Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Randy_Carson]

I conflated the 2 stories, but yes I was sure that the Bible stated there were many witnesses. So there you have it, Contarini.

That leaves us back at the original question however; Why didn’t any of those 500 witnesses write (or paid someone to write) even the smallest excerpt describing the experience?

It is almost certain that they did. Luke tell us:

Luke 1
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So, although those accounts were not inspired and have not survived, Luke knew of “many” written accounts of Jesus that were in existence before he drew up his own gospel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

See articles here, here and here for why the so-called “criterion of embarrassment” – a mainstay of mainstream apologetic biblical scholarship – has only very limited use in secular historical scholarship.

Also, Thomas L. Brodie is a Catholic priest, bible scholar, co-founder and former director of Dominican Biblical Institute Limerick and – – a mythicist.

The first article states:

We must argue that Paul or a gospel writer said X, that he would not have said X unless he believed X because it’s embarrassing, therefore, the author really believed it. We must then argue from a genuine belief in X to the probable truth of X. Granted, it is much easier to imagine a historian living two thousand years later coming to a mistaken belief than it is to imagine Christians in the 30’s to 50’s CE being mistaken regarding something about Jesus that was verifiable to them. That said, it is still really, really easy to imagine early Christians being mistaken about all kinds of things, including even the existence of Jesus. To understand why: note that I said it would be difficult to be “mistaken regarding something about Jesus that was verifiable to them.” Perhaps nothing was verifiable to them.

Really? Nothing was verifiable?

The author goes on to cite Richard Carrier, a discredited mythicist that atheist Tim O’Neill takes issue with here and here.

The criterion of embarrassment is not intended to prove anything by itself, but taken in conjunction with everything else that points to the reliability of the gospels, it is compelling.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson:

One additional point against the notion that Paul learned of the resurrection from the apostles during his visit to Jerusalem:

Paul had already been preaching his gospel before his visit and says that the apostles he met approved of his message. If he wasn’t already preaching about the resurrection before his visit, then, 1) what was he preaching about and 2) how could a message that didn’t include the resurrection be approved of by the apostles?

I think there may be some misunderstanding about what I said…hopefully not from what I posted, but if I was unclear, let me try again.

First, even BEFORE his conversion, Saul of Tarsus would have heard much of Jesus. All of Jerusalem did. Peter preached the resurrection boldly in Acts 2. Peter and John preached before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4. At the stoning of Stephen, Saul witnessed Stephen’s preaching and vision of Jesus in heaven (cf. Acts 6-7).

So, Saul had some information even before his conversion. However, in Galatians, Saul tells us that after his encounter with the risen Lord, he went straight to Arabia on what I imagine to be an extended three-year retreat. During this time of prayer and reflection, I have no doubt that God revealed much to him about the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah and about the truths that would later be expounded in Paul’s masterpiece, the Letter to the Romans.

But I cannot help but notice that later Paul also went to Jerusalem - not once but twice - to confer with the apostles. If the subjects that they discussed had already been revealed to him directly by God, why go?

For these reasons, I feel certain that Paul learned much about the EARTHLY ministry of Jesus from those who shared in the ministry with him, and much about the theology of the incarnation and the atonement of Calvary directly from God Himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fact 3: Paul, the persecutor of the Early Church, was suddenly changed

Scholars who have studied the source materials carefully are overwhelmingly in agreement that Paul, an opponent of the early Church, was suddenly and radically changed.

His opposition to the Church was recorded by Luke:

Acts 8:1-3
And Saul approved of their killing [Stephen]. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

So, what evidence do we have of Paul’s conversion from skeptic and persecutor to believer and evangelist? There are three sources: Paul himself, Luke and the early Church.

1. Paul attests to his conversion experience

In a letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul writes:

Galatians 1:13-24
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

From this personal testimony, we can see that Paul went from unbelieving persecutor of Christians to being a Christian himself.

1. Luke records Paul’s conversion story

Luke, the author of Luke-Acts, records the account of Paul’s conversion:

Acts 9:1-17
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

From this passage, we learn of the details of Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus and of Paul’s baptism into the Christian Church.

1. Paul’s opposition to the early Church widely known

Finally, we can see from these accounts that Paul’s opposition to Christianity was widely known.

In Damascus, Syria, Ananias objects to interacting with Paul because he has heard reports about Paul that made him fearful:

Luke 8:13-14
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

Similar reports had spread throughout Galatia and Judea:

Galatians 1:13
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

Other parts of Judea had also heard these reports:

Galatians 1:22-23
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Thus, from three sources we have attestation that Paul was converted from being opponent of Christianity to a believer in the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Kaninchen]

Fact 3: Paul, the persecutor of the Early Church, was suddenly changed

Perhaps you might describe the kinds of reactions you’ve had when you’ve presented arguments like this to non-believers (ie not other Christians). Have you found people to be deeply impressed by the force of the ‘facts’?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps you might describe the kinds of reactions you’ve had when you’ve presented arguments like this to non-believers (ie not other Christians). Have you found people to be deeply impressed by the force of the ‘facts’?

Today was my first time presenting this material, and I posted it in this forum and thread, kaninchen.

You can be the first to react.

 

[simspt]

In this thread, I plan on arguing for the resurrection of Jesus using the “minimal facts approach” pioneered by Gary Habermas.

Prior to starting this thread, I did a search using the term “minimal facts” to determine whether this topic has been overdone in this forum. Based upon the very limited (almost non-existent) results of that search, I have concluded that the topic will be reasonably fresh for the membership. It is my hope that those who are more familiar with the approach will be patient while new members (and new atheists) are considering the material perhaps for the first time.

The minimal facts approach argues for the resurrection of Jesus based only on evidence that is so strongly attested historically that it is granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the skeptical ones.

Consequently, this discussion will not consider whether the New Testament is reliable nor attempt to prove that it is. The conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead will not depend upon that argument.

Before I present the minimal facts, I’d like to say a few words about the nature of historical evidence. When it comes to historical facts, we can only speak in terms of probability and not absolute 100% certainty. For example, consider the following spectrum:

Very Doubtful…Quite Doubtful…Somewhat Doubtful…Uncertain…Somewhat Certain…Quite Certain…Very Certain
||||___|___||

We will be seeking to determine whether the evidence for the resurrection moves us to the right or left of the mid-point (uncertain) of this range of opinions.

Additionally, we must keep in mind that the standards of evidence do not require that the case for something is irrefutable. Rather, the standard requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not in civil cases. If this is not understood, then the skeptics’ demand for proof may be unrealistic.

At this point, I’d like to offer a response to those skeptics who are fond of saying, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” No, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence…just like any other kind of claim. It is my firm belief that sufficient evidence for the resurrection can (and will) be presented.

The Minimal Facts (4+1)

The minimal facts include four that are so strongly evidenced that nearly every scholar (including the skeptic) regards them as reliable facts. The fifth fact, the “+1”, is accepted by a significant number of scholars though not nearly as many as the first four.

The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

John P Meier is spot on where he has stated that scholars/historians are appropriately modest in claims about what can be known about claims about miracles—especially from the ancient past where our sources are quite fragmentary. Craig’s arguments don’t “prove” the resurrection but only number 2 above that they held this theological conviction very early on (eg 1 Cor. 15:3ff)

Randy, this post always reminds me of an article phil vaz has on his website
biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p98.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fact 4: James, the skeptical brother of Jesus was suddenly converted.

We do not have as much information about James as we do about Jesus, but what we do know provides additional evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

1. 
   *]James was skeptical of Jesus
   *]James saw the risen Jesus
   *]James became the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem.
   *]James was martyred for his faith.
   
   1. The brothers of Jesus did not believe in him.
   
   Mark 3:20-22
   20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
   
   John 7:4-6
   4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
   
   2. James saw the risen Jesus according to Paul.
   
   1 Corinthians 15:3-8
   3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according 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.
   
   3. In Acts 15, we learn that James became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.
   
   4. Non-biblical accounts of the martyrdom of James.
   
   Josephus
   1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest (Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, XX, 9).
   Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus
   
   Eusebius recorded two accounts of the death of James which have otherwise been lost: that of Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus.
   
   Clement of Alexandria (via Eusebius)
   
   ”But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” (Eusebius, History of the Church 2:1:3-4)
   
   (cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hegesippus (via Eusebius)

CHAPTER XXIII.—The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord.

1. 
   *]BUT after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.
   *]Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.
   *]The manner of James’ death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:
   
   *]“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.
   *]He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.
   *]He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.
   *]Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, 23:1-7)
   Found here: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.xxiv.html

 

[humble_catholic]

Randy, Im not sure what you think this proves. Using Josephus is weak, as he wasnt even born by the time Jesus died.

Also, proving that a historical man named Jesus existed and was crucified doesn’t prove that he was God. Many people were crucified by the Romans. How does any of that prove that Jesus resurrected, much less proving that he was God?

IMO there is no proof for anything. No evidence. If you go that path of relying on evidence, you may shake people’s faith as the evidence isnt good and largely non-existent. People believe due to faith alone, there is no other way. Im not sure why, or even if, you think that is a problem.

Sonofman, I don’t agree entirely that there is no evidence . One of the best piece of evidence
That everyone here has overlooked is the criterion of embarressment which is an incredibly sound and solid piece of historical evidence for the resurrection .

In all the gospels who found the tomb of Christ empty and who saw the risen Christ first ? I’m surprised that the OP didn’t mention this as it is one of Habermas’s top arguments for the resurrection . The answer is THE WOMEN.

The fact that the apostles told their writers that it was the women that found the tomb of Christ empty and saw the risen Christ first speaks volumes towards the genuine honesty of the apostles . Remember that in first century Jerusalem that women weren’t allowed to testify in court against men and were considered to be unreliable. If the apostles wanted to lie about the empty tomb and the first sightings of the risen Christ to a first century audience the py never ever would have said that it was the women that saw the tomb empty and saw the risen Christ first.

This is in my opinion the most damning evidence against the skeptics of the resurrection .
It’s extremely hard to explain away .

 

[Kaninchen]

The fact that the apostles told their writers that it was the women that found the tomb of Christ empty and saw the risen Christ first speaks volumes towards the genuine honesty of the apostles . Remember that in first century Jerusalem that women weren’t allowed to testify in court against men and were considered to be unreliable. If the apostles wanted to lie about the empty tomb and the first sightings of the risen Christ to a first century audience the py never ever would have said that it was the women that saw the tomb empty and saw the risen Christ first.

This is in my opinion the most damning evidence against the skeptics of the resurrection .
It’s extremely hard to explain away .

Except, of course, the empty tomb reports were not court testimony, they were narratives/dramas (whether one believes them or not), linking connected ‘events’ that lead to Jesus appearing to his disciples (males, if I remember correctly).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except, of course, the empty tomb reports were not court testimony, they were narratives/dramas (whether one believes them or not), linking connected ‘events’ that lead to Jesus appearing to his disciples (males, if I remember correctly).

And if you were writing a “drama” in order to promote a new God-man, would you:

• Have him die on a cross (which would scandalize Jews and Gentiles alike)?
• Have the empty tomb found discovered by women (whose testimony was worthless)?
• Attribute your play to Matthew (a hated tax collector), Mark (who wasn’t even there) or Luke (a Gentile) instead of the more famous players such as Peter, James or John?
• Would you have your God-man saying that he was less than the Father, that he did not know all things or that he could not do many miracles in his hometown because of the lack of faith of his neighbors?
• Would you have your God-man’s own brothers and sisters claiming that he was “out of his mind” and not believing in him?

Is that how you would conspire with your friends to get a new religion off the ground?

And would you be willing to die rather than admit that you made the whole thing up even though neither you nor anyone in your family would benefit in any way from maintaining the charade?

 

[Kaninchen]

And if you were writing a “drama” in order to promote a new God-man, would you:

• Have him die on a cross (which would scandalize Jews and Gentiles alike)?
• Have the empty tomb found discovered by women (whose testimony was worthless)?
• Attribute your play to Matthew (a hated tax collector), Mark (who wasn’t even there) or Luke (a Gentile) instead of the more famous players such as Peter, James or John?
• Would you have your God-man saying that he was less than the Father, that he did not know all things or that he could not do many miracles in his hometown because of the lack of faith of his neighbors?
• Would you have your God-man’s own brothers and sisters claiming that he was “out of his mind” and not believing in him?

Is that how you would conspire with your friends to get a new religion off the ground?

And would you be willing to die rather than admit that you made the whole thing up even though neither you nor anyone in your family would benefit in any way from maintaining the charade?

All Greek to me.

 

[Contarini]

Except, of course, the empty tomb reports were not court testimony, they were narratives/dramas (whether one believes them or not), linking connected ‘events’ that lead to Jesus appearing to his disciples (males, if I remember correctly).

If these were fictional accounts, it would be the easiest thing in the world to have Jesus appearing directly to the male disciples, instead of this weird two-step process in which first the women discover the tomb, and then Jesus starts appearing to people (just to whom, and in what order, varies from one source to another).

Sure, the point might be to reinforce the theme of Jesus doing the opposite of what he would be expected to do, and yes, there’s plenty of OT precedent for that. But it isn’t, as far as I know, a theme that anyone particularly emphasized except where reality forced them to. From a skeptical point of view, this common Biblical theme would be an attempt to adjust to disappointed expectations. We think that if YHWH is a powerful god and has made a covenant with us, then the city will never falls. The city falls. Oops! That shows that YHWH is even more powerful than we thought–so powerful that even the Babylonians are instruments in his cosmic plan.

We thought that the return from exile would lead to a glorious restoration, better than anything we had before. Actually it leads to hundreds of years of sort of puttering along, often under pagan domination. Oops! This shows that God’s plans are more long-term than we thought, and that there will be a final restoration inaugurated by the Messiah.

We thought that the Messiah would defeat the Romans and set up a glorious kingdom. Oops! the guy we thought was the Messiah got crucified. That shows that God’s plan for the world is so profound that he redeems the world by death, and overcomes death by resurrection.

If God did that, we’d think that Jesus would appear to his leading male disciples. Oops! Actually the first report was brought by women. Well, that’s just part of the pattern established so far.

My point is that these “oops” moments were consistently imposed from outside.

Yes, it’s possible that Mark, seeing the pattern, would invent a story in which women saw the tomb first. But it doesn’t seem very likely.

In the end, with the resurrection, we face the old Sherlock Holmes choice: impossible vs. improbable. A lot of us find Sherlock Holmes’ answer to be, well, improbable.

Edwin

 

[SonOfMan]

Sonofman, I don’t agree entirely that there is no evidence . One of the best piece of evidence
That everyone here has overlooked is the criterion of embarressment which is an incredibly sound and solid piece of historical evidence for the resurrection .

If Jesus died and stayed dead, that would be embarassing. However, if a story were concocted that he rose from the dead and that their Messiah cannot be killed, that is glorious.

Remember that in first century Jerusalem that women weren’t allowed to testify in court against men and were considered to be unreliable.

If women were considered to be unreliable, what makes you so sure that these women were reliable? In my view, that is detrimental to proving the point. You are admiting to appealing to what was considered an unreliable source.

 

[Kaninchen]

If these were fictional accounts, it would be the easiest thing in the world to have Jesus appearing directly to the male disciples, instead of this weird two-step process in which first the women discover the tomb, and then Jesus starts appearing to people (just to whom, and in what order, varies from one source to another).

Except that women might not have been around ‘witness stands’ at the time but they were certainly around burial and mourning rituals and the ‘evidential’ aspect of the resurrection is certainly not based on their accounts - their accounts are more a narrative/dramatic device.

If God did that, we’d think that Jesus would appear to his leading male disciples. Oops! Actually the first report was brought by women. Well, that’s just part of the pattern established so far.

Or a narrative device.

Now, as I say from time to time, I’m a non-believer of the “don’t believe a word of it” variety but the death/‘burial’/women mourners/confusion/confused narratives sequence is one of the few parts of the story that sounds vaguely real to me - at least before a Randy tries to sell ‘criteria of embarrassment’ and I get the feeling of “these people are really desperate.”

In the end, with the resurrection, we face the old Sherlock Holmes choice: impossible vs. improbable. A lot of us find Sherlock Holmes’ answer to be, well, improbable.

Well you would.

 

[Contarini]

If Jesus died and stayed dead, that would be embarassing. However, if a story were concocted that he rose from the dead and that their Messiah cannot be killed, that is glorious.

Obviously the resurrection per se does not meet the “criterion of embarrassment.”

If women were considered to be unreliable, what makes you so sure that these women were reliable? In my view, that is detrimental to proving the point. You are admiting to appealing to what was considered an unreliable source.

So you think first-century male society was right in its view of women?

The point is that they wouldn’t have appealed to an “unreliable” source without a good reason.

 

[Contarini]

Except that women might not have been around ‘witness stands’ at the time but they were certainly around burial and mourning rituals and the ‘evidential’ aspect of the resurrection is certainly not based on their accounts - their accounts are more a narrative/dramatic device.

In Luke and John, maybe, since those authors claim that some of the male disciples later saw the empty tomb. But in Mark all we have is the women. To be sure, Mark is probably assuming a fuller narrative of “appearances” witnessed to orally and by Paul (whether or not he had read Paul’s letters, these traditions were clearly circulating).

Now, as I say from time to time, I’m a non-believer of the “don’t believe a word of it” variety but the death/‘burial’/women mourners/confusion/confused narratives sequence is one of the few parts of the story that sounds vaguely real to me - at least before a Randy tries to sell ‘criteria of embarrassment’ and I get the feeling of “these people are really desperate.”

The “criterion of embarrassment” is commonly accepted by scholars across the spectrum. I agree that Randy tries to prove too much, frequently.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

Except that women might not have been around ‘witness stands’ at the time but they were certainly around burial and mourning rituals and the ‘evidential’ aspect of the resurrection is certainly not based on their accounts - their accounts are more a narrative/dramatic device.

But this would be a poor choice for a “narrative device”. Anyone hearing that lowly women discovered the empty tomb would be inclined to dismiss it simply because no one thought women’s word could be trusted.

Or a narrative device.

Now, as I say from time to time, I’m a non-believer of the “don’t believe a word of it” variety but the death/‘burial’/women mourners/confusion/confused narratives sequence is one of the few parts of the story that sounds vaguely real to me - at least before a Randy tries to sell ‘criteria of embarrassment’ and I get the feeling of “these people are really desperate.”

Ah, a true ad hominem. You’re attacking ME (as desperate) as opposed to dealing with the strength of the point itself which you reluctantly agree has some merit.

Interesting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that Randy tries to prove too much, frequently.

Edwin

Oh, c’mon…you know you love me.