Two answers from an atheist:
No, and the rumor about Paul, held by "thousands" of Jewish Christians, that he flouted Mosaic law, also wasn't a late legend. Acts 21:18-24. As long as you say that rumor was false, you agree that falsity can exist in the early church, without being "legend" or "late".
Yes...it is reasonable to say the resurrection appearance stories in the gospels are late legends for two reasons: a) it is reasonable to agree with most Christian scholars that Mark is the earliest published gospel, and b) it is reaosnable to agree with most Christian scholars that the long ending of Mark was a later interpolation. If both premises are reasonable, then it is reasonable to draw the inference that the earliest form of the resurrectin story was limited to the women hearing about Jesus' resurrection solely from some unidentified man at the suspiciously opened tomb.
Certain dickhead apologists will scream that Mark's resurrection appearance ending would have been necessarily implied due to the oral preaching behind that gospel, is foolish: the other three gospel authors give plenty of resurrection appearance detail, so it is far from obvious that the reason a gospel author leaves out a detail is because he is expecting the originally intended reader to rely on the oral preaching to fill in the blanks left by the written account.
And now a point by point reply to Wallace:
How can we be sure that the story of Jesus wasn’t changed over time?You can't: reconstructing history from ancient sources only supplies probabilities, especially in cases where the ancient assertions are by no means "obvious" and not corroborated by other verifiable details. No, you aren't proving John's resurrection testimony reliable by nothing that archaeologists have found the Pool of Siloam. What are you? 6? What are you gonna say next? Mommy loves you because she took you to McDonalds? Grow the fuck up and quit committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.
How do we know that the virgin conception, the miracles and the Resurrection weren’t added to the story late?First, your question is irrelevant. Jesus made clear that christian discipleship depended on generations of Christian leaders passing on for posterity all the things which he had taught the original apostles (see the part of the Great Commission nost people miss, Matthew 28:20). Not only did Jesus never say one damn thing about his virgin birth, he castigated another person who's comment to him had created the perfect justification for him to mention it (Luke 11:27-28).
Second, given that most Christian scholars agree Mark's gospel is the earliest and lacks the virgin birth narrative despite how its content would have strongly supported Mark's "Son of God" theme, it's reasonable to infer either a) Mark never heard of the VB (justifying the inference it was late) or b) Mark knew of it but considered it fiction (justifying the inference that it is fiction). The third option screamed about by apologists, c) Mark knew the VB story was true but "chose to exclude" it for his own reasons, cannot be demonstrated with any degree of probability. Since the inference that Mark never heard of the VB or had rejected it as fiction does rest upon a probability argument, the skeptic has a probability and the apologist has only possibility. So skeptics are reasonable to draw the negative inference even if there's always that trifling "possibility" that the VB was true.
Similar arguments could be made on the basis of John the latest gospel. He too doesn't mention the virgin birth, despite how it would have strongly supported his high Christology. That makes the skeptical hypothesis reasonable, and our reasonableness therein doesn't require that we bat out of the ballpark every stupid trifle any apologist could possibly conjure up.
Beasley-Murray refuses to decide the matter:
The external evidence for the pl.
is overwhelming, and most adopt it without hesitation…The decision is more
difficult than is generally acknowledged, and we leave it open.
Beasley-Murray,
G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 2).Dallas :
Word, Incorporated
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 2).
Inerrantist Christian scholar Borchert does not understand why some scholars, despite knowing the plural is the correct reading, still insist the passage is about the virgin birth:
Some scholars have argued that the
verse is describing the virginal conception of Jesus, and they have chosen to
read the singular form instead of the plural (haimatōn) “bloods.” But the
textual evidence for such a reading is virtually nonexistent, and the logic of
the text definitely argues against such a view.
No Greek MSS support the singular
reading, yet M. Ē. Boismard, in St.
John’s Prologue (Westminster: Newman, 1957), s.v., and
others have argued for such a view. Cf. D. M. Crossan, “Mary’s Virginity in St. John —An Exegetical
Study,” Marianum 19.1 (1957): 115–26, and “Mary and the Church in John 1:13, ”
Bible Today 1.20 (1965): 1318–24. Beasley-Murray (John, 13) relying on E. C.
Hoskyns and F. N. Davey (The Fourth Gospel [London: Faber & Faber, 1947],
164–65), thinks that even though the plural is clearly the correct reading and
even though the virgin birth may not be in mind, the incarnation could have
been in view here. I find this
argument difficult to accept.
Borchert,
G. L. (2001, c1996). Vol. 25A: John 1-11 (electronic ed.). Logos Library
System; The New American Commentary (Page 118). Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Bruce Metzger, otherwise considered by conservative Christian apologists to be the last word on NT textual variation, dashes cold water on the hopes of those fools who insist John 1:13 is talking about Jesus' virgin birth:
Although a number of modern scholars (including Zahn, Resch, Blass, Loisy, R. Seeburg, Burney, Büchsel, Boismard, Dupont, and F. M. Braun)3 have argued for the originality of the singular number, it appeared to the Committee that, on the basis of the overwhelming consensus of all Greek manuscripts, the plural must be adopted, a reading, moreover, that is in accord with the characteristic teaching of John. The singular number may have arisen either from a desire to make the Fourth Gospel allude explicitly to the virgin birth or from the influence of the singular number of the immediately preceding auvtou/.Furthermore, most English translations don't use the singular, they use the plural, so that 1:13 is referring to Christians, not Jesus:
--------Metzger, Textual Commentary, Page 169
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NAU)
12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God,
13 who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NRS)
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NIV)
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:But no, I'm sure that because fundie Chrstianity is dogmatic by nature, fundies who are frightened at the prospect of not being able to harmonize all NT statements with all NT statements, will insist skeptics are "dumb" or "morons" for adopting the plural in harmony with many conservative evangelical Christian scholars.
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:12-13 NKJ)
I wake up in cold sweats in the middle of the night, shivering with fear, wondering whether my above-cited arguments are sound. I'm also a millionaire.
Furthermore, given that out of 27 NT books, only two even mention the virgin birth, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that the earliest Christians did not think that part of Jesus' life was too important.
Why would Paul think the resurrection proved Jesus to be the Son of God, but the VB wasn't worth discussing? If we are to presume Paul was a modern-day inerrantist who trusted Joseph's and Mary's stories about portents during her pregnancy as necessarily true, wouldn't it follow that Paul would find the VB story equally as supportive of his view of Christ as the resurrection? And given that Christianity had major obstacles to getting started, wouldn't shameless promoter like Paul insist on using ALL of his guns?
And don't forget, Paul asserted that Jesus' flesh came from David's "seed" (Romans 1:3, neither genealogy of Jesus makes Mary a descendant of David, but they specify Joseph was a descendant of David, Luke 2:4), and further, that Jesus' divine sonship was declared due to his rising from the dead (v. 4). Had Paul approved of the VB stories, he would likely would have cited the VB and not just Jesus' resurrection as the basis for Jesus' divine sonship. That naturalistic problem looms large also in Acts 13:33, Jesus was divinely begotten at his resurrection...how many times was he begotten? Another sign that the speaker (Paul) did not think Jesus recieved such divine titles any earlier.
I'm quite aware of the stupid trifles of internet apologists concerning Mark 6:3 and have answered them here. Since Christians themselves cannot even agree on whether the VB story is true, or if so, whether it qualifies as essential or non-essential doctrine, the skeptic is certainly reasonable to consider it nothing more than trifling about the details of fairy tales. You don't know the credibililty of Matthew or Luke, you have no fucking clue how they gained thier material. Your hypothesis that they asked eyewitnesses is no less conjectural than the skeptic's theory that many gospel stories are just made up
