The Impossible Faith (Holding versus Gerkin) commentary

[dizzle]

This thread is opened to discuss the Boxing Ring debate between JPHolding and Kyle Gerkin located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=27988#post27988

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[Jason Clark]

Kyle is a genius by skeptical standards but I don't think there's much chance of JP losing.

Thought for the day:

If Jesus had survived the flogging (Roman floggings alone could kill a man) being crucified, having a spear shoved into him then being laid in a ice cold rock tomb with nearly a hundred pounds of punguent herbs wrapped into his grave clothes with him, would he have been able to roll away a stone placed there by an able bodied man (assuming Joseph didn't just get a couple of servants to do that part) that was latched by having a smaller rock placed behind it so it couldn't roll?

That's one of the reasons that the "swoon" theory has been discarded. It's not logical.

Oh, and Kyle, please don't resort to the "if only one person mentioned it, it didn't happen" argument. Leave that for the Forrest Gumps in the Jesus Seminar. Nicodemus is recorded as being one of the Jewish leaders and it was possibly from him that Matthew learnt about the bribing of the soldiers. Matthew's gospel was directed to Jews and it was probably the accusations of grave robbery what prompted him to include mention of it.

Having different target audiences is why none of the other writers talked about it.

It's touches like that that lead me to believe that Matthew's gospel was the first written, and that it was written within ten years (perhaps less than five) of the events it records.

[ACFaith.Com]

Oh, and Kyle, please don't resort to the "if only one person mentioned it, it didn't happen" argument.

If its mentioned only once it doesn't mean it didn't happen. No one would argue that. Not even someone from the Jesus Seminar, which you casually dismiss would do that. Of course, with bona fide historical Jesus research in mind, historical apologetics based off of a "late"- singly attested item in a gospel is not very credible unless it can pass claims of authenticity or criteria of historicity. The burial of Jesus must be argued, not assumed.

Here is a good post on X-talk a while back from Brian Trafford on the burial story:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8963

It's touches like that that lead me to believe that Matthew's gospel was the first written, and that it was written within ten years (perhaps less than five) of the events it records.

I suppose the earth is flat too?

Having different target audiences is why none of the other writers talked about it.

Thus sayeth Forest Gump.

Vinnie

[Jason Clark]

Well he takes an awfully long time to agree with me. :smile:

Thanks for the yahoo group, it looks very interesting.

I don't accept a "late" date for Matthew though, the Church Fathers regarded it as the first Gospel and if you posit Mark as the first you then have find a source for the extra material that Mark doesn't have, ie. the infamous Q document, conspicuous only by its absence.

Kyle did use the "it's only mentioned by one person so I choose not to accept it" argument. He then went on to speculate about a lot of things that have the support of precisely zero Gospel writers. Zero mention obviously doesn't mean it couldn't have happened but I prefer to place weight on pillers that exist rather than ones that don't. I'm funny like that.

I suppose the earth is flat too?

I don't know where you got that from, I've not found anything in my Bible that says that the Earth is flat. Maybe you could suggest a few verses.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having different target audiences is why none of the other writers talked about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thus sayeth Forest Gump.

It's a reasonable speculation. Only a writer close to the events would care about whether the Jews were talking about grave robbing. If Mark's book was written later, possibly in Rome where no one would care, Peter wouldn't mention it so neither would Mark.* Luke again was writing for gentiles (a Greek?) and that one wouldn't care either. John may have been written after the fall of Jerusalem so there would be no one running around telling stories. Of the four only an early Matthew would have reason to mention the bribed guards. QED

Speculation that relies on know facts, like Nicodemus as the source of Matthew's bribery story or the Magi or their descendents as the source of his nativity account, is not unreasonable. It might not satisfy someone who demands a page of writing to prove Jesus was buried but people who demand that usually wouldn't be satisfied by any argument.

Oh and I like Forest Gump. :cheers:

*and as you know perfectly well Mark may not have written the end of his gospel, ending it with the empty tomb. In which case he would never have mentioned bribed guards.

[ACFaith.Com]

I don't accept a "late" date for Matthew though, the Church Fathers regarded it as the first Gospel and if you posit Mark as the first you then have find a source for the extra material that Mark doesn't have, ie. the infamous Q document, conspicuous only by its absence.

If you don't posit Mark first then you are left with the problem that has plagued the GH for years and years. Why would Mark condense Matthhew and leave out such a rich body of material? No Virginal conception, no sermon on the mount, no Lord's prayer, all thosse sayings etc?

The hard data suggests that we have to posit written dependence at some point.

The church fathers were simply mistaken regarding Matthew being first and were also mistaken about the names of the authors. This is old news in biblical scholarship.

Kyle did use the "it's only mentioned by one person so I choose not to accept it" argument.

I agree with that. Choosing not to accept it does not mean it did not happen. It means there is not good historical evidence in favor of it. Data with single attestation in a "late" stratum is not rock hard when it comes to HJ with our current sources. In some cases a late single-attestation to something can be used for historical details (see Meier V1, Marginal p. 280 on tekton but that is an exception to the general rule.

I don't know where you got that from, I've not found anything in my Bible that says that the Earth is flat. Maybe you could suggest a few verses.

I didn't get it from the Bible. It means that your dating of Matt to 30-40 ad is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat.

Speculation that relies on know facts, like Nicodemus as the source of Matthew's bribery story or the Magi or their descendents as the source of his nativity account, is not unreasonable. It might not satisfy someone who demands a page of writing to prove Jesus was buried but people who demand that usually wouldn't be satisfied by any argument.

I love subtle humor :-) Unfortunately for you, all credible scholars demand evidence for Jesus' burial. Some have concluded he wasn't and some that he was. I favor burial myself but I'm not foolish enough to use all those *ahem* "developments" in GMatt as an apologetic for anything. I'm still waiting for that positive evidence regarding the historicity of the Matthean magi but since it was deemed impossibile to provide I'm not going to hold my breath.

Also, you've engaged in ad hominem. Anyone who questions the burial story will not be convinced by evidence? Take that out with the trash on Tuesday morning. What do you think historians do? Read texts and mesh everything together as if it was infallible like conservative apologists to reconstruct history? That is not how academicians work. Source and method.

It's a reasonable speculation.

According to whom?

Only a writer close to the events would care about whether the Jews were talking about grave robbing.

Does GMatt use such information as a "defense" for the actuality of the Rez? Yes or no or I'm not sure or maybe will suffice.

If Mark's book was written later, possibly in Rome where no one would care,

Matthew was written after Mark. Welcome to Marcan priority.

Peter wouldn't mention it so neither would Mark.

The proof that Mark was based on Peter's preaching? I might actually defend that it is a basic outline of "apostolic preaching" but that he was writing down all that Peter said and gives us an indirect eyewitness account is to leave the evidence.

*Luke again was writing for gentiles (a Greek?) and that one wouldn't care either.

And you know this because you went back in time and actually conducted a survey right? Can I see it? How wdo we determine what they would or would not have found useful?
Note that I am not saying the opposite, that a failure to write = a failure to know. That simply is not true.

John may have been written after the fall of Jerusalem so there would be no one running around telling stories.

I suppose you think the apostle John wrote GJohn as well?

Of the four only an early Matthew would have reason to mention the bribed guards. QED

Assertion is not historical evidence. You have stated thus far: "They didn't include x because none of them found it relevant." Of course, you should actually defending the historicity of x rather than assuming everyone knew it but found the material of little use! and then, and only then can you speculate as to why it was not included. Of course, your argument for historicity should take into account the silence.

And what is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.

and as you know perfectly well Mark may not have written the end of his gospel, ending it with the empty tomb. In which case he would never have mentioned bribed guards.

Mark ends with 16:8 and the rest is a latter add on. Many scholars (Metzger is one) think Mark most likely had a longer ending but something happned to it. Of the four extant endings to Gmark Metzger says that none commend themselves as authentic (TNT). We simply don't know the ending of GMark. In that light, saying Mark could of referred to this does not = positive historical evidence. Its a non-argument.

Edit: To add to this, you seem to be saying that Mark decided to stop with the empty tomb, not that Mark could have referred to it. My sllip up. So why should I believe Mark originally ended with v16:8? is there good reason to suggest Mark had a longer ending? Is there good reason to suggest Mark ended at v.8? Why did four subsequent endings to Mark evolve?

What exactly is this debate about anyways ?

Vinnie

[Jason Clark]

If you don't posit Mark first then you are left with the problem that has plagued the GH for years and years. Why would Mark condense Matthhew and leave out such a rich body of material? No Virginal conception, no sermon on the mount, no Lord's prayer, all thosse sayings etc?

There's always the literary independence view where neither copied from the other. :smile: Leaving long winded things like those out seems to fit the character of Mark which as you are perfectly aware is dominated by Jesus' actions, not his words. Immediately he did this then immediately he did that. I can imagine Sylvester Stallone playing Jesus in Mark whereas Ian McKellan is more Matthew's type of Jesus.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil22.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/litdep2.html

How much of the gospels is in common?

"This quantitative Synoptic comparison (in which mere agreement in content is not taken into account) had the following results: In the cross section examined, just 22.19 percent of the words in parallel passages are completely identical; on the average, given 100 words in Mark, Matthew will have 95.68 differences and Luke 100.43. This means that the verbal similarities are comparatively small and extend chiefly to identical accounts of Jesus' words and to specific and unalterable vocabulary that is required by the nature of what is being related. [Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, Eta Linnemann, Baker:1992. p14]

Not that much.

The church fathers were simply mistaken regarding Matthew being first and were also mistaken about the names of the authors. This is old news in biblical scholarship.

Some of them also lived within the life time of some of the apostles. They would be in a better position to make such a statement than people living 2000 years later. As for the authorship of the Gospels...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil09.html

I didn't get it from the Bible. It means that your dating of Matt to 30-40 ad is equivalent to claiming the earth is flat.

No, Matthew was alive in 30-40 AD therefore he could have written his gospel then. The Earth has never been flat.
PS. I was being ironic.

What do you think historians do? Read texts and mesh everything together as if it was infallible like conservative apologists to reconstruct history?

Up to a point that's precisely what they do do. All history involves speculation to a certain degree as we don't have all the information available to us now. Harmonization is a historians job. Of course they don't assume infallibility but they are forgiving of misunderstandings.

Unfortunately for you, all credible scholars demand evidence for Jesus' burial.

What evidence do we have?

Do we have a tomb with Jesus' name carved on it? No we don't (as you know already). We have the texts in the Bible and a knowledge of the traditions of the Jews that would have required him to be underground before the Sabbath started. That seems to be the position Brian Trafford was taking in that link you sent me to. Quite interesting by the way and certainly not unfortunate.

That is not how academicians work. Source and method.

Well given that Q is a source created from alleged commonality between the synoptics that may not exist, can you really support the method also?

Oh, our trash is collected on Fridays. :wink:

Does GMatt use such information as a "defense" for the actuality of the Rez? Yes or no or I'm not sure or maybe will suffice.

Good point, does he treat it in the same way as John does the comments about "if it be my will he remain until I come again"? It seems that he does. "this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Matt 28:15 Indicating that he regarded it as being worth mentioning on those grounds.

I suppose you think the apostle John wrote GJohn as well?

Yes I do, obviously.

Matthew was written after Mark. Welcome to Marcan priority.

Thank you kind sir, unfortunately I can't enter your domicile. It would violate my conscience.

Of course, you should actually defending the historicity of x rather than assuming everyone knew it but found the material of little use!

And what is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.

Quite true, like for example the existance of Q or John not writing the Gospel that bears his name.

The proof that Mark was based on Peter's preaching?

Church fathers again, Papias I believe. That said you've already said you don't accept them as a source so we'll leave that.

you seem to be saying that Mark decided to stop with the empty tomb

Yes, that is what I'm saying. There may have been a longer copy but we don't have it. In the absence of any evidence (like Q) I can't place any faith in it.

What exactly is this debate about anyways ?

I have no idea, I just came here to cheer on J P. I didn't intend to get stuck in an argument with you. I'm sure you're a very interesting chap to talk to but that wasn't my purpose.

Let's have a drink and relax. :cheers:

[Gracchus]

A few thousand years from now there will probably be "Presleyites" claiming that Elvis rose from the dead and was seen by thousands. "It has been independently verified in many ancient publications." :rofl:

[wienerdog]

Unfortunately for you, all credible scholars demand evidence for Jesus' burial. Some have concluded he wasn't and some that he was.

"Having carried out fairly extensive research into the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, I was well aware that the wide majority of NT critics affirm the historicity of the Gospels' assertion that Jesus' corpse was interred in the tomb of a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea. Thus it puzzled me why a prominent scholar like Crossan would set his face against the consensus of scholarship on this question. What hitherto undetected or unappreciated evidence had he discovered, I wondered, that had escaped the notice of critical scholarship and made it probable that Jesus' body was dispatched in the way he alleged, and how did he nullify the evidence that has led most critics to regard the Gospel accounts of Jesus' entombment as fundamentally historically reliable?

"You can imagine my sense of disappointment when, consulting Crossan's works, I found that he had no particular evidence, much less compelling evidence, for his allegation; rather, it was just his hunch as to what happened to the body of Jesus...he does not engage the evidence that prompts most scholars to accept the historicity of Jesus' entombment."
(William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" in Jesus Under Fire)

[carrie]

"If Jesus had survived the flogging (Roman floggings alone could kill a man) being crucified, having a spear shoved into him then being laid in a ice cold rock tomb with nearly a hundred pounds of punguent herbs wrapped into his grave clothes with him, would he have been able to roll away a stone placed there by an able bodied man (assuming Joseph didn't just get a couple of servants to do that part) that was latched by having a smaller rock placed behind it so it couldn't roll?

That's one of the reasons that the "swoon" theory has been discarded. It's not logical."

Not to mention the difficulty in believing that Jesus disciples would proclaim this weak, half-dead man their risen Savior and Lord.

[carrie]

Also,

How does a man that has just had a big fat nail drilled into his ankles, which was supporting much of his body weight and therefore must have signifigantly aggravated the wound even walk at all. Let alone start moving heavy rocks and whatnot.

[Goochdad]

Jason:

Some of them also lived within the life time of some of the apostles. They would be in a better position to make such a statement than people living 2000 years later. As for the authorship of the Gospels...

Whoa there....which Church Father attested to the names of the authors of the gospels, and was also alive during the lifetime of some of the apostles?

[Goochdad]

Wienerdog, in response to your quote from Craig about the 'wide majority of NT scholars' and the tomb story, here is a list provided by Peter Kirby:

An incomplete list of 20th century persons who profess to be Christians but doubt the historicity of the empty tomb story: Marcus Borg, Gunther Bornkamm, Gerald Boldock Bostock, Rudolf Bultmann, John Dominic Crossan, Maurice Goguel, Hans Grass, Charles Guignebert, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Herman Hendrickx, Roy Hoover, Helmut Koester, Hans Kung, Alfred Loisy, Willi Marxsen, Norman Perrin, Marianne Sawicki, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and Rev. John T. Theodore.
Former Christian theologians include Robert Price, Gerd Ludemann, and Michael Goulder.


I wouldn't claim that was a majority of NT scholars, but it is a considerable number of Christian scholars who doubt the empty tomb story.

[wienerdog]

Thanks. Off the top of my head, I would just point out that John Shelby Spong isn't a scholar, so he should be taken off the list. I'm also surprised by some of the other scholars, such as Koester, Kung, Borg, and Perrin. I know that Perrin was pretty liberal, but he still affirmed that the resurrection appearances are solid historical facts.

We should probably contact Craig to verify this, but I don't think this list would invalidate the claim that the vast majority of scholars accept the empty tomb story. I know that Jacob Kremer wrote something to the effect that "by far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb." In my reading, the only people I've seen who deny it essentially avoid the historical evidence offered for it, like Crossan does. I also noticed several scholars on the list who really are on the outermost fringe of scholarship, like Ludemann, Hoover, and Goulder.

Good point though. Maybe we should write a letter to Craig? Both of us, or TheologyWeb or something? What do you think?

[Goochdad]

Hi, wienerdog (cute pup, btw, I need to put a pic of Gooch my chocolate lab on my avatar).

I might quibble about what a 'scholar' really is, and why Spong would be off the list, but I agree he isn't considered a biblical scholar. Just a very well educated Christian.

Yes, asking Craig to flesh out his claim is an excellent idea. I'm sure he'd be willing to say exactly what he meant.

In many circles, what this claim will reduce to is 'who counts as a scholar?'. Many if not most Christians on TW would dismiss anyone who is on the Jesus Seminar. Many nontheists would dismiss anyone who claims to hold to biblical inerrancy. I find the former to be a much more difficult position to defend, of course ;-> Any attack on someone as a scholar has to be based on their scholarship, and if one has a presupposition that one ancient book is inerrant, and no other ancient book is, then I think that is more of a risky position to take than anything the Jesus Seminar is claiming.

Up to you on how to proceed with the Craig letter.

[Vorkosigan]

03-11-2003 @ 09:57 PM
wienerdog:

In my reading, the only people I've seen who deny it essentially avoid the historical evidence offered for it, like Crossan does. I also noticed several scholars on the list who really are on the outermost fringe of scholarship, like Ludemann, Hoover, and Goulder. ?

Not true at all. Theissen and Merz note in their massive and extremely useful tome THe Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide which I highly recommend "the empty tomb cannot be either demonstrated or refuted with historical-critical methods." (p. 502, after four page discussion) In other words, there is no way to prove that it is not later legendary accretion if you attack it from a historical perspective.

But people like Goulder and Crossan, among the many scholars who do not believe that this tradition represents truth, come at it from another angle. As Crossan notes, in The Birth of Christianity

The individual units, general sequences, and overall frames of the passion-resurrection story are so linked to prophetic fulfillment that the removal of such fulfillment leaves nothing but the barest facts, almost as in Josephus, Tacitus, or the Apostle's Creed. By individual units I mean such items as these: the lots cast and garments divided from Psalm 22:18; the darkness at noon from Amos 8:9; the gall and vinegar drink from Psalm 69:21. By general sequences I mean such items as these: the Mount of Olives situation from 2 Samuel 15-17; the trial collaboration from Psalm 2; the abuse description from the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. By overall frames I mean the narrative genre of innocence vindicated, righteouness redeemed, and virtue rewarded. In other words, on all three narrative levels -- surface, intermediate, and deep -- biblical models and scriptural precedents have controlled the story to the point that without them nothing is left but the brutal fact of the crucifixion itself. (italics in original) Birth of Christianity, p.521

You can see that there are other angles, and they yield fruitful perspectives.

Vorkosigan

[Andrew]

There's an entire chapter in Strobel's Case for Christ that annihilates the swoon theory. Strobel interviews a Dr Alexander Metherell who discusses what one would expect in a crucifixion scenario and how the Biblical data dovetails with this.

Metherell notes that Roman beatings, in themselves, were particularly brutal affairs, many people dying from these alone. He comments, "at the least, the victim would experience tremendous pain and go into hypovolemic shock," the result of large blood loss. (p. 261-262) The symptoms are (262):
- the heart races to try and pump blood that isn't there
- the blood pressure drops, causing fainting or collapse
- the kidneys stop producing urine to maintain what volume is left
- the person becomes very thirsty as the body craves fluids to replace the lost blood volume

Metherell sees all this occurring in the gospel narratives: "Jesus was in hypovolemic shock as he staggered up the road to the execution site at Calvary, carrying the horizontal beam of the cross. Finally Jesus collapsed, and the Roman soldier ordered Simon to carry the cross for him. Later we read that Jesus said, "I thirst," at which point a sip of vinegar was offered to him." (p.262)

"Because of the terrible effects of this beating, there's no question that Jesus was already in serious to critical condition even before the nails were driven through his hands and feet." (p.262)

Crucifixion is an excruciating death by asphyxiation: (p.265-266)

"The reason is that the stresses on the muscles and diaphragm put the chest into the inhaled position; basically, in order to exhale, the individual must push up on his feet so the tension on the muscles would be eased for a moment. In doing so, the nail would tear through the foot, eventually locking up against the tarsal bones.

"After relaxing to exhale, the person would then be able to relax down and take another breath in. Again, he'd have to push himself up to exhale, scraping his bloodied back against the coarse wood of the cross. This would go on and on until complete exhaustion would take over, and the person wouldn't be able to push up and breathe anymore.

"As the person slows down his breathing, he goes into what is called respiratory acidosis- the carbon dioxide in the blood is dissolved as carbonic acid, causing the acidity of the blood to increase. This eventually leads to an irregular heartbeat. In fact, with his heart beating erratically, Jesus would have known that he was at the moment of death, which is when he was able to say, "Lord, into your hands I commit my spirit." And then he died of cardiac arrest."

The story of the Roman soldier spearing Jesus is also bolstered by the medical evidence. We read: (p.266)

"Even before he died- and this is important, too- the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion.

"[This is significant] because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was probably his right side; that's not certain, but from the description it was probably the right side, between the ribs.

"The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid- the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion- came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel."

[The Laughing Man]

03-11-2003 @ 06:10 PM
Andrew:

The story of the Roman soldier spearing Jesus is also bolstered by the medical evidence. We read: (p.266)

"Even before he died- and this is important, too- the hypovolemic shock would have caused a sustained rapid heart rate that would have contributed to heart failure, resulting in the collection of fluid in the membrane around the heart, called a pericardial effusion, as well as around the lungs, which is called a pleural effusion.

"[This is significant] because of what happened when the Roman soldier came around and, being fairly certain that Jesus was dead, confirmed it by thrusting a spear into his right side. It was probably his right side; that's not certain, but from the description it was probably the right side, between the ribs.

"The spear apparently went through the right lung and into the heart, so when the spear was pulled out, some fluid- the pericardial effusion and the pleural effusion- came out. This would have the appearance of a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large volume of blood, as the eyewitness John described in his gospel."

Yup yup! :thumb: I mean, not that something so morbid makes me happy or anything, but it certainly something that a lay-person could not have accurately recorded if the piercing by a spear (or even the entirety of Christ's life, as some claim) was a fabrication. I myself wondered a long time at the mention of "water" flowing from Christ's wound. Then I learned about the fluid build-up around the heart that would happen during physical trials like a crucifixion. It all makes perfect sense and is 100% medically accurate.

[The Laughing Man]

Gerkin's argument about whether or not the Roman soldier could tell if Jesus had died just by a cursory witnessing of the moment seems daft to me. Roman soldiers were expert killers, but one doesn't even need to be that to know when someone dies. My mother, for instance, was present at the deaths of my grandmother and my father. She has had little medical training (first aid and CPR), but she absolutely could tell when they died. It almost seems as if Gerkin is arguing from the point of our medically-advanced, high-tech gizmo era where we can measure brain waves and heart rhythms, and is saying that ANE cultures simply could not pinpoint the moment of death without such things. I think Gerkin would be surprised at how sensitive human perception is in the absence of our modern, push-button technology - something that can be proven by studying current primitive cultures. Not being technologically advanced does not mean people are stupid and/or incompetent.

[ACFaith.Com]

What evidence do we have?

Do we have a tomb with Jesus' name carved on it? No we don't (as you know already). We have the texts in the Bible and a knowledge of the traditions of the Jews that would have required him to be underground before the Sabbath started. That seems to be the position Brian Trafford was taking in that link you sent me to. Quite interesting by the way and certainly not unfortunate.

I never denied the burial story. I said it needed to be argued, not assumed. There is a big difference there. You can argue that Jesus was buried but I doubt you can defend the embellishments in Gmatthew. Raymond Brown thinks there was a preGospel burial tradition with Joseph of Arimathea in it. The notion of a burial of Jesus may occur in one of Paul's letters (e.g. we may very well have very early or first stratum attestation here on this independently confirmed by the Gospels or if you go the route of Brown, a preGospel tradition with J of A in it. On page 1240 of Vol 2 of Brown's The Death of the Messiah he says, " That Jesus was buried is historically certain." That is contra Crossan who thinks Jesus' body was probably eaten by dogs.

Vinnie

[BrianB]

Goochdad said:

---begin quote---
Wienerdog, in response to your quote from Craig about the 'wide majority of NT scholars' and the tomb story, here is a list provided by Peter Kirby
[snip]
---end quote---

Goochdad, please explain what relevance this has at all to the Craig quote that weinerdog provided.

Brian

[Goochdad]

Relevance? I provided a list of quite a few recognized scholars who don't accept the emtpy tomb story as history. My post has generated some discussion of the views of several of those scholars on that very question of history, so it is obviously relevant to the topic at hand.

[BrianB]

Goochdad,

Where in Craig's quote do you see anything about an empty tomb?

Craig's quote is about the burial, not the finding of the empty tomb.

Brian

[Goochdad]

BrianB, you are correct, the Craig quote is about the interment. My list was scholars who doubt the historicity of the empty tomb. I don't know what intersection there is between the two groups, and I would like to find out. How would we go about doing this?

[Pate]

Craig gives a list of a little less than 50 scholars in support of the historicity of Jesus's empty tomb in his book "Reasonable Faith". I could copy it here if that would help.

[Pate]

Gerkin seems to argue that he as an atheist, prefers any naturalistic explanation of the evidence for the resurrection, if that's even remotely possible. I'd like to know whether Gerkin is willing to admit that if one considers the existence of some kind of supernatural personal force to be at least a possibility that should be taken very seriously, (let's say that its existence has a probability of 0,5 without considering the issue of resurrection) then it is the case, that the most probable explanation for the evidence for Jesus's resurrection is that this supernatural personal force raised Jesus from the dead? And furthermore, if the answer is yes, then how far does he think that this goes to justify the idea that what Jesus taught about God can be viewed as authoritative?

[Wesley's son]

Concerning the injuries of Christ:

Let us not forget that in addition to all the torture already mentioned, our Lord's side was punctured by a spear so that "blood and water flowed". It has been speculated that Christ developed pericardial efffusion as a result of the crucifixion. This is a condition in which the tissue sac around the heart fills with an abnormal amount of fluid. If this sac is ruptured it releases a large volume of watery blood. To get to the pericardium, the spear would have to slice intestine, (possibly a kidney), the diaphragm, and a lung. Such an injury alone today, in the 21st century, is enough to kill without immediate medical attention.

...just another thing to consider...

[Wesley's son]

Whoops... this has already been presented!

:doh: :doh: :doh:

[John Powell]

Pate:

Gerkin seems to argue that he as an atheist, prefers any naturalistic explanation of the evidence for the resurrection, if that's even remotely possible. I'd like to know whether Gerkin is willing to admit that if one considers the existence of some kind of supernatural personal force to be at least a possibility that should be taken very seriously, (let's say that its existence has a probability of 0,5 without considering the issue of resurrection) then it is the case, that the most probable explanation for the evidence for Jesus's resurrection is that this supernatural personal force raised Jesus from the dead?

POWELL:
Since I want others to seriously consider my scenarios, I feel an obligation to consider theirs.

Briefly, yes.

I have thought about this and my provisional opinion is that if it was accepted to be true by the consensus (not necessarily universal opinion) of the scientific community that there is a significant probability (let's say about 50%) of the existence of a supernatural personal force interacting with people on Earth now and in the historical past then I would probably consider the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ as a likely consequence of that possible supernatural force. I would treat the resurrection of Jesus as historical unless, perhaps, I was in a discussion with someone who disputed that. On the other hand, I would also likely accept many other unusual claims by Christians, Muslims, and others with out expecting a whole lot more evidence than their mere say-so.

PATE:
And furthermore, if the answer is yes, then how far does he think that this goes to justify the idea that what Jesus taught about God can be viewed as authoritative?


POWELL:
That depends. It depends upon the reported behavior of this 50% probable supernatural personal force and the reported behavior of those alleged to have benefitted from the force.

If the interaction reports tended to support the idea that those benefitting from the personal force were significantly more truthful about their teachings concerning the personal force then yes, the alleged resurrection account of Jesus would suggest that His teachings about the personal force were true or, at least significantly more likely to be true than the teachings of someone about this force who was not reported to have received resurrection from the supernatural force.

However, if there didn't seem to be any significant correlation between the person being blessed by the personal force and their truthfulness concerning the force, in other words if the recipients were essentially just as truthful as any other person about the force, then there would be no compelling reason to give extra credibility to the words of Jesus on this personal force based upon the resurrection experience itself. Other features of Jesus or His ministry might give good reason to trust His words more than those of another.

If I think about this some more, I might change my mind.

John Powell

[BrianB]

For JPH and KyleG

Greetings guys,

I know you are not allowed to respond here, but I thought you might be interested in thinking about the following before the debate ends. I have a sinking feeling that much of this discussion will come to naught unless you try and clarify what you mean when you are claiming that something is impossible or not impossible in the contexts of these discussions. Let me explain by an illustration.

Two people could have a discussion on whether or not a cup of water sitting on my living room table could 'spontaneously' heat up to boiling temperature.

Greg
"It's impossible for that cup of water to heat to boiling all by itself."

Mark
"No, it's not impossible...it's highly improbable, but it's not impossible."

'Common sense' would tell us that Greg is right, and understanding the laws of classical thermodynamics would support his assertion in a certain way, but yet Mark would still be correct that it's not technically impossible, just highly improbable. It's entirely _possible_ that the high-energy (think, fast-moving) particles in the room would (by chance) all converge on the cup providing enough energy to raise the temperature and boil the water, however it's so unlikely that we consider it _practically_ impossible and can thus rely on the laws of classical thermodynamics to tell us how macroscopic systems will behave.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to identify Kyle's claim with the claim that it's not impossible for a cup of water to spontaneously heat, but I think some clarifications on what you guys mean by "impossible" would be very helpful.

Is it possible for a normal ~150lb guy to push a 2000lb cube of stone a couple of feet? Kyle, you seem to think it is:

---begin quote---
But, even if Jesus survived, how did he move that darn stone? Since the stone would've likely weighed about a ton, JP suggests it would've been impossible for a healthy person (such as JP himself!) to move, much less a badly injured Jesus...
[snip]
A cube or squat cylinder would've been much more troublesome, though perhaps not impossible. Jesus' condition certainly would've exacerbated the difficulties in moving the stone, but given a couple of days of consistent effort broken up by rest periods, the necessary movement is not inconceivable."
---end quote---

Whereas I think JP would put that in the realm of "technically possible, but practically impossible" in a similar way to the boiling water example above. Perhaps it'd be better to wait until the debate is over, but I think clarifying what your criteria for 'impossibility' are might be useful.

Regards,
Brian

[stevencarrwork]

Holding writes 'the temperature in the tomb was probably about 56-58 degrees Fahrenheit,....'

Amazingly accurate, for somebody who has no idea of what the weather was, or exactly what sort of tomb it was.

Sometimes Holding's knowledge frightens me. He can tell us the temperature of tombs 2,000 years ago to an accuracy of plus or minus 1 degree Centigrade.

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 09:08 PM
Wesley's son:

Let us not forget that in addition to all the torture already mentioned, our Lord's side was punctured by a spear so that "blood and water flowed".

Indeed this piercing is well attested in Matthew 27:49 in the very ealry manuscript Codex Sinaiticus. Strange that the earliest complete (more or less) Bible says this happened before Jesus died.

And this reading of Matthew 27:49 is backed up by the early manuscript Codex Vaticanus (mid 4th century), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th cent), and other manuscripts also back that up.

It would appear that the Christian scribes would change the crucifixion and resurrection stories as they saw fit.

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm gives details of Christians tampering with the stories.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thanks for the reference, Steven.

I wanted to comment on James's reluctance to embrace the likelihood of grave robbing of the tomb of Jesus because of widespread taboos of the ANE cultures and because of Jesus's publicized poverty. I can imagine two kinds of grave robbers who might risk offending the supernatural - powers - that - are - believed - to - be by desecrating the dead.

1) Those who believed that they had sufficient magic to protect them. Past successes might have borne this out.

2) Enterprising atheists taking advantage of the superstitions of those around them. :shy:

As to whether the robbers would think the tomb of Jesus was worth the effort, perhaps they would. They might have thought that the crucified poor man had wealthy friends who might have left some things of value.

"If you don't take a look, you'll never know what you might have owned."
---Handbook of Thieves and Related Noble Professions (fictitious).

John Powell

[Woman]

I only stumbled in here late today, so I've been playing catch up. Steven FINALLY posted a question about JP's cave temperature which I had been dying to insert back many posts ago.

Another thing that I remembered hearing is that ordinarily it took much longer for people to perish from crucifixion; like hours and hours longer.

Then of course as others have commented, that Roman soldier was likely MUCH better at killing than arriving at a diagnosis of death. Remember, these are people who have no idea that blood circulates, that a pulse can be used to verify life, especially at arterial pulse points. Doctors far into modern history have pronounced living people dead. It still happens, though rarely. It is, however, one reason that a coroner must "pronounce" at the scene. People in law enforcement and in emergency health care services will tell you that they are not qualified to pronounce death. This is the reason that even when an ambulance crew believes that a patient has succumbed to brain death, you will always hear D.O.A. "John Doe pronounced dead on arrival" (at the hospital.) Although one Highway Patrolman did tell me they were allowed to do so at the scene of a decapitation!

Of course G's arguments are thin. But JP's, no matter how persuasive, cannot prove "impossibility." This particular resolution was lost before it began.

[spl_cadet]

Don't you think that someone trained in killing is rather able to tell if someone is dead? And shoving a spear into their heart is always a rather good indicator of whether they are dead or not. Actually, it rather ensures that they are dead :teeth:

[dizzle]

Now that the debate is over, the participants are free to post in this commentary thread.

[jpholding]

Back in to address some of the dumb comments, and no surprise, they come all from Stevie:

Amazingly accurate, for somebody who has no idea of what the weather was, or exactly what sort of tomb it was.

Duh, Stevie? Caves tend to hold a constant temperature, weather notwithstanding, and "what sort" is of no point here. Why is it? Hello?

Indeed this piercing is well attested in Matthew 27:49 in the very ealry manuscript Codex Sinaiticus. Strange that the earliest complete (more or less) Bible says this happened before Jesus died.

How about earlier copies of Matthew? Is this passage taken as controversial by textual scholars, or are you just throwing beans in the air as usual? Oddly enough Metzger seems not to know about this in his Text of the NT book, though the lack of a Scripture Index makes it hard to be sure.

It would appear that the Christian scribes would change the crucifixion and resurrection stories as they saw fit.

It would appear your paranoia gets the best of you at times. :thumb: Sure, Stevie. That proves that they changed ANY detail they wanted at ANY time. Riiiiiiiight.