Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

 

[keith99]

If I were alive at the time and I heard rumors and stories the one person in the story that I would have considered credible is Thomas.

That he is often reviled by both the Church and popular culture makes me wonder if some fear people might look to closely at the claims.

 

[Tree of Life]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

As you know, you're operating from plenty of critical assumptions that are not uncontroversial in Biblical scholarship and are relatively new in Biblical scholarship. These assumptions could be wrong and the traditional views on authorship could be correct. You're also assuming that Richard Carrier is correct in his assessment of Paul which is an extreme minority position held by no biblical scholar and possibly only held by Carrier within academia.

If you hold to Marcan Priority then you've also got to assume the existence of Q in order to explain Matt & Luke material that is not found in Mark. So, based even on critical assumptions, there are two source documents - Mark and Q - that both testify to the resurrection and claim that they got their info from eye witnesses.

 

[HitchSlap]

Earliest mss of Mark do not include the resurrection account. There is zero contemporary accounts of a resurrection, and oral tradition of a resurrection came about a century after Mark was written (Luke/Matthew copied Mark).

So, it's safe to say there are no credible witnesses to a "resurrection."

 

[HitchSlap]

If I were alive at the time and I heard rumors and stories the one person in the story that I would have considered credible is Thomas.

That he is often reviled by both the Church and popular culture makes me wonder if some fear people might look to closely at the claims.

It's been my experience that the only time Thomas is touted as a source, is when discussing the "resurrection."

 

[Tree of Life]

Earliest mss of Mark do not include the resurrection account.

Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark end with an empty tomb - what happened there? But Mark isn't even the first gospel account written - Matthew is.

There is zero contemporary accounts of a resurrection, and oral tradition of a resurrection came about a century after Mark was written (Luke/Matthew copied Mark).

A century after Mark was written? Conservatives would date all the gospels within the first century and even critical scholars would date Matthew and Luke before 100 AD, some even before 70AD. Luke/Acts would have to have been written before 68AD because it mentions nothing of Paul's death - what would have been a very significant event in his story. Where do you get "century" from? Besides this we've got Paul's letter which are all before 68AD which mention the resurrection and its witnesses plenty of times.

 

[JackRT]

Earliest mss of Mark do not include the resurrection account. There is zero contemporary accounts of a resurrection, and oral tradition of a resurrection came about a century after Mark was written (Luke/Matthew copied Mark).

So, it's safe to say there are no credible witnesses to a "resurrection."

I suspect that you meant to say "decade" not "century".

 

[JackRT]

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).


First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. P. Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. P. Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)


Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)


Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)


Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

 

[HitchSlap]

Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark end with an empty tomb - what happened there? But Mark isn't even the first gospel account written - Matthew is.

It's my opinion that Mark is the first gospel written. The gospels in the NT are not in chronological order.

"Most general Bible readers have the mistaken impression that Matthew, the opening book of the New Testament, must be our first and earliest Gospel, with Mark, Luke and John following. The assumption is that this order of the Gospels is a chronological one, when in fact it is a theological one. Scholars and historians are almost universally agreed that Mark is our earliestGospel–by several decades, and this insight turns out to have profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story” and how it was passed down to us in our New Testament Gospel traditions."

A century after Mark was written? Conservatives would date all the gospels within the first century and even critical scholars would date Matthew and Luke before 100 AD, some even before 70AD. Luke/Acts would have to have been written before 68AD because it mentions nothing of Paul's death - what would have been a very significant event in his story. Where do you get "century" from? Besides this we've got Paul's letter which are all before 68AD which mention the resurrection and its witnesses plenty of times.

I'm not talking about when the gospels were written, only that the forgeries mentioning witnesses to a resurrection were surreptitiously added much later, likely over a century later.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's my opinion that Mark is the first gospel written. The gospels in the NT are not in chronological order.

"Most general Bible readers have the mistaken impression that Matthew, the opening book of the New Testament, must be our first and earliest Gospel, with Mark, Luke and John following. The assumption is that this order of the Gospels is a chronological one, when in fact it is a theological one. Scholars and historians are almost universally agreed that Mark is our earliestGospel–by several decades, and this insight turns out to have profound implications for our understanding of the “Jesus story” and how it was passed down to us in our New Testament Gospel traditions."

I don't think Matthew was written first because it appears first in the order of the gospels. There are plenty of other good reasons to doubt Marcan Priority and hold to Matthean Priority.

One such reason to doubt Marcan Priority is the problem of Q. If Marcan Priority is true then Q must have existed. But there is absolutely no evidence for Q outside of the theory itself - either manuscript evidence or references to something like Q in concurrent manuscripts. Q is totally theoretical. A simpler and preferable theory was that Matthew was written first, then Luke (who utilized Matthew but also had other sources), and Mark was written after Matthew and Luke (who utilized both and simplified both but also had Peter as a source).

I'm not talking about when the gospels were written, only that the forgeries mentioning witnesses to a resurrection were surreptitiously added much later, likely over a century later.

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to support it?

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't think Matthew was written first because it appears first in the order of the gospels. There are plenty of other good reasons to doubt Marcan Priority and hold to Matthean Priority.

One such reason to doubt Marcan Priority is the problem of Q. If Marcan Priority is true then Q must have existed. But there is absolutely no evidence for Q outside of the theory itself - either manuscript evidence or references to something like Q in concurrent manuscripts. Q is totally theoretical. A simpler and preferable theory was that Matthew was written first, then Luke (who utilized Matthew but also had other sources), and Mark was written after Matthew and Luke (who utilized both and simplified both but also had Peter as a source).



Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence to support it?

Check any resource you may have, even Wiki gets it right. Mark 16:9+ first appears 300/400's.

As for Matthew being written first, I'm not aware of any scholarly consensus that supports this?

 

[Tree of Life]

Check any resource you may have, even Wiki gets it right. Mark 16:9+ first appears 300/400's.

I'll have to check on that. But if this is so then it doesn't mean that every reference to the resurrection in the gospels was a later addition added on by counterfeiters.

As for Matthew being written first, I'm not aware of any scholarly consensus that supports this?

This is the minority view in scholarship but there are scholars that hold this view. Marcan Priority, along with the whole Q theory, is the current majority position.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'll have to check on that. But if this is so then it doesn't mean that every reference to the resurrection in the gospels was a later addition added on by counterfeiters.

Yes. But then again, it's generally accepted that all gospels are pseudonymous, so it's not much of a stretch for the stories to become more robust with each retelling.

This is the minority view in scholarship but there are scholars that hold this view. Marcan Priority, along with the whole Q theory, is the current majority position.

Interesting. What reasons are there for thinking Mt. was written first?

 

[JackRT]

Interesting. What reasons are there for thinking Mt. was written first?

In his gospel, Mark makes 21 references in all to the scribes and 19 of these were hostile. We really do not know who wrote this or any of the other three gospels since the names were only given to them about a century after they were written. It is pretty obvious that the early Christian community for whom Mark wrote held the scribe in very low esteem. Was this opinion shared by the other evangelists? When Matthew wrote his gospel some 10 years later, he had a copy of Mark open on the desk in front of him as he wrote. We know this because of the 664 verses in Mark, Matthew included 606 of them, in one way or another, into his gospel. Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. I wonder why?

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm familiar with reasons support Mark as being penned first. I was asking why Tree suggested Matthew was written first. This is news to me.

In his gospel, Mark makes 21 references in all to the scribes and 19 of these were hostile. We really do not know who wrote this or any of the other three gospels since the names were only given to them about a century after they were written. It is pretty obvious that the early Christian community for whom Mark wrote held the scribe in very low esteem. Was this opinion shared by the other evangelists? When Matthew wrote his gospel some 10 years later, he had a copy of Mark open on the desk in front of him as he wrote. We know this because of the 664 verses in Mark, Matthew included 606 of them, in one way or another, into his gospel. Of the 19 negative references to scribes in Mark, Matthew dropped 7 completely, kept 6 intact and altered 6 so as to remove the negativity. Matthew's community obviously regarded the scribe in higher esteem. I wonder why?

 

[doubtingmerle]

One such reason to doubt Marcan Priority is the problem of Q. If Marcan Priority is true then Q must have existed. But there is absolutely no evidence for Q outside of the theory itself - either manuscript evidence or references to something like Q in concurrent manuscripts. Q is totally theoretical. A simpler and preferable theory was that Matthew was written first, then Luke (who utilized Matthew but also had other sources), and Mark was written after Matthew and Luke (who utilized both and simplified both but also had Peter as a source).

Why does Marcan priority require Q? There is a line of scholarship which says that there was no Q, that Mark was first, that Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke copied from Matthew and Mark. The objection is that if Luke knew of Matthew, why did she not make more of an effort to coordinate with Matthew? I think the answer is that she didn't care. She probably saw Matthew and Mark as fiction, and she wanted to write her own fiction based on them but in her own way. She never expected anybody would consider both Matthew and Luke as history. She would probably be amazed to hear that someday people would put Matthew, Mark, and Luke (and John!) in the same book and call them history.

 

[Winken]

Original Timeline, anno domini
Birth of Jesus: 30
Death, Burial, Resurrection: 33
Paul's Conversion: 35
Paul visits Jerusalem: 36
Matthew: 41-48
Paul visits Jerusalem: 45
Paul as Missionary: 46
James: 45-48
Paul visits Jerusalem: 48
Galatians: 48
Paul as Missionary: 50
1 & 2 Thessalonians: 50
Mark: 50-58, Rome commentary on Matthew
Luke: 52-58, Greek commentary on Matthew
Paul as Missionary: 52-55
1 Timothy and 1 & 2 Corinthians: 55-56
Titus: 56
Romans: 57
Colossians and Ephesians: 60-61
Philippians and Philemon: 62
Paul arrested: 62
1 Peter: 63
2 Peter: 66
(Hebrews 66)
2 Timothy: 67

Questionable: Jude in 75, John in 85-90,
1-2-3 John in 90, and Revelation in 90.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

The original Mark source has the boy in the tomb telling the women that Jesus is risen, but the physical appearances of the resurrected Jesus are of course known to be forgeries. Hence Mark is not reliable on the issue of the resurrection, at least as eyewitness testimony goes.

The Matthew source, as I mentioned in another thread, puts forward an implausible sequence of events:

The guards were tasked with guarding a corpse from grave robbers. They failed and then proceeded to report fantastical events to the priests as their excuse. What they reported was even less plausible than the classic, "The dog ate my homework." Granted, this may have occurred before that line was ever invented, but I think the dog-homework excuse is so implausible that I doubt it flew the first time around. And now here we are, being told that the priests - the most literate, educated Jews in the entire world - fell for an excuse far less plausible than the dog-homework classic.

On top of that, their response - the bribing of the guards - does not seem to be plausible whether they believed or disbelieved the guards' story. How could you believe their story and not finally be convinced that Jesus is Lord? Or how could you disbelieve their story and then reward their incompetence with hush money?

If we can all agree on these two as being unreliable, we can move on to Luke, John and Paul.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark end with an empty tomb - what happened there?

That makes the most sense if we understand Mark to be a fiction-writer -- a writer of mythology -- not an historian.

Mark is coyly leading his audience to draw their own conclusions, and of course to side with a supernatural explanation, the answer hinted at all along. (Wow, Jesus was divine all along! Amazing!)

Mark isn't presenting any account of a resurrection, though he clearly is nudging and winking to his audience that they are supposed to catch on to the esoteric meanings of his allegories. (Such as the fig tree story, which is clearly not meant to say that Jesus hates figs.)

Why would Mark be so coy when he could easily just solve any doctrinal disputes by giving the "facts" (as we later see in Gospel narratives, and in "corrections" to Mark)?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[doubtingmerle]

Original Timeline, anno domini
Birth of Jesus: 30
Death, Burial, Resurrection: 33
Paul's Conversion: 35
Paul visits Jerusalem: 36
Matthew: 41-48
Paul visits Jerusalem: 45
Paul as Missionary: 46
James: 45-48
Paul visits Jerusalem: 48
Galatians: 48
Paul as Missionary: 50
1 & 2 Thessalonians: 50
Mark: 50-58, Rome commentary on Matthew
Luke: 52-58, Greek commentary on Matthew
Paul as Missionary: 52-55
1 Timothy and 1 & 2 Corinthians: 55-56
Titus: 56
Romans: 57
Colossians and Ephesians: 60-61
Philippians and Philemon: 62
Paul arrested: 62
1 Peter: 63
2 Peter: 66
(Hebrews 66)
2 Timothy: 67

Questionable: Jude in 75, John in 85-90,
1-2-3 John in 90, and Revelation in 90.

Sorry but I think your chart is full of errors. For instance, there is a lot of evidence that the four gospels were written after 70 AD. Titus, Timothy, and 2 Peter were probably written well after 100 AD. I think the dates given at the Early Christian Writings Site ( http://earlychristianwritings.com/ ) are considered much more accurate by scholars.