I agree. Resurrection of the dead is an improbable explanation for anything. My life has been changed by one of the most improbable things imaginable.
1 Like
I think there are lots of holes and overlooked points in this line of reasoning.
-
It is widely accepted that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is not Paul’s original composition written in c. 54/55 CE, but a transmission of an earlier Christian creed perhaps formulated as early as 10-15 years after the events, which is why it is considered very significant for historical purposes. Only verse 8 onwards is Paul’s addition to the creed. While vv. 3-7 do not explicitly include mention of an empty tomb, several scholars (N. T. Wright, Michael Licona, Richard Hays, Robert Gundry, among others; see Licona 2010:334) have argued that it is tacitly assumed, especially with the mention of Christ’s burial; the claim of resurrection would not have made sense to the Corinthian audience with a dead body still in the tomb. An example of such an argument is in J. G. Cook (2016), “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15”, where (among other things) he argues that Jews and pagans at the time conceived of the resurrection as bodily and that a semantic analysis suggests that the verb ἐγείρω (v. 4) in relation to resurrection implies a physical movement upwards, which would not make sense without an empty tomb. Remember that Paul here is trying to convince skeptical people that bodily resurrection is possible; trying to redefine the common understanding of “resurrection” into a purely spiritual event would not be a convincing argument.
-
It is significant that the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 has a limited, clearly defined list of claimed eyewitnesses, which gives the appearances a historical character, rather than a mechanical one. If early Christians readily accepted any vague vision as evidence of the Resurrection, then we would expect Paul (or the creed) to appeal to a greater number and variety of eyewitnesses, including those among the Corinthians themselves. He might even say, “If you are faithful enough, then Jesus might also appear to you as he did to me!” But we have nothing like this in early Christian tradition, despite the early church claiming the presence of numerous signs and wonders such as miraculous healings and speaking in foreign tongues. The number of people claiming to be eyewitnesses of the resurrection are clearly defined and limited, and presented as a series of historical (not ongoing) events that occurred in the past. After the appearance to Paul, there are simply no more such claims.
-
That Paul adds his own personal experience to this creed (v. 8) does not prove much one way or the other regarding the nature of the resurrection appearances in vv. 3-7. Jesus’ appearance to Paul occurs after his ascension, which would be a sufficient explanation for why it was more “heavenly” compared to the earlier appearances in the original creed. Furthermore, it makes rhetorical sense for Paul to put it in there even if his experience is not quite at the same level of physicality as the others, because he wants to establish his credential as an apostle (a requirement of which was to be a witness of the resurrection - Acts 1:22) and his authority to instruct the Corinthians in serious doctrinal matters like bodily resurrection (the subject of 1 Cor. 15).
-
The argument is made that from Acts 26:19 we learn that the appearance to Paul was only a heavenly vision, without physical characteristics. However, it seems cherry-picking to believe Luke-Acts when he’s talking about the “heavenly” appearance to Paul but discount his accounts of other post-resurrection appearances which are clearly very bodily. The only way one can argue this is if one has strong textual evidence that Luke-Acts was embellished over decades from containing only visions to also including bodily appearances, but you did not offer any such evidence.
-
The reference to 2 Cor. 12:1 does not make sense. This passage is describing a heavenly vision which Paul had many years after his conversion, not his experience on the road to Damascus which led to his conversion. Thus it has little to say about the nature of the resurrection appearances.
-
The reference to Phil. 2:8-9 also doesn’t make sense. This is part of the Philippians “Christ hymn” (vv. 6-11), and if you pause to consider the theological content of the hymn, is purpose is not apologetic (trying to prove the Resurrection to skeptics) but to highlight Jesus’ divinity, act of humility in dying on the cross, and subsequent glorification. It’s similar to how not all Christian hymns today which mention Jesus’ glorification also mention the empty tomb. Therefore, it does not say much about the nature of the resurrection appearances. Wright (2003:227-228) argues that here Paul was trying to craft a poem which compared Jesus to the Roman emperor, and focusing on the resurrection would be out of place.
4 Likes
I’m saying there are many, many possible explanations for why the text says what it says other than a man actually rising from the dead. I also don’t mention any of the main points because no specific point is relevant to that. I think both @Puck_Mendelssohn and @Chad_the_Layman get what I’m saying (though Chad has come to a different conclusion than I have):
Good to meet you, Chad. I could be wrong , but from the implication here, it sounds like you’re saying your own conversion was due to something other than the evidence for the resurrection?
There are many rational non-Christians that think this. There are far fewer informed, rational non-Christians that think this. Even those skeptical of the Resurrection take more defensible routes than claiming the whole thing is a late addition.
And many of us that are Christian did not start out theologically committed to the truth of the text. Many of us were convinced into it.
1 Like
One source is NT Wright.
The reasoning is as I explained above. It is very hard to imagine how the destruction of the temple would be excluded from these texts, even as the temple itself was being discussed. Hebrews is particularly interesting in this regard, as it is an extended argument for why there was legitimacy to worshiping God outside the temple (because Christians had been excluded).
The final version of the texts would be later.Once again, I am not a scholar in this area (though I have talked to many who are), but there does seem to be reason to think that the texts we have now were composed into final form after 70 AD. It is possible that these later “redactors” (as they are sometimes called) were not eyewitnesses. If they were very late, perhaps it is even certain they were not eyewitnesses.
So it can be simultaneously true that (1) the “authors” of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses and they were written long after the original events, and (2) that the Gospels are faithful redactions of earlier sources that were eyewitness accounts or very close to eye witness.
The precise date of the final redactions is not as important as historical evidence and inferences being made about the source documents and oral traditions from which the final documents arose.
Again I say, (specific) citation please. (Also, chapter, section, sub-section please rather than page-number, as the copy I’ve gotten my hands on is an e-book without page numbering.)
Yes, and I have already questioned that conclusion. It seems far less than certain that the NT would explicitly discuss events that happened forty years after Jesus’ Resurrection, especially as none of the main actors in the former seem to be involved. Can you point to other points where the NT explicitly discusses extra-Biblical events decades removed from its central narrative and central actors?
I would note that the authorship of Hebrews has long been in question (since at least the time of Eusebius), and that it has been dated to both sides of fall of the temple. However as neither of us are NT scholars, and you haven’t offered any specific citations in support of your position, I don’t see any benefit in attempting to go further into this.
Yes, it is possible (“can be … true”), but that does not mean that it is either probable or plausible.
What evidence do we have that “the Gospels are faithful redactions of earlier sources that were eyewitness accounts or very close to eye witness”? And I’m specifically asking for evidence, not assertion, assumption or argumentation.
I would also remind you that you have not responded to an earlier request for specifics:
Addendum:
Where does @Chad_the_Layman quote the scholarly consensus on this? I can find three occasions where he mentions 1 Cor 15, but in none of them does he cite explicit scholarly support.
2 Likes
Yes, I realize you didn’t describe the main points for that reason, I’m just curious what they were. And now curious how you came to the conclusion that there are many, many possible explanations. Your journey out of Christianity itself is interesting to me, so I’m very curious what convinced you but of course you don’t owe me anything. I appreciate what you’ve explained so far.
1 Like
Given that the issue of “in what ways” “the Gospels do not really fit that pattern of elaborated myth” seems to have gone into the weeds, I thought I might return to that central issue, and address a related issue that has long been ‘a pebble in my shoe’.
I stated earlier “That Jesus (i) died for our sins, (ii) was Resurrected, and (iii) appeared to a number of people thereafter, is almost all Paul’s Epistles says about his life after all.” (If this is a significant understatement, please point me to any significant descriptions of Jesus’ life in them that I have missed.)
Likewise, as far as I know, Paul makes no mention of Jesus’ miracles (and I seem to remember reading that in one of his Epistles, he explicitly disavows evidence from miracles) nor any explicit mention of Jesus’ teachings. As both of these would appear to be strong arguments for exhorting the churches he was writing to, I find this to be rather odd.
There would seem to be three possible (and I would hope, mutually exhaustive) reasons for this:
-
That the stories of Jesus’ life, teachings and miracles existed at the time that Paul was writing, but he was unaware of them. This would seem anomalous, given that Paul was, at the time, one of Christianity’s more prominent and widely-traveled leaders.
-
That the stories of Jesus’ life, teachings and miracles existed at the time that Paul was writing, he knew of them, but decided not to make use of them in his letters. This would likewise seem anomalous, because (as I said above) they would seem to provide powerful arguments.
-
Paul was unaware of the stories of Jesus’ life, teachings and miracles because, some or all of them did not exist at the time of his writing.
I am aware that this can be construed as a form of ‘Argument from Silence’, but would suggest that any “pattern of elaborated myth” must necessarily resemble one. I think, lacking a compelling rationale for either of the first two ‘reasons’, it leaves this pattern open as a viable (if not sole alternative) explanation.
4 Likes
And the belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 election but was denied this by widespread fraud arose days before the votes were even fully counted.
Dating when a belief originated is not in itself good evidence that the belief is true.
6 Likes
OK, I guess that’s a start. 
Not necessarily. It could remain an unknown, or not fully known.
Thanks, Matt. Nice to meet you as well.
I do think there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. But I also agreed with you that “resurrection from the dead” appears to be an improbable event!
You are also correct that research of historical evidence of Jesus’s resurrection is not what inspired me to become a Jesus follower. I do think that the historical evidence of the resurrection is compelling, but the thought of someone rising from the dead is so extraordinary that I it makes sense why the historical record alone isn’t convincing to many.
I was and still am compelled by Jesus’s story (as told in the Bible), the friendship that God offers by His Spirit, and the invitation He gives to be a part of His story.
I say all of this since you asked about what compelled me. I’ll end with a few thoughts about Jesus’s story.
The story of Jesus, from Genesis to Revelation, really is the greatest story ever told. His story is mind blowing, beautiful and compelling. And it’s His story because He is (according to the 4 gospels), the snake crusher and curse breaker of Genesis 3. He’s the Prophet Priest King, the deliverer that Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David and Daniel typified but proved not to be. He is God stepping into his created world to fulfill the calling of Abraham and Israel to bring the nations to God so that humanity (adam) can fulfill the calling of Adam (humanity) to steward God’s good world as His partner. I love the story and I love him.
And I’ll add this because we’re at Peaceful Science. I think another really wonderful story is the one that we find by exploring the Natural World.
2 Likes
Yes, the belief in the resurrection and visions was quite early and I didn’t say otherwise. The problem is most modern day Christians think the appearances were actually like what Luke and John describe - the disciples interact with the physically risen body of Jesus. The problem is twofold - 1. these are not firsthand eyewitness reports and 2. as my comparative analysis shows, the “appearances” seem to evolve from what were originally “visionary experiences” or “appearances of the exalted Jesus in heaven” to more corporeal/realistic earthly appearances with odd disappearing/reappearing elements.
Only Paul’s account is firsthand and he does not give any evidence for anything like the later gospels describe. In fact, every time Paul (our earliest source) talks about “experiencing Christ” it’s always in a spiritual way - ὤφθη (ōphthē) 1 Cor 15:5-8 whereby he places his “vision” in the list of appearances without distinction, “inner revelation” in Gal. 1:12-16 (God revealed His Son in me), “visions and revelations” in 2 Cor 12:1, was “known through revelation and the scriptures” in Rom. 16:25-26, “made his light shine in our hearts” - 2 Cor 4:6 and his “mystery was made known through revelation” in Eph. 3:3-5.
Paul’s notion of the Risen Jesus seems to be purely spiritual/mystical. “Visions” and “revelations” are the only ways Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced. Thus, only the spiritual seeing/experiencing hypothesis actually has evidence while the physical seeing hypothesis does not.
3 Likes
- It is widely accepted that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is not Paul’s original composition written in c. 54/55 CE, but a transmission of an earlier Christian creed perhaps formulated as early as 10-15 years after the events, which is why it is considered very significant for historical purposes. Only verse 8 onwards is Paul’s addition to the creed. While vv. 3-7 do not explicitly include mention of an empty tomb, several scholars (N. T. Wright, Michael Licona, Richard Hays, Robert Gundry, among others; see Licona 2010:334) have argued that it is tacitly assumed, especially with the mention of Christ’s burial; the claim of resurrection would not have made sense to the Corinthian audience with a dead body still in the tomb. An example of such an argument is in J. G. Cook (2016), “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15”, where (among other things) he argues that Jews and pagans at the time conceived of the resurrection as bodily and that a semantic analysis suggests that the verb ἐγείρω (v. 4) in relation to resurrection implies a physical movement upwards, which would not make sense without an empty tomb. Remember that Paul here is trying to convince skeptical people that bodily resurrection is possible; trying to redefine the common understanding of “resurrection” into a purely spiritual event would not be a convincing argument.
So if you believe the appearance/vision to Paul happened after Jesus was believed to have gone to heaven then that means the sequence “buried, raised (ἐγείρω), appeared” does not necessarily denote physical interactions with a revived corpse on the earth.
This is simply conflating Paul’s “belief in the resurrection” with the “resurrection appearances” when those aren’t the same thing. Even if the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, it does not therefore follow that “they really saw Jesus alive again.” Notice how the belief in a physical resurrection is just a belief, not an empirical observation because no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Rather, these people are only said to have experienced post-resurrection appearances, the nature of which is the exact point of contention. Apologists who use the red herring of appealing to the physical resurrection are making the further assumption that the physical resurrection necessarily entailed Jesus remained on the earth in order to be physically seen and touched like the later gospels describe. This doesn’t follow and it is a separate claim not actually found in Paul’s letters, the earliest evidence. As I stated in the OP, the earliest belief seems to be that Jesus went straight to heaven simultaneous with or immediately after the resurrection (regardless if it was physical/spiritual), leaving no room for any physical/earthly interactions. Thus, all of the “appearances” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood to be of the already Exalted Lord in heaven and the gospel portrayals of a physical/earthly Jesus are necessarily false. Or at least that scenario seems equally likely from a reading of the Pauline material.
- It is significant that the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 has a limited, clearly defined list of claimed eyewitnesses, which gives the appearances a historical character, rather than a mechanical one. If early Christians readily accepted any vague vision as evidence of the Resurrection, then we would expect Paul (or the creed) to appeal to a greater number and variety of eyewitnesses, including those among the Corinthians themselves.
Not necessarily. Paul alludes to other “false apostles” and those who “preach another gospel” elsewhere in his letters so he would be motivated to limit the list and seal it with a “last of all” comment in order to exclude what he considered false witnesses.
- That Paul adds his own personal experience to this creed (v. 8) does not prove much one way or the other regarding the nature of the resurrection appearances in vv. 3-7.
The phrasing “Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and (ὤφθη) to me last” is more expected under the hypothesis they were understood to all be the same type. He makes no distinction and so we do not have a reason, given the text or elsewhere in Paul’s letters, to assume they were different in nature.
Jesus’ appearance to Paul occurs after his ascension, which would be a sufficient explanation for why it was more “heavenly” compared to the earlier appearances in the original creed.
You do not get a separate and distinct ascension until Luke/Acts. That’s not in Paul’s letters. He makes no distinction between pre or post ascension appearances. 1 Cor 15 can equally be read as referring to all the appearances happening after Jesus went to heaven.
Furthermore, it makes rhetorical sense for Paul to put it in there even if his experience is not quite at the same level of physicality as the others, because he wants to establish his credential as an apostle (a requirement of which was to be a witness of the resurrection - Acts 1:22) and his authority to instruct the Corinthians in serious doctrinal matters like bodily resurrection (the subject of 1 Cor. 15).
This sounds to me like you’re just trying to avoid the fact that Paul places a “vision” in the list of appearances. If Paul can use a “vision” as a “resurrection appearance” then it follows that “visions” could have been used by the other apostles as “resurrection appearances.”
- The argument is made that from Acts 26:19 we learn that the appearance to Paul was only a heavenly vision, without physical characteristics. However, it seems cherry-picking to believe Luke-Acts when he’s talking about the “heavenly” appearance to Paul but discount his accounts of other post-resurrection appearances which are clearly very bodily.
I don’t really need Acts. If you just had Gal. 1:16 “God revealed His Son in me” and 1 Cor 15:8 “Jesus appeared ὤφθη” then that is obviously not sufficient to claim these experiences were veridical. The verb ὤφθη did not necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person and the word for “revealed” (apocalypse) was used to refer to “visionary disclosures.”
The only way one can argue this is if one has strong textual evidence that Luke-Acts was embellished over decades from containing only visions to also including bodily appearances, but you did not offer any such evidence.
I certainly did in my OP. Just compare Luke/Acts to Paul, Mark and Matthew. Do the earlier accounts mention the disciples being invited to inspect Jesus’ body, watch him eat fish, or ascend to heaven? Nope, those amazing details are only found in Luke/Acts.
- The reference to 2 Cor. 12:1 does not make sense. This passage is describing a heavenly vision which Paul had many years after his conversion, not his experience on the road to Damascus which led to his conversion.
If a person is a self admitted visionary are you more likely or less likely to believe what they say? How would a modern courtroom treat such testimony?
- The reference to Phil. 2:8-9 also doesn’t make sense. This is part of the Philippians “Christ hymn” (vv. 6-11), and if you pause to consider the theological content of the hymn, is purpose is not apologetic (trying to prove the Resurrection to skeptics) but to highlight Jesus’ divinity, act of humility in dying on the cross, and subsequent glorification. It’s similar to how not all Christian hymns today which mention Jesus’ glorification also mention the empty tomb. Therefore, it does not say much about the nature of the resurrection appearances. Wright (2003:227-228) argues that here Paul was trying to craft a poem which compared Jesus to the Roman emperor, and focusing on the resurrection would be out of place.
Some scholars see the hymn as pre-Pauline and it makes no distinction between resurrection/exaltation. It just goes from his death to exaltation without mentioning the resurrection. This would imply that Jesus was understood to have gone straight to heaven.
3 Likes
I think you may misunderstand my argument. I never argued that the belief in the Resurrection was a late addition. The belief in the Resurrection based on visionary experiences was quite early as 1 Cor 15 shows. My point was all the “physical” or more “realistic” appearances with a revived corpse are late additions and my comparative analysis clearly lays this out. Most of the comments here are completely ignoring this.
1 Like
Perhaps you answered this already … How are you answering what happened with Jesus’ body?
If Jesus wasn’t physically raised, why are the stories about the women included?
I.e. To summarize what you’re saying - initially Paul and others claimed to have visions and other followers morphed these into physical appearances. But if there wasn’t a commitment to passing on these stories accurately, then why were the stories about the women kept in, in the later gospels?
I would probably leave what those points are to whoever I’m talking to, but since I don’t have a theological pony in this race, I suppose I’d go with the consensus of critical scholars (which, if I grant the gospels were written down as told by eyewitnesses, I’d already be departing from).
It’s like arriving home from work and your garbage can is knocked over. You can come up with any number of explanations for why that’s the case, from more likely to less likely to much less likely.
Nothing about the resurrection caused me to leave Christianity. It was learning about an old universe and evolution that caused me to leave. In fact, I hardly knew anything about the historical case for the resurrection until after I left. 
3 Likes
Exactly. And when someone proposes a scenario involving causes that appear to be physically impossible, that doesn’t even make it to the list of “much less likely.”
My sense is that a lot of people have gotten snagged by a rhetorical trick on this one: the “tell me what DID happen, then” line. But that supposes that the whole thing is some sort of event where we have all the details and can work it all out. It’s not like that. Even working out how the texts evolved is a massive puzzle, without even reaching the question whether anything in them is reliable.
But if I say that Baal’s mighty reptilian spirit-tail slammed into your trash bin and knocked it down, and you respond that it was likelier something else, it is not a good retort on my part to demand that you show me specifically WHAT else did the job, before I reconsider the role of Baal’s mighty reptilian spirit-tail. You are well to stop at “I don’t know,” and if you are feeling a little bit rambunctious, to point out to me that I don’t know, either.
5 Likes
Thanks for explaining. I feel like I should explain my knowledge of that since you did. I’m not sure which book I read first - Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus or Cold Case Christianity but after that I began watching both apologetics videos on YouTube as well as Christian-Muslim debates. As I watched Christians and ex-Muslims pick apart Islam that gave me more confidence in Christianity (because I think Christianity is much easier to defend on multiple levels) even though apologists themselves made me sometimes uncomfortable with things I didn’t know - manuscript errors, interpolations, etc. It was worth wrestling through those things. Everything I learned about evolution has been reading on this forum or news articles or youtube. But I had always assumed the mainstream scientific community was better at making their case/ it had better explanations, so it doesn’t usually bother me that I don’t have all the answers, just when the questions come at me all at once is overwhelming here. I occasionally watch skeptic or ex-Christian videos, more often lately Paulogia and a few Jon Steingard recently. I believe you had said you found an Aron Ra video/podcast convincing. I have listened to other youtubers saying he’s very good at explaining evolution. From what I’ve seen, fairly hostile to religion also. 
I am curious to hear what he has to say.
Overall, I know even if I decided evolution was true, I don’t think I’d seriously doubt my faith, just the inerrancy of the Bible. I don’t like other explanations for purpose, meaning, beauty, or morality. Plus I’m sick of myself and my faults, and the evil in this world and excited about resurrected Valerie 2.0. 
Jesus makes sense of all of that for me and I like thinking about God. So that’s where I’m at. It fascinates me in a way that people can change quickly or reorient that fast. Maybe I’m not wired that way; I find it hard to imagine. It must be an emotional ride.
Regarding an old universe and evolution, I wonder if then you’d give Ken Ham props and say Genesis is foundational to Christianity and when that crumbled you lost your faith, or was it more on the end of evolution gave legitimacy to atheism?
Maybe this is a question I should start a new thread with, but for instance, I was watching Jon Steingard and Paulogia have a conversation and Paul admitted the evolutionary explanation of dinosaurs is what really began his doubt about Christianity and Jon said reading Sapiens made him really think it was possible God didn’t exist. I don’t always agree with Ken Ham’s explanations but I do think evolution gives atheism legitimacy, in fact I don’t think it makes intellectual sense without it, and I’m wondering if atheists agree.
I wish churches would admit there is evidence for evolution, but science isn’t the most important question. I wish scientists would affirm that there is reason for the scientific community to defend evolution if it’s foundational to the majority’s lack of belief.
(I can make a new thread if anyone wishes to respond to those comments, because I’m actually curious what everyone thinks.)
3 Likes
Yes, I think this is the fundamental problem with the attempts to use historical evidence to demonstrate that a resurrection happened 2000 years ago. As you have said earlier, history is just not up to the task of redefining what can happen in the physical world.
As it happens, physicists are right at this moment attempting to determine whether our understanding of some of the most fundamental aspects of the physical world need to be revised. And @thoughtful has, herself, posted the article below which described the extremely rigorous process by which this must be done. It requires a lot, lot more than someone just saying “Hey, here’s a bunch of stories where someone says someone measured the muon’s moment and it was not at the predicted value. Let’s change the standard model!”
1 Like