Tammuz

Some Christians argue that if the story about the resurrection of Jesus was made up, then the authors wouldn't have made women as the first witnesses of the event, because women were considered inferior in that society and culture, and they also say that if a woman reported having witnessed a crime, the story could be dismissed because it came from a woman. So therefore, they argue, it is improbable that the story is made up.

I've also seen Christian arguments about that the contradictions in the NT shows that the authors were really writing down what they saw as they percieved or heard, and that if it all was made up, they (or the church later on) would have done anything possible to harmonize the Gospels, and that they left them untouched points to a fundamental honesty of the author and among the early Christians, as opposed to a deliberate forgery.

What do you think of this?

khalimirov

No, that's false. The women at the tomb don't have such an important role. In Mark's Gospel (ending at 16:8) they are afraid, run away and tell nobody. Matthew, Luke and John have the women tell the disciples. They therefore have a secretarial role, nothing special. The women aren't told to tell the world that Christ is risen, just to go tell the disciples.

The differences between the Gospels merely shows they wanted to tell the story differently, not that they were trying to tell the story as historically accurate as possible. Besides, Matthew and Luke used and edited Mark. They didn't just tell things the way they heard or saw them. By the way, there were harmonizations in the early church. Tatian, for example, wrote a harmonization of all four gospels. Also, the scribes who copied the Gospels often harmonized parts of the Gospel they were copying.

aa5874

But if you read Matthew's account of the resurrection, you will see that the story was made up. There are massive holes in this resurrction story. According to the author of Matthew, the body of Jesus was stolen, and was not seen again up to the time of the writing of the very same Gospel.

Matthew 28:13-15..."Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him and secure you.
So they took the money, and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

It could also be argued that no-one dared to harmonise the resurrections , since such a person would be deliberately providing false information to make the hamonisation.

ynquirer

Those issues of either authenticity or sheer invention, and of honesty or forgery too much resemble the half-full/half-empty bottle. For even though it is true that the gospelers changed many details, possibly in the pursuance of different theological agendas, it on the one hand may not be denied that there is a core story - say, youth in Nazareth, baptism in the Jordan, disciples, preaching in Galilee, arrival in Jerusalem, arrest and trial, crucifixion, empty tomb - in which all of them agreed, and on the other hand later Christians, in the pursuance of a unified, orthodox agenda, could have harmonized the official story, and they failed to do so.

khalimirov

No, this is not correct. Matthew 28:12 clearly states that the 'stolen body' story was a plan devised by the chief priests. It was not the view of the author of Matthew.

Matthew 28:12-13

"12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tammuz,

It is correct, I believe, that the story would be dismissed coming from a woman.

However, the supposition that therefore the men telling the story are telling the truth does not necessary follow. I have proposed the alternative explanation that the Passion story originally was created and narrated not by men, but by a woman. The lack of belief on the part of men can be seen as simply a reflection of the reality that the woman author faced on a daily basis. She has incorporated her daily reality into her little fiction. In that sense the ambiguity and skepticism of the report is a part of the original tale.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Minimalist

Grasping at straws. Had even a rumor of someone being killed by the Romans coming back from the dead it would have been big news all over the empire and mentioned by historians and other writers. Instead, as Doherty points out, we have silence on this issue for decades until the beginning of the second century.

Before you object that historians would not include "miracle" stories consider this excerpt from Josephus.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war6.html


Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3

Toto

Bones22's question has been given its own thread here