Steven Carr

Clearly what makes something authentic and worthy of belief is if you can show that some people don't believe it.

Yes, the crazy world of Historical Jesus studies has just this bizarre logic in NT Wright's 'The Resurrection of the Son of God' page 643.

' The strongest mark of authenticity in this paragraph is the jarring note: `but some doubted' (verse 17).'

Wright, of course, has no doubts. Clearly he has more insight than people who actually saw the resurrected Jesus.


Wright's apologetics is that there was something different about Jesus , something 'they could not put their finger on'.

But surely putting their fingers on the resurrected Jesus was exactly what Thomas had done.


Wright has not ever put his fingers on the resurrected Jesus, yet he does not doubt.

Incidentally, Wright says Matthew 28:17 says 'some doubted'. I'm sure a good Greek scholar like him will know that there is no word for 'some' in the passage, but I doubt if he had space to explain that to his readers in his 700-plus page book.
Or is Tom Wright living proof that Matthew 28:16-20 is not history? The fact that modern Christians do not doubt what we are told the earliest Christians did doubt is proof that people who were with the resurrected Jesus would not have doubted.

Vorkosigan

LOL. I'm reading Tabor's new book now. It works the same way....

andrewcriddle

verse 17 could plausibly be regarded as evidence of authenticity in the sense that the passage has a basis in a real historical event.

Its status as evidence that this event was a true encounter with the risen Lord is clearly more problematic.
IIUC hOI DE used to contrast with a preceding clause, can be quite properly translated 'but others'.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Could you explain further please?

They worshipped him, but others doubted?

What 'others' were there?

The actual Greek that I have seen is ' kai eido autos proskuneo autos de distazo'.

No 'hoi de' in that.

'De' just means 'but' surely? Where else is 'hoi de' translated 'but others' or 'but some'?

andrewcriddle

Ther Greek of Matthew 28:17 is Literally 'and seeing him they worshipped (him) but others doubted.'

Parallels are for example Acts 17:32 '...some mocked but others said...' hOI MEN EChLEUAZON hOI DE EIPAN or Acts 28:24 'And some were convinced.....while others disbelieved' KAI hOI MEN EPEIThONTO.....hOI DE HPISTOUN

It would have been better Greek for Matthew to have added hOI MEN to the earlier clause which would translate literally 'and seeing him some worshipped (him) but others doubted.' However Matthew in other places omits hOI MEN apparently intending it to be understood. Matthew 26:67 literally 'Then they spat in his face and struck him and others slapped him' hOI DE ERAPISAN without an earlier hOI MEN.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

There was a big discussion about the Greek of Matt 28:17 recently (April 2006) on the B-Greek list. Go to http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...l/subject.html and read the messages entitled "[B-Greek] Matthew 28:17: hOI DE EDISTASAN".

andrewcriddle

Thanks Stephen.

This passage from the Perseus site quoted during the discussion seems particularly relevant. Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

'some others' seems the best translation. It did puzzle me why people would worship and doubt simultaneously.

What does the author of Matthew mean by it?

What 'others'?

Wright writes 'Equally, Matthew, like the others, describes a Jesus who comes and goes, appears and disappears, and is doubted at the very end by some of his close and obedient associates....' (page 646)

What was there to doubt, when the risen Jesus had gone out of his way to prove his resurrection?

Why doesn't Wright share the doubts of Jesus closest and most obedient associates?

Wright assures us that Matthew did not mean to imply that there were any splits or disunity. How Wright knows that is beyond me, but if you want to fill a 700-page book , you need an awful lot of speculation to fill up the pages.

Wright announces 'We can be sure however that this strange comment would not have occured to anyone telling this story as pure fiction....' (page 643)


Suffice it to say that Wright gives no sources, or methodology, or any way of testing his claim that we can be 'sure' that it is not 'pure' fiction. (If not pure fiction, is it not at least partly fiction?)


How can we be sure? Wright never gives any arguments for his certainty, or any proofs of his ability to think himself into the mind of an anonymous person of 2,000 years ago and know for sure what would have occurred to that anonymous person and what would not have occurred to him.

It is remarkable that Wright thinks it is possible to doubt proofs supplied by the Son of God himself, but we are not allowed to doubt the words of a Bishop of Durham. The pronouncements of the Bishop of Durham can be taken as sureties, while the proofs that Jesus gave were not enough to dispell doubt.