Did the Resurrection Evolve Over Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veritas6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you make of the claim that earlier books of the NT (Paul’s epistles, Mark, Matthew) portrayed Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, declaring the “kingship of God as something that is ‘close’ or ‘draws near’ and is ‘coming’… it is only in the later texts [(John)] that this gets replaced by the idea that it is ‘among you’ or is embodied in the Redeemer Jesus”?

“[Paul] prays for the Jesus Sect community in Thessalonica so God will ‘strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints’ (1Thess 3:13). And he is clear that this apocalypse (‘the wrath that is coming’) and Jesus’ royal parousia is coming very soon”.

“Paul is certain that this will happen very soon, and refers to ‘we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord’ [(1Thess 4:14-17)]. He believes this will happen in his lifetime and that of his audience in Thessalonica. This is not some event in the distant and undefined future… For Paul, it is an event that… will happen very soon.”

“The gLuke version shifts the imminent apocalyptic parousia of Jesus as the Messianic ‘Son of Man’ from being an event that the high priest will live to see [(Mark 14:61-62)] to a more mystical cosmic state of affairs that would happen ‘from now on’.”

“These changes… seem to reflect changes in expectation and interpretation as time went by, the ‘this generation’ of Mark 9:1 aged and died and the expected apocalypse did not arrive. We see further signs of this in the latest of the gospels, gJohn. There the whole emphasis on the coming kingdom, which is central to the eschatological theology of gMark and gMatt, or even the return and apocalyptic παρουσία of the risen Jesus that is central to Paul is toned down and almost completely replaced by a new focus. For the writer of gJohn, the centre of Jesus’ message is Jesus himself… the emphasis in gJohn shifts almost completely from the imminent coming of the apocalypse to the realised arrival of Jesus as divine saviour and redeemer.”
 
Last edited:
Veritas6 said:
What do you make of the claim from Tim O’Neill that the story of the resurrection developed and evolved over time?
Click to expand...
Tim O’Neill is trying to come up with something original to say to make a name for himself.
 
Last edited:
Veritas6 said:
“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.”
Click to expand...
He’s hanging his hat on the assumption that the investment and subsequent disappointment “would have been very high”. I’m not so sure about that.

After the crucifixion I think the Apostles were more interested in hiding out than they were in saving face. They could have easily went their separate ways after things settled down in Jerusalem. If they didn’t have anything worthwhile to stick together for they surely would have just went back to their homes.
 
Last edited:
“The basic argument is that the references to the imminence of the coming kingship/kingdom refer to things that would happen in the lifetime of Jesus’ followers, like his crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem. There are many problems with this. For example, the idea that the ‘little apocalypse’ in Mark 13 is only referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the sack of the Temple does not deal with the fact that Jesus is depicted as saying these things are the precursor to the actual end times:

“But in those days, after that suffering, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
(Mark 13:24-27)

NT Wright interprets all of Mark 13 to mean the Jewish Roman War, but the objector thinks “verses 24-27 clearly refer to the final apocalypse, not something that happened in 70 AD.”
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
40.png
Veritas6:
What do you make of the claim from Tim O’Neill that the story of the resurrection developed and evolved over time?
Click to expand...
Tim O’Neill is trying to come up with something original to say to make a name for himself.
Click to expand...
@PetraG
Lol! You are so right! This is just another demonstration of adhering to the old academic maxim: Publish or Perish! Academic types must publish as often as possible, be interviewed whenever and wherever possible, and create whatever controversy they can drum up. The plums of tenure, research grants, elite professional organizations (and recognition), plus those welcome, highly-paid speaking engagements depend upon their names being kept in the conversation of academic circles. Geesh!
 
The historical methods depends on your world view. For an atheist naturalist you will naturally view the religion as man made, thus probably developed and for various reasons they tend to not view the gospels as reliable as a theist would. The empty tomb is generally concidered historical, even by Bart Ehrman. One might see more details in certain accounts but this does not mean development. It could well be that Lukes account is correct but Mark left certain things out. If you are a theist you cant say a development in the accoutns means a development of the actual story. And the gospel of John is rightfully viewed as a gospel that puts more importance on theology than history, so maybe John makes claims/explaines it in a certain way that is more befitting for theology rather than history.

It is natural for atheists to assume a development of the story when they read different accounts in the scripture since their methods are based on the assumption that the miracles are man made, the theology is man made, God doesnt exist, so they have a pressumptious systematic criticism.
 
@Veritas6

If you count Friday as the first day, the Resurrection evolved over three days.

If you count Saturday, when the tomb was found to be empty, the Resurrection evolved over two days.

Either way you figure it sort of blows Timmy’s theory.
 
What do you make of Mark 13:24-27? What/when would it refer to? If it was about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD during the Jewish Roman War, how does “‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory… send[ing] out the angels, and gather[ing] his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven” play into this idea?

I have also heard prophecy is meant to be conditional on how we act in response to that prophecy. Some would object to say these would be ad hoc/post hoc origins of the prophecy and its interpretation: “if all prophecy is conditional, it doesn’t really even matter what the prophecies were in the first place; at least not as long as you can come up with some rationale to explain away their non-fulfillment.”
 
Last edited:
  1. Why waste time on such an untethered opinion?
  2. Notice how much he imputes to the meaning of scripture.
  3. What is his authority to interpret anything?
  4. In any event, I have never heard of Pope Tim O’Neill.
  5. Life is too short. I should not even have posted…😒
 
Last edited:
As one who studied with Leon Festinger in graduate school, I can state that his interpretation found in “When Prophecy Fails” is nicely summarized here. It is a forerunner of his cognitive dissonance theory as well. He was a psychologist who revolutionized our way of looking at the world and people’s hopes, expectations, fears, and needs in the face of reality. I will not comment further about the Resurrection, except to say that similar prophecies in other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the like) can be interpreted in this manner as well. Festinger himself was a Jewish atheist (not a contradiction in Judaism!) perhaps as a result of his studies, yet he was not averse to singing a few rounds of “My Yiddishe Momme” at the piano with his ever-present cigarette accompanied by a drink or two.
 
Veritas6 said:
“The basic argument is that the references to the imminence of the coming kingship/kingdom refer to things that would happen in the lifetime of Jesus’ followers, like his crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem. There are many problems with this. For example, the idea that the ‘little apocalypse’ in Mark 13 is only referring to the fall of Jerusalem and the sack of the Temple does not deal with the fact that Jesus is depicted as saying these things are the precursor to the actual end times:

“But in those days, after that suffering, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
(Mark 13:24-27)

NT Wright interprets all of Mark 13 to mean the Jewish Roman War, but the objector thinks “verses 24-27 clearly refer to the final apocalypse, not something that happened in 70 AD.”
Click to expand...
http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.php

This is more focused on the Matthew version, but it still applies to Mark. I know I’ve linked to that site a bunch, but only because it has so much good information on this.
 
Read Josephus! He mentioned supernatural events that were prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
If we’re to believe the biblical accounts, regardless of how we interpret them, we should also then believe the history that tells us that all but one of the 12 apostles died martyrs deaths while proclaiming a “reinterpretation” wrought by the dashed hopes of a group of disenchanted disciples.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see what’s wrong or anti-Christian with the notion that apocalyptic expectations changed over time, and that the changes are reflected in Scripture. Making that charge about a single story like the Resurrection, which is central to Christianity as an event that happened (note even Paul saying, “Yeah, if that didn’t happen this whole endeavor is pretty much pointless”) is going to run into opposition, but I don’t see the problem here.

Yeah, Paul believed — while reassuring people whose loved ones had died before the believed-imminent Second Coming — that he and his readers would be among “we who are alive” when the event came. He was wrong.

By the time we get to the writing of the gospel of John, the first generation who were actually Jesus’ personal followers are all dead or about to be (the end of John’s Gospel seems to be written to dispel rumors that the Beloved Disciple specifically would live to see Jesus’ return, implying strongly that he had just died). The idea of the parousia being imminent has obviously been re-evaluated, and there’s a new focus on preparing believers for the long haul — the Kingdom may be holding off on coming in its fullness, but we are the irruption of the Kingdom into the world today and so we need to live like it, even if He doesn’t return for generations.

That seems to me a perfectly reasonable reaction to the passage of time with no Second Coming, and doesn’t indicate anything about the truth or falsity of the underlying belief (except for the early idea about the timing). Yes, we believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and meant for all generation, but the individual documents were also written at specific times to specific audiences, and thus they show the development of the Church itself and her focus in different circumstances. (We don’t get it in Scripture, but obviously things changed again in the fourth century when the Church was first legalized and then made the official religion of the Empire. Suddenly, being a fringe sect that avoided involvement with the institutions of the state was no longer an option, and questions about being a Christian soldier or senator or Emperor needed operational answers.)
 
What do you make of the claim that the Gospels and the Paul’s epistles are non-contemporary hearsay, meaning “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate”?

How can we figure out these writers’ credibility? How do historians figure out anything out about the ancient world if they rely on “unsubstantiated” non-contemporary information? Would it be reasonable for a skeptic to want “stronger” evidence for the existence of ancient figures, namely Jesus? Can we be certain about the existence of any ancient figures based on non-contemporary information?

(I don’t wish to seem argumentative, I’m honestly inquiring)
 
Veritas6 said:
What do you make of the claim that the Gospels and the Paul’s epistles are non-contemporary hearsay, meaning “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate”?
Click to expand...
By “cannot adequately substantiate” do they mean us or them? If we’re talking us… well, we can’t know for sure much of anything in history before our own lives. Is it theoretically possible that the Civil War never happened and it was all a giant hoax? Yes… but it’s also really unlikely.

If we’re talking about the authors, well, I’m not sure how they’re “unsubstantiated hearsay.” Sure, at least two of the Gospel writers never met Jesus, but they would have met people who did and could have written that information down. Mark, according to later writers, got his information directly from Peter.

But let’s go for the super-critical view and suppose that none of the Gospel writers knew Jesus or even had direct contact with those who did. This still is hardly non-contemporary hearsay. Most history we have comes from those who came after the events who collected the information that was kept by those who were there or knew people who were there.

We must also remember that unlike now, far greater emphasis was put on oral tradition. There was a lot less paper, people weren’t as literate, so telling people things and remembering them was often the preferred way of keeping records. And people were actually surprisingly good at doing so–this may seem incredible to us now, but that’s because we’ve been conditioned to not have to remember things because we can write them down.

Much good information can be found here:
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.php
 
Continuing:
How can we figure out these writers’ credibility? How do historians figure out anything out about the ancient world if they rely on “unsubstantiated” non-contemporary information? Would it be reasonable for a skeptic to want “stronger” evidence for the existence of ancient figures, namely Jesus? Can we be certain about the existence of any ancient figures based on non-contemporary information?
Click to expand...
I’ll have to try to be brief, as these questions can have very lengthy answers. In regards to credibility, one major thing is this: Why would they make it up, especially when there was persecution going on? People will die for something they believe is true, but people will rarely if ever die for something they know is false. And there wasn’t much in the way of fame or fortune to get from this, as it would be centuries before Christianity was even recognized as a religion with legal protections.

Now, whether the Gospels are in fact non-contemporary to their events is already a point of contention. The arguments as to their dating too complex to properly get into here, so I’ll give an abbreviated version of some arguments as to why one can plausibly assign early (pre-70 AD) dates to them.

One of the strongest arguments, at least to me, is the ending point of Acts. What happened afterwards? It doesn’t say. We know from the first epistle of Clement and subsequent tradition that he was martyred under Nero, which thus would have been in the 60’s, but this isn’t noted in Acts. Various explanations have been offered for this, but to me the simplest answer is the best: Those events hadn’t happened yet. That puts a date in the 60’s or earlier for Acts, and puts Luke in that same time or earlier, easily within the life of those who knew Jesus. If one accepts Marcan priority, as most scholars do, that puts Mark even earlier.

Another point is Jesus’s prediction of the destruction of the Second Temple. Now, some use this as an argument for putting the Gospels after 70 AD (though this precludes the possibility of a supernatural prediction, or even the natural possibility that Jesus just got lucky). But one can turn the argument around by pointing out details that it doesn’t make sense to include if this was written after the fact. Consider Matthew 24:15-20, in which Jesus says to hope that your flight not take place during winter or on a Sabbath. But if the prophecy had already been fulfilled, why include this detail–particularly when one considers it didn’t happen in winter?

More could be said for–and against–a pre-70 date for the synoptic gospels. But certainly, the possibility of them being quite contemporary is there. Unless by “contemporary” we mean literally written during Jesus’s ministry which is an absurd requirement, though it it possible there were some notes taken that were then integrated into the Gospels.

As for the question of being certain of the existence of ancient figures… if we’re going to do that, we’ll have to be throwing out pretty much all of Roman history. And why stop there? Good luck proving definitively that Abraham Lincoln existed; all of the direct accounts are from people who are dead.
 
Last edited:
What do you make of the claim that Matthew manipulated his genealogies?:

“Matthew remarked that there were 14 generations between each of four critical events in Jewish history (Abraham, David, Babylonian exile, and Jesus). This fits with the systematic, numerical, and Hebraic emphasis throughout this gospel. But the author has manipulated the truth to support his bias. First, Matthew named only 13 generations from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. Second, though he named 14 generations from Abraham to David, there were actually 17 (see the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles).”
 
Veritas6 said:
What do you make of the claim that Matthew manipulated his genealogies?:

“Matthew remarked that there were 14 generations between each of four critical events in Jewish history (Abraham, David, Babylonian exile, and Jesus). This fits with the systematic, numerical, and Hebraic emphasis throughout this gospel. But the author has manipulated the truth to support his bias. First, Matthew named only 13 generations from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. Second, though he named 14 generations from Abraham to David, there were actually 17 (see the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles).”
Click to expand...
Sorry for the late response. Now, it is true Matthew skipped over generations… but that’s not “manipulation” of the truth, I believe back then people didn’t think of generations as strictly as we do now, and saw no issue with skipping over them. The point here was to link Abraham to David to Jesus, which it does.

As for Matthew listing 13 generations in his final portion despite claiming 14? The answer seems fairly simple. Jeconiah is simply being counted as part of the generation “from David to the exile of Babylon” and also “from the exile to the Messiah.” Matthew does not say “fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen generations from David to Jeconiah, and fourteen generations from Jeconiah to the Messiah.” No, he says “fourteen generations from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.” Because the identified cutoff point is an event, not a person, Jeconiah can plausibly counts as a generation BEFORE the exile of Babylon and also counts as a generation AFTER the exile of Babylon. This is further supported by the fact that while Matthew gives a count of 14 generations in each of these parts, he does NOT total them up and declare there to have been 42 generations.

Indeed, St. Augustine proposed a similar argument all the way back in his time:
http://newadvent.org/fathers/1602204.htm
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top