On the Missing Corpse of Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say Jesus hopped up and left that cave there, after he was dead.

Others'll say the missing corpse of Jesus can be better explained by the actions of the living.

For debate:
Which explanation is best? Why?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead.

This doesn't make any sense to me, unless you can explain some practical difference between the people who could falsify the legend being dead and the people who could falsify the legend living in a distant geographical area where no one would have contact with them.

The late dating of the Gospels is based almost entirely on a tautology. Most liberal Christian scholars argue that since Jesus Christ was not resurrected (falsifying Christianity as Paul noted would be the case), accounts of his resurrection had to be metaphor, made up by later writers. Their presuppositions dictate their conclusions. They further argue that the absence of remarks on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which would date the synoptics earlier than 70 AD is not really an absence, and point to a single prophetic teachings by Christ on the destruction of Jerusalem (the most important event in most of Jewish history) as evidence that the teachings were made up since as everyone knows, prophecy is bunk, even from the son of God, who they aren't real sure is the son of God in any meaningful way. So, I think your dates are wrong, but even if right, don't change what I think is the reasonable conclusion that the resurrection story is described as it happened.

There have been many arguments raised in these and other threads that you have avoided responding to. I think you should argue against the points actually raised, instead of constantly inventing these strawmen to attack.

[Goat]

A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead.

This doesn't make any sense to me, unless you can explain some practical difference between the people who could falsify the legend being dead and the people who could falsify the legend living in a distant geographical area where no one would have contact with them.

I would have to say that modern examples of 'legends' or urban legends being brought forth as true today show the claim of 'A.T. White (who ever that is) is incorrect.

There are examples such as the urban legend of 'It was in inside job for 9/11', and 'President Obama was not born in Hawaii' are modern examples of legends that are still believed by some today, even though the preponderance of evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

[Goat]

] A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead.

Please provide a source for this claim.. Also, show who this 'A. T. White' is.. and point ot the peer reviewed article that makes this claim so we can look at it in context.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

] A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead.

Please provide a source for this claim.. Also, show who this 'A. T. White' is.. and point ot the peer reviewed article that makes this claim so we can look at it in context.

Actually Starboard previously mentioned, and probably means to refer to A. N. Sherwin-White. Some brief googling suggests that Starboard Tack is seriously misrepresenting that scholar's work, and that Sherwin-White has been a victim of apologist quote-mining. I found this letter to William Lane Craig which seems to outline this problem in a very straightforward matter:

Dear Dr. Craig,

Can you please clarify an important topic related to gospel reliability? You often argue that one of the main reasons the gospels cannot consist mostly of legends (e.g. the burial account, the discovered empty tomb, etc.) is because the myth growth rate would be implausibly high. One of your main supports for this conclusion is the statement by ancient historian A.N. Sherwin-White that "even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition" (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pg. 190).

However, Sherwin-White says two pages later about Alexander the Great, "There was a remarkable growth of myth around his person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries, and the historical embroidery was often deliberate. But the hard core still remains, and an alternative but neglected source - or pair of sources - survived for the serious inquirer Arrian to utilize in the second century A.D."

In Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?, Kris D. Komarnitsky makes an interesting point about Sherwin-White's comments above. He says that given Sherwin-White's response to the Alexander the Great sources, Sherwin-White's convention of historical inquiry is really this: "When in some quarters the mythical tendency does prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition in the first two generations, there will always survive another less legendized source or sources to guide the later historian" (pg. 146).

Is it possible that Sherwin-White did not fully realize this ramification of his main convention of historical inquiry that you draw on? In other words, is it really reasonable to conclude that less legendized sources will always exist for the later historian to look at and act as a counterbalance to more legendized sources? Since Sherwin-White did not explicitly come out and say this, do you know of any ancient historian today that would stand by this statement? It seems especially problematic in those rare cases of religious leaders because it seems entirely possible that nobody but their followers would find it worthwhile to record the details of their life and death (in contrast to a more broadly known figure like Alexander the Great, where non-followers or less passionate followers might also write about him)?

-----End of question to Dr. Craig

(link)


See also here.

[Starboard Tack]

] A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead.

Please provide a source for this claim.. Also, show who this 'A. T. White' is.. and point ot the peer reviewed article that makes this claim so we can look at it in context.

Actually Starboard previously mentioned, and probably means to refer to A. N. Sherwin-White. Some brief googling suggests that Starboard Tack is seriously misrepresenting that scholar's work, and that Sherwin-White has been a victim of apologist quote-mining. I found this letter to William Lane Craig which seems to outline this problem in a very straightforward matter:

Dear Dr. Craig,

Can you please clarify an important topic related to gospel reliability? You often argue that one of the main reasons the gospels cannot consist mostly of legends (e.g. the burial account, the discovered empty tomb, etc.) is because the myth growth rate would be implausibly high. One of your main supports for this conclusion is the statement by ancient historian A.N. Sherwin-White that "even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition" (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, pg. 190).

However, Sherwin-White says two pages later about Alexander the Great, "There was a remarkable growth of myth around his person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries, and the historical embroidery was often deliberate. But the hard core still remains, and an alternative but neglected source - or pair of sources - survived for the serious inquirer Arrian to utilize in the second century A.D."

In Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box?, Kris D. Komarnitsky makes an interesting point about Sherwin-White's comments above. He says that given Sherwin-White's response to the Alexander the Great sources, Sherwin-White's convention of historical inquiry is really this: "When in some quarters the mythical tendency does prevail over the hard historical core of the oral tradition in the first two generations, there will always survive another less legendized source or sources to guide the later historian" (pg. 146).

Is it possible that Sherwin-White did not fully realize this ramification of his main convention of historical inquiry that you draw on? In other words, is it really reasonable to conclude that less legendized sources will always exist for the later historian to look at and act as a counterbalance to more legendized sources? Since Sherwin-White did not explicitly come out and say this, do you know of any ancient historian today that would stand by this statement? It seems especially problematic in those rare cases of religious leaders because it seems entirely possible that nobody but their followers would find it worthwhile to record the details of their life and death (in contrast to a more broadly known figure like Alexander the Great, where non-followers or less passionate followers might also write about him)?

-----End of question to Dr. Craig

(link)


See also here.

You make an accusation that I am "seriously misrepresenting" Sherwin-White's work. That is a slander, which you should retract. If you bothered to read the snippet above, you will see that the writer asks Craig whether Is it possible that Sherwin-White did not fully realize this ramification of his main convention of historical inquiry that you draw on? It is on the basis of this thin reed that you accuse me of distortion? Someone asks a question? And where is Dr. Craig's response to the question? I note you don't bother to include anyhthing from Craig that would validate your claim, which is understandable since you know your claim to be manufactured of whole cloth. It is pretty sad for you to stoop this low in trying to make an argument, which appears to be that I am willing to twist quotes or data to prove a point. Ironic that, since it is so obviously what you are doing, but perhaps we should let Dr. Craig speak for himself:

"For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well."

I also note that while you have repeated denied that the Gospels can be treated as history, the lone blogger you cite to make your distorted point says this about that subject in characterizing Dr. Sherwin-White's conclusions:

"What he (Sherwin-White) did argue is that it would usually take more than two generations for the legendary elements to so completely displace the historical facts as to make the gospels useless to the critical historian. But he made no attempt to identify where such displacement occurred in the gospels or which parts could be considered historical."

He also notes that Sherwin-White "admitted that "a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the events," (RSRLNT p. 187) but his response was that the gospels were no more obviously distorted than many of the sources that historians of ancient Rome must deal with on a regular basis. He did not assert that the gospels were historically factual. He asserted that they could be used to do history."

In other words, yes, the Gospels can be used as historical sources, and Dr. Craig has fairly portrayed Sherwin-White's work, contrary to your characterization. I have put in bold Craig's statement on the subject, and your blogger's acknowledgment that this is what Sherwin-White states, since the concordance has obviously eluded you.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

You make an accusation that I am "seriously misrepresenting" Sherwin-White's work. That is a slander, which you should retract. If you bothered to read the snippet above, you will see that the writer asks Craig whether Is it possible that Sherwin-White did not fully realize this ramification of his main convention of historical inquiry that you draw on? It is on the basis of this thin reed that you accuse me of distortion?

No, it is on the basis that you made this claim about Sherwin-White:

This has been studied, I believe by A.N. Sherwin-White. But the concept is common sensical. Legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive. A single lifespan is the minimum for this to happen, but it requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

This is a misrepresentation, because Sherwin-White does not hold this position. To the contrary, he claims this about Alexander the Great:

There was a remarkable growth of myth around his person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries, and the historical embroidery was often deliberate.

You suggest Shwerwin-White's research shows that "legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive." Yet Sherwin-White explicitly states that the legendization of Alexander the Great occurred within the lifetime of contemporaries. Thus you are misrepresenting him.

Someone asks a question? And where is Dr. Craig's response to the question? I note you don't bother to include anyhthing from Craig that would validate your claim, which is understandable since you know your claim to be manufactured of whole cloth. It is pretty sad for you to stoop this low in trying to make an argument, which appears to be that I am willing to twist quotes or data to prove a point.

I quoted the question to Craig because it was the first thing I found which contained relevant quotations from Sherwin-White, nothing more.

[Starboard Tack]

You make an accusation that I am "seriously misrepresenting" Sherwin-White's work. That is a slander, which you should retract. If you bothered to read the snippet above, you will see that the writer asks Craig whether Is it possible that Sherwin-White did not fully realize this ramification of his main convention of historical inquiry that you draw on? It is on the basis of this thin reed that you accuse me of distortion?

No, it is on the basis that you made this claim about Sherwin-White:

This has been studied, I believe by A.N. Sherwin-White. But the concept is common sensical. Legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive. A single lifespan is the minimum for this to happen, but it requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

This is a misrepresentation, because Sherwin-White does not hold this position. To the contrary, he claims this about Alexander the Great:

There was a remarkable growth of myth around his person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries, and the historical embroidery was often deliberate.

You suggest Shwerwin-White's research shows that "legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive." Yet Sherwin-White explicitly states that the legendization of Alexander the Great occurred within the lifetime of contemporaries. Thus you are misrepresenting him.

Someone asks a question? And where is Dr. Craig's response to the question? I note you don't bother to include anyhthing from Craig that would validate your claim, which is understandable since you know your claim to be manufactured of whole cloth. It is pretty sad for you to stoop this low in trying to make an argument, which appears to be that I am willing to twist quotes or data to prove a point.

I quoted the question to Craig because it was the first thing I found which contained relevant quotations from Sherwin-White, nothing more.

As you noted above, I wrote:

(legendization) requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

Sherwin-White stated:

it would usually take more than two generations for the legendary elements to so completely displace the historical facts as to make the gospels useless to the critical historian

Since these two statements are equivalent, your accusation is clear slander, as anyone with a honest mind can see for themselves. Fuzzy, in this case you have combined your usual muddled thinking with a willingness to use dishonesty to make a point. The sole point appears to be that I distort the facts, yet when you are caught doing precisely that, you hunker down and persist in an obviously specious assertion.

Very sad.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

As you noted above, I wrote:

(legendization) requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

Sherwin-White stated:

it would usually take more than two generations for the legendary elements to so completely displace the historical facts as to make the gospels useless to the critical historian

Since these two statements are equivalent, your accusation is clear slander, as anyone with a honest mind can see for themselves. Fuzzy, in this case you have combined your usual muddled thinking with a willingness to use dishonesty to make a point. The sole point appears to be that I distort the facts, yet when you are caught doing precisely that, you hunker down and persist in an obviously specious assertion.

Very sad.

If you are choosing that statement out of the contradictory ones you have made, that is fine. I take it you withdraw this statement and admit your error?

This has been studied, I believe by A.N. Sherwin-White. But the concept is common sensical. Legends can't occur when survivors who can contradict the legend are still alive. A single lifespan is the minimum for this to happen, but it requires a couple of generations for really big legends to gain traction.

I have bolded the most problematic part. Do you agree that your statement above is false and not supported by Sherwin-White? If you have simply misspoken then I withdraw any accusation of misrepresentation.

As long as we can both agree with Sherwin-White that legendization within the lifetime of survivors is completely possible, I believe that is the important point.

Perhaps the formation of "really big" legends usually does not occur quickly. In the case of Jesus, then, the formation of "really big" legends could be regarded as unusual. However, it is not impossible and was in fact known to happen. It is certainly a far less unusual occurence than a dead person coming back to life after several days.

[Flail]

Excellent points here. And as to the 500 witnesses, doesn't that smack of fiction or exaggeration; why didn't Paul name and identify a few of these supposed witnesses and explore their specific first hand witness reports? But I suppose after more than three decades there wasn't much point.

While he did name a number of people who interacted with the risen Christ, you're right he didn't recite the names of any others who also interacted with him through direct withness. But I don't think that is too surprising. Paul states that some of those 500 are now dead, but most are alive, which is what you would expect after the passage of time. If he was making it up, why not name a bunch of dead people as witnesses, or list fictiousness names that couldn't be verified? Liars do that sort of thing, don't they?

And as to legend; why did it take 35 years for Paul to write and 60 years for the Gospel writers? Seems about the right amount of time for legend to grow by word of mouth, gossip and rumor and for anything factual to be confused and controverted to the extent that fiction writers and believers bent on propaganda would be free to stretch the truth. With something so amazing as a virgin birth and a resurrection, one would expect something to be reported and recorded by identifiable witnesses more contemporaneous to the events.

A couple of points. Legendization has been studied by A.T. White, and found that it really can't occur until all the people who could falsify the legend are dead. In 1 Cor, Paul refers to a creed he received within 5 years of the resurrection. He names people still alive who saw the resurrected Christ. He states that there are hundreds of other witnesses. He acts as if he is talking to people who are well aware of the truth of what he is saying because what he says is presented in a matter of fact, "here's what you all know happened" kind of way. For an example of what the Gospels would look like if subjected to legendization enhancements, see the Gospel of Peter. In it, the witnesses are waiting outside the tomb for Christ to be risen, the tomb opens, and two angels with heads that reach to the heavens help out a risen Christ whose head reaches up beyond the heavens, with the cross in tow that speaks. Now that is legend. Instead we have a story of women, who were deemed so unreliable that they couldn't give testimony to anything, who are the first to see not a Jesus Christ walking out of a tomb, but an empty tomb, with the linens carefully folded up in a corner. If the Gospels are made up, they should read like they were made up, but they don't. They read like factual accounts from witnesses who wanted to get their recollection of the story on paper before they died, which is why it took awhile for the actual writing to occur.

You also have to remember that this was not a literate society. Memory was perfectly sufficient for the recordation of most history, and again, most all scholars believe that the Gospel writers used earlier oral sources to supplement their own recollections, or those who accounts they were recording.

The late dating of the Gospels is based almost entirely on a tautology. Most liberal Christian scholars argue that since Jesus Christ was not resurrected (falsifying Christianity as Paul noted would be the case), accounts of his resurrection had to be metaphor, made up by later writers. Their presuppositions dictate their conclusions. They further argue that the absence of remarks on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which would date the synoptics earlier than 70 AD is not really an absence, and point to a single prophetic teachings by Christ on the destruction of Jerusalem (the most important event in most of Jewish history) as evidence that the teachings were made up since as everyone knows, prophecy is bunk, even from the son of God, who they aren't real sure is the son of God in any meaningful way. So, I think your dates are wrong, but even if right, don't change what I think is the reasonable conclusion that the resurrection story is described as it happened.

You can read the Resurrection story and take it in any number of ways whether metaphoric, allegorical or philosophical, but any literal take on it is just not reasonably available to us in my view. We don't have enough facts; we don't have any facts, and as to the supernatural claims, these are accounts which defy common sense, logic and every reasonable, natural circumstantial explanation. All we have are stories and claims; and the only way, IMO, one could consider them as 'literally true', is with strong and repeated doses of indoctrinated dogma and emotional ritualizing.

Having read literally thousands of inaccurate 'eye witness' accounts and law enforcement investigative reports in my day, the mere suggestion that any of the long 'after the fact' hearsay Biblical Resurrection accounts are accurate, indicates indoctrination rather than careful, thoughtful examination.

[Starboard Tack]

You can read the Resurrection story and take it in any number of ways whether metaphoric, allegorical or philosophical, but any literal take on it is just not reasonably available to us in my view.

We don't have enough facts; we don't have any facts, and as to the supernatural claims, these are accounts which defy common sense, logic and every reasonable, natural circumstantial explanation. All we have are stories and claims; and the only way, IMO, one could consider them as 'literally true', is with strong and repeated doses of indoctrinated dogma and emotional ritualizing.

I think that is quite reasonable as long as you begin your consideration from the standpoint that supernatural intervention is a priori disallowed, either because it doesn't happen, or can't happen. However, a physical bodily resurrection best explains the background data, and alternature theories are mainly unsupported by any evidence and only preferred by some because however unsupported they are, they are considered superior because they deny the involvement of God.

Perhaps this is where faith comes in. Faith allows the Christian to accept the best explanation that fits the facts, where a lack of faith requires that the best explanation be rejected. Makes me wonder who has the greater faith - the Christian or the critic?

Having read literally thousands of inaccurate 'eye witness' accounts and law enforcement investigative reports in my day, the mere suggestion that any of the long 'after the fact' hearsay Biblical Resurrection accounts are accurate, indicates indoctrination rather than careful, thoughtful examination.

A favored explanation if you disallow God a priori. The problem with this conclusion is multiple.

First, the assertion that the Gospels were written 'long after the fact' is a formulation based on a tautology. The destruction of the Temple is only mentioned as a future event that hasn't happened yet, but since the presupposition is that prophecy is bunk and Jesus was not the actual son of God, such passages could only have been written after A.D. 70. But that is no argument at all, merely the conclusion which is contained in the premise - prophecy is bunk.

Second, eye witness testimony is frequently suspect, but what is described in the Gospels is not an eye witness seeing an event. It is scores of witnesses veiwing multiple events over days. Not the same thing, although equated as such by critics.

Finally, the evidence that God exists is both logically superior and more convincing than the evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, claims that supernatural intervention can't happen remains an assertion that is inferior, IMHO, to the assertion that he does exist.