Was the resurrection made up just because Mark 16 doesn't mention it?

[AgnosticBoy]

POI argued in another thread that the resurrection is not mentioned in the earliest manuscripts for Mark 16, and it seems that he is using that to invalidate the resurrection or to say that it was made up.

Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

For Debate...
Does the absence of a resurrection in the original ending of Mark indicate that the resurrection story was made up? (my answer is in post #2)

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree that I Cor is an early record of the belief in the resurrection by the early (Jewish) Christians.Or messianic Jews, perhaps. But it does not match the gospel accounts. It is something different.

My point is that the 1Cor15 creed establishes a baseline belief of Christians, including the evangelists. Mark's ending is consistent- merely adding a supposed event that precedes the "appearances" everyone knew about, and with the apologetic intent of solidifying the (alleged) fact of a bodily Resurrection. The other Gospels added additional post-Resurrection narratives from the base established by Mark. They have nothing in common other than the parts taken from Mark, but these invented stories have both apologetic and theological intent.

Close. The resurrection was undoubtedly a belief of the first Jewish messianists and I will accept these were Jesus' followers. I hypothesis that this was a spirit resurrection. There are hints of this in the Gospels too - the spirit descending at the baptism, and hints that it left Jesus on the cross. Jesus died (perhaps) and was put in the tomb and for all we know stayed there. I would concur that the empty tomb as an add -on to turn this into an actual resurrection of the corpse, still with the wounds in for identification purposes, but those, too, were add -ons to an original story of an empty tomb and no explanation as in John, and an angel posted there to tell us the conclusion we should accept, in the Synoptic version.

This can be argued, but the existence of an alternative is reason enough that the Gospel versions do not have to be the only conclusion.

[fredonly]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #61]
"that this was a spirit resurrection"
Are you suggesting there was literally a spirit resurrection, or that this was the earliest belief?

Personally, I think there were some subjective experiences to some people, such as Peter. We can only guess how he interpreted them and (more importantly) how he spoke of them. These guys were not intellectuals, they were uneducated zealots whose world was shattered by the unexpected death of their guru.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #61]
"that this was a spirit resurrection"
Are you suggesting there was literally a spirit resurrection, or that this was the earliest belief?

Personally, I think there were some subjective experiences to some people, such as Peter. We can only guess how he interpreted them and (more importantly) how he spoke of them. These guys were not intellectuals, they were uneducated zealots whose world was shattered by the unexpected death of their guru.

Yes. I think the I Cor list indicates 2 things - it was NOT the resurrection as reported in the Gospels (though Luke tries to adapt his gospel and Acts to fit (notably Jesus appearing to Simon which isn't in any other gospel) and Paul equates his belated vision with those others (which the probably believed or at least hoped was true). One can't be totally sure, but since Mark has no appearances and the ones in Matthew, Luke and John are hugely contradictory, this bespeaks invention, there was no resurrection after the crucifixion (which I do credit) and at least I argue there is no good reason to believe the resurrection.

I think along your lines. I think the followers were shattered by Jesus crucifixion and the failure of his mission. I reckon is has to be Simon who first got the idea (with or without a visual image in his head) that Jesus' 'Spirit' had gone to heaven (or back to heaven when it came) and would return at a suitable time to finish the job. The 12 perked up when they heard this cope and bought into it as did the rest of the followers. Significantly James the boss of the Jesus party with Simon as his vice president, bought the idea last of all. And I always thought he was one of the 12. (James the less). So it's all a bit circumstantial and the Believer will dismiss this as 'opinion' and stick the overall story, edited and tidied up to make it work as a unified story, just as the mutually self -destructive nativities are peddled to us as a single coherent story and event.

As I say, we can't force the horse to drink, but there no reason for anyone to believe the Gospels unless they have only heard one side of the apologetics (which the Bible -side try to make sure is the only one we hear) or only wanted to hear one side.

[fredonly]

So it's all a bit circumstantial and the Believer will dismiss this as 'opinion' and stick the overall story, edited and tidied up to make it work as a unified story, just as the mutually self -destructive nativities are peddled to us as a single coherent story and event.

As I say, we can't force the horse to drink, but there no reason for anyone to believe the Gospels unless they have only heard one side of the apologetics (which the Bible -side try to make sure is the only one we hear) or only wanted to hear one side.

This brings to mind a relevant quote of William Lane Craig's:

"The historian ought first perhaps, as a methodological principle, to seek natural causes of the events under investigation; but when no natural causes can be found that plausibly account for the data and a supernatural hypothesis presents itself as part of the historical context in which the events occurred, then it would not seem to be illicit to prefer the supernatural explanation."

We've accounted for the events under investigation (the existence of the creed and the belief it entails, and the later narratives) through purely natural causes, so in this case it is illicit to choose a supernatural explanation.

[TRANSPONDER]

So it's all a bit circumstantial and the Believer will dismiss this as 'opinion' and stick the overall story, edited and tidied up to make it work as a unified story, just as the mutually self -destructive nativities are peddled to us as a single coherent story and event.

As I say, we can't force the horse to drink, but there no reason for anyone to believe the Gospels unless they have only heard one side of the apologetics (which the Bible -side try to make sure is the only one we hear) or only wanted to hear one side.

This brings to mind a relevant quote of William Lane Craig's:

"The historian ought first perhaps, as a methodological principle, to seek natural causes of the events under investigation; but when no natural causes can be found that plausibly account for the data and a supernatural hypothesis presents itself as part of the historical context in which the events occurred, then it would not seem to be illicit to prefer the supernatural explanation."

We've accounted for the events under investigation (the existence of the creed and the belief it entails, and the later narratives) through purely natural causes, so in this case it is illicit to choose a supernatural explanation.

No, no no. For a couple of reasons. First, one must accept the accounts in the gospels as reliable. They are not. Not be a long way. It takes faithbased denial to say they tell the same story.

If once accepts what is demonstrably so - that John has no angelic explanation and Mark has no appearance of Jesus at all - then other explanations suggest themselves.

Lane -Craig is making a fallacy: the Lord Liar or Lunatic fallacy which depends on the gospel accounts being reliable. There are other explanations ather than what the Gospels say.

For example, the miracles work well as faked miracles to impress the followers. Then WLC is doing the Holmes dictum which is not valid unless all the parameters are known. In the case of the gospels they are not, and it required denialist Faith in the reliability of the Gospel accounts to take Lane -Craig's argument seriously.r

[fredonly]

I guess my point wasn't clear. I was using Craig's position against him: the Gospels are evidence that need to be explained. The existence of these stories is easily explained as the imaginings of the authors, so (per Craig's principle) there's no valid basis to assume a miracle occurred.

That said, I think his principle is absurd- it rationalizes arguments from ignorance (if no natural explanation is at hand, we should assume it's supernatural). But it's notable that even WITH this principle, there's no basis to claim a miracle.

[TRANSPONDER]

I guess my point wasn't clear. I was using Craig's position against him: the Gospels are evidence that need to be explained. The existence of these stories is easily explained as the imaginings of the authors, so (per Craig's principle) there's no valid basis to assume a miracle occurred.

That said, I think his principle is absurd- it rationalizes arguments from ignorance (if no natural explanation is at hand, we should assume it's supernatural). But it's notable that even WITH this principle, there's no basis to claim a miracle.

Sorry. My apologies. My post gave the wrong impression. I agree with you and I add my 2cts to why, though WLC is a fiendish disputant, his arguments turn out to be rubbish dressed up in philosophical candy floss.