In my last post I discussed the legal/historical method which is used for establishing a non-repeatable historic event. I also talked about the ancient document rule, a rule of evidence that allows the admission of historic documents into evidence in a court proceeding and the fact that Simon Greenleaf has demonstrated that the gospels (and I Corinthians, which also discusses events surrounding the resurrection) could all be admitted as evidence in a court of law. I also acknowledged that other ancient documents, sources hostile Christianity, and could also be admitted into evidence.
Whether one believes in the resurrection or not, these are the source materials a person would be forced to use to construct a legal argument either for or against the resurrection because they would be the only documents that could come in under the ancient document rule. I mention this because one of our readers responded to my last post by asking, “Which documents,” implying that there are all sorts of other documents that could come in as well. But this is simply not true, at least not in a legal setting. The other so called “gospels” produced in the second century or later would not be admitted under the ancient document rule for a variety of reasons. One standard alone would eliminate them; without dispute, all of them are forgeries. This is also one of the reasons none of them made it into the New Testament.
The theories of later critics, while interesting, would also not be admissible in a legal proceeding because they are speculation. If someone tried to enter them into evidence they would not be allowed in because of a lack of predicate, or foundation.
There was one other thing I pointed out and highlighted. In ancient time, when the growing Christian sect was seen as a danger by both Jews and Romans, the only alternate explanation either side ever came up with to explain the material facts – the empty tomb and the missing body – was that the disciples stole the body. This, by the way, is one of the reasons Matthew’s unsupported report of the guards being bribed to say that the disciples stole the body while they slept, seems credible. It was clearly written as an apologetic to refute claims that were being made at the time the Gospel of Matthew was written.
But the most important thing in my last essay was the stimulations. In an actual trial the attorneys for both sides would get together and see if there were areas of agreement which could be stipulated to. In other words; are there points of agreement that would not need to be litigated?
In the case of the resurrection there is an amazing level of agreement between the New Testament sources and the hostile Jewish and Pagan sources we have available to us. In my last post I listed these areas of agreement, which, presumably could be stipulated to if, for example, the disciples were ever brought up on charges for grave robbing and perpetrating a hoax. Once again, these are the points of agreement, the stipulations:
-
Somewhere around the year 30 A.D. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate
-
He was buried in a nearby tom
- Three days later the stone that had sealed the tomb was discovered rolled away and the tomb was empty.
- The body was never recovered
- Shortly after the empty tomb was discovered the disciples of Jesus were proclaiming both in Jerusalem, and ultimately throughout the Greco/Roman world — that Jesus had risen from the dead and that they were witnesses of the resurrection.
- Subsequently many of the disciples died torturous deaths for making these claims.
- None of them ever changed their story.
As I pointed out, modern critics have challenged one or all of these stipulations, but it is significant that at a time when the facts were fresh and witnesses still living no one denied these stipulations, there is a reason for this; they could not or the opponents of Christianity surely would have.
Take just one example. It has been proposed that perhaps the women, in their grief over the death of Jesus went to the wrong tomb. This ignores the fact that the resurrection was proclaimed first in Jerusalem, within easy walking distance of the real tomb. All the authorities would have needed to do to abort Christianity was to have a field trip to the real tomb and produce the body. Both the Jewish authorities and the Romans would have been delighted to do this if they could…but, quite obviously, they could not. The best they could come up with was the stolen body theory. So if a trial were to be held using the legally admissible documents, this would be the theory of the case the plaintiff would be forced to present. It was, in fact, the explanation they used to counter the Christian claim of a resurrection.
This is the way the trial would go: The plaintiff would use Jewish and Pagan sources to try to make the case that the body was stolen. The defense would site the testimony of the apostles and their associates’ eye witness testimony to the empty tomb, and their claims that they touched, ate with, saw and conversed with the risen Jesus. .
In any trial, the court or the jury has the responsibility of weighing the credibility of the witnesses. They do this by asking questions about their competence to testify to the things they claim to have seen and heard (i.e. are they sane), their sincerity (do they think they are telling the truth), their credibility (this goes to such things as consistency, reputation for honesty), etc.
Now I will admit that there is one big thing that any ancient judge or jury would have had trouble accepting. But it is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence we have as to the sincerity of the New Testament record. The thing I’m referring to is the testimony of women.
In both ancient pagan and Jewish opinion, the testimony of woman was considered inherently unreliable. In fact, one of the earliest critics of Christianity, Celsus, mocked the claim of the resurrection by pointing out that it was mainly women who claimed to have seen the risen Christ. This would have been a powerful argument to a first century jury. So if one were trying to write a book to convince 1st century unbelievers of the resurrection the last thing you would include in it is the testimony of women….unless, of course, that just happened to be the way it happened.
But let’s look at the charge made at the time, that His disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb and perpetrated a hoax. The first thing the defense would point out is that they had no motive. Clearly, they gained nothing from their claims that they were witnesses of the resurrection. On the contrary, they lost everything, including their own lives. Many of the witnesses died torturous deaths. Any one of them could have escaped their fate if they just admitted they were lying. But none of them cracked.
As I pointed out earlier, men will die willingly for what they believe to be the truth, but no one will willingly die for what he knows to be a lie. That the disciples were willing to die maintaining their testimony is a powerful argument, if not for the truth of their message then certainly for the sincerity of the messengers. No, when one examines the subsequent life and testimony of the apostles it seems obvious that whether or not Jesus actually arose from the dead they thought He did.
Another factor that adds weight to the apostle’s testimony is their subsequent moral writings and teaching. The New Testament contains some of the most profound moral teaching ever penned. Is it really credible that the men who produced such high moral teaching were really just a bunch of grave robbers?
Some have tried to get around the obvious credibility of the apostles by arguing that perhaps someone else stole the body. Fair enough. Who? If the disciples didn’t do it, then who moved the stone, what happened to the body, and how do we account for the apostles’ confident assertion that they had seen the risen Christ? One might posit hallucinations. But what about the nagging question of the empty tomb and the missing body. Hallucinations don’t move stone or remove bodies from tombs. Remember, these things are stipulated in all of the ancient sources. .
Some modern critics have suggested that perhaps the Romans or the Jews are responsible. But once again, there is the problem of motive. Christianity was a thorn in the side of both groups. All they would have had to do to remove the thorn was to say, “Hey, we moved the body.” Or they could have produced the body, and Christianity would have been finished. But they didn’t do this, because they couldn’t do it. Surely they would have if they could have. Also, neither group had any reason to perpetrate a hoax that caused them nothing but trouble. One recent suggestion is that Jesus’ body was thrown in a shallow and the dogs ate him. But, once again, that could not be said at the time – and it wasn’t said at the time – because the resurrection was being proclaimed right there in the city where everything had gone down. No, the only explanation the ancient enemies of Christianity were ever able to come up with was that the disciples stole the body and, frankly, that explanation just doesn’t wash.
Now some have attempted to refute the claims of the New Testament authors by pointing out the differences in the gospel accounts of resurrection appearances, etc. Actually, in a legal or historical inquiry such discrepancies help establish an event rather than preclude it.
Every law student has learned that every eye witness will see and then remember different things about an event. The only way you will get the same story from every single witness is if they have met together and rehearsed the testimony. In other words, if witnesses to an event agree in every detail, they have conspired together to tell a story and such unanimity is evidence on the face of it that they are probably lying.
One the other hand, widely disparate accounts of the same event are the sorts of thing we ought to expect from honest witnesses describing what they have really seen. And it tells us they didn’t meet first to get their story right. The important thing is that they agree on the big issues. Further, it is usually possible to put the diverse accounts together so that the different perspectives make sense. This is called, harmonization.
One of my favorite Easter sermons is when I take all of the divergent accounts and reconstruct the events of the first Easter. It’s really quite fun. For example, it seems that there were three groups of women who headed to the tomb that morning. They probably spent the night in three separate locations and agreed to meet at the tomb at dawn the next morning. It seems that two groups set out from Jerusalem and one came from nearby Bethany.
Let me give you a real example of how two, apparently contradictory versions of the same event can both turn out to be true. The following is from an article by a man named Kenneth Kantzer:
“Some time ago the mother of a dear friend of ours was killed. We first learned of her death through a trusted mutual friend who reported that our friend’s mother had been standing on the street corner waiting for a bus, had been hit by another bus passing by, was fatally injured, and died a few minutes later. Shortly thereafter, we learned from the grandson of the dead woman that she had been involved in a collision, was thrown from the car in which she was riding, and was killed instantly. The boy was quite certain of his facts, relayed them clearly, and state than he had secured his information directly from his mother – the daughter of the woman who had been killed.
Now, who would you believe? We trusted both friends, but we certainly couldn’t get the data together. Much later, we were able to seat the mother and grandson in our living room. There we probed for a harmonization. We learned that the grandmother had been waiting for a bus, was hit by another bus and was critically injured. She had been picked up by a passing car and dashed to the hospital, but in the haste, the car in which she was being transported to the hospital collided with another care. She was thrown from the care and died instantly. This story from my own experience presents no greater difficulty than that of any recorded in the gospels “
So, given no other cogent explanation other than the one offered by the apostles, the best explanation for the moved stone, the empty tomb, and the subsequent life, witness and death of the apostles is that Jesus really did raise from the dead. And we haven’t even challenged the credibility of the accusers. Suffice it to say, any good attorney would love the opportunity to cross examine the Roman guards and Annas and Caiaphas.
I’m the wrong guy to debate you on Easter and the resurrection, mostly because I don’t feel the slightest desire to attempt argue you or your readers away from your faith. But I couldn’t resist linking something you said to a historical figure I wish I had learned about when I was in school.
You said:
This sounds reasonable. Yet Mary Dyer died for what she believed was the truth too. And though I deeply admire her willingness to die for her beliefs (and I see a strong parallel between her courage and that of Rosa Parks centuries later), this does not, to me, argue for the factual truth of her spiritual beliefs so much as the strength of her political conviction.
Sorry for the red herring, but I think everyone should learn about Mary Dyer and I’m ashamed to have only done so in my fourth decade.
By: spblat on March 19, 2008
at 6:22 am
Yes, Spblat, cases like Mary Dyer were what I was referring to when a said a man (I should have added, or a woman) will die for what they know to be the truth, but not for what they know to be a lie. The point was not that the apostles’ story is confirmed as truth because they were willing to die for it, but that their subsequent lives and deaths demonstrate the sincerity of their testimony (I try never to attempt to prove more from an argument than it actually proves). Surely, they thought, as did Mary Dyer, that what they was saying was true. The really believe they saw, touched, talked, ate with, etc. the risen Jesus. That is the only explanation for the sacrifices they were willing to make. But it also refutes the only alternate explanation for the facts of the first Easter that was ever argued in ancient times by the enemies of Christianity, that they stole the body.
Let’s put it another way. Assume that these men were being formally charged with grave robbery and perpetrating a hoax. If you were on the jury — given their clear sincerity and their subsequent moral teachings, lives and deaths, whether or not you believed the had really seen the risen Jesus — would you have convicted them of grave robbery and perpetrating a hoax?
By: markcarlton on March 19, 2008
at 1:37 pm
These 20 centuries later, I don’t feel I have a dog in this fight. We celebrate Easter with eggs and hunts and a semi-formal midday family dinner (where my youngest son says a nice — if secular — grace). Easter isn’t a problem for me as a cultural phenomenon, and I don’t have illusions about disproving the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
But you seem to want to know my factual beliefs on the matter. I lean, of course, against the truth of the story, because I do not have the same appreciation for the evidence as you have. Because of my tendency to be skeptical of supernatural explanations (and given that I do not feel that I have access to objective facts) I tend to apply lex parsimoniae and suspect that it is more likely that a) the apostles were deceptive; b) they were deceived; c) the story was written after their deaths; or d) some combination thereof.
By: spblat on March 19, 2008
at 3:05 pm
I am delighted that you feel comfortable sharing your opinion, and also the bias that prevents you from looking at the evidence in a fair way. First of all, option “c” is off the table…recent manuscript discoveries sunk that one permanently (see my first post, also, N.T. Wrights scholarly treatise).
That the apostles were deceived is a possibilty. But who deceived them, how and why? Even the hostile sources acknowledged that the tomb was empty. So someone(s) moved the stone and something happened to the body. What’s your theory?
Deceivers? Giving up everything and dying torturous deaths for what they knew to be a lie? How cogent is that? Spblat, if God has indeed given us the proof you demand through the resurrection, perhaps you and everyone else has a dog in this fight. Perhaps your eternal soul is at stake.
I am reminded of a conversation I had years ago with a former professor of the philosophy of science at one of the Big state universities in Michigan, I can’t remember which. His name, was Angus McPherson. He was a former atheist. I asked him about his conversion. He accepted a challenge by a Christian friend to check out the evidence for himself. I still remember his words: “There came a time when I looked at all of the books on the table before me and said, ‘My God, He’s alive.” Are ;you up to the same challenge?
By: markcarlton on March 19, 2008
at 6:05 pm
Speaking of bias, if I have one, I’ve invited scrutiny thereof. I’m interested in whether my brain can be made to accept the possibility of supernatural phenomena at all. That will be a prerequisite for my being “up to the challenge” of accepting proof of the resurrection. Check it out.
By: spblat on March 20, 2008
at 12:35 am
Wow! Thanks for the candid response. That to me is really what it comes down to. My answer is, no, none of us can, but as we reach out to God as say, “help my unbelief,” we will be surprised at the result. Some time ago Arlo told his story in response to a question to Some Dude, you ought to check it out.
By: markcarlton on March 20, 2008
at 3:21 am
I dunno – your explanation about the resurrection being ‘historical’ seems a bit far-fetched. I’m more convinced by this account, which explains how it all started with a visionary experience:
http://merkavah-vision.blogspot.com/2008/03/easter-sermon-part-33-resurrection.html
By: Tom Wrong on March 20, 2008
at 6:12 am
Mr Wrong, your explanation would explain only half of the stipulated facts (and remember, the case I’ve presented here is greatly abbreviated. There is other evidence that I have not presented). Certainly a visionary explanation might explain the apostles’ subsequent life and witness — the fact that they clearly thought they were telling the truth. But remember, both the Roman and Jewish sources concede the empty tomb and missing body. Visions don’t move massive stones or take bodies. Who moved the stone? What happened to the body?
By: markcarlton on March 20, 2008
at 1:38 pm
Ahhh – but a vision does explain all the facts. According to http://merkavah-vision.blogspot.com/2008/03/easter-sermon-part-33-resurrection.html, the idea of an earthly resurrection was a much later stage on from the understanding that Jesus rose from the grave directly to heaven, and only then made earthly appearances from heaven. If this is the earliest stage of the tradition, then nobody would be interested in looking for a body in the first years following Jesus’ death. Nobody would be interested in looking for a ‘massive stone’, either. For the first understanding of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ would not be that he resurrected bodily to earth, but that he made appearances from heaven to earth. The whole ascension and heavenly appearance understanding is highly spiritual and other-worldly, not requiring any actual resurrection directly to earth as we find later in Luke-Acts.
You are right that visionary experiences explain the belief of the apostles. I am not convinced by explanations by others which make the ascension out to be some sort of ‘lie’ or deliberate falsity. A new religious movement only makes explanatory sense if it involves genuine belief, which at that stage in Jewish religion, a visionary experience was just as much able to provide as an everyday waking experience (and perhaps, even more so, given the importance lent to ‘mystical’ experiences as revealing heavenly realities that transcended the mundane realm).
So, given that the earliest evidence is of ‘exaltation Christology’ (as the article outlines), no issue arises from claims made decades later about an ‘empty tomb’.
By: Tom Wrong on March 20, 2008
at 9:41 pm
Mr Wrong, you are, frankly, just wrong. Your explanation does not explain all the fact, your “ahhh” not withstanding. It does not even address the most fundamental questions of all: Who moved the stone and what happened to the body? Remember, the empty tomb and the missing body were stipulated to by all sides in ancient time. But the article you reference doesn’t even mention the physical evidence, let alone explain it. Like all alternate theories, it only address some of the stipulations.
Further, the idea that the resurrection was a later development is well refuted by N.T. Wright and others. I would suggest that instead of the blog you’re reading, you purchase a copy of N.T. Wright’s massive, scholarly volume, “The Resurrection of the Son of God,” and get a little more current information.
Let me also restate my argument, since you seem to have missed it: All of the ancient sources, Christian, Pagan and Jewish, stipulate that there was a tomb, that it was empty, that the body was missing and never recovered, and resurrection was being proclaimed from the beginning. The very accusation that the body was stolen is an admission that the resurrection was being proclaimed, that the tomb was empty, and that the body was missing. Had any of these things not been true this explanation would not have been offered. Meanwhile the modern theories like the one you cite are incomplete (since they do not deal with all of the facts that must be explained, are highly speculative, and — as I pointed out in referring to all of the modern attempts to explain away the resurrection — they would not even be allowed in were there an actual legal inquiry because of a lack of foundation.
By: markcarlton on March 20, 2008
at 11:27 pm
Ahhh – but this explanation does explain all the facts. You return to the idea that there was a ‘stone’ and ‘empty tomb’. But, as explained in the post, this was a much later addition. The first idea of Jesus’ ascension was that he ascended straight to heaven from Hades. The whole ascent occured in a visionary space, not in any earthly space. There was no discussion of his body or his place of burial (whatever that was), because that was not yet at issue in the earliest accounts. What you call “the physical evidence” is made quite irrelevant by this explanation.
I have already read NT Wright’s “The Resurrection of the Son of God”, and nothing therein refutes this explanation. I would suggest that you read all three Easter Sermons on that blog, than waste your time with Wright’s silly apologetics. Resurrection was not proclaimed from the beginning, but only ascension was proclaimed. Your statement that the ancient sources all mention an empty tomb is simply false. One exception to this is The Ascension of Isaiah, which Richard Bauckham dates to circa AD 70. The Ascension of Isaiah has Jesus rise directly from Hades to heaven.
The story of a resurrection to earth (rather than an ascension to heaven) was a much later invention, first appearing in Luke-Acts. Moreover, it was only when the story of an empty tomb began circulating (late in the first century AD) that counter-accustions about stealing the body were made.
The explanation I cite completely deals with all the fact, in a thoroughly convincing way. It is not in the least speculative, but is grounded in the Exaltation Christology evident in works before Luke-Acts, and also in the widespread evidence of Christians practising mystical heavenly ascents through visions.
By: Tom Wrong on March 21, 2008
at 1:02 am
Ahhh, Tom, you miss the point. Let me try again. The argument I’m using is unique in that even if you can explain away the Christian sources by saying the resurrection was a later addition, you must also explain why the Jewish and Roman sources concede that there was an empty tomb and missing body.
So even if we assume the article you wrote to be a correct and an adequate explanation of the apostles life, witness, etc., you still need to explain the Roman and Jewish sources that were intended to refute a claim that was being made, a claim which implies physical evidence that the Romans and Jewish authorities needed to account for. Thus they give us an explanation that implies an empty tomb and a missing body. So if the apostles were claiming an ascension, what were the authorities doing refuting claims to an empty tomb and a missing body? Your explanation that they suddenly came up with their explanation at the end of the first century in response to the fact that the Christians were changing their story, is not really cogent. Have you forgotten who had the power? I think that I would be more than willing to make my case, let you make yours, and then submit the matter to the jury. My closing argument would be fun. I think I would explain occam’s razor.
As for the Ascension of Isaiah, it is not a first century source. One scholar with a theory does not establish the date for a document. At the earliest, AI was written in the first half of the second century. On the other hand I Corinthians was written 15 years after the fact, and the bodily resurrection is be clearly being proclaimed. Luke-Acts were written in the first or early in the second half of the second half of the first century, and certainly after Mark which spoke of an empty tomb and missing body.
Speaking of dating, I find your’s interesting. You date the gospels as late as you can and the Ascension of Isaiah as early as you can. Sounds like special pleading to me.
Your claim that there is was widespread first century evidence for ascension Christology is…how do I put it…an unsupported theory at best, and a liberate lie at worst. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be then you know there is no evidence, widespread or other wise, that there was any such thing as ascension Christology in the first century, let alone before the writing of the canonical gospels, all of which mention the empty tomb and missing body.
As to N.T. Wright, his whole thesis refutes your theory, particularly his detailed analysis of the term resurrection and the uniqueness of early Christian concept of resurrection. By the way, I understand Wright has taught at Cambridge, Montreal and Oxford. How do your credentials, and those of the operators of the blog you are linking, compare to his?
By: markcarlton on March 21, 2008
at 2:12 am
Mr. Wrong seems very much to enjoy saying ahhh, I bet the dentists love him.
By: Chris Cambell on March 21, 2008
at 4:59 am
Doctors too!
By: Chris Cambell on March 21, 2008
at 5:09 pm
Your generalisation of ‘Jewish and Roman’ not only over-generalises the actual evidence, but is seriously misleading.
The earliest Jewish traditions proclaim that Jesus ascended directly from Hades to heaven, without any ‘empty tomb’ or earthly resurrection. You may choose to ignore the sources, but that is avoidance of the actual evidence. Moreover, Paul’s reference to a spiritual body in 1 Cor 15 is not to Jesus’ earthly body. Paul allows for the earthly body to rot in the grave, while Jesus and Christians put on a new, spiritual body which transforms them into a person able to ascend into heaven. So there is no Jewish evidence in the first half of the first century that the ascension of Jesus was anything more than a spiritual occurrence.
As for the so-called Roman sources you refer to, there are none that provide independent evidence as to the resurrection or empty tomb. Independent Roman sources simply do not exist, despite your wishful thinking. The earliest Roman sources which reference the resurrection are reliant on Christian accounts – themselves no earlier than the latter part of the first century AD.
So, despite your bluster about ‘evidence’, it remains the case that you have none. However, evidence does exist of the belief in Exaltation Christology in the earliest sources:
“The first accounts of the appearance of the risen Christ on earth describe him as already having attained exaltation and power in heaven (Romans 1.4; 8.34; Philippians 2.9-11; 1 Thessalonians 1.10; 1 Corinthians 15.4ff; and Matthew 28.16-20). ” That is, after the resurrection, Christ is understood as appearing on earth from heaven. “[T]he general conviction in the earliest Christian preaching is that, as of the day of his resurrection, Jesus was in heaven, seated at the right hand of God. Resurrection and exaltation were regarded as two sides of one coin … ” (Zwiep, Ascension, 128). Aloys Grillmeier summarises: “in the view of the church in the early period, the sombre picture of Hades belongs closely with the bright images of the “exaltation Christology”, which comprises the resurrection, the ascension and the session at the right hand of the Father” (Christ in Christian Tradition, 1975: I.75).”
- Merkavah Vision
When your claims are examined properly, it turns out that your case is hollow. The only early evidence supports the fact that the ascension of Jesus to heaven originated in visionary experiences.
Perhaps your ideas seem “obvious” to you, merely because you close your mind to the more likely alternatives?
By: Tom Wrong on March 21, 2008
at 8:52 pm
Tom, there are no authentic first century Christian sources other than the New Testament documents. In first Corinthians, in Paul’s explanation of the gospel, he specifically mentions the burial and resurrection, and Wright demonstrates that the use of the term resurrection, was very specific; life in a body after a period of being dead. The Roman an Jewish sources that acknowledge an empty tomb and missing body exist. You may reject them or seek to come up with some other explanation for them, but there is no question, at least under the American system of jurisprudence, that they could be entered into evidence in a court of law. Of course Jesus had already obtained exaltation, ascended to heaven leading captivity captive, etc., that is what His resurrection was all about: He went into the tomb a corpse, He emerged from the tomb glorified and exalted.
Grillmeier is wrong. He is making statements that he simply cannot prove. Of course Christians believe Jesus ascended, but this does not in any way demonstrate that they didn’t believe in the bodily resurrection until later, and there is not one shred of first century documentary evidence you can cite to support your argument.
Perhaps the best refutation of your theory is that it has taken almost 2000 years for anyone to come up with it. My argument was based on what was being said at the time. To refute my argument you’re going to need more than some modern scholar with an agenda.
By: markcarlton on March 21, 2008
at 11:37 pm
Since you guys are still going at it, I thought I’d see what you both thought of this, from the Fresh Air archives.
Link is here.
As relates to this conversation Mark, I would like to know if a) you agree that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell differing stories concerning Christ’s burial; b) whether you agree that Mark wrote his first; c) whether you agree that the later the stories were written, the more grand became the burial; d) which story you think most approximates what actually happened; and e) whether it is possible that there was so much chaos at the actual event of Christ’s burial (if the Jewish laws of Deuteronomy were followed and if he was entombed at all) that the body vanished for reasons that were not supernatural.
By: spblat on March 22, 2008
at 1:23 am
1. I do believe there is difference in detail between the accounts. But they can be harmonized. I do this in one of my favorite Easter sermons. You might check out the Katzer quotation in my first post on this subject.
2. I think Matthew wrote first, but probably not the gospel that bears his name, but a source that was used by both Luke and Mark, Q, and which he himself used when he wrote his gospel some time later (Eusebuis gave us the chronology. I have much more respect for him that for Crossan). The Jesus seminar itself is a crock, by the way, and not really representative of the best scholarship in the field of early Christian studies. I would recommend “Hidden Gospels,” by Jenkins (Penn State) for a more mainstream presentation.
3. I disagree that the stories became more grand. I believe the writers emphasized different things. However, even if the stories grew they all agree on the physical facts; the stone was rolled away, the tomb as empty, the body was missing.
4. This is where I am getting angry with, Wrong, I think as an historical source Luke is the most believable, and he provides historical detail (this would be the equivalent of testable theories in science) and many of his details have been confirmed and none refuted. One history professor (I have the quote at the office) points out accuracy is a habit, and Luke seem to have that habit. In addition, he actually makes the claim that he investigated the various stories that were going around to find out the truth. Given that he was with Paul during his imprisonment in Caeserea Philippi, he would have had three years to investigate, and most scholars believe he completed Acts by 63 0r 64. Records were available, eye witnesses were still alive, etc. These things would have facilitated his investigation. To say, then, that I should reject a good first century source who had the opportunity to investigate, and who demonstrates a habit of accuracy, and who claims he did in fact investigate, because I prefer some half-baked modern theory seems a little ridiculous to me. Also, to call Luke a liar is just something I have problems doing since some of the highest moral teaching in any of the gospels is found in Luke (things like the parables). Finally, if the church was changing its story in the 60s they hurt their own cause by citing women as witnesses, and Luke cites more of them than anyone.
5. The rush to get the job completed before sundown and the beginning of the feast, but I don’t see chaos in any of the accounts of the burial. There does seem to be haste, but good order was followed and, as Talmudic scholar and later Christian Theologian, Alfred Edersheim has shown, Jewish burial customs were followed. By the way, this classic work is still an excellent source for the Jewish background of the life of Christ.
By: markcarlton on March 22, 2008
at 3:04 am
I just discovered this blog today, only to find it’s ending soon. Based on what I’ve read so far, I suspect the degree of outright opposition you encountered was not what you anticipated when you started blogging. I hope the archives stay up for at least a month or two so I have time to read the rest of your blogs and the comments.
Belief in Jesus’ resurrection is the crux of the the whole matter of Christian faith, isn’t it. If I become convinced through historical and legalistic evidence, such as what you present, that Jesus was resurrected, then it seems to me that the only explanation for resurrection would be that Jesus was who he said he was. If I truly believe that Jesus was the son of God, then it seems I should believe what he said.
I appreciate your more intellectual approach. Some people become believers through their hearts, but I find myself best reached through the mind. I find your case for resurrection to be an intriguing approach.
By: searcher on March 22, 2008
at 4:29 am
Is it important in your view that all Christians accept as literal (dare I say, scientific) truth biblical accounts concerning the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ, or is it adequate for them to look at the matter somewhat figuratively, as many seem to do in the case of Genesis? Are there branches of Christianity which do not insist (or insist on a lesser extent) on acceptance of the story as literal fact?
And does the fact that Luke wrote great parables illuminating moral truth necessarily mean he was a reliable factual historian?
By: spblat on March 22, 2008
at 5:14 am
Paul says that if the resurrection is false, then all believers are fools. I don’t think he was admitting to being a fool by saying that. The physical, bodily resurrection is pretty much the cornerstone of Christianity. If it’s not true, then Christ was an egocentric maniac with tendencies of grandiose delusions.
By: Chris Cambell on March 22, 2008
at 5:31 am
Searcher, Thanks for your kind words. My new site is for people like yourself, I invision it as an online church for serious and honest searchers. I hope to have it up and running by the beginning of April and All of my stuff will be available there.
By: markcarlton on March 22, 2008
at 2:34 pm
Spblat, yes, I believe, as Chris stated, that Christians put all their eggs in the same basket; the Easter basket.
The parables in Luke only demonstrate a high level of moral understanding on the part of the author. His accuracy as an historian would have to be tested by the agreement of his the historical details he mentions with other verifiable ancient sources.
Please excuse the hate of my last response. I wrote it after our Good Friday service last night and my wife and daughter wanted to watch a movie. So I was both tired and rushed when I tried to explain this, so let me try again.
As you are well aware, one of things that makes a good scientific theory is predictions. A similar thing exists in the examination of ancient historical texts. They all contain assertions of fact that predict certain things. If they are accurate we should be able to find support for their assertions in other sources. This is how we have discovered, for example, that Herodotus had a tendency to exaggerate the size of thing, such as the width of the walls of Babylon. Excavations have shown that he tended to multiply by a factor of four.
This is where Luke as an historian is, really unsurpassed. The things he talked about, including things like a second census for taxation while Quirinius was governor of Syria, have been verified. The census is interesting because there was a time when critics attacked the accuracy of Luke because the only census they were aware of, and the governorship of Quirinius didn’t match (some still make this argument). But evidence has been found that tends to confirm Luke’s accuracy. Using, then, the method I have suggested, Luke has never been demonstrated to be in error in any of the “predictions,” he made. On the contrary, he comes to us as one of the few, so far, completely accurate ancient historians. That’s the habit of accuracy I referred to.
I personally like Luke because he seems a man like myself (there is even an ancient tradition that he was an artist). If we take him at his word — this is where the sincerity comes into play — he really wanted to know the truth about Jesus. There were a lot of stories going around and he wasn’t sure which were accurate and which were not. So he set out to investigate for himself and furnish his friend, Theopholis, with an accurate record. This is also why I appreciate his work over that of “The Jesus Commission.”
You need to understand that no new documents have been discovered that would give the JCom “new information” or discredit the gospels. It is their a priori desire to discredit the gospels that has led to their work, and frankly it does not in represent a scholarly consensus.
Pardon me If I find the work product of a sincere investigator gathering information less than 30 years after the fact more compelling. Since everyone agrees that Acts was the sequel, and as I mentioned, the scholarly consensus places its date at 63-63, the gospel must have been completed some time before that. I place Luke’s investigation during Paul’s imprisonment in Caesaria because this would have given Luke — who was with him — the time to do the research he spoke of and write what he refers to in Acts as his previous work concerning the things that Jesus began to do and say. This would have placed it’s date of composition in the 56-63.
Let me bring Wright’s argument in here. He points out that the early church, universally, proclaimed a view of resurrection that was counter-cultural. He goes into exhausting detail pointing out what the Pagans and Jews believed about life after death and resurrection, how they used the word, resurrection (this is the fatal blow Wright’s work delivers to Mr. Wrongs argument. If he has read Wright’s book, that’s no doubt the reason he reacted so strongly against it). Wright argues that the best explanation for this new understanding of resurrection was a real resurrection event. His case was powerful enough to impress Antony Flew. He hasn’t bought into Christianity because of it, but he was impressed enough with it that invited Wright to present a summary of it in the appendix of his book, and he praised it highly.
Here’s the problem for the theory Wrong is proposing; the Corinthian letter is not the earliest N.T. documents that present a well developed theory of the resurrection. While some, including me, put Galatians first, most agree that I and II Thessalonians are his earliest letters. Their dates are in the early 50s at the latest, and already we see this well developed, counter-cultural doctrine of bodily resurrection. I Corinthians, written less than a decade latter, also presents a formula for the gospel, that includes the burial and resurrection (a term, as Wright points out, that had a specific mean in the usage of the day, and that meaning was not ascension, they used another word for that). The interesting thing in this easy to remember outline of the gospel is Paul refers to it as “that which I also received,” and that it was the gospel that he and the other apostles proclaim. That Paul received this would mean that this is something that was taught to him, presumably at or near the beginning of his Christian experience. That would be somewhere in the mid thirties, just 3 to 5 years after the crucifixion, burial and resurrection he refers to.
The rest of Wrongs rantings contain a lot of red herrings. There are no Christian documents earlier than the New Testament that have survived, and buying into his theory would produce a new set of predictions for which we have no first century verification. His argument, then, is obviously a recent attempt to explain away the evidence, not to explain it.
I would also point out a glaring and important contradiction. Early on he admitted that there are ancient pagan and Roman sources that both claim the body was stolen:
But note, a few posts later his says,
I have also shown that Paul was presenting a well formulated doctrine of bodily resurrection in the early and mid fifties, and that he was presenting a version of the gospels which he says, “I received,” which would put the bodily resurrection as part of a formula being taught to new believers in the mid 30s, less than 5 years after the resurrection. That the Jewish and Romans sources are conceding the empty tomb an missing body in the late first century (by Wrong’s own admission) is a strong indication that this was the best explanation they could do to refute what the Christians were saying at the time. The idea that what Christian were saying at the time was a new doctrine is a stretch at best, and there is no evidence that Christians preached any other message….unless you consider a late 20th, early 21 century theory based on dubious interpretation, evidence.
Wrong also accusee me of “ignor[ing] the sources. But note that he does not list these other sources. There is a reason for this. He can’t. They don’t exist, except perhaps as a speculative and private interpretation of the New Testament itself.
Finally, before I got into blogging, I was working my way through all of the early Christian sources produced in the first two centuries of the Christian era, orthodox, gnostic, pseudopigrapha (this is where scholars place one of Wrongs, sources, the Ascension of Isaiah), whatever. I made it half way through Iranaeus’ “Against the Heresies,” when I became distracted by other questions (this reading is one of the things I want to get back to). So if Wrong wants to accuse me of ignoring the evidence that’s fine, but I want you to know that evaluating the evidence has been a passion of mine, and I suspect that I’ve probably spent more time actually doing it than Wrong has. This, of course, doesn’t mean I’m right, but it doesn’t mean that I’ve never heard of or considered the explanation he offers before. I have. It doesn’t fit the facts. And it requires the creation of new facts not in evidence.
By: markcarlton on March 22, 2008
at 3:30 pm