Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?

[Regens Küchl]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

[Haven]

There is parallel in Chapter 9 of Mark (it's found in Luke as well) that you are probably familiar with. Admittedly, Matthew wrote a much smoother Greek than did Mark, which was really very rough, but Mark’s Greek comes to the point better than Matthew’s, so I prefer Mark’s. Both are describing the same event. In Mark 9 Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God present with power.� The key word is "present."

I don't think Mark 9:1 is necessarily an exact equivalent of Matthew 16:28. The context of the saying in Mark 9 is clearly the transfiguration (as verses 2-8 clearly indicate), although Mark 8 mentions some of the content found in Matthew 16 (such as Peter's doubt). In contrast, the context of Matthew 16 is Peter's doubt (as in Mark 8), the sufferings of the disciples, and Jesus' return (verse 27 even mentions Jesus' return explicitly). The transfiguration is mentioned in Matthew 17.

It's also worth noting that Mark 8:38 hints at the second coming as well, so even Mark 9 might also refer to the return of Jesus.

Regarding my previous post, I don’t believe myself that Jesus was referring to the entire human race, and I didn’t mean anyone to take what I wrote as implying the entire human race, only that some people would still be living when Christ established his kingdom.

Again, as I asked earlier, why would this even need to be stated? A second coming after human extinction seems pointless.

It’s an ambiguous saying, I grant you that. Much of what Christ said, on first, or even fifth reading, was ambiguous. Biblical scholars spend a lifetime studying the Bible, and there is still more to learn.

The context makes it less ambiguous: he's talking about his return to take power, and of course, this didn't happen when he said it did.

Yes, there is always more to learn . Still, I think this issue is pretty clear (and I'm not aware of any non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars who think it isn't).

Edited for clarity. Yes, the passages are parallel, but my point is that they aren't equivalent.

[Danmark]

.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

When was "Matthew" written? Perhaps forty or fifty years (or more) after the supposed conversation?

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy? Additionally, "Matthew" is in Greek while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, so translations were involved (still maintaining absolute accuracy?). AND, the earliest existing copies of "Matthew" are from centuries later. Was the copying of copies unerringly accurate also?

I wouldn't "hang my hat" on that one – though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

Good points. As I've written before, one need to no more than than simple read the common sense of the words and have no trouble with this supposed contradiction between "within the next 40 years" and "not knowing the exact day or hour."

Illustrations:
"We'll see you next year, sometime in the Spring."
"We've scheduled that for roughly four years from now, but the exact date has not been set."
"We've got to get together sometime next week."

I do not understand why there should be any mystery about this. When two provisions of a law appear to contradict each other, the first rule of statutory construction is to see if they can be harmonized without doing violence to the meaning of either.

It makes perfect sense for Jesus to say, "I'll be back while some of you are still alive, but be ready. Be ever vigilant and prepared, because you will not know the exact hour or the day."

Your examples all have rather firm dates fixed. Not entirely firm, but rather firm. "Next Spring," "four years from now," "sometime next week." Those all have a general date implied.

Jesus didn't say, "I'll be back." You've combined two contradictory sayings into one saying that never took place. LOL Don't say I twist things!

I still see a contradiction. It would do the author or editor of Matthew no good to have Jesus contradict himself.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Are you quibbling about the time frame in my example? Fine. I'll give you more:

"I will absolutely, positively be undeniably and reliably dead within the next 50 years.
I won't be just merely dead; I'll really be most sincerely dead.
But concerning that day and hour no one knows."

"I'm going to see the Olympics in person before I die. May take forty years. Not sure when, but I'm going.

Are you really objecting because there is a single verse separating the two statements?
Talk about LOL!

34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

In fact, it is even clearer because we can omit the poetic flourishes:

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
But concerning that day and hour no one knows....

Or... you can resort to page after page of convoluted 'theological' explanations as you did and still come up with, "It isn't clear."

I grant that YOU may still see a contradiction.
I see no contradiction between a watch and a calendar.
They are simply different gauges to keep track of the same thing.

[Haven]

Valid questions.

The latest dating techniques place the writing of Matthew at 40 CE, early enough for an eyewitness to have written it. The 26th chapter of Matthew has been dated to 40 CE.

40 CE? I have never heard such an early date for Matthew (the second of the Synoptics to be written), not even from the most zealous fundamentalists. What dating techniques establish such an early date for Matthew? Where are these techniques cited? Which publications detail these techniques?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that Matthew was written within ten years of the crucifixion is certainly extraordinary (and seems to contradict other things known about Biblical writings and early Christianity, such as the evolution of the resurrection concept from Paul's spiritual rebirth [as seen in 1 Cor. 15] to the gospels' ethereal, quasi-physical appearances to the third-century church's belief in a very physical resurrection).

[Zzyzx]

.

I understand your objections, but because we are talking about one gospel - Matthew - and one written less than 10 years after the fact, I still see a contradiction.

Choosing 40 CE date is opinion that is not anywhere near agreed by scholars and theologians. The Catholic Encyclopedia (quoted in New Advent) says the following:

In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e.g. Patrizi) go back to 36-39 or (e.g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenæus and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15: "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place": here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the reader to take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." As there would have been no occasion for a like warning had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken place, Matthew must have written his Gospel before the year 70 (about 65-70 according to Batiffol). Protestant and Liberalistic critics also are greatly at variance as regards the time of the composition of the First Gospel. Zahn sets the date about 61-66, and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer, Holtzmann (in his earlier writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean, before 70, Bartiet about 68-69; W. Allen and Plummer, about 65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in his later writings), soon after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about 70-75; Renan, later than 85, Réville, between 69 and 96, Jülicher, in 81-96, Montefiore, about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about 130-34. The following are some of the arguments advanced to prove that the First Gospel was written several years after the Fall of Jerusalem. When Jesus prophesies to His Apostles that they will be delivered up to the councils, scourged in the synagogues, brought before governors and kings for His sake; that they will give testimony of Him, will for Him be hated and driven from city to city (x, 17-23) and when He commissions them to teach all nations and make them His disciples, His words intimate, it is claimed, the lapse of many years, the establishment of the Christian Church in distant parts, and its cruel persecution by the Jews and even by Roman emperors and governors. Moreover, certain sayings of the Lord--such as: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" (16:18), "If he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the Church" (xviii, 10)--carry us to a time when the Christian Church was already constituted, a time that could not have been much earlier than the year 100. The fact is, that what was predicted by Our Lord, when He announced future events and established the charter and foundations of His Church, is converted into reality and made coexistent with the writing of the First Gospel. Hence, to give these arguments a probatory value it would be necessary either to deny Christ's knowledge of the future or to maintain that the teachings embodied in the First Gospel were not authentic.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Obviously there is disagreement among scholars (acknowledged by the Catholic Encyclopedia). Perhaps an explanation is in order regarding why many of the above opinions should be set aside in favor of an early date (other than personal preference).

I concede Jesus no doubt spoke Aramaic, and he almost surely spoke Hebrew. Whether he understood any Greek is not known. I also concede that things do get lost and mistaken in translation.

Thank you. Let's add textual matter may get lost and mistaken (or changed) when copies are made of copies of copies – all by hand -- countless times over centuries.

If we were comparing a saying in Mark to Matthew or Matthew to Luke, etc. I could see your reasoning more clearly. However, even if the book had been edited, what would an editor gain by contradicting himself?

Are we to assume that gospels were edited only one time and by one person?


Can we also address:

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy?

though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Even if you don't believe in Christ, surely you can see a contradiction in saying he announced that his Second Coming would be "soon" and his statement in Matthew 24:36 in which he said, "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

As I already pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any contradiction here. Imagine the following conversation:

Me: Truly I say to you, I will be the President of the United States while some of those here are still alive.
You: But when, exactly?
Me: No one can know the precise day or hour.

No contradiction- saying that something will occur in a broad span of time (including particular people's lifetime), and then further saying that no one can know the day or hour (i.e. specific time) is perfectly consistent, and a natural interpretation here. Can you think of any convincing reasons to reject such an interpretation?

[LilytheTheologian]

Valid questions.

The latest dating techniques place the writing of Matthew at 40 CE, early enough for an eyewitness to have written it. The 26th chapter of Matthew has been dated to 40 CE.

40 CE? I have never heard such an early date for Matthew (the second of the Synoptics to be written), not even from the most zealous fundamentalists. What dating techniques establish such an early date for Matthew? Where are these techniques cited? Which publications detail these techniques?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that Matthew was written within ten years of the crucifixion is certainly extraordinary (and seems to contradict other things known about Biblical writings and early Christianity, such as the evolution of the resurrection concept from Paul's spiritual rebirth [as seen in 1 Cor. 15] to the gospels' ethereal, quasi-physical appearances to the third-century church's belief in a very physical resurrection).

As others have now pointed out, there is disagreement among theologians regarding the dating of the gospels, though all are now thought to be earlier writings than was previously thought. Just how early, however, no one really knows.

It is James Crossley in THE DATE OF MARK'S GOSPEL who dates Mark to 40 CE. Other scholars have dated the 26th chapter of Matthew to 40 CE. However, it seems to me that Matthew used Mark as a source, so Mark would have had to have been written first. B.J. Incigneri dates the gospel of Mark to late in 71 CE, after Titus' defeat of the Jews. P.M. Casey agrees with Crossley, however, on the date of 40 CE. One thing that must be kept in mind is that Crossley was a doctoral student of Casey's, so there is bias there. Crossley goes so far as to date Mark to the mid-30s to the mid-40s. All-in-all, most, certainly not all, biblical scholars now date the gospels much earlier than previously. Though not all will go as far as Crossley, most date them as having been written within the lifetime of some of the apostles. Udo Schnelle,however, Professor of NT in the Theological Faculty at Halle in Wittenberg, dates the gospel of Luke to circa 90 CE. Other scholars have actually dated John first, at about 40 CE, with Matthew next at 40-50 CE. Scholars who hold to the earlier dating usually date Luke last. I, myself, find some second century anachronisms present in Matthew that would be against such an early dating. For example, talk about praying in the synagogue, for one thing. Until the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, Jews did not pray in the synagogues.

I did not forget the problems posed by Matthew 24. I have had to work today on student papers, and will probably have to do so until the weekend. I was, however, able to look at the original Greek of the verses in question, and the specific Greek word used each time Christ speaks of a "generation," and I think I understand things much better now. This understanding, whether you agree with it or not (both are fine, this is discussion, after all) requires a rather long post, perhaps multiple posts, which I will write as soon as I can, hopefully on or before the coming weekend. I am very interested in what you have to say and what light you can shed on what I discovered.

Haven, I must respectfully disagree with the term "quasi-physical appearances." To a first century Jew, "resurrection" meant a literal resurrection of the physical body. It meant flesh and blood, and bone. Christ even had to prove his was flesh-and-blood to Thomas by allowing him to touch him and examine his wounds and to some of the others by frying and eating fish. I am aware that Paul spoke of a "spiritual body," but at no time did Paul say or even intimate that this body was not a "real" body (though I can see it sounds like it might have, calling it "spiritual"). Resurrection to a first century Jew definitely meant the restoration of life to a flesh-and-blood body.

[Danmark]

As others have now pointed out, there is disagreement among theologians regarding the dating of the gospels, though all are now thought to be earlier writings than was previously thought. Just how early, however, no one really knows.

Yes, no one knows; however it is misleading to suggest anything other than that the majority of scholars disagree with Crossley, who appears to be an outlier. Crossley's thesis was published in 2004. 11 years later there is still consensus among scholars that Mark was written about 70 CE*, even after Crossley's thesis has been considered.
In a very detailed and apparently objective review that is not Dismissive of Crossley, Lois Fuller appears to have given an even handed review.
http://jgrchj.net/reviews/2.R1-Fuller%2 ... ossley.pdf

It appears that Crossley, a conservative fundamentalist, does not rely on any technical dating techniques. Rather, his focus is the extent to which Jesus was strictly Torah observant. After praising much of Crossley's effort, the critic observes:

The thesis itself is not so easy to accept. If the Gospel was written
before the Gentile mission, when all believers were Jews or proselytes,
why does Mark have to explain all his Aramaic terms and so much
Jewish custom? And why are there so many Latinisms in Mark, including
the explanation of two lepta being equivalent to a quadrans (12.42),
a coin only circulated in the western part of the Roman Empire? These
items have usually been taken to point to a largely Gentile and perhaps
Roman audience for the Gospel. Crossley does not address this.
Crossley argues that since Jesus was Torah observant in other parts of
Mark’s Gospel, he must also be so in Mark 7. Not all would allow his
premise, and even with it, his conclusion is uncertain. To say that nothing
going into the mouth can defile a person means only nothing kosher,
would certainly have needed clarification for an audience that needed
information about ritual washing customs. In declaring all foods clean,
surely Jesus is following his usual strategy of pursuing the spirit rather
than the letter of the law, and if this aside is something Mark has inferred,
his book may have to be dated after the Jerusalem council. It is
also unclear why Matthew and Luke should be so keen to depict Jesus
as Torah observant and to suppress ideas that he permitted laxity. There
have been arguments that Matthew has this attitude, but for Luke, it is
unlikely. [emphasis applied]
http://jgrchj.net/reviews/2.R1-Fuller%2 ... ossley.pdf


__________________
*Scholars have long held that Mark was the first of our Gospels to be written, and that it probably appeared sometime around the year 70 CE. Some scholars think it might have been a bit before that (I used to think that); more scholars think that it might have been a bit after. But almost everyone agrees that Mark dates to around the end of the Jewish War (66-70 CE). The only ones who consistently have argued otherwise are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, who very much want Mark, our earliest Gospel, to be closer to the time of Jesus.

When I said that the only scholars “who consistently� argued for an earlier date I didn’t make myself clear. The reason I said “consistently� is because the only group of scholars that regularly have argued for an early date of Mark are fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals. There are other (non-fundamentalists/non-evangelical) scholars who have *occasionally* argued otherwise. But critical scholars have not *consistently* argued this. Several readers have mentioned Maurice Casey and James Crossley as exceptions — i.e., critical scholars who have urged an earlier date. Yes indeed. No one (yet) has mentioned John A. T. Robinson (Redating the NT), another noteworthy exception — but he is certainly worth knowing about too. These scholars are bright, informed, learned critical scholars. They have not won too many converts to their views — but they do exist! The consistent critical view, though, is that Mark was written around 70 CE or so.
http://ehrmanblog.org/clarification/

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 187 by Danmark]

I, myself don't accept, without more proof, the date of 40 CE, and I put the writing of both Mark and Matthew sometime between 40-70 CE, though I do believe both were written prior to the destruction of the temple.

A redactor could have inserted the explanations for the Aramaic, etc. when the book was being used for a non-Near Eastern Church and for pagan, not Jewish converts. Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations? When it was used for a non-Jewish one, many of the Jewish customs and the Aramaic sayings would have to be explained to them since the non-Jews would not be familiar with them.

[Zzyzx]

.

I, myself don't accept, without more proof, the date of 40 CE, and I put the writing of both Mark and Matthew sometime between 40-70 CE, though I do believe both were written prior to the destruction of the temple.

The extreme range of suggested dates for gospels range from 40 CE to 130 CE and most scholars and theologians seem to favor 65 to 100 CE. As the Catholic encyclopedia says, "In our day opinion is rather divided". New evidence doesn't seem to be new or convincing (or even evidence – but rather argument that hasn't been accepted by the scholarly community).

Thus, scholarly preference seems to be that the writings date from thirty to seventy years after alleged events and conversations they describe – and would make it extremely unlikely that writers (whoever they may have been) knew Jesus or witnessed his feats or preaching.

If (since) gospel writers (whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians) were unlikely to have witnessed events and conversations, there is reason to be concerned about their sources of information – which are unknown. Those sources could be nothing more substantial than folklore, legend, myth, oral tradition, embellished tales, etc. Can anyone show that sources were reliable?

In addition, gospel writers copied from each other or from a common (unknown) source. Thus, casting further doubt upon their reliability – and certainly upon their value as independent accounts.

In the real world, basing decisions on such questionable information would generally be deemed unwise.

[Inigo Montoya]

If it was demonstrated that the gospels were written within 5 minutes of these events, by known and named authors, you're still left with a nasty pickle.

The choice is the same to make. Do I ignore a lifetime of experience and a world's history absent of such majicks just in this one instance?

Billions apparently do, for reasons that short circuit my mind.