Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two

Conversation Side Conversation
121

So you’ve gone from using an actual scholar who I’ve demonstrated is out of touch with current writing on the topic… to some random scribblings on the internet from a guy who is two steps short of scratching out “In God We Trust” from dollar bills. The only thing you’re doing is showing me that you don’t know how to investigate historical cllaims

We’re not aware of it at all. The Mishnah at it earliest dates to 200AD. While scholars think they can reliably date some of its traditions that originate post 70AD, there is little agreement in dating anything before 70AD. Even if you could do this for Y 16:3, you still have to deal with the following questions.

  1. The three days doesn’t appear to be a hard and fast rule. It appears to drawing on an OT motif. Later commentaries on the Mishnah indicate this.

  2. It’s unlikely that opponents of the resurrection would let themselves be bound by this rule. People would have thought that Jesus was still dead if they had produced the body, legal ruling or not.

  3. We don’t know how widely this was followed or by which groups of Jews.

First, Mark ends (for whatever reason) at 16:8 so we can’t say whether or not he intended to say that the disciples investigated the tomb. Luke and John, however, indicate they did. So that’s two out of three, not 1 out of four. Furthermore, this whole line of thinking that the evangelists added things to rebut skeptics and settle controversies is misleading. If John is written after 90AD and is trying to rebut skeptics, why stop at two witnesses? Why not include high ranking Jews or Romans? Why are the resurrection appearances so subdued, especially compared to later apocryphal accounts? Why did John stop at little changes and not make any big changes?

It sounds like you haven’t read Evans and Magness on this subject after all. Jesus was condemned by the Jewish council. The two thieves were not. As such, the council was only responsible for Jesus burial. Given that we know Jews would also move to bodies in family tombs to ossuaries after a period of time, they must have had some means of identifying which body was buried in which loculus.

The proper argument isn’t that specific apostles were martyred, but that early Christians were willing to face persecution and death for their beliefs. This would cover the women at the tomb.

This is just the same old 19th century liberal german account of the resurrection which I have no interest in debating given your earlier comments. I think it is pretty clear at this point that you are relying on internet searches in order to respond to me and others.

Points a, b, c, d, f, g, h, i, n, o, and q have been dealt with in more recent scholarship or in older scholarship that Alter doesn’t interact with. I’ve already cited a number of books and articles to this effect.

The only issues where you might have a case are:
e- Judas’ betrayal. Even if I grant that this is an irresolvable contradiction, all it does it show that either Matthew or Luke are working with independent traditions with some degree of error. None of it is integral to the resurrection narratives.
J- at least some scholars who disagree don’t say it is factually inaccurate, they say they can’t analyze the supernatural as historians and bracket it out from the rest of the text.
K- same as above.
L- what Jewish records? We have the Mishnah and Talmud, neither which provide accurate information about historical events in pre 70AD Jerusalem.
more on j, k, and l- if this is all localized to Jerusalem, the only other source we would have for these events would be Josephus but we have no reason to believe he would mention them.
M- closest thing to unanimity you’ll get, but it only impinges on Matthew and not the rest of the Gospels.
P- Most scholars will argue against guards at the the tomb, but there still isn’t anything like unanimity because you can find a number of important scholars that argue for its plausibility like Keener, Nolland, and France.

Furthermore, you are in no position to make claims about unanimity, consensus, etc about NT studies. You have no experience or qualifications in the field. The fact of the matter is that there are very few positions that can claim actual consensus in NT studies. Even something as widely popular as Markan priority can’t claim this sort of standing because there are a number of good scholars who argue to Matthean priority.

4 Likes
122

Unfortunately, besides typing with one finger except capital letters, I am technologically challenged.

Mike

2 Likes
123

Hi @swamidass, @dga471 and @Freakazoid

@swamidass, you wrote:

I’m not asking about sources. I am asking about events. What events from this time are better attested?

I suggest you have a look at this article:

Yet Another Case of Apologetic Dishonesty in Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”: The Historical Evidence for Alexander the Great versus that of Jesus of Nazareth by historian Matthew Ferguson.

You and @dga471 have repeatedly asked me about the methodology I employ. I would invite you to have a look at Ferguson’s article, Methodological Approaches to Ancient History.

I would also suggest that you read his article, History, Probability, and Miracles. Let me say up-front that I don’t agree with everything Ferguson says; nevertheless, I would urge you to read his article as a counter-balance to what Habermas and Licona have written on the subject.

There’s also an online talk by Richard Carrier which is well worth watching, titled, Miracles and Historical Method, that touches on methodology. In his talk, Carrier demonstrates that totally ridiculous, but very well-documented miracle stories about historical personages can spring up within just a few years of the event they describe. Carrier discusses several cases from antiquity. Well-attested pagan miracles are particularly important vis-a-vis the oft-heard apologetic argument: “But the Gospels were written down only one generation after the death of Jesus. There wouldn’t have been time for myths to spring up about him!” This, I have to say, is an invalid argument.

I should mention that Carrier is a big fan of the use of Bayes’ Theorem. Interestingly, so is William Lane Craig! For my part, I’m very leery of using this theorem to evaluate miracle claims, as it’s hard to assign priors. [The only exception I would make is where even a generous estimate of the prior probability of an alleged miracle still yields a low probability for that miracle in the light of the evidence, when competing explanations are taken into account.] Readers might like to have a look at this online exchange on whether it’s of any use to historians. However, I see no objection in principle to using Bayes’ Theorem to assess claims about non-miraculous events. The only question is whether we have enough data to make an assessment.

Finally, I suggest that everyone have a look at this article by Matthew Ferguson: Knocking Out the Pillars of the “Minimal Facts” Apologetic. Also worth reading is this one: Why Scholars Doubt the Traditional Authors of the Gospels.

I’ll say more about Daniel’s remarks in my next comment.

124

Hello Joshua:

Thank you for clarifying your position on “weak arguments”… I suppose then, the issue is the trustworthiness [and reliability] of John’s narrative in 19:34-42.

So are the Gospels trustworthy?

  1. Did eyewitnesses (anonymous but presumably the Beloved Disciple) literally see water coming out of Jesus’s side? If yes, how do they/he know that it was literally water? This topic is extensively discussed in my text.
  2. Did the eyewitnesses (anonymous but presumably the Beloved Disciple) literally confirm that a bone of Jesus was not broken? If so, HOW? This topic is extensively discussed in my text.
  3. Did Nicodemus literally buy approximately one hundred pounds of spices? If so, when, where, and from whom? This topic is extensively discussed in my text.
  4. Do you believe that Jesus was literally buried in a garden? Please note that this information does not appear in Mark, John, Luke, (or Paul)? This topic is extensively discussed in my text.

So then, are the Gospel’s presumed factoids trustworthy, reliable, and historical accurate?

A heads up, next week, I will be out of town [Emory-Pitts Theological Seminary, Columbia Theological, AUC Libraries, and elsewhere] for about six days and my time will be extremely limited. If possible, I will try to access Peaceful Science and interacted with the contributors. If not, I hope that everyone has a good week.

And Joshua, have a good and safe weekend,

Mike

125

For 2, I might be wrong, but I think John was talking about his knees. Because, when you are crucified, you have to stretch yourself (not sure how to put it better) so you don’t die from asphyxiation, so if Romans don’t break your knees you can survive on the cross for several days.

Because they wanted to take the criminals off the cross before the next day, they broke the men’s knees so they’d die sooner, however Jesus, because he was already pretty beaten, died before they decided to break their knees, ergo, there was no need to break them.

As I said, I might be wrong, I don’t remember what it said exactly.

1 Like
126

Hello Djordje:

Great to hear from you!

In my book, in detail (174-187), I discuss this issue. Below are a few points I would like to make.

  1. Pilate specifically ordered to soldiers to break the legs of the condemned, that included Jesus. The soldiers disregarded Pilate’s orders in reference to Jesus. This is an act of DISOBEDIENCE! INSUBORDINATION! It is irrelevant if they thought that he was already dead.
  2. The certainty that Jesus was dead did not actually exist in the solders’ mind, perhaps except the centurion (Mary 15:39; Lk 23:47)
  3. If they believed Jesus was dead, why the piercing of his side? I discussion SPECULATIONS in my text.
  4. The chronology of the leg breaking is dubious and unconvincing (See p. 183)
  5. Leg breaking could be in the tibia and fibula. It need not be in the knees. [This is nick picking]
  6. Was Jesus dead? This topic is EXTENSIVELY discussed in pages 249-265. I present arguments from both sides of the aisle. I reject the conspiracy theory (p. 265).
  7. Was Jesus beaten to the same degree as the criminals? unknown
  8. Was Jesus in better health than the two criminals? unknown.
  9. Speculation: Breaking the legs could potentially, in combination with the actions taken before placement on the cross, result in shock and death.
  10. To repeat you wrote: “died before they decided to break their knees, ergo, there was no need to break them.” - DIRECT VIOLATION of ROMAN MILITARY DISCIPLINE. They were given a precise order…

Take care.

Mike

127

If you could, please put @ before my name so I can answer faster.

I’m gonna give you a longer answer as soon as I’m back on my PC. I’m on my phone right now and I don’t like writing longer posts on it.

1 Like
128

Yes, that’s a good practice that benefits all of us.

Meanwhile, it appears that this thread is resuming the discussion of the resurrection that actually belongs back on the Torley on The Resurrection: Take Two - #101 by MJAlter thread.

This thread’s topic is about “weak and incorrect arguments” in general. I believe Joshua was wise to treat this as a separate, very interesting topic.

2 Likes
129

I am pathetic with the Internet and technology. REALLY! [I have a dumb phone and I do not text] That is why I have never added anything to my homepage at wordpress. I paid a former student to set it up and I have not changed or added to it in three years.

So, where do I put the @symbol? I will try after the word “Hello”

Take care

Mike

1 Like
130

Like this: @Djordje

And no problem.

131

@Djordje

I hope this is what you mean. If it is, now I need to remember another thing other than passwords. Life is getting complicated.

Take care

Mike

1 Like
132

At some point, this needs to be moved back to the other thread too…the one devoted to you Alter.

1 Like
133

Hi @dga471 and @Freakazoid ,

Before I address your remarks, I’d like to urge you both to have a look at my comment #81 above, in which I explained why any attempt to demonstrate that Jesus’ Resurrection was historically probable falls flat on its face. This is the argument you both need to rebut. It would still stand, even if (contrary to fact) you could show that every single one of the 17 doubtful statements I listed from the Passion narratives was actually quite plausible, after all. Remember: the onus is on you to justify the Minimal Facts apologetic.

@dga471, you asked me if I wanted to whittle down my list of claims, to avoid accusations of a Gish gallop. I’d like to focus on the following (see my comment #85 above).

c. Do the Gospels accurately represent Jesus trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin? Unlikely, because the Jewish high priests would have been breaking just about every rule in the book - even back in the first century.
e. Judas’ betrayal of Jesus and the two accounts of his death Unlikely because the Gospel narratives of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus obviously grow in the telling from Mark onwards, and because the two accounts of Judas’ death are flat-out contradictory.
h. Jesus’ last words on the Cross: fact or fiction? Unlikely because the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ last words completely contradict one another, and no-one would have been standing close enough to hear Jesus’ words anyway.
j. The three hours of darkness: fact or fiction? Unlikely because similar mythological claims are found in both Jewish and Greco-Roman literature.
k. The earthquake at Jesus’ death: fact or fiction? Ditto.
l. Was the Veil of the Temple torn in two? Unlikely because it’s nowhere mentioned in Jewish records, even though other, less significant incidents relating to the Temple from around that time are mentioned.
m. Were Jewish saints raised at Jesus’ death? Unlikely because only Matthew’s Gospel mentions such a marvelous incident, and because it would have surely resulted in mass conversions, if it happened.
o. Was Jesus buried in a new rock tomb? Unlikely because if he was buried, it would have either been in a tomb reserved for criminals (as per the usual practice) or (temporarily) in a family tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea.
p. Was there a Guard at Jesus’ tomb? Unlikely because the story itself is massively internally implausible .

Now, you’ve tried to argue that some of these claims have little relevance to the Resurrection. I’m happy to grant that. They’re not intended to show anything directly about Jesus’ Resurrection. What they’re intended to show is that the Gospels are not consistently reliable as historical sources: indeed, a sizable proportion of what they say about Jesus’ final 24 hours - which is precisely the part on which they most agree - is most likely factually untrue. (I’m not interested here in the question of how they stack up against other contemporary sources.) Then I go on to argue that if the Gospels aren’t reliable sources of information about Jesus’ Passion, they cannot be considered reliable sources of information about Jesus’ Resurrection, either.

Please note that I am not rejecting the Gospels outright: as I explained in my original post on Alter’s book, I think there is a “core” Passion narrative that can be extracted from the four Gospel accounts, which is fairly reliable. But if we look at the Passion narrative of each Gospel, there’s a high percentage of stuff which is very doubtful.

@Freakazoid thinks I don’t know diddly squat about scholarly consensus. Rubbish. I’ve been around for a while (I’m 57) and I’ve read quite a lot in my time, even if some of it was decades ago. And I can tell you confidently that even among Christian scholars (at least, those who aren’t required to sign faith statements in order to teach), there’s virtual unanimity that nearly all of the claims I listed above are factually false. You will get some scholarly argument regarding c, h and o, regarding exactly what proportion of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin, his last words on the cross, and his burial should be rejected as unhistorical, but even on these claims, scholars would agree that much of the Gospel narrative has to be rejected. Regarding the other six claims (e, j, k, l, m and p), I’ll simply say that there’s no serious scholarly argument on these issues, and anyone asserting otherwise doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And yes, three of these six claims (k, m and p) are unique to Matthew, but the remaining three are not.

Regarding claim c: I don’t know of any scholar who regards Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin as reliable from start to finish. As I argued in my post, it would have broken just about every rule in the book, even in the first century.

Regarding claim h: the simple fact is that the Gospels don’t even agree amongst themselves as to what Jesus said on the cross. Any attempt to conflate the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ last words results in an artificial hybrid. Michael Alter’s words are worth quoting here:

The often-repeated Christian apologetic of several witnesses to an accident at an intersection is bogus and fallacious. Luke was not a witness, and John’s presence is questionable. The narratives were written approximately thirty to seventy years after the event. These gospels are completely different stories, not records or stories by four observers to a common event. These words attributed to Jesus are not remembered history. (2015, p. 123)

Regarding claim o: I’d like to quote from Professor Byron McCane’s article, “‘Where No One Had Yet Been Laid’: The Shame of Jesus’ Burial”:

On the basis of the evidence, then, the following scenario emerges as a likely course of events for the deposition of Jesus’ body: late on the day of his death, one or more of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem – later personified by Christian tradition as Joseph of Arimathea – requested custody of the body for purposes of dishonorable burial. These leaders, having collaborated with the Romans in the condemnation of Jesus, had both the means and the motive to bury him in shame: means, in their access to Pilate, and motive, in Jewish law and custom. Pilate did not hesitate to grant dishonorable burial to one of their condemned criminals. Only the most rudimentary burial preparations were administered –the body was wrapped and taken directly to the tomb, without a funeral procession, eulogies, or the deposition of any personal effects. By sunset on the day of his death, the body of Jesus lay within a burial cave reserved for criminals condemned by Jewish courts. No one mourned. (1998, p. 452)

McCane acknowledges a core of truth behind the Gospel accounts, but at the same time he acknowledges that they have been heavily embellished with the passage of time (capitals below are mine):

VIRTUALLY ALL STUDIES AGREE that as the tradition develops, every detail in the story is enhanced and improved upon. Mark begins the written tradition by saying that on Friday evening, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, requested the body of Jesus from Pilate, wrapped it in linen and sealed it in a rock-cut tomb. Never again would the story be told so simply. Joseph of Arimathea becomes a “good and righteous man” who did not consent to the action against Jesus (Luke 23:51), and then evolves into a secret disciple of Jesus (Matt 27:57; John 19:38). The “rock-cut” tomb in Mark becomes a “new” tomb (Matt 27:60), “where no one had yet been laid” (Luke 23:53). John not only combines those descriptions – the tomb is both “new” and “where no one had yet been laid” (John 19:41) – but also adds that the tomb was located in a garden. In Mark Joseph wraps the body in linen — nothing more – but subsequent Gospels describe the linen as “clean” (Matt 27:59) and claim that the body was bathed in vast quantities of perfume (John 19:39). By the time of the Gospel of Peter, during the mid-second century CE, Christians were going so far as to assert that Jesus had been sumptuously buried in the family tomb of one of Jerusalem’s most powerful and wealthy families. (1998, p. 447)

See what I mean? The Gospels are tainted sources, from a 21st-century perspective. That doesn’t make them valueless. But if you’re trying to use them to “prove” the Resurrection, my advice would be: forget it.

Finally, I note that @Freakazoid apparently believes Markan priority to be a debatable issue among scholars. Uh, no. It really isn’t. Even Evangelicals freely grant it.

134

So these are based on making the Gospel accounts completely unreliable historically. What percentage of secular historians would agree with this?

135

Why? I do not think this argument is historically probably is well grounded. In fact, it is nearly as bad as your argument against it. This is not the strong argument for the Resurrection. Other arguments are far better.

136

Sorry, guys, but I’m going to have to call it a night. It’s 2:47 a.m. over here. Catch you later.

1 Like
137

I don’t see that at all and I don’t see a reason to believe it. I also don’t see what the 21st century has to do with anything at all. The gospels were not written for the 21st century atheist.

To me they would be tainted if they had been re-written by a later author who tried to make it look like Jesus was not raised from the dead. That would be legitimate “taint.”

2 Likes
138

Big claim here @vjtorley. You should have no difficulty producing copius references.

139

That’s it.

It’s very difficult to fake one’s death on the cross, and even if he passed out, without lifting himself up, he would have died within 20 minutes.

It’s quite possible that piercing of his side was common practice to make sure victim is dead.

What do you mean by this? If you mean that you’re not convinced they would have broken his legs, then I recommend that you read this:

That will answer this, and many other questions.

Well, after they scourged, crucified, pierced his side, and left him in the tomb with no medical assistance, I’m gonna say yes.

That, I couldn’t tell you.

Same as above.

Well, they would have died anyway.

As for, 1 and 10 (same questions): we don’t exactly know what common practice is when victim dies before the legs are broken. Pilate did give order to break the criminals’ legs, yes, but if common practice is to leave the legs of those who are already dead undisturbed than that would have been the case for Jesus as well, unless Pilate explicitly ordered (for whatever reason) to break his legs despite him being dead.

140

That wasn’t usual practice. It’s exceptional practice, not typical. Take a look at this by Craig Evans.