Gawen

This online article by Steve Hinrichs attempts to reconstruct the resurrection. It appears to be completely apologetic, and it assumes a HJC, naturally. The author attemps to prove that the resurrection stories are compatible and compliment each other without a personal bias.

I thought some of you may be interested.

http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/rssrdeb.htm

Roland

It's the usual apolgist claptrap.

Even though Matthew states that Mary M. and the other Mary were told by an angel that Jesus had risen (which is in direct contradiction to John who says Mary M. thought the body had been taken away by someone), it REALLY isn't a contradiction because more women might have been there and Matthew just didnt bother to mention them - making Matthew either the most confused, ill-informed, deceptive or incompetent writer in world history. Not a very good thing for a recounter of the allegedly greatest event in all human history.

This guy's argument shows a complete lack of understanding of how writers must make their antecedents clear if their pronouns are to make any sense at all. If what he says is true that there were more women present and Matthew just failed to mention them, then Matthew clearly didn't understand this most basic rule of grammar either.

Bernard Muller

Mt26:32 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."
Mt28:10 "Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."
Mt28:7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. ..."
Mt28:16-20 "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, ..."

There is no way that Jesus could appear to disciples and others in Jerusalem the evening of the same day he allegedly resurrected (Lk24:13,33-36).
In those days, you could not go in Galilee and back to Jerusalem in 12-14 hours. And how to explain the change of the godly plan about reapparition?

And why would the very pro-feminist "Luke" NOT tell about apparition to the women if there was any kind of "tradition" about it?

This is only the top of the iceberg.

My reconstruction?

a) GMark (70-71) came up with the empty tomb and the scared women not telling it to anybody. Period.

b) The original GJohn (75-85) had NO resurrection appearance initially. He knew then only about GMark and the gospel ended at Jn20:10

c) "Luke" (85-90) came up with the first reapparition in bodily form to the disciples. "Luke" used a story (Lk24:13-27) about some Hellenist proto-Christians who though that a stranger who talked to them was Jesus in some other body after the crucifixion. That was believed by some in the Lukan community. The argument: if Jesus reappeared in a body to some (previously unknown) disciples, there it should not be too difficult to accept he also showed up as such to his Galilean disciples/followers. Then the very tentative (and seemingly short) reapparition description in Lk24:36-49, mostly to dispel some belief that the resurrection thing started by Jesus doing post-mortem sighting(s) as only a ghost.

d) "John", now aware of GLuke, added up Jn20:11-23

e) A few years later, in Acts, "Luke" extended the resurrection appearances from a very short time (in the gospel) to 40 days, to give "many convincing proofs that he was alive" (Ac1:3).

f) "John", now aware of Acts, added up 20:24-31

g) 1Cor15:3-11 was interpolated (80-100?). The interpolator either did not care about GLuke (and GJohn), or did not know about it (them). Anyway, there in nothing in 1Cor15 which says Jesus had a body when he allegedly reappeared.

h) The apparition in Galilee was added up in GJohn around 100-105.

i) Some resurrection stories were added up to GMark (but not showing in all ancient manuscripts). Those additions (from 110?) were very much inspired by GLuke and GJohn, but not GMatthew.

j) GMatthew did not have any resurrection stories at first.
The one to the women was added up likely early in the 2nd century. Another interpolator added up later the one in Galilee. After that was done (with the great commission to the Gentiles) this gospel became the most popular in the Christian world.

All of this is documented in my website but at different places.

Outside the gospels, the first time there is reference to gospels resurrection stories, is in Aristides's apology (125-130), seemingly drawn mostly from GLuke (but NO 'body' specified) (with "3 days" from GMark) and one of "Ignatius" epistles (to the Smyrnaeans), seemingly drawn from GLuke, which, because they are forgeries, I date 125-145.
More details here: ignatius
The Epistula Apostolorum (140-150) includes bits and pieces from the resurrection stories in GMatthew, GLuke and GJohn, but not without noticeable variations.

Best regards, Bernard

Boomeister

Hey, thanks for the website.
Bernard, thanks for your ideas on this subject as well. It looks like you've spent a lot of time thinking about this. How did you come to the conclusions that you did? It sounds plausible and I would like to read further on what you have asserted.
There are a lot of contradictions in the four gospels, in Acts, and from Paul's writing, concerning Jesus' appearance (after the resurrection), the filling of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus' ascension.
Although the website can explain away some of the contradictions, it doesn't explain it all away. I plan on actually rereading it and checking it side by side with the individual gospels to see if he really did explain it as well as it appears with my first reading.

Boomeister

Bernard Muller

Boomeister:
Thanks, I started to believe nobody read my posts.
I wrote a lot on the empty tomb and what follows on that page:
HJ-3a, Jesus' last days
About GMatthew resurrection stories:
parables (Q, GMatthew & GLuke)
For belief about resurrection in 1st century (and resurrections/reincarnations in the gospels):
HJ-2b
For 1Corinthians15:
1cCorinthians
Dating of the gospels:
gospels
For the making of GJohn, start here:
John's gospel, from original to canonical

My mini-book 45 pages web site begins at:
Jesus, a historical reconstruction

Congratulations . That's the way it should be done for any article or book on the subject. Evidence comes first! Time consuming but the only way to cut through cheap rhetoric, misleading argumentation, assumptions, forced harmonisations, BS, etc.
I quickly noticed a lot of craps when I read the website in question.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

Extemely fast skim. Thoughts -->

Logically possible harmonization is the underlying standard. Believer wants the law of non-contradiction proven to be violated to call something an error in the Babble. This standard is absurd and I proved why in my ongoing debate with Robertlw here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79512

See my second response.

Add in the fact that all the passion acounts are related as well. Plus Mark originally ended at 16:8 and after that, I understand is where most of the divergence comes in. Other changes were made for theological reasons. Ergo, harmonizing what the evangelist purposefully scrambled is just silly.

Vinnie

Gawen

Well, one has to admit that he does a good job of making it flow. Any Xtian would proudly take this. There were a couple things that caught my eye straight away and I new some of you could shoot many holes through it. Still, I posted it here so everyone could see how he did it.

Don't you guys find it interesting how people on one side can 'construct' it...while those on the other side can 'deconstruct' it? I do.

Vinnie

Interestingly boring is what I find it. The entire "debate"--the whole process--completely misses the point which is passion prophecy. Prophecy historicized vs history remembered.

"Let me see if through twisting and wrangling I can show these are logically possible", is a red herring.

Vinnie

Gawen

Most assuredly.