Before proceeding, one might ask, does such a question matter? If you are a Christian apologist who seeks to prove that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, it might. But if one is trying to prove that converting to Christianity provides a great boon to every individualʼs life in this case Franklinʼs, there is little evidence of him changing much if at all (provided he did convert, which is the question at issue).
I want to believe in God and a personal afterlife, and like Frank Schaeffer, author of “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace” (son of the apologist Francis Schaeffer), I do not deny myself prayers to God. I try in all ways to learn what is true, including prayer to God during times of questioning, questing and need. But both the cosmos and the Bible raise many questions of pain and suffering as well as competency of the Designer (who is possibly a Tinkerer), including whether the human species will even last. The stars have billions of years of life left in them since they burn via nuclear fusion and more stars continue being born in distant clusters. One can easily imagine the stars outlasting humanity by far. I also wonder how much truth lay behind the stories of Jesusʼ miracles in the Gospels. Regarding the latter question, Jesus was probably an apocalyptic prophet, but I tend to doubt the resurrection and other miracle stories, in fact you can see certain stories about Jesus grow in the telling from Mark to Matthew, Luke and John: “Gospel Trajectories & The Resurrection (questions as well as sources to read or listen to)”
Furthermore, almost all the miracles occurred either in some unspecified “wilderness” or in small towns in Galilee, i.e., Jesus never visited the largest cities of Galilee nor is spoken of as having performed miracles in them such as Sepphoris which was located near Nazareth, nor did he perform miracles in other large cities like Caesarea Philippi, Tiberius, Hippos (the last two being on the shores of the Lake of Galilee). Instead, three smaller cities, mere towns, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum encompassed the area where Jesus performed most of his miracles, which scholars have appropriately nicknamed “the Evangelical Triangle.” Even after the people of those towns allegedly saw Jesusʼ miracles the citizens did not hail Jesus and start to follow him. So the Gospels have Jesus denouncing the three towns where he allegedly performed most of his miracles, and warning that judgment would fall on them. As for Jesusʼ greatest nature miracles, they were only said to have been seen by a few apostles in a boat (stilling a storm, walking on water), or on an unnamed mountaintop (the transfiguration, three apostles were allegedly there). Interestingly, the fourth Gospel, allegedly written by the same John who was one of the three apostles who viewed the transfiguration, does not mention that particular miracle at all. The only large city Jesus visits is Jerusalem where he is captured and crucified, and he performs no public healings there per the synoptic Gospels but merely preaches (except for one miracle of healing in Jerusalem mentioned in the late fourth Gospel). Even the late added narrative of the bodily ascension of Jesus in Luke-Acts, is said to have only been seen by the remaining eleven apostles. Here is a guy rising into the clouds, but apparently doesnʼt want everybody to see it. Even weirder is how in Luke the raised Jesus proves he is flesh and bone and then “led them out” of Jerusalem to Bethany, but with no mention of anybody noticing, no mention of people spying the raised Jesus, or the apostles shouting Hosanna as this resurrected flesh and bone Jesus allegedly is leading his apostles out from one large city to a nearby town (compare all the Hosannas when Jesus entered the city). In other words, Jesusʼ exit is very hush hush. And as I said Jesusʼ alleged miracles are only said to have happened in out of the way places, like some unspecified “wilderness” or on an unspecified “mountaintop” or in three towns in particular (not even cities) in Galilee (where they rejected him), or the most spectacular miracles are only seen by a few apostles. Not sure I believe such stories, including the raising of Lazarus tale in the fourth Gospel which seems to have resulted from combining earlier tales in earlier Gospels, resulting in a new story: “Scent from heaven? Who nose? Do tales of Jesusʼ anointing, resurrection & bodily ascension, bear the aroma of truth?”
Add to that the way the resurrection tales contradict one another, and how nobody sees Jesus exit the tomb. His bodily resurrection is an implied miracle in the first and earliest Gospel but is declared in the two last-written Gospels of Luke and John to be a very physical resurrection. The earliest telling in Mark says only that the tomb is declared empty. The closest we come to a first person letter from someone saying they saw the raised Jesus is where Paul mentions in two letters that “he appeared to me,” thatʼs all he says about it, and lists some appearances to others, with no times or places mentioned nor anything that was said or heard. And Paul says Jesus had a “spiritual body” instead of mentioning that Jesus had “flesh and bone” like in the last Gospels written, Luke-Acts. The earliest Gospel, Mark, does not have a post-resurrection appearance story. It just ends with the women fleeing an empty tomb, frightened, and telling no one anything (the Greek is highly emphatic, involving a repetition of the same Greek word to emphasize that the women did not say “anything” to “any[one]” [the Greek reads, oudeis oudeis], so how and when did the story about the discovery of an empty tomb arise? One wonders, since the text states emphatically that the women did not say “anything to anyone” about such a discovery. Sounds like even the empty tomb story might have arisen later. Paul certainly doesnʼt mention it, or the women. But later Gospels build considerably on that tale in Mark). Meanwhile the number of words and lessons allegedly taught by the resurrected Jesus AFTER he was raised, continued to rise in number from Mark to Matthew, and then reach their peak in Luke-Acts and John. Obviously the story was growing over time. “The Word About The Growing Words Of The Resurrected Jesus”.
Also see “New Testament Questions Galore From a Wide Range of Christian and Non-Christian Biblical Scholars”
So I donʼt know what to believe. Because nature contains a variety of pains that humans have struggled to bypass or avoid via intelligence, city planning, safety regulations, modern medicine and dentistry, and advanced detection devices that predict the weather and other changes in the environment (including marking danger zones), rather than accept such pains as part of Godʼs wonderful design. And itʼs not “sinners” who are plagued most by natureʼs pains but people unlucky enough to be in the paths of disasters and epidemics, or unintelligent enough not to take safety measures, or economically impoverished so their city or country cannot afford modern safety techniques and conveniences. Therefore natureʼs pains are not focused on “sinners.”
Also, the human species seems destined to perish while the cosmos goes on, and we might not even be the coolest species in the cosmos. Meanwhile the Gospels plead “mystery,” and Jesus says in places that he spoke to crowds (in those towns I mentioned) in ways “that they might not understand,” then then damned them for not hailing him and following him.
Ah, but there are miracles around the world if you read some Christian apologists. Especially in South America, where Catholicism is huge, or where the Pentecostal revival in the Philippines took place. Though other Christians doubt and question the wealth of Catholic miracles, and still other Christians doubt the alleged miracles in the Philippines. And we see the web articles and books by Joe Nickell who has been investigating a lot of allegedly Catholic miracle stories. While Keith Augustine has a web article about NDEs that raises many questions Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences. (Keith also has a book coming out in 2015, co-authored with Michael Martin on NDEs) Endless debates.
I figure that if there really was an infinite Being, one that did not want to remain very mysterious and behind the scenes, and/or that wanted everyone to be “saved” via trusting in tales of one true religion, wouldnʼt it be plainer?
So Iʼm agnostic, painfully so as I grow older, since I canʼt help but wish that this life and its memories does not end like everything else I see ending around us. I have lived long enough to see the next generation grow up ignorant of many of the key moments in history, song, literature, comedy and drama from my generation. The past seems doomed to be forgotten, along with the individuals in it. Cultural movements being and then end. Ideas change as well as styles. My own memories of earlier decades has declined, which I notice when I talk with friends from decades past. Iʼll keep praying and hoping. Add to that some meditating (hat tip Will Bagley).
See also this blog post with links to Miracles from all religions (including amazing coincidences that seem to just happen and are not related to a religion), when viewed together, provide a crazy mixed bag of “evidence.” Miracles from all religions (including amazing coincidences that seem to just happen and are not related to a religion), when viewed together, provide a crazy mixed bag of “evidence.” So how can “God or WhateverIsOutThere” expect us to know what to make of them?
The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
James Tabor presents a new look at the original text of the earliest Gospel [I added some edits and some information at the end, Ed Babinski]
The last verse in the Gospel of Mark (16:8) reads…
“And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing.”
The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels—with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.
He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus — or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Markʼs Gospel at all—and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Markʼs strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!
Like the other three Gospels Mark recounts the visit of Mary Magdalene and her companions to the tomb of Jesus early Sunday morning. Upon arriving they find the blocking stone at the entrance of the tomb removed and a “young man”—notice—not said explicitly to be “an angel” nor “two angels” as in later Gospels—tells them:
“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing. (Mark 16:6-8)
And there the Gospel simply ends!
Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by Christians in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles (including the King James Version) and considered part of the holy canon of inspired Scriptures. Here is that forged ending of Mark, added after the women fled and “told no one”:
“Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.”
This long added ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark.1 Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early 3rd century) show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.
Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, it was not the only such ending added to Mark! A different ending that was shorter, as well as an expansion added to the end of the longer ending also were found in ancient manuscripts:
[1] “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
[2] ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’ — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satanʼs power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’
That being said, what implications can we draw from the existence of additions to the original ending of Mark? (If you recall, the earliest manuscripts end simply with the women exiting the empty tomb and “telling no one.”) The implications challenge naive understandings of Christian origins which ignore the development and trajectory of tales about the “resurrected” Jesus that grew over time. I have dealt with this issue more generally in my post, “What Really Happened on Easter Morning” that sets the stage for the following implications.
In Mark, on the last night of Jesusʼ life, he told his intimate followers following their meal, “But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee” (Mark 14:28), which was repeated at the tomb by the “young man,” who tells the women, “Go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” What Mark believes is that Jesus has been “lifted up” or “raised up” to the right hand of God and that the disciples would “see” him in Galilee. Mark knows of no accounts of people encountering the revived corpse of Jesus, wounds and all, walking around Jerusalem as in the two last Gospels written, Luke and John. The story in Mark is that the disciples experienced their epiphanies of Jesus once they returned to Galilee after the eight-day Passover festival and had returned to their fishing to ponder the death of their leader, whose cause they had hoped would succeed, and who had originally abandoned their livelihoods to follow. They probably could not imagine the time spent following their leader had been in vain, and thatʼs when they had their “epiphanies,” whatever they may have been. But there is little evidence to suggest such epiphanies/early appearance tales were the same as in the latter most Gospels, which either changed or deleted the messages in both Mark 14 and Mark 16. Those messages in Mark were that “He would go before them to Galilee” and be seen “there,” rather than in Jerusalem.
The faith that Mark reflects, namely that Jesus has been “raised up” or lifted up to heaven, is precisely parallel to that of Paul—who is the earliest witness to this understanding of Jesusʼ resurrection. You can read my full exposition of Paulʼs understanding “the heavenly glorified Christ,” whom he claims to encounter, here. And notably, he parallels his own visionary experience to that of Peter, James and the rest of the apostles. What this means is that when Paul wrote, in the 50s CE, this was the resurrection faith of the early followers of Jesus! Since Matthew, Luke and John come so much later and clearly reflect the period after 70 CE when all of the first witnesses were dead—including Peter, Paul and James the brother of Jesus, they are clearly 2nd generation traditions and should not be given priority.
Mark begins his account with the line “The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Clearly for him, what he subsequently writes is that “Gospel,” not a deficient version that needs to be supplemented or “fixed” with later alternative traditions about Jesus appearing in a resuscitated body Easter weekend in Jerusalem.
James D. Tabor [with some edits by Ed Babinski, and additional information at the end]
The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).
--Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition
Since Mark was not responsible for the composition of the last twelve verses of the generally current form of his Gospel, and since they undoubtedly had been attached to the Gospel before the Church recognized the fourfold Gospels as canonical, it follows that the New Testament contains not four but five evangelic accounts of events subsequent to the resurrection.
--Bruce B. Metzger The Text of the New Testament Oxford: OUP, 1992, 229.
So Metzger pointed out that the church canonized four Gospels and one mini-post-rez-Gospel story. Ha.
The most significant NT textual variants, including the added long and short endings to Mark, appear to be these.
What such variants demonstrate is that by the time the Christian churches finalized their New [and Improved] Testament it was 300 years after Jesus had died and they were editing it right up to the last minute--adding multiple endings to the last chapter of Mark, adding explicit Trinitarian passages to one letter, adding entire letters that appeared so late that the apostles who allegedly wrote them were already dead. For additional “last minute” changes see, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, and, Misquoting Jesus, both by Bart D. Ehrman.
“Mark was significantly re-shaped by the authors of Matthew and Luke, which is well analyzed in modern redaction-critical and literary-critical studies. For example, Matthew embodies about 90% of Mark and generally retains the Markan order of the material taken over from Mark, but this material is wedded with much additional material (the “Q” and “M” material), and is appropriated in a narrative with additional components producing a significantly different narrative plan (e.g., the “birth narrative” in Matthew 1-2, the resurrection appearances and “great commission” in Matthew 28). Moreover, Matthew exhibits frequent and well-known modification of the Markan material appropriated (cf. Mark 6:45-52/ Matt 14:22-33), and a considerably different cluster of thematic concerns (e.g., lessened negative portrayal of disciples, greater emphasis on Jesus as a teacher of specific rules of life as in 5:19-48 and 18:7-35, and a more positive emphasis on Peter as in 16:16-20, etc.)
“The adaptation of Markan material in Luke is probably even more thorough. In Luke one finds only about 60% of Mark, and, as in Matthew, the Markan material is joined by a large body of “Q” material as well as a sizable amount of “special” Lukan material (e.g., Luke 1-2, the mission of the 70 in 10:1-20, parables in 15:8-32, the post-resurrection narratives in Luke 24, etc.). In addition, as in Matthew, the Markan material has often been modified in style, content, and emphases, producing significantly different versions of the incidents and sayings taken over from Mark (e.g., the Lukan eschatological discourse in 21:5-38); and the material is submerged in an account that has a distinctive narrative shape (e.g., the “travel narrative” of 9:51-19:27, and the beginning and ending of Luke) as well as distinctive emphases and narrative devices (e.g., the chronological concerns in 2:1-2 and 3:1-2).
“Also, as studies of the use of the Q material in Matthew and Luke have shown, the authors apparently felt free to adapt their other written source similarly.”
“As another example of the way ancients often provide significantly new renditions of texts, we may note Tatianʼs Diatessaron, in which the material in the four canonical Gospels was woven creatively into a new continuous sequence producing an account of Jesusʼ ministry that was thereby markedly different from any one of the four sources. Though the Diatessaron is the most well known ancient Gospel “harmony,” indications are that this was not the first or only such literary creation. The ancient Gospel harmonies show that the textual integrity of Mark and the other Gospels was not always important to at least some Christians, and that they felt free to draw upon the Gospels as sources to create their own compositions and renditions of the story of Jesus. This freedom can be demonstrated in the ancient handling of other texts as well, such as the radical abbreviation and modification of Jason of Cyreneʼs five-volume work by the author of 2 Maccabees.”
“In addition to the ancient freedom to give new renditions of ancient texts, we must also reckon with the freedom some ancient copyists exercised in transmitting texts. Although NT textual criticism appears to be regarded by some as an arcane and uninteresting area, a better familiarity with the manuscript tradition would perhaps help NT scholars develop a better grasp of ancient textuality.”
“In the ancient setting, where texts were transmitted by being copied by hand, the transmission often involved a considerable freedom in modifying the text being copied. Modern research has shown that, while some copyists apparently practiced their craft with great care for exactness, many others made all sorts of changes: stylistic modifications, frequent harmonization (especially harmonization of Mark with parallels in the other Synoptics), deletions (e.g., the so-called ‘Western non-interpolations’ in Luke), insertions (e.g., the famous pericope of the adulteress added after John 7:53, or 7:36 or 21:25 or after Luke 21:38), and modifications of a doctrinal nature (e.g., the several variations in Mark 3:21 and 13:32).
“Perhaps the most extensive example of the somewhat free textual transmission of the NT is the so-called Western text of Acts, which is nearly one-tenth longer than the more familiar Alexandrian text. In particular, E. J Epp has called for more attention to the modification of the NT text of a thematic nature exhibited in the western text of Acts.”
“But there is, of course, a major example of the somewhat fluid nature of ancient textuality that we can note directly pertaining to Mark: the several scribally-supplied endings to Mark, all of which are significant modifications of the shape of the Markan narrative. [For a review of the variations, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 122-26. See also J. L. Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Markʼs Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). For an innovative study of the ‘long ending’ to Mark, see P. A. Mirecki, ‘Mark 16:9-20: Composition, Tradition and Redaction,’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986).] These scribal innovations in the ending of Mark show how free some ancient Christians felt to modify even those texts deemed to have some sort of authority; and the reshaping of the Markan ending is only the most well-known example of the fluidity of ancient texts.”
“We must beware of assuming that the concern for exactness characteristic of the printed text or attributed to the Massoretic copying of the Hebrew Bible was shared by ancients in general. That was manifestly not the case.”
A section in Hurtadoʼs online paper, “Greco-Roman Textuality and the Gospel of Mark A Critical Assessment of Werner Kelberʼs The Oral and the Written Gospel,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997) 91-106.
The latest issue of New Testament Studies, 2011, raises a further question:
“Matthewʼs Use of Mark: Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?*” by David C. Sim [School of Theology/Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University] The abstract reads: “Most scholars acknowledge Matthewʼs debt to Mark in the composition of his own Gospel, and they are fully aware of his extensive redaction and expansion of this major source. Yet few scholars pose what is an obvious question that arises from these points: What was Matthewʼs intention for Mark once he had composed and circulated his own revised and enlarged account of Jesusʼ mission? Did he intend to supplement Mark, in which case he wished his readers to continue to consult Mark as well as his own narrative, or was it his intention to replace the earlier Gospel? It is argued in this study that the evidence suggests that Matthew viewed Mark as seriously flawed, and that he wrote his own Gospel to replace the inadequate Marcan account.”
The mere fact that Mark, ostensibly the earliest Gospel, lacked a birth narrative and a post-resurrection narrative, while those were added to later Gospels (Matthew and Luke), and that Matthew and Luke disagree the most in exactly those birth and post-resurrection stories that they added to the Markan narrative, raises questions as to the validity of such tales.
 (“Fear of the Question”) |
Why does Christianity need apologists if the evidence for the resurrection is as undeniable and unquestionable as apologists claim it is? They say “itʼs a fact!” (Really? An infinite Being couldnʼt provide any more evidence than cult-written second-hand sources? And also expect everyone to believe in heaven and hell, sight unseen? And believe in all the related doctrines and practices of Christianity with few questions asked?) Instead, when I think of Christian apologetics I think of this quotation from a personal letter by C. S. Lewis:
I envy you not having to think any more about Christian apologetics. My correspondents force the subject on me again and again. It is very wearing, and not v. good for oneʼs own faith. A Christian doctrine never seems less real to me than when I have just (even if successfully) been defending it. It is particularly tormenting when those who were converted by my books begin to relapse and raise new difficulties.
C. S. Lewis to Mary Van Deusen, June 18, 1956
The Disharmony of the death and resurrection tales.
The Trajectory from early to late NT sources that suggests the death and resurrection tales grew in the telling, not just in length (and in the number of words allegedly spoken by the resurrected Jesus) but also grew via enhancements that believers added over time to make the tales appear more impressive, convincing. Jesus is also portrayed as more in control, more philosophical, regal or divine in the last two written Gospels and their versions of his capture, death and burial. (Even the stories in which Jesus commands others to come back to life follow a trajectory of enhancement, and grow less secretive, more public, more impressive, and play a more important role in the story when you read them starting with earlier Gospels and ending with the fourth Gospel).
The Lack Of First Hand Testimony. The documents we possess are all second hand information produced by members of the Jesus cult. Paulʼs extremely brief statement, “he appeared to me,” is first hand but thatʼs the only “first hand” statement we possess. (1 Peter is disputed.) I guess an infinite Being with infinite resources wanted things that way. All apologetic works that claim the “evidence” is enough for a successful “court case” flounder on the fact that courts require first hand testimony.
The Lack Of Open Public Demonstration, Just Secret Sightings Claimed By Cult Members. The book of Acts only mentions sightings of Jesus granted to a limited number of apostles without any mention of an appearance to “over 500 brethren.” Neither was that appearance open to the public at large, just to “brethren.” In fact when Paul stated that Jesus “appeared” to “over 500 brethren at once” (1 Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number than the “120 brethren” mentioned in Acts after Jesus had allegedly ascended bodily into heaven, i.e., “In those days Peter stood up among the believers, a group numbering about a hundred and twenty.” That is the total number that Acts gives after “Jesus was taken up from us.” (Acts 1:9,14-15,22)
Acts goes on to say:
He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. Acts 10:41
After giving instructions… to the apostles he had chosen… he presented himself to them [the apostles only]… He appeared to them over a period of forty days… On one occasion, while he was eating with them… they gathered around him… [and] he was taken up before their very eyes [those of the apostles alone], and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going. Acts 1:1-11
By the time the resurrection tale was told in Luke the message at the tomb had undergone a distinct change (The raised Jesus was no longer “going before them to Galilee to be seen there,” as in Mark and Matthew, but instead only the word, “Galilee,” remained in the Lukan version with no mention of where Jesus was going or where he would be seen.) The author of the third Gospel has the resurrected Jesus appear to all the apostles not in Galilee but in Jerusalem, and eat fish, say he is “not a spirit” but has “flesh and bone,” afterwards Jesus “led them to Bethany,” from the city of Jerusalem to a nearby town. But in this moment of triumph, beating death, sin, hell (which surely trumps Jesusʼ entry into Jerusalem) we find no crowds, no shouts of Hosanna. If such a tale were true then surely the silence concerning this moment of triumph is deafening, especially since moments before Jesus had been intent to prove he was not a spirit, but had bones and ate fish, and then decided to “lead them” on a trip through Jerusalem. “Nothing to see here, move along.”
Damned For Not Believing? Even if all the appearance and resurrection tales by Jesus cultists were harmonizable and true (they appear to be more a mixed bag, “I didnʼt recognize him!” “He was suddenly just there.” “He ate fish and talked and dined with us for weeks on end and walked out of Jerusalem with us” which are what one might expect from second hand accumulations of tales by people trying to convince others that their cult or master they followed was the best), I still would not expect any truly ethical God who knows the limitations of human knowledge to demand that literally everyone must believe such stories or be damned eternally. And when one notes Matthewʼs embellishment of Mark, his insertion of the brief “many raised saints” passage, and his “angel coming down out of the sky to sit atop the rock outside the tomb,” it makes me wonder what Jesus cultists were NOT capable of adding to the story to try and make it sound more grandiose, or what people back then were NOT willing to believe.
Some of the questions above are fleshed out further in posts below.
(Click on the final word(s) of each title to visit the article or post)
Miracles from all religions (including amazing coincidences that seem to just happen and are not related to a religion), when viewed together, provide a crazy mixed bag of “evidence.” So how can “God or WhateverIsOutThere” expect us to know what to make of them? (One does not need to claim that everyoneʼs religious experiences are false in order to ask, How can God expect us to know exactly what to make of the wide diversity of religious beliefs and miracle stories?
Richard Carrierʼs Five Questions Concerning “The Resurrection”
“No Stomach” for N.T. Wright (and the questions that raises concerning the life of the world to come”
Scent from heaven? Who nose? Do tales of Jesusʼ anointing, resurrection & bodily ascension, bear the aroma of truth?
Has Michael R. Licona considered the raising of many saints story in Matthew in light of questions of Markan priority?
Yet More on The “Many Resurrected Saints”
Did the historical Jesus speak about the necessity of being “born again?” Questions raised by David A. Croteau, Bart Ehrman & David Friedrich Strauss. Bart Ehrmanʼs Question
Evangelicalism: What Is One To Make of the Phenomenon? [a collection of quotations]
Crisis After Crisis Among Evangelicals Concerning Biblical Authority
Evangelical Christian publishers admit Christianityʼs “image problem,” “postmodern turn,” differing rival “views” within the Evangelical fold, and speak about “hopeful skepticism” and “questions” rather than dogmatic truth
What if the NT Gospels, Especially Matthew, Were Totally True? Jesus dies, suddenly the sky is darkened for three hours, an earthquake shakes the city, splitting the very rocks, an earthquake so violent it opens graves (and probably does a lot more damage than that), undead Jews crawl out of their graves and are seen by the Roman guards overseeing Jesusʼ crucifixion, who are terrified, and cry out in unison (Matt), “This was the son of God.” But the undead then take a sabbatical, waiting till Sunday morning* to enter the holy city and show themselves to many. Naturally all this crazy stuff caused the Jews to worry that if the disciples were to steal Jesusʼ body, then that might convince people that a miracle had occurred. All that other stuff going on, and THATʼs what they fear might convince people that a miracle had occurred? [Richard Carrier, my paraphrase, Click Here for the original statement by Carrier]
*The Greek in Matthew states literally that the graves were opened and the saints were raised at the time of Jesusʼ death, but that they didnʼt enter the holy city and show themselves to many until “after his resurrection” on Sunday morning. Why? Apologist J.P. Holding suggests itʼs because they were obeying the Sabbath day of rest. Really? Acts mentions that Jews Could travel on the sabbath for a limited distance, but probably enough to reach the holy city. In Luke that distance was called “a sabbath dayʼs journey.” And why couldnʼt someone from the city simply walk over to the graves? Others suggest that some scribe added the phrase to Matthew, “after his resurrection” so that Jesus would rise before the saints, i.e., that Jesus would be the first fruits of the resurrection, but that little phrase also forces them to hang round in the graveyard for a day and a half. For more on the raised saints tale, Click Here.
And if the Resurrection Tales were totally Harmonized… Click Here to read the article.
According to the Gospels Jesus was anointed with (or received) perfume numerous times in his life. Are all the tales true? Are any of them symbolic, legendary? At his birth Jesus allegedly received a visit from an unknown number of wealthy star gazers (was it two? three? more than three? Matthew does not say) who traveled far to deliver gifts of “frankincense and myrrh” (not to mention an unknown quantity of “gold”), at least thatʼs what the Gospel of Matthew states, none of the other Gospels happen to mention such a tale.
During his adulthood Jesus encountered expensive perfume again when women began anointing him with it. There is one story of the anointing of the adult Jesus in each Gospel. One was sufficient for the purposes of each Gospel author. To try and combine the anointing stories of all four Gospels into a single “life of Jesus” is to ignore the differences between each, and would add up to three separate tales: One found in Mark and Matthew which are in substantial agreement, another in Luke that disagrees with Mark/Matthew, and a third tale in John that features elements of the tales in Mark and Luke but also disagrees with them, giving us a total of three separate anointing stories. So was Jesus anointed three times? Or did the story change over time?
The failure of attempts to harmonize such stories reminds me of similar attempts made by conservative Christians to harmonize stories of “Peterʼs three denials of Jesus” that are found in all four Gospels (a total of twelve denials). The circumstances of each denial disagree as to where, when, and, in response to whom. Some of the individual denials are easier to harmonize with those in other Gospels, some less easy to harmonize. But disagreements between denials were so blatant in some cases that one conservative Christian insisted Peter must have denied Jesus as many times as there are unharmonizable incidents in all four Gospels. That Christian had convinced himself that Peter may have denied Jesus more than three times, maybe six or more times, so long as he could find a way to retain the historical truth of every divinely inspired detail in his Bible and read the Gospels like a single story—instead of four separate stories, including some that changed over time. He continued to argue that his solution of multiplying the total number of denials was the most reasonable, regardless of the fact that each Gospel by itself agrees with the others that Jesus only mentioned three denials by Peter.
Below are the tales of the anointings of Jesus. The tales in Mark and Matthew are probably the earliest and they parallel each other so closely as to suggest a common literary source. They also agree that perfume was poured on Jesusʼ head:
Mark 14:3,8 (NIV) While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head…to prepare for my burial.
Matthew 26:6-7,12 (NIV) While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table…to prepare me for burial.
By the time Lukeʼs Gospel was composed the story seems to have changed. It is no longer Jesusʼ head that is anointed with expensive perfume but his feet, by a female sinner who first washes them with her tears and wipes them with her hair, and Luke places the anointing in an early chapter of Jesusʼ ministry, so early that Jesus is shown dining with a Pharisee:
Luke 7:36-38 (NIV) When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Phariseeʼs house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Phariseeʼs house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
In all three of the earliest Gospels the woman who anoints Jesusʼ head or feet is not named. But by the time the Gospel of John was composed a name had been allocated to the “anointress” (if I may coin a term), “Mary.” The author even says this was the same “Mary” whom Luke had mentioned in his separate tale of the “two sisters,” one of whom “sat” at Jesusʼ feet listening to him (Luke 10:38-42). But in the Gospel of John this Mary is no longer the one in Luke who merely “sat” at Jesusʼ feet and drew sighs from her sister who wished to scold her for sitting inertly on the floor and leaving her sister with all the kitchen work. Instead, the “Mary” in the Gospel of John is active, dramatically so, for she is depicted as anointing Jesusʼ feet and wiping them with her hair, resembling Lukeʼs anointing story about the unnamed female sinner in the home of the Pharisee. The Gospel of John adds that the whole house was filled with the aroma after about a “pint” of perfume was poured on Jesusʼ feet, so I guess there was no skimping on the perfume per John—nor does John skimp on the perfume in yet another anointing episode found only in that Gospel, but before proceeding to that episode here is the story of Johnʼs “Mary”:
John 12:1-3 (NIV) Six days before the Passover [Note: Jesus dies five days later in this Gospel, on the day before Passover], Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesusʼ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard [Note: “pure nard” is an unusual and precise phrase that appears in Markʼs earlier version and some commentators suggest that the author of the Gospel of John was acquainted with the tales in both Mark and Luke, combining elements of both to form a third tale], an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesusʼ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. [Note how this resembles the tale in Luke, but the order in which the perfume is applied and the feet wiped is reversed. In Luke Jesusʼ feet are washed (with tears, something John does not mention) and wiped with hair, and only then is the perfume applied. But in John the perfume is applied and the feet are wiped with hair. So in John, Maryʼs hair is full of perfume, but in Luke the womanʼs hair smelled only of the dirt on Jesusʼ feet. The tale in John differs in this and other respects from earlier anointing tales but also demonstrates some knowledge of the story in Mark and Luke.] And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
Also, in the Gospel of John not only did the feet of Jesus receive about a pint of perfume, but five days later the same Gospel says Jesusʼ lifeless body was wrapped with “seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes.”
But wait, thereʼs another perfume story I have not mentioned, but we must return to the earliest Gospel, Mark, to find it. That Gospel says that after Jesus died some women “saw” where Jesus had been laid and they returned to the tomb a day and a half later carrying “spice” with which they planned to anoint the body. Probably not “seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloes” as in John, and which was not said to have come from those ladies. But comparing Mark with John and attempting to combine the two stories one might wonder how the ladies who saw where Jesus had been laid also failed to note the odor of seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloe, an odor that probably followed Jesusʼ body into the tomb or filled the air around it. I would have thought women had better senses of smell, or if they saw Jesusʼ body being hoisted into the tomb they might have at least seen how Jesusʼ body gained 75 pounds of bulky wrappings after he died and that men were straining to maneuver it into the tomb, even on a stretcher, or if the body was not anointed until after it was laid flat in the tomb then perhaps the woman might have seen large jars of spice and wrappings being carried into the tomb. Instead, the early tale in Mark of the hastily buried (and unanointed) body of Jesus, and the tale in John of the heavily anointed body of Jesus simply pass in the night, each going in their own direction without connecting at all.
Of course the differences between the story of Mark and John pose little difficulty once one accepts that the story in Mark is a completely different tale from Johnʼs. Mark imagined Jesus being buried hastily leaving no time for anointing. While John has Jesus laid out in style, seventy five pounds worth of style. The Gospel of Matthew introduces another take on the tale in Mark because in Matthew there is no mention of the women having “spice” and a desire to anoint Jesusʼ body, instead they come to “see” the tomb. Why does Matthew alter the reason why the woman arrive Sunday morning? Because in Matthew the tomb is sealed and guarded (a story found only in Matthew and no where else). So the women would have had no chance of getting near Jesusʼ body let alone “spice” it up, so Matthew says the woman only came to “see” the tomb. Itʼs obvious at this point that different Gospel writers told different stories and changed them to fit with whatever else they wrote.
Returning to the depiction in the Gospel of John, of Jesus having about a pint of perfume poured on his feet by Mary such that the whole house smelled of it, and five days later Jesusʼ body being wrapped with seventy-five pounds of myrrh and aloe, one might wonder if there is any mention in John of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume after having arisen a day and a half later and shown himself to a woman and to the apostles. But there is none.
Neither is there mention of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume in any of the earlier Gospels. Of course Mark and Matthew, presumably the earliest two Gospels, feature no “seventy-five pound” anointing of “myrrh and aloes” of Jesusʼ body as in John, and they agree that an announcement was made at the empty tomb that Jesus had gone before the apostles to Galilee (“There you will see him”), so, it would take a while to reach Galilee before the apostles would even be near Jesus. Itʼs only in later Gospels (Luke and John) that there is no long delay before the apostles get to see the resurrected Jesus, for neither of those Gospels mention Jesus going ahead to Galilee to be seen there, but instead they have Jesus appearing in Jerusalem on the same day heʼs allegedly resurrected. So Jesus gets to meet the apostles sooner in Luke and John than in the earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew. But no mention of the resurrected Jesus smelling of perfume in either Luke or John.
Speaking of the resurrection, a story in Luke that has always caught my eye takes place on the day of Jesusʼ resurrection. No time of day is specified, could be late afternoon or evening, doesnʼt say, and the apostles are merely “assembled together” (not cowering behind a “locked door” as in Johnʼs later version), when “Jesus himself stood among them,” and proves he is “not a spirit” but has “flesh and bone,” by eating a piece of fish. The story in Luke continues by claiming that Jesus “led” the apostles out of the city of Jerusalem to the town of Bethany.
I mention this story in Luke because I understand the earlier stories in Mark and Matthew in which Jesus goes ahead of the apostles to Galilee to be seen there, and how it would take the apostles some time to get to Galilee and how some sort of vision could take place out in Galilee, something out of the public eye, away from the big city of Jerusalem. Mark supplies no details at all, just a promise of seeing Jesus in Galilee, while Matthew features a short tale about a sighting in Galilee—but nothing about Jesus trumpeting his physicality, nor boasting about being “flesh and bone” and eating fish—instead, Matthew features a few short words of the risen Jesus, ending with, “but some doubted.” In comparison with the earliest two Gospels (Mark and Matthew) the later Gospels (Luke and John) add more sighting episodes, more elaborate descriptions, more words of the risen Jesus (over a hundred more), and allude to speeches delivered by the risen Jesus, though neither Luke nor John provide them for us to read. After Luke and John there came further stories about Jesus,—the Gospel of John ends by alluding to great numbers of stories then circulating about what Jesus did, “which if all written down I suppose the world could not contain all the books.” Iʼve mentioned this legendary-like development in resurrection stories before, here.
But letʼs take another look at the story in Luke about a resurrected Jesus who was “not a spirit” but “flesh and bone,” and who “led” the apostles out of the city of Jerusalem to the town of Bethany. I assume Jesus was walking and not floating nor spiritually leading the apostles. A walk through Jerusalem, the same town where he was crucified. Was Jesus tempted to walk past the high priestʼs home, past Herodʼs palace, or Pilateʼs? Did the little group walk within sight of the tall Roman garrison building next to the Temple?
A conservative Christian might suggest that the story of such a quiet stroll is no argument against it taking place, and no reason for doubting the inerrant word of God, but the silence in this case is deafening compared with the shouts of Hosannas Jesus had previously received when he rode a donkey into Jerusalem. Compare the two scenes. How somber the triumph of the resurrected Jesus is, everyone in that part of Jerusalem and Bethany oblivious to a dead man walking. Comparing that scene with Jesusʼ public entrance into Jerusalem before his death provides quite a contrast.
I wonder whether any of the apostles in that procession were tempted to converse a bit louder than usual, shout, knock on doors, wave some palms, ask Jesus to show himself to the high priest, preach in public, or announce what a spectacular miracle, as well as a spectacular victory had just occurred. Wasnʼt Jesus more triumphant now than when he had first entered Jerusalem to Hosannas? But no mention in the story is made of joy, of the walkers revealing themselves, nor of anyone recognizing them, nor paying the slightest attention. No one notices the figure in the lead with the holes in his hands and feet (nor looks up after catching a whiff of his perfumed body)? No beggar looks up and sees anything out of the ordinary, perhaps a beggar who would have recognized Jesus having seen him preach in the Temple (with his apostles beside him) a few days earlier? No Roman guards on duty on a corner or at the city gates? No questions asked, no answers offered? As I said, the silence is deafening. But the story seems perfectly suited as a sort of unfalsifiable fantasy told by believers and for believers (equally true of another story in Luke about Jesus walking to Emmaus with two followers, and only revealing who he is for an instant before he “disappears”).
Of course an apologist might suggest that Lukeʼs story about a resurrected Jesus walking the streets of Jerusalem with no fanfare was simply Godʼs way of doing things. But that doesnʼt explain other allegedly God-inspired tales that do involve fanfare:
Jesusʼ death was accompanied by “tombs opening” and “many saints” rising from the dead who “entered the holy city” and “showed themselves to many” on the same day as Jesusʼ own resurrection, a tale told with extreme brevity and only in the Gospel of Matthew (the names of the “saints” were not mentioned, nor the names of any alleged witnesses, not until a century or more after Matthew when some Christians named a few of the alleged “raised saints” and also explained what happened to them—they “vanished” of course, after delivering their testimony to the very same Jewish religious leaders who condemned Jesus at his trial—at least thatʼs what some Christians wrote in The Gospel of Nicodemus, talk about corroborating evidence, Christians have demonstrated that they can invent it as needed)
“Jesus was seen by over five hundred brothers and sisters [believers]” per Paul (By whom? Where? When? Who knows? Neither God nor man preserved such info for us, nor any details about that “appearance,” nor why it took place prior to an appearance to James. Such a tale also seems to have run its course fairly early because it is never mentioned again in any Gospel, nor Acts.)
“Appeared in Galilee” to an unknown number of disciples per Matthew (though “some doubted”)
“Appeared to them [the apostles] over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God,” and ate food with them during this period, per Acts 1. (I guess they werenʼt public speaking engagements nor public eating engagements during those forty days. Just keepinʼ things private, nothing to see here folks, move along.)
Itʼs not like Jesus wasnʼt “around” per the above boasts, nor other resurrected folks—from the “many raised saints” (mentioned only in Matthew) to a resurrected Lazarus (mentioned only in John) if you believe such tales. Itʼs just that the resurrected Jesus seems shy of the public eye in comparison. Only his spiritual family gets to see him.
Why such shyness? Perhaps Jesus had had enough anointings with expensive perfume: “Enough with the perfume already! From my birth to several times before my death, both head and feet, and then my body before burial, seventy five pounds worth, and then women come to my tomb to try and spice me up some more! In fact Iʼm still sick of the noisy ‘Hosannas’ the time I entered Jerusalem, and the crowd nearly plucked every leaf off those poor palms to wave them in my face and toss them in front of me. And I definitely refuse to show myself to the Pharisees, Herod or Pilate, or any other occupant of Jersualem the majority of whom can remain non-Christian and damned to hell. They have the prophets, and the many raised saints, and Lazarus, why do they need to see the “resurrected me” as well? Next thing you know Iʼll have to appear before Caesar in Rome, and in North America (to found the Mormon church), and in Korea (to found the Unification Church), and soon doubting Thomases everywhere will be begging me to appear to them, but Iʼm not going to offer every Thomas, Dickus and Harryus a chance to stick their hand in my side and believe, including people two thousand years in the future. Damn all those future doubters.
“Instead, Iʼm walking out of town quietly, the same day I show myself to just the apostles, no public celebrations, just a quick nosh on some fish and a stroll out of the city to nearby Bethany and Iʼll ascend from there into heaven. (Luke)
“Maybe not that fast, instead maybe Iʼll hang round with just with my homies for about six weeks, teach them a little more about the kingdom, not that any of them will remember a word I tell them during those six weeks of speaking, nor write it down. (Acts)
“Well, and I might appear to over five hundred believers at once, but just once, and just to brothers and sisters in Christ. (Paul)
“Hmmm, hereʼs a question, where should I be when I appear to the apostles for the first time? In Galilee where I started preaching (Mark & Matthew) or in Jerusalem where I died (Luke & John)? I dunno. Maybe I can inspire them to write that the first time the apostles saw me it was in both places, and we can call that place “Galusalem” or “Jerusalee.” Why be specific? Let people say what they may about the mixed up memories and memoirs of the Gospel writers, and about my lame victory lap out of Jerusalem with no Hosannas (Luke), and no crowds to see me rise up into heaven. Let them say these are ‘just so’ stories or urban myths written by and for believers. It doesnʼt matter. Because if they can believe the story found only in Matthew about the raising of many saints, and the story found only in John of the raising of Lazarus, what wonʼt they believe? At least the believers will believe. As for the doubting Thomasʼs, I repeat, to hell with them. No one will ever get that chance again, not a fully physical post-resurrection meeting just for them. Instead Iʼll leave people some weird tales like that old pulp fiction magazine of the same title, and tell them to believe ʻem or be damned. I am outta here! Looking forward to ascending bodily into heaven and not returning again that way til judgment day (Acts 1).
“Wait a sec, maybe I should think about this a bit more. After all Iʼm not coming back for over 2,000 years, and come to think of it I didnʼt leave behind much in the way of first-person named testimonies to my resurrection. Only that of Paulʼs in fact. And he left behind no description concerning what he saw except to write, ‘he appeared to me,’ thatʼs it. There are stories in Acts about my appearance to Paul and they contain some details but thereʼs also some differences between those stories and none of them were written by Paul, so they arenʼt first-person testimonies, and the author of Acts isnʼt even named.
“Also, I hope people donʼt get confused as to what ‘appearance’ means based on what Paul is going to write in 1 Corinthians 15, because later writings (Luke & Acts) will tell people that my resurrected ‘flesh and bone’ body had already ascended into heaven before I ‘appeared’ to Paul, and that body wasnʼt going to be seen again until the day of final judgment (Acts 1), therefore whatever ‘appeared’ to Paul it wasnʼt my resurrected body, since that had already ascended into heaven. But darn it, Paul equated my ‘appearance’ to him as if it was the same as my ‘appearances’ to others, so the earliest mention of my ‘appearances’ makes no distinctions as to what ‘appeared’:
1 Corinthians 15 (NIV) He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
“Yup, that letter of Paulʼs is going to make things sounds a bit vague and sketchy, that I ‘appeared’ to the apostles and to Paul, without distinguishing between them. All just ‘appearances.’ All equal. Oh well.
“And what about that line sandwiched in between the appearances to Cephas and James, the line that I ‘appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time.’ Decades after that statement, the book of Acts is going to imply that there were far less than ‘five hundred’ brethren around after my body had already ascended into heaven. Acts 1:15 says that Peter preached to only ‘one hundred and twenty’ brethren, much less than ‘over five hundred,’ and my resurrected body had already ascended into heaven. That means people will question whether I was still on earth in my resurrection body when I appeared to ‘over five hundred brothers and sisters.’ Neither could Paul have seen my resurrection body if Acts 1 is correct, yet he speaks of my appearance to him as though it was equal to that of my appearances to the apostles.
“It also irks me that there will never be any mention made of to whom, when, or where I appeared in 1 Cor. 15. But I guess thatʼs alright since the stories in 1 Cor. 15 of my appearance to Cephas alone, and James alone, and ‘over five hundred brethren,’ are going to die out pretty quickly and never be repeated in the Gospels or Acts.
“In fact in the Gospel that will be composed last of all and lay furthest from 1 Cor. 15 some of those stories about me appearing to a lone person and then to the apostles will be reversed, and the even the name changed of the lone person. In the last written Gospel (John) it will say that I appeared to all the apostles except one, Thomas, and then that I came back a little later to show myself specifically to that lone apostle after he had gathered together with them. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 features no knowledge of that later tale about me coming back to be seen by Thomas, and it will seem strange to readers how that tale in John is like the opposite of the ones in 1 Cor. 15, and even changes the name of the apostle.
“Sheesh, speaking of things Paul wonʼt mention but later writings like the Gospels will mention, thereʼs the story of my very first appearance, not to Cephas and the apostles, nor to over five hundred brethren, nor to James and the apostles, but to women. The story of my first appearance “to women” wonʼt even appear in the earliest Gospel, Mark, where all that the women see is a young man in white who tells them Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee. So the story about my first appearance to women will only start to be told in the next Gospel, Matthew. Paul wonʼt even mention the story of the “empty tomb” found in the earliest Gospel (Mark). So it will definitely look like the stories of my appearances to women and leaving a tomb empty arose later.
“Nor will Paul mention anything about me being born of a virgin, which is yet another story that didnʼt begin with the earliest Gospel (Mark), but with two later Gospels, Matthew and Luke. So some people might suspect these Gospel stories were legendary elaborations that arose over time.
“Yup, Paulʼs list of mere ‘appearances’ in 1 Cor. 15 is going to make it look like all that Paul had to work with were early mania-driven ill-defined ‘appearance’ stories, and that the Gospel tales including the empty tomb and appearances to women arose later. Even the author of the earliest Gospel will make it look like the empty tomb story arose later, because that Gospel will end with these words:
Mark 16:8 (NIV) Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
So the earliest story about the empty tomb implies the women were not running with joy to tell the apostles of what they had seen as in The Gospel of Matthewʼs later version of the story, but instead the earliest version of the empty tomb story will end with “They said nothing to anyone,” which will make readers think the story of the empty tomb itself could have arisen later, as a legend people began telling each other because the women themselves had originally been silent about what they had seen.
“Luckily I also know that people arenʼt going to think about these stories, their chronological order, and make such observations, not like I just did, at least not until eighteen centuries or so have passed after my death. Even then, most Christians wonʼt bother. They will continue reading the Gospels, jumbling stories together in their minds, like they teach their children to do at Christmas pageants that jumble together the stories of my birth and how and why I wound up born in Bethlehem yet raised in Nazareth. Or like they do—but on a far higher level of rationalization—whenever they attempt to write books about ‘systematic theology.’ They even jumble up Greek metaphysical ideals about an infinite God with the anthropomorphic images of God in the Bible, and imagine they have proved something, or thwarted all questions. Which is great, I mean who really has time to be deal with questions? Pick your systematic theologian and go for it, donʼt look back, donʼt be a doubting Thomas.
“In fact Iʼm gonna make things simple and just damn people for being doubting Thomases, for daring to question things in the past they can no longer see nor hear for themselves, for daring to question stories in a book. Iʼm going to damn those who publicly admit they have questions and that studies of history remain uncertain. And for doubting Creedal formulas concerning who I was and am and will be. And for not making perfect sense out of how shedding my blood fixes the past, present and future, and makes forgiveness possible, or for doubting the Trinity. Damn them for daring to doubt things no one can prove, things that do not make perfect rational sense but continue to be debated even by those that love me. And for daring to bring up the Messiah-mania and superstitious nature of beliefs during the first century.
“People donʼt need evidence, they donʼt need first-person named testimonies. The only one Iʼll give them is from Paul who wrote, ‘He appeared to me.’ (A lot of the other NT letters by ‘apostles’ are disputed or apocryphal and say no more than that, and most say even less than that.) Paul is the one who put Christianity on the map, along with his Gentile converts.
“Neither do people need testimonies from people who personally saw a few startling things but were not brethren themselves. Iʼll leave them stories written by brethren and for brethren, and I wonʼt stop brethren from continuing to add more stories and edit previous ones together so that weʼll have four Gospels with literary links between them, and five, six or more Gospels composed later, let them keep writing things like The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus, The Apocalypses of Peter and Paul, Nativity Gospels, and a host of other Christian compositions, exactly as the Jews continued to write inter-testamental literature. They didnʼt stop after the OT was “complete.” Even the collection of holy books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate that that group of Jews had a broader canon than the one the Jews recognize today.
“Iʼll also leave my followers a few historical crumbs, a few disputed lines about me in the works of Josephus, a man who will never have met me but who will stitch together a few lines about me based on things he will hear second, third hand, etc. Neither am I going to go out of my way to try and preserve long scrolls or codices/books from the first century when I walked the earth, let all first century Christian writing rot. At most Iʼll only leaven my followers a few second century fragments, and a few quotations of Gospel passages or stories in some church fathers, but no whole Gospels till the fourth century. But I also think Iʼll mess with people and find a way to preserve a whole batch of scrolls near the Dead Sea that demonstrate the existence of Jewish apocalyptic-mania both before and right after my day.
“After all, people donʼt need evidence, just stories that move them. Novels and comic books, thatʼs what sells, characters, fiction, drama, and miracles as well. Who cares that the earliest writings that I will choose to inspire and preserve for future generations (those by Paul and the Gospel of Mark) will both lack descriptions of my post resurrection ‘appearances.’ Theyʼll just say ‘he appeared.’ Paul wonʼt even say where. Then Mark will add ‘Galilee,’ and Matthew will agree with Mark but add a quickie appearance of me to some women near the tomb, and then the appearance in Galilee to the apostles. Later, Luke and John will claim I appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem, on the same day as my resurrection.
“Also, who cares that the earliest Gospel Mark, will lack stories about my birth and even lack descriptions concerning my post-resurrection appearances? Mark will begin only with my baptism and end with an empty tomb a promise of seeing me in Galilee. Thatʼs it. The Gospels that come after Mark will differ most from each other in exactly those places where Mark didnʼt have any tales to tell, which makes it look like Matthew and Luke filled in Markʼs blanks with legends and divergent tales that Christians themselves began to tell each other after more converts arose and more of them grew curious about Markʼs blanks. Matthew and Luke tried filling in those blanks, and wound up differing most from each other in exactly those areas where Mark was blank, i.e., in their new tales and descriptions of my post-resurrection appearances (and in tales related to how and why I was born in Bethlehem yet raised in Nazareth).
“Gotta run. Canʼt say when Iʼll be back. Of course things will be hellish on earth in the future, plagues, famines, maybe even an asteroid or solar flare damaging the earth and dragging down civilization, which is why I hope youʼll keep the Bible in print, because if you only try to preserve it in e-book format in the future, good luck. Oh, sure, the Bible wonʼt tell you how to survive the coming difficulties. Itʼs just a book about fearing him who can kill both body and soul and cast you into hell. Oh yeah, and loving your neighbor. So read and tremble! And marvel at the strange mixed up tales of my resurrection! Everybodyʼs gotta believe something.”
There are very few if any words of the resurrected Jesus in the earliest New Testament writings. Reports of the number of words attributed to the resurrected Jesus appear to have grown over time.
Even conservative scholars agree that the first letter by Paul to the Corinthians was composed earlier than the Gospels. That letter only informs us that “Jesus appeared,” without further description. Neither does the order and numbers of the people to whom “Jesus appeared” match later descriptions found in the Gospels.
The next earliest writing is the Gospel of Mark. Like 1 Cor. it contains no words of the resurrected Jesus. Most scholars agree that Mark breaks off with “the women” being “afraid” and adds that they fled and “told no one” about what they had seen at Jesusʼ tomb. Some suggest that the Gospel of Mark originally did not stop at that point, but had verses about meeting the resurrected Jesus that were somehow lost (God couldnʼt stop it from being lost? God wanted it lost?), while others point out that Mark was most probably written on a scroll and it is unlikely that a scroll would have its ending lost since the ending is the most protected part when a scroll is rolled up. Whichever happened, early Christians do not appear to have been satisfied with Mark ending with women fleeing in fear from an empty tomb and “telling no one,” because scholars have discovered early copies of Mark featuring both a long and short added ending, along with variants of both. It wasnʼt until the fifth century CE that the long ending of Mark attained dominance both in early texts and in the works of early Christian theologians. But up till the fourth century, the long ending remained in dispute, and theologians noted that they had seen both the long ending and the ending with the women leaving the tomb and “telling no one.”
The long ending of Mark features commands and promises from the resurrected Jesus that include, “Ye shall take up serpents and drink poison and they shall not harm you,” and, “He who believes not shall be damned.” Such words may have been invented by early Christians. Even a few Christians today continue to take such commands/promises so seriously as to “pick up serpents” and “drink poison” at their services.
Therefore, looking at the earliest surviving church writings on the resurrection, Paul in 1st Cor., and the Gospel of Mark, they both lack words spoken by the risen Jesus. (Though some claim that the long ending of Mark contained some words of the risen Jesus, it should also be pointed out that they are not many, 84. And disputed by the majority of scholarly experts.)
The Gospel of Matthew (chapter 28) contains 79 words of the resurrected Jesus. So we have gone from zero to a textually disputed 84, to a far less textually disputed 79. Scholarly consensus places Matthew after Mark chronologically, and before Luke-Acts. Matthewʼs crucifixion and resurrection stories parallel even the exact wording in Mark more closely than Matthew parallels Luke. Matthew, unlike Luke, also copies Markʼs message at the tomb that “He has gone before you unto Galilee, THERE you shall see him.” Here are Matthewʼs words of the resurrected Jesus, 79 English words in translation:
“Greetings. Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Reading those 79 words, one can see how they mirror what the early church had already begun to teach new converts, a sort of catechism in brief, but placed, perhaps by the church, into the mouth of the resurrected Jesus. Not a very convincing example of post-resurrection speech. Matthewʼs Gospel also ends with a very brief tale about people claiming to see the raised Jesus on a mountain in Galilee, “but some doubted.”
The Gospel of Luke (chapter 24) contains 191 words (in English translation) of the resurrected Jesus, more than double the number found in Matthew. And besides those 191, Luke adds a story about the raised Jesus (traveling incognito) and speaking an untold number of words during a walk to Emmaus, words that allegedly explained where “the Christ” was mentioned in “all the Scriptures.” Therefore Luke alludes to the raised Jesus being so talky that he gave a peripatetic seminar, “…beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27) Unfortunately not one word is preserved today of that seminar. But here are all the alleged words of the resurrected Jesus that appear in Luke:
“What are you discussing together as you walk along?… What things?… How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”
“Peace be with you. Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. Do you have anything here to eat? This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Those are all the words of the resurrected Jesus in the third Gospel.
However, the Gospel of Luke and Book of Acts are a combined work and together they feature even more alleged words of the resurrected Jesus. (There is debate as to the authorship of the Book of Acts, i.e., whether a later writer edited notes/work and finished it in Lukeʼs name. Some verses in Acts suggest the latter view may be nearer the truth. See the latest edition of Bart Ehrmanʼs textbook on The New Testament for a discussion of which verses in Acts raise such questions, and how scholars respond to each othersʼ questions on this issue. See also Gary Willsʼs work, What Paul Meant, that features a brief summary of such questions.)
According to the Gospel of Luke, the resurrected Jesus appears first to two unnamed disciples on the road to Emmaus, mentioned above, then later that same day to the apostles, all of them at once, and eats some fish to prove heʼs “not a spirit” but has “flesh and bone,” and then “led them as far as Bethany” to a mount near Jerusalem, and rose into the sky. But the Book of Acts expands the time that the physically resurrected Jesus remained on earth making it “40 days” before Jesusʼ bodily ascension/disappearance into heaven. That means that the Book of Acts implied that resurrected Jesus spoke lots more than even Luke was able to record, and over a period of forty days, during which he spoken and ate with the disciples. So the story of the number of words allegedly spoken by the resurrected Jesus continued to grow, even from Lukeʼs Gospel to the Book of Acts.
And, neither the “seminar on prophecy” allegedly delivered “on the road to Emmaus” nor many words of the “40 days” of preaching exist, except for the very last ones with which Acts 1:3 begins, “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. Once when he [the resurrected Jesus] was eating with them, he commanded them … Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit… It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
Is anyone supposed to believe that the disciples failed to report, or failed to record (or God failed to preserve) many post-resurrection sayings and sermons by Jesus, which Luke says Jesus taught over a period of forty days? No scraps of table conversation while eating with the resurrected Jesus, just the final goodbye speech? Thatʼs it? I tend to think that speeches by a dead man risen from the grave would have been taken greater note of, moreso than speeches Jesus spoke while alive.
(Furthermore, in the case of the “prophecy seminar” that Jesus allegedly delivered “on the road to Emmaus,” the Scriptures do not state in unequivocal fashion that “the Christ must die and then after three day arise.” So the question remains as to what clear Scriptural proofs Jesus could have even cited concerning a Christ who “must die and then must rise after three days.” That simply raises a red flag as to the story in Luke about the whole Road to Emmaus story.)
Furthermore, how is anyone supposed to believe that it was only in later Gospels that stories first arose concerning the raised Jesus speaking wordy dialogues? And as I asked already, why arenʼt those dialogues preserved?
Note that these same Gospel authors cribbed from one another, relying mostly on Markʼs and Qʼs collection of sayings and stories to form the Gospels, Matthew and Luke. And the latter two Gospels differ most in the very sections where they could not follow Mark, i.e., in their infancy and resurrection stories. But what the latter two Gospels lacked in originality (reproducing over 90% of everything in the earliest Gospel, Mark, including incidental connecting phrases), they apparently tried to made up for via imaginative allusions to so-called previously unrecorded conversations with the raised Jesus that mouthed creeds already believed and provided a “40 day” period during which the raised Jesus, still on earth per Acts, allegedly continued to teach his disciples. Though no one knows what if anything the raised Jesus actually said since thereʼs only allusions to such speeches in Luke-Acts.
Contra Luke-Acts, I suspect that the words of anyone who was dead and came back, and whom I got to spend several weeks with, would stick with me a bit more. Same thing goes for all the lost words of others who allegedly returned from the dead, like the Gospel of Matthewʼs “many raised saints who entered the holy city and appeared to many,” or Lazarus in the Fourth Gospel who allegedly returned from the dead.
Also keep in mind that there are no first person stories in the N.T. concerning meeting the raised Jesus or meeting those whom he allegedly raised from the dead. The only first person story in the N.T. comes from Paul in 1 Cor., who wrote that “Jesus … appeared to me.” No further description given by Paul himself in any of his letters. Everything else (such as the story of the appearance of Jesus to Paul in Acts) is a second, third, or fourth hand story.
As stated earlier, not only the Gospel of Luke but also the companion volume, Acts, features additional alleged sayings of the resurrected Jesus. Iʼve mentioned a few of them above, but there are others I have not yet mentioned, namely words that the author of Acts says were spoken to Paul by Jesus. But Paul himself in his letters never mentions hearing so many words. Never mentions a single word spoken by the resurrected Jesus. And these words in Acts read like a late expansion or legendary elaboration that partisan religious believers of all sorts are prone to concocting after a story is repeated, perhaps they were invented to “spell it out” for the reader. One need only compare the endless words a conservative pastor can squeeze out of a single verb even today once he starts sermonizing upon it. Here is the preachy version of what Paul allegedly heard, not as recorded in Paulʼs own letters nor even in Paulʼs own words, but as told by the author of the book of Acts, chapter 26:
“‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting’. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’” (117 words)
Total number of alleged words spoken by the resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts combined? 397 words (depending of course on your particular English translation). But, minus the long didactic speech of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus: 280.
The Gospel of John, the final Gospel written, contains 283 words of the resurrected Jesus. Thatʼs 92 more words of the resurrected Jesus than appeared in the Gospel of Luke, and 204 more words than appeared in Matthew.
Here are the alleged words of the resurrected Jesus per the Fourth Gospel:
“Woman, why are you crying?. Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?. Mary. Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
“Peace be with you!. Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” “Peace be with you! Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe. Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
“Friends, havenʼt you any fish?. Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some. Bring some of the fish you have just caught. Come and have breakfast. Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?. Feed my lambs. Simon son of John, do you truly love me?. Take care of my sheep. Simon son of John, do you love me?. Do you love me?. Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go. Follow me!. If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
The Gospel of John ends with these words, not spoken by Jesus but by that Gospelʼs author(s):
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25)
“I suppose that the world could not contain…” “I suppose?” Is that any way to end an inspired Gospel, with mere “supposition?” As for the supposition itself, that the “world itself could not contain the books,” the books we do have that tell of “things Jesus did,” consist of only four slim “Gospels,” not one of them over forty pages in length. Two of them, Matthew and Luke, even repeat over 90% of what appears in Mark including incidental phrases and passages in Greek. So the four Gospels that tell of “things Jesus did,” minus the overlapping portions would be even slimmer. (And speaking of the “world” being unable to “contain the books,” the Fourth Gospel writers were apparently not granted the psychic ability to foresee that one day we might be able to store whole libraries in a laptop computer).
Among those “many other things which Jesus did,” some of them can no doubt be found in the bevy of non-canonical Gospels and Acts that believers continued to write over time. It is apparent that by the time the fourth Gospel was composed such stories could have already been begun circulating in droves. Otherwise why would the author of the Fourth Gospel end his Gospel with such words? They certainly fit the idea that a plethora of stories abounded in the authorʼs day. One such non-canonical Gospel that we know about was The Gospel of Nicodemus, and itʼs author expanded on the tale in Matthew about “the many raised saints,” identifying some of them. Other non-canonical Gospels told about miracles Jesus allegedly performed in his infancy and youth. And the “Gospel of Peter” even describes Jesus stepping out of his opened tomb, something that neither Mark, Matthew, Luke, nor John, say that anyone “saw.”
Hereʼs the Word Count once again, in the order in which these works were most likely composed:
Paul 0 words
Mark 0 words (the disputed long ending of Mark, 84 words)
Matthew 79 words
Luke 191 words
Acts 208 words
John 283 words
Many of the words allegedly spoken by the raised Jesus also read like statements devout church leaders could and would have put into the resurrected Jesusʼ mouth to suit the early churchʼs belief in its own heavenly centrality and broadening missionary ideals. Like when Matthewʼs resurrected Jesus says, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Or when Lukeʼs resurrected Jesus says, “Repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Or when Johnʼs resurrected Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Why are those blessed who believe without seeing? Because credulity pleases God Almighty? Then we should also believe the creation accounts too, as written, right? Because Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve and Noah like they were genuine folks and related to genuine events that God had a hand in, right? Where and when exactly does “not believing” or asking questions become a virtue?
“Religions promise a reward for excellence of the will or heart, but none for excellence of the head or understanding.” (Arthur Schopenhauer)
“I do not believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.” (Galileo)
“The silly fanatic repeats to me that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and just in the divine Being. That His reason is not like our reason, that His justice is not like our justice. Eh? How, you mad demoniac, shall we judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions we have of them? Do you want us to walk otherwise than with our feet, and speak otherwise than with our mouths?” (Voltaire)
