Did the Resurrection Evolve Over Time?

[Veritas6]

What do you make of the claim from Tim O’Neill that the story of the resurrection developed and evolved over time?

Starting with Paul (c. 50AD) = “He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him [a vision] and the appearances to others… If Jesus’ resurrection is the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection of the dead [‘the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep’], therefore, it is clear that for Paul his rising did not involve a physical body.” [He doesn’t mention: the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven (found in later accounts)].

Mark (c. 70AD) = Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome find a “young man dressed in a white robe” who tells them Jesus had risen and that they should tell Peter and the other disciples that Jesus had gone on to meet them in Galilee. The women are afraid and say nothing. A “longer ending was tacked on later (Mark 16:9-20)… [which] do not appear in the earliest manuscripts and are universally acknowledged to be a later addition.”

Luke (c. 80AD) = “we get a story similar to that of gMark (which was used by the writer of gLuke as his main source)… Here we have a much more overtly dramatic and detailed story, with the young man in white becoming two men in lightning-bright robes who the women [Salome not mentioned but Joanna added] recognise as celestial. Apart from other details, there is a strong emphasis on Jesus being physically risen”.

Matthew (c. 80AD) = “Like the author of gLuke, the writer of gMatt also used gMark as his primary source… Now, instead of finding the stone already rolled back and meeting men in white or in robes that shine like lightning, the women see an angel in white with an ‘appearance like lightning’ descend from heaven. Added to these rather noticeable details is an earthquake - something else the other accounts neglect to mention.”

John (c. 90-120AD) = “Mary Magdalene discovers the empty tomb… This time she tells Peter and the “disciple Jesus loved” (John 20:2). They run to the tomb and see it is empty and then leave. Mary stays in the garden, weeping, until she sees Jesus who she does not recognise and mistakes for the gardener. When she realises who he is he tells her not to touch him and that he is going to ascend into heaven (John 20:17). She goes and tells the others.”

[When read in chronological order:] “Paul’s account is of visions of a spiritual risen Jesus, whereas by the time the gospels are written, the story has become one of (in at least some sense) a corporeal resurrection with an empty tomb.”

Continued…

 

[Veritas6]

“[A]pologists try to argue away the clear differences by appealing to ‘different perspectives’… This may explain some differences, like the lack of an ascension story, or a few details, like which women were there or who they spoke to. But it is hard to see why all but one account mentioned significant elements like the earthquake, the guards and the descending angel.”

“Non-Christian scholars, of course, note that the story seems to grow more concrete and more detailed and/or dramatic over time. Paul’s account of a series of visions in the 50s AD has evolved into gJohn’s intimate portraits of personal, physical encounters or gMatt’s dramatic earthquakes and angels stories. They conclude that, given the cultural context of the time in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, these accounts are just stories, not history.“

“Apologists trying to defend the varied accounts of the resurrection as historical like to challenge the idea that these are just stories by claiming that something must have happened to turn the despondent and demoralised disciples after Jesus’ execution into confident evangelists… it actually does not fit with… studies of what happens when prophetic or millennial expectations are suddenly dashed. These studies… show that this kind of sudden and powerful turnaround is actually extremely common and explainable by group psychology.”

“The classic psychological study of this phenomenon is Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter’s When Prophecy Fails , which analyses a case study of a UFO cult that expected the end of the world in December 1954. When the cataclysm and expected alien rescue for the believers did not eventuate, the core of the cult managed to reinterpret the failure into a victory by saying their faith had led God to spare the world. So total failure suddenly transformed into a great victory… So we can actually expect that when Jesus did not usher in some cosmic world-changing event in Jerusalem, as his followers seem to have expected, and instead got captured and horribly executed, his followers would have gone through a similar process of reinterpretation.“

The “study shows that the more cult followers have invested in the truth of an expectation the greater the psychological incentive for them to find a way to reinterpret it when it fails to eventuate. The desire for the reinterpretation of the prophetic disappointment is proportionate to (i) the investment in the prophecy/expectation by the believer and (ii) the intensity of the disappointment. The higher both are the more the believer is likely to embrace the new interpretation with increased fervour. And in the case of the core of Jesus’ followers, both would have been very high.”

“As with the sects studied by Festinger et al, the earliest Jesus sect was able to use their reinterpretations of their scriptures to turn the disaster of Jesus’ execution into a victory. They came to see Jesus’ death as a redemptive sacrifice and to believe that he had gone on to heaven and would soon return as the celestial Messiah described in the Book of Daniel and Book of Enoch to usher in the final victory of the kingdom of God.“

 

[po18guy]

What I make of this is that those who hold such opinions may be ignoring history.

Never mind what is written: that is a fragmentary, far-from-complete narrative. What did the Apostles teach?

 

[Bruce_Killian]

What do you make of the claim from Tim O’Neill that the story of the resurrection developed and evolved over time?

Yes the story developed over time, but starting with creation, continuing with Adam and woman in the garden, Cain and Abel, etc. God fully told the resurrection story in the Old Testament, but hidden. John at the tomb said they did not yet know the scripture that he must raise from the dead. They must of Jesus resurrection was written before Jesus was conceived. Matthew was the first gospel written and he was an eyewitness, he did not need Mark or Luke to tell the history of Jesus’ life and he was a scribe so he could record the sermon on the mount, etc., in real time.

 

[phoage]

You might read Brant Petre’s The Case For Jesus.

First the dating you give is conventional but I have heard arguments showing how all those dates could actually be much earlier.
In any case, Paul talks about all the people who saw Jesus risen with the implication of “Don’t take my word, go ask them yourself.” He may not have gone into details as the story was so well known and what he was writing were letters to churches he had already founded with the basic teachings of the new faith.

Also,the argument that the Jews in any case would not have converted like they did,over a spiritually resurrected Messiah. A Messiah who the temple leadership and the Roman occupiers had killed. Also the gentiles would not have converted and become martyrs in the way they did over a savior who had not actually risen from the dead.

What I would guess evolved over time is not the story itself but how it was told.

Patrick
AMDG

 

[Veritas6]

Would it be a serious objection to claim the Gospel stories continually grew, adding more dramatic parts over time? It does seem to play into the idea that the stories were all embellished to turn Jesus into God.

The cognitive dissonance study seems to show if there was a disappointment (no resurrection), the disciples reinterpreted Scripture to turn the disaster of Jesus’ death into a victory. I suppose the question remains would Christ’s followers die for a lie?

 

[AlbMagno]

In the case of Paul, it can be easily explained knowing that Pul didn’t see the Resurrection, the only encounter Paul have with Christ was mystically (through a vision) in his conversion (and maybe later). And Paul didn’t write a Gospel, to talk about the empty tomb and all that.

 

[JerryZ]

And there lies the rub…They all did actually die.
Would you give up your life for a lie?
And one in which you would not acquire any riches? Nope you would live of the charity of others alone. Seeking no fame nor fortune for yourself.
All except 1 of the remaining 12 Apostles died horrible deaths.
That is a very powerful testimony in my book that what they believed was true. That Jesus DID resuscitated from the dead, ascended to Heaven and HE is GOD!
Peace.

 

[LilyM]

Would it be a serious objection to claim the Gospel stories continually grew, adding more dramatic parts over time? It does seem to play into the idea that the stories were all embellished to turn Jesus into God.

The cognitive dissonance study seems to show if there was a disappointment (no resurrection), the disciples reinterpreted Scripture to turn the disaster of Jesus’ death into a victory. I suppose the question remains would Christ’s followers die for a lie?

Or worse, for a defeated and dead would-be Messiah, one among the many who existed in Israel around this time.

Why would the followers of Jesus uniquely continue and spectacularly grow and spread their cult as.they did unless He were truly unique?

 

[Wesrock]

1 Corinthians 15

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third dayaccording to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

 

[Wesrock]

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery:We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishablemust clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

I’m confused, then. Where do people think Paul indicates he doesn’t believe Christ had a physical resurrection?

 

[Wesrock]

Starting with Paul (c. 50AD) = “He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him [a vision] and the appearances to others…

This is weirdly specific while inferring things are never said. Why does the author think it was only a hallucination-like vision all in Paul’s mind and not Christ appearing bodily to Paul and masking his presence in light from the others?

 

[edwest211]

The answer is no.

 

[po18guy]

“Evolve” it is the buzzword of choice, just as “reaching out” has replaced “contacted” or “called.” Darned good thing that the Church, science and medicine rely on Latin.

Now, mankinbd’s understanding of the immensity that is the resurrection most certainly “developed” - now there’s a word!

 

[undead_rat]

The forensic evidence that has been obtained from the Shroud indicates that the Corpse dematerialized from the inside of that cloth. If that Corpse could vanish into another dimension, then it follows that this same Body could rematerialize in another place and as a living human being.

The conclusion is that the Resurrection is a scientifically proven fact.

 

[De_Maria]

Basically, you have conjecture. We have the Gospel accounts. You trust the conjecture of people who have the same skeptical view as yourself over the eyewitnesses.

On the other hand, not only do we have the Gospel accounts of the miraculous things that Jesus caused and the miracle of His Resurrection. But we also have 2000 years of continual miracles performed by His ardent believers. You’ll say that those can’t be proven, even though they are documented and witnessed by many.

So, basically, your testimony amounts to, “I don’t believe it.”

As for me, I’ll take the weight of the historically documented accounts over people who simply say, “I don’t believe it.”

 

[JSRG]

I won’t go through everything, but will respond to a few points:

Starting with Paul (c. 50AD) = “He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him [a vision] and the appearances to others… If Jesus’ resurrection is the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection of the dead [‘the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep’], therefore, it is clear that for Paul his rising did not involve a physical body.” [He doesn’t mention: the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven (found in later accounts)].

In regards to the claim Paul didn’t preach a physical resurrection, see here:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.php

As for the claims of Paul leaving things out, Paul was writing to converted Christians. Why would Paul feel the need to go into that kind of detail regarding things they already knew?

“[A]pologists try to argue away the clear differences by appealing to ‘different perspectives’… This may explain some differences, like the lack of an ascension story, or a few details, like which women were there or who they spoke to. But it is hard to see why all but one account mentioned significant elements like the earthquake, the guards and the descending angel.”

Why? None of those details, in the grand scheme of things, were all that important. The important thing is Jesus died and then was resurrected. The earthquake or guards are secondary compared to that. It really doesn’t seem that odd that such secondary matters might be omitted by the others and only mentioned in one.

“The classic psychological study of this phenomenon is Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter’s When Prophecy Fails , which analyses a case study of a UFO cult that expected the end of the world in December 1954. When the cataclysm and expected alien rescue for the believers did not eventuate, the core of the cult managed to reinterpret the failure into a victory by saying their faith had led God to spare the world. So total failure suddenly transformed into a great victory… So we can actually expect that when Jesus did not usher in some cosmic world-changing event in Jerusalem, as his followers seem to have expected, and instead got captured and horribly executed, his followers would have gone through a similar process of reinterpretation.“

And where is this UFO cult now? The fact someone can try to re-interpret something like that doesn’t mean anything if the group just dissipates soon afterwards; in contrast, Christianity very much stuck around despite persecution. And unlike the Gospels, where there were witnesses–or at least claimed witnesses–to the resurrected Jesus, this was not the case as to the idea of the aliens sparing the Earth, which was just a theory that was brought up to explain the failure.

In regards to the general claim of the resurrection story “developing,” see here:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/barkblund.html

Also see this:
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

 

[edwest211]

I’ve studied UFOs for a long time, which included accounts of some people coming to believe certain things would happen which didn’t. This attempt at comparison is a bad comparison. The Bible records Jesus appearing, in His own real body, and eating after the Resurrection.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What do you make of the claim from Tim O’Neill that the story of the resurrection developed and evolved over time?

1. Who’s Tim O’Neill?
2. Was he there? I’m guessing not…
3. If he’s trying to trash Jesus’ Resurrection, a central truth of our Catholic faith, why should I believe him over the 2000-year-old teachings of Jesus’ One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Or worse, for a defeated and dead would-be Messiah, one among the many who existed in Israel around this time.

Why would the followers of Jesus uniquely continue and spectacularly grow and spread their cult as.they did unless He were truly unique?

And why would a bunch of apostles, who presumably would have known that the whole Resurrection story was a fake, continue to advocate the story, going so far as to travel far from their homeland to spread it, when it did not result in any sort of personal gain for themselves, exposed them to repeated persecutions, and in fact resulted in 11 out of 12 of them (12 out of 13 of them if you count St. Paul) dying horrible, gruesome deaths?