08 Apr 2012

He Is Risen Indeed

Religious 108 Comments

From Matthew 28:

28 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men.

5 But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”

8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.

9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened. 12 When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 saying, “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Obviously on the face of it this sounds like a myth. Yet there are at least two things that make it odd, if it were pure invention after the fact by Christians trying to spread their doctrine. First, the story has Jesus appear to women, rather than (say) Peter. That is an odd twist that, in and of itself, would not have made the story more appealing to the culture of the time.

Second, Matthew goes out of his way to mention that some doubted (I put that part in bold). I can’t think of any tall tales or myths that do that, unless they are setting up someone getting the smack down. (For example, recall the suitors who mock Odysseus when he’s disguised as a beggar.)

I realize neither of those points are smoking guns, but I’m just pointing out that they’re odd features of a story that some claim was invented or at least heavily edited in order to make it palatable to the masses. I claim that from a literary standpoint there are several features of the gospels that make them sound like the writer was actually trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.

He is risen!

108 Responses to “He Is Risen Indeed”

  1. zzk says:

    Paraphrase: “If the bible was not the literal word of God, it would’ve been written differently. Since it was not written differently, it is the word of God”

    Some would call that a circular argument.

    • Dan says:

      Paraphrase: “It’s easier to attack a strawman than deal with what you actually wrote.”

      • zzk says:

        I agree that this is often the case, but in this case I think the message gets lost in the details and I believe this paraphrase to capture the essence of what Bob is saying

        In any case, let me de-paraphrase to put your mind at ease:

        1) “If it were pure invention … more appealing to the culture of the time.”
        Here Bob is saying that if the story were made up, you’d expect the narrative to be different. He doesn’t explain his reasoning to great extent, other than an interpretations about the culture during Biblical times.

        2) ” Matthew goes out of his way …”
        Here, Bob tells us that this narrative includes of an account of people doubting Jesus’s message. For Bob, this makes a literal interpretation of the Jesus/the Bible even strong because he “cannot recall” any other myths where people in the myth doubt the prophecy. I’m not sure how this constitutes evidence, but there it is..

        3) “I claim that from a literary standpoint… trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.”
        Therefore, Bob claims, that the Bible is recording a literal, eye witness (the implication being an accurate) account of history because the story doesn’t jive with a non-literal narrative.

        Since he’s concluding in point 3 what he set up as the premise in point 1, I see this as being circular reasoning.

        To his credit, Bob isn’t suggesting that this particular argument is the strongest one, but I do think it demonstrates the kind of shoddy thinking that otherwise reasonable people let themselves get away with when it comes to religious matters. I’ve been guilty of this myself.

        • Drigan says:

          I think the argument goes more like this:

          1.) Either this is an invention made by people who wanted to make a story that would appeal to people (default) or it is the truth (alternative).

          2.) ”Matthew goes out of his way …” so it seems improbable to think that it is made up.

          3.) Default scenario being improbable, resort to the alternative.

          • Ken B says:

            Drigan: Yup, that’s Bob’s game. And he’s not very careful about whom the story should appeal to, referring to the wider culture, as if splinter groups always seek mass approval. That’s how I know Bob doesn’t actually want to end social security, it’s just not appealling to the wider public.

            • Xon says:

              Of course, Bob’s “game” here is just to offer one of many things that he finds persuasive, though not compelling when standing entirely on its own. And his posts always seem to be in the context of previous discussions here. So, for instance, many of the skeptics claimed in last week’s thread (“Palm Sunday”) that the story is probably made up because it contains these little details (such as appearing to women, even) that just didn’t “jive” with the culture back then. “Clearly, later people made these stories up and had no idea what actual Hellenic Judaism was really like in Palestine a few hundred years earlier.”

              So, now Bob is making his own argument in response, arguing that, really, the fact these little “counter-cultural” tidbits lend credence to the notion that the authors of the gospels weren’t just making stuff up. They were recording what they recalled to be true events, even if those events went against the grain of what was expected.

              In other words, thee are multiple ways to interpret counter-cultural events in a narrative. Skeptics offered the “it’s made up by ignoramuses” argument last week. Bob has offered the “truth-tellers stick to the facts even if they are unexpected” explanation here.

              • Anonymouse says:

                “Skeptics offered the “it’s made up by ignoramuses” argument last week. ”

                They certainly weren’t ignoramuses, but nor were they sincere. The NT is the most successful piece of religious propaganda in the history of the world.

              • Ken B says:

                Actually I adumbrated ways in which stories can change even when passed on by serious intelligent people.

                Ever play telephone? Ever play it for years at a time?

          • zzk says:

            Nice… I like this setup better

    • David K. says:

      “Some would call that a circular argument.”

      Yes, people who don’t know what the term “circular argument” means might call that a circular argument.

      Modus tollens is a valid form of argumentation and has nothing to do with circular arguments.

      • zzk says:

        Modus tollens: If P -> Q and Q is not true, then P is not true

        Bob’s argument If P -> Q and Q is true, then P is true.

        Lifting from Drigan’s [better] interpretation, above, here:

        P: the Biblical account of Jesus is the truth
        Q: The story is written in such a way that is not a simple appeal to the popular culture/masses.

        Since the bible is written in this way (by Bob’s definition), the Biblical account must be the truth. This is almost certainly circular reasoning, as I understand the concept.

        • Antiahithophel says:

          Good evening, zzk.

          One of the main problems with your comment is that Dr. Murphy never said anything similar to what you attribute to him.

          In your first comment, you say: “Paraphrase: “If the bible was not the literal word of God, it would’ve been written differently. Since it was not written differently, it is the word of God”

          Some would call that a circular argument.”

          Let’s assume that the statement that you provided is a circular argument. Where does Dr. Murphy state anything even remotely similar to that statement? In fact, Dr. Murphy highlights the fact that his statement is not a “smoking gun.” In other words, he is not making the statement as the “final nail in the coffin;” he is simply pointing out something that he finds interesting.

          In terms of the law, hearsay evidence is considered invalid and not acceptable as relevant courtroom testimony. There are, however, many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

          Once such exception is the “statement against interest.” If a person makes a statement that would typically be classified as hearsay, but the statement is against the person’s interest (it makes the person look bad — say, financially or socially), then the statement can be legally considered as an exception to the hearsay rule.

          Dr. Murphy is saying that Matthew’s comment is against Matthew’s interest. Therefore, there should be some added truth given to his comment. Is it dispositive? No, but it is a step to giving more credence to the speaker and finding that the speaker is looking to truthfully record and document rather than simply creating something out of whole cloth.

          • zzk says:

            Hi, Antiahithophel. I agree that Bob Murphy isn’t saying that this isn’t a smoking gun. However, if a crooked lawyer paid off an eye-witness to testify in court, perhaps convincing him to say that he saw something he didn’t see, the jury would hear testimony that only seems to be against the best interest of the person making the testimonial.

            What I’m implying is that Dr. Murphy’s account assumes that the Biblical story is the truth and uses a questionable (or at best, unconvincing) testimonial as evidence that the story is the truth.

            Sure, if you already have faith in that Biblically-truthiness, this might sound convincing. To the rest of us, this argument doesn’t rule out alternative hypotheses (that the story teller is just lying).

            • Anonymouse says:

              “To the rest of us, this argument doesn’t rule out alternative hypotheses (that the story teller is just lying).”

              Bingo.

            • Dan says:

              “Sure, if you already have faith in that Biblically-truthiness, this might sound convincing. To the rest of us, this argument doesn’t rule out alternative hypotheses (that the story teller is just lying).”

              It’s not meant to be convincing. Do you understand what “not a smoking gun” means? He even acknowledged that on the face of it that it sounded like a myth. Nowhere does he say his argument rules out any alternative hypothesis. However, he does punch a couple holes in the theory that it was simply a tall tale.

              Instead of trying to deal with the two odd traits to the story that he brought up you simply keep going after a strawman.

              • Ken B says:

                I pointed out a third one.

                Not meant to be convincing? Then how can it ‘poke holes’ in an alternative theory?

                Bob makes lots of posts like this: “here is evidence for my beliefs”. Some of us point out it’s bad evidence.

              • Dan says:

                You can poke holes in a theory without disproving it. If someone wants to continue to support the myth theory then these were valid points that should be addressed. I’m not saying, nobody has attempted to address these points he has made, but zzk didn’t attempt to at all. In fact, he attacked something that Dr. Murphy didn’t even say or imply.

                As for your last statement, I have no problem with that. But can you see where that isn’t happening with regards to what zzk has posted?

              • Ken B says:

                “You can poke holes in a theory without disproving it”
                Not unless you mean what you say to be convincing.

                I think zzk is basically right. All Bob has (as i have said before) is ‘because the Bible tells me so.’ The circularity and special pleading show through time after time. If you want to argue that, except for the inherent absurdity of it, you can piece together a consistent story with selective tendentious readings, then I grant you that. Bob wants more: he wants to show his faith is bolstered by good evidence. And it ain’t.

              • Dan says:

                Ken, you are simply wrong with regards to this particular post. All he did was point out two specific points that don’t seem to make a lot of sense if the story is simply a tall tale. He went out of his way to say this is no smoking gun and on the face of it it sounded like a myth. If you want to twist that as him saying “because the bible says so” then you are also attacking a strawman.

              • Ken B says:

                Dan
                ” I claim that from a literary standpoint there are several features of the gospels that make them sound like the writer was actually trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.”

                if Bob means ‘faked up to sound like an eyewitness’ he agrees with Anonymouse.

                If Bob means that we can therefore rely on Matthew he is just wrong. And when you look into his argument closely, as on other threads, it proves circular. You have to bet on such a parlay, accept so many special readings and pleadings, reject so many dissient versions, that the only justification for doing so is divine authority.

              • Dan says:

                “If Bob means that we can therefore rely on Matthew he is just wrong.”

                See, you keep doing it. Why do you think he put that this was not a smoking gun? You’re giving me two choices and I disagree with both of them. I took Dr. Murphy to mean that there are aspects of the story that should give a person pause when they assume the story is just made up. Your argument doesn’t hold any water when Dr. Murphy goes out of his way to say that he does not mean what you say he means.

              • Ken B says:

                I think it is quite clear Bob meant this arguemtn to bolster the reliability of the gospels.

                I have dealt — extensively — with those ‘oddities’. I have written more here than anyone else on the criteriaon os similarity, and how Bob’s use of it is not careful. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/04/he-is-risen-indeed.html#comment-35950

                And as notred, I pointed out my own oddity that seriously undercuts Bob’s thesis: how can we rely on the account to be an accurate eyewitness account when it was written down much later. How can pointing out an oddity Bob missed not count as dealing with Bob’s claim that we should look at the oddities?

              • Ken B says:

                I have prayed for better typing skills.

            • Anonymouse says:

              “However, he does punch a couple holes in the theory that it was simply a tall tale.”

              It was is more than a tall tale. It is extremely precise and well-crafted fiction.

  2. joeftansey says:

    “First, the story has Jesus appear to women, rather than (say) Peter. That is an odd twist that, in and of itself, would not have made the story more appealing to the culture of the time.”

    I don’t get why this is odd. If he had given them power rings and told them their job was to safeguard the planet until the second coming, I would agree. But he just asks them to be messengers to (more important) men.

    “Second, Matthew goes out of his way to mention that some doubted (I put that part in bold). I can’t think of any tall tales or myths that do that,”

    The good guys always need bad guys.

    But hey, which is more likely. That Jesus’ own disciples who lived with him, saw him crucified, and now whole again, DOUBTED HIS DIVINITY? Or that he’s not really divine, or that this is an edit to make believers feel even more smug about their faith, or…

    “unless they are setting up someone getting the smack down. ”

    Well, they aren’t going to heaven. Isn’t that kind of like the ultimate smack down?

    Again this is all really weird. We have people witnessing ultradivinity and resurrection, and they are still doubting and betraying him.

    “I claim that from a literary standpoint there are several features of the gospels that make them sound like the writer was actually trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.”

    Really?

    “Tell them, ‘His disciples came at night and stole Him away while we slept.’ 14 And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will appease him and make you secure.” 15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”

    Maybe his disciples really did steal him away. Maybe Christians were mad about everyone believing this, so they made up another “betray4pay” story to cover it up. Any time anyone does anything that hurts Christianity, they did it cus they were paid! I get it…..

    • Jeff says:

      Making a first appearance to women would be significant because, under then existing cultural standards, women were not permitted to testify to the occurrence of an event unless their testimony was corroborrated by a man. To appear first to a woman would be an odd choice, in light of the fact that it would do nothing to advance a power seeking narrative.

      Regarding your claim that every good guy needs a bad guy, I don’t see how that’s applicable to the passage. If they were trying to set up a foil for a position, it wouldn’t simply disappear after a throw away line. The line’s inclusion not only makes the account read more like a history, it also makes sense to include it if the author were acknowledging that what was being proposed was improbable and required a leap of faith. The prevailing concept of the Messiah at the time was that of a conqueror who would throw off Roman rule, not a spiritual Messiah that would die and rise from the dead. You are looking at the ministry with the benefit of hindsight and in a vacuum away from the realities of the Roman-occupied Galilee and Jerusalem. From both Matthew and the other Gospel traditions, it was clear that not even the Apostles understood exactly what was going on when they found the empty tomb. The Gospels likely arose out of oral traditions from followers of individual Apostles, written for target audiences, and did not generate from the hand of any one individual. The points that Dr. Bob raise are consistent with that position.

      • Anonymouse says:

        “The prevailing concept of the Messiah at the time was that of a conqueror who would throw off Roman rule, not a spiritual Messiah that would die and rise from the dead.”

        Right.

        “From both Matthew and the other Gospel traditions, it was clear that not even the Apostles understood exactly what was going on when they found the empty tomb.”

        Jesus was not what the people of the time were hoping for. He was able to keep their attention while healing them and giving away free stuff, but people weren’t particularly enamored of his teachings (according to another poster). They turned against him five days after his arrival in Jerusalem. Then, there was a lot of confusion over his alleged resurrection, and when he “came back” his followers weren’t even able to recognize him.

        All of the above details suggest that this is an extremely unlikely candidate for first-century Judean oral tradition, and is evidence that Jesus was not part of any oral tradition, and that the NT was a pure invention.

        If the Americans had lost the American revolution, how likely would it be for an oral tradition to emerge concerning the exploits of an executed pacifist who urged his followers to love and aid the British?

      • joeftansey says:

        “Making a first appearance to women would be significant because, under then existing cultural standards, women were not permitted to testify to the occurrence of an event unless their testimony was corroborrated by a man”

        They’re not being asked to testify. They’re being asked to deliver a message. I don’t know any culture misogynistic enough to completely discount the consensus experience of a whole group of women.

        “Regarding your claim that every good guy needs a bad guy, I don’t see how that’s applicable to the passage. If they were trying to set up a foil for a position, it wouldn’t simply disappear after a throw away line.”

        Maybe it was just edited in that one paragraph.

        But it doesn’t disappear. This is a recurring theme around jesus. Even people who know him personally and see his miracles DOUBT HIM for some reason. Why? Dunno.

        “The line’s inclusion not only makes the account read more like a history, it also makes sense to include it if the author were acknowledging that what was being proposed was improbable and required a leap of faith”

        He rose from the dead. He died and then you saw him come back. That isn’t exactly a “leap of faith”.

        “The points that Dr. Bob raise are consistent with that position.”

        Consistent with the position that the bible was written in a historical context? How ornate!

  3. Ken B says:

    “Yet there are at least two things that make it odd, if it were pure invention after the fact by Christians trying to spread their doctrine”

    It’s False Dichotomy Monday at Free Advice!

    “I claim that from a literary standpoint there are several features of the gospels that make them sound like the writer was actually trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.”
    This from a man who admits he’s read less about these issues than even I have? Oh well. This claim is really quite the opposite of the truth, and I have cited some books and scholars for Bob to ignore. If you compare different versions from different sources, and from different copies of the sources, you will see clear evidence of tampering, ususally to support a theological point.

    Here’s a good example. In John 3 Jesus has an exchange with Nicodemus about ‘born again/born from above’. The exchange turns on the Greek word used. Greek. But of course Jesus spoke Aramaic. So the discussion is not a translation. What is it then? It is the end result of a process of mutation and elaboration tantamount to invention. (But it need not be “pure invention”. Bob’s ideas about pure invention are like Intelligent Design nad ‘irredicuble complexity’: a fasle dichotomy based on the mistaken notion that if you can’t see the series of intermediate stages they cannot exist.It’s laike arguing that when you play telephone the message only gets garbled because some people decide to make stuff up.)
    That discussion fits Bob’s rather jejune criteria for the-telling-detail-that-proves-the-tale. It’s so specific, and why would believers include waht is essntially a pun to make Him look unclear?

    Technically, Bob is misunderstanding the criterion of dissimilarity. He seems to cite a story awkward to Christians as proof it must be true. But the story is only awkward to certain groups of Christians. It might have been quite congenial to other or earlier groups. And all we can really conclude is that this group did not introduce this incongrous story, and hence that they found it it in their sources.

    • Drigan says:

      He made the point that this isn’t a smoking gun. Had he said it was proof then it would be a false dichotomy, but he didn’t claim this; Bob merely said it’s odd . . . and indeed it *is* odd. Not proof by any stretch, but if you want to convict the gospels as “being made up by men” it’s certainly evidence against this . . . or evidence that they’re idiots in how they went about convincing people . . . but then you have to deal with the fact that they’ve convinced nearly 1/3 of the world to buy into their view. Under the circumstances, they’re pretty impressive idiots.

      • joeftansey says:

        Jesus can speak whatever language he wants. He’s the son of god.

        • Ken B says:

          And it’s really rather odd that he should speak such a lower class, and hence low-status, language rather than Latin or Greek. How would that appeal to the culture of the times?

          • Drigan says:

            I’m sorry, I can’t follow your reasoning here. If anything, this lends credence to the theory that Christianity had a lousy PR campaign that succeeded because of something other than the campaign itself.

            • joeftansey says:

              Well, yeah, we agree. Christianity succeeded in spite of its lousy campaign. Of which the Bible and multiple betrayals of people who personally knew Jesus are a part of.

              Too bad we know a lot of other really successful ideas are complete nonsense, and a lot of good ideas enjoy almost no popularity.

              • Ken B says:

                Either Christianity is true or its spread is a miraculous proof that it is true.

              • joeftansey says:

                Scientology is much more impressive. Even though it is routinely mocked and anyone with a computer can “fact check” some of its more dubious claims, it still manages to get hundreds of thousands of people to pay out the nose for pure dribble.

    • Jeff says:

      Bob didn’t say that it is proof the story must be true. His argument was about authenticity, not necessarily truth. To claim something is a fabrication after the fact, it would not be expected to contain characteristics of authentic oral history. Your point on the multiple language translations illustrates that well. As the Gospels include certain features that would be expected to exist in oral traditions reduced to writing, it is some evidence in support of the argument that they are authentic oral histories. The authenticity of the stories are clearly important in ascertaining their truth, but establishing authenticity is not the same thing as establishing truth. However, if an author was accurately trying to transcribe the accounts, the author would be less subject (but not immune) to impeachment due to personal bias. It is a very complicated question that does not reduce to pure a priori logical reduction.

  4. Ken B says:

    “odd features ”

    So generous of you to make my point once again. The NT tales are FULL of odd points.

    Theory 1. Odd unexplained points prove a claim.

    Theory 2. The NT is an amalgam of just some of the source material we have, redacted over a long period of time, and late, reflecting the theology and liturgy of a diverse set of commuinities about whom we often know little, and it incorporates elements of their divergent understandings of Jesus, his life, and his teachings. It is not an accurate record of the underlying events as it reflects a great admixture of later understandings and dogmas.

    • Drigan says:

      Theory 1 rephrasing: Citing lower class people will cause the higher classes to discount their claims. Therefore you should cite the most respectable guys you can come up with if you’re trying to convince people. Otherwise, the spread of your word is in spite of your claims, not because of them.

      This is just truth. Don’t tell me I should cite the bum on the street rather than the scientific expert that happens to be on my side . . . yet that’s essentially what happens in the gospels. The gospel writers take the person whose claims aren’t permissible in court (women) over the guy who is considered respectable and upper class (Paul).

      Imagine that the Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptics (aka skeptics) have nothing but bums claiming that AGW isn’t occurring . . . yet they convince a few odd scientists of their claims. The other side has scientists and people of power . . . but they can’t silence the skeptic group . . . in fact their numbers keep growing. This is *in spite* of the messengers, not because of them. That’s all that Bob is saying . . . the gospel message spread in spite of a *terrible* PR campaign. He’s not saying it’s impossible, he’s just saying that people who claim Christianity had an amazing PR campaign weren’t really looking at the campaign: “Join us and get tortured to death!!! But if these completely unreliable people are right, you’ll live forever afterwards . . .”

  5. Ken B says:

    “First, the story has Jesus appear to women, rather than (say) Peter. That is an odd twist that, in and of itself, would not have made the story more appealing to the culture of the time.”

    True enough. Was the ‘culture of the time’ the intended audience? Or was the intended audience more like the one Paul appealled to by noting that in christ there is no male and female? Could this be an example of the least shall be first? Etc.

    • E. Harding says:

      Since the women were first introduced in the Gospel of Mark (which all other three gospels relied upon), which ends with the women not telling anyone anything, I suspect this is more an example of failure (to ensure a quick Second Coming??) than of the least becoming first.

    • Drigan says:

      Are you implying that Paul was trying to convince women? If so, I kindof see your point . . . but I’m not sure he was speaking to women. I’d need to look things up for a little more clarity, but don’t really have time ATM.

  6. Anonymouse says:

    “…the story has Jesus appear to women, rather than (say) Peter. That is an odd twist that, in and of itself, would not have made the story more appealing to the culture of the time.”

    Fair enough, but is it evidence of truth? Maybe it was put in there to make it seem more realistic.

    “Second, Matthew goes out of his way to mention that some doubted (I put that part in bold).”

    The whole point of Christianity is faith, so why isn’t this just an example of people “screwing up”? An example of what not to do.

    “I can’t think of any tall tales or myths that do that”

    No comment…

    “I realize neither of those points are smoking guns, but I’m just pointing out that they’re odd features of a story that some claim was invented or at least heavily edited in order to make it palatable to the masses.”

    I think they’re features that make it sound more realistic, as your post attests to.

    “I claim that from a literary standpoint there are several features of the gospels that make them sound like the writer was actually trying to faithfully record an eyewitness account.”

    But no scholar I’m aware of believes that, and as far as I know, you’re not claiming that the gospels are eyewitness accounts. So, the fact that they appear that way is an illusion – intentional, in my opinion.

  7. John G. says:

    Ken B: “…The NT is an amalgam of just some of the source material we have, redacted over a long period of time, and late, reflecting the theology and liturgy of a diverse set of commuinities about whom we often know little, and it incorporates elements of their divergent understandings of Jesus, his life, and his teachings…”

    I agree, Ken, and I did not know this until a few months ago. I knew that this was the case for the OT, via the Documentary Hypothesis, and that four different traditions comprise the OT. But, I had no idea that the NT has widespread ‘interpolations,’ insertions of whole sentences and paragraphs by subsequent editors, and wholly created books.

    I have been exploring Marcionism, which postulates that an early version of Luke and of 10 of Paul’s epistles were the closest to being unadulterated Christianity. Marcionism, as I understand it, postulates that the add-on material and other books were created in the first 200-300 years A.D. to synthesize the original ‘Jesus is the antithesis of, and successor to, the OT’ with the later ‘Jesus is an outgrowth of the OT.’

  8. Ken B says:

    @John G: Glad to hear it. Interesting suff. One minor correction before the usual suspects go postal: it is the 5 books of Moses that the DH applies to and had 4 sources(E, J etc). The OT as a whole had even more, of course, being written over centuries.

    A really good book is How Jesus Became God by Rubenstein.

    PS You should talk to Bob.

  9. Ken B says:

    Here’a another odd thing. “And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. ”
    That sounds like Matthew knows about stories widely circulated amongst the Jews. (Too bad we don’t have Jewish sources for that, so sad.) Doesn’t that sound like it’s been a while? No-one says ‘to this very day’ about recent stuff. So here we evidence right in Matthew for Matthew being late.

  10. Anonymouse says:

    “No-one says ‘to this very day’ about recent stuff. So here we evidence right in Matthew for Matthew being late.”

    Nice point. Of course, Bob could say that “this very day”, taken literally, could be any day whatsoever (e.g. a few days later), continuing his war against language and common sense.

    • Anonymouse says:

      Re: “war against language and common sense”

      By the way, Bob, I didn’t intend that as gratuitous snark. I specifically had your post on Paul in mind, where you claimed that everything he wrote meant its opposite.

      • Ken B says:

        What post? What Paul?

      • Anonymouse says:

        http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/01/the-first-of-several-posts-on-roman-13.html

        Rereading it, it wasn’t as bad as I remembered, but he spent a lot of time ducking, dodging, and weaving around the obvious. Here are some choice quotes from Romans 13:

        “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities”

        Evil.

        “rulers hold no terror for those who do right”

        B.S.

        “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”

        B.S.

        “They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

        B.S.

        “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

        Evil B.S.

        “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”

        Evil.

        Then, in the understatement of the century, Bob ended the post with:

        “So in conclusion, I admit the beginning of Romans 13 is problematic.”

        If, by “problematic”, he meant “pure evil” that would be one thing, but I don’t think that’s what he meant.

        • Ken B says:

          Bob, this one is for you — you might acutally like this comment.

          Bob overlooked the likeliest explanation. Paul believed the end was nigh, that there was no long term, that the kingdom of heaven would arrive like a thief in the night soon, before the present generation passes away. So all this stuff was irrelevant to the urgent task of preparing yourself and spreading the word.

          Paul was exhorting the Romans to act rightly right now, not writing a political tract for a future that he thought would never come.

          • Anonymouse says:

            That explanation makes sense if you think there was actually a Paul. But when I read sentences like “it is necessary to submit to the authorities … as a matter of conscience” all I see is pro-Roman religious propaganda.

            Think about it… Paul was allegedly a militant Jewish zealot who turned into a guy preaching that the Romans were “God’s servant[s] for your good”.

            What a miraculous transformation indeed! And how remarkably convenient for an empire that was engaged in the multi-generational suppression of massive and repeated wars of rebellion.

  11. konst says:

    Happy Easter!

    The Greek Orthodox Easter is celebrated next Sunday April 15 and the weekdays after Easter are called Bright Week.

    http://orthodoxwiki.org

  12. Luke says:

    The disciples also present themselves as cowards. Would be quite unusual if they made it up.

    • Anonymouse says:

      The fact that the disciples are presented as cowards is more evidence that the NT is not derived from oral tradition, but was created in whole cloth by non-disciple, non-Judean, Hellenistic Greek-speakers.

      • konst says:

        In case you didn’t know, practically everyone spoke Greek in NT times even if it wasn’t their native language. It was one of the languages of the Roman Empire and in Judea they spoke Greek, Latin, and Aramaic (or Hebrew).

        • Anonymouse says:

          Are you suggesting that Jesus and his followers spoke Greek and that the alleged oral tradition was in Greek?

          • konst says:

            Jesus as a resident of Judea certainly spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic. Almost everyone needed to know Greek or they wouldn’t be able to deal with the Roman authorities and legal matters.

            Look at the link I posted in the comment below for a history of the Jerusalem church to see why much of the oral tradition of the Church is in Greek.

          • konst says:

            It says below that my comment is awaiting moderation. I guess Bob Murphy needs to approve it cause it contains more than one link.

          • Anonymouse says:

            “Almost everyone needed to know Greek or they wouldn’t be able to deal with the Roman authorities and legal matters.”

            Even accepting your point, for the sake of argument, the level of fluency required to “deal with the authorities” is nowhere near the level required to write the NT. The NT was composed by highly-literate readers and writers of Greek, not Judean peasants.

            And furthermore, why would some rural fishermen in Galilee need to know any Greek whatsoever? Were they trading salmon futures on the open market?

            • konst says:

              Judean peasants?! Matthew was a tax collector.

              You seem to have a low opinion of people in that time and area. They weren’t just peasants. Besides you do know that Alexander the Great conquered much of the then-known world and much of the areas spoke Greek in addition to other languages.

              Greek in that time was like English in the world today. It was one of the common languages know to everyone. They might not have been philosophers but they could certainly speak fluent Greek. Probably the writing of the Letters of St. Paul and the Apostles were dictated and written down in Greek rather than them writing the letters and books themselves.
              Since Greek was like English today it would have been able to be read by many people then.

              • Ken B says:

                The highest estimates of literacy in the Roman world are under 10%. That is for those who can just read; writers were much rarer. And that includes the richer parts of the populace. Literacy was a valuable skill and was concentrated in cities. Rural peasants were not authors.

            • Anonymouse says:

              “Judean peasants?! Matthew was a tax collector.”

              1. Matthew didn’t write Matthew. The question is, what was the general Greek level of Jesus’ followers, who consisted of peasants, fishermen, etc.?

              2. If there was an oral tradition, it would have been in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek.

              3. If Christianity was really an outgrowth of Judaism, the NT would have been written in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek.

              4. Even accepting that your average Judean spoke some Greek, their fluency level would not have been high enough to have composed the NT.

              “You seem to have a low opinion of people in that time and area. They weren’t just peasants.”

              You implied that everyone was walking around speaking four languages. I don’t buy that for a minute. You don’t appear to make any distinction between the wealthy, educated, and literate, and the common person.

              “Greek in that time was like English in the world today.”

              This doesn’t help your case. I’m quite familiar with English in the world today, and I can tell you that no English-based oral traditions are likely to come out of Afghanistan, Japan, or Mexico.

              “It was one of the common languages know to everyone. They might not have been philosophers but they could certainly speak fluent Greek.”

              Who says?

              “Probably the writing of the Letters of St. Paul and the Apostles were dictated and written down in Greek rather than them writing the letters and books themselves.”

              There were no dictating saints. Those were fictional characters created by educated and highly-literate Greek-speakers.

              • Ken B says:

                Paul demonstrably used at least one secretary. So what? Highly literate secretaries translating Mark on the fly?

              • Anonymouse says:

                “Paul demonstrably used at least one secretary.”

                What is that based on?

                “So what? Highly literate secretaries translating Mark on the fly?”

                The fact that the NT is in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic is evidence that it’s an offshoot of Hellenism, not Judaism. It was crafted to give the appearance of having Judaic roots, but close examination of the NT and official Church history reveals the antisemitism inherent in Christianity from the very beginning.

                The fact that the official history of the early church claims there was a quick purging of any remaining “Judaic elements” fits in with this analysis.

                In other words, the “Judaic elements” were never part of the original church. They were thrown into the fictional history to give the appearance of a smooth transition from “Old Judaism” to “New Judaism”.

                In fact, the real Judaic elements were the Jewish zealots, who opposed the introduction of an anti-Jewish pro-Roman religion into Judea.

              • Ken B says:

                Anonymouse quoting me

                “Paul demonstrably used at least one secretary.”

                What is that based on?

                One of the letters has an adendum which Paul says (paraphrase from memory) ‘this bit I wrote in my own hand’

              • Anonymouse says:

                “One of the letters has an adendum which Paul says (paraphrase from memory) ‘this bit I wrote in my own hand’”

                OK, but I don’t trust the author. The Paul character was way too convenient for the Romans. He was a zealot, presumably resisting Roman occupation, and turned into a pacifist advocating obedience to Roman rule. Oh, and he just happened to be a Roman citizen whose mother lived in Rome. *hint hint*

              • Drigan says:

                Why do you say that Paul was a zealot?

                Paul was a Roman citizen and Jew (the Jewish diaspora was already spread wide) trying to kill off the Christian cult because he considered it a corruption of Judaism.

                Why do you say he would have resisted occupation?

                Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed for about 40 years after Jesus’ death, and he was a Roman citizen, so why would we assume that Paul was a member of the group that nettled the Romans into destroying the temple? He might have been dead by then. And why wouldn’t they be able to get the word outside of Jerusalem in 40 years?

                I haven’t been able to independently verify this, (in part because I’m not sure how . . . it has something to do with idiomatic language tendencies of languages that i don’t know) but I’ve heard that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint. (Implying that they could speak Greek.)

              • Ken B says:

                Drigan: ” I’ve heard that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint”

                The problem here is that our sources are in Greek. So the sources use the Greek Septuagint (commonly LXX). In the bit Bob quotes above the angel speaks English. Do you conclude that angels speak English?

                I think there are a few coptic sources, non-canonical, and in them coptic quotations are given.

                Occassionally Jesus is quoted in Aramaic in the gospels directly, and occasionally a greek translation shows the underjying aramaic in turns of phrase that work in aramaic but not in greek.

              • Anonymouse says:

                “Why do you say that Paul was a zealot?”

                Because he acted like one (though he may not have been a member of the Sicarii).

                “Paul was … trying to kill off the Christian cult because he considered it a corruption of Judaism.”

                Hence… zealot.

                “Why do you say he would have resisted occupation?”

                That’s like asking why the Taliban would blow up Buddhist statues AND resist the occupation. Anyone zealous and militant enough to murder members of an faith would also have felt threatened by Hellenism and would have wanted the Romans out of Judea.

                “Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed for about 40 years after Jesus’ death, and he was a Roman citizen, so why would we assume that Paul was a member of the group that nettled the Romans into destroying the temple?”

                The zealots were active for decades… centuries even. They didn’t just suddenly spring up right before Rome came to destroy them.

                “And why wouldn’t they be able to get the word outside of Jerusalem in 40 years?”

                I’m not sure I understand your question…

  13. konst says:

    Since many of the readers here are lacking in their history of the Church, here are a few websites specifically related to the area of the NT:

    http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/welcome.htm

    This one is the Patriarchate in Antioch (somewhere in Lebanon or Damascus)
    http://www.antiochpat.org

    • konst says:

      Adding to that in the Jerusalem website is the history of the Church going back to James, the brother of the Lord (St. Joseph was previously married) who is the James in the Acts of the Apostles.

      “It is the earliest and unique Apostolic Patriarchate which with its See in the holy City of Jerusalem, represents the continuous and uninterrupted history of the Church as a natural continuation of the first Church that Christ Himself had founded.”

      http://www.jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/hystorical_an.htm

      • Anonymouse says:

        From your link:

        “…by a lucky coincidence the cleansing [massacre] of the extremist Judaic elements resulted in the first Church to consist of Greeks…”

        “Saint James … was the first justifier of Christianity against the Jews.”

        “The Christians in fact in order to erase every Judaic element … would elect henceforth Bishops from ethnics, mainly Greeks.”

        We’re supposed to believe that Christianity is a Hellenistic outgrowth of Judaism? Har har. It was clearly intended as a replacement for Judaism, and the antisemitism in your link is readily apparent.

        • konst says:

          I think you are reading into it your own personal bias. You picked out sections where you see in it what you want to believe and ignore the context in which those sentences appear.

          • konst says:

            “We’re supposed to believe that Christianity is a Hellenistic outgrowth of Judaism? Har har. It was clearly intended as a replacement for Judaism, and the antisemitism in your link is readily apparent.”

            Apparently you don’t understand Christianity. The Christians saw it as the fulfillment of the laws of the Old Testament, aka Judaism, aka the Messiah, so naturally they saw it as the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New.

            Suppose some Jewish people today believe that someone was the Messiah. Would you call them anti-Semites too?

            • Anonymouse says:

              “Suppose some Jewish people today believe that someone was the Messiah. Would you call them anti-Semites too?”

              Sure, if they kicked all the Jews out of their synagogue and purged any Jewish elements from the religion.

          • Anonymouse says:

            “I think you are reading into it your own personal bias. You picked out sections where you see in it what you want to believe and ignore the context in which those sentences appear.”

            The sentences I quoted from the history you linked to are evidence that Christianity was not an outgrowth of Judaism. They were very candid about purging any and all Jewish elements from the religion. That’s not my bias. That what the text you linked to says.

            • konst says:

              You wrote/quoted:
              “The Christians in fact in order to erase every Judaic element … would elect henceforth Bishops from ethnics, mainly Greeks.”

              What you left out by using “…” instead of the full text is:
              The Christians in fact in order to erase every Judaic element, which also riled the Roman authority, would elect henceforth Bishops from ethnics, mainly Greeks.

              And before that: “During this period the local Church was being disturbed externally by the Judaic Christians.”

              They were being persecuted by the Romans.

              Besides what you seem to be suggesting is that they continue in the Mosaic Law when in the first council the Apostles said it’s not necessary.

              • Anonymouse says:

                “What you left out by using “…” instead of the full text is:
                The Christians in fact in order to erase every Judaic element, which also riled the Roman authority, would elect henceforth Bishops from ethnics, mainly Greeks.”

                The part I left out only helps my case: …which also riled the Roman authority. “Also” indicates that the Christians and Romans were in agreement with regard to the “Judaic element”.

                “And before that: ‘During this period the local Church was being disturbed externally by the Judaic Christians.'”

                The fact that there was a conflict between “Christians” on the one hand and “Judaic Christians” on the other is important to understanding the true relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

                “Besides what you seem to be suggesting is that they continue in the Mosaic Law when in the first council the Apostles said it’s not necessary.”

                What I’m suggesting is that Christianity is a Hellenistic pro-Roman anti-Jewish religion. It’s not surprising that the Apostles voided Jewish law. They were fictional Jewish characters putting their stamp of approval on the “New Judaism”.

              • Ken B says:

                “they continue in the Mosaic Law when in the first council the Apostles said it’s not necessary.”

                You folks seriously need to check your facts. The question whether Christians had to follow Mosaic law was hotly debated by Peter and Paul, and others. Different communities had different views. This is patently clear when you compare ebionites to marcionites as extreme cases.

              • konst says:

                @Ken B comment-36011
                “You folks seriously need to check your facts. The question whether Christians had to follow Mosaic law was hotly debated by Peter and others”

                That’s my point. In the first council, the one with the Apostles, they said it’s not necessary.

              • Ken B says:

                @konst: the supposed first council and its decisions. We know this how? Citing a church won’t do. An early source is needed.

              • konst says:

                @Ken B
                What do you mean “we know this how?”
                It’s in Acts of the Apostles.

                You may have forgotten that there’s this things called tradition which is maintained from one Bishop to the next.
                It may not seem important to you and I in today’s world but in those times they took it very seriously. They didn’t just read about their tradition in a magazine 2000 years ago, they lived it each and every day.

              • Ken B says:

                @konst: But that’s not what that ‘council’ decided. They decided (granting ad arguendo that Acts is reliable here, although it contradicts Paul’s account and has other problems) that for GENTILES only parts of Mosaic law would apply. Not all christians.

    • Ken B says:

      Links from church organizations. The one I checked blithely cited Acts as history. Even Bob tries harder than this.

  14. Ken B says:

    I finsihed Ehrman’s new book. It is excellent. My earlier summary of the argument is a clsoe enoguh guess. Interestingly, some of the issues and stories we discussed in this thread came up in the book in prominent ways.

    The conclsuion should surprise no-one. Anonymouse is wrong. Jesus the Jew existed. Bob is wrong; the historical Jesus does not closely match Bob’s Jesus, and the biblical gospels are not straightforward eyewitness accounts. They are as I have described them.

    There was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher of first-century Palestine who was crucified by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

    the majority of scholars who have dealt with these matters over the past century or so have concluded that the Jesus who existed is not the Jesus of the stained-glass window or the second-grade Sunday school class.

    Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

    As ever, don’t trust me. Read it for yourself.

    • Anonymouse says:

      “As ever, don’t trust me. Read it for yourself.”

      In my case, that probably won’t happen anytime soon, so I’m wondering if you can provide something more to support your claim that “Anonymouse is wrong”. The points you listed before were:

      1) the weakness of the profferred negative arguments
      2) the multiple attestation implied by the various gospels, not all canonical
      3) Paul’s letters
      4) Occam
      5) Plethora of communities all arising in a short time period

      #1 is kind of empty without some examples, and I’m assuming he attacks arguments I don’t even buy into. #2 and #3 cite Christian texts as evidence for Christian claims. That is extremely weak. #4 would be fine except he is not aware of or does not acknowledge all the pertinent evidence. As for #5, I’d like to know when and where the communities arose and what the evidence for them is.

      • Ken B says:

        I don’t think it’s implausible that there was once a Jew named Jesus, who preached the end of the world is upon us, who never claimed to be god, who annoyed some powerful people, who fell afoul of the law, and who suffered a common enough penalty. We know of several men, like Brian :), who did similar things.

        • Anonymouse says:

          “I don’t think it’s implausible that there was once a Jew named Jesus, who preached the end of the world is upon us, who never claimed to be god, who annoyed some powerful people, who fell afoul of the law, and who suffered a common enough penalty.”

          There may have been some pacifists like that (who knows?), but what is implausible is that they would spawn a cult that would gain traction in an era of occupation, rebellion, and violent repression, and that the cult would set up its headquarters in the enemy capital and eventually become the enemy’s state religion.

          Something’s fishy here, and it’s not just the fish…

  15. Ken B says:

    @Anonymouse:
    5: someone produced the texts, someone corresponds to the communities denounced by other communities. There were christians by the end of the first century, there seem to have been none before about ad 30.
    2 and 3: We’re not talking doctrinal points here or supernatural claims. We’re talking independent conflicting reports with some points of agreement. Many of the sources btw most chtistians DENY are christian — they call them heretical.
    1: I don’t know what sources you cite. In short, an almost complete lack of scholars with an expertise in the relevant languages.
    4: Don’t gop all Bob on me. Occam is always relevant.

    • Anonymouse says:

      “2 and 3: We’re not talking doctrinal points here or supernatural claims. We’re talking independent conflicting reports with some points of agreement.”

      The gospels were not written independently. They are meant to be read inter-textually. The seeming contradictions between them are puzzles with logical solutions.

      “4: Don’t gop all Bob on me. Occam is always relevant.”

      Of course, but my point is that Ehrman applies Occam to a subset of the relevant evidence, producing a distorted result.

  16. konst says:

    @ Anonymouse and Ken B

    I’ve read that in the early days of the church the Christian sect (or cult as some here call it) was accepted mainly, at first, by the upper class and middle class of Jewish society at the time and not primarily by rural peasants. That may explain why it spread so fast and far in that time.

    • Anonymouse says:

      That’s not the impression I get of Jesus’ typical follower in the NT, though I could be wrong.

      • konst says:

        It’s not in the NT. It’s from the history of the church handed down from generation to generation. They say in the beginning mostly the upper classes and the middle classes were the ones to accept and spread Christianity.

        • Anonymouse says:

          So, why does the church history not mesh with the NT?

          • konst says:

            NT is a book about faith not necessarily a history textbook.

            Here is some of the history:
            http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/first-century

            • Anonymouse says:

              “NT is a book about faith not necessarily a history textbook.”

              Ah… so, I take it, you’re not a Christian.

              From your link:

              “Contrary to what is sometimes thought, the Christian Church was first an urban phenomenon which only later spread to the rural areas. Also, it was composed mainly of people from what we would call today the ‘higher classes’ of society.”

              Seems that Church history doesn’t jive with the gospels.

              • konst says:

                @ Anonymouse

                I am a Christian but those are the facts. The books that were included in the NT were chosen because they are primarily about faith not necessarily about the history of the Christian church.

                I’m not sure that the gospels deal with the early history except the Acts and some of the letters but even those they are more about faith rather than the history.

                There are many books which weren’t included in the NT cause they weren’t about the faith but other things. Some of those are heretical to the Christian faith but some just don’t deal much with the faith but they’re not really heretical either.

                Mainly the purpose of the NT is to teach about the faith.

              • Anonymouse says:

                “The books that were included in the NT were chosen because they are primarily about faith not necessarily about the history of the Christian church.”

                Is it possible in your view for the NT to contain factual errors?

  17. Dave says:

    what’s more likely:

    a) 2000 years ago, someone wrote a fictional story that doesn’t quite jive with you; or
    b) somebody died and then 3 days later came back to life

    • Anonymouse says:

      I don’t quite get the “jive with you” part, but I’m gonna have to go with (a).

      Bob might say that the NT seems so realistic to him that it could be true. But even accepting, for the sake of argument, that it is realistic, that still doesn’t answer the question of whether it is true or not.

      There’s this pesky little genre of literature called historical fiction that is all about appearing realistic but with all the important parts being made up.

      Just watch the show Mad Men and you’ll see what has been called a highly realistic portrayal of 1960s America. Yet its realism has no bearing on the whether the events ever happened or the characters ever existed.

      • Dave says:

        yep that’s my point. Seems Bob (who is great on economics) seems to have let critical judgement lapse on this topic.

        c’mon Bob – you find the way the story is told odd but nothing about the natural order being suspended makes you go “hmmm?”?

        • joeftansey says:

          Who said Bob is great on economics? He owes a large part of his fame to the Mises Institute and the Krugman Debate campaign. His individual contributions to economics have gone mostly unappreciated.

          Dr. Murphy gets a lot more applause and kudos from “10 Myths About the Free Market” (a generic talk most speakers have given) than his esoteric theories on interest.

          • konst says:

            Even without the Krugman debate, if you’ve ever read Bob’s work you can tell he is very good on economics.

            • joeftansey says:

              Good argument. Good details and analysis.

              /sarcasm

              I’m not saying Bob is bad on economics. I’m saying that it’s unlikely that anyone here can actually evaluate that claim. Because the vast majority of us have only read and listened to his pop-culture talks regurgitating the orthodox Austro-Libertarian views.

              He DOES have legitimate contributions to economic theory, but he isn’t exactly famous for them. Very few people here will have bothered to read his heterodox interest rate/time preference theory. So I don’t know how you guys can say Bob is “good” at economics.

              I myself don’t know because I don’t feel like making the time/energy investment to do his work justice.

              • Anonymouse says:

                Well, in one of his papers, he gave Mises a nice smack-down on a minor point. That earned him a lot of cred in my book.

Leave a Reply to Dave

Cancel Reply