Steven Carr

Matthew 28
When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'

2000 years ago, was the testimony of a sleeping witness considered to be reliable?

So why would the chief priests have witnesses to this theft that would not have been considered credible, unless it had really happened that way?

aa5874

Now, when was Matthew 28 written?

If it was written, for argument sake, 100 years after the events and over 2000 kilometers away from Jeusalem, then the story does not have to be true.

There are stories in gMatthew that are false, that just did not happen or implausible, the inclusion of those stories, like the tranfiguration, do not in any way suggest that the event actually occurred.

And how can a person who is sleeping see anything reliable in any century?

Steven Carr

It is a ridiculous story.

But I was using this new improved William Lane Craig logic.

It is so much easier to use than the old brand.

I just have to say that the witnesses would not be considered credible, and hey presto, I have proved the story is true.

mountainman

But why beat around the William Lane Craig bush? I suggest experimenting with the new improved Emperor Julian logic that we are dealing with what needs to be categorised as a fiction of men composed by wickedness. When was the fabrication authored, and was it sponsored and/or commissioned?

The absence of archaeological support for the new testament before the fourth century is the problem for the apologists ..... which class of people Emperor Julian legislated to be known as "Galilaeans". The question is also really about whether the archaeology and the carbon dating is true in comparison to the assertions of the apologists. The new testament was not teleported to the planet in an early century ... it has an external history which is amenable to the gradually improving technological modes of ancient historical enquiry.

spamandham

Most certainly it would have been, but then, so would a text that claimed the testimony of a sleeping witness. Modern times are outrageously gullible times. Ancient times were that*10.

Steven Carr

These sleeping witnesses seem to be a lot more sensible than Mary Magdalene who first of all testified that somebody had taken the body, then suffered from a case of mistaken identity.

dog-on

The best part about writing a story is that you can always make the story whatever you want it to be. Issues like reality are irrelevant.

Doug Shaver

I think that 2,000 years ago, if a soldier claimed to have been asleep on duty, most people would suppose he was probably telling the truth. But then, they might have been a little suspicious if a Roman soldier who made such an admission was not immediately executed.

Obviously, no one can witness anything that happens while they're sleeping. But if I fell asleep while guarding a tomb, I can testify that the body was still there before I went to sleep and that it was gone when I woke up. Maybe I have good reason to assume the disciples did it, and maybe I don't, but if you believe me when I say I went to sleep, you will infer that somebody must have stolen it while I was sleeping, even if you aren't prepared to take my word for it as to the identity of the thieves.

Jayrok

Matt 28:12-15 -- 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.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day... Is there any evidence from Jewish historians or writers (other than Matthew) that this story had been widely circulated up to the end of the first century?

aa5874

Well, if the "TF" is evidence then the story of the soldiers is bunk, because, based on the TF, Jesus actually rose from the dead on the third day.

The story circulated was that Jesus rose on the third day as found in Josephus if the TF is true.