Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ

[Tummy Veme]

The story of the resurrection is just too weird to be believable: zombie infestations, preternatural darkness, earthquakes, holy items destroyed, Romans convinced. I'm not. Who could believe such stuff?

[jimwalton]

Zombie infestation. Really? That's not the description in Matthew at all. That's just a goofy way skeptics try to describe it to make it sound ridiculous. It's not accurate.

Earthquakes? Hopefully this one isn't hard for you to believe. The Jordan River Valley lies on an active fault line.

The sun disappearing? Um, you know about thick obscuring clouds.

Romans convinced? It depends what they saw. It's altogether possible. I get convinced by stuff based on what I see.

Holy items destroyed? You mean the curtain torn in two? Remember the earthquakes?

Can we talk more?

[Tummy Vemey]

> Zombie infestation. Really? That's not the description in Matthew at all.

I think news would call it that if it happened today, sounds better.

> Crucifixion darkness

I don't think it is goofy. If the bible were true and historical, then the laws of the nature would be mere whims, and we should expect impressive shows and all the miracles to be true and even more awesome than the writers noticed and reported. Or perhaps very cool subtle miracles.

It is interesting that you paint so diluted version. I think that is a bit contradictory with a real divine death and resurrection. Or was that merely a failed execution and coma too? What do you believe?

Actually I believe that Mark wasn't writing a historical work at all, but a Midrash. His readers mistakenly took it as historical. And because it was so great story, many people created their own versions. There are dozens of gospels which were not included in the bible, and that is probably just the tip of the iceberg, I suspect there were hundreds.

[jimwalton]

> It is interesting that you paint so diluted version

Then I have miscommunicated. It was a profound and complex event.

What do I believe? I believe it was a historical event, and the Gospel writers tried to write about it historically but also theologically and also using literary devices to enhance the import of the event.

I believe all of the Gospel writers wrote in this tri-perspective mode, but the accounts, by my reading of them, have a flavor of being written to be taken as historiographical renderings.

What in Mark makes you think it's midrashic? I know midrashim can be story-like, but what makes it seem fictional to you?

The details are believable, the presence of angels fits your exception of "impressive shows," and the truncated account is very much Markan in style. Of course, the text really ends at v. 8; hardly anyone considers vv. 9-20 to be authentic, including me.

[Tummy Veme]

> What in Mark makes you think it's midrashic? I know midrashim can be story-like, but what makes it seem fictional to you?
It itself hints so Mark 4:10-12.

And several other reasons:

A. The great distance between the events and the author makes historical knowledge unlikely (Different generation, different language, different country, different beliefs)
1. It is often dated around 68-70. Some argue for much larger date.
2. It is believed to be written in Rome.
3. Its author does not know local details
4. If the early dating is correct, it was written during the war when contacts would have been even more difficult

B. It describes events and details which the author and the disciples should not know about, for example

1.Baptism details
2. 40 days in the desert
3. Events when the disciples are sleeping
4. Events in the captivity
5. Schemes of enemies

C. It contains elements which one would consider fictional in any other context

1. Baptism events
2. Angels and demons
3. Exorcisms
4. Instant disciples
5. Author knowing what the protagonist, spirits and other people think
6. Author knowing exactly what and how the enemies are scheming in secrecy.
7. Growing back an arm
8. Several resurrections
9. Enemies testifying, but friends being unbelievably obtuse despite seeing it all

D. Its stories are about theological views, historical events are irrelevant

1. Several Sabbath stories about minor theological detail
2. Relatives are just a story device
3. Fig tree is purely allegorical, and

E. Its story patterns are copied from OT, possibly from Josephus, and other works

1. Multiplying food (Some OT prophets multiplied food too)
2. Floating on water (in OT it was an axe)
3. Resurrecting the child is a direct copy from OT.
4. Much of the story seems to be copied from The Jewish War by Josephus 75AD
5. Much of it can be seen discussing causes of the war with OT references. A long but brilliant article. It reveals a carefully planned hidden layers in Mark.
6. People agree that the "legion" story seems to refer to the Roman army Roman soldiers were called pigs, and had a boar flag. The leader of the Jewish rebellion was from there. Clearly the author is trying to say something allegorical here.

F. And the same applies to every story

1. For example the crucifixion story is based on a psalm, replicating the song.
2. The crucifixion replicates the Jewish Passover lamb sacrifice ritual

And so on, there is so much more, but you can read them yourself and find out more.

It is brilliantly written, but it does not seem historical.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for a great response. that's a lot to deal with in one post. I'm gonna bet I'm going to exceed the 10,000 character or word limit, but I'll do my best to keep it concise at the possible expense of leaving out some things I'd want to say.

You're right that Mark is often dated between 65-70. some want to put it later, and some want to put it earlier. My research motivates me to put it earlier, but we can stick with 65-70 for now. It is very believed to have been written in Rome, by Mark, having been told most of it by Peter. So it is generally considered to be a second-hand eye-witness account, with Peter as the author and Mark as the secretary. Mark himself, however, was most likely raised in Jerusalem (Acts 12.12, 25), and possibly knew Jesus personally, since his mother was well integrated in the Christian community. Mark was a good friend of Paul's and very close with Peter (1 Pet. 5.13). It's very reasonable to believe he had extremely good access to accurate information.

Since Peter was most likely the author (according to Papias, AD 125, as told to us by Eusebius later), it makes sense that we have knowledgable information about Jesus' baptism, his days in the desert, personal information about the disciples, and schemes of the enemy. Peter was in the inner circle and eye-witness to most of these events.

As far as "fictional" elements, they are only possibly fictional if one doesn't believe that Jesus was deity. If Jesus was deity, there is no barrier to any of these events.

> Growing back an arm

??? This is a mystery to me. There is no such story.

> Its story patterns are copied from the OT, possibly from Josephus.

Multiplying food. If this is one of the ways God works, it's not a surprise to see it repeated. And sometimes the NT repeats OT events as a way to reference them with a different emphasis. No problem here.

Walking on water. This is not a reference to the floating OT axehead, but a manifestation of God on earth. The only person in the OT who ever walked on water was God (Job 9.8; cf. Ps. 77.20).

Resurrecting a child. A direct copy, or a repeat of an important act? I guess it's a matter of interpretation, not necessary conviction.

Copied from Josephus? Not likely since Josephus wrote in AD 78 and Mark was almost certainly written before that. A large majority of scholars put Mark before 70, and with good reason.

Legion story. "People agree"???? That's too flimsy. Your "clearly the author..." is not clear at all, nor even a majority position.

The crucifixion story based on a psalm. Yes, he makes brilliant use of some psalms. The question is, does literary artistry detract from historicity? No. Events of history have theological significance and intrinsic artistry.

The crucifixion replicates the Jewish Passover lamb sacrifice. Absolutely. It's one of the most important theological understandings of the crucifixion event. Again, this doesn't detract from its historicity.

I appreciate the work you put into your post. You have explained why you take it to be midrash. I'm not convinced, as you can tell; I don't see where the items and events you have mentioned stand outside of the possibility of history. The only real problem it seems you have is with the miracles: multiplying food, walking on water, angels and demons—all the supernatural elements. Frankly, if we take the supernatural elements away from Jesus, his story is virtually meaningless. His story only has significance in dealing with the question all of the Gospel writers address: Jesus is divine. That's the case every one of them presents, and with which every reader must wrestle.