Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[Grafted In]

Thanks Merle

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf,

You get a lot of mileage out of your scholars. And yet most of the ones you consider scholars are paid promoters of the Christian faith. They would lose their job, or their market for their books, if they came out against the resurrection. And yet you expect us to believe things are true, just because your scholars say so.

That is like telling me that Ford would be the best car for you, for you talked to a Ford salesman, and that is what he told you. Yeah, duh. But what if you had talked to a Chevy salesman? Would you not have heard a different story?

You seem to be unaware of the case that some have brought against the resurrection. There are other scholars. Are you like the man who was sold on Fords because he had never heard another sales pitch?

Anyway, as I mentioned, saying something is true because a smart guy says so is considered a logical fallacy. And yet this is largely where your case rests.

Actually no, that is not true. The scholars I have referenced are about 50% Christian and 50% non-Christian. But even if I used 100% Christian scholars, your argument would be based on a logical fallacy. Ever hear of the Genetic Fallacy? You just became guilty of it.

↑

ed: Due to the date of Papias many scholars believe that it is John the Elder, ie the apostle John.

dm: And many Ford salesmen believe in Fords.

See above about the Genetic fallacy.

dm: Papias wrote 100 years after Jesus. It is doubtful his life overlapped any of the Jerusalem 12. At best his knowledge of them was second hand.

Papias wrote:

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.

So the apostle John was a person that Papias asked about, not a person he spoke to. Papias got his information second hand.

Not according to Wikipedia and other scholars:
"Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,[8] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,[9]'

John the Evangelist is identified as the disciple John and author of the Gospel of John. In addition Papias was born around AD 70 and most scholars believe John lived to around 95 AD so he plainly would have been an adult when John was still alive and therefore could have talked to him.

ed: And they also believe that the evidence points to the fact that the title "Gospel of Mark" was attached shortly after they were written.

dm: What evidence do they have that it was titled "Mark" early? I know of nobody who clearly refers to the current book of Mark as being written by Mark before 180 AD.
ed: No, most scholars agree that he [Papias] WAS talking about the gospel of Mark as we know it.

dm: And most Ford salesmen sell Fords.

Papias learned from the apostle John that Mark wrote it for one piece of evidence: Wikipedia:

"On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder (the Apostle as shown above):

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything."

dm: Papias describes a book of saying not in order, which hardly describes the book we now call Mark.

ed: No, Papias states that Mark was not written in chronological order and that is correct, so plainly he had read it and even studied it. Evidence that he discounts the value of any such account?

dm: Papias wrote:

I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

It appears Papias never saw the books he is talking about. He can't tell us what is in them, only what he imagines is in them. He imagines that there was nothing in gospels that would be as profitable as the second hand knowledge he got from asking about the apostles. He can hardly be considered a witness to the value of the gospels, if he never saw them, and imagined there was nothing in them as valuable as the second hand knowledge he got by hearsay from a friend of a friend of Jesus.

He didn't see the books but he heard from John that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark and how he wrote it as shown above. Regarding the last sentence: "There is some debate about the intention of Papias' last sentence in the above quotation, "For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice." One side of the debate holds, with the longstanding opinion of 20th-century scholarship, that in Papias' day written statements were held at a lower value than oral statements.[12] The other side observes that "living voice" was a topos, an established phrase referring to personal instruction and apprenticeship, and thus Papias indicates his preference for personal instruction over isolated book learning.[13]" So it plainly may not mean what you think it does.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually no, that is not true. The scholars I have referenced are about 50% Christian and 50% non-Christian. But even if I used 100% Christian scholars, your argument would be based on a logical fallacy. Ever hear of the Genetic Fallacy? You just became guilty of it.

No sir, I did not commit the genetic fallacy. If I had said your scholars are Christian, therefore everything they say about Christianity is false, then that would be the genetic fallacy.

What I said is that your scholars can be biased. All people are biased. So if your argument rests on saying people (who happen to have a bias) say something, then your argument is very weak, and is basically nothing more than an argument from authority.

If I said everything a Ford salesmen says about Fords must be a lie, then I am committing the genetic fallacy. But if I say Ford salesmen tend to be biased toward Fords, and that you would hear something different at a different dealer, that is not a logical fallacy. It is a simple statement of truth.

according to Wikipedia and other scholars:
"Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,[8] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,[9]'

The problem is that you make the jump from "usually identified with" to "therefore was". I do not see that jump justified. In context, it probably refer to a different John.

John the Evangelist is identified as the disciple John and author of the Gospel of John. In addition Papias was born around AD 70 and most scholars believe John lived to around 95 AD so he plainly would have been an adult when John was still alive and therefore could have talked to him.

How do you know Papias was born around 70? He wrote in 130 AD, which would have made him a very old author for those days if he had been born in 70. Also how do you know John lived to 95 AD? A strong case can be made that no disciple of Jesus would have survived the devastating attack on Jerusalem in 70 AD. At the time they would have been at least 60, and would have had difficulty surviving that event.

Papias says he asked his sources what John said. That is an odd question to ask if John was one of his two sources. He could have just asked John directly. In context, it is clear to me that Papias is asking John the elder what John the apostle said, and that therefore these refer to two different people named John.

Papias learned from the apostle John that Mark wrote it for one piece of evidence: Wikipedia:

"On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder (the Apostle as shown above):

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything."

Papias does not identify which Mark. He does not say what book he is talking about. He does not give one quote from the book. He seems to be saying he never read the book. But what he is describing, a list of notes jotted down by a follower of Peter from memory not in any particular order, is hardly a description of the book we now call Mark.

He didn't see the books but he heard from John that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark and how he wrote it as shown above. Regarding the last sentence: "There is some debate about the intention of Papias' last sentence in the above quotation, "For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice." One side of the debate holds, with the longstanding opinion of 20th-century scholarship, that in Papias' day written statements were held at a lower value than oral statements.[12] The other side observes that "living voice" was a topos, an established phrase referring to personal instruction and apprenticeship, and thus Papias indicates his preference for personal instruction over isolated book learning.[13]" So it plainly may not mean what you think it does.

I find it hard to believe they trusted oral memories 100 years old over contemporary writings. Even the ancients valued contemporary writings. But even if this is so, Papias shows a remarkable unwillingness to read the writings of "Matthew" or "Mark", whoever and whatever he meant by this.

That is incredible. Imagine that somebody wanted to write a book on "The Sayings of Dwight Moody" 100 years after his death, but had no interest in anything written at the time of Moody. Suppose his only source was a grandfather who had talked to people who had heard Moody 100 years earlier. One can see clearly that this would not be the best source for writing such a book. But this is the source that Papias relies on. The fact that he considers this better evidence than the gospels themselves, and doesn't even care to read the gospels, is quite a testimony to the lack of reliance on the gospels in the early second century.

And what about the other things Papias heard from his sources? He reports that the body of Judas swelled so that it was wider than a chariot. And yet Papias relays this as truth. Either his sources were badly mistaken, or Papias was making stuff up. The only surviving source we have of what Papias wrote, the fourth century Eusebius who quotes Papias, shows disdain for the very intellect of Papias. But this is your source that the gospels were written by who you claim?

Reliable ancient histories bear the name of the author, and cite their sources. We don't find any of that in the gospels. Instead you rely on what people like Papias wrote a century later. That is hardly enough to establish credibility.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Understood. One should not simply say that his opponent quoted an authority, therefore the opponent is wrong. That is not necessarily so. What one needs to do is determine if the opponent's authority was correct in his data, explanations and theories. That is why, when Ed presents authorities who think the list of names in I Cor 15 are an early creed, I want to know the data, explanations and theories behind those claims. That is what I have been asking for.

I think we're in agreement on this, then.

Fair point. We all take shortcuts and rely on authorities to explain things that are out of our field. That is different, though, from saying we know something is true because an authority says so.

Also when a person reports what he observed, we trust him as an authority to say what he saw (provided we find him credible). And when a reporter who was not on the scene of the accident reports that an eyewitness said something, we are trusting the authority of the reporter to being telling the truth that the conversation occurred, and trusting the eyewitness to be telling the truth about what he saw. Again, we have to rely on those authorities, which we do, unless we have reason to doubt their credibility.

So regarding personal observations, it is fine to trust a person as being the authority in what he saw, provided we find him credible. But when one is making a case that a historical fact or scientific fact for which he was not a witness is true, then it is good to ask for his evidence.

Yes, I agree there, too, Merle.

I agree. One should not dismiss an argument because somebody quotes an authority. But if one has reason to question what that authority says, then one should rightly ask how that authority arrived at his conclusions.

When we claim a scientific consensus, we are not simply saying that we have a majority of scientists or even a vast majority on our side. Rather, a scientific consensus means the issue has been thoroughly debated in publications, with the overwhelming agreement of the arguments arriving at the same conclusion.

You may be right, but from where are you referencing this view about the meaning of "a majority" as representing a "thorough debate in publication" rather than an actual tally count of one side of an issue in contrast to another side? I'm asking because this is the first time I've heard of this definition ...

I get sick of majority arguments too. It would be an overwhelming effort to get the vote of every scholar on many subjects. And then we would run into endless debates on who is qualified enough to have a vote. Questions of science are not decided by votes.

But questions of science are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

That's generally what I have in mind as a meaning ...

In biblical studies, one could claim there is a consensus of critical scholars that the resurrection did not occur, and a consensus of evangelical scholars that the resurrection did occur. So do we have a consensus? It depends on where one looks. So seeing the state of things, I do not argue from consensus, nor from majority, but based on the reasons that each side presents.

I agree. We are here to understand arguments, not count scholars.

Alright. I think we're on the same page here, too.

There are ancient documents that make all sorts of ridiculous claims. For instance, there are claims that an army had an overwhelming victory, when the evidence clearly shows they were defeated. Also Papias, who came up in this thread, claimed that the head of Judas swelled so it was bigger than an ox cart. I don't believe him. So when looking at history, we cannot simply look at documents and assume that since they are written they must be credible.

Right, we can't simply look at documents and make assumptions, whether they be biblical or those of modern scholars even. It is, rather, the quality of arguments we need to look at, along with our awareness as to just how far the arguments can take us either way.

I agree that Paul is our most credible witness of what early Christianity was like. I do not, however, find strong evidence of belief in a bodily resurrection in Paul.

Interesting point. However, I don't have much problem in seeing that Paul believed in a substantive resurrection; I think the problem is in understanding exactly what we "mean" when we refer to the nature of the resurrection as being substantive, or physical, or spiritual, or bodily, or whatever other term by which we attempt to conceptualize it.

For instance, while I can understand that the problem in describing the resurrection of Jesus as as purely physical phenomenon, since we see that the Gospels present Jesus' body as having both corporeal and incorporeal properties (i.e. Jesus appears out of nowhere, eats an empirically evident dinner with the Disciples, and then disappears again, apparently taking with Him the bits of food he's eaten), it isn't so clear as to what a "spiritual" resurrection entails. So, in saying that Paul believes in a "spiritual" resurrection, I'm not so clear that Paul thinks of it as something completely different in substance and nature than that which is presented in the Gospels.

Then, there are some theologians, like Crossan, who seem to mean by "spiritual" nothing much more than that the disciples, in a mental state of grief and experiencing cognitive dissonance about Jesus' death, projected their own wishful thinking outward to make deductions that, essentially, because Jesus was such a good guy, that He somehow, in some way, still "lives." But here, such an entity from deduction is (to me) so insubstantial, it is hard to call that a resurrection of any kind.

What do you specifically mean by "spiritual resurrection," Merle?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

You may be right, but from where are you referencing this view about the meaning of "a majority" as representing a "thorough debate in publication" rather than an actual tally count of one side of an issue in contrast to another side? I'm asking because this is the first time I've heard of this definition ...

I think you mean "consensus". The concept of scientific majority is fairly easy to define. If most scientists agree with something, then that is a majority. Consensus is a little harder to define. Basically there comes a point at which there is a consensus on a view, and from then on the view is accepted as a fact. Exactly when that consensus occurs is not clearly defined. It is not done by vote. There never was a vote to decide if it is a fact that protons and neutrons are in the nucleus of an atom, or if E equals m c squared. The ideas were proposed in the literature with supporting arguments. After experiments and debate in the literature, a consensus of the literature was reached where all or almost all published papers in the field agree with the claims as fact.

I couldn't fine anywhere on the Internet that thoroughly discusses the concept of scientific consensus, but the wikipedia article is not a bad start.

Also Project Steve is an attempt to show that the scientific consensus for evolution, for instance, is not based on counting votes. However, if such a vote were done, Project Steve shows that evolution would win. But Project Steve clearly states that it is not a matter of establishing truth by counting the most votes.

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread, where there is a consensus in the scholarly literature, than that can be stated as fact. Where there is only a majority of a select group of scholars, one cannot cite that majority as though it has similar significance as a consensus does. An example of a claim that can be stated as fact because there is a scholarly consensus is the claim that Paul was a historical person who wrote at least some of the books attributed to him. A claim that cannot be stated as known with a scholarly consensus is the claim that there was a clearly identifiable tomb of Jesus from which the body was clearly shown to be missing. There are many scholars who say that, if the crucifixion happened, the body was most likely dumped in a mass burial heap as was always done by the Romans. As such, it would be impractical a week later to verify if a particular body was missing from the burial heap. Also, if a body was shown to indeed be missing, other explanations are possible such as the person was only unconscious, revived, and went into hiding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you mean "consensus". The concept of scientific majority is fairly easy to define. If most scientists agree with something, then that is a majority. Consensus is a little harder to define. Basically there comes a point at which there is a consensus on a view, and from then on the view is accepted as a fact. Exactly when that consensus occurs is not clearly defined. It is not done by vote. There never was a vote to decide if it is a fact that protons and neutrons are in the nucleus of an atom, or if E equals m c squared. The ideas were proposed in the literature with supporting arguments. After experiments and debate in the literature, a consensus of the literature was reached where all or almost all published papers in the field agree with the claims as fact.

Merle, I'm very aware of how consensus works in science. But, I'm not talking about science. I'm referring to scholarship pertaining to biblical criticism. For instance, in the Price article you sighted, Price says, "According to most scholars, in v. 3b begins an ancient creedal/liturgical list of the essential facts of Christian salvation" (section "The Formula," first paragraph).

Price also says, "All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel [Matthew] simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments" (section "The Recollection...," second paragraph).

You see, it's this kind of language, whether used by Christians or Critics of the Bible, that I get tired of and which doesn't fly far with me. I want to know precisely who these scholars are, and I don't want to see a general statement that "most scholars" believe such-and-such. To me, this is obscurantist language.

I couldn't fine anywhere on the Internet that thoroughly discusses the concept of scientific consensus, but the wikipedia article is not a bad start

That's ok. I'm not really concerned about the meaning of scientific consensus--we're focusing on the Bible, and I don't count that as a field of hard science.

Also Project Steve is an attempt to show that the scientific consensus for evolution, for instance, is not based on counting votes. However, if such a vote were done, Project Steve shows that evolution would win. But Project Steve clearly states that it is not a matter of establishing truth by counting the most votes.

We can drop the "counting votes" distinction; my point is that I personally want lists rather than a pseudo citation. When Price states something to the effect that, "Most scholars say ..." Well, maybe they do, but I want to see the names of these scholars.

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread, where there is a consensus in the scholarly literature, than that can be stated as fact. Where there is only a majority of a select group of scholars, one cannot cite that majority as though it has similar significance as a consensus does. An example of a claim that can be stated as fact because there is a scholarly consensus is the claim that Paul was a historical person who wrote at least some of the books attributed to him. A claim that cannot be stated as known with a scholarly consensus is the claim that there was a clearly identifiable tomb of Jesus from which the body was clearly shown to be missing. There are many scholars who say that, if the crucifixion happened, the body was most likely dumped in a mass burial heap as was always done by the Romans. As such, it would be impractical a week later to verify if a particular body was missing from the burial heap. Also, if a body was shown to indeed be missing, other explanations are possible such as the person was only unconscious, revived, and went into hiding.

Yes, I understand your examples very well, Merle. Thanks for the effort to elucidate the difference between "consensus" and "a majority."

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[doubtingmerle]

it isn't so clear as to what a "spiritual" resurrection entails. So, in saying that Paul believes in a "spiritual" resurrection, I'm not so clear that Paul thinks of it as something completely different in substance and nature than that which is presented in the Gospels.

Then, there are some theologians, like Crossan, who seem to mean by "spiritual" nothing much more than that the disciples, in a mental state of grief and experiencing cognitive dissonance about Jesus' death, projected their own wishful thinking outward to make deductions that, essentially, because Jesus was such a good guy, that He somehow, in some way, still "lives." But here, such an entity from deduction is (to me) so insubstantial, it is hard to call that a resurrection of any kind.

What do you specifically mean by "spiritual resurrection," Merle?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

By spiritual resurrection, I am saying that the early epistles seem only to refer to the spirit of Jesus in a resurrected state, and never refer to a resurrection of the body. It is no different than what many Christians believe is the state of their dead relatives. They might say that their mom is in heaven, but they don't mean that their mother's body came out of the grave and went to heaven. Rather, they say that the body is still in the grave, and the spirit went to heaven. So it is that the epistles say Christ died, and then immediately describe a resurrected Christ in heaven in a state that seems very much like the state Christians think their deceased relatives are in. For instance Phillipians 2:7-9 says:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
​

We go straight from a pre-existent spirit Christ, to a Jesus who died, to a spirit alive in heaven. There is no mention of a missing body, or a bodily resurrected Jesus interacting with people on earth.

I Peter 3:18-19 says:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,​

Again we go immediately from a death to a spirit doing a work in the spirit world. No mention of a bodily resurrection here.

So the early epistles writers could have seen Jesus only as going to heaven in spirit, with the story of the bodily resurrection added later as the legend grew.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By spiritual resurrection, I am saying that the early epistles seem only to refer to the spirit of Jesus in a resurrected state, and never refer to a resurrection of the body. It is no different than what many Christians believe is the state of their dead relatives. They might say that their mom is in heaven, but they don't mean that their mother's body came out of the grave and went to heaven. Rather, they say that the body is still in the grave, and the spirit went to heaven. So it is that the epistles say Christ died, and then immediately describe a resurrected Christ in heaven in a state that seems very much like the state Christians think their deceased relatives are in. For instance Phillipians 2:7-9 says:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
​

We go straight from a pre-existent spirit Christ, to a Jesus who died, to a spirit alive in heaven. There is no mention of a missing body, or a bodily resurrected Jesus interacting with people on earth.

Since you seem to think Phillippians is relevant, how do you interpret chapter 3:10-11, and 20-21?

I Peter 3:18-19 says:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,​

Again we go immediately from a death to a spirit doing a work in the spirit world. No mention of a bodily resurrection here.

So the early epistles writers could have seen Jesus only as going to heaven in spirit, with the story of the bodily resurrection added later as the legend grew.

And it seems 1 Peter holds some relevance with you as well. In that case, how do you interpret chapter 1:3, 11-12, and 19-21?

So, then, by "spiritual" you still, at the least, seem to mean that Jesus is truly alive and existing in spirit, and not just a dead phantom extending from His disciples' loving memory?

Would you say that I'm wrong then to assert that Jesus' body was transformed upon His resurrection from a corporeal physical state, back into His Spiritual, Incorporeal state, as the Logos of God? That His flesh and bones became a spiritual substance, the same spiritual existence He had before His placement into the womb of Mary, yet still reflecting the scars of His crucifixion?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

[edit] double post

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Almost everything you learn in life comes from an authority.

dm: Perhaps for you that is how it works. For science, no, this is not how it works. It is not true that in science, almost everything we learn comes from authority. In fact, as I mentioned to you, arguing from authority is considered a logical fallacy. And yet you not only rely on this logical fallacy, but insist that relying on authority is the source of almost every thing we know! Almost everything we know is based on what we obtain through a logical fallacy? I don't think so.

Did you go to school? Almost everything you learn in school is from an authority. Does that mean you should never to go to school or send your kids there? Of course, not. Many important things HAVE to be learned from authorities.

dm: You might want to read up on the scientific and historical methods. There, almost everything we know is based on observation, evidence and reason.

I am not referring to scientists and scholars, I am referring to ordinary everyday people. Such as most of the people on these boards.

dm: Smart people are sometimes wrong. Smart people are sometimes biased. Smart people sometimes say what they need to say to earn there pay. So to me, as a lover of science and truth, I have a hard time with the argument that says I ought to believe something because you know a smart person who believes it.

Yes, that is very true. I didn't say that you ought to believe something just because a smart person says it, I am saying read what different scholars say and see if they provide convincing evidence and then make up your own mind, but have an open mind even to scholars that come from a background you may not have trusted in the past.

ed: I am not a greek and Aramaic scholar, I have to rely on authorities. But nevertheless they believe there IS evidence.

dm: What evidence? That is the question. I have quoted you a source saying many scholars think I Cor 15:5-7 is not a creed and have given their evidence. The list of names there do not correlate with the witnesses mentioned in the gospels and the order of events. If this was a creed that everybody knew, the gospel writers would have tried to synchronize with it.

How does it not correlate with the witnesses mentioned in gospels? The gospels are only partially chronological and as Luke explained definitely not exhaustive in everything that happened. And the fact that they may not be completely synchronized is actually evidence for authenticity, ie it means there was no collusion. They were five independent witnesses. That is a basic criteria for historical authenticity if you have multiple independent witnesses of basically same event.

dm: Lists of names that saw something is not typical of creeds. The list appears to have more to do with establishing who was a priority in the church than in historical fact. And besides, the list is out of place in the chapter and could well have been inserted later.

If the creed is apologetical and designed specifically to refute those who doubted the resurrection then a list of witnesses makes perfect sense. Most scholars do not think it is out of place in the chapter and it definitely does not look that way to me.

ed: There is a connection between the two theories, I am just showing how both are incompatible with almost everything Paul wrote.

dm: Sorry, but your attempts to refute that Jesus was mythical do nothing to refute the claim that the historical Jesus--if he existed--did not rise from the dead. This thread is about whether the historical Jesus--if he existed--rose from the dead. Your insistence on changing the subject does nothing to argue for the issue discussed in this thread. Get with the program please.

Nevertheless there is a connection.

ed: No, actually he is from the mid second century. There is no evidence that the church leadership was wrong and since Christians believe in moral absolutes, there is a less probability that they would lie.

dm: And that is what it comes down to: The church of the late 2nd century could not have been wrong, therefore we should believe everything they said? I disagree. It appears to me that there was a power struggle in the 2nd century, with what we now refer to as the orthodox faith winning out and thus establishing lucrative jobs for the leaders.

Actually as my reference from Wikipedia stated, he was from the early 2nd century not the late 2nd century so you are wrong about that. There is no real evidence that there was a power struggle in the 2nd century. What is your hard evidence? Not just speculation for a power struggle? Uhh there were no lucrative jobs for leaders in the early church. The 2nd century church was very small and mostly very poor.

dm: But the fact that they won is no more evidence that they are telling the truth, than the fact that Trump won proves that there were broadcasts of Muslims publicly cheering for the fall of the twin towers in New Jersey.

The evidence that they told the truth is that orthodox Christianity's truths have been repeatedly confirmed by scientific discoveries, historical discoveries, and philosophy in the years ever since. It is off subject but actually there was a broadcast that did mention a few muslims publically cheering the fall. Though Trump was wrong about there being thousands of them, he was right about the essential story.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Since you seem to think Phillippians is relevant, how do you interpret chapter 3:10-11, and 20-21?

Philippians 3:21 has come up a few times in this thread, where it says he will change our bodies to be like unto his glorious body. As I mentioned, the only body of Jesus that Paul ever refers to is the church. He never refers to anything else but the church as the body of Christ. So does Paul see Jesus in heaven as nothing but a spirit Jesus inhabiting the body of the church?

Its difficult to understand sometimes what Christians mean by life after death. I think most who believe in it believe that the spirit of the person that died goes immediately to the next world after death to dwell in heaven/hell/purgatory as a fully functional person. Some think that is the permanent state of the person, but others think the spirit somehow comes back to re-inhabit the stinking remains of the body (yech!) which gets transformed to live forever. Why exactly that would be necessary is not clear.

At any rate, the epistles are certainly consistent with the view that Jesus was a spirit in heaven in the time of Paul.

So, then, by "spiritual" you still, at the least, seem to mean that Jesus is truly alive and existing in spirit, and not just a dead phantom extending from His disciples' loving memory?

That is what I think the epistle writers thought. I personally do not think anybody survives death.

Would you say that I'm wrong then to assert that Jesus' body was transformed upon His resurrection from a corporeal physical state, back into His Spiritual, Incorporeal state, as the Logos of God? That His flesh and bones became a spiritual substance, the same spiritual existence He had before His placement into the womb of Mary, yet still reflecting the scars of His crucifixion?

I'm not even sure what your concept of the resurrection means. Are you saying that the collection of atoms that made up his body somehow got transported up through space to live in a city made of atoms far away in outer space?

And are you saying that Jesus always had a body made of atoms, which came down and somehow got inserted into Mary's womb and somehow, he is concerned that this collection of atoms stays together forever? Why?

 

[doubtingmerle]

For instance, in the Price article you sighted, Price says, "According to most scholars, in v. 3b begins an ancient creedal/liturgical list of the essential facts of Christian salvation" (section "The Formula," first paragraph).

Price also says, "All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel [Matthew] simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments" (section "The Recollection...," second paragraph).

You see, it's this kind of language, whether used by Christians or Critics of the Bible, that I get tired of and which doesn't fly far with me. I want to know precisely who these scholars are, and I don't want to see a general statement that "most scholars" believe such-and-such. To me, this is obscurantist language.

Yes, Price does reference what he sees as the view of the majority of scholars. He gives a lot of footnotes where he says that, so I am assuming if you looked up those footnotes you would find more about who he is talking about.

Although Price references where scholars agree with him, his point is not that, since scholars agree with him, therefore it has to be true. Rather his emphasis is on the reason that scholars agree with him. We could take your quote above, and put the emphasis on different words, to arrive at a different meaning:

Price also says, "All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel [Matthew] simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments"
​

And that, I believe, is Price's emphasis here. He thinks Matthew is not an eyewitness for the reason he specifies in the text I put in bold. That is his primary reason.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Did you go to school? Almost everything you learn in school is from an authority. Does that mean you should never to go to school or send your kids there? Of course, not. Many important things HAVE to be learned from authorities.

Yes, I went to school, and yes in second grade we used to chant, "Aint aint a word because the teacher said it aint." But really, that is not the lesson we should have learned. There are good reasons "aint" is not the best word to use in formal English writings, and the fact that the teacher said it aint is not the primary reason.

Students should be taught critical thinking skills, not blind recital of authorities. No graduate should say that protons are in the nucleus because his teacher said they are. No graduate should say that supply side economics is or isn't the best government policy because his teacher said so. Rather, one should be learning thinking skills, learning the process that people have used to make discoveries, and learning to think through the options where there is controversy.

I am not referring to scientists and scholars, I am referring to ordinary everyday people. Such as most of the people on these boards.

When one is dealing with a subject in which he is not an expert, and there is a scholarly consensus on something, then yes, one does well to refer to that scholarly consensus. That is not the issue I raised. The issue is that, where there is considerable scholarly disagreement, you turn to the authority of a single scholars, or a simple majority of scholars, as your main case for your point. That is a logical fallacy. My response throughout this thread when you do that is ask for the reasons that those scholars give. And I am having a hard time getting you to discuss their reasons. Instead, you just repeat that there are people who agree with you.

I am saying read what different scholars say and see if they provide convincing evidence and then make up your own mind, but have an open mind even to scholars that come from a background you may not have trusted in the past.

Thumbs up! Yes, I agree.

If the creed is apologetical and designed specifically to refute those who doubted the resurrection then a list of witnesses makes perfect sense. Most scholars do not think it is out of place in the chapter and it definitely does not look that way to me.

Seriously, why are we going through this again? What benefit is there to endless repeats that you think creeds included list of witnesses and I think they didn't? Anybody still reading this can read both our views, and make up their own minds, or contribute their own arguments.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually as my reference from Wikipedia stated, he was from the early 2nd century not the late 2nd century so you are wrong about that.

Are you switching people again? First you were referring to Clement of Rome as evidence for the authorship of the gospels. He was indeed early 2nd century, but in no way confirms the authorship of the gospels. When I called you on that, you said you really meant Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria wrote around 195 AD, so he is indeed late second century as I mentioned. Now you are back to a Clement in the early first century and my head is starting to spin. If you think there is a Clement who testified to the authorship of the gospels in the early first century, copy here what he said and we can look it up. Otherwise, it appears you are just bouncing back and forth between Clements with no coherent claim.

There is no real evidence that there was a power struggle in the 2nd century. What is your hard evidence? Not just speculation for a power struggle?

See for instance Against Heresy by the church father Irenaeus. There were numerous conflicts with Gnostics, Marcion, and others. See also I Corinthians and Galatians. Of course the winning church claimed that they were always right, and all the others were heretical offshoots, but the earliest evidence indicates the church was completely fractured from the start, and only consolidated under Rome well into the second century.

Uhh there were no lucrative jobs for leaders in the early church. The 2nd century church was very small and mostly very poor.

"Lucrative" may be an exaggeration. There were jobs to be had leading the church of Rome, and eventually prestige and power. These people staked their claim to their positions based on books that they claim supported their cause. However, we have no known chain of custody of the books in their possession, and no clear claim to authorship of the gospels before the leaders of the Roman church came out with the claim for the traditional authors in the second century. I don't see their claims as credible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How does it not correlate with the witnesses mentioned in gospels?

If the names in I Cor 15 were a commonly memorized creed, one would think that the gospel writers would have memorized that creed too, and wrote consistent with it. As it is, they don't seem to even be aware of it.

I Cor says Jesus was first seen of Peter and the twelve. The gospels have no appearance to all 12. Rather, they write Judas out of the story, and he is never with them after the resurrection. So they have Jesus appear to the 11. They differ with I Cor., which says he appeared to all 12.

Also the gospels adds the women, and the 2 on the road to Emmaus before the visits to the 12. But I Cor says Peter and the 12 were first.

After the 12, I Cor says he appeared to over 500 people at once. The gospels know nothing about this. They have him ascend to heaven without ever a mention of this. Again, if this is a creed they all had memorized, why did they not mention this appearance to 500?

Finally I Cor adds visits to James and "all the apostles", apparently revealing himself to more than just the 500. Again, if this was vitally important, and part of a creed, one would think the gospels would mention it.

It is extremely unlikely in my view that the 4 gospel writers would have memorized this list as a creed, and then wrote what they did.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually no, that is not true. The scholars I have referenced are about 50% Christian and 50% non-Christian. But even if I used 100% Christian scholars, your argument would be based on a logical fallacy. Ever hear of the Genetic Fallacy? You just became guilty of it.

dm: No sir, I did not commit the genetic fallacy. If I had said your scholars are Christian, therefore everything they say about Christianity is false, then that would be the genetic fallacy.

What I said is that your scholars can be biased. All people are biased. So if your argument rests on saying people (who happen to have a bias) say something, then your argument is very weak, and is basically nothing more than an argument from authority.

If I said everything a Ford salesmen says about Fords must be a lie, then I am committing the genetic fallacy. But if I say Ford salesmen tend to be biased toward Fords, and that you would hear something different at a different dealer, that is not a logical fallacy. It is a simple statement of truth.

Well that is not the way it sounded with your original wording. But anyway of course I can say the same thing about you and your sources. As atheists and skeptics you and your sources have a strong bias against orthodox Christianity and the supernatural so you try to justify it with highly speculative theories.

ed: Twelve Apostles—were saying. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,[8] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,[9]'

dm: The problem is that you make the jump from "usually identified with" to "therefore was". I do not see that jump justified. In context, it probably refer to a different John.

Well apparently the scholars used by Wikipedia believe that that "jump" is justified. But I admit we don't know that for certain, but the evidence and it is not just Papias that points in that direction.

ed: Mark, Papias cites John the Elder (the Apostle as shown above):

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[Notes 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything."

dm: Papias does not identify which Mark. He does not say what book he is talking about. He does not give one quote from the book. He seems to be saying he never read the book. But what he is describing, a list of notes jotted down by a follower of Peter from memory not in any particular order, is hardly a description of the book we now call Mark.

"Writing down things accurately as he recalled them" is hardly randomly jotting down notes. But it is true that Mark is not very chronological. So it does sound like he had read at least parts of it. And there is only one well known early Christian named Mark. So it is unlikely to have been any other Mark.

ed: [12] The other side observes that "living voice" was a topos, an established phrase referring to personal instruction and apprenticeship, and thus Papias indicates his preference for personal instruction over isolated book learning.[13]" So it plainly may not mean what you think it does.

dm: I find it hard to believe they trusted oral memories 100 years old over contemporary writings. Even the ancients valued contemporary writings. But even if this is so, Papias shows a remarkable unwillingness to read the writings of "Matthew" or "Mark", whoever and whatever he meant by this.

As I stated earlier there is evidence that Mark was written around 55-60 AD, that is not 100 year old memories. See above about the evidence he HAD read Mark.

dm: That is incredible. Imagine that somebody wanted to write a book on "The Sayings of Dwight Moody" 100 years after his death, but had no interest in anything written at the time of Moody. Suppose his only source was a grandfather who had talked to people who had heard Moody 100 years earlier. One can see clearly that this would not be the best source for writing such a book. But this is the source that Papias relies on. The fact that he considers this better evidence than the gospels themselves, and doesn't even care to read the gospels, is quite a testimony to the lack of reliance on the gospels in the early second century.

No, see above, how your analogy is inaccurate.

dm: And what about the other things Papias heard from his sources? He reports that the body of Judas swelled so that it was wider than a chariot. And yet Papias relays this as truth. Either his sources were badly mistaken, or Papias was making stuff up. The only surviving source we have of what Papias wrote, the fourth century Eusebius who quotes Papias, shows disdain for the very intellect of Papias. But this is your source that the gospels were written by who you claim?

Dead bodies DO swell a great deal, as far as how much his source may have exaggerated. Remember the ancient jews used hyperbole a great deal to make certain points. This is a historical fact. But the fact that his body swelled is true.

dm: Reliable ancient histories bear the name of the author, and cite their sources. We don't find any of that in the gospels. Instead you rely on what people like Papias wrote a century later. That is hardly enough to establish credibility.

No, that is not always the case. But this is only one piece of evidence for who wrote Mark, there is more evidence than just that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ed1Wolf,

So we are back at Papias? Here is what Papias says about his sources, writing around 130 AD.

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.​

Here is what he said about Mark.

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."​

of course I can say the same thing about you and your sources. As atheists and skeptics you and your sources have a strong bias against orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

Absolutely. All have a bias.

Again, as I have been repeating, truth is not determined by stating that one has a scholar that agrees with him, or even that the majority of scholars agree with him. Truth is determined by the evidence. That is why I always try to steer the conversation away from authorities and to the evidence.

Well apparently the scholars used by Wikipedia believe that that "jump" is justified. But I admit we don't know that for certain, but the evidence and it is not just Papias that points in that direction.

"Scholars used by Wikipedia", huh? You might want to investigate how wikipedia is written.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a fairly reliable source. Regarding the Elder that Papias is referring to, Wikipedia says,

One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,[8] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,​

So no, the jump you make from "usually identified with" the apostle John to "therefore was" the apostle John is not something Wikipedia does. Wikipedia stays with my wording, "usually identified with". It does not make the jump to "therefore was" like you did. Wikipedia points out that the historian Eusebius, who is our only source on what Papias wrote here, protested the conclusion that "the Elder" that Papias refers to was John.

Again, Papias says he asked The Elder what Peter and John and the others said. If Papias was asking John in person, why ask John what "James, or John, or Matthew" said? That seems like an odd wording.

Regardless, it is a shame that we have lost the writings of Papias. He apparently was not too far from the inner circle of the disciples, and wrote a book about the sayings of Jesus that was popular with Christian scholars for centuries. I would love to have a copy of that book, but it is lost.

Again the point is that Papias relied more on the second hand information that his sources told him about what the disciples said, rather than on any written gospel. He doesn't tell us what is in any gospel, but only that he imagines it is not as valuable as the second hand information he got by asking his source about what they remember that Peter and Andrew and the others had said. That is not much of a testimony to the value of a written gospel.

"Writing down things accurately as he recalled them" is hardly randomly jotting down notes.

Uh, that is what it sounds like to me. According to Papias, Mark is not acting as a secretary. Rather, after being with Peter, he writes down what he recalls to the best of his recollection. And Papias says he was not writing them down in order. That sounds to me like randomly jotting down notes.

But it is true that Mark is not very chronological. So it does sound like he had read at least parts of it.

Mark is not very chronolgical? Where are you getting this? The entire book is a story, written from beginning to end. The various sections are connected with words like, "And immediately", "Now after that", and "and straightway".

And the order found in Mark is very close to Matthew and Luke, although Matthew and Luke do sometimes rearrange things.

Further, Papias emphaizes the sayings found in his "Mark", and emphasizes that Mark had no intention of providing a regular narrative of the sayings. But if we look at Mark, it does not emphasize the sayings, but does emphasize the narrative behind the Jesus of the sayings. We don't know what book Papias was referring to, or even if he saw it, but it appears to be very different from the Mark we know.

As I stated earlier there is evidence that Mark was written around 55-60 AD, that is not 100 year old memories. See above about the evidence he HAD read Mark.

Huh? Get with the program, please.

The 100 year old memories I was referring to was Papias, writing in 130 AD, relying on witnesses who told him what the disciples had said before 30 AD. That is a cumulative 100 years from the time of the sayings until the time that Papias wrote them down. And Papias says this word of mouth testimony was his primary source. That is in indeed a cumulative 100 year memory of past events.

And yet Papias, writing what would become a popular book on the sayings of Jesus, found this source based on 100 year old cumulative memories to be more reliable than written gospels.

Dead bodies DO swell a great deal, as far as how much his source may have exaggerated. Remember the ancient jews used hyperbole a great deal to make certain points. This is a historical fact. But the fact that his body swelled is true.

What Papias says is that:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.​

So while Judas was alive we hear he became so fat he could not get through a pass that was easily wide enough for a chariot, so he got stuck and got run over by a chariot. That sounds more like legend than fact. But this is the kind of thing that Papias records as truth. No wonder the historian Eusebius thought Papias a bit dim witted. But this is your primary early source that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark.

No, that is not always the case. But this is only one piece of evidence for who wrote Mark, there is more evidence than just that.

Well, we are still waiting for your source before 180 AD that verifies Mark as the author. By 180 AD the established church was saying this, but it is questionable if there was anything reliable before then that says what you claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

As atheists and skeptics you and your sources have a strong bias against orthodox Christianity and the supernatural so you try to justify it with highly speculative theories.

I am curious what you are talking about. I disagree with your gospel story, yes, but those doubts are based on a long search of the evidence. My arguments are based on the evidence, not on highly speculative theories.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philippians 3:21 has come up a few times in this thread, where it says he will change our bodies to be like unto his glorious body. As I mentioned, the only body of Jesus that Paul ever refers to is the church. He never refers to anything else but the church as the body of Christ. So does Paul see Jesus in heaven as nothing but a spirit Jesus inhabiting the body of the church

... Merle, as you can see from my previous posts, I didn't simply refer to Philippians 3:21 all by its little self. I referred to it in a context reflected by the overall connotations presented in the whole of chapter 3 [i.e. 3:10-11, and 20-21]. It seems to me that you've conveniently skipped those other verses I cited ... along with those in 1 Peter.

Its difficult to understand sometimes what Christians mean by life after death. I think most who believe in it believe that the spirit of the person that died goes immediately to the next world after death to dwell in heaven/hell/purgatory as a fully functional person. Some think that is the permanent state of the person, but others think the spirit somehow comes back to re-inhabit the stinking remains of the body (yech!) which gets transformed to live forever. Why exactly that would be necessary is not clear

While I can understand the difficulty one may have in understanding Paul's specific meaning regarding the nature of the resurrection of Jesus, I don't think your view can be seen as an automatic default position, especially when we take the whole contexts of an epistle into consideration, particularly when investigating the various connotations evident in the language of Paul to the Philippians (as well as in his other letters).

At any rate, the epistles are certainly consistent with the view that Jesus was a spirit in heaven in the time of Paul.

They're also consistent with the view that a spiritual resurrection includes some implication as to the physical nature of the resurrection ... or else Paul wouldn't be looking so ardently to "attain to the resurrection" as a future state after death (Philippians 3: 9-10)

That is what I think the epistle writers thought. I personally do not think anybody survives death.

Well, if you think that nobody survives death, then it seems to me that this whole discussion is almost superfluous.

I'm not even sure what your concept of the resurrection means. Are you saying that the collection of atoms that made up his body somehow got transported up through space to live in a city made of atoms far away in outer space?

Not quite. As the Logos of God, as Jesus existed in His pre-incarnate state, it doesn't seem that He would be floating around in the Cosmos as some kind of creature of atomic substance. It's also difficult to say that God's spiritual essence is made-up of "atoms," especially so if we see God as existing somehow outside,even if somehow permeating, the space-time structure of our universe. What God "is" is up for speculation, and nobody has a definite insight into THAT. Not me, not you,... no one.

And are you saying that Jesus always had a body made of atoms, which came down and somehow got inserted into Mary's womb and somehow, he is concerned that this collection of atoms stays together forever? Why?

No, I'm saying that whatever the Logos of God was in essence, whatever THAT is, it was transformed into an atomic substance, full of organic DNA, and placed into the womb of Mary. Upon resurrection, Jesus' body then TRANSFORMED back into the prior existence He had before entering Mary's womb, carrying with it any imprinting taking on while in a mortal form, with the ability to become either corporeal or incorporeal at will.

Thus, Jesus is described in the Christian tradition as appearing out of nowhere, here and there, eating empirical meals, knocking people off of empirical horses, ...and then disappearing again back beyond the 'aether' of existence. This is how I conceptualize Jesus' nature as it is now. That's what I believe. And I think Paul's language fits with it, even if he's not so explicit with it.

But, don't ask me 'how' Jesus made the Transformation...because as I said above, I'm sure no one knows about God's full nature since He hasn't seen fit to reveal that to us.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, Price does reference what he sees as the view of the majority of scholars. He gives a lot of footnotes where he says that, so I am assuming if you looked up those footnotes you would find more about who he is talking about.

Well, I think you're assumption can't be be right, because I'm pretty sure that Price is not even close to being 'exhaustive' in referencing various scholars who seem to have something to say about the issue of the possible interpolation residing, or maybe not residing, in the resurrection account of 1 Cor. 15. So no, his statements about "majorities of scholars" can't reflect the full swath of scholarship available.

Although Price references where scholars agree with him, his point is not that, since scholars agree with him, therefore it has to be true. Rather his emphasis is on the reason that scholars agree with him. We could take your quote above, and put the emphasis on different words, to arrive at a different meaning:

Price also says, "All scholars now admit that the author of this gospel [Matthew] simply cannot have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus, since he employs secondary sources (Mark and Q), themselves patchworks of well-worn fragments"
​

And that, I believe, is Price's emphasis here. He thinks Matthew is not an eyewitness for the reason he specifies in the text I put in bold. That is his primary reason.

Funny, though, in this article of Price's from 1995, he seems to give some lip-service to the possibility of Q, unlike that other scholar you cited earlier ... But, Price says ... "all scholars now admit..."

Even if there's no Q, we still have Paul, and we have to deal with Paul at the least. Moreover, it isn't so clear, as you seem to make it out to be, that Paul was simply dredging up some purely spiritual (read "fantastical") definition of the resurrection, Merle.

But, as I said previously, it almost seems superfluous to argue all of this if you don't believe it one way or the other anyway.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid