus and eventually pretty much all the apostles see Jesus. Paul's sighting is later.

MARK'S ORDER: Not applicable. Appearance predicted to be in Galilee.

This works perfectly with Paul, if only because it is so vague. By the time of Mark the discovery of the empty tomb by the women has been added, which is important for how the story develops.

MATTHEW'S ORDER: Two women, eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place near the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.

Now the women actually see Jesus at the tomb, and somewhere along the way (and before Mark of course), Judas has become a traitor so it is eleven disciples, but besides that, this is again consistent with what came before.

LUKE'S ORDER: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem.

I would suggest that Luke has a mish-mash of various stories. The encounter on the road to Emmaus was one, independent of anything we have from earlier. He has the order of the appearances from Paul, but Paul mentioned no location. He got the women from Mark. Put it all together, and he has the women discover the tomb as per Mark, then Paul's sightings, but now transferred to Jerusalem. With Judas now a traitor, he too has reduced the disciples to eleven.

JOHN'S ORDER: Mary Magdalene, eleven disciples, 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.

This gospel draws on the same tradition, with Judas a traitor, women discovering the tomb, but with its own embellishments.

John 20 reads like the original ending, with John 21 a later addition, and I would guess that John 21 is an independent tradition of the original narrative of the sightings in Galilee, which re-surfaced later, and got tagged on the end.

[Adrift]

A minor but important correction: the earliest account is the early creed, 1 Cor 15:5-7, written within just a few years of the events. Vv 8ff were Paul's add-on, some 20 years or so later.

So far, so good. But you have completely ignored Luke's second volume! In Acts 1:1-11, Luke adds that there were multiple appearances to the apostles over the space of 40 days. Luke strongly implies in Acts 1:21-26 that at least two other non-apostles had been with them during this period and had seen Jesus.


Do you REALLY expect every eyewitness account to be identical?? Different observers and reporters focus on different things.

The early creed (quoted by Paul) and Luke agree that Peter saw Jesus before the rest of the 11 apostles did so. (The early creed uses the term "the twelve" even though there were only 11 remaining original disciples. Either "the twelve" was a technical moniker, synonymous with "the apostles", or the creed meant to include Matthias, who was Judas' replacement.)

Luke focuses on Jerusalem, where the apostles resided. He doesn't DENY appearances elsewhere, but this is not his focus.

Matthew and John mention women. The other accounts don't DENY appearances to the women; they simply don't mention them.

The early creed adds a group of 500. The other accounts don't DENY this; they simply don't mention it.

Likewise with the other differences that you have noted.

Yes, the details in the accounts are different. But they are complementary, not contradictory.

A couple days ago I was listening to a great podcast with Mike Licona and Richard Burridge introducing Mike's new book "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography" where Mike has compared the Gospels to other ancient writings and demonstrates a number of literary devices in use that explain precisely the issues that people like Rhinestone struggle with. These ancient literary devices include:

1. Transferal
2. Displacement
3. Conflation
4. Compression
5. Spotlighting
6. Simplification
7. Expansion of narrative details
8. Paraphrasing

Licona (and Burridge) warn that to read the Bible, and particularly the Gospels, as though they're modern biographies (as both many Christians and skeptics do) is anachronistic and will only lead to frustration. Licona gives an example to a type of literary device he discusses in his book in this interview with Christianity Today:

Mike LiconaChristianity TodayMike Licona

In discussing the agreement between the 1 Corinthian tradition and the Gospels, Licona has this to say,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael R. Licona

. . . The appearances listed in the (1 Corinthian) tradition are multiply attested. The appearance to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5 may be alluded to in Mark 16:7 and is specifically mentioned in Luke 24:34, though not narrated. In fact, Luke agrees with the tradition in placing the appearance to Peter chronologically prior to the group appearance to the disciples. "The fact that the name Peter is used in Luke 24:12 while Simon is used in 24:34 again points to different sources or traditions." (Allison, Resurrecting Jesus) The appearance to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is clearly narrated by Luke and John. Allison provides another chart of this appearance in Matthew, Pseudo-Mark (Mk 16:9-20), Luke, and John showing similar setting, appearance, response, commissioning, and promise of assistance.

Some scholars think that the appearance to the more than five hundred is the appearance in Galilee mentioned in Matthew 28:16-18. Although Matthew does not specify how many were present, the text does not clearly state that such a large number was present. We may have an indicator that Matthew knew of others there who did not belong to the close group of Jesus' disciples. Matthew 28:17 reads καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. ("And seeing him they worshipped but some doubted.") The οἱ δὲ may indicate that those doubting are other than the disciples of Jesus. We will discuss this "doubting" below. Another candidate is Luke 24:33-53/Acts 1:6-11, although there is nothing in the text that makes this clear. Accordingly, possible is as far as we can go.

As noted above, the appearance to James is not mentioned elsewhere except in the Gospel According to the Hebrews, which is not regarded by most scholars as being credible. Its presence in this tradition and nowhere else indicates the presence of tradition independent of the canonical Gospels. The same may be said of the appearance to the more than five hundred. The appearance to all of the apostles may also be reported in Luke 24:33-53 and Acts 1:6-11. The appearance to Paul is reported in Luke (Acts 9; 22; 26) and elsewhere by Paul (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8).

Even many of the events themselves reported in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 are multiply attested. Jesus' death is reported in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and in all of the sources mentioned in the previous section. Jesus' burial is reported in 1 Corinthians 15:4 and all of the canonical Gospels. Jesus' resurrection and appearances are reported in the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:4-7 and in multiple sources, as explained above.

In summary, the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is quite early, very probably based on eyewitness testimony, and is multiply attested in terms of a general outline of the sequence of events. Also, many of the events themselves are multiply attested. We may not know why the Evangelists did not narrate the appearances to James and to the group of more than five hundred. We can only speculate. Since this was part of the tradition that was being passed along by the apostles, claiming that the Evangelists were unaware of these appearances is a tough pill to swallow. Perhaps the canonical Gospels only narrate the appearances that occurred until Jesus' ascension. We know Paul's occurred afterward, and the appearance to James may have as well. For reasons unknown to us, the Evangelists did not include them in their narratives. However, this does not eliminate the fact that these appearances are present in the earliest known material on the resurrection of Jesus and can be traced to the Jerusalem apostles.

© Copyright Original Source

[tabibito]

Yes, there are some discrepancies in the accounts (or so it seems just now)... just how extensive or important is unclear - I'll have to draw up comparative charts and tables before I can add to the discussion.

[37818]

Yes, there are some discrepancies in the accounts (or so it seems just now)... just how extensive or important is unclear - I'll have to draw up comparative charts and tables before I can add to the discussion.

Omission of event or detail does not render the account untrue. We tend to assume more than what is actually said.

[tabibito]

Omission of event or detail does not render the account untrue. We tend to assume more than what is actually said.

"Discrepancy" does not necessarily mean "mistake" (it might be reconcilable), and "mistake" does not necessarily mean "untrue" - just a small error in the record. What would be untrue would be the pretence that there are no mistakes in the Biblical record.

For example:
Mark (third hour) and John (sixth hour) differ with regard to the actual time of day that Jesus was crucified. No extant manuscripts of those records say otherwise. Someone made a mistake. That the mistake is trivial doesn't change the fact that it exists. The fact of the crucifixion is not called into question by that error - but it does mean that no statement about the actual time of the crucifixion can be asserted. Given that they both record the time of death as the ninth hour, they can't be using different "clocks".

This is provided as an example only - discussion of the point belongs on the other thread.