Thursday, May 4, 2017

How much of the resurrection testimony in the NT comes down to us today in first-hand form?

Apologists are forever talking about now the NT gives us "many" eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection.

But a testimony is not "eyewitness" unless its author claims to have seen the alleged event herself.  Merely saying "Jesus rose from the dead" is not sufficient, because even a non-eyewitness can make that claim.  We have to be able to ask "how do you know Jesus rose from the dead", and the source has to use words to the effect that the testifying party saw Jesus alive after he died (i.e., "saw" is the "eye" in "eyewitness").

With that qualification in mind, how many NT authors claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus?

Generously forgetting gospel authorship problems, I count three:  Matthew, John and Paul:
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. (Matt. 28:16-17 NAU)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. (Jn. 21:24 NAU)

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1 NAU)

 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1 Cor. 15:8 NAU)
That is, the NT does not provide us with any more than 3 first-hand testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus.

Remember, its not "eyewitness testimony" unless the author is claiming to have seen the alleged event herself.

While some hearsay from Luke might be based on eyewitness accounts, it is more important at this early juncture to keep the truly first-hand reports separate from the hearsay.

What do you think?  Did I miss anything?

Matthew could be discounted on the grounds that he didn't include his name with the testimony, which is suspicious to say the least.  He also draws most of his material from non-eyewitness Mark, and it doesn't matter how many scenarios apologists can conjure up to show otherwise, those who are real eyewitnesses usually don't confine what they have to say, to a non-eyewitness's version (Mark) of an alleged other eyewitness's words (Peter).  Matthew's situation will continue to be abnormal regardless.

 Paul could be discounted because the most explicit statements in the NT asserting that Paul encountered the resurrected Jesus, don't actually go far enough to actually say he saw Jesus.  The story of Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus is told three times in Acts, chapters 9, 22 and 26, and at no time does the text express or imply that Paul physically saw this Jesus, while the inability of the other men to see this Jesus (9:7) helps take the "eye" out of Paul being an "eyewitness".  J. Warner Wallace banned me from his Facebook page after I pointed out that Paul wasn't an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, then quickly conjured up an article arguing that Paul could still be a legitimate witness due to what he heard, even if he didn't actually see this Jesus.  Wallace would hardly have done that had he believed something in the NT made clear that Paul physically saw the resurrected Jesus.  Paul can also be discounted because he admits he would give a false impression of his true beliefs to the crowd he happened to be with, if he thought doing so would cause him to gain more converts.

John could be discounted because the Muratorian Fragment (which conservatives like to date early because its list of NT books basically matches that of the modern Protestant canon) says John only deigned to write after pressure from the other apostles, and when he did, he wanted the other apostles to fast for three days, and then relate to each other the visions each would have (as the basis for his planned writing), but afterward, apostle Andrew received a revelation that John should write everything from his own memory and then the other apostles should review it (i.e., review it for accuracy, and/or to add to it).

So there are obvious and substantial problems with a) saying there are many eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus, and b) the credibility of the three cases that under generous conditions, might qualify to be eyewitness accounts.

Matthew as resurrection witness: "...but some doubted"

Only in Matthew do we find the unexpected remark that when the 11 apostles saw the risen Jesus, some of them "doubted":
 16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:16-18 NAU)
 "doubtful" in the Greek is distazo, and it means to waver or doubt.

In what sense did Matthew mean that some of the 11 disciples "doubted"?

First, the "some were doubtful" is distinguished from the "worshipped him" by the word "but".  "But" intends to introduce an exception.  The sense here is that some of the 11 did NOT worship Jesus at the time the others did.

Second, Matthew's only other use of distazo is in 14:31, where Peter's faith began to fail him as he walked on the water to meet Jesus, and Jesus characterizes the state of his mind as "why did you doubt (distazo)?".

 28 Peter said to Him, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water."
 29 And He said, "Come!" And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30 But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt (Matt. 14:28-31 NAU)
Third, how believable is it that the disciples could run around every day with Jesus, watching him perform genuinely supernatural miracles for three years to confirm the accuracy of his prediction that he would die and rise from the dead, and then "doubt" when beholding their resurrected lord?  Exactly how many times can you dip into the "they-just-didn't-get-it" well, before it runs dry?

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...