A few weeks ago, I got into a somewhat heated discussion on Twitter over the issue of the dating of the birth of Jesus. In all honesty, although I knew about the basic problem, it had never been an issue that I had spent considerable time on. In any case, in the weeks following that heated discussion, I have been working on a New Testament Introduction book in which I am trying to lay out basic issues of history, theological themes, and literary structure in each New Testament book. And it just so happens that I am now going through the Gospel of Luke.
Part of my book will be a “Walkthrough” section in which I give a brief episode-by-episode explanation of everything in each New Testament book. When I got to Luke’s infancy narrative in 2:1-21, I wrote my brief explanation of the historical question. It really is rather fascinating to try to just lay out the basic issues. And that is why I thought I’d write a post in which I share my initial, rough draft comments. Hopefully you’ll find this clear and intriguing. Enjoy…
Why Don’t Matthew and Luke Agree?
In Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth in 2:1-21 we are told about Joseph and Mary’s travelling to Bethlehem because of Caesar’s census, the birth itself, and then also the visit of the shepherds. Now, because of the fact that the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke are conflated every Christmas with every Christmas play that has ever been done, people don’t realize that both narratives are very different in many ways. Matthew, for instance, has the magi, while Luke has the shepherds. There is also the fact that Matthew says nothing about Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth and then travelling to Bethlehem for a census. If all we had was Matthew, we would all assume they were living in Bethlehem from the start, and only later on moved to Nazareth, after the death of Herod the Great, which happened in 4 BC.
Yet Luke starts them in Nazareth, then moves them to Bethlehem, and then has them go back to Galilee (and Nazareth) after his presentation in the Temple. And why does Luke say they move to Bethlehem? Because there was a census declared by Caesar Augustus that required people to travel to the cities of their origins. Luke tells us that this census was the first one while Quirinias was the governor of Syria. Of course, that creates a problem, because Quirinius was the governor of Syria from 6-12 AD and the census that took place when he was governor happened in 6 AD. In fact, it was this census that spurred Judas the Galilean to start his revolutionary activities against Rome.
So, in Matthew, Jesus’ birth is presented as happening before the death of Herod, prior to 4 BC, whereas in Luke, Jesus’ birth is presented as happening during Caesar’s census in 6 AD, while Quirinias was the governor of Syria. Needless to say, but historically-speaking, this creates quite a problem to which scholars don’t have a clear answer.
The most common explanations are as follows:
(1) The Greek word translated as “first” could also mean “before,” and therefore Luke is saying that Jesus was born during the census before the one of Quirinius;
(2) Perhaps Quirinius had been governor of Syria a previous time, and it was during that time Jesus was born;
(3) Perhaps Luke mistook a census that took place under Saturninus around 6 BC with the census of Quirinius in 6 AD, and that Jesus was actually born under the census of Saturninus, but Luke just mistakenly attributed it to Quirinius;
(4) Perhaps Luke really was claiming that Jesus was born in 6 AD, and therefore there is just a flat-out contradiction between the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke.
To be honest, none of the proposed explanations are without their problems. Sure, it is possible that the Greek word means “before” but in most cases, the same word is clearly “first.” Sure, maybe Quirinius was in some governor-type role in Syria around 7-4 BC, but there isn’t any clear evidence of that. Sure, there is the possibility that there might have been a census of some sort while Saturninus was the governor of Syria, but it isn’t certain. And if Jesus was born in 6 AD, that really screws up a number of other dates in regard to the life of Jesus. For example, Luke claims in 3:23 that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry, but we know that Jesus was crucified on Passover in either 30 or 33 AD. But if he was born in 6 AD and crucified in 33 AD, that would mean he was 27 years old when he was crucified—thereby making it rather difficult for him to have begun his ministry when he was “about thirty”!
Here’s What I’m Pondering
No matter what route one takes in trying to make sense of Luke 2:1-2, every single one of those four options have serious historical problems. Well, being a literature major, I can’t help but speculate that maybe there is a fifth option.
Now, in Matthew’s infancy narrative, the birth of Jesus as the Messiah is clearly set in opposition to King Herod. Matthew’s audience was Jewish and therefore one of the messages in Matthew’s infancy narrative is Jesus is the true King of the Jews, not Herod. Luke’s audience, though, is not Jewish, but rather Gentile, and throughout Luke-Acts, there is an emphasis on how the message of the Gospel regarding the Lordship of Jesus is perceived as a threat to Caesar. Simply put, Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.
Therefore, perhaps we should entertain the possibility that Luke’s placement of Jesus’ birth at the time of a census decreed by Caesar Augustus is an intentional literary decision to highlight how Jesus’ Lordship challenges the lordship of Caesar. After all, it was in 6 AD when Rome had taken direct control of Judea and the census was Caesar’s first act to exercise that control over Judea. And so, perhaps that is why Luke placed Jesus’ birth at that time, not because he really thought Jesus was born in 6 AD, but because he wanted to highlight the contrast between Jesus’ Lordship and that of Caesar. Therefore, what Luke is doing is something akin to what movie directors sometimes do when they make a movie about a historical figure: they fudge a few historical details here and there in order to help highlight certain themes they want to emphasize in their telling of the story.
Granted, the implication of that would mean that Luke made up the story of Joseph and Mary travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census for literary reasons, and that Matthew’s account that has them living in Bethlehem from the start (with no mention of living in Nazareth first) and Jesus being born during the last years of Herod the Great is the more historically accurate account. But then again, I suppose one could argue that Matthew did what he did for literary reasons as well. And if that is the case, maybe both Matthew and Luke are making literary choices—maybe we should just admit that we don’t know precisely when Jesus was born. Maybe we should just admit that matter how one slices it, any attempt to make historical sense of Luke 2:1-21 (or Matthew 2:1-23) will prove to be a challenge. Maybe nailing down the exact date of Jesus’ birth wasn’t the real priority of either of the infancy narratives.
And maybe that’s okay. In any case, there is one key point upon which both Matthew and Luke agree: Jesus was born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareth. Given the other dates mentioned in Luke, as well as the scholarly determination that Jesus was crucified in either 30 or 33 AD, I’m inclined to think that Jesus was still probably born around 6 BC—but I’m willing to admit that there is no way to conclusively prove it.
One Last Thing
It is interesting to speculate as to why Matthew includes the story of the Magi and Herod’s killing of the children in Bethlehem, while Luke just includes the story of the shepherds. From a literary standpoint, I can make an educated guess. In Matthew, the Magi come from the East (perhaps Babylon or Persia) and are obviously Gentiles—what is being emphasized is Gentiles coming to bow down to the Jewish Messiah. After all, in Matthew’s crucifixion account, the first person to acknowledge Jesus is the Son of God was a Roman soldier.
In Luke, we are told about the story of angels appearing to shepherds outside of Bethlehem and telling them about the birth of the savior, the Messiah of the Lord. Literarily, the impact of having lowly shepherds coming to visit Israel’s Messiah who is laid in a feeding trough while Caesar is busying exercising his lordship is quite telling. Not only does it emphasize the humbleness and lowliness of the Messiah, but it also highlights the association of the king of Israel with shepherds. David was a lowly shepherd in Bethlehem before he became king, and Jesus, the Messiah, was visited by the shepherds of Bethlehem at his birth.
In any case, that’s what I’ve been pondering about the historical question regarding the date of the birth of Jesus! Please share…and comment!
Regarding the Luke narrative, I’ve been in the understanding that the message of the angel to the shepherds was a modified form of the announcement of either the birth or adoption of Octavius/Augustus as the successor. That would follow from your premise on the purpose of Luke’s writing. Unfortunately, I don’t have a handy source on that
Well, I’ll put it this way: if you were a Roman at the time and were asked, “Who is the one born of a virgin who is lord and savior of the world and who has brought his good news of peace to the whole world?” you’d answer, “That would be Caesar Augustus!” because those are the things Virgil said about him.
So I think a HUGE part of Luke’s (and Matthew’s) infancy narrative is to show that Christ, not Caesar, is those things.
Mark’s gospel lacks an infancy narrative, but the first line achieves the same effect. “The beginning of the good news of Jesus the Anointed, the Son of God.” Although there is textual uncertainty about the Son of God phrase, it squares with Mark’s theology and presentation of Christ. In comparison, the famous Priene Calendar inscription calls Augustus a “Savior” and a “God” whose birth marked “the beginning of the good news (evangelion) for the world.” Mark clearly applies titles and concepts from the emperor cult to Jesus. Luke and Matthew took that nugget and expanded upon it.
Here’s a source for the info:
http://www.jgrchj.net/volume1/JGRChJ1-5_Evans.pdf
MARK’S INCIPIT AND THE PRIENE CALENDAR INSCRIPTION: FROM JEWISH GOSPEL TO GRECO-ROMAN GOSPEL by Craig Evans (2000).
“Luke and Matthew took that nugget [concepts from the emperor cult] and expanded upon it.”
Maybe that is how we got the virgin birth story.
https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-virgin-mothers-and-miracle-babies-49889
I think when the author goes all the way to Hinduism to try to explain Matthew 1-2/Luke 1-2, I think that’s a stretch. Viewing the infancy narrative in context means viewing it within the context of 1st century Judaism within the Roman Empire…not Hinduism. And the pagan myth connections don’t fly either. Everything points to a connection/contrast with Caesar, not an allusion to Zeus or anything else in Greek mythology.
The Romans adopted the emperor worship cult from the East.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141986?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
The Romans co-opted eastern concepts but fit them into Roman culture and thinking. Isn’t it possible that the authors of the Gospels did the same: They took the Roman emperor cult concept, which the Romans had borrowed from the East, and placed it into a Jewish framework. Zeus could have sex with human women, but Yahweh could not. To spare his Jewish audience the mental trauma of Yahweh frolicking in bed with a woman, Matthew used the “spirit” of Yahweh to consumate the sex act. The Virgin Birth of Jesus story had to be a JEWISH version of the emperor cult for it to be accepted by Jewish Christians.
BTW, Evans was a professor of mine in my master’s program.
My comment did not post. Here it is again:
The Romans borrowed the emperor cult from the East. When any culture adopts a concept from another, they often change the details of the original concept to make it conform with the beliefs and practices of their culture. Jewish Christians like “Matthew” likely did the same. They took the Roman concept, borrowed from the East, and made it Jewish. The Jewish emperor was the son of God and a human woman, conceived not by a physical act of Yahweh himself, but by his spirit.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141986?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Paul in particular purposely coopts language from the Imperial Cult. Terms such as son of god, salvation, good news, etc. were terms used of the Caesars and their imperial cult. Paul takes these terms and applies them to Jesus.
Pax.
Lee.
Excellent insights! Are you sure you are an evangelical? 🙂
The attempts to harmonize the Birth Narratives of Mathew and Luke are truly comical. In one story the holy family travels to Jerusalem shortly after Jesus’ birth for Mary’s purification and then heads north to Nazareth. In the other story, the holy family high-tails it out of Bethlehem to Egypt in the middle of the night to escape Herod’s hordes. These stories cannot be reconciled.
But does that mean that the authors of the Gospels invented these stories as lies to deceive their readers? No. Not necessarily. Once again, one must look at the genre of literature and culture in which these books were written.
I believe that this is a possible solution to the Birth Narrative Discrepancy:
If one is a Jew in the first century, one would know that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem in Judea. If one is a Gentile in the early days of Christianity, would one have known this fact? Maybe, maybe not. Most scholars believe that the author of Matthew was a Jewish Christian and that the author of Mark was a Gentile Christian. So is this why the author of Mark makes no mention of Jesus being born in Bethlehem? We can only speculate. But the Jewish author of Matthew knows that if Jesus is the Messiah he must have been born in Bethlehem. But he has never heard a story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem. All his information about Jesus came to him having passed through at least one generation of retellings of the Jesus story (at least according to the majority of scholars). He has no eyewitness source available to him who can verify the location of Jesus birth. So he invents a story about Jesus being born in Bethlehem! Now, in the western world today, this would be wrong. “You can’t write a biography about someone and invent details!” But that was not how biographies in the ancient world were written. Invented details were perfectly acceptable!
If Jesus truly was the promised Messiah, he MUST have been born in Bethlehem—the exact details were unimportant. But what a great story Matthew created!!!
So the author of Matthew created a BEAUTIFUL midrashic birth story about Jesus. And what OT story did he use to create this midrash? Answer: the story of Moses!!! Jesus had to be hidden from a murderous king who is killing Jewish babies, just like Moses. Moses eventually flees from Egypt. Jesus flees TO Egypt. And what about the Magi? Maybe the author of Matthew was creating another Midrash from Isaiah 53, in which Yahweh states that the kings of the world will humble themselves to God’s servant. It is a wonderful story! So what if it isn’t historical!
And what about Luke’s birth narrative? Maybe “Matthew’s” birth narrative was circulating first and Luke heard a version of it. Luke liked it, but as Joel says in his post, he used a birth narrative for another theological purpose. Matthew’s purpose was to present Jesus as the new Moses, except this time “Moses” would enter the Promised Land and would rule the people of Israel. Luke, on the other hand, wanted to present Jesus as the new and greater Caesar! Luke altered Matthew’s Bethlehem birth narrative dramatically to fit his own theological purpose.
The authors of the Gospels were not trying to deceive anyone with these fictional stories. They were writing great literature about the Messiah!
I grew up within Evangelicalism. I’m now Orthodox…although I don’t live near an Orthodox church currently, so I attend a Methodist Church.
Good stuff, Joel. Lots to think about. You mentioned Judas the Galilean in conjunction with the rioting that followed Augustus imposing direct Roman rule on Judea in A.D. 6. Another possible connection is the rioting that occurred after Herod’s death in 4 B.C. In Sepphoris, less than four miles from Nazareth, Judah ben Hezekiah led a mob to loot the royal arsenal and palace in Galilee’s largest city. After arming the populace, Judah proclaimed himself King of the Jews and headed for the hills with his followers, styling himself in the mold of David. The scholars Emil Schurer, Sean Freyne, and Martin Hengel argue that Judas the Galilean and Judah ben Hezekiah were the same man. Most others reject this identification for lack of evidence.
Perhaps Luke “fudged” his dates to make the connection between the first false Messiah, Judah ben Hezekiah, and the founder of the Zealots, Judas the Galilean? An even more intriguing possibility if the two actually were the same person.
I would think possible, yes. At bottom, I think we just need to acknowledge that Luke might be acting more like a movie director of a movie about a historical person/event, and less than an academic historian (i.e. creative license is okay).
Would you consider the same possibility for Luke’s Appearance (of the resurrected Jesus) Stories?
Well, of course they are crafting the stories, but all four gospel writers are pretty much in agreement as to when it happened and the historical circumstances surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection. So to the point, he wasnt just making it up.
I too doubt that Luke invented the entire Resurrection Story, but since we know that he used Mark’s gospel extensively, isn’t this scenario possible:
Luke was aware of Mark’s story about the empty tomb. He also was aware of the appearance claims in the Early Creed. He decided to “flesh out” these claims to make a better Resurrection Story. He didn’t invent the empty tomb. He didn’t invent the concept of Jesus’ resurrection. He didn’t invent the concept that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples. But he DID invent the detailed appearance stories of Jesus appearing to his disciples on the Emmaus Road, in the Upper Room, and the story of Jesus’ ascension from a mountaintop near Bethany.
He was making a movie, not writing a history textbook.
“Based on true events …”? Haha. This gets into the heart of the “slippery slope” argument that many evangelicals pull out of the bag. If you question one thing, where does it stop?
You’re absolutely right that ancient historians did not simply record events. They had their own genre, and the audience had their own expectations. Going back to Evans’ paper that I mentioned above, the birth and death of emperors was expected to be attended by omens and prophecies. I think that is where the evangelists followed the customary method of ancient historians and “embellished” the accounts, and their audience expected it. Things such as the star in the sky over Bethlehem, or the darkness and earthquake at the crucifixion. Omens and prophecies are the “window dressing” that ancient historians used to alert their readers to the real meaning of the events they described. If the evangelists had written in a “just the facts, ma’am” style, their readers wouldn’t have known what to make of Jesus. He would’ve seemed too ordinary to be considered a king, let alone a god. Just another Jewish revolutionary.
Perhaps my brain isn’t working this morning, but when you quote, “Based on true events…” what are you referring to? Did someone say that and I missed it? lol
No, I was making a lame joke. The line that you see just before a movie starts, “Based on True Events.”
I believe that you have hit the nail on its proverbial head, Jay. Evangelicals and other conservative Protestants insist that we read the Gospels as if they were modern biographies: every statement of fact MUST be true. That isn’t how they wrote books in Antiquity. Ancient writers had no qualms about adding embellishments to skeleton, historical facts. To the ancient readers, this was perfectly acceptable and even expected. Without the embellishments, the core, skeletal, historical facts were often boring. Readers wanted to be entertained!
Therefore it is entirely possible that the Birth Narratives, the story of Jesus walking on water, the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem with thousands of Jews proclaiming him as the new King of Israel, the story of dead saints shaken out of their graves by a great earthquake, angel/angels at the tomb, and sightings of a walking, talking, broiled fish eating back from the dead body were literary embellishments. None of these embellishments changed the core facts: that Jesus had a reputation as a healer and miracle worker, that he was crucified, buried, and later his followers believed that he had appeared in some fashion to some of them. Nor did these embellishments diminish the theological purpose of these books: “so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ”.
Now, see what you did there? I tried to show where the slippery slope ended, and you slid all the way down! haha. As I said, I think most of the “embellishments” involve those kingly aspects of Jesus’ story, but I’ll let Joel draw the fine lines, if he wants. You pretty quickly run into “Jesus Seminar” territory when deciding what did or did not “actually happen” in the gospels.
The ancient reader didn’t read biography or history to be entertained. Greco-Roman biographies focused upon a subject’s good character as an example for readers to emulate. Their histories interpreted events to highlight their ultimate meaning, and they frequently noted the guiding hand of “fate” in ordering history and giving it direction. The modern conceit of “objectivity” in writing history did not exist for the ancients. Like their Greco-Roman counterparts, the evangelists had a greater purpose than simply preserving bare facts for later generations. Rather, in their choice and arrangement of material, they sought to provide an interpretive framework for their audience to grasp the significance of Jesus. For example, just as Mark’s opening line contrasts the good news of Jesus the Anointed with the false cult of emperor worship, Luke frames Jesus’ confrontations with spiritual evil to show his first-century audience that true power and authority is invested in Jesus, not the devil, demons, or magic.
If it is history the evangelists have written, then it is a theological history – history as planned and directed by God toward a climactic denouement. If it is biography they have written, then it is Jesus’ identity – not his character – that is their primary interest.
Gary, this is where you go too far. You take talk of literary embellishments and you go all the way to, “Then we can say that all the miraculous stuff was basically made up, because the real Jesus was boring.”
No, that takes it too far. Let’s give an example of the post-resurrection appearance to the disciples. It is pretty clear this is meant to be taken as an event in history. The claim is it really happened. But as for Jesus “breathing” on the disciples, we dont have to think that he literally went around and breathed on them. We should be astute enough to see that they’re receiving of the Holy Spirit echoes God “breathing” into the newly formed man in Genesis 2, or of God’s Spirit/Breath hovering over the waters before creation. The imagery thus evokes the idea of a new creation.
Literally HOW it happened is irrelevant. The point is they recieved the Spirit somehow from Jesus, and the gospel writers describe it in terms of “breathing” on them to make that connection to creation.
I am not all claiming that Jesus did not walk on water nor that scores of dead saints were not shaken out of their graves by a great earthquake. These events could very well have happened. My point is: since we are talking about events from 2,000 years ago, it is very difficult for historians to confirm the historicity of these claims. They may have happened, they may not have.
I don’t know of any non-evangelical, non-fundamentalist Bible scholar who claims that the story of Jesus walking on water is an historical fact. The same is true for the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels. Most scholars agree that the early Christians sincerely believed that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to them in some fashion, but to claim that Jesus’ appearance to two disciples on the Emmaus Road is an historical fact?? I don’t think so.
I do not question that the early Christians sincerely believed that the resurrected Jesus appeared to them. What I question is the historicity of the detailed Appearance Stories in the Gospels. I don’t think there is any way to prove these stories to be historical facts. They may be, they may not be. Even moderate Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown believed that “Luke” significantly embellished his Appearance Stories.
As far as the issue of “entertainment”, NT Wright believes that entertainment *was* an important component of first century Greco-Roman biographies. Wright believes that the discrepancies in the three accounts of Jesus’ appearance to Paul on the Damascus Road in Acts, in which the details change about whether or not Paul’s companion’s fell to the ground, saw a light, or heard a noise was intentional. The author was using literary embellishments to make the story “more interesting”. I am not claiming that the PRIMARY purpose of the Gospels was entertainment, but telling an “good” story, was important. And in the minds of first century authors, good stories required embellishments, often with supernatural elements.
Well, yes, no one sets out to write a boring story. (That’s why my memoir will be a semi-autobiographical novel.) But the reader of a Greco-Roman biography or history also had an expectation that the author was giving an essentially truthful account of actual events. The embellishments may include details such as darkness over the land, an earthquake, or the splitting of the veil in the temple, but those details are added to theological purpose, not simply to make the story more interesting.
Well said.
“essentially” truthful
As long as the story tells that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the son of God, a performer of great deeds and wonders, that he was crucified, that he was buried, and that he appeared to some of his followers (in some fashion) after his death, then the “essential” facts have been presented. All the rest may simply be literary fluff…or not. The point is, how would we know??
How would we know? I’ve thrown out a couple of markers already in the categories of “omen” and “prophecy.” As far as drawing fine lines, I find that those make no difference to my faith or practice, so I’m not so concerned with the actual date of Jesus’ birth. When all is said and done, I choose to believe the witnesses. I’m a simple man at heart.
Specifically which witnesses are you referring to?
The apostles and the women. Their testimony that sparked the beginning of the Church shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus. We know the existence of the “Jesus movement” at Pentecost, 50 days after Passover. They were making the claim of Jesus’ resurrection then.
Specifically which apostles and which women claimed that they saw the body of the resurrected Jesus?
According to the Gospels and Acts, the ones named.
Do you have confirmed statements by any of these people? No. All you have are stories written by the same anonymous authors who invented fictional details about Jesus’ birth who allege in their works of evangelism that these people saw a walking, talking resurrected corpse.
That is not good evidence, Joel.
And that just goes to show just how ill-informed you are. You routinely twist what well-respected scholars like Brown say and claim. Sorry, but that is just a fact. Bottom line, he would strenuously object to the way you are characterizing his analysis. He would bot agree with you conclusions at all.
There is no evidence that there were any witnesses to anything. All we have are claims in a text with no way of verifying.
“essentially” is the key word in the statement.
The detailed appearances stories in Matthew, Luke, and John are not necessarily to believe that Jesus died, was buried, rose again, and appeared to his disciples…in some fashion.
Sorry for the duplicate comment.
In gathering information, ancient historians considered the best evidence to be what they had seen for themselves or obtained from eyewitness interviews, using written sources only as supplements to their own inquiries or when no eyewitnesses were still living. The writers of the gospels followed the accepted historical methods of their Greek exemplars, which is clear from Luke’s prologue, John’s repeated emphasis on eyewitnesses, and the frequent naming of persons as witnesses to events. Since I don’t have access to those people, I trust the truthfulness of the accounts written down by the evangelists.
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Sorry I can’t devote any more time to you right now, Gary. Thanks to you and Joel both. It’s been a pleasure.
Why would you trust the historical accuracy of resurrection narratives written by the same authors whom you agree invented many of the details in the birth narratives regarding the same person??
Why do you suddenly apply modern standards of historical accuracy to the gospels? Did we just waste a whole bunch of words? I’m sorry, but I confused you with someone who had honest questions. Thanks anyway.
Because we understand the way they wrote and we can are smart enough to figure it out. 😉
I agree that you are very intelligent and very educated, Joel, but so are NT scholars such as Raymond Brown who say that embellishments *do* exist in the Appearance Stories.
Bottom line: Today’s Christians can be confident that very early after Jesus’ death some of his followers claimed to have received appearances, of some fashion, of Jesus. However, the stories of individuals and groups seeing a walking/talking/ broiled fish eating resurrected corpse MAY be literary/theological embellishments. We have no idea what the original eyewitnesses saw because not a single one of them left verified testimony of what they actually saw. Not even Paul tells us in his own writings what he saw. For all we know, they all saw bright lights, as the author of Acts claims was all that was seen in Paul’s appearance experience.
That is all I am saying.
You are making a distinction that isnt there. Both Raymond Brown and I acknowledge the “literary brushstrokes” that the Gospel writers use throughout the Gospels, not the the post-Rez appearances.
At the same time, I’m pretty sure that Brown (as I do) reads the Gospels as clearly claiming that Jesus physically rose from the dead and interacted with his disciples in history after his resurrection. He was dead, and he was raised and conquered death.
Can you provide a quote in which Brown states that there is good evidence that Jesus appeared in a literal body to his disciples, conversed with them, and ate meals of fish with them? I don’t think you can. Have you read Brown’s master work, “The Death of the Messiah”? I have. In it Brown clearly states that he believes that the Gospel authors embellished their Appearance of the Resurrected Jesus stories. Yes, Brown believes, like most scholars, that early Christians had experiences of some type which led them to believe that Jesus had appeared to them. That’s it. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
I challenge you to point to anything in 1st century Judaism or Christianity that indicates the claim that “resurrection” meant anything other than physical resurrection.
You can’t, because that is what “resurrection” means. And that means all you are spouting is hot air.
There *are* scholars who believe that “resurrection” meant different things to different groups of early Christians, but I am not interested in debating that issue. I am willing to accept that most early Christians held the pharisee’s view on resurrection: a physical resurrection.
I don’t think you are understanding my point. I am not claiming that the early Christians did not believe in a physical resurrection. I will accept that they did. But does one need to see a resurrected physical body with one’s own two eyes to believe in a physical resurrection? No. Paul says that devote Jews in Asia Minor believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus without having seen his physically resurrected body.
For two thousand years, millions of Christians have believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus without ever seeing his resurrected body.
So my point is: Is it possible that the Appearance Stories in the Gospels are embellished fictional tales of the bare-bones appearance accounts in the Early Creed? If so, is it possible that the original “sightings” of Jesus were no different than “sightings” of the Virgin Mary today (bright lights, cloud formations, shadows)? We know that thousands of devout believers today can see a bright light or a cloud formation and believe that a dead person has appeared to him, her, or even to groups. Did the early Christians experience illusions (they really saw something) that convinced them that their leader, Jesus, had come back from the dead and that the general resurrection of the righteous dead had begun, with Jesus as the first fruits?
To your question in the last paragraph–no.
Why? If there are embellishments in the birth narratives, in the guards at the tomb story, in the dead saints shaken out of their graves story, then why couldn’t the detailed appearance stories be embellishments?
Again, you (as you always do) take things too far. You continually try to equate the creative literary brushstrokes in the Gospels with “hey they made up the claim that Jesus physically rose from the dead.” No matter how much you try to obsfucate, that is what you are saying.
Luke might have placed Jesus’ birth during Caesar’s census in 6 AD for theological reasons, but the historical root that Jesus was really born in history is undeniable. He might have created the dialogue in the Road to Emmaus story, but the historical root is that the resurrected Jesus really was physically present with those two and talked with them.
To suggest Luke made up the entire thing is just unbelievable.
–To say that the Evangelists invented the concept that Jesus had been physically resurrected IS unbelievable.
–To say that the Evangelists invented the concept that the physically resurrected Jesus had “appeared” to some of his followers in some fashion, IS unbelievable.
But you have provided no evidence other than incredulity against my claim that it is POSSIBLE that the detailed appearance stories—found nowhere but in the last three Gospels—of a physically resurrected Jesus eating broiled fish, cooking fish on a seashore, and allowing people to touch him.
…are literary, theological embellishments.
If the author of Acts can say that Jesus “appeared” to Paul on the Damascus Road as a bright light, why couldn’t the appearance experiences of other early Christians have involved only seeing a bright light??
Because the appearance experiences involved interacting with a physically resurrected Jesus. The physical resurrection is the basis for the entire movement. Without that, you don’t have a movement. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel in an attempt to avoid that basic fact. If you don’t believe Jesus resurrected, fine. But what you CANNOT do, if you want to retain any sense of intellectual honesty and integrity, is to keep insisting that the early Christians DIDN’T claim an actual, physical resurrection, and that “later” writings made up/embellished “bright-light experiences” to make it SEEM like there was a physical resurrection when there really wasn’t. No matter how often you keep saying, “Oh, I’m not saying they lied–they probably believed he was physically raised–but the stores are embellishments/fictions.” That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.
An intellectually honest person would say, “Yes, from the very beginning, the early Christians claimed to have witnessed the physically resurrected Jesus. I don’t believe they did,” and just leave it at that.
“Because the appearance experiences involved interacting with a physically resurrected Jesus.”
Assumption! You have no evidence what the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen other than the stories in the Gospels which MAY be embellished accounts. And there is good reason to suspect that they MIGHT be embellishments, based on:
–the fact that we believe that these same authors embellished other stories about Jesus (the birth narratives, the Guards at the Tomb story, the Dead Saints Shaken out of their Graves story).
–the fact that the Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written, has no detailed Appearance stories.
–most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke were not aware of each other’s gospels, although they both used Mark’s original story extensively. The appearance stories in these two Gospels bare little if any resemblance to each other. It is as if these two authors looked at the Early Creed and the young man’s prediction in the last chapter of Mark that Jesus would appear in Galilee, and created their own appearance stories to put “meat on the bones” of these bare bones accounts.
–John’s Appearances look like an amalgamation of Matthew and Luke’s Appearance stories. Since most scholars believe that John was written several decades after Matthew and Luke, it is entirely possible that John simply used the Appearance Stories he had heard from Matthew and Luke’s gospels as a template for his Appearance stories.
You are assuming that just because a few first century Jews claimed that the physically resurrected Jesus appeared to them that this means that these people SAW a physical body. You have no evidence to prove this. However, I have evidence to prove that first century people could believe that a bright light was a visitation by a resurrected person, and that evidence is found in Acts chapter 26! I also have evidence that first century Jews did not need to interact with a physically resurrected body to believe that that person had been physically resurrected! Paul’s accounts of the conversion of Jews in Asia Minor is proof of this!
Assumptions and generalizations are not good evidence, Joel. You have no first hand testimony from ANYONE in the first century who claimed to have interacted with an actual (resurrected) body. All you have are vague appearance claims in the Early Creed and Greco-Roman biographies (which allowed embellishments) written decades later by persons whom most scholars doubt were eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses.
Move on with your life, Gary. Raymond Brown would be aghast at how distorted your take on his stuff is. You dont know the difference between embellishment, fiction, literary artistry, etc, and you vastly overstate your point.
You have given ZERO evidence for the historicity of any of Jesus’ alleged bodily appearances, Joel. What evidence do you have of Jesus’ alleged bodily appearance on the Emmaus Road, for instance? Answer: Only one story by one anonymous author; an author who was writing in a genre that allowed for embellishments; a writer whom you agree embellished the story of Jesus birth.
Move on with my life??
I am an ex-member of one of the largest, most destructive cults on planet earth. This cult has inflicted massive suffering and persecution for almost two thousand of years. This cult today continues to influence the legal systems of many countries, inducing some countries to criminalize relationships between consenting adults and discouraging the use of contraception/condoms which has proven to reduce unwanted abortions, HIV, and other diseases. I see it as my duty to expose this cult for what it is: an ancient superstition which uses fear of the afterlife as a weapon to control people.
What is the name of my (former) cult: conservative Christianity.
I am involved in one of the greatest movements in the history of humankind: the debunking of fear-based religious superstitions.
My evidence are early Christian writings that date within a few decades of the life of Jesus–it is those writings that tell us of the historical Jesus. And I know the difference between literary shaping out outright embellishments.
Christianity is not a cult. You need to be able to tell the difference between the actual cultish behavior of ultra-fundies and Christianity as a whole, even “conservative” Christianity.
And I know the difference between literary shaping out outright embellishments.
You are not a literary expert. You have no expertise to distinguish facts from embellishments in ancient Greco-Roman literature. You are a theologian, not an expert in Classics.
I am always very careful to distinguish my target: conservative Christianity. I have no issue with liberal Christianity (forms of Christianity which do not use fear of the afterlife/punishment in the afterlife to manipulate and control people). if you do not believe in Hell or in any form of punishment (physical or mental) for not believing that Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Master, then you are a liberal and not the target of my efforts of “salvation” (salvation from the fear and control of ancient, fear-based religious superstitions).
1. My area of expertise is literary narratives and structures within Biblical Studies.
2. I am not a liberal. I just dont happen to be a Fundie. And there are a lot of Christians who consider themselves conservative who do not see themselves as Fundies either.
3. I’m sorry but your comments tell me that you do not see the difference between literary shaping and outright embellishments.
Please kindly define the terms, “literary shaping” and “embellishments”. If you believe that my definition of “embellishment” is a fictional account which serves no purpose other than to entertain” you are wrong. I believe that the authors of the Gospels used embellishments for theological and literary purposes. They were writing works of evangelism, not pop novels.
Well then, perhaps you should define what you mean by embellishment. I’ve repeatedly explained what I mean by literary shaping.
embellishment: a fictitious touch added to [what the author believes to be] a factual account.
It is also possible that some of the Jesus sightings/appearances DID involve people believing that they had seen a body, but they saw this body in a vivid dream or trance. Maybe only some individuals “saw” Jesus in bright lights, like Paul. The stories of groups of people “seeing” Jesus could have been a group illusion, similar to the “appearance” of Mary to hundreds of believers in Knock, Ireland in the summer of 2017. I am simply demonstrating that there are several natural explanations for how the Resurrection Belief originated.
Thousands of grieving friends and relatives have claimed to have seen, touched, heard, and smelled their dead friend or loved one:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/how-often-do-grieving-loved-ones-see-the-dead-a-lot/
Why don’t you believe these claims, Joel?
I believe that from within about a month of his crucifixion, Jesus’ disciples claimed He physically resurrected. That is what we have in our earliest Christian documents.
Can one believe that someone has been physically resurrected without seeing that person’s resurrected body?
Of course. I havent seen the resurrected body of Jesus, and yet I believe he was resurrected.
Your problem that you keep stumbling over is the fact that the resurrection claim was made by Jesus’ followers soon after he was killed. That’s the claim from the beginning–he resurrected, and a lot of his followers witnessed him risen from the dead. If all it was was a bright light, they wouldnt have claimed resurrection.
So AGAIN, you are free to say you dont believe he resurrected; but you cannot keep claiming that the original followers claimed he was resurrected and claimed to have witnessed it.
The story of Paul’s conversion as described in Acts chapter 26 does not involve seeing a (resurrected) body. If this story is true, Paul believed in the reality of the physically resurrected Jesus based SOLELY on seeing a bright light.
This contradicts your claim that early Christians HAD to have seen a body to believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. If Paul could believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus without seeing a body (only seeing a bright light) how do you know that Peter and the others did not experience the same type of appearance (a bright light but no body) and believed it to have been the physically resurrected Jesus?
No, I NEVER said that the early Christians HAD to have seen a body to believe in the physical resurrection. It is just incredible how you so easily either misinterpret and twist things. I said the earliest followers of Jesus claimed he was resurrected and claimed that had physically seen him–that is what is at the core of the movement.
You are taking Paul’s conversion experience AFTER the ascension, in which he saw a bright light, and then you try to push the conclusion that therefore the earliest followers who CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN AND TALKED TO THE RESURRECTED JESUS IN THE FLESH really only had a similar non-bodily experience, like Paul. And on top of that, Paul himself is INSISTENT that there was a physical resurrection.
For all your talk, it is baseless speculation and wishful thinking that is rooted in a rejection of what the text says.
“I said the earliest followers of Jesus claimed he was resurrected and claimed that had physically seen him–that is what is at the core of the movement.”
You have zero evidence that anyone claimed to have seen, heard, or touched a BODY. And that is my entire point. Yes, the early Christians believed that the physically resurrected Jesus had “appeared” to them. Period. That is all we get from the Early Creed and Paul.
Paul’s conversion story in Acts is proof that early Christians could see a bright light and believe that they had seen the physically resurrected Jesus! PAUL CONVERTED TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN THE SIGHTING OF A BRIGHT LIGHT. If you are still unwilling to admit this is correct, you are either playing dumb or just being obstinate.
Again, I never said the only way the early Christians would believe Jesus was resurrected would be if they themselves personally witnessed the resurrected body.
But the fact is that “resurrection” meant by definition physical resurrection with a real body.
And the entire Christian movement started becauuse the earliest followers cliamed Jesus was resurrected and said they were witnesses to it.
You can scream all you want, that doesnt change the fact that the earliest followers claimed they were witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. If you deny that, then you simply deny reality.
Please stop. Yes, it is evidence. It is taken from a first century document that tells about the origins of the early Christian movement. In that first century document, it is stated that the earliest testimony by Jesus’ disciples was that they encountered the resurrected Jesus. That is the EVIDENCE regarding the earliest claims of Jesus’ followers. You might not believe their claims, that that is the EVIDENCE regarding what they claimed.
That is a falsehood. Paul did not convert to Christianity because of a flash of “bright light.” He also claimed to have had a personal encounter with the risen Christ at that moment, who gave him instructions on what to do when he got to Damascus, and was blinded only to have his sight miraculously restored.
I’m not going to wade into the whole “literary embellishment/fiction” debate, as I am not a scholar and as Dr. Anderson already pointed out, there is a difference between adding or subtracting to form a narrative (like what is done when adapting a book into a movie) and making stuff up out of whole cloth. The resurrection of Christ is at the forefront of all Christian teaching. If it had been made up it would have been a little more than just an “embellishment.”
However, if you want to claim that the apostles simply thought they saw the risen Christ after his death and burial, you have to account for what would lead them to that idea in the first place. I assume you don’t believe that Jesus performed any miracles; that would be another “embellishment.” Okay, but then why would the apostles have ANY reason at all to believe that he could or would rise from the dead? The Hebrew Scriptures are full of divine signs pointing the way to God’s true messengers. If Jesus didn’t perform any miracles but went around claiming he was going to rise from the dead, why would anyone have had any reason to believe him?
You also say that many people claim to have seen their deceased loved ones following death. Alright, but I assume that (MOST) of these people don’t then go around preaching that story and basing a whole religion on it. It takes a little more than that. When people like you try to hand wave away the supernatural claims in the Gospel as mere fictions, it stretches the limits of plausibility, considering Jesus’ apostles were very public figures by their own admission. Any made-up claims they spouted, all within a few generations of Jesus’s death, could have easily been dismissed as nonsense right on the spot. After all, they weren’t the only ones who knew Jesus.
Also, please drop the whole “righteous crusade against a cult” garbage you’re spouting off about. A faith that preaches against gay sex and condoms is not a threat to mankind, especially one that has been slowly dying here in the West. Go see a therapist and get over your anger with your religious upbringing, and then state your opinion and let others live their lives.
Well said, Wiley. Thanks for you comments.
Ok. So Paul saw a TALKING bright light and believed that he had seen the physically resurrected Jesus.
If Paul can see a talking bright light and believe that he has seen the physically resurrected Jesus, then maybe that is what happened with Peter, James, the Twelve, and the “Five Hundred”. They all saw a talking bright light.
There is no concrete evidence that Paul claimed to have seen the physically resurrected Jesus more than once: his initial encounter. A thorough reading of Paul’s writings indicates that the rest of his communications with the physically resurrected Jesus were by revelation (in his head).
The evidence in Acts is that Paul encountered the resurrected Jesus in some way after the ascension. No one is claiming that Paul sat down with the resurrected Jesus and had a meal. Paul’s encounter on the Damascus Road is clearly portrayed differently than that of the disciples with Jesus during the time between his resurrection and the ascension. The evidence in Acts is that Jesus rose from the dead and physically interacted with his disciples up until the ascension.
Please stop now. There is ZERO evidence in the New Testament to your assertion that the Twelve saw a “talking bright light.” All throughout Acts, they declare time and time again, “We are witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. We walked, talked, and ate with the resurrected Jesus.” They didn’t say, “We saw a bright light and we’re going to call that resurrection.” You are purposely blinding yourself to the reality of what is clearly claimed and written. You are literally making things up. Your claims have no veracity, evidence, or credibility. Please stop.
“The evidence in Acts is that Jesus rose from the dead and physically interacted with his disciples up until the ascension.”
Acts (and the Gospels) was written by a non-eyewitness/non-associate of eyewitness decades after the death of Jesus for the stated purpose of evangelism (“that you might believe”). Why do you give so much credence to anonymously written ancient texts, Joel?
Because they are virtually the only first century documents that tell us about the historical Jesus to begin with.
We have documents that date to within a generation of Jesus, all of which claim that he rose physically from the dead. And in Acts it states that from the very first Pentecost, that is what the earliest disciples had claimed: they claimed he rose from the dead and they said they were witnesses of it.
Like I’ve said before, you are free to say you dont believe that. But please, do everyone a favor and stop trying to give your alternative theory without evidence of your own.
Thank you, Dr. Anderson. It’s not every day I get a thumbs up from a Biblical scholar!
I think I’m finally beginning to see why this “discussion” is running around in circles. Two things seem to discredit the Gospel accounts for the skeptic before he even begins to examine them. The first one is is that the supernatural does not exist and therefore the Gospels cannot be trusted since they make supernatural claims, and the second one is that since the Gospels were written by evangelists for the purpose of evangelizing, that means they are biased and therefore untrustworthy.
If I’ve learned anything from reading your blog for the past couple of years, these presuppositions appear to be peculiarly modern ones which began with the Enlightenment, and must be rejected, or at least, set aside, before one can look at the Gospel accounts, or any religious account, with any honesty or humility. As long as these presuppositions are not acknowledged, and the skeptic deludes himself into thinking that he is simply a detached, rational Vulcan observer of the facts, the debate will go nowhere.
I find it funny how humanity appears to have been wired for religion since the beginning of time, and now because we’ve invented cars, airplanes, telephones, and representative democracy within the last few hundred years we think we can just cast the collective wisdom of our race aside like last week’s newspapers.
I think this is why I could never be an atheist; the amount of hubris involved is sickening.
When you use the term “literary brushstrokes” you actually means fiction, yes?
I have explained this a number of times by means of an analogy. Think of the movie “Hacksaw Ridge.” It is a movie about a real historical event–in that sense it is history. At the same time, the director uses a certain amount of artistic license and shaping to shape a story. Just because Mel Gibson alters some elements of the history to fit into a story better doesn’t mean that “Hacksaw Ridge” is fiction. It still is about real history–the literary/artistic shaping into a story doesn’t change that. That is what the gospels are doing. When you keep insisting the gospels are “fiction,” that is the equivalent of you saying, “Oh, Hacksaw Ridge is complete fiction.” That is ridiculous.
Actually, unlike Hacksaw Ridge, there is no contemporary evidence for any of what is written in the gospels.
All we do have is the passage in Annals and the highly suspect Testimonium Flavianum.
Therefore, at best we can apply the term historical fiction for which your phrase (broad) literary brushstrokes might apply – just
Again, the Book of Acts provides the evidence for what the early Church claimed. This is not controversial at all. It is basic reality. Again, you are free to not believe their claims, but that is the evidence. Waving your hand and saying “Nu uh” doesn’t make reality go away.
I’m not in the business of doing apologetics. My focus is on Biblical Studies. And most scholars in the field acknowledge that Acts is a first century document. You are free to quote fringe “Jesus Seminar” type groups all you want. But please stop wasting my time.
What evidence would you like exactly? What is it you’re trying to say? Are you claiming that Jesus never existed? That Paul and Peter and John and Mary Magdalene never existed? That the whole New Testament is made up? Is that what you mean when you say the Gospels are not historical accounts?
You say no historian will back Dr. Anderson up on his “assertions.” I say, who are these historians? What are their credentials? What evidence did they present to support their thesis? I say you better back up your assertions with some evidence and fast.
Also, putting aside the “Jesus Seminar” for a second (which I had never heard of until now), what is your theory for the origin of Christianity if Jesus never existed? Were some Jews just sitting around one day, bored out of their skulls, when one of them came up with the idea for Christianity, an idea that went against everything they had ever been taught about God? To this day one of the reasons the Jews reject Christ’s divinity is because they don’t believe that God takes physical form. Or did Christianity even begin in Judea at all? Since the Gospels are apparently spun out of whole cloth, you tell me.
To put it bluntly, your stupidity offends me, sir. Seek help.
If Paul can see a bright light on a dark desert highway and believe that he has seen the physically resurrected Jesus then it is entirely plausible that this is what happened to Peter, James, the Twelve, and the “Five Hundred”. They all saw a strange bright light and believed it was an appearance of the physically resurrected Jesus. Paul may have believed that his bright light spoke to him, but a guy who believes that he has taken an intergalactic space voyage to a “third heaven” to hear confidential communications between space people is not dealing with a full deck.
The Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, decades after the death of Jesus, writing works of evangelism. The Appearance Stories in Matthew and Luke have nothing in common. Any non-biased reader would see these two stories are fictional embellishments of the bare-bones appearance accounts in the Early Creed. And John’s Appearance Stories, written one or more decades later, look like an amalgamation of Matthew and Luke’s Appearance Stories. Fleshed-out Appearances Stories involving seeing and touching a resurrected corpse are going to convert many more souls than a dry, non-descript list of alleged eyewitnesses.
Unlike Jesus’ disciples, Paul was a highly educated Jew. He was also a pharisee. Yet he converted to the new Christian sect due to a (talking) bright light. How much more likely then are the chances that the “unlearned” disciples converted due to even less dramatic experiences, such as vivid dreams, false sightings, and non-talking bright lights!
The Christian faith is an ancient superstition, originating in the fertile imaginations of first century zealots. Modern, educated people should not believe this ancient nonsense. Abandon belief in the supernatural, my friends. Belief in the supernatural is the source of much of history’s wars, persecution, suffering, and resistance to scientific and medical advances. Embrace reason, science, and rational thinking!
The reason why many Christians will accept certain embellishments exist in the gospels but flatly deny such when it comes to events surrounding the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth is obvious.
The former has no core bearing on their faith whereas the latter does.
Jay mentioned the slippery slope, and this is one area that is non-negotiable for Christians as it undermines everything they stand for.
Wow, you just don’t stop, do you? Another reason could be that everything from the first century church makes it crystal clear that the resurrection of Jesus is the central historical claim to the Christian faith. It is presented throughout the NT as having happened in history. It isn’t an “embellishment.” It isn’t an example of a literary brushstroke or artistic license. It is a historical claim. So, AGAIN, you are free not to believe that historical claim, but if you can’t tell the difference between the resurrection account and Luke’s decision to place Jesus’ birth during Caesar’s census–if you can’t tell the difference between a clear historical claim and an example of creative license–I don’t know what to say.
Yes, Joel, I acknowledge this is the position of the resurrection claim..
For example, the Virgin Birth narrative which does not feature in gMark and the writer of gJohn does not touch it with a barge pole is considered by some to be one of those “embellishments,” and is not a deal breaker.
Now, while the resurrection narrative is considered an historical claim, like the virgin birth narrative,it is not supported by any evidence .but is the deal-breaker. The untouchable, the sacrosanct, the non negotiable.
Christians take their cue from the writings of Saul of Tarsus/Paul with regard what it really means to be a Christian, hence the statement from Corinthians: ”And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”
This is absolutely everything for Christians. It is the be all and end all.
And yet, as pointed out above , there is no more evidence for this event than for any other supernatural claim featured in the New Testament.
Yes the resurrection is the deal breaker. To quote from A Prayer for Owen Meany: “Anyone can be sentimental about the Nativity; any fool can feel like a Christian at Christmas. But Easter is the main event; if you don’t believe in the resurrection, you’re not a believer. If you don’t believe in Easter, don’t kid yourself—don’t call yourself a Christian!”
On that we can agree.
But as for evidence, we disagree. When it comes to historical claims–any historical claim–what we have is writing, testimony, and claims. Those things are the evidence. You might not find certain evidence credible, but to say, “That’s not evidence, that’s only a claim” is to make a false distinction. The evidence that Jesus resurrected are the claims that people made when they said, “I walked, talked, and ate with the resurrected Jesus.”
So, what is the evidence that Jesus was a teacher from Galilee? We have written texts that claim he was a teacher from Galilee–the texts and claims are the evidence. Out of curiosity, what “evidence” from the first century for the resurrection would you find credible?
It is only a claim. It cannot be independently supported.
It is no more evidence than is the claim that Gabriel spoke to Mohammed and, hey presto! the Qu’ran appeared.
Or Joseph Smith and his Mormon nonsense.
This is one reason why historians do not regard it as an historical event.
If it were truly a verified historical event then there would be no need for faith.
The very fact you equate what is written in the gospels with those two things is very telling. There is ZERO evidence of ANY kind to support ANYTHING in the Book of Mormon–not one city, river, mountain range, or people group. Then there is the Koran’s claim that Muhammad road a winged horse to Jerusalem and then went into the Temple grabbed a chain and was taken up into heaven. On purely historical grounds, no Temple existed in Jerusalem at that time (roughly 600 AD?).
By contrast, in the gospels, there is a host of evidence to verify numerous people, places, events, etc. etc. The gospels are rooted in the history of early first century Judaism. That is undeniable. They mention historical people, places, and events that are verified and factual. And WITHIN those verified ancient historical biographies, we have this amazing claim of a historical person resurrecting from the dead within space and time. That is NOTHING like the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
And so, AGAIN, what sort of “evidence” from the first century would you consider to be valid?
BTW, your last statement just shows you don’t understand the Christian faith from the get go. But that is an entirely different issue.
Yes, the gospels relay numerous people and places that can be corroborated.
So can similar people and places be corroborated in a James Bond novel.
London, Aston Martins, MI6 etc etc.
Tom Clancy’s novel, The Hunt for Red October utilizes an even greater array of facts, but this still does not detract from the reality it is simply a novel.
The term you are looking for here, Joel, is historical fiction .
As for: what sort of “evidence” from the first century would you consider to be valid?
Evidence for what specifically?
And you will have to elaborate on your BTW statement I’m afraid.
It is obvious to any rational person that the gospels are wholly different than either the Koran or the Book of Mormon. They are rooted in the historical events of early first century Judea and Galilee. That is undeniable. To therefore equate them with the Koran and Book of Mormon is just ridiculous. And to get around the clear historical nature of the gospels by equating it with MODERN historical novels is equally lame. Sorry. That doesn’t cut it.
Of course they are different. They are different religions while at the same time dealing with the same god.
And evidence is currently non-existent in each case.
That response is a dodge and a cop out.
Sorry, I missed your direct question re the Resurrection.
Probably the same sort of evidence you would require to believe Gabriel spoke to Mohammed and delivered the Qu’ran.
That’s not a valid response. Purposely vague and dodgy.
My response in on a par with the oft asked question : What evidence would convince me your god exists.
We are talking about a supernatural event.
Nobody is geared to answer such a question. This is the reason why you have faith.
I usually respond: I have no idea, because surely an omnipotent deity would know exactly what evidence would convince me.
No…we are talking about a historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead. That is what first century Christians claimed to have happened in history. It wasnt a claim akin to the dying-rising gods of pagan mythology–those coincided with the cycle of the seasons.
The claim the the gospels is obviously different, in that it is precisely a historical claim.
So, what evidence would convince you that historical claim was true?
Yes, a claim .
A claim that is not recorded by a single eyewitness, that is not independently verified, and for which there is not a single contemporary account.
Furthermore, as we are dealing with a claimed supernatural event that only features in a religious text, then, currently I cannot think of what evidence would convince me.
Thank you for admitting your bias: “I won’t accept any evidence because I have already determined the event couldn’t have happened because it is a ‘supernatural event’ (whatever that means)…and I dont believe it.
Do not ever put words into my mouth.
You asked what evidence would convince me I said I did no know.
Now, you tell me what evidence convinced you.
I am simply showing how disingenuous you are being. You spend days on end, shouting “Where’s your evidence? That’s not evidence!” And then when pressed to say what evidence WOULD convince you, you shrug, say, “I dunno! It’s a supernatural claim!”
That is a spineless cop out.
I am not being disingenuous at all. I am being completely honest.
We are dealing with a claimed supernatural event featured solely in a religious text that has a theological motivation, so there is no precedent (that I am aware of) to draw upon.
This is why I cited the example I use when asked what evidence would convince me about your god.
An omnipotent deity would know exactly what evidence would convince me.
Therefore, as you claim this was a real historical event it is perfectly legitimate to ask what evidence convinced you.
Furthermore, as you have so far not given me reason to believe you are a liar, there must have been some evidence that convinced you. So what was it?
No, you are most certainly being disingenuous. You keep evading the fact that the gospels are 1st century documents about real people and events, and to get around the fact that these 1st century documents about real people and events ALSO make the claim that one historical person in particular resurrected, you resort to some nebulous “it’s a supernatural event,” you scream about no evidence, but then when pressed about what you WOULD consider evidence, you punt and evade.
For me, I am convinced that the Gospels are ancient historical biographies. I dont see any other plausible explanation for the continuation of the Jesus movement after his crucifixion. I find the claims throughout the NT to be believable and credible.
In short, I’m convinced that the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost were historical realities that gave birth to the Christian movement.
With the exception of one or two individuals, Pilate for example and possibly Yeshua ben Yosef, little or nothing can be corroborated.
Your conviction is a belief that has no evidence to support it . None whatsoever. Neither is it the reason you are a Christian.
Thus it is you, Joel who is being disingenuous
You simply are in denial. That isnt surprising. I seem to remember you tend to be in the Mythicist camp, which is all I need to know.
And there you go with the “no evidence” canard. You are a cartoon.
That you resort to ad homs defines your entire approach.
Your apparent, indoctrination simply will not allow you view the episode in any other light.
As I mentioned previously, you can consider the virgin birth narrative as a possible embellishment as it is not core to your faith.
Yet the resurrection narrative is sacrosanct, even though neither tale has a single piece of evidence to support it.
Please provide ONE undisputed eyewitness testimony of anyone claiming to have walked, talked, or eaten food with the resurrected Jesus.
You can’t.
All you can provide is hearsay; the stories in the Gospels. But since we don’t know the identities of the authors of the Gospels AND most experts doubt these books were written by eyewitnesses or even the associates of eyewitnesses, the Gospel Appearance Stories MAY be historically factual and they may not be. These stories are hearsay. I doubt you would ever believe such weak hearsay evidence for an alien abduction, so why do you believe such weak hearsay evidence for a dead body resurrection??
You are right, Joel. The stories in the Gospels ARE evidence, but not GOOD evidence. Hearsay is not good evidence.
“Out of curiosity, what “evidence” from the first century for the resurrection would you find credible?”
I would take the claim of Jesus’ resurrection more seriously if any of the details of this alleged event were recorded in non-Christian sources. There is zero non-Christian confirmation of a massive earthquake that tore the temple veil down the middle or shook open multiple graves (I won’t be so audacious as ask for a non-Christian source mentioning that dead saints walked out of those graves!) Jesus allegedly appeared to over 500 people, on multiple locations, all over Palestine, yet, not one non-Christian source mentions that the man who had caused “the whole world to go after him” (at least according to the high priests) and had caused Pilate to tremble in fear of the Jews, was seen alive again…multiple times! Think of that! Even if the Jews were trying to cover it up, wouldn’t the Roman investigate such claims? Jesus allegedly entered Jerusalem during the Passover holiday, when the city was packed with tens of thousands of (restive) Jews, hailed as the new King of Israel, yet the Romans don’t care that maybe they had screwed up and let this Jewish trouble maker get away? Maybe they hadn’t killed this guy. Maybe he had escaped—somehow —and now was making a fool out of Pilate and Caesar! But nope, not a peep from anyone.
Philo of Egypt mentions Pilate extensively, but not one word about the man who shook Pilate’s territory to the core (if we are to believe the Gospels).
There is no substantiating non-Christian evidence for any the details of the most spectacular event ever to (allegedly) happen in the history of humankind…except in Christian propaganda (works of evangelism: the Gospels)!
Okay, fair enough. I have to say, though, it seems you are reading much more into the passion narrative than what is actually in there. It seems to me you are commenting more on a cheesy 1950s movie than what the text actually says.
“By contrast, in the gospels, there is a host of evidence to verify numerous people, places, events, etc. etc. The gospels are rooted in the history of early first century Judaism. That is undeniable. They mention historical people, places, and events that are verified and factual. And WITHIN those verified ancient historical biographies, we have this amazing claim of a historical person resurrecting from the dead within space and time.”
Homer’s “Iliad” mentions correct historical events, persons, and locations along side stories of one-eyed Cyclops and demi-gods with supernatural powers.
Just because an ancient text contains historically correct data does not, in any way, guarantee that everything else in that book is historical. You are imposing modern standards on ancient authors.
Again, that is not a serious parallel. It is grasping at straws.
And believe me, I am not the one imposing modern standards.
Ok, what about Plutarch or some of the Roman authors who told stories about the supernatural acts of the Roman emperors (Emperor worship/the Emperor cult)? These stories often included the names of real persons, real locations, real events, but mixed them with supernatural claims about the emperors. Must we believe these supernatural claims just because the other details are factual?
Well, you’d be a fool if you dismissed Plutarch as “fairytale” and “myth.”
I said no such thing. Here is what I asked you:
“Must we believe [Plutarch’s] supernatural claims just because the other details are factual?
“Now [Joel], you tell me what evidence convinced you [of the veracity of the truth claims of Christianity].”
I have found that, as was my case, very few Christians first believed in the the central truth claim of Christianity [the resurrection of Jesus] due to historical evidence. Rather, we believed due to emotional experiences or perceived miraculous events, and often at a very young age (under 12). It was only after our emotional decision to believe this fantastical claim that we decided, often years later, to obtain historical evidence to back up that emotional decision.
But is that wise?
If one is going to believe that a first century corpse came back to life, ate a fish meal with his friends, and later lifted off the ground and disappeared into the clouds, wouldn’t it be best to thoroughly investigate this claim first, researching both the pro and the con arguments, before making a decision to believe it? Wouldn’t modern, educated people do this type of research for any other fantastical claim? What educated person today would encourage his or her child to believe in the reality of alien abductions, for instance, without first thoroughly investigating the evidence?? Yet Christians encourage their young children to believe in the reality of a fantastical ancient tale involving the human sacrifice of a first century prophet who later comes back to life and levitates into space—and if the child doesn’t believe this story is a fact, something really bad may happen to them. And most of these Christian parents have never researched the evidence for this ancient claim! Why do they do that? As a former Christian myself I believe it is for one reason: Belief in Jesus the Christ, Lord and Savior of humankind, is an EMOTION-based belief. Historical evidence is secondary. This is why discussing evidence with Christians is usually a waste of time. One must dig deeper and find out why the believer is so emotionally invested in this belief.
“it seems you are reading much more into the passion narrative than what is actually in there. It seems to me you are commenting more on a cheesy 1950s movie than what the text actually says.”
Ok, so you believe that some of the details in the passion narrative are non-factual, non-historical. I appreciate your honesty. It shows you are not a fundamentalist or inerrantist. You can admit that not all statements of fact in the Bible were meant to be read as factual.
Would you kindly give me the core facts of the passion narrative that you believe can be substantiated with evidence?
No, I didnt say that. I am saying the way you are describing things resembles more a Cecille B Demille film with overacting.
Ok, so please give us the core facts from the passion narrative which you believe can be supported with good evidence?
Jesus came to Jerusalem with his disciples for Passover (either 30 or 33 AD). He had a number of confrontations with the Temple priesthood over the week. He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, arrested by the Temple police in the middle of the night. The Sanhedrin wanted him dead because he spoke out against them and prophesied the Temple would be destroyed, but since they didnt have the authority to execute anyone, they brought him to Pilate and accused Jesus of being a threat to Caesar. Pilate eventually let him be crucified. He was up on the cross by 9 am, dead by about 3 pm, and buried before sundown.
Gary asked can be supported with good evidence.
Cite your source?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
Not evidence. Unsubstantiated claims.
Please provide evidence.
Thanks
The synoptic gospels are the 1st century documents that tell us about the historical Jesus. To say otherwise is to be a Mythicist and a history denier.
The Synoptics are ( as is gJohn) an anonymous, unprovenanced collection of religious texts, two of which, Matt and Luke, used gMark as template for their own version. Aside from references by Josephus and Tacitus, both of which are questionable, there is no evidence to substantiate the claims they make.
Mark suffers from interpolation (fraud) Matthew from apocalyptic imagery (raising of the dead saints) and both Luke and Matthew utilize imagined scenarios to flesh out their tales.
Nothing in any of the gospels concerning the character Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the bible is deemed evidence.
Try again.
You do agree that the only sources we have for these details are the four Gospels, correct? These are the same books that incorrectly cite Quirinius’ census coinciding with the birth of Jesus. These are the same books which include a story of dead people being shaken out of their graves due to an earthquake, an event which even many Christian scholars doubt to be historical.
We know Quirinius existed. We know that Caesar Augustus existed. But that doesn’t change the fact that “Luke” got his facts mixed up about the dating of Jesus birth. And no one can prove that “Luke” made this error intentionally for literary purposes. That is an assumption. He may have simply been repeating what he had been told (which was incorrect information).
So how historically reliable are these sources?
The gospels are very historically reliable.
Ok, so you gave us what you believe to be the facts of the passion narratives which you believe can be supported by “good” evidence. How about providing the same for the Resurrection Stories?
He was found to be resurrected that Sunday by a number of women; he appeared to the 12, also to the two on the road to Emmaus….you get the picture. I get that information from the same sources that tell us about the life and ministry of Jesus.
The story of the women finding the empty tomb of Jesus and the story of the appearance on the Emmaus Road are not found in the writings of Paul. They are not found in the Early Creed. These stories are not found in any non-Christian source. In the original version of the first gospel written, Mark, the women only find an empty tomb and a “young man” who tells them that Jesus is not there; that he “is risen” and that he will appear to the male disciples in Galilee. We are never told that the women ever receive an appearance of Jesus. The story ends with the women running away “afraid”. Can these women really be used as evidence for “a resurrection”?
We know that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark. At least 50% of scholars believe that John had either heard or had access to Mark, although he never copied Mark verbatim as do Matthew and Luke. So in truth, it is very possible that we have ONE source, Mark, for the story of women finding Jesus’ tomb empty. And this author never claims that the women received an appearance of Jesus.
The story of the appearance on the Emmaus Road is only mentioned in ONE gospel.
Do you really consider this “good evidence” for such a fantastical claim as a corpse resurrection?
(1) You have an uncritical an unhealthy skepticism of the reliability of the gospel accounts.
(2) At the very least, you have the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion, the fact that all other 1st century messianic movements disbanded and were crushed with the death of the supposed Messiah, and the fact that the Jesus movement took off after his death–and why? Because his earliest followers claimed they were witnesses to his resurrection.
(3) From a strictly historical perspective, once you reject the possibility of an actual resurrection, the onus is on you to put forth an alternative theory as to what accounted for the massive expansion and thriving of the Jesus movement after his crucifixion. And no matter what you put forth, you will have to admit that you have zero evidence for what you propose and that it is nothing but blind speculation.
1. I will bet that you are just as skeptical of the writings of other world religions as I am of yours. And I believe that we are both justified in our skepticism.
2. As I have stated before, I accept the historicity of Jesus and his crucifixion.
So why was Jesus the only messiah-pretender whose followers continued to believe that he was the messiah even after this death? Answer: Jesus was the only messiah-pretender in history with an unexplained empty grave!
3. I have massive evidence for my alternative explanation: Human gullibility to supernatural claims.
Multiple new religious movements, sects, and cults have grown rapidly and spread to every corner of the earth. Islam is one example. Mormonism is another. And if you reject these two examples due to a “lack of persecution”, there are plenty of examples of movements under persecution which have grown and spread.
1. I don’t have an uncritical and unhealthy skepticism of the Book of Mormon. It literally has zero historical evidence of any kind to back up any of it. The Koran doesn’t make too many historical claims; and the ones it does (i.e. Muhammad flying to the Temple in about 600 AD) is provably false because there was no Temple at the time. The OT? I think it is largely historical and is backed up on many levels. Eastern religions? They don’t make historical claims.
2. I highly doubt his followers would have continued the movement with such fervor if all there was was an empty tomb. Rational people would conclude his body was stolen. They wouldn’t have continued the movement just on that. They continued the movement because they were witnesses to his resurrection.
3. That is not evidence. That is, as I said, blind speculation with absolutely zero historical evidence to support it. And like Arky, you throw out “supernatural claim” as some catch-call phrase to justify your baseless and evidence-less speculation. The claim was a historical claim: Jesus was dead; we witnessed him resurrected. To say they “saw a light” and THOUGHT that was resurrection is baseless. Jews didn’t call “seeing a bright light” resurrection. It had a specific meaning: physical rising from the dead. That was the claim; the early believers claimed to be witnesses. To come back with, “Oh I have massive evidence for my alternative explanation! Human gullibility to supernatural claims!” –that’s word salad. It means nothing.
4. Islam and Mormonism are entirely different on multiple levels. Try explaining the rise of Christianity after the death of Jesus using a first century Jewish context and worldview. You can’t. That is why you resort to ambiguous phrases like “supernatural claims” and appeals to vastly different contexts of different religions. Simply put, you CAN’T give an evidence-based, historical alternative explanation within a first century Jewish context because one does not exist. AT BEST, all you can say is, “I don’t know why it continued. It doesn’t make sense. I just don’t think dead people come back to life”–and leave it at that.
” I highly doubt his followers would have continued the movement with such fervor if all there was was an empty tomb. Rational people would conclude his body was stolen. They wouldn’t have continued the movement just on that. They continued the movement because they were witnesses to his resurrection.”
Even the Gospels infer that the disciples’ first thought upon finding the empty tomb was that someone had moved the body. However, a missing body provided uncertainty. Every other messiah pretender’s body stayed in his grave. Jesus’ body was missing. Therefore, this provided an opportunity for cognitive dissonance to set in. What if the tomb of Jesus is empty for another reason??? Then one of the disciples had a vivid dream in which Jesus appeared to him, tells him that he is alright, that God has raised him from the dead, and that he still plans to bring about the restoration of Israel. This one vivid dream (vision) sparks the fuse of hope. More disciples have vivid dreams, mistaken sightings of Jesus, and some disciples experience illusions of Jesus in the form of lights, cloud formations, and shadows.
What evidence do I have for this possible explanation: None.
But humans do this all the time for other odd events. We don’t wait until we have all the evidence to arrive at a conclusion at what PROBABLY happened. Christians do this to explain the probable causes of the supernatural events in other world religions, such as Islam. Can Christians provide evidence that Mohammad did not receive a visitation from an angel? No. But that doesn’t stop Christians from assuming that more probably, Mohammad had a vivid dream (vision), was hallucinating, was drunk, or was lying.
Possibly. The other potential explanation is that they were telling the truth and they actually did see Jesus after he rose from the dead. But, hey, that’s just me.
I don’t necessarily disbelieve that Muhammad had a spiritual experience of some kind; I don’t know. But while he and he alone was privy to whatever he believed he had encountered, the sightings of the resurrected Jesus were numerous and claimed to have happened to many people over the course of weeks. You can doubt those claims all you want but those are the claims. And I’m sorry, but I don’t see mass delusion as a possible explanation for that.
You keep using the words “dream” and “vision.” However, the New Testament writers DO speak of visions and dreams (e.g. Acts 10), and when they do they are NOTHING like the descriptions of the resurrected Christ in the Gospels. He is described as having a body like the one he had in life, with the wounds of his crucifixion in his hands and side still intact; not once is he described as glowing in any way. He walks with people, eats with people, and isn’t portrayed (physically) as remarkable in any way except that he’s alive when he shouldn’t be. The Gospel writers go out of their way to portray the resurrected Christ as having a material body (e.g. Luke 24).
You really should stop now. Your Biblical knowledge is hopelessly ignorant, your language condescending, and going by your stated mission in life it sounds as if you are personally familiar with delusions of grandeur yourself, which might explain your reading of the Gospels. The only reason you appear to be prolonging this discussion is in the hopes of “de-converting” somebody. You’ve stated your opinion (over and over again I might add) and we’re not getting anywhere. In a lot of ways, you’re ironically no better than the proselytizing religious people you claim to despise; you don’t know when to quit.
Godspeed.
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
@Wiley
”Numereous”? How many are we supposedly talking about here?
You ask me to explain the rise of Christianity in a Jewish context. I’ll do better than that. I will let JEWS tell you why they think this Jewish sect (Christianity) arose:
An excerpt from the website of “Jews for Judaism”:
Another interesting factor that comes to light when examining the various sightings of Jesus, is the point that the only ones who testified that they saw him were people who were already totally devoted to him. Even among the devotees, the Christian scriptures report that there was an element of doubt concerning the truth of the resurrection story.
Realize what this means. We have a beloved leader; a leader whom his followers believe to be greater than Moses, and wiser than Solomon. Protestant Christianity would have us believe that his disciples believed him to be an almighty god. The devotion of his disciples was extreme. The Christian scriptures report that the followers of Jesus had to relinquish all of their possessions in order to join the following. Jesus demanded that his followers love him more than they love their parents, spouses or their children. It is clear that what these people would require as evidence to the resurrection of their adored teacher, would be much less than the evidence required by one who is unaffected by this bias. With all this in mind Matthew reports (28:17) that when Jesus reappeared to his disciples, some worshiped him, but some doubted.
This is comparable to a cult leader who is accused of shoplifting. Some of his followers come to court to testify that their leader was elsewhere at the time that the crime had taken place. As you watch the witnesses filing in to testify on behalf of the accused, it strikes you that the only ones who are testifying, are people who are totally blinded by devotion to this man. When these devotees open their mouth to speak, each one contradicts the other on every point of their testimony. The only thing they all agree on is that their leader was not in the place where his accusers claim he was. They do not agree about basic details of their story such as the actual location of their leader during the time of the crime. Furthermore it is brought to your attention that even some of his devoted followers who were with these witnesses, did not come to court. They doubted the veracity of the testimony of their fellow devotees. Could you decide that you are totally convinced that this cult leader was definitely not guilty of shoplifting?
The testimony of the Christian Scriptures concerning the resurrection story is sorely lacking. It is difficult to see how one can consider these writings as “convincing evidence” to the resurrection of Jesus.
(See the link below to read the rest of this fascinating, devastating, Jewish analysis of the Christian resurrection claim.)
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/resurrection/
That isnt evidence. That is the speculation of modern day Jews. Like I said, you cannot provide any evidence with the context of first century Judea to support your admittedly baseless speculation.
Yes. We skeptics have heard that claim many times before: “We Christians understand first century Judaism and the Jewish scriptures better than modern Jews. Modern Jews have (intentionally or unintentionally) distorted historical Judaism.”
This is the typical response of every sect and cult: “The mother religion doesn’t fully understand the holy book. The current mother religion has betrayed the original teachings of the mother religion. We know the REAL truth.”
Muslims: “We understand the Christian holy book (the New Testament) better than Christians and see that Jesus prophesied the coming of Mohammad.”
Mormons: “We understand the Christian holy book better than American Protestants. The Bible foretells a later revelation in North America.”
There is no way to disprove this cult claim. And that is exactly why cults and new sects repeatedly use it.
Geez…no….it is a simple point that none of that Jewish explanation was rooted in any historical evidence. It was pure baseless speculation. The way you twist things is astounding.
And historically speaking, MODERN Judaism is not the same thing as 1st century Judaism. There were a number of brands of Judaism in the first century. Modern Judaism is a descendent of 1st century Pharisaism, which evolved into rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The only other form of Judaism that survived 70 AD was the Jesus movement that became Christianity.
Another excerpt from the above linked Jewish refutation of the Resurrection;
But what about the disciples? Why were they so devoted to Jesus if they did not have their faith substantiated by an actual resurrection?
The problem with this argument is that the devotion of the disciples preceded the resurrection story. It seems that the devotion to their leader produced the resurrection story and not the other way around. The way the Christian Scriptures describe the devotion of Jesus’ disciples it would almost be surprising if there were no resurrection story. Does this mean that the disciples were preaching a deliberate lie? Not necessarily. There is no way of knowing today at what point in time was it that the resurrection story came to be accepted by the followers of Jesus. It is possible that it took years for the story to develop until it was actually believed in a literal sense. It may have started with reports of visions, which over the course of time came to be spoken of as actual sightings. This would explain the manifold contradictions in the Christian scriptures. It would also explain why the early Christians did not maintain a tradition concerning the concrete occurrences of Jesus’ reappearance. If indeed Jesus did reappear in a physical sense it would make sense that the physical details of the event should have been recorded. These include the noting of the precise location at which these reappearances took place. We should have the early Church pointing to a particular physical spot and saying, that this is where the most important event in world history took place. But no record exists of such a claim. This lends weight to the theory that the resurrection story began with a series of emotional visions.
Gary: The Creator of the universe appears to his followers in a supernatural (heavenly) body…and the early Church doesn’t remember the exact location of this event. Very telling!
Again, modern speculation based on nothing. Armchair pseudo-psychology.
As for the spot: the church of the Holy sepulchre is built on the spot the early Christians claimed to be the tomb where Jesus was buried.
Now sure, you’ll come back with more hyper-skepticism. But the historical fact is that when Helena visited the Holy land in the early third century, the Christians living there took her to the spot they always held to be the tomb in which Jesus was buried, and she ordered that a church be built on the spot.
Let me repeat: The Creator of the universe appears to his followers in a supernatural (heavenly) body…and the early Church doesn’t remember the exact location of this event. Very telling!
The evidence for the location of the missing tomb of Jesus is contested. Most Protestants, in particular, evangelicals, reject the Catholic/Orthodox site. They have even selected an alternative empty tomb!! the fact is we have no evidence of an empty tomb location until the bishop of Jerusalem brought it up at the Council of Nicea when Constantine was looking for sites to erect major Christian cathedrals in the Holy Land. In the preceding centuries, we have records of Church Fathers visiting holy sites in Palestine and NONE of them mention an empty tomb. If the empty tomb was the major holy site of Christianity that you assume it to have been, for some reason it was not on the “shrine tour” in the first three centuries of Christianity!
Bottom line: An empty tomb is not the greatest event in human history. Empty graves have been a common occurrence in human history. No, the greatest event in human history would be when and where the Creator of the universe first appeared to his disciples in a supernatural (heavenly) body…but for some odd reason, the Church didn’t keep record of where this stupendous event occurred. Very telling.
Look, Joel. You are never going to disbelieve the historicity of the Resurrection based on a discussion of evidence. Why? Because you most likely did not believe in this fantastical story based on evidence but based on an emotional experience, if you are like most Christians.
Do you have a page on your website where you describe in detail your conversion to Christianity? How old were you?
Gary, the only one constantly making baseless speculations and emotional appeals is you. The only one pointing to actual texts and historical facts is me.
You and Arky have been obsessing over this for the past few days. And your MO is typical: dismiss the evidence that is there and then make constant emotional appeals and put forth speculative alternative explanations with zero evidence.
It really is rather sad to see. Like I’ve said numerous times, you are free to say that the evidence we have simply doesnt convince you. But man, you are just twisting yourself up into a pretzel on so many levels.
Move on with your life.
One of my blog readers just said the same thing: “No matter how much information you provide to these people, Gary, it is never going to change their minds.” Here was my response to her:
I don’t think I will ever convince a hard core conservative Christian apologist like Anderson. But my hope is that a Christian reading his blog who is not so indoctrinated will read the evidence I have presented and it will spark a small light in his or her brain that says, “Hey. That makes sense. I’m going to investigate the evidence for Christianity with an open mind and see what I find.”
That is all I want. I want people to look at the evidence, from both sides. Be informed. Unlike many conservative Christians, I am not afraid of my children reading books that oppose my non-supernaturalist worldview. In fact, I *want* them to read books from many different perspectives regarding the supernatural. I want them to make informed decisions. How many Christian parents encourage their children to read books by skeptics and atheists? Not many, I bet.
I am an evangelist. I continue casting the seed of truth (reason, science, and rational thinking) regardless of how many times it falls on the rocks and dies or is choked out by the weeds of superstitious indoctrination.
Now, do you have a page on your website which describes your conversion in detail? How old were you when you became a believer?
Gary, I’m going to stop replying after this. You are all over the map on everything: I’m an apologist, then theologian, then Fundie, then Evangelical, then conservative….moderate…liberal…conservstive again.
And you havent presented any evidence. You spend your time denying and explaining away the actual 1st century texts we DO have and then spinning baseless, evidence-less speculations of your own. And then you have the audacity to get on a self-righteous high horse and congratulate yourself on how much and an honest “evangelist” you are, and how you are so smart to engage in psuedo-psychological analyses of the mental state of those poor believers who arent as enlightened as you.
I truly feel sorry for you. You are self-deluded.
In short, you present yourself in the exact same way as the most condecending of Fundie Evangelical apologists. You are cut from the same cloth.
How old were you, Joel, when you first believed in Jesus of Nazareth as your Lord and Savior?
Gary, please stop with the condescending armchair psychologist nonsense. My own faith journey has zero to do with the facts that we have first century documents within a generation of the life of Jesus that (A) claim he was resurrected and (B) say his earliest followers claimed they were witnesses to his resurrection. AGAIN, you do not find that to be historically-reliable stuff, that is fine. But your obsession with this is very telling: you reject them as historically-reliable, but then provide your own alternative explanation that has even less historical evidence (ie ZERO) to back your explanation. And then, to skirt that fact, you then make very uncritical analogies to Islam and Mormonism, and you quote modern day Jews who simply put forth the same unsubstantiated speculations you do.
Just stick to the facts. Just say, “I don’t believe the claim in those historical documents,” and leave it at that, and then move on with your life. Stop putting forth wild speculation based on nothing but your own pseudo-scientific musings about the inner psychology of first century Jews and yours truly. It doesn’t put you in a good light.
I think the age of your conversion and the age at which you started believing that the spirit of Jesus lives inside your body and communicates with you has a very significant bearing on your ability to objectively analyze the historical evidence about Jesus.
Here is a short test to see if I am correct:
If you find out today that Julius Caesar did *not* cross the Rubicon, how do you think you will feel? Now, compare your feelings about that historical claim to finding out today that Jesus of Nazareth is still dead.
If you can honestly say that your reaction to both historical discoveries is the same: surprise/indifference, then I would agree that your age of conversion and the age of your perception that the spirit of this man lives inside you and communicates with you have not affected your ability to objectively evaluate the historical evidence about Jesus. If on the other hand, you would feel emotionally devastated upon learning that Jesus is still dead, that to me is good evidence that your emotions play a significant role in your beliefs about the historical events involving this man. .And if your emotions play a significant role in your beliefs about the alleged historical events surrounding this man, do you really believe that you can objectively evaluate the historical evidence??
Oh Gary, you have the arrogance, hubris, and self-righteousness of the worst kind of ultra-fundamentalist. My goodness, it amazes me how you cannot listen to yourself and the way you come across. I’m laughing at you.
If I became convinced Jesus didn’t raise from the dead, I’d move on with my life, unlike you are able to. You are not objective, you are the one ruled by your fantasy and emotions. I hope one day you have to courage to face up to it.
Why are you afraid to state the age at which you first believed in the reality of this fantastical supernatural tale?
No, I’m just sick of your self-righteous attitude. I’m not going to give you any more fodder for your little blog.
Your resistance to answer a simple question shows me and everyone reading this blog just how emotionally attached you are to this supernatural tale. You CANNOT objectively evaluate the evidence for this or any other alleged historical event if you are so emotionally attached to the outcome.
This is why debating historical evidence with most Christians is pointless. We must first find out WHY the Christian is so emotionally attached to his belief.
Gary, like I’ve said numerous times, you are the one obsessed here. You are the one making constant emotional appeals and playing armchair psychiatrist. All I have done is stick to the contents of the 1st century documents. You have given nothing in terms of actual historical evidence to support your own baseless speculations.
You are projecting your own emotional issues and hangups on to me. And furthermore, you are proving yourself to be the doppleganger of a typical ultra-fundie apologist. You are playing from the exact same playbook. It is astonishing you cannot see what you are doing and how you are coming across.
Why you embarrassed (or ashamed) about the age you first believed in the historicity this ancient supernatural tale, Joel??
Lol, Gary. That’s it. You still are a self-righteous Fundie at heart. Repent.
Repent? I don’t believe in groveling to invisible spirits.
I am trying to help you think rationally, Joel. I’m sorry the process is psychologically painful for you.
At what age did you first believe that dead bodies can be reanimated (resurrected)?
Gary, do yourself a favor, look in the mirror, and realize you are no different than the obnoxious ultra- fundie Christian apologists who peddle in half truths and pseudo-psychology to insulate themselves from their own emotional scars.
A rational- thinking, objective, stable adult would not be trolling a post about the literary aspects of the infancy narrative with emotional and baseless theories not rooted in history regarding the issue of the resurrection, and then, when exposed for not having any historical evidence for their baseless speculations, pivots to the role of an armchair psychiatrist and questioning the emotional stability of the person who just exposed them for having nothing.
Kindly go away.
A careful analysis of the birth narratives in conjunction with historical research and biblical criticism results in only one conclusion; almost nothing in the birth narratives is historically accurate. Jesus was almost certainly born in Nazareth. The idea of Bethlehem as the birthplace was a christian invention. The tradition of the virgin birth is obviously a theological construct. There is no such thing as an “eyewitness” to a conception. The idea that a christian scribe writing at least forty years after the death of Jesus could know the intimate circumstances surrounding Jesus’ conception is absurd on it’s face. The birth narratives are to be understood as theological creations with no relationship to actual facts.