Featured The Debate over Jesus' Bodily resurrection

John of Japan: "I really don't have time to answer all of this--a simple timeline of events would do so--it's complicated."

Translation: You can' reconcile all the apparent inconsistiencies and are content to beg the question by postulating biblical inerrancy.

John of Japan: "Concerning (7), you say, "Mark's original ending." Sorry, but no scholar says that so full of surety. There are four possible endings in the manuscripts, and scholars have their preferences, but virtually all believe that one ending is genuine. Even Metzger, is not sure, saying: "it appears that" Mark ended there (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 105).

I was Metzger's student at Princeton. The inauthenticity of the KJV ending of Mark reflects the modern scholarly consensus. One manuscript even identifies the author as Aristo of Pella. The sltye is non-Markan.

John of Japan: "Concerning your (9), really? You actually think this is a problem? It refers to an event, the Ascension, 40 days later than the resurrection. Why would anyone think that contradicts Christ's instructions right after His resurrection to go to Galilee? In Galilee is where Peter's restoration occurred, among other things."

The problem here is threefold: (1) Jesus' prohibits the disciples from leaving Jerusalem before they can return to Galilee (Luke 24:49). (2) Luke carefully rewords the angelic instruction to go to Galilee to remove the need to go there (24:5-7). (3) In both Luke and Acts, Luke creates the impression that the disciples never returned to Galilee to see the risen Lord!


John of Japan: "I believe your other points would be just as easily dismissed if you yourself would take time to do some serious study about the matter. I won't take time right now to do so."

I have been a Teaching Fellow in NT at Harvard and a Theology professor for 12 years. So I assure you that, unlike yourself, I have "taken the time" to come up with the most logically coherent sequence of events and will offer this in a future post. I wanted to see if any evangelicals here care enough about the big issues to do the same.

 

(1) Be clear: I would cite that text as part of my case for Jesus' bodily resurrection. But in this thread I'm presenting a standard progressive and academic view of the resurrection tradition.
(1) The first question is whether this is an authentic tradition that reflects what actually happened. We evangelicals must concede the rational merit of the standard scholarly response: that the Romans followed their standard practice of removing Jesus' corpse from the nearby tomb when they came to remove the corpses of the two crucified thieves who died after Jesus. Remember, no disciple was present to witness the removal of the other 2 crucified corpses. Is it more reasonable to believe that the Romans followed their standard practice with crucified corpses or a later view not traceable to eyewitness testimony that Jesus appeared in His glorified physical body to His disciples? Remember, the scholarly consensus is that the Fourth Gospel was not composed by John the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus.

(2) If (1) is true, then there are 2 possibilities:
(a) The "physicality" of Jesus' visionary appearances is a later myth. That possibility requires an honest assessment of the OP's 9 apparent inconsistencies in the Gospel resurrection narrative, which so far have only been partially addressed in responses.
(b) The "physical" confirmation happened, but parallels similar "physical" demonstrations of the validity of modern apparitions, as illustrated earlier.

I will offer my own evangelical apologetic response to these problems in a later thread.

 

John of Japan: "So you're calling me a liar. Classy."
Nope! Just deficient in your grasp of the issues.

John of Japan: "Well, Metzger's student, you missed my point, which was not the authenticity of the longer ending (which I believe is canon, whether original with John or added later), but the necessity of one of the four endings extant rather than the bare, negative one you hold to."

Now you're really confused! Modern scholarship accepts the later addition of John 21 to the 4th Gospel and I agree that it is canonical. But I am discussing the scholarly consensus that none of the later endings of Mark (absent from early manuscripts) is authentic. Indeed, the very proliferation of bogus endings reflects the scribal offense taken at the shocking statement of Mark's ending that the women "said nothing to anyone because they were afraid."


John of Japan: "Typical liberal... You're afraid to look at any conservative possibility."

And you need to ask yourself why modern text critics reject all the later Marcan endings on many grounds. Marginal dissent from the agenda-driven fundamentalist Ghetto cannot serve as the default position on this question. If Mark ends by saying the women remained silent about what the "young man" in the tomb said, that is a significant problem for reconciling the often inconsistent alleged sequence of events.



John of Japan: "Really? You totally dismiss the context, which ends with the Ascension? After Jesus said to tarry in the city of Jerusalem, He led them to Bethany and His Ascension. The "Tarry in Jerusalem" comman is clearly fulfilled after the Ascension in Acts 1 & 2, and is not at all about immediately after the Resurrection. I can't believe a student of Metzger (whose bibliology writings I do value) would miss this."

You miss the point: Jesus' instruction to remain in Jerusalem is delivered the same day the empty tomb is discovered.
Luke nowhere implies a return to Galilee for future resurrection appearances! In fact, Luke revises the angelic instruction at the tomb to eliminate the instruction to go to Galilee for an appearance.

John of Japan: "I have been a missionary to Japan for 33 years and taught there at two Japanese Bible Schools. I've taught here in the States since then. I care deeply about everything in the Word of God. Believe me, I'm not impressed with Harvard, just as you now doubt consider my ministry and teaching experience to be minor league. Shall we stop patting ourselves on the back?"

Your response is utterly lacking in grace and ignores your patronizing implication that I haven't thought through the problem of the relevant sequence of events. Your presumption warrants mention of my academic credentials. In my next planned post I will illustrate the gravity of your understandable reluctance to address the most serious apparent inconsistencies in the Gospel ressurrection narrative.