Fundamentalist apologists continuously insist that the resurrection of Jesus is supported by multiple first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses.
So I'd like to know, what testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, as contained in the NT, are sourced in nothing more than the eyewitness's own recollection?
I can't think of any beyond Paul in 1st Corinthians 15.
Whether Matthew is first-hand relies on the credibility of Papias and Eusebius, which has forever divided scholars and is unlikely to admit of solutions that swing the pendulum one way or the other.
In John 21:24, there is a "we" associated with the authorship of that gospel, raising the question of whether this anonymous group were responsible for any portion of the resurrection narrative in John.
Since scholars and the textual evidence appear evenly divided on whether Mark 16:8 was the last canonical verse of Mark, there is no way to decide whether the long ending that contains the resurrection witnesses was written by Mark or somebody else, but either way, if Papias is correct that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching, then even if the long ending of Mark is canonical, it would still be hearsay.
No resurrection testimony in Acts is first hand since Luke is the author of that book and was not an eyewitness but rather he alleges having received reports from them (Luke 1:2).
If you find any NT statements that constitute a clear assertion of having seen the resurrected Jesus, which you believe was authored by none other than the claimant, let me know. I'll grant the case of Paul, but that only makes matters worse, since he characterizes his Damascus road experience of the risen Christ as a "vision" in Acts 26:19 using the same Greek word that he uses in 2nd Corinthians 12:1-3 to characterize experiences that leave him guessing whether they occurred while he was outside his own body. If your witness cannot confidently affirm he was in his body when he experienced the thing he testifies to....well, you get the point. Apologists will say Acts 9 says other men near Paul noticed something going on, so it surely cannot have been limited to Paul's own mind, but alas, we only have Luke's version of what these men allegedly saw or heard, so it is only hearsay.
and I still cannot find anything around this text composition box that will allow me to italicize or bold, and there is no "advanced" in this window except "advanced search"...maybe new members don't get font-emphasis privileges until after they post so many times? the only options I have are smilies, icons and tags.
So I'd like to know, what testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus, as contained in the NT, are sourced in nothing more than the eyewitness's own recollection?
I can't think of any beyond Paul in 1st Corinthians 15.
Whether Matthew is first-hand relies on the credibility of Papias and Eusebius, which has forever divided scholars and is unlikely to admit of solutions that swing the pendulum one way or the other.
In John 21:24, there is a "we" associated with the authorship of that gospel, raising the question of whether this anonymous group were responsible for any portion of the resurrection narrative in John.
Since scholars and the textual evidence appear evenly divided on whether Mark 16:8 was the last canonical verse of Mark, there is no way to decide whether the long ending that contains the resurrection witnesses was written by Mark or somebody else, but either way, if Papias is correct that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching, then even if the long ending of Mark is canonical, it would still be hearsay.
No resurrection testimony in Acts is first hand since Luke is the author of that book and was not an eyewitness but rather he alleges having received reports from them (Luke 1:2).
If you find any NT statements that constitute a clear assertion of having seen the resurrected Jesus, which you believe was authored by none other than the claimant, let me know. I'll grant the case of Paul, but that only makes matters worse, since he characterizes his Damascus road experience of the risen Christ as a "vision" in Acts 26:19 using the same Greek word that he uses in 2nd Corinthians 12:1-3 to characterize experiences that leave him guessing whether they occurred while he was outside his own body. If your witness cannot confidently affirm he was in his body when he experienced the thing he testifies to....well, you get the point. Apologists will say Acts 9 says other men near Paul noticed something going on, so it surely cannot have been limited to Paul's own mind, but alas, we only have Luke's version of what these men allegedly saw or heard, so it is only hearsay.
and I still cannot find anything around this text composition box that will allow me to italicize or bold, and there is no "advanced" in this window except "advanced search"...maybe new members don't get font-emphasis privileges until after they post so many times? the only options I have are smilies, icons and tags.
Comment