Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 05-12-2010, 09:33 AM

Consider the following:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/guard.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Lane Craig

Of the canonical gospels, only Matthew relates the intriguing story of the setting of a guard at the tomb of Jesus (Mt. 27. 62-66; 28. 4, 11-1 5). The story serves an apologetic purpose: the refutation of the allegation that the disciples had themselves stolen Jesus' body and thus faked his resurrection. Behind the story as Matthew tells it seems to lie a tradition history of Jewish and Christian polemic, a developing pattern of assertion and counter-assertion:

Christian: 'The Lord is risen!'
Jew: 'No, his disciples stole away his body.'
Christian: 'The guard at the tomb would have prevented any such theft.'
Jew: 'No, his disciples stole away his body while the guard slept.'
Christian: 'The chief priests bribed the guard to say this.'

Though Matthew alone of the four evangelists mentions the guard at the tomb,.......the gospel of Peter also relates the story of the guard at the tomb, and its account may well be independent of Matthew, since the verbal similarities are practically nil.

Matthew's account has been nearly universally rejected as an apologetic legend by the critics. The reasons for this judgment, however, are of very unequal worth. For example, the fact that the story is an apologetic answering the allegation that the disciples stole the body does not therefore mean that it is unhistorical. The best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened.

My main interests are 1) "the gospel of Peter also relates the story of the guard at the tomb, and its account may well be independent of Matthew, since the verbal similarities are practically nil," and 2) "the best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened."

Regarding item 1, why would a lack of verbal similarities necessarily indicate independence?

How can Craig use the Gospel of Peter as a source? It is not a part of the Bible. In addition, it was not written until the second century A.D.

Consider the following:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...eraccount.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gospel of Peter

8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders being gathered together one with another, when they heard that all the people murmured and beat their breasts saying, If by his death these most mighty signs have come to pass, see how righteous he is,--the eiders were afraid and came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Give us soldiers, that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead and do us evil. And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulchre; and they affixed seven seals, and they pitched a tent there and guarded it. And early in the morning as the sabbath. was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about, that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed.

http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbP...l_of_Peter.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles L. Quarles

(William Peterson Carver, Jr., Research Professor of New Testament and Greek, Louisiana College)

An impressive number of clues suggest that [the Gospel of Peter] postdates even the latest New Testament book and belongs to the mid-second century. First, a close analysis of verbal parallels shared by the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Matthew suggests that the Gospel of Peter postdates Matthew and utilized that Gospel as a source. An example of these parallels is the account of the guard assigned to Jesus’ tomb. Of the four canonical Gospels, only Matthew shares with the Gospel of Peter an account of this event. Both the account in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter refer to the Pharisees gathering before Pilate to express concern about a staged resurrection on the third day. Both accounts refer to the guarding and sealing of the tomb. Both describe the Jews as “the people.” One sustained verbal parallel clearly indicates a definite literary dependence of one document on the other. Both Matthew 27:64 and Gospel of Peter 8:30 contain the precise words “lest his disciple come and steal him.” Crossan argued that the parallel demonstrated Matthew’s dependence on an early form of the Gospel of Peter (the Cross Gospel). However, an examination of the vocabulary, grammar, and style of the two documents strongly favors the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew. Robert Gundry, one of the most respected experts on issues related to Matthew’s style, called the phrase a “series of Mattheanisms” (Gundry, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994], 584). Similarly, John Meier noted “when it comes to who is dependent on whom, all the signs point to Matthews priority.......The clause is a tissue of Matthean vocabulary and style, a vocabulary and style almost totally absent from the rest of the Gospel of Peter” (Meier, Marginal Jews, 1:117). This is consistent with a number of other Matthean features appear in the Gospel of Peter that all point to the dependence of the Gospel of Peter on Matthew.

Second, other features of the Gospel of Peter suggest that the gospel not only postdates Matthew, but even postdates the latest book of the NT canon, the Book of Revelation. For example, although Matthew indicates that the Roman guard sealed the tomb of Jesus, Gospel of Peter 8:33 adds that it was sealed with seven seals. The reference to the seven seals conflicts with the immediate context. Gospel of Peter 8:32-33 states that all the witnesses present sealed the tomb. However, a minimum of nine witnesses were present leading readers to expect at least nine seals. The best explanation for the awkward reference to the seven seals is that the detail was drawn from Revelation 5:1. This allusion to Revelation fits well with the Gospel of Peter 9:35 and 12:50 reference to the day of Jesus’ resurrection as the “Lord’s Day” since this terminology only appears in Revelation in the NT and first in Revelation out of all ancient Christian literature. The reference to the “Lord’s Day” in the Gospel of Peter is a shortened form that appears to be a later development from the original form appearing in Revelation.

Still other features of the Gospel of Peter fit best with the historical data if the Gospel of Peter was produced in the mid-second century. The Gospel of Peter assumes the doctrine of Jesus’ descent into Hades to preach to the dead. However, this doctrine first appears in the words of Justin Martyr around AD 150. The talking cross is a feature of other second-century literature. The Epistula Apostolorum 16 states that during the second coming Jesus will be carried on the wings of the clouds with his cross going on before him. Similarly, the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter 1 describes the returning Christ as coming in a glory seven times as bright as the sun and with his cross going before his face. In a similar fashion, beginning in the late first century, Christian texts describe Christ as possessing gigantic stature. In an allegorical depiction of Jesus’ supremacy and authority over the church, Shepherd of Hermas 83:1 described Christ as of such lofty stature that he stood taller than a tower. 4 Ezra 2:43, a portion of 4 Ezra dating to the middle or late third century, referred to the unusual height of the Son of God. These shared compositional strategies and features make the most sense if these documents and the Gospel of Peter were composed in the same milieu.

This evidence confirms the traditional Christian claim that the four NT Gospels are the most reliable accounts of Jesus’ trial, death, burial, and resurrection. The accounts of crucifixion and resurrection in the four Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony rather than naïve dependence on an unreliable source like the alleged “Cross Gospel.” The Gospel of Peter (and the so-called Cross Gospel) is clearly later than the NT Gospels and is sprinkled throughout with imaginative elements and traces of legend. Although the gospel is helpful for understanding the thought of some sectors of the church in the mid-second century, it is of little value for understanding the details of Jesus’ final days on earth. [For a more detailed discussion, see Quarles, “The Gospel of Peter: Does It Contain a Pre-canonical Resurrection Narrative?” in The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue (ed. Robert Stewart; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 106-120].

So much for Craig's claim that "the verbal similarities [between Matthew and the Gospel of Peter] are practically nil."

Regarding item 2, which again is "the best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened," what evidence does Craig have that there was such a charge?

Assuming that Jesus said that he would rise from the dead, how many people knew about his claim? If some people knew about his claim, surely all of them, or almost all of them, considered the claim to be ridiculous. The entire group of women at the tomb forgot that he had even made the claim. Peter and Mary Magdalene were not even convinced by the empty tomb.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJV

Matthew 27

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

In James Holding's article "The Impossible Faith," Holding quotes N.T. Wright as saying "This subversive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire." In "The Rise of Christianity," Rodney Stark estimates that there were only 7,530 Christians in the entire world in 100 A.D. In 35 A.D., perhaps there were only several hundred Christians in the entire world.

Why would the Pharisees have been interested in the ridiculous claims of a tiny group of uninfluential followers of Jesus?

Sea · 05-14-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Regarding item 2, which again is "the best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened," what evidence does Craig have that there was such a charge?

I'm of the view that Jesus was actually crucified, but that he probably wasn't put in a nice stone tomb which was then found empty. Despite all this, I consider the phrase "and is to this day" in Matt 28:15 pretty good evidence the author of Matthew was accurately reflecting something contemporary Jews were saying. Here's what I think happened:

* Jesus was executed, buried somewhere and quickly decayed beyond obvious recognition.
* Christians began to believe he had risen in some sense.
* The Empty Tomb story was invented somewhat later to "prove" a supernatural bodily resurrection.

* Christians years after the death of Jesus tell Jews the Empty Tomb story. Rather than question the entire scenario, some Jews took the tomb claim at face value and pointed out that even a vacated tomb is poor evidence, since someone could have simply moved the body. (This is what the author of Matthew was referring to.)

* Christians — or maybe just the author of Matthew on his own — invented the guards to "prove" the body could not have been moved.

So, basically, some Jews years after Jesus' death may have been lazy (or just economical) skeptics who suggested the easiest possible counter to Christian claims at the time, which prompted a new Christian claim about tomb guards.

I lay this out in slightly more detail here.

mountainman · 05-15-2010, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How can Craig use the Gospel of Peter as a source? It is not a part of the Bible. In addition, it was not written until the second century A.D.

The Gospel of Peter:

Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text. An early date is provided by the most antogonisic of witnesses, the orthodox heresiologist Eusebius in his dual role as historian of the followers of the canon and the historian of the followers of the gnostics.

How does Craig like the part in the gPeter where Jesus head is above the heavens and the cross, not content with immobility and silence, trundles along behind Our Man Jesus and the Two Angels, walking and talking to god "YEAH!!"

FYI my money Johnny is on this gnostic gospel as being a greek satire on the stories of the NT canon, and fabricated by dissatisfield Greek gnostics after the Council of Nicaea.

seyorni · 05-15-2010, 05:04 AM

I'm trying to figure out why a soldier would bribe someone to accuse him of an offense for which his centurion might well have executed him. Doesn't sound plausible to me.

Why would anyone have even proposed such an unbelievable scenario?

andrewcriddle · 05-15-2010, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seyorni

I'm trying to figure out why a soldier would bribe someone to accuse him of an offense for which his centurion might well have executed him. Doesn't sound plausible to me.

Why would anyone have even proposed such an unbelievable scenario?

The scenario (whether plausible or not) is that the soldiers accept a bribe to say that they were asleep, after being given a promise that they will not be disciplined for dereliction of duty.

See Matthew 28:14

Quote:

And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 05-15-2010, 06:41 AM

Message to Andrew Criddle: In another thread, you mentioned the importance of multiple attestation. What multiple attestation is there for the guards at the tomb?

andrewcriddle · 05-15-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: In another thread, you mentioned the importance of multiple attestation. What multiple attestation is there for the guards at the tomb?

Unless you regard the Gospel of Peter as independent here of Matthew, (which I don't), the guards at the tomb are not multiply attested.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 05-15-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Unless you regard the Gospel of Peter as independent here of Matthew, (which I don't), the guards at the tomb are not multiple attested.

Good, so do you agree with me that the empty tomb on its own is not a reasonable argument for Christians to use?

mountainman · 05-15-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seyorni

I'm trying to figure out why a soldier would bribe someone to accuse him of an offense for which his centurion might well have executed him. Doesn't sound plausible to me.

Hi seyorni,

One explanation is that the author was writing a purposefully outrageously fictional account -- think of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" -- one which everyone at the time would recognise as a total send up of the "Original Story" where, in this case, the original story has been defined in the books of the new testament canon, especially the gospels and Acts and Paul.

The author(s) of these strange weird "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" are not yet known and they have been presumed to be "Christians" by the "Christian minds" which have been examining and researching the history of the Gnostics and their prohibited books.

Why did the cross upon which Bilbo Jesus Baggins was hobitified walk and talk? All these strange unbelievable greek narrative extreme (almost Homeric) fiction bits add up to an extended satirical treatment of the new testament canon. Everyone presumes that because the "Gnostic texts" mention figures and events in the NT canon that the author is absolutely 100% certainly a "christian".

Quote:

Why would anyone have even proposed such an unbelievable scenario?

To "make fun of" something tendered as serious.
To resist the canonical "Gospels and Acts" with seditious additional "stories".
To popularise the gospel stories by wild romantic narrative accounts, often docetic.

The political context of authorship is critical to identifying such genre.
Think "Council of Nicaea" when the new testament canon was official launched.
Was there any resistance? We are told no, there was not.
But then we have all these "prohibited Gnostic books".
When will the penny drop?

An Academic Collage of Opinion about these "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"

Quote:

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ...
making fun of traditional biblical beliefs" [April Deconick]

"heretics ... who were chiefly Gnostics ... imitated the books of the New Testament" [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"enterprising spirits ... pretended Gospels full of romantic fables and fantastic and striking details, their fabrications were eagerly read and largely accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity." "the heretical apocryphists, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"the fabrication of spurious Acts of the Apostles was, in general, to give Apostolic support to heretical systems, especially those of the many sects which are comprised under the term Gnosticism. The Gnostic Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, Thomas, and perhaps Matthew, abound in extravagant and highly coloured marvels, and were interspersed by long pretended discourses of the Apostles which served as vehicles for the Gnostic predications. The originally Gnostic apocryphal Acts were gathered into collections which bore the name of the periodoi (Circuits) or praxeis (Acts) of the Apostles, and to which was attached the name of a Leucius Charinus, who may have formed the compilation." [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

"insipid and puerile amplifications" [Ernest Renan]

"excluded by their later and radical light" [John Dominic Crossan]

"severely conditoned responses to Jesus ... usually these authors deny his humanity" [Robert M. Grant]

"they exclude themselves" [M.R. James]

"The practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history" [Bart Ehrman]

"The Leucian Acts are Hellenistic romances, which were written to appeal to the masses" [Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard]

"The key point ... [NT Apocrypha] have all been long ago considered and rejected by the Church.

"The names of apostles ... were used by obscure writers to palm off their productions; partly to embellish and add to ... partly to invent ... partly to support false doctrines; decidedly pernicious, ... nevertheless contain much that is interesting and curious ... they were given a place which they did not deserve." [Tischendorf]

Steven Carr · 05-15-2010, 11:41 PM

CRAIG
2) "the best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened."

CARR
I guess that is why the first Novel, Mark, has the followers of Jesus thinking they could easily get access to the body, if only some big strong men (perhaps fishermen) were at hand to move the stone.

He just had to tell it how it was...

Clearly, Christians had not been hammered for decades by charges of grave-robbing or else the first Novel would have to narrate 'the true story of what happened'.

But if Christians had not been hammered for decades by charges of grave-robbing then there could not have been an empty tomb.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2010, 05:04 AM	#4
seyorni Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Albuquerque. SW USA Posts: 3,176	I'm trying to figure out why a soldier would bribe someone to accuse him of an offense for which his centurion might well have executed him. Doesn't sound plausible to me. Why would anyone have even proposed such an unbelievable scenario?

05-15-2010, 06:41 AM	#6
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Andrew Criddle: In another thread, you mentioned the importance of multiple attestation. What multiple attestation is there for the guards at the tomb?

05-15-2010, 11:41 PM	#10
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	CRAIG 2) "the best way to answer such a charge would not be by inventing fictions, but by narrating the true story of what happened." CARR I guess that is why the first Novel, Mark, has the followers of Jesus thinking they could easily get access to the body, if only some big strong men (perhaps fishermen) were at hand to move the stone. He just had to tell it how it was... Clearly, Christians had not been hammered for decades by charges of grave-robbing or else the first Novel would have to narrate 'the true story of what happened'. But if Christians had not been hammered for decades by charges of grave-robbing then there could not have been an empty tomb.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.