Hi Mark,

What you've said is really interesting. I can understand the asymmetry of credibility you're proposing. It sounds defensible in the abstract. But ultimately life isn't lived in the abstract. And it's at this point that I'm intrigued by what you've said.

You'd credit an eye-witness report, once removed, for a cheating spouse but not for the resurrection. But, in real life, does believing the former affect your life any less than believing the latter?

I tend to think that both beliefs would be massively consequential. So, as a matter of practical reasoning, why hold the latter to a higher epistemological standard?

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Mark <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]

Sent: Wednesday, February 19,[masked]:38 PM

Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Eugene,

That chain-of-but-two-links doesn't strike me as overly tenuous. But perhaps we just disagree on that point. 

Overly tenuous for say, establishing that a spouse is cheating?  I would say no.  For an "utterly unique" event in history?  I would say yes. 

When I said "supposed eyewitnesses", the key word was actually "eyewitnesses", the supposed was just an addition.  Eyewitness testimony is too widely respected as evidence, as any criminal justice expert will tell you.

Mark

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Eugene Curry <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

You wrote, in response to something I wrote, that "to say plausibility drops off completely is a bit more narrow than I would expect from you."

That's fair. I should have said "drops off substantially."

As for the eye-witnesses themselves claiming to be eye-witnesses, as I said at the presentation, we have Paul doing this, and we have his comments that the others (several of who he had met and queried for long stretches of time) were doing it too. That chain-of-but-two-links doesn't strike me as overly tenuous. But perhaps we just disagree on that point. 

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Mark <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]

Sent: Wednesday, February 19,[masked]:07 PM

Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Eugene,

But, if I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you're now utilizing something akin to the "principle of analogy" or David Hume's classic argument against miracles.

If that's the case, though, then it seems that the mental heuristics you're employing make belief in the resurrection of Jesus impossible, even in principle--even if the event really happened. After all, Christianity claims that Jesus's resurrection is a literally *unique* event, something totally unprecedented in history either before or since. But if that's the case, then on your principle of analogy, literally any other explanation ought to be preferred so long as there is some analogue in recorded history.

Utterly massive conspiracies involving scores of people are quite rare, but they have happened on a few occasions. So since the idea of an utterly massive conspiracy could potentially explain the resurrection accounts, then on the principle of analogy this explanation ought to be preferred to an actual (and utterly unique) resurrection. And this would hold true no matter how overwhelming the evidence in favor of the resurrection might be. Even photos, video recordings, and the like could--and should--be ignored on the principle of analogy because we know of historical instances in which photos, video and other similar things have either malfunctioned or been doctored, but a genuine resurrection would be, again, utterly unique in history.

I have not even come close to claiming such and would be disappointed if you thought I would display such a fine example of CD in saying so. 

It is quite unfortunate for the resurrection hypothesis that it is claimed to be utterly unique.  That puts a very large burden of proof on its shoulders.  If it did have all the evidence highlighted above, it could still be the wrong hypothesis.  I would grant it with a strong possibility of being true.  But it doesn't have any of that.  We have supposed eyewitness testimony, possibly degraded by transfer.

Now, you did add a caveat. You said that the principle of analogy can be invoked legitimately here because we're dealing here with not just a possibility but a "very plausible possibility" and one that is operating "in similar circumstances." If that were really the case I think I would be more sympathetic. But, as I've already argued, the similarity of the situations in view isn't really genuine and thus the plausibility drops off completely.

You seem to think I am saying the similarities are stronger than I intend.  I said similar, not nearly identical, a perfect parallel, or even very similar.  My weighting of the probability to a natural explanation doesn't require that anyway as you seem to insist it does.  I don't know what you mean by "genuine" and to say plausibility drops off completely is a bit more narrow than I would expect from you.

What did the UFO group claim actually *happened*? Nothing; they granted that literally nothing happened and claimed that the non-occurrence of their anticipated event was itself the answer to prayer. 

I don't find this important.

What dangers did they plausibly face here in their modern American context for their belief? Mild ridicule.

I think you misunderstand the psychology.  If you intend to say that the lack of danger would make the UFO group more likely to be delusional and the Apostles more imminent threat less so, then I believe you are mistaken.

Did they persevere in their belief without outside encouragement? No, the under-cover research assistants egged them on.

Festinger's study is not the be all, end all of examining this phenomenon.  There are other examples without any interference.

By way of contrast, what did the Apostles claim actually *happened*? A brutally murdered man, dead and buried, walked out of his tomb

and met with his friends--face-to-face, and they saw him with their own eyes.

Again, the writers claim this is what the Apostles claim.

What dangers did the Apostles plausibly face in their respective Roman-occupied-Israelite context for their belief? Torturous deaths as either blasphemers or zealous accomplices of a recently executed rebel against Rome, the "King of the Jews".

(see above)

Did they persevere in their belief without outside encouragement? Yes.

Which isn't surprising.  We have examples of this happening as recently as the Harold Camping fiasco. (He merely changed the date from May to October.)  He did later admit that his End Times predictions were principally in error. 

The dissimilarities only grow when one considers that Jesus's empty tomb is likely a historical reality, and that even unsympathetic individuals such as James and the persecutory Paul (!) claimed to have seen the risen Jesus too.

I am not very well versed in the research on the empty tomb, so I cannot comment.

In light of the above, claiming that the two situations are "similar" strikes me as somewhat desperate, like one is really trying hard to fit the early-Christians' experiences to a procrustean bed of "cognitive dissonance" despite the obvious dissimilarities. Indeed, if I was inclined to be cheeky (in a good-natured way), I might say that it seems that the attempt to equate the two situations betrays a cognitive dissonance of it own--a contrived attempt by naturalists to explain-away an event that potentially falsifies naturalism. But I think that the term "cognitive dissonance" has been thrown around a bit too casually on the P&P board in recent months, so I won't do that.

Instead I'll simply say that the invocation of cognitive dissonance in connection with the Apostles, while interesting and provocative, doesn't seem to fit the data as we have it.

Is it really desperate to say that a group that thought their savior was coming in a spaceship to rescue them is similar to a group who also thought they were in contact (albeit much more personally) with a messiah?  Again, you are the one assuming the degree of similarity being posited and dismissing it, saying it's being stretched.

Mark

Potential CD Sufferer

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Eugene Curry <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Okay, I understand your thinking here, and I grant that you're not applying a double standard--at least not in an obviously problematic way.

But, if I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you're now utilizing something akin to the "principle of analogy" or David Hume's classic argument against miracles.

If that's the case, though, then it seems that the mental heuristics you're employing make belief in the resurrection of Jesus impossible, even in principle--even if the event really happened. After all, Christianity claims that Jesus's resurrection is a literally *unique* event, something totally unprecedented in history either before or since. But if that's the case, then on your principle of analogy, literally any other explanation ought to be preferred so long as there is some analogue in recorded history.

Utterly massive conspiracies involving scores of people are quite rare, but they have happened on a few occasions. So since the idea of an utterly massive conspiracy could potentially explain the resurrection accounts, then on the principle of analogy this explanation ought to be preferred to an actual (and utterly unique) resurrection. And this would hold true no matter how overwhelming the evidence in favor of the resurrection might be. Even photos, video recordings, and the like could--and should--be ignored on the principle of analogy because we know of historical instances in which photos, video and other similar things have either malfunctioned or been doctored, but a genuine resurrection would be, again, utterly unique in history.

But this seems a bit hollow, like taking pride in the fact that the US swept a Cold-War-era Olympics--but only because the USSR and it's satellites were excluded from participating. Of course the US won; it's real competition wasn't even allowed to into the games.

Now, you did add a caveat. You said that the principle of analogy can be invoked legitimately here because we're dealing here with not just a possibility but a "very plausible possibility" and one that is operating "in similar circumstances." If that were really the case I think I would be more sympathetic. But, as I've already argued, the similarity of the situations in view isn't really genuine and thus the plausibility drops off completely.

---

---

What did the UFO group claim actually *happened*? Nothing; they granted that literally nothing happened and claimed that the non-occurrence of their anticipated event was itself the answer to prayer. 

What dangers did they plausibly face here in their modern American context for their belief? Mild ridicule.

Did they persevere in their belief without outside encouragement? No, the under-cover research assistants egged them on.

---

---

By way of contrast, what did the Apostles claim actually *happened*? A brutally murdered man, dead and buried, walked out of his tomb

and met with his friends--face-to-face, and they saw him with their own eyes.

What dangers did the Apostles plausibly face in their respective Roman-occupied-Israelite context for their belief? Torturous deaths as either blasphemers or zealous accomplices of a recently executed rebel against Rome, the "King of the Jews".

Did they persevere in their belief without outside encouragement? Yes.

---

---

The dissimilarities only grow when one considers that Jesus's empty tomb is likely a historical reality, and that even unsympathetic individuals such as James and the persecutory Paul (!) claimed to have seen the risen Jesus too.

In light of the above, claiming that the two situations are "similar" strikes me as somewhat desperate, like one is really trying hard to fit the early-Christians' experiences to a procrustean bed of "cognitive dissonance" despite the obvious dissimilarities. Indeed, if I was inclined to be cheeky (in a good-natured way), I might say that it seems that the attempt to equate the two situations betrays a cognitive dissonance of it own--a contrived attempt by naturalists to explain-away an event that potentially falsifies naturalism. But I think that the term "cognitive dissonance" has been thrown around a bit too casually on the P&P board in recent months, so I won't do that.

Instead I'll simply say that the invocation of cognitive dissonance in connection with the Apostles, while interesting and provocative, doesn't seem to fit the data as we have it.

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Mark <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]

Sent: Wednesday, February 19,[masked]:42 AM

Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Eugene,

I can see why you might think I'm applying a double standard here.  I don't think I am because I am merely saying that it's a possibility.  Since I have other evidence of this being a very plausible possibility in similar circumstances, but no evidence of a supernatural resurrection, I should favor the former.

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Eugene Curry <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

You've written some good stuff here, and I want to think about it further before responding in depth.

Still, it strikes me as a little ironic when you say "It's hard (and most would say unwise) to psychoanalyze into the past." Isn't that exactly what you're doing here? You're attributing a complex psychoanalysis (i.e. the diagnosis of CD) to people living 2000 years ago.

It seems a little like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: ruling my psychoanalyzing out of court while doing the very same thing yourself.

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Mark <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]

Sent: Wednesday, February 19,[masked]:51 AM

Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Eugene,

I haven't read it in a while and I probably will soon for a refresher.

Yes, the RA's being less than casual observers might have skewed the observations they did make.  It's doubtful they would've had meaningful access to the group otherwise.  In a perfect world the would have been able to thoroughly investigate while remaining hands off. (Btw, there is a recent film with a plot similar to this.  Two journalists infiltrate a small cult surrounding a woman claiming to be from the future. "Sound of My Voice" I enjoyed it.)  It would be interesting to compare other instances where there weren't any overt influences.

I don't see how different details would invalidate the CD hypothesis as applied to the resurrection, or more broadly the development of Christianity from Jesus' ministry to the death of his contemporaries.  CD theory doesn't require a specific manifestation as far as I know.  I would also note that the writers claim that the disciples claim that Jesus appeared to them.  Telephone Effect (don't know the technical term for it) throws the details into question for me personally.  I don't strongly doubt that the disciples made some claim of Jesus appearing, but that could range from a mere dream to a literal, repeated appearance that could change over time as the stories spread orally and through copying and translation.

In response to your fourth paragraph, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.  That there was no need to "make up" a resurrection?  It's hard (and most would say unwise) to psychoanalyze into the past.  I think the safer option is to look at other similar scenarios and how they played out to establish probabilities.  Even though we may think that there was no specific psychological need that would lead to a visionary explanation in line with CD theory, we have many examples of similar things happening.  I know you may think it unfairly biased to favor such an explanation, but I don't see how when there must be at least dozens of other examples that if they turned out to be supernatural, would be in conflict with Christianity.  So we have all those weighting the probability of the natural hypothesis and this one possibly in support of a supernatural.

I've heard people like William Lane Craig say that the resurrection hypothesis is only less probable if you have a naturalistic bias.  Implying that the field is level.  The problem I have with this is that it appears to be a hard to identify begging of the question.  The only plausible way that the resurrection could occur the way he thinks it did is if God did it according to a plan in line with Christianity.  But that is the thing he is trying to establish with the resurrection.  To weight the plausibility of a claim leaning on the truth of your conclusion seems wrong to me.

We have the problem of lost history.  If any other messianic groups had similar beliefs, they might not have survived.  The fact that Christianity might be "selected" historically to survive doesn't necessarily point to it being true.

Mark  

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Eugene Curry <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Mark,

I can't say that I've read Festinger's book, but it certainly comes up from time to time in the literature on the resurrection on Jesus. N. T. Wright treats cognitive dissonance as the primary alternative explanation to the resurrection in his big book on the topic, and Dale Allison also addresses the issue. Since I haven't read the Festinger's book myself, I pass along Wright's and Allison's comments only tentatively, but they seemed to have some good points.

First, Festinger's research assistants were an active part of the group that they infiltrated; they didn't just quietly observe, they proactively encouraged the group members to "keep the faith" in the wake of the disappointment. That seems like the sort of thing that might contaminate the study's results.

Second, Festinger's UFO cult were let-down that nothing happened, and then scrambled to rationalize the non-event. But when it comes to the first Christians, they emphatically did not claim that nothing happened--they claimed that a dead man came back to life, appeared before them, in the flesh, and talked to them, ate with them, etc., over and over again. The two situations don't seem genuinely parallel.

Third, while no one expected the Messiah to die an ignoble death, Jesus's word's at the Last Supper about his own coming suffering *had* been spoken. If the Apostles had been thunderstruck by the crucifixion, and were inclined to reach for a easy way out of the cognitive dissonance birthed by the event, Jesus's words at the supper would have been plausibly sufficient. They could have just seen the cross as sacrificial, without any further need for a resurrection, if it hadn't actually happened. Enough of God's righteous prophets had been murdered, so 1st century Jews believed, without any immediate vindication that it would have been relatively easy to slot Jesus into that same category. In other words, if the Apostles had been affected by cognitive dissonance, there were more obvious and plausible rationalizations available to them than saying a dead man rose to new life.

And, lastly, we know of several messianic movements that briefly flourished around the time of Jesus. In many of those cases, the messianic claimant at the center of the movement was eventually killed. But in all those cases, the members of the movement either just gave up or they latched-on to a new messianic claimant. They didn't find themselves in the grip of an inability to see the obvious (i.e. their original "Messiah" wasn't actually the Messiah) and they certainly didn't claim that their guy rose from the dead. So why then did the early Christians break with this pattern and persevere in their belief that Jesus really was the Messiah despite the cross, despite living in roughly the same time, same culture, under the same political conditions, and with the same background religious beliefs as the other failed messianic movements who gave up? Cognitive dissonance has a hard time explaining this uniqueness; an actual resurrection would explain it quite nicely.

Sincerely,

Eugene

 

From: Mark <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18,[masked]:31 PM

Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Has anyone read "When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

What happens when a group's expectations are not met in a big way.

It definitely shapes the the way I think about first century Christians.

On Feb 18,[masked]:55 PM, "Eugene Curry" <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi Chris,

I largely agree with you take on Jesus's messiah-ship. The critical question therefore becomes, "What sort of event was responsible for converting the disappointment the Apostles felt in the aftermath of the crucifixion into the conviction that, despite the crucifixion, Jesus was really the Messiah after all? In all our records, the resurrection is what's put forward as the answer to the question.

Concerning the virgin birth, it seems we disagree. If you're inclined to think that Matthew invented the virgin-birth story on the basis of a wholly novel and idiosyncratic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, on what basis do you think that Luke (who never cites Isaiah 7:14) just happened to simultaneously invent the same story?

Sincerely,

Eugene

 

From: Christopher <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18,[masked]:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

As for the virgin birth claim, I think I've satisfactorily indicated how it came about; and I think this explanations is accepted by almost all NT scholars.  It had to do with the Greek of the Septuagint, which the gospel writer was using, and its translation of the OT's "young woman":  parthenos really means "virgin," whereas the Hebrew word (meaning simply "young woman" which is translated into Greek as parthenos does not.

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785) [masked]

From: Christopher <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18,[masked]:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Eugene,

I'm sorry that you were again unable to send me your carefully expressed thoughts.  It's been a rough day, and now I can say only this much.  I don't even have the energy to proofread:

"2. But the virgin-birth, crucifixion, and resurrection are not amenable to the same treatment. While the 1st century Jews expected the messiah to be born in Bethlehem, they didn't expect him to be virgin-born, crucified, or raised from the dead in the midst of on-going history."

Pending further investigation, I can only repeat what I said about this before.  I agree that none of this is what the Jews expected in their Messiah.  What I think happened is something vaguely like this:  Jesus's followers believed, on the basis of certain features of his life and teaching, that he had a unique relationship to God, and that he would grant to them a similar relationship to God. if they believed and followed him. Thus, his death, which was radically un-messiah-like, was for them a catastrophic disappointment:  one in which they had invested their lives. Then, retrospectively, they reinterpreted passages in the OT as vindicating Jesus:  he was not the kind of Messiah the Jews expected, but he was the real Messiah, the one whose kingdom is not of this world.

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785)[masked]

From: Eugene Curry <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18,[masked]:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Hi Chris,

Yet again, I wrote you a super-amazing email flawlessly addressing each of your concerns with crystal clarity and inescapable power. Had you read it, you would have gone out immediately and gotten the Virgin of Guadalupe tattooed down your ribs and joined the IMB to bring the gospel to head-hunters in Borneo. Yes, it would be dangerous, but you would have done it because my email would have given you an unshakable confidence in all things Jesus. You would have married the hottest headhunter lady in the tribe, had fifty kids, and lived as a kindly anti-type to Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.

But, alas, I accidentally lost the email again. Booo!

Rather than write it all again, here's the very-very short version.

1. Your approach to the Bethlehem issue is reasonable. I don't personally agree, but I'd have a *very* difficult time refuting such a view decisively.

2. But the virgin-birth, crucifixion, and resurrection are not amenable to the same treatment. While the 1st century Jews expected the messiah to be born in Bethlehem, they didn't expect him to be virgin-born, crucified, or raised from the dead in the midst of on-going history.

3. Isaiah 7:14 was never seen by the Jews as a messianic passage, or even as a passage about anything other than the events surrounding king Ahaz's troubled times.

4. It's unlikely therefore that Matthew would have invented parts of Jesus's biography to conform to an idiosyncratic interpretation of an obscure passage that no one in Israel connected to the messiah.

5. It's more likely that Matthew thought that Jesus was virgin-born on some other basis and then twisted Isaiah 7:14 into some sort of prophecy to make the whole thing more significant.

6. Similar things could be said, only with greater confidence, about a suffering messiah and a resurrection in the course of history. Nether were expected, and so such expectation could not have influenced the gospel writers account of Jesus's life.

"Most scholars doubt that the concept of a suffering Messiah appeared in jewish tradition before the revolt of Bar Kochba." Vincent Martin, A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways Between Synagogue and Church (Paulist, 1995), p. 42.

"A further point to take into consideration is that despite Luke and Paul, and the Creed, the resurrection of Jesus 'according to the Scriptures' cannot be seen as a logical necessity within the framework of Israel's prophetic heritage because, as has been indicated, neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection, appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism." Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (Fortress, 1981), p. 48.

"No one expect the Messiah to suffer for sins. No one expect the Messiah to rise from the dead, because he was not expected to die. The biblical passages acknowledge as 'messianic' in Jewish tradition are consistent in this regard. Attempts to find evidence of a pre-Christian 'suffering messiah' have been unsuccessful." Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Fortress, 1992), p. 13.

"It is important to remember that there is no known pre-Christian Messianic text in Judaism that speaks of a suffering messiah [...] and given the above range of ideas, seemingly no possibility of such." James R. Edwards, Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels Vol. 1: The Gospel of Mark (T&T Clark, 2006) p. 62.

"One intriguing question scholars have wrestled with is why the early followers of Jesus began calling him 'Christ' in the first place. Is it because after he had died they came to believe he was raised from the dead and that therefore he must have been the messiah? It may be surprising, but the answer is a resounding no. This is because prior to Christianity there is not a single Jewish tradition that the messiah was supposed to die and be raised from the dead. As New Testament scholar Nils Dahl has convincingly argued, the resurrection would not prove to any Jew that Jesus is the messiah because the messiah was not supposed to rise from the dead. Christians later, of course, pointed to passages in the Jewish Scriptures that talk about the death of God's Righteous One and his ultimate vindication by God, arguing that these passages actually referred to Jesus (for example, Isa. 53, Ps. 22). But prior to Christianity, no one thought that these passages referred to the future messiah who would die and be raised. It is worth noting in this connection that the term 'messiah' never appear in these passages. For Jews, what made the messiah the messiah was the fact that he was God's chosen one who would rule God's people. These passages referred to someone else." Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed (Oxford University Press, 2008)

As I said, apart from Israel Knohl, the only scholars who deny this view are mythicist crackpots.

7. Therefore "prophecy-historicized" is not a plausible explanation for the belief in the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus among the first Christians.

8. It seems more likely that, as most scholars believe, the first Christians really did just find Jesus's tomb empty and then had experiences that they thought were genuine bodily encounters with Jesus alive after his execution.

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Christopher <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Monday, February 17,[masked]:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Another example illustrating what I wrote about fulfillment citations:  The narratives of Jesus's birth, which appear in Matthew and Luke, are replete with fulfillment citations.  It is especially obvious that these authors went to astonishing--and absurd--lengths to get Jesus born in Bethlehem of Judea, although all of his contemporaries knew that he was from Nazareth in Galilee (as is attested more than once in the gospels).  The two authors' accounts differ markedly with each other, but what they have in common is the goal of, by hook or by crook, getting Jesus born in Bethlehem.  This was surely intentional:  they themselves probably knew that Jesus was from Nazareth; but, since the OT had prophesied that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, "the city of David,"  that is where Jesus would just have to be born, whatever contortions and geographical and other impossibilities were required to make him a native of that town.

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785)[masked]

From: Christopher Riels <[address removed]>
To: "[address removed]" <[address removed]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, [masked]:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

"But what I've sketched out above is, apart from the mythicist crackpots and, I think, one serious scholar, the consensus view among experts."

I'm not sure about that.  I don't know the scholarship, so I can't say anything definite about the status quaestionis.  I guess I'll need to check on that, too.

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785)[masked]

From: Eugene Curry <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, February 16,[masked]:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Hi Chris,

You're right that the New Testament authors are eager to connect Jesus's life, death, and resurrection to passages in the Old Testament. But one needs to be careful here. In a number of points, it seems that the Old Testament passages put forward as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus were not originally understood by the Jewish people as prophecies concerning the messiah.

As a result, in at least some cases, it is highly unlikely that the early Christian community began with the Old Testament, massaged Jesus's biography to make it fit, and then claimed Jesus fulfilled a prophecy. Rather, it seems that at certain critical junctures the early Christian community began with Jesus's biography, massaged the Old Testament to fit, and then claimed that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

This is most dramatically the case with the virgin-birth stories in Matthew and Luke. The Old Testament never really claimed that the messiah would be born of a virgin, and Jews looking for the advent of the messiah in Jesus's day didn't at all expect the messiah to be born of a virgin. So it is highly unlikely that Matthew or Luke made up the story of Jesus begin virgin-born to "fulfill" non-existent prophecies.

More germane to the topic at hand, though, is the matter of Jesus's crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. As with the virgin birth, 1st century Judaism had no concept of a messiah that would be executed by the very pagan powers they expected him to overthrow. A fortiori, the Jews had no notion of a messiah who not only died ignobly at the hands of Israel's enemies but was then raised to new life in the course of on-going history. As such, it's highly unlikely that the early Christian community massaged Jesus's biography to fulfill non-existent messianic expectations. Rather, it's more likely that something actually happened regarding Jesus (i.e. the crucifixion and then the resurrection), and the early Christians were so amazed by it that they then busily set about looking for analogues in the Old Testament to make sense of the events.

It doesn't always seem this way to us today because we tend to read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus's experiences as recorded in the New Testament. In other words, we read it anachronistically. But what I've sketched out above is, apart from the mythicist crackpots and, I think, one serious scholar, the consensus view among experts.

Sincerely,

Eugene

From: Christopher <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, February 16,[masked]:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

In my remarks below, I failed to mention the obviously important point that the Resurrection itself seems to be based on a "fulfillment" claim.  In Acts 2, most starkly in v. 24 ("But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power") Peter, as depicted by Luke, represents the Resurrection of Jesus as a fulfillment of Psalm [masked]: 

I keep the Lord always before me;

   because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 

Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices;
   my body also rests secure. 
For you do not give me up to Sheol,

   or let your faithful one see the Pit.) 

(Bible quotations:  New Revised Standard Version; taken from bible.oremus.org.)

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785)[masked]

From: eric <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Sunday, February 16,[masked]:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Provocateurs] resurrection story

Christopher, I basically agree with what you have written below.  The "suffering servant" song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is particularly intriguing, but a full discussion of the song would  be much too long for an email.  The identity of the servant has been debated for centuries among rabbis and scholars.

Eric

On 2/15/2014 6:43 PM, Christopher wrote:

Just one vague point about the Resurrection in general:  If the event did not occur, the  passages claiming it did were not "made up."  Repeatedly, the NT authors in general and the gospel authors in particular, interpret Jesus's life and actions as fulfillment of prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures.  This does not mean that they deliberately fabricated the divine character of Jesus by simply appropriating passages of the "OT" in order to create narratives that they knew to be fictional. Instead, as it has long seemed to me, they sincerely and whole-heartedly believed that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah: as a result, they believed that he must have done and experienced the things that the long-awaited Messiah, on their interpretation of the OT, would do and experience.  Thus, they filled in the blanks in their knowledge of Jesus's life and death by modeling him and his experiences on what they believed the OT said about him.  Probably the single most famous instance is the Christian interpretation of Jesus as the crucified "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53, who "was wounded for our transgressions" and on whom "the Lord has laid. . . the iniquity of us all."  In a verse from Psalm 24, "not one of [his bones] was broken; accordingly, the soldiers at his cross did not have to break Jesus's legs when they took him down from the cross.  Probably the most humorous example is Jesus's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey; or, in Mark's account, two donkeys (which must have been strange to see as well as hard to do.  (Matthew's two donkeys come from his misreading of a literary device at Zechariah 9:9.)     

 

Christopher M. Riels
1332 Crosswinds Court Apt. 2
Lawrence, KS 66046
Telephone: (785)[masked]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Christopher ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Christopher, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by eric ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about eric , visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Christopher ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Christopher, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Christopher ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Christopher, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Christopher ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Christopher, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Christopher ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Christopher, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Mark, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Mark, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Mark, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Mark, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mark ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Mark, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Eugene Curry ([address removed]) from Provocateurs and Peacemakers.
To learn more about Eugene Curry, visit his/her member profile
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]