You can tell a story by the company it keeps: or, Why The Evidence Does Not Point To Resurrection
My thesis in this post is that even if we cut through the Gordian knot of methodological ‘assumptions’ and regard the resurrection as equally probable as a naturalistic event of similar import, the available texts would give us sufficient reason to be deeply sceptical this resurrection ever occurred.
One reason for this, the reason I wish to focus on in this post, is the context in which the story of Jesus’ resurrection is embedded. It is the context which Christian apologists, through a ridiculously transparent piece of intellectual leger-de-main I am still astonished anyone falls for, have brought Christians to ignore by focusing on an arbitrarily chosen set of “minimal facts”.
Of course, if you look only at the cherry-picked “facts” apologists want you to look at, the historicity of the resurrection leaps from the page.
But suppose (shock horror) we don’t. Suppose we make the assumption that the historicity of the rest of the story (which we can check) could give us an insight into the historicity of that one bit of the story where we have very little information.
To keep debate focused, this list is not exhaustive.
1. There was never a darkness covering the earth, despite the fact that all the Synoptics claim this. A supernatural eclipse covering the entire Roman world would certainly have been noticed by one of the many historians active in this period. No records exist. Even Josephus, who records a number of extremely far-fetched omens which allegedly preceded the destruction of the temple, is silent on the subject. Additionally, having an eclipse at a famous person’s death is a common trope in ancient literature.
2. There was never a Roman custom to release dangerous rebels. This goes against everything we know about the paranoid Roman government of this unruly province. Even the usually gullible Luke seems to have enacted a Monty Python rule and omitted this statement from his redacted Markan material.
3. The Barabbas story is clearly secondary. The parallelism between “Jesus Barabbas [“Son of the Father”]” and “Jesus the Christ” one of whom was released, one of whom killed, mirrors the Mosaic scapegoat ritual in a way which cannot be dismissed as coincidental. The name alone is enough to settle the matter.
4. The story of Judas contains at two clear contradictions: the way Judas died and (perhaps even more convincingly) the reason for the name “field of blood”. The most parsimonious assumption is that at least one of both stories was made up. Interestingly, the contradiction on the Field of Blood proves that even stories which agree on geographical details need not be historical.
5. Several of the passion stories contain information the Gospel writers couldn’t possibly have been privy to, e.g. the dream of Pilate’s wife or the tearing of the veil in the temple sanctuary. In addition, the allegorical motivation for inventing the veil-tearing story is clear (and Josephus doesn’t mention it either, despite it being extremely relevant to the future of the temple). The most parsimonious assumption, therefore, is that Christians made it up.
6. Matthew’s guard story is not defended by almost any scholar, and for good reason. The idea that the Jewish leaders should have taken Jesus' alleged prophecy of his own resurrection seriously when the disciples did not is implausible in the extreme. Additionally, the failure of other Gospels to mention this (when the presence of Roman soldiers around the tomb is scarcely irrelevant to other stories, such as that involving Mary Magdalene in John 20) strongly suggests this is an economy with the truth on the part of Matthew.
In short: the resurrection story is part of a longer narrative which is replete with legendary material. Early Christians were clearly prepared to engage in theological elaboration to further their religious purposes. Why wouldn’t people who made up a global eclipse to honour their leader make up a resurrection to honour their leader?
Or put differently, isn’t the demonstrable unreliability of these texts a good reason to be sceptical of any claim they make, even where we can't check them?
Board index ‹ Resurrection of Christ
32 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by jimwalton » Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:02 pm
> The darkness
The Gospel writers never claim it was an eclipse. An eclipse is impossible at the time (Passover), and none of them assert an eclipse. They only mention darkness, which could have been heavy cloud cover.
> There was never a Roman custom to release dangerous rebels.
You're right that we have no extra-biblical corroboration of this, and yet any scholar would admit that there is so little 1st-c. Jewish history outside the Bible and Josephus that arguments from silence prove nothing here. But there is potentially indirect evidence for this custom in at least three ancient non-Christian sources. Antiquities 20.9.3 describes Jewish leaders persuading Albinus, the prefect in AD 62, to release ten prisoners when he first arrived in Jerusalem at a Passover festival. The Babylonian Talmud, in Pesahim 91a, contains legislation for a prisoner’s being released at Passover. And the Roman historian, Livy (History of Rome 5.13.5-8), describes a 4th-c. BC event in which Rome released prisoners at a festival in Rome. So the biblical account coheres well with what was historically plausible.
> The Barabbas story is clearly secondary.
The Barabbas incident may be peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's contrived or metaphorical. See previous answer.
> The story of Judas
The Matthean account of Judas's death is most likely historical. The account in Acts is figurative. It was a common literary motif in ancient literature to describe the death of the wicked in very gruesome details (cf. Acts 12.21-23). These were literary conventions to speak of the wickedness of the person, not the details of his death.
1. Papias describes Judas’s death: "His genitals of indecency were more disgusting and yet too small to be seen. There oozed out from his whole bursting body both fluids and worms. After much suffering and agony, it is said that he died in his own place."
2. 2 Maccabees 9.5-7, 9-10, 28 describe the death of Antiochus Epiphanes as follows: "But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invincible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures—and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many strange inflictions. Yet he did not in anyway stop his insolence, but was filled even more with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body…and so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.... so the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land."
3. King Joram (2 Chr.21.18-19): "And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony."
4. When a friend of hated Tiberius Graccus died, it is said that his "dead body burst open and a great quantity of corrupt humours gushed forth, so that the flame of the funeral pyre was extinguished." (Plutarch, The Life of Tiberius Graccus, section 13).
> Several of the passion stories contain information the Gospel writers couldn’t possibly have been privy to, e.g. the dream of Pilate’s wife or the tearing of the veil in the temple sanctuary.
Remember that both Roman and Jewish officials became Christians after the resurrection, according to the Bible. Such individuals could easily be the source of such details.
> Matthew’s guard story is not defended by almost any scholar, and for good reason.
There are plausible reasons to affirm Matthew's story.
1. We know there was a reasonable Roman presence in Jerusalem.
2. The Roman military was there mostly as a peacekeeping presence, which is the purpose Matthew ascribes to the situation.
3. There's nothing in the story that smacks of fantasy, mythology, metaphor, symbolism, or fiction. It is written as if historical.
In short, you are premature in assuming this is all legendary material or theological elaboration.
The Gospel writers never claim it was an eclipse. An eclipse is impossible at the time (Passover), and none of them assert an eclipse. They only mention darkness, which could have been heavy cloud cover.
> There was never a Roman custom to release dangerous rebels.
You're right that we have no extra-biblical corroboration of this, and yet any scholar would admit that there is so little 1st-c. Jewish history outside the Bible and Josephus that arguments from silence prove nothing here. But there is potentially indirect evidence for this custom in at least three ancient non-Christian sources. Antiquities 20.9.3 describes Jewish leaders persuading Albinus, the prefect in AD 62, to release ten prisoners when he first arrived in Jerusalem at a Passover festival. The Babylonian Talmud, in Pesahim 91a, contains legislation for a prisoner’s being released at Passover. And the Roman historian, Livy (History of Rome 5.13.5-8), describes a 4th-c. BC event in which Rome released prisoners at a festival in Rome. So the biblical account coheres well with what was historically plausible.
> The Barabbas story is clearly secondary.
The Barabbas incident may be peripheral, but that doesn't mean it's contrived or metaphorical. See previous answer.
> The story of Judas
The Matthean account of Judas's death is most likely historical. The account in Acts is figurative. It was a common literary motif in ancient literature to describe the death of the wicked in very gruesome details (cf. Acts 12.21-23). These were literary conventions to speak of the wickedness of the person, not the details of his death.
1. Papias describes Judas’s death: "His genitals of indecency were more disgusting and yet too small to be seen. There oozed out from his whole bursting body both fluids and worms. After much suffering and agony, it is said that he died in his own place."
2. 2 Maccabees 9.5-7, 9-10, 28 describe the death of Antiochus Epiphanes as follows: "But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invincible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures—and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many strange inflictions. Yet he did not in anyway stop his insolence, but was filled even more with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body…and so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.... so the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land."
3. King Joram (2 Chr.21.18-19): "And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony."
4. When a friend of hated Tiberius Graccus died, it is said that his "dead body burst open and a great quantity of corrupt humours gushed forth, so that the flame of the funeral pyre was extinguished." (Plutarch, The Life of Tiberius Graccus, section 13).
> Several of the passion stories contain information the Gospel writers couldn’t possibly have been privy to, e.g. the dream of Pilate’s wife or the tearing of the veil in the temple sanctuary.
Remember that both Roman and Jewish officials became Christians after the resurrection, according to the Bible. Such individuals could easily be the source of such details.
> Matthew’s guard story is not defended by almost any scholar, and for good reason.
There are plausible reasons to affirm Matthew's story.
1. We know there was a reasonable Roman presence in Jerusalem.
2. The Roman military was there mostly as a peacekeeping presence, which is the purpose Matthew ascribes to the situation.
3. There's nothing in the story that smacks of fantasy, mythology, metaphor, symbolism, or fiction. It is written as if historical.
In short, you are premature in assuming this is all legendary material or theological elaboration.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by Cicero » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:14 pm
> The Gospel writers never claim it was an eclipse.
Luke uses the technical Greek term for an eclipse.
> arguments from silence
It’s not an argument from silence. It’s an argument from what we know about a paranoid Roman government who crucified first, asked questions later. None of your references describe a custom to release prisoners (you misleadingly represent the first case as connected to the Passover but what Josephus describes is simple blackmail via friendship between Ananias and Albinus)
> See previous answer.
Your second answer does not address the allegorical construction of the narrative.
> It was a common literary motif in ancient literature to describe the death of the wicked in very gruesome details (cf. Acts 12.21-23).
We’ve discussed this before. You have no principled way of distinguishing between “literary motif” and exaggeration and absolutely no reason to assume the former.
Perhaps you could address the Akeldama discrepancy?
> Such individuals could easily be the source of such details.
True, but ad hoc. The use of omniscient third person narration more plausibly suggests fiction.
> There are plausible reasons to affirm Matthew's story.
Your “plausible reasons” are generalities, I don't dispute any of them. You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
Luke uses the technical Greek term for an eclipse.
> arguments from silence
It’s not an argument from silence. It’s an argument from what we know about a paranoid Roman government who crucified first, asked questions later. None of your references describe a custom to release prisoners (you misleadingly represent the first case as connected to the Passover but what Josephus describes is simple blackmail via friendship between Ananias and Albinus)
> See previous answer.
Your second answer does not address the allegorical construction of the narrative.
> It was a common literary motif in ancient literature to describe the death of the wicked in very gruesome details (cf. Acts 12.21-23).
We’ve discussed this before. You have no principled way of distinguishing between “literary motif” and exaggeration and absolutely no reason to assume the former.
Perhaps you could address the Akeldama discrepancy?
> Such individuals could easily be the source of such details.
True, but ad hoc. The use of omniscient third person narration more plausibly suggests fiction.
> There are plausible reasons to affirm Matthew's story.
Your “plausible reasons” are generalities, I don't dispute any of them. You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
- Cicero
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by jimwalton » Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:52 pm
> Luke uses the technical Greek term for an eclipse.
The Greek word Luke uses is σκότος (23.44), the common word for darkness. It can be used commonly, figuratively, or metaphorically, but there's nothing in the term itself to connote an eclipse. The cause of the darkness is unknown and unstated. So you are incorrect about this fact unless you can verify from other sources that σκότος is a technical term for an eclipse. While σκότος may be the term used for an eclipse, it is a common term that could mean any cause or state of darkness.
In Lk. 23.45, the term is ἐκλείποντος: "To fail; to cease; quit; stop." Same thing here. The term is used of eclipses but doesn't necessarily mean that. The sun can be darkened in other ways. The darkness is unexplained. The way Mark uses "darkness" it seems figurative. It's difficult to know if Luke intends it the same way, since it's obviously at least symbolic, or as an actual (unexplained) darkness. In any case, the terminology doesn't insist on or even necessarily suggest an eclipse.
> It’s not an argument from silence.
Your argument was "There was never a Roman custom to release dangerous rebels", i.e., there is no corroborating evidence of such, and therefore, there is extrabibilical historical silence on the matter.
> None of your references describe a custom to release prisoners
That's correct, and I admitted such. What they do describe is the occasional practice of it to show that it did happen. Outside of the Gospels, there is no record of any such custom. It doesn't mean it's not true, just unsubstantiated.
> Your second answer does not address the allegorical construction of the narrative.
The narrative is constructed as historiography. Certainly there are symbolic elements, but neither the drive nor the construction of the texts is allegorical. We have four accounts of the trial and passion event, and not one of them is constructed allegorically. It's quite plausible that Pilate had arrested an insurrectionist who had taken part in a rebellion and committed murder. There's no particular element in the pericope that leads us to an allegorical interpretation. There is even some credibility in Pilate picking a desperate criminal with the thought that he could justifiably release Jesus, since he didn't find him guilty of any crime and certainly not a capital one.
> You have no principled way of distinguishing between “literary motif” and exaggeration and absolutely no reason to assume the former.
You're right. We have discussed it before, and I presented quite plausible evidence for my thesis.
> Perhaps you could address the Akeldama discrepancy?
The money legally belonged to Judas, but there it was on the floor of the temple. It was illegal for the priests to just take it back (Mt. 27.6), so they bought a field in his name. It was Judas's money, and given the circumstances, the priests took Judas’s money and bought the field. It was Judas's money that bought it, but the priests are the ones who made the transaction. In both cases the field is called the Field of Blood, so both are talking about the same money, the same transaction, and the same plot of land.
> The use of omniscient third person narration more plausibly suggests fiction.
It doesn't more plausibly suggest fiction unless you can substantiate that plausibility. There were many Christians in Jerusalem by the time the Gospels were written. It's not implausible at all that some of them might have been "ear-witnesses" to the events being reported.
> Your “plausible reasons” are generalities, I don't dispute any of them. You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
Since the evidence supports that Matthew intends to be writing historiography, we look at his details to investigate whether they are intended historically or in some figurative sense.
* The Preparation Day (27.62) is a historical reference
* the chief priests and Pharisees had access to Pilate
* It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse
* It's historical that there was a Roman military presence there mostly as a peacekeeping presence
Logically and historically there is little reason to doubt that guards were assigned to the tomb.
> You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
Your thesis was "the available texts would give us sufficient reason to be deeply sceptical this resurrection ever occurred." As I have shown, your critique of the context is without support and therefore doesn't support your thesis.
* Luke never says or claims it was an eclipse
* The Roman release of a prisoner is historically plausible, though we know of no such custom outside of the Gospels
* The Barabbas story is couched in historical references as is the rest of the narrative. There is no noticeable or supportable "allegorical construction" to the pericope.
* The Gospel writers could plausibly in later years have had access to insider stories of what went on in inner chambers. Remember that the gospel had great appeal to the slave and servant population of the Empire.
* Matthew's guard story is plausibly historiography.
The evidence supports a historiographical interpretation of the events of the Passion and crucifixion. We have evidence to support such an interpretation, and no evidence to refute it (only speculation).
> In short: the resurrection story is part of a longer narrative which is replete with legendary material.
In short, there is no evidence to support the "replete with legendary material" accusation.
The Greek word Luke uses is σκότος (23.44), the common word for darkness. It can be used commonly, figuratively, or metaphorically, but there's nothing in the term itself to connote an eclipse. The cause of the darkness is unknown and unstated. So you are incorrect about this fact unless you can verify from other sources that σκότος is a technical term for an eclipse. While σκότος may be the term used for an eclipse, it is a common term that could mean any cause or state of darkness.
In Lk. 23.45, the term is ἐκλείποντος: "To fail; to cease; quit; stop." Same thing here. The term is used of eclipses but doesn't necessarily mean that. The sun can be darkened in other ways. The darkness is unexplained. The way Mark uses "darkness" it seems figurative. It's difficult to know if Luke intends it the same way, since it's obviously at least symbolic, or as an actual (unexplained) darkness. In any case, the terminology doesn't insist on or even necessarily suggest an eclipse.
> It’s not an argument from silence.
Your argument was "There was never a Roman custom to release dangerous rebels", i.e., there is no corroborating evidence of such, and therefore, there is extrabibilical historical silence on the matter.
> None of your references describe a custom to release prisoners
That's correct, and I admitted such. What they do describe is the occasional practice of it to show that it did happen. Outside of the Gospels, there is no record of any such custom. It doesn't mean it's not true, just unsubstantiated.
> Your second answer does not address the allegorical construction of the narrative.
The narrative is constructed as historiography. Certainly there are symbolic elements, but neither the drive nor the construction of the texts is allegorical. We have four accounts of the trial and passion event, and not one of them is constructed allegorically. It's quite plausible that Pilate had arrested an insurrectionist who had taken part in a rebellion and committed murder. There's no particular element in the pericope that leads us to an allegorical interpretation. There is even some credibility in Pilate picking a desperate criminal with the thought that he could justifiably release Jesus, since he didn't find him guilty of any crime and certainly not a capital one.
> You have no principled way of distinguishing between “literary motif” and exaggeration and absolutely no reason to assume the former.
You're right. We have discussed it before, and I presented quite plausible evidence for my thesis.
> Perhaps you could address the Akeldama discrepancy?
The money legally belonged to Judas, but there it was on the floor of the temple. It was illegal for the priests to just take it back (Mt. 27.6), so they bought a field in his name. It was Judas's money, and given the circumstances, the priests took Judas’s money and bought the field. It was Judas's money that bought it, but the priests are the ones who made the transaction. In both cases the field is called the Field of Blood, so both are talking about the same money, the same transaction, and the same plot of land.
> The use of omniscient third person narration more plausibly suggests fiction.
It doesn't more plausibly suggest fiction unless you can substantiate that plausibility. There were many Christians in Jerusalem by the time the Gospels were written. It's not implausible at all that some of them might have been "ear-witnesses" to the events being reported.
> Your “plausible reasons” are generalities, I don't dispute any of them. You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
Since the evidence supports that Matthew intends to be writing historiography, we look at his details to investigate whether they are intended historically or in some figurative sense.
* The Preparation Day (27.62) is a historical reference
* the chief priests and Pharisees had access to Pilate
* It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse
* It's historical that there was a Roman military presence there mostly as a peacekeeping presence
Logically and historically there is little reason to doubt that guards were assigned to the tomb.
> You fail to address the reason I cite to think Matthew is making this up.
Your thesis was "the available texts would give us sufficient reason to be deeply sceptical this resurrection ever occurred." As I have shown, your critique of the context is without support and therefore doesn't support your thesis.
* Luke never says or claims it was an eclipse
* The Roman release of a prisoner is historically plausible, though we know of no such custom outside of the Gospels
* The Barabbas story is couched in historical references as is the rest of the narrative. There is no noticeable or supportable "allegorical construction" to the pericope.
* The Gospel writers could plausibly in later years have had access to insider stories of what went on in inner chambers. Remember that the gospel had great appeal to the slave and servant population of the Empire.
* Matthew's guard story is plausibly historiography.
The evidence supports a historiographical interpretation of the events of the Passion and crucifixion. We have evidence to support such an interpretation, and no evidence to refute it (only speculation).
> In short: the resurrection story is part of a longer narrative which is replete with legendary material.
In short, there is no evidence to support the "replete with legendary material" accusation.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by Mmm Jeff » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm
I appreciate the discussion between you both. I would just like to interject and say that Matthew from the beginning uses information that no one would be privy to, such as the three magi's journey to baby Jesus. Isn't it more likely that Matthew is telling a legend which is why his resurrection story is way more epic?
- Mmm Jeff
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by jimwalton » Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:47 pm
Great comment and question, but the magi story doesn't indicate a legend. There's every reason to believe several things:
* There were members of Herod's court who later became Christians (Acts 13.1), as well as some of the Jewish religious leadership. The gospel had a particular appeal to the lower classes including servants and slaves. The beginning part of the story could have come from them.
In other words, there are plausible ways Matthew could have come upon this information, and that's it's historical, so it's not necessarily "likely" that Matthew is telling a legend.
* There were members of Herod's court who later became Christians (Acts 13.1), as well as some of the Jewish religious leadership. The gospel had a particular appeal to the lower classes including servants and slaves. The beginning part of the story could have come from them.
- * Matthew, as a disciple, knew Mary, Jesus's mother. The center part of the story could have come from her, including what the magi told her about their journey when they visited. After all, hospitality was a great value in the country. It's implausible to think that Mary would just let them walk away without conversation.
* It is recorded elsewhere that Magians arrived at historical moments. Seneca (Epistle 58) tells of Magians who came to Athens with sacrifices to Plato after his death. Cicero (De Divin. i.47) refers to the constellation from which, on the birth night of Alexander the Great, Magians foretold that the destroyer of Asia is born.
* The magi were warned in a dream to return by a different road. Since this verse is in the section of their visit to Mary, they may have told this to Joseph and Mary.
* Given the known political hostility between Persia and Rome at the time, and given what we know about the viciousness of Herod, being warned not to go back to Herod is plausible.
In other words, there are plausible ways Matthew could have come upon this information, and that's it's historical, so it's not necessarily "likely" that Matthew is telling a legend.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by Cicero » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:33 pm
> In Lk. 23.45, the term is ἐκλείποντος: "To fail; to cease; quit; stop." Same thing here. The term is used of eclipses but doesn't necessarily mean that.
This was the term I meant. It is the standard term for eclipse in the Greek literature (as BDAG's references clearly prove) and Matthew uses it despite having other words at his disposal. The core definition of a word is not always applicable in more restricted usages. This is illegitimate totality transfer, a basic semantic fallacy I’m surprised you’re unaware of.
You may wish to check out BDAG on this point.
> We have four accounts of the trial and passion event, and not one of them is constructed allegorically.
Which is why I’m not saying the whole trial/passion narrative is allegorical. However, the Barabbas theme clearly is. Whether or not the events are also plausible as history, the combined coincidence of the name and the scapegoat ritual is impossible to ignore. You offer no explanation for it.
> In both cases the field is called the Field of Blood, so both are talking about the same money, the same transaction, and the same plot of land.
This is absurdly contrived. I despair of asking you this yet again, but do you have any objective methodology whatsoever for determining whether or not a contradiction is a contradiction? Or is it just anything for which you can’t think of a far-fetched rationalisation?
And you don’t even deal with the contradiction of why Akeldama was so named.
> It's not implausible at all that some of them might have been "ear-witnesses" to the events being reported.
You have no evidence for it. It is ad hoc and therefore parsimony should be invoked.
> It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse
Your other points are again generalities, but I think this is meant as a response to my argument? If so, you have no evidence for it. If you can just make up “deceptive rumours” whenever you wish it’s very easy to explain implausibly motivated actions, which would lose us yet another strongly diagnostic criterium of ahistoricity. Matthew clearly implies the Jewish leaders’ actions were based on Jesus’ words.
> The Roman release of a prisoner is historically plausible, though we know of no such custom outside of the Gospels
You’ve not even come close to this. Until you actually produce a case of the repeated release of dangerous criminals at regular intervals in a mutinous province, don’t pretend you have comparable parallels.
This was the term I meant. It is the standard term for eclipse in the Greek literature (as BDAG's references clearly prove) and Matthew uses it despite having other words at his disposal. The core definition of a word is not always applicable in more restricted usages. This is illegitimate totality transfer, a basic semantic fallacy I’m surprised you’re unaware of.
You may wish to check out BDAG on this point.
> We have four accounts of the trial and passion event, and not one of them is constructed allegorically.
Which is why I’m not saying the whole trial/passion narrative is allegorical. However, the Barabbas theme clearly is. Whether or not the events are also plausible as history, the combined coincidence of the name and the scapegoat ritual is impossible to ignore. You offer no explanation for it.
> In both cases the field is called the Field of Blood, so both are talking about the same money, the same transaction, and the same plot of land.
This is absurdly contrived. I despair of asking you this yet again, but do you have any objective methodology whatsoever for determining whether or not a contradiction is a contradiction? Or is it just anything for which you can’t think of a far-fetched rationalisation?
And you don’t even deal with the contradiction of why Akeldama was so named.
> It's not implausible at all that some of them might have been "ear-witnesses" to the events being reported.
You have no evidence for it. It is ad hoc and therefore parsimony should be invoked.
> It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse
Your other points are again generalities, but I think this is meant as a response to my argument? If so, you have no evidence for it. If you can just make up “deceptive rumours” whenever you wish it’s very easy to explain implausibly motivated actions, which would lose us yet another strongly diagnostic criterium of ahistoricity. Matthew clearly implies the Jewish leaders’ actions were based on Jesus’ words.
> The Roman release of a prisoner is historically plausible, though we know of no such custom outside of the Gospels
You’ve not even come close to this. Until you actually produce a case of the repeated release of dangerous criminals at regular intervals in a mutinous province, don’t pretend you have comparable parallels.
- Cicero
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by jimwalton » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:47 pm
> It is the standard term for eclipse in the Greek literature (as BDAG's references clearly prove) and Matthew uses it despite having other words at his disposal.
Yep. I checked about 5 lexicons, and you're right that it's the standard word for eclipse. But, just fyi, Matthew doesn't use the term. You probably meant "Luke." I don't have an explanation. Robertson says that the word is commonly used for an eclipse, but doesn't necessarily imply that. Luke would know a technical eclipse was impossible at Passover, and he knew it was the Passover (Lk. 22.1). I don't have an explanation.
> However, the Barabbas theme clearly is.
It would be odd to insert a totally allegorical section smack in the middle of a historical narrative. It would especially be odd that all four Gospel writers did it, given that they approached the trial with very different agendas. I'm still not convinced it's so "clear."
> Whether or not the events are also plausible as history, the combined coincidence of the name and the scapegoat ritual is impossible to ignore. You offer no explanation for it.
The only explanation I can offer is that of historical narrative: it actually happened. The problem with your theory is that theologically Jesus was the scapegoat. For all of the Gospel writers to insert another scapegoat is contrary to what all four of them are postulating as the atonement that is in Jesus. The scapegoat theology comes from Leviticus 16.10. Jesus is the one who carried off the sins of the people. The scapegoat is a type of Christ. Your theory doesn't hold because the theological angle is all wrong. Hopefully that helps.
> This is absurdly contrived.
Au contraire. It's a commonality to both stories, as most of the elements are common to both. It's the same story from two perspectives, not a contradiction.
> And you don’t even deal with the contradiction of why Akeldama was so named.
You're going to have to explain this a little better. In both Matthew and Acts the field is called "Field of Blood." Locals have names for places that aren't the technical names. When i lived in Rochester, NY, the place where 590 met 390 was called "The Can of Worms." It seems that Judas was buried in a cemetery often used for foreigners, and the locals called it the Field of Blood. I don't get where the contradiction is that I'm supposed to explain.
> You have no evidence for it. It is ad hoc and therefore parsimony should be invoked.
We are not dealing with a deductive case, since this is history. This is an abductive case, and we are dealing with plausibilities based on the evidence we have. It is possible that Christians from Herod's court (Acts 13.1) or from the Jewish leadership (Lk. 23.50) were present and had heard the events in question.
> "It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse." Your other points are again generalities, but I think this is meant as a response to my argument? If so, you have no evidence for it.
I have not made it up; it's what the Gospels record (Mt. 27.64). My evidence is the written record.
> Matthew clearly implies the Jewish leaders’ actions were based on Jesus’ words.
He doesn't imply it but states it explicitly. Again, I don't see the problem towards which you seem to think you're pointing.
> Until you actually produce a case of the repeated release of dangerous criminals at regular intervals in a mutinous province
I don't need to produce repeated releases at regular intervals. I admitted that we know of no such "custom" (hence repeated and regular), but we do know of isolate cases, so that release is historically plausible though unverified.
Yep. I checked about 5 lexicons, and you're right that it's the standard word for eclipse. But, just fyi, Matthew doesn't use the term. You probably meant "Luke." I don't have an explanation. Robertson says that the word is commonly used for an eclipse, but doesn't necessarily imply that. Luke would know a technical eclipse was impossible at Passover, and he knew it was the Passover (Lk. 22.1). I don't have an explanation.
> However, the Barabbas theme clearly is.
It would be odd to insert a totally allegorical section smack in the middle of a historical narrative. It would especially be odd that all four Gospel writers did it, given that they approached the trial with very different agendas. I'm still not convinced it's so "clear."
> Whether or not the events are also plausible as history, the combined coincidence of the name and the scapegoat ritual is impossible to ignore. You offer no explanation for it.
The only explanation I can offer is that of historical narrative: it actually happened. The problem with your theory is that theologically Jesus was the scapegoat. For all of the Gospel writers to insert another scapegoat is contrary to what all four of them are postulating as the atonement that is in Jesus. The scapegoat theology comes from Leviticus 16.10. Jesus is the one who carried off the sins of the people. The scapegoat is a type of Christ. Your theory doesn't hold because the theological angle is all wrong. Hopefully that helps.
> This is absurdly contrived.
Au contraire. It's a commonality to both stories, as most of the elements are common to both. It's the same story from two perspectives, not a contradiction.
> And you don’t even deal with the contradiction of why Akeldama was so named.
You're going to have to explain this a little better. In both Matthew and Acts the field is called "Field of Blood." Locals have names for places that aren't the technical names. When i lived in Rochester, NY, the place where 590 met 390 was called "The Can of Worms." It seems that Judas was buried in a cemetery often used for foreigners, and the locals called it the Field of Blood. I don't get where the contradiction is that I'm supposed to explain.
> You have no evidence for it. It is ad hoc and therefore parsimony should be invoked.
We are not dealing with a deductive case, since this is history. This is an abductive case, and we are dealing with plausibilities based on the evidence we have. It is possible that Christians from Herod's court (Acts 13.1) or from the Jewish leadership (Lk. 23.50) were present and had heard the events in question.
> "It's plausible that they feared a deceptive rumor that would make things worse." Your other points are again generalities, but I think this is meant as a response to my argument? If so, you have no evidence for it.
I have not made it up; it's what the Gospels record (Mt. 27.64). My evidence is the written record.
> Matthew clearly implies the Jewish leaders’ actions were based on Jesus’ words.
He doesn't imply it but states it explicitly. Again, I don't see the problem towards which you seem to think you're pointing.
> Until you actually produce a case of the repeated release of dangerous criminals at regular intervals in a mutinous province
I don't need to produce repeated releases at regular intervals. I admitted that we know of no such "custom" (hence repeated and regular), but we do know of isolate cases, so that release is historically plausible though unverified.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by Cicero » Thu Jun 28, 2018 10:50 pm
1, 2, 4) "Could have" arguments don't count. Anything "could have" happened. Parsimony matters.
> being warned not to go back to Herod is plausible
Yes, but given that Joseph needs to end up Nazareth, and given that any sound interpretation must take into account the narrative purposes of the writer, and given that Luke achieves the same narrative purpose through incompatible means, the historical interpretation is highly implausible when internal evidence is taken into account.
> Cicero (De Divin. i.47) refers to the constellation from which, on the birth night of Alexander the Great, Magians foretold that the destroyer of Asia is born.
The existence of other clearly mythical birth stories proves this birth story isn't mythical? Okay...
> being warned not to go back to Herod is plausible
Yes, but given that Joseph needs to end up Nazareth, and given that any sound interpretation must take into account the narrative purposes of the writer, and given that Luke achieves the same narrative purpose through incompatible means, the historical interpretation is highly implausible when internal evidence is taken into account.
> Cicero (De Divin. i.47) refers to the constellation from which, on the birth night of Alexander the Great, Magians foretold that the destroyer of Asia is born.
The existence of other clearly mythical birth stories proves this birth story isn't mythical? Okay...
- Cicero
Re: The evidence does not point to a resurrection
by jimwalton » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:32 pm
> 1, 2, 4) "Could have" arguments don't count. Anything "could have" happened. Parsimony matters.
"Could have" arguments do count. This is not a deductive case; history is not deductive. It's an abductive case where we are weighing evidences and considering possibility or plausibility. "Could have" arguments count. I am showing possibility by regarding the evidence at hand. Given what we know from the biblical narrative and other historical records, these things easily could have happened. For instance, we KNOW Matthew knew Mary (Jn. 2.1-2; Acts 1.13-14); this is not a "could have," but a DID. Second, according to Mt. 2.11-12, the warning and the visit are juxtaposed, so "could have" is quite possible.
> Yes, but given that Joseph needs to end up Nazareth
"Needs"? The Gospels are a record of what DID happen, not manipulation to the narrative to make things happen. That kind of manipulation was part of a book called "The Passover Plot" (1965), claiming that Jesus manipulated his life to fit the prophecies. Even superficial examination shows the whole thing to be ludicrous. There's no evidence that the record was distorted to conform to prophecies. Rather, it's a later telling of what did happen.
> Luke achieves the same narrative purpose through incompatible means
?????
> The existence of other clearly mythical birth stories proves this birth story isn't mythical? Okay...
And, um, by what evidence do you know that the magian story is untrue? You have castigated me in the past (on the death of Judas) for not creating a clear distinction between history and legend. By what methodological principle have you determined the mythological nature of this reference?
"Could have" arguments do count. This is not a deductive case; history is not deductive. It's an abductive case where we are weighing evidences and considering possibility or plausibility. "Could have" arguments count. I am showing possibility by regarding the evidence at hand. Given what we know from the biblical narrative and other historical records, these things easily could have happened. For instance, we KNOW Matthew knew Mary (Jn. 2.1-2; Acts 1.13-14); this is not a "could have," but a DID. Second, according to Mt. 2.11-12, the warning and the visit are juxtaposed, so "could have" is quite possible.
> Yes, but given that Joseph needs to end up Nazareth
"Needs"? The Gospels are a record of what DID happen, not manipulation to the narrative to make things happen. That kind of manipulation was part of a book called "The Passover Plot" (1965), claiming that Jesus manipulated his life to fit the prophecies. Even superficial examination shows the whole thing to be ludicrous. There's no evidence that the record was distorted to conform to prophecies. Rather, it's a later telling of what did happen.
> Luke achieves the same narrative purpose through incompatible means
?????
> The existence of other clearly mythical birth stories proves this birth story isn't mythical? Okay...
And, um, by what evidence do you know that the magian story is untrue? You have castigated me in the past (on the death of Judas) for not creating a clear distinction between history and legend. By what methodological principle have you determined the mythological nature of this reference?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
32 posts
• Page 1 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Resurrection of Christ
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests