New Testament scholarship

[Phantasmal]

Even Erhmann agrees the disciples believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. I just saw him in a youtube debate last week. As a historian he just can't say a miracle occurred.

If a mass hallucinations occurred, people could have just checked the tomb or internment site for the body. People weren't anymore gullible then than they are now, Surely someone could have checked.

If we had to rely on first hand, real time, eyewitness testimony, we would have to give up the academic discipline of ancient history. Herodotus was not an eyewitness to the Greco-Persian wars, but he is our best source of information about them.

Having someone who intimately knew the eyewitness disciples and reported what they saw and told him is a good primary source for historical scholarship.

Peter and James were still around when Paul was writing letters and doing his mission work. If Paul were lying about what they told him they would have heard about it.

Paul chose to live a difficult and dangerous life, facing shipwrecks, pirates, and prisons. I don't think he would have risked his life for lies he supposedly put into the mouths of the disciples he knew.

I think an NDE is the most rational explanation that comport to the facts.

Ehrman position is that the writers believed that the followers of Jesus believed they saw Jesus. This belief does not translate into an actual first hand account of the event.

There is a lot of speculation surrounding the Gospels, but the bottom line is the Gospels were written by anonymous sources 30-100 years after the time Jesus supposedly lived.

 

[Cypress]

Ehrman position is that the writers believed that the followers of Jesus believed they saw Jesus.

They told Paul what they saw. And there is no reason to believe Paul put lies in their mouths for reasons I elaborated.

This belief does not translate into an actual first hand account of the event.

There is a lot of speculation surrounding the Gospels, but the bottom line is the Gospels were written by anonymous sources 30-100 years after the time Jesus supposedly lived.

If we cannot acquire knowledge except through real-time first hand eyewitness accounts, then we will have to completely abandon the study of ancient history.

Scholars of antiquity almost alway depends on primary and secondary sources. Paul would be a primary source by the standards of historical scholarship because he knew the witnesses and spoke to them.

 

[Phantasmal]

They told Paul what they saw. And there is no reason to believe Paul put lies in their mouths for reasons I elaborated.


If we cannot acquire knowledge except through real-time first hand eyewitness accounts, then we will have to completely abandon the study of ancient history.

Scholars of antiquity almost always depends on primary and secondary sources. Paul would be a primary source by the standards of historical scholarship.

They can always be considered, you just can’t rely on them. There’s a reason they aren’t used in court cases. The further removed from the original source, the less reliable.

 

[Cypress]

They can always be considered, you just can’t rely on them. There’s a reason they aren’t used in court cases. The further removed from the original source, the less reliable.

You're right

Yes, in a perfect world we would have the orginal eyewitness testimony of events from thousands of years ago.

The study of ancient history isn't like a criminal court case. If it were, we would just have to give up studying ancient history.

I think the ideas that there were mass hallucinations, or that Paul totally lied about what the eyewitness disciples told him just don't fit the facts.

But I think a rational case can be made that is both medically and scientifically sound and fits the widely-agreed to facts

 

[Phantasmal]

You're right

Yes, in a perfect world we would have the orginal eyewitness testimony of events from thousands of years ago.

The study of ancient history isn't like a criminal court case. If it were, we would just have to give up studying ancient history.

I think the ideas that there were mass hallucinations, or that Paul totally lied about what the eyewitness disciples told him just don't fit the facts.

But I think a rational case can be made that is both medically and scientifically sound and fits the widely-agreed to facts

Facts? Are you saying that 500 did indeed see the risen Jesus? Paul didn’t believe the resurrection was a physical one, so why would he claim 500 experienced it?

Ancients writers were known to embellish things, I think this was an embellishment.

 

[Daylight63]

Not sure what you're getting at here. The very earliest Christians were willing to die before denying that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you know a lot of people willing to die for an idea they arent sure is true?

Correct. When someone is willing to die for a belief they REALLY BELIEVE IT. That does not, however, mean what they believe is TRUE.

To wit:

A lot of people willingly died for Jim Jones in 1978
A goodly number of people willingly died with and for David Koresh in 1993
The followers of Heaven's Gate donned their Nikes and went to space for their belief.
The list goes on. And on.

Belief is a super powerful thing. But no matter how strong the belief it can't make something true all by itself.

 

[Yakuda]

Correct. When someone is willing to die for a belief they REALLY BELIEVE IT. That does not, however, mean what they believe is TRUE.

To wit:

A lot of people willingly died for Jim Jones in 1978
A goodly number of people willingly died with and for David Koresh in 1993
The followers of Heaven's Gate donned their Nikes and went to space for their belief.
The list goes on. And on.

Belief is a super powerful thing. But no matter how strong the belief it can't make something true all by itself.

Oh I see what you mean, like climate change. Got it

 

[Cypress]

Facts? Are you saying that 500 did indeed see the risen Jesus? Paul didn’t believe the resurrection was a physical one, so why would he claim 500 experienced it?

Ancients writers were known to embellish things, I think this was an embellishment.

I specifically and intentionally did not include the 500 number as one of the generally agreed on facts in the OP.

Yes, anyone who studies history has to read critically to mine any ancient textual evidence for reliable information and distinguish it from hyperbole, embellishment, and allegory. Anyone who reads Herodotus has to do the same thing - read it critically to mine the reliable information.

The 500 number is irrelevant to the generally agreed upon facts listed in the OP. It doesn't fundamentally matter if it was 500 or 20. We have direct textual testimony from Paul that at least some of the apostles told him what they saw.

If Paul was lying and putting words in their mouths, they would have heard about it. Peter and James were still alive and in contact with Paul. We know Paul intimately knew Jesus' brother James and Peter.

If Paul completely fabricated the entire story, it's hard to understand why he chose to live a risky and very dangerous life to promote something he knew was a fabrication.

 

[Cypress]

Correct. When someone is willing to die for a belief they REALLY BELIEVE IT. That does not, however, mean what they believe is TRUE.

To wit:

A lot of people willingly died for Jim Jones in 1978
A goodly number of people willingly died with and for David Koresh in 1993
The followers of Heaven's Gate donned their Nikes and went to space for their belief.
The list goes on. And on.

Belief is a super powerful thing. But no matter how strong the belief it can't make something true all by itself.

But it is strong evidence that undermines previous claims that the disciples conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth, while drinking carafes of wine at a tavern.

Last night on YouTube I saw the prominent atheist Alex O'Connor say that he has been convinced that there are actually really good arguments which undermine claims the gospel resurrection accounts are complete fabrications, or legends inserted later into the canonical writings.

 

[Phantasmal]

I specifically and intentionally did not include the 500 number as one of the generally agreed on facts in the OP.

Yes, anyone who studies history has to read critically to mine any ancient textual evidence for reliable information and distinguish it from hyperbole, embellishment, and allegory. Anyone who reads Herodotus has to do the same thing - read it critically to mine the reliable information.

The 500 number is irrelevant to the generally agreed upon facts listed in the OP. It doesn't fundamentally matter if it was 500 or 20. We have direct textual testimony from Paul that at least some of the apostles told him what they saw.

If Paul was lying and putting words in their mouths, they would have heard about it. Peter and James were still alive and in contact with Paul. We know Paul intimately knew Jesus' brother James and Peter.

If Paul completely fabricated the entire story, it's hard to understand why he chose to live a risky and very dangerous life to promote something he knew was a fabrication.

Cypress, do you think Paul believed in a physical resurrection?

 

[WinterBorn]

how could Jesus be crucified 30 years after death?

A.D. does not mean "after death". It means "Anno Domini", or "Year of Our Lord".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The question is, were these actual physical manifestations of Jesus or “grief visions” ?

I do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus or his divinity, and there is no first hand testimony to the physical resurrection of Jesus, so I think grief accounted for the visions of Jesus.

GodMen and resurrection stories were very popular during this period of history.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I don't think mass grief hallucinations have a lot of explanatory power. Besides, people could have just checked on the tomb or place of internment to see if Jesus' body was still there. Also, contextually the resurrection of a single person did not fit Jewish first century belief either.

Paul is a primary source for what the eyewitness disciples saw. He knew and was in direct contact with Peter and James. They certainly would have known if Paul was lying about what they told him. There is also decent circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark is an account of what Peter saw and taught, as recorded by his secretary Mark.

Agreed on mass grief hallucinations. There's no proof of miracles either. Occam's Razor says that Jesus survived his 6 hours of crucifixion although I doubt he was walking around showing his stigma anytime soon. More likely those who saw him alive saw him in bed and, given the times and education levels, thought his survival was a "miracle".

 

[Phantasmal]

But it is strong evidence that undermines previous claims that the disciples conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth, while drinking carafes of wine at a tavern.

Last night on YouTube I saw the prominent atheist Alex O'Connor say that there are really good arguments that undermine claims the gospel resurrection accounts are complete fabrications, or legends inserted later into the canonical writings m

Agreed on mass grief hallucinations. There's no proof of miracles either. Occam's Razor says that Jesus survived his 6 hours of crucifixion although I doubt he was walking around showing his stigma anytime soon. More likely those who saw him alive saw him in bed and, given the times and education levels, thought his survival was a "miracle".

I don’t find the surviving crucifixion story believable, simply because Paul didn’t talk about a physical body, but he wrote of a a spiritual body. He was a Pharisee and you must come at Paul from his perspective and background.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don’t find the surviving crucifixion story believable, simply because Paul didn’t talk about a physical body, but he wrote of a a spiritual body. He was a Pharisee and you must come at Paul from his perspective and background.

Saul of Tarsus AKA Paul the tax collector never met Jesus and converted after the Crucifixion. He could never have seen a physical body. Agreed on his perspective, especially since he wasn't an eye witness.

FWIW, I find it more believable to survive a crucifixion than a miracle of being raised from the dead.

 

[serenity]

A.D. does not mean "after death". It means "Anno Domini", or "Year of Our Lord".

Allies in reasonable doubt will always unite against an ancestor that stands their time while explaining how evolving works in plain sight of each ancestor limited to adapting to the moment here 24/7.

In the year 1582 AD mankind reinvented a new calendar to replace the Julian Calendar and added a day every 4 years to make up for giving too much time to relative time logistics of 24/7.

Seems the planet actually completes a rotation 3 minutes and 56 seconds faster than intellectual time. Guess where the evolution theory's missing link actually happens daily? tomorrow factually arrives midnight to noon and today ends noon to midnight each rotation regardless the 7 names used all the time keeping ancestries believing now isn't eternity and genetics has always eternally separated reproductions native to this atmosphere.

 

[Cypress]

I don’t find the surviving crucifixion story believable, simply because Paul didn’t talk about a physical body, but he wrote of a a spiritual body. He was a Pharisee and you must come at Paul from his perspective and background.

Got it. I mean, sure it's possible even though the extant literature doesn't say that or even imply it.

Paul writes in Corinthians that he was told by the eyewitnesses that Jesus was raised on the third day and thereafter appeared to individuals and groups of individuals. Corinthians was early days, so that's not a legendary account.

That doesn't sound to me like an immaterial spiritual resurrection.

I've never heard any reputable scholars say the disciples did not believe they saw Jesus in physical form after the crucifixion.

I don't think mass hallucinations, fabrications, mental illness, or conspiracies to lie match the facts we have.

I think an NDE does match the facts without invoking miracles

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on mass grief hallucinations. There's no proof of miracles either. Occam's Razor says that Jesus survived his 6 hours of crucifixion although I doubt he was walking around showing his stigma anytime soon. More likely those who saw him alive saw him in bed and, given the times and education levels, thought his survival was a "miracle".

At this time, it's the only explanation to me that has real explanatory power for the generally accepted facts given in the OP. Every other explanation I have heard either involves miracles, or just do not make a compelling case to account for all the accepted facts.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don’t find the surviving crucifixion story believable, simply because Paul didn’t talk about a physical body, but he wrote of a a spiritual body. He was a Pharisee and you must come at Paul from his perspective and background.

Agreed on coming from Paul's perspective, especially the fact he never met Jesus.

Still, the fact the Gospels all address seeing Jesus post-crucifixion is a physical manifestation. Either they fabricated the story or it's true. If true, since I don't believe in miracles, then the logical solution is Jesus survived the ordeal....even if he died later. Given he was taken down earlier than usual, it's a possibility he did survive it.

Here's another thought. The Romans executed a lot of people including raving holy men. Something Jesus proved himself to be in the temple market with the moneychangers. If one of them was well liked and survived their crucifixion, is there any doubt many would have believed it was a miracle?

 

[Phantasmal]

Got it. I mean, sure it's possible even though the extant literature doesn't say that or even imply it.

Paul writes in Corinthians that he was told by the eyewitnesses that Jesus was raised on the third day and thereafter appeared to individuals and groups of individuals. Corinthians was early days, so that's not a legendary account.

That doesn't sound to me like an immaterial spiritual resurrection.

I've never heard any reputable scholars say the disciples did not believe they saw Jesus in physical form after the crucifixion.

I don't think mass hallucinations, fabrications, mental illness, or conspiracies to lie match the facts we have.

I think an NDE does match the facts without invoking miracles

Agreed on coming from Paul's perspective, especially the fact he never met Jesus.

Still, the fact the Gospels all address seeing Jesus post-crucifixion is a physical manifestation. Either they fabricated the story or it's true. If true, since I don't believe in miracles, then the logical solution is Jesus survived the ordeal....even if he died later. Given he was taken down earlier than usual, it's a possibility he did survive it.

Here's another thought. The Romans executed a lot of people including raving holy men. Something Jesus proved himself to be in the temple market with the moneychangers. If one of them was well liked and survived their crucifixion, is there any doubt many would have believed it was a miracle?

Or, they were visions, like the ones Theresa claimed to have of the Virgin Mary. These people for whatever reason think these visions are real. They are real to them.

The followers of Jesus aren’t the first or the last to experience what they think are supernatural experiences, the burning bush, the talking ass, there are many throughout ancient literature. Throughout history people have testified to miracles.

There are other godman stories, Jesus’ is just one amongst many.

 

[Cypress]

Or, they were visions, like the ones Theresa claimed to have of the Virgin Mary. These people for whatever reason think these visions are real. The are real to them.

The followers of Jesus aren’t the first or the last to experience what they think are supernatural experiences, the burning bush, the talking ass, there are many throughout ancient literature. Throughout history people have testified to miracles.

There are other godman stories, Jesus’ is just one amongst many.

Okay, so this is back to the hallucinations theory. You might be right. Its possible. But that doesn't work for me. They could have just checked the tomb for Jesus' body to confirm what they were seeing.

There were many apocalyptic movements in ancient Judea who were led by purported messiahs who were later killed. In every case, the movement disintegrated, or they found a new leader. The Jesus movement is the only one who claimed their leader came back after death. That is totally out of context for Jewish apocalyptic movements of late antiquity.

Scholars have identified several reported instances of people surviving Roman crucifixion, and people being mistaken for dead in Roman antiquity.

I know the Jesus near death experience is a radical theory most people haven't heard of or considered. It could be totally wrong. But to me it is more explanatory than mass hallucinations.