Johnny Skeptic

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Gospels and 1st Corinthians that we have today are what people had in the 1st century, and that is a lot of assuming, in say 75 A.D. what means were available for people to check out the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? Christians will of course claim that surviving eyewitnesses, including surviving disciples, would have provided the best possible confirmation that Jesus rose from the dead. However, what external evidence is there that more than a few people defended their status as eyewitnesses?

What Christians need to reasonably prove is a consistent, sustained defense of the Resurrection by surviving eyewitnesses from the time of the Resurrection until the deaths of the eyewitnesses. It is one matter for Paul and the Gospel writers to claim (of course, Matthew borrowed a lot from Mark, 90% according to the Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition, and Luke 40%) that Jesus rose from the dead, but it is another matter entirely how many eyewitnesses defended the claims in the 1st century.

Richard Carrier told me “All four accounts are not independent. Matthew and Luke without doubt
follow Mark and embellish upon Mark. Therefore, at most we have two independent accounts, not four. But John shows strong evidence of borrowing and modifying material from Luke -- therefore, it is doubtful we even have two independent sources (and there is no evidence they are independent either -- e.g. it cannot be shown that John didn't get the empty tomb idea straight from Mark). It appears there is only one actual source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him, or follows someone else who followed him.�

Well, readers, what do you have to say about these issues?

Toto

People who talk about eyewitnesses are reading modern concerns back into the 1st century. The first-second century Christians (if there were any first century Christians) were interested in being moved by the spirit and by their reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, and in their social connections with other Christians, not in a forensic examination of "evidence" for Christianity.

After the Enlightenment, rationalists tried to find a basis for Christianity based on modern rationalistic concerns, and tried to turn the gospels into "history" that actually happened. But this is very far from the first century mind set.

Johnny Skeptic

Toto, what I meant to say in my opening paragraph was "Assuming for the sake of argument that the Gospels and 1st Corinthians that we have today are what people had in the 1st century, and that is a lot of assuming, in say 75 A.D. what means do today's Christians believe were available for people to check out the claim that Jesus rose from the dead?'

As I said in my first post, "Christians will of course claim that surviving eyewitnesses, including surviving disciples, would have provided the best possible confirmation that Jesus rose from the dead. However, what external evidence is there that more than a few people defended their status as eyewitnesses?" I would like for Christians to attempt to produce such evidence.

Huon

They could go on foot or with a ship. That meant they had to abandon their family for many months - if they came back. With a similar scheme, people of the Middle Ages went on pilgrimages to Jerusalem, or Compostela, or a local pilgrimage.

Once arrived at, say, Jerusalem, let us assume the pilgrim of the truth met guys who claimed that they had seen Jesus rose from the dead. The pilgrim of the truth had to take this saying at face value, which is not much. Some people would be sincerely visionary, it happens every day still now. [My wife has known a woman who had visions of the Holy Virgin. Besides, this woman was very nice, and after some months in a clinic, she stopped having visions.]

And the pilgrim of the truth would also meet guys whose job was "have seen Jesus rose from the dead, gimme some money please"... or leaders of the community, whose influence depended on that assertion.

And i may have missed some different attitudes.

Johnny Skeptic

What I meant was what adequate means did people 'in Palestine' have of checking things out in 75 A.D.? In other words, what external evidence is there how many of the disciples were still alive in 75 A.D., whether or not they defended their supposed status as eyewitnesses, and how many of the other supposed still living eyewitnesses defended their status as eyewitnesses. As you know, Christians place great emphasis on eyewitness testimony. What they need to do is produce external evidence that people who claimed to be eyewitnesses consistently defended their status as eyewitnesses in the 1st century. It is one matter that a few New Testament writers claimed that Jesus rose from the dead (a quite extraordinary claim to ask people to believe centuries later based upon the testimonies of only a few writers, most of whom who did not claim to be eyewitnesses), sometimes provably borrowing from one another, but it is another matter entirely how people in the 1st century defended their status as eyewitnesses and how many people believed them. From a Christian viewpoint, evidence of a consistent oral witness based upon the testimonies of eyewitnesses is the most important issue. I invite Christians to provide such evidence.

judge

Wow...great post.

Diogenes the Cynic

There isn't any good evidence that anyone ever claimed to have seen a physically resurrected Jesus.There is no evidence that a physical resurrection tradition even existed in Christianity before Matthew's Gospel (Mark has an empty tomb but no appearances). This means that even by 75 CE, we still don't have proof that anyone yet believed in the resurrection or that there were any alleged witnesses to that effect. After Matthew and Luke get circulated, we're pretty much into the 2nd century with no contemporaries of Jesus left alive. There was never any opportunity to question witnesses, because all of those who were alleged to be witnesses were dead before those assertions were ever written and circulated.

Johnny Skeptic

As I said in a previous post, my topic question was intended to address what Christians believe happened, not what skeptics believe actually happened. I am asking Christians to provide external evidence that there was a consistent defense of the Resurrection by eyewitnesses in the 1st century, but I don't think that they will produce any. Gary Habermas, J. P. Moreland and many other Christian scholars and laymen place great emphasis on the eyewitnesses, so I am asking Christians for external evidence of a consistent defense of the Resurrection by eyewitnesses during the 1st century, evidence which is no doubt conspicuous by its absence.

judge

You only think they wont produce any?
Of course no one is going to produce any. Did you really think someone was going to come up with some kind of proof?