Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[doubtingmerle]

...and Mark was written after Matthew and Luke (who utilized both and simplified both but also had Peter as a source).

This view is definitely a minority. The objection is typically summed up by asking, if Matthew existed, what is the reason for Mark? Mark chops out all references to the birth, the resurrection, and most of the teachings. It add repetitious details about events. Condensed versions of books don't usually drop completely huge swathes of important material, while adding in a few repetitious details. It is much more likely that Matthew started with Mark, cleaned up some of the excess verbiage, and added to the story.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If Marcan Priority is true then Q must have existed.

I hold the views of Mark Goodacre, that Mark was first and there probably was no Q source. See http://markgoodacre.org/Q/ .

Regardless of who is first, most likely the four gospels were written after 70 AD. We don't have any credible witnesses in the time of Christ that testify to a physical resurrection. (Paul's views are more compatible with a spiritual resurrection than a physical resurrection.)

It appears that Mark was first and ended at Mark 16:8. The four gospels copied from Mark, and have fairly good agreement on the Easter story up to Mark 16:8, and then diverge wildly. Many think that is because each just made up his own ending, including later editors of Mark who added at least two different endings to Mark.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

The gospels are not pseudonymous. They are anonymous. That is to say that the text of the gospels themselves do not explicitly name an author. We don't know how their titles got attached to them but we don't have any manuscript evidence of the gospels ever existing without their current titles.

Furthermore, apart from the text addition at the end of Mark 16, we have no manuscript evidence of anything like a developing gospel. That is to say there is no reason to believe that the Matthew that we have now is different from the Matthew that was originally written. Any suggestion of a developing story that gets more miraculous with each telling is pure speculation.

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

1. There are mentions in the church fathers of a Hebrew Matthew that was written early and before the greek Matthew from Papius, Origen, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Eusebius.
2. The Didache, which is a fairly early document, relies on Matthew.
3. Matthew often points out when prophecies are fulfilled. There is prophesy in Matthew of the fall of Jerusalem but there is no mention of the actual event. This would indicate that the event had not happened, because Matthew would capitalize on this opportunity to show that a prophesy was fulfilled. This would put Matthew before 70AD.

William Farmer is a modern scholar who argues for Mattean Priority and more of his work can be found here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Furthermore, apart from the text addition at the end of Mark 16, we have no manuscript evidence of anything like a developing gospel. That is to say there is no reason to believe that the Matthew that we have now is different from the Matthew that was originally written.

It could be argued that the book of Mark developed into Matthew. If we had never had Mark, and then found it 10 years ago, it's very likely we would simply call this an early stage of the book of Matthew.

There is also a lost Gospel of the Nazoreans. We have some some quotes from it that look much like Matthew, but there are significant differences. It could be a precursor of Matthew, an offshoot of Matthew, or a different branch in which both derived from an earlier book.

And then there are passages like the woman caught in adultery that were clearly added to John later.

So yes, people were changing the gospels as time went on.

 

[Tree of Life]

It could be argued that the book of Mark developed into Matthew. If we had never had Mark, and then found it 10 years ago, it's very likely we would simply call this an early stage of the book of Matthew.

Mark and Matthew differ so significantly that I find this unlikely.

There is also a lost Gospel of the Nazoreans. We have some some quotes from it that look much like Matthew, but there are significant differences. It could be a precursor of Matthew, an offshoot of Matthew, or a different branch in which both derived from an earlier book.

I wouldn't see this as conclusive evidence that Matthew was an evolving work. There's plenty of other explanations. It could be that this lost gospel was quoting Matthew or drawing from similar sources.

And then there are passages like the woman caught in adultery that were clearly added to John later.

Yes, this too. But apart from this and Mark 16 there are no other examples. And the woman caught in adultery story is not miraculous, so it would be difficult to see this as a Christological development added later.

So yes, people were changing the gospels as time went on.

I don't think the bits you've mentioned here establish this point.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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?

First, Jesus' disciples claimed that He rose from the dead. This is confirmed by the testimony of Paul about the disciples, the oral tradition that passed thru the early church, and the written works of the early church. Second, they sincerely believed that He rose from the dead as seen from the suffering they experienced after His death. This is confirmed from biblical sources and extrabiblical sources. Most scholars agree that I Corinthians 15:3-5 is an ancient extrabiblical hymn possibly composed within 10 years of the Christ's death and it plainly teaches His bodily resurrection. Another piece of evidence is that Paul the persecutor was radically changed to be a leader of the church and he claimed that what changed him was a personal appearance of the risen Christ. Also the skeptic James was radically changed for the same reason. And some of the main testimony of his resurrection comes from women whose testimony was looked at as unreliable in ancient jewish society. So if it was fiction, the writers would have recorded the first appearance of Christ to men. But since they did not, that is strong evidence for the truthfulness of that recording. And Paul plainly believed in a physical resurrection of Christ, not spiritual. Read Philippians 3:21. He plainly refers to the bodies of us and Christ being transformed NOT eliminated.

 

[doubtingmerle]

First, Jesus' disciples claimed that He rose from the dead. This is confirmed by the testimony of Paul about the disciples, the oral tradition that passed thru the early church, and the written works of the early church.

Uh, Paul says that the disciples saw Jesus, but he clearly describes that what they saw was similar to what he saw. And Paul saw a vision. How do you know the others did not just see a vision?

Second, they sincerely believed that He rose from the dead as seen from the suffering they experienced after His death. This is confirmed from biblical sources and extrabiblical sources.

Well actually Acts is not clear on disciples dying for belief in a resurrection. Stephen was killed over a dispute about the law. It is not clear why James was killed. Acts doesn't mention martyrdom by one who refused to deny the bodily resurrection. And there are sincere doubts about the historicity of Acts.

Most scholars agree that I Corinthians 15:3-5 is an ancient extrabiblical hymn possibly composed within 10 years of the Christ's death and it plainly teaches His bodily resurrection.

Bodily resurrection? Paul saw a vision, and he makes it look like he saw what everybody else saw. And when you read all of I Cor 15, it is clear he is talking about a spiritual resurrection, not a physical resurrection.

Another piece of evidence is that Paul the persecutor was radically changed to be a leader of the church and he claimed that what changed him was a personal appearance of the risen Christ.

Paul had a personal experience in a vision. You left out that part.

Also the skeptic James was radically changed for the same reason. And some of the main testimony of his resurrection comes from women whose testimony was looked at as unreliable in ancient jewish society. So if it was fiction, the writers would have recorded the first appearance of Christ to men.

How do we know the women saw Jesus? We have only the words of the later gospels, who came much later, and contradict each other.

But since they did not, that is strong evidence for the truthfulness of that recording. And Paul plainly believed in a physical resurrection of Christ, not spiritual. Read Philippians 3:21. He plainly refers to the bodies of us and Christ being transformed NOT eliminated.

The body of Christ? Paul refers to the church as the body of Christ. In I Cor 15 he refers to resurrection as being in spiritual bodies. The Jesus Paul knows has no physical body, but only a spiritual or metaphorical body.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Mark and Matthew differ so significantly that I find this unlikely.

How so? Matthew includes 90% of the verses of Mark, often word for word. Where Mark speaks, Matthew copies with minor changes. Then Matthew adds what he wants. It is easy to see Matthew as simply a revised version of Mark. One can easily posit a few intermediate stages where Mark gradually evolved into Matthew, or it could have been done in one edit by a writer who had decided to write the story his way.

The point is not so much that the Christology changed, but that Matthew is hardly a reliable witness. If Matthew was a first hand witness or had other reliable sources, why did he so closely follow Mark when the story was written in Mark? If he had no other source for the things he got from Mark, then where did he get the other things he added, such as his resurrection account? It seems likely he made them up.

And Luke, who I think knew about Matthew, doesn't give much credence to Matthew's account. Luke seems to have no interest in making his "history" line up with Matthew's history.

 

[Ed1wolf]

deleted
.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Uh, Paul says that the disciples saw Jesus, but he clearly describes that what they saw was similar to what he saw. And Paul saw a vision. How do you know the others did not just see a vision?

No, Paul did not see a vision because his traveling companions saw the same light, heard the same voice, and even fell to the ground. No subjective vision would produce such things.

dm: Well actually Acts is not clear on disciples dying for belief in a resurrection. Stephen was killed over a dispute about the law. It is not clear why James was killed. Acts doesn't mention martyrdom by one who refused to deny the bodily resurrection. And there are sincere doubts about the historicity of Acts.

Since Christ's resurrection is likely primary reason for the disciples belief in Christ as the Messiah/Son of God then of course ultimately their deaths were the result of their belief in the resurrection. There is also Clement of Rome who confirmed the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. There may be sincere doubts about the historicity of Acts but there are no serious doubts or serious evidence against its historicity. But see above about extrabiblical evidence anyway.

dm: Bodily resurrection? Paul saw a vision, and he makes it look like he saw what everybody else saw. And when you read all of I Cor 15, it is clear he is talking about a spiritual resurrection, not a physical resurrection.

Paul had a personal experience in a vision. You left out that part.

No, see above, it was not a vision. I Cor 15 reports appearances to groups, hallucinations and visions are subjective and only occur to individuals, so they could not have been visions.

dm: How do we know the women saw Jesus? We have only the words of the later gospels, who came much later, and contradict each other.

First century jews would not make up a story where women were first to see Christ alive, this is evidence for authenticity. The men would have made sure that they were the primary sources of truth about Christ. And there is evidence for the gospels being written prior to 70 AD since they do not refer to the fulfillment of Christs prophecy about the fall of the Temple.

dm: The body of Christ? Paul refers to the church as the body of Christ. In I Cor 15 he refers to resurrection as being in spiritual bodies. The Jesus Paul knows has no physical body, but only a spiritual or metaphorical body.

No, he mentions Him being buried and raised on the third day. Why would he mention burial of a vision? That would be absurd.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, Paul did not see a vision because his traveling companions saw the same light, heard the same voice, and even fell to the ground. No subjective vision would produce such things.

You are assuming Acts is correct. Paul's own account describes little more than seeing a vision.

But even if Acts is correct, this hardly prove a physical resurrection. Paul saw a great light and heard a voice from heaven. The story makes as much sense if the author thought it was a spiritual resurrection as a physical resurrection. No Jesus is even seen in this episode.

Since Christ's resurrection is likely primary reason for the disciples belief in Christ as the Messiah/Son of God then of course ultimately their deaths were the result of their belief in the resurrection.

You are assuming the very point in question. The early Christian writers make no mention of a physical resurrection. So how can that be their primary reason?

There is also Clement of Rome who confirmed the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.

Clement says they died, and doesn't specifically say they were martyred. And he make no claim of a physical resurrection of a physical Jesus on earth. So he certainly doesn't say they were martyred while believing in a resurrection.

There may be sincere doubts about the historicity of Acts but there are no serious doubts or serious evidence against its historicity. But see above about extrabiblical evidence anyway.

There is much evidence against Acts. Nobody would be allowed to openly claim to be following a fugitive who escaped Roman justice with the Romans not stopping it. The claim by Acts that this was openly happening is preposterous.

No, see above, it was not a vision. I Cor 15 reports appearances to groups, hallucinations and visions are subjective and only occur to individuals, so they could not have been visions.

We have only Paul's word that many saw it. We have no credible witnesses that say they saw the bodily resurrected Jesus.

First century jews would not make up a story where women were first to see Christ alive, this is evidence for authenticity. The men would have made sure that they were the primary sources of truth about Christ.

The women were already written in the story by Mark, who makes no attempt to claim a physical resurrection. Others take up the story from that point.

 

[Anguspure]

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?

Many years after the event? How many do you suppose? There are a number of things that took place that put a time frame on the Gospel accounts and none of these involve so many years that such a momentous event wouldn't seem like yesterday, especially since most of the 500 odd people who witnessed Christ Jesus in the body would have been still alive.
BTW, this is the earliest account of the ressurection:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15)
The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion.https://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/the-earliest-record-of-jesus-death-and-resurrection/

 

[Anguspure]

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.

Where is the reference to the destroyed temple that would have been irresistable to one writing after 70AD?
The gospels are clearly written from the view of Jewish beleivers in Christ who still had the Temple and recorded Jesus' prophecying of its destruction in terms of His own death.
Where is the mention of the death of James the brother of Jesus in the continuation of the gospel of Luke?

 

[HitchSlap]

Many years after the event? How many do you suppose? There are a number of things that took place that put a time frame on the Gospel accounts and none of these involve so many years that such a momentous event wouldn't seem like yesterday, especially since most of the 500 odd people who witnessed Christ Jesus in the body would have been still alive.
BTW, this is the earliest account of the ressurection:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15)
The majority of scholars who comment think that Paul probably received this information about three years after his conversion, which probably occurred from one to four years after the crucifixion.https://hcchristian.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/the-earliest-record-of-jesus-death-and-resurrection/

500 people? Wow!
Can you name one of these 500 people?

 

[Anguspure]

500 people? Wow!
Can you name one of these 500 people?

Mary Magdalene

 

[HitchSlap]

Mary Magdalene

She's not one of the "500" that is referenced.
Try again.

 

[Anguspure]

She's not one of the "500" that is referenced.
Try again.

Sigh:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnornamlly born.

Is Mary Magdelene referenced by name in the above? No. Therefore, knowing that she was the primary witness of the Gospel stories, she obviously forms part of the "five hundred of the brothers and sisters" or if you wish to be particularly subversive and say that she wasn't there (for which there is no evidence), then she is an additional one that Paul fails to reference, therefore there are probably many more than 500 witnesses to the risen Christ.

 

[Ken Rank]

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?

It is POSSIBLE that the Gospel of Mark was Peter. I say this because in Eusebius he writes that Paul wrote in Hebrew and was translated by Luke into Greek and that this included Paul's gospel. And that Peter wrote in Hebrew and was translated into Greek by Mark and that included his gospel. I am NOT saying this is true, I am saying we have a 4th century historian who would have had a Greek bias make this amazing claim. If it is true, then we truly have an eye witness to the event in that gospel.

As for Paul, I am not sure why you think of his encounter as a spiritual resurrection... He heard and saw and those around him heard a voice but saw no man. Why does that mean it was spiritual and not more? Acts 1:1-9 adds an additional witness by the way that would go beyond Mark or Peter.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, Paul did not see a vision because his traveling companions saw the same light, heard the same voice, and even fell to the ground. No subjective vision would produce such things.

dm: You are assuming Acts is correct. Paul's own account describes little more than seeing a vision.

No, this is refuted with Phillipians 3:21 as I already explained he didn't say a glorious spirit, he said glorious body transformed from our lowly bodies. If it was a spiritual vision he would have said our lowly spirit will transformed into a glorious spirit. Also, he said they would be transformed not eliminated.

dm: But even if Acts is correct, this hardly prove a physical resurrection. Paul saw a great light and heard a voice from heaven. The story makes as much sense if the author thought it was a spiritual resurrection as a physical resurrection. No Jesus is even seen in this episode.

No, again I refuted this in my last post, if it was a vision his traveling companions would have not heard the voices or seen the great light, or fallen down like Paul did.

ed: Since Christ's resurrection is likely primary reason for the disciples belief in Christ as the Messiah/Son of God then of course ultimately their deaths were the result of their belief in the resurrection.

dm: You are assuming the very point in question. The early Christian writers make no mention of a physical resurrection. So how can that be their primary reason?

The earliest oral Pre-Pauline tradition is on record as stated in I Corinthians 15 within 10 years of Jesus death says that He was buried and seen by the disciples all at one time. This would be impossible if it was subjective vision. And how would just having a vision cause so many to lay down there lives, they would be much more likely to risk death if they had actually seen someone who had risen from the dead rather than just a subjective vision.

ed: There is also Clement of Rome who confirmed the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.

dm: Clement says they died, and doesn't specifically say they were martyred. And he make no claim of a physical resurrection of a physical Jesus on earth. So he certainly doesn't say they were martyred while believing in a resurrection.

But in his statements just before he mentioned their deaths he talks about how they were persecuted physically, so that plainly implies that their deaths were most likely due to that persecution. And see above about how much more fearless they would be if they saw Christ alive after His death.

ed: There may be sincere doubts about the historicity of Acts but there are no serious doubts or serious evidence against its historicity. But see above about extrabiblical evidence anyway.

dm: There is much evidence against Acts. Nobody would be allowed to openly claim to be following a fugitive who escaped Roman justice with the Romans not stopping it. The claim by Acts that this was openly happening is preposterous.

The Romans likely would not pursue someone that just stirred up a small riot over some obscure religious point. Most Roman leaders were not religious and would consider that a waste of resources for such a minor thing.

End of part I of my response.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As for Paul, I am not sure why you think of his encounter as a spiritual resurrection... He heard and saw and those around him heard a voice but saw no man. Why does that mean it was spiritual and not more?

Actually Acts 22 said those around him heard no voice.

We don't know if the author of Acts was making this story up. Even if he is reporting what the people say they saw, the folks with Paul only saw a light, and that isn't saying much. Acts says that Paul heard a voice, but not that he actually saw Jesus.

Suppose you are coming home from the bar and you see a bright light and hear a voice claiming to be Abraham Lincoln. Surely the most likely explanation is that you are imagining this, or that somebody set this up. Perhaps if you are religious you think it might be the spirit of Lincoln speaking to you from heaven. But you would hardly find this convincing evidence that Abraham Lincoln had risen from the dead. This is more consistent with a spirit speaking from heaven than a body that came out of the grave.