tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post3990441730206190660..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: The Resurrection of JesusRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-65828694833025268202014-01-22T09:32:11.640-05:002014-01-22T09:32:11.640-05:00Hi James. :) I do agree that, on first surface-lev...Hi James. :) I do agree that, on first surface-level look, that it appears to be a problem. However, I actually think such a detail counts *for* its historicity. Why? Well, because it's an embarrassing detail. That the heroes/leaders of Christianity (the apostles) would be shown as utterly ignorant as to what was going on paints them nearly as fools! On the other hand, the villains of the story, the ones who, if the story were invented, likely would have been portrayed as bumbling idiots, instead understood precisely what was being claimed. How embarrassing!<br /><br />As to why this was the case, consider the respective backgrounds of the two camps involved. The Sanhedrin, made fools by Jesus on more than one occasion, did not believe he was the Messiah, yet understood he claimed to be Messiah. The disciples, on the other hand, readily embraced his being Messiah. There was no concept, in first-century Judaism, of a dying and rising Messiah. Jesus often spoke in parables or sayings hard to be understood, given the Judaic, hyper-legalistic background of the culture. The disciples expected their Messiah to take down Rome and rule in his kingdom. Thus, whatever Messiah's predictions may have been, they assumed it would result only in triumph, not death; it would result in a kingdom, not a cross. On the other hand, the Sanhedrin, looking to get Jesus on charges of blasphemy, was all too happy to take Jesus at his word, believing he wasn't the Messiah. Of course, they didn't believe he was going to rise, but they definitely had incentive to understand him plainly.<br /><br />I'm going to use this as this week's mailbag question! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-36620080625419746002014-01-21T21:46:03.198-05:002014-01-21T21:46:03.198-05:00Hi Randy, Regarding Matt's gospel and its ment...Hi Randy, Regarding Matt's gospel and its mention of the guard at the tomb, one thing that I don't quite get is why it is that the disciples didn't understand that Jesus was predicting His own resurrection but yet His enemies did understand what He was predicting. What's the best way of tackling that "problem"?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-89677594838148834502011-02-14T19:33:08.517-05:002011-02-14T19:33:08.517-05:00Markan priority entails the interdependence theory...Markan priority entails the interdependence theory, but the IDT doesn't entail Markan priority. In any case, I think it's irrelevant to the direct issue.<br /><br />You say 1 Cor. 15 emphasizes spiritual resurrection to the exclusion of bodily resurrection, while I believe bodily resurrection is spoken of to the inclusion of the spiritual. It's not at all clear only spiritual is in mind in 1 Cor. 15.<br /><br />To the Scripture, it must be pointed out that Paul said he received the Gospel itself from Jesus Christ, then spent three years in Arabia/Damascus, and then went to "see" Peter in Jerusalem (1:18-19). This word is only used once, and is the Greek word ιστορησαι (historesai). This word means to "investigate" literally. What he was investigating is the apostles' claims themselves (cf. 1:19-2:2) There's no reason to suppose Paul is contradicting himself here. Habermas points out "Paul was so careful to assure the content of his Gospel message, that he made a second trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10) specifically to be absolutely sure that he had not been mistaken (2:2)." (Dialog: Experiences of the Risen Jesus)<br /><br />Further, Paul uses παρεδωκα and παρελαβον, which are "formulaic" words used in the practice of introducing sayings ("delivered" and "received"). Next, the proper name of "Cephas" is used, instead of the predominantly used "Peter" by even the time of Paul's writing (to say nothing of later interpolation). The three-fold και οτι, or "and that," seems to be an oral tradition. This is why Habermas mentions even skeptics affirm a date in the 30s. Finally, assuming that only the verses in the tradition are extrapolated, why is it Paul says "...unless ye have believed in vain...after that, he was seen of about five hundred."? We have good reason to suspect "after that" is original, since it is a separate Greek word entirely from the conjunctions mentioned earlier. I recommend "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," by William Lane Craig.<br /><br />As to the polemic, it can be traced back to Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, in ch. 108. This places the polemic at 150-167. However, we can do better. In Matthew 27:62-66, 28:11-15, the chief priests expected the disciples to steal the body, and bribed the guards to say so. Now let's assume the story is embellished in Matthew. All that makes sense to make up is the guard story in response to the charge the disciples had stolen the body. There's no need to mention bribing of the guard. Craig mentions, "This arises only when the Jewish polemic answers that the guard had fallen asleep, thus allowing the disciples to steal the body. The sleeping of the guard could only have been a Jewish development, as it would serve no purpose to the Christian polemic." ("The Guard at the Tomb," New Testament Studies, 30)<br /><br />Indeed, if the entire "guard polemic" (or any part) were a lie they would need only point that out! Craig:"it is even more improbable that confronted with this palpable lie, the Jews would...proceed to create another lie, even stupider, that the guard had fallen asleep while the disciples broke into the tomb and absconded with the body. If the existence of the guard were false, then the Jewish polemic would never have taken the course that it did...It would never have come to the point that the Christians had to invent a third lie, that the Jews had bribed the fictional guard...Rather the real value of Matthew's story is the incidental...information that Jewish polemic never denied that the tomb was empty, but instead tried to explain it away. Thus the early opponents of the Christians themselves bear witness to the fact of the empty tomb." (ibid)<br /><br />Sorry so long. But I believed it necessary. Thanks for the discussion!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-32546175443715431252011-02-14T08:38:27.155-05:002011-02-14T08:38:27.155-05:00Markan priority is not clear cut? May I ask how yo...Markan priority is not clear cut? May I ask how you resolve the synoptic problem then? And why is it that universal acceptance by scholars is enough for you to accept the empty tomb, but not enough for you to accept Markan priority? <br /><br />And I agree that the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is not original to Paul, though this doesn't really help your case much. What seems most likely to me is that this is a later interpolation. Simply put, why would Paul back away to the less impressive spiritual resurrection if a bodily one had been told to him by the apostles? Why would he argue that Jesus had appeared bodily to so many, only to state later in the chapter that Jesus only rose spiritually?<br /><br />Furthermore, Paul says in Galatians 1:11-12 that his gospel isn't of human origin. "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Yet you argue that Paul was indeed taught his gospel, and that he's simply relaying an early creed taught to him by his human predecessors.<br /><br />But if the 1 Corinthians 15 passage is original to Paul, then we must assume the context matters, meaning that no bodily resurrection is being argued for, meaning that this disagrees wholeheartedly with Luke's account of Peter's vision of Jesus. But if the passage is not original to Paul, then there is no multiple attestation of Jesus' postmortem appearance to Peter.<br /><br />And may I ask what early sources you have for your polemic of Christians against Judaism ("He has risen from the dead," say the Christians. "The disciples stole his body," say the Jews. "There was a guard," say the Christians.)? Because I've never seen this before. I'd love to see which texts this came from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-24222053577210848732011-02-13T21:10:26.926-05:002011-02-13T21:10:26.926-05:00Hi Blake, thanks for commenting! It's importan...Hi Blake, thanks for commenting! It's important to note that the fact of the empty tomb is near-universally accepted among New Testament scholars--even those who are self-proclaimed agnostics or atheists. Without going into the issue of Gospel-priority (suffice it to say Markan priority is not clear-cut [See Carson and Moo], but that is incidental), there's simply not an issue of "copying" here, at least any more than any other multiply-attested event with respect to ancient historical documents (after all, there are too many dissimilarities for it to be some instance of plagiarism.<br /><br />It is also nearly-certain that the 1 Cor. 15 passage in question is not original to Paul. That is, whether or not Paul wrote it (I happen to think he did), it is clearly in the form of an early confessional in Greek. Why is this important? Well, it rules out any contextual claims of non-bodily resurrection. The early church claimed he had risen bodily (which was, we might add, the only kind of resurrection with which first-century Jews would have been familiar). It references the early polemic of Christians against Judaism. "He has risen from the dead," say the Christians. "The disciples stole his body," say the Jews. "There was a guard," say the Christians. Notice the give and take: both sides a) implicitly acknowledge an empty tomb, and b) reference a bodily event.<br /><br />Also, Mark and John do not give contradictory accounts of the fact there was an empty tomb (that is, one doesn't say it is empty and the other says it is occupied). <br /><br />The postmortem appearances between Luke and 1 Cor. 15--since the latter is a confessional, it doesn't even contain any details to agree with! <br /><br />I appreciate your comments, and I recognize that this was delivered in a great spirit; this is very helpful! I recommend, as far as reading goes, The Son Rises, by William Lane Craig, or anything by Gary Habermas on this subject. God Bless!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-54244183503089588582011-02-13T20:21:00.103-05:002011-02-13T20:21:00.103-05:00It seems to me that there are numerous problems in...It seems to me that there are numerous problems in this argument, but I'll only address the couple that seem most glaring to me. <br /><br />It's stated that there are multiple independent sources attesting to the empty tomb of Jesus, yet the sources mentioned are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and 1 Corinthians 15. Matthew and Luke both based their resurrection narratives at least somewhat on Mark, and as for the additional information they provide, we simply don't know what sources were used if any. And 1 Corinthians 15 never actually states that the tomb was empty. In fact, it seems very probable when the passage is read contextually that Paul was arguing only for a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one. This leaves us only with Mark and John, which give very different (and contradictory) accounts of this event.<br /><br />It's also stated that the postmortem appearance to Peter is attested in both Luke and 1 Corinthians. This is true, though they certainly don't seem to agree on any details. Like I mentioned earlier, Paul's account of the resurrection seems only spiritual. Notice that when Paul lists all those that have seen Jesus, he includes himself. "...and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." It's entirely possible that Paul (who is the earliest source here) is only stating that Peter had a spiritual encounter with Jesus, just like Paul did. <br /><br />Without these two points (the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances) the argument seems to crumble. Please correct me if I'm making a mistake without realizing it, but for now I highly suggest editing the article to better reflect the reality that historically speaking we simply don't know if Jesus rose from the dead or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com