Why Didn't They Know?

From *The Skeptical Review*, Autumn 1991:

by Farrell Till

John's account of the resurrection has Peter and another disciple running to the empty tomb after hearing from Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus was gone. The unnamed disciple, outrunning Peter, arrived at the tomb first and waited:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes (20:6-10, NRSV).

Luke also indicated that the disciples of Jesus had not expected his resurrection, for Luke said that after Peter looked inside at the linen cloths, "he went home, wondering at that which had come to pass" (24:12). Numerous references to the apostles' skepticism of a resurrection appear elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 24:11,38; Jn. 20:24-25; Matt. 28:17).

Smorgasbord Debating

by Farrell Till

A reply to
OH-SIGH-RIS
The Pagan Origins of Resurrection Refuted!

by Mark McFall

Till's comment:

I can't help wondering about the title of McFall's response to my article. Is he claiming that the concept of resurrection from the dead did not originate prior to the advent of Christianity? Is it his position that prior to the resurrection of Jesus, there were no concepts of returning from the dead in any of the religions that had preceded Christianity? He needs to clarify his position.

What Third-Day Prophecy?

The New Testament has both Jesus and Paul claiming that the Old Testament prophesied that the Christ would be resurrected from the dead on the third day. The problem for inerrantists is that no such prophecy can be found in the Old Testament. Farrell  Till covers this problem and others. From *The Skeptical Review*, March-April 1996:

By Farrell Till 

New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament. The weakness of this claim is apparent in the fact that none of these writers ever cited an Old Testament prophecy whose face-value meaning was so obvious that no reasonable person could deny that the prophets were indeed predicting that the Messiah would rise from the dead. The best they could do was distort a statement in Psalm 16:8-11 to try to make it mean something that the psalmist never intended:

I have set Yahweh always before me; because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore, my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices. My flesh also will rest in hope. For you will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You will show me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy: at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Pardon my ignorance, but if there is a clear cut prediction of a resurrection in this passage, I simply cannot see it. Yet the apostle Peter, in a sermon that Luke put into his mouth, quoted this scripture on the day of Pentecost and said that it was a prophecy of the Messiah's resurrection. "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, *being a prophet,* and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, *foreseeing this,* spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption" (Acts 2:29-31).

More On The Resurrection...

From the Errancy discussion list, 8-26-95:

Till

Roger Eisinger has sent me personal messages about an inconsistency in the resurrection narratives that I believe I posted on this list. Since it pertains directly to the purpose of the list, I am going to post our exchanges here for everyone's consideration. The problem I presented was the one about inconsistencies in Matthew's and John's depiction of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning. Matthew's narrative has Mary M hearing an angel say that Jesus had risen, but John's had her believing that the body had been stolen. My position is that these are irreconcilable inconsistencies.

Eisinger

I think that some of the difficulties in trying to reconcile those 

two gospel accounts can be avoided by considering the possibility that 

neither Matthew, Mark or Luke bothered to record the portion of the 

resurrection story that the writer of John relates in John, Chapter 20 vs 

1-10. In John's account, Mary Magdalene approached the tomb two times. 

The first time, she sees only that the stone is rolled away. 

Till

This is a common "explanation" that inerrantists use to explain the discrepancy in Matthew's and John's depiction of Mary Magdalene on resurrection morning, but it just won't work. You said that Mary Magdalene approached the tomb twice in John's account, and the first time she saw only that the stone had been rolled away. Well, that couldn't have been all that she saw, because if she did not look inside, then she couldn't very well have known that the body was gone. That, however, is just a minor problem in your explanation, because Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb on the first day of the week, and "behold there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat on it" (28:2). So Matthew's Mary M didn't just go to the tomb and find it empty as John's Mary M did; she saw the angel remove the stone. The narrative went on to say, "But the angel answered and said unto THE WOMEN..." (V: 5). I asked you to state who these women were, but you didn't do it, so will you do it now: who were these women that the angel spoke to? You have to say Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, because they are the only two women identified in Matthew's narrative. So what did the angel say to THE WOMEN? "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord Lay" (verses 5-6). If Mary Magdalene learned that the body was gone, it would have had to have been at this moment, wouldn't it, when the angel invited THE WOMEN to see where the body had lain? If so, she discovered that the body was gone within the context of an angel's telling her and the other Mary that Jesus was gone because he had risen, as he had said he would.

Paul's Spiritual Resurrection

Farrell Till from the Errancy Discussion list, 4-5-96:

In an earlier posting, I reviewed Dan Barker's major argument that he presented in his first speech in a debate with Michael Horner at Northern Iowa University. I believe that the argument is devastating to the popular belief in a bodily resurrection of Jesus, so I am posting that part of the review again to which I will add an analysis of 1 Corinthians 15:35-44, which I believe strengthens Barker's argument. I have sent this analysis to Barker, and he agrees that it makes his argument pretty conclusive. Inerrantists on the list are invited to respond to the argument.

BARKER'S ARGUMENT AS PRESENTED IN TILL'S REVIEW:

In Barker's first speech, he said that the burden of proof was on the one claiming the miracle of a resurrection but that he was going to offer to Horner what he has been asking for, and that is an alternative hypothesis that explains the data better than Horner's supposition that a resurrection literally occurred. He told Horner not to assume that this alternative hypothesis denies the possibility of miracles, because such a denial was not a part of the hypothesis. The hypothesis simply proposes a more likely explanation for the Christian belief in the resurrection.

Barker then proceeded by stating his hypothesis: belief in a bodily resurrection was a result of doctrinal evolution that began with a belief in a spiritual resurrection. Barker then analyzed 1 Corinthians 15. He noted that Paul's statement in verses 3-8 is recognized by most biblical scholars to be the earliest known statement about the resurrection. He cited the usual reasons for believing that this was so and that Paul had merely quoted what Christians had been passing along orally, possibly even in hymns or poems that were orally transmitted. Barker noted that this earlier account makes no references to many of the elements that are found in the gospel accounts, which were written much later. There were no references to an earthquake and empty tomb, to women, to angels, etc. He asked the audience to think about why the earliest account of the resurrection would have left out such important events if they were so widely known as a part of the resurrection event. He then focused on the words "buried," "raised," and "appeared" in Paul's text and did an analysis of each as they were used in the Greek text of the NT. He pointed out that the word "thapto" (bury) meant to inter or bury and carried no necessary connotations of entombment, so this would be consistent with the known practice of taking the bodies of crucifixion victims and burying them in a common grave. He pointed out that the word translated "rose" or "raised" in English translations of this passage was "egeiro," which meant to "arouse" or "awaken." He noted that this was the word that Paul used in referring to the resurrection in such places as 2 Corinthians 5:15 and that it was the word used in Ephesians 5:14, where Paul said, "Awake (egeiro), thou that sleepest and arise (anistemi) from the dead." The latter word that means "arise" or "raise up" is the word used in reference to resurrection, but "egeiro" (awake) is the word that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:4, 12 in speaking of Christ arising. [I don't recall that Dan said this, but "egeiro" was used by Paul eleven other times in 1 Corinthians 15:15-52, as he spoke about the apostles being false witnesses if the dead are not *raised,* faith being dead if the dead are not *raised," and his analogy of seed and bodies that are sown corruptible but *raised* in incorruption, etc.] Barker's argument was that the meaning of the word that Paul used in this earliest account of the resurrection was sufficient to believe that Christians at this time had believed only in a spiritual awakening of Christ after his death. Then, later, when legend had built the spiritual arising into a literal resurrection of the dead, the gospels were written to put the resurrection into a specific historical setting.

Barker than analyzed the word "appear" to show that Paul and others used it in visionary senses. In Matthew 17:3, Moses and Elijah "appeared" at the time of the transfiguration, and the Greek word here is the same one that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in listing the appearances that Jesus made to Cephas, to the twelve, to the 500 brethren, to James, and finally to Paul himself. Barker asked if Horner thought that Moses and Elijah had been bodily resurrected in their appearances at the transfiguration. In Acts 16:9, "a vision *appreared* [same word as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8] to Paul in the night in which a man from Macedonia stood praying for Paul to come there to help them. Since the same word for "appear" was used in 1 Corinthians 15:8, where Paul said, "And last of all, as to the child untimely born, he *appeared* to me also," Barker argued that there is sufficient reason to assume that the other appearances were like the appearance to Paul. Barker then showed that the only records that exist of the appearance of Jesus to Paul show clearly that this was just a vision that Paul had and that he had actually not even seen Jesus in the vision. He heard only a voice speaking from a bright light (Acts 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:12-18), and the men who were with him saw only the light but didn't hear the voice (according to one of the accounts). So if this was the way that Paul saw Jesus, and since the same word for "see" or "appeared" (depending on translation) was used for all of the appearances in this passage, why should we believe that the other appearances were any more than just visionary appearances? The actual bodily appearances came much later in the gospel narratives. Barker also referred to other places in 1 Corinthians 15 to show that Paul had had in mind a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one. He referred to the gospel narratives to show that by the time they were written, there was sort of a composite view of the resurrection. It was a resurrected body that showed its wounds that could be touched and examined, yet it was also a body that could be teletransported, appear suddenly, and even pass through closed doors. At this point, Barker called to the audience's attention that Thomas who was a "buddy" of the apostles wouldn't believe the claim of his "buddies" that the body had been resurrected until he had seen it and touched it himself. "So why should we?" Barker asked.

In his "rebuttal," Horner said very little about Barker's points, which he had spent most of his speech developing. Horner simply said that it was silly to think that a spiritual resurrection meant that the body itself was spirit. He said that we speak about spiritual experiences and spiritual books, but we don't mean by this that the experiences and books are actually made out of spirits. Then he went on, and basically spent the rest of the night rehashing his opening points.

THE ANALYSIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15:35-44 SENT TO BARKER

There is a verse in 1 Corinthians 15 that I think effectively proves the argument that Paul was arguing only that Jesus had been spiritually resurrected. If I ever debate this issue again, I'm going to begin analysis of Paul's argument by noting first his background. He was from Tarsus, so he had had ample opportunity to be exposed to the mystery religions. First Corinthians 2:6-8 betrays his exposure to the mystery religions: "We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown, yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to naught, but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory, which none of the rulers of this world has known, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." It isn't just that Paul used the word "mystery" in the text that gives reason to believe that he had had exposure to the mystery religions, but as you probably know, the etymology of the word "rulers" in this passage indicates that he was not talking about rulers like Pontius Pilate or Herod but of the rulers of darkness that he alluded to in other places (Rom. 8:38; Eph. 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:13-16; 2:15). Paul probably didn't write some of these statements, but guys like Horner are inerrantists, and so they are stuck with the tradition that Paul was the person who wrote them. Like adherents of the mystery religions, Paul believed that the world was actually ruled by astral "powers of darkness," so it is consistent to think that someone with such a background would have been big on the notion of spirits and demons, and there are ample texts in Paul's epistles to show that this is the case.

With Paul's background established, the points that you made would seem to be strengthened, but a claim that Paul had in mind only a spiritual resurrection could then be nailed down by analyzing verses 35-42 (in 1 Corinthians 15), where he did his analogy of the seed. The seed is planted (according to his argument), but what is sown "is not quickened except it die" (v:36). [And here it could be noted that Paul wasn't much of a botonist, for if he had been, he would have known that nothing could grow from a dead seed.] His whole point seemed to be that "what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be" (v:37). Would it be proper here to argue that Paul was contending that what is planted is substantially different from what comes up? (What do you think?) If so, then how could Jesus have even been recognized after his resurrection? Could anyone who has seen cotton seeds but never seen a cotton plant see a cotton plant for the first time and recognize that it is what comes from planting a cotton seed? I don't think so.

After the seed analogy, Paul proceeded by discussing "terrestrial and celestial bodies" [another indication of the influence of the mystery religions]. Then he reached his conclusion from his line of argumentation that, I think, nails down the interpretation that you presented in the debate: "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. IT IS SOWN A NATURAL BODY; IT IS RAISED A SPIRITUAL BODY. IF THERE IS A NATURAL BODY, THERE IS A SPIRITUAL BODY" (VS. 42-44). Unless he meant exactly what you argued in the debate this passage makes no sense, and the statements I have emphasized in uppercase letters clearly show that this was what he meant. Guys like Horner and Geisler argue that a *bodily* resurrection took place. If so, then exactly what was sown was what was raised. A natural body was put into the tomb, and a natural body came forth (according to the current inerrantist view), but Paul said, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." Then he tried to prove his case by saying, "If there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body." Why was he saying all of this if he did not believe that the body that was resurrected after Jesus was buried was a different kind of body than the one that was "planted"?

Farrell Till

Pagan Origins Of The Resurrection

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2001 / Nov.-Dec.:

by Farrell Till 

I was reluctant to publish an article whose endnotes required an entire page, but the subject of Mark McFall's article is one that skeptics should have some familiarity with in order to understand that many claims about the uniqueness of Christianity are without foundation. The title of McFall's article, when considered in the context of some of his footnotes, betrays the fact that he seemed more interested in catching me in a mistake than in defending his apparent belief that the New Testament doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus was unique. Instead of just discussing the Egyptian myths of Osiris with a view to showing that they did not claim that he had risen bodily from the dead, McFall chose instead to write from the perspective of "The Resurrection of Osiris According to Farrell Till." I was left wondering what he thought he would have accomplished if he had proven that I was dead wrong and that Egyptian mythology had not taught that Osiris was resurrected bodily. Would McFall have then thought that because he had shown Farrell Till to be wrong, he had established that the claim that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead was a unique religious doctrine?

Miracle Claims

Farrell Till  discusses miracle claims with Theo, a Christian apologist. From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-25-99:

TILL
This shows how very little you know about historiography. Historians do not automatically assume that an ancient document is telling the truth unless there are reasons to suspect otherwise. The information in ancient documents is subjected to very rigorous methods of evaluation to try to determine if there are sufficient reasons to accept the information as historical fact. What serious historiography would accept as historical fact that the emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a man with a withered hand, just because both Tacitus and Suetonius reported that he did in their historical writings? I'm afraid you have been reading too many Josh McDowellian apologetic works.

THEO
Mr. Till, in your debate against Norman Geisler, you seemed to insinuate that we were to evaluate the evidence in the NT by the laws of jurisprudence used in the courtroom. You claimed that since the NT testimonies of the Resurrection of Christ are not(sic) eyewitness testimonies, then we are to reject them as hearsay.

Perman Wrap-up

This is the final article in a series of four in reply to a Christian, Matthew Perman, on the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ, from *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/Mar-Apr:

By Farrell Till 

The Jewish author Pinchas Lapide has become the darling of Christian apologists, because even though he himself is not a Christian, he has stated a quasi-belief in the historicity of the resurrection. For some reason, apologists cite this as if it were some kind of conclusive evidence that should end controversy over the foundation doctrine of Christianity, but I find it inconsistent, to say the least, that Christians would use an argument that they would instantly reject if anyone should present it as evidence for a position contrary to what they believe. If, for example, a Christian writer should state his belief that Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God, Christians would rightly see this as proving no more than that this particular Christian thinks that Muhammad was a real prophet. So if such argumentation proves nothing about truth in other religions, it cannot be used to prove anything about Christianity.

This is all that I really need to say about the "testimony" of Pinchas Lapide, but there are other facts about this writer that shed considerable light on possible reasons why he has stated publicly a reserved belief that the resurrection did happen. In his book, The Resurrection of Jesus (Translated by W. C. Linss, London, 1984, pp. 32-34), Lapide reveals an interest in promoting dialogue and unity between Christians and Jews, a goal that would hardly be promoted if he accused Christianity of having been founded on historical falsehood or self-delusion in the first Christians. This fact alone is sufficient to make us wonder if Lapide's position on the resurrection is a matter of sincerity or expedience. I find it hard to imagine that a non-Christian would investigate the Christian resurrection claim, decide that it is a true claim, yet not convert to Christianity. To say the least, this does not sound like a very firm belief in the resurrection.

Still Standing On Sinking Sand

This is the third article in a series of four by Farrell Till in reply to a Christian, Matthew Perman, on the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ. The first two were *Put Me Down For Myth* (3-12-16) and *Standing On Quicksand*  (3-13-16). The fourth article, *Perman Wrap-Up*, will follow soon (3-18-16). From *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/Jan-Feb:

By Farrell Till 

In his continuing effort to defend the unlikely New Testament claim that Jesus rose from the dead, Matthew Perman, in typical apologetic fashion, made so many unsupported assertions that I could not adequately respond to them in a single article. This time I will address his "arguments" that I didn't have space to comment on in my last article. Then if Perman wants to respond to my rebuttals, he may do so in a later issue.

Standing On Quicksand

This article is a follow-up to "Put Me Down For Myth"(3-12-16), which should be read first. From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996/Nov-Dec:

by Farrell Till 

I welcome Matt Perman's second attempt to prove the historicity of the resurrection. He is to be commended for having the courage to defend his belief in a forum like this. He is not to be commended, however, for the quality of his arguments. Most of them are as transparent as cellophane, and, like many fundamentalists, his primary defenses of the resurrection are based on (1) unsupported assertions, (2) the fallacy of the appeal to authority, and (3) an unwarranted assumption that the New Testament documents are historically accurate. His unsupported assertions are so many that I will not be able to respond to all of them in a single article, so I will publish a series of two, possibly three, responses, after which Perman may respond to them if he wishes. 

Put Me Down For Myth

An excellent article by Farrell Till on the lack of evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ and the alleged events surrounding it. From *The Skeptical Review*, 1996 /July-August:

by Farrell Till 

On April 2, 1996, I attended the Horner-Barker Debate at Northern Iowa University, at which time I had the opportunity to meet Matthew Perman with whom I had been corresponding by e-mail for several weeks. Prior to the debate, I spent about four hours with Matthew and two of his friends talking about various issues related to biblical inerrancy. I found them to be particularly intense about their Christian beliefs, and it was very evident throughout our conversations that they had been thoroughly indoctrinated in fundamentalist Christian ideology. In many ways, Matthew, who was the most vocal of the three, reminded me of how I was at that age, i.e., young and idealistic and completely entrenched in inerrantist thinking.

At the debate, survey cards were distributed that among other things offered a complimentary article about the resurrection. I indicated that I would like to receive it, and two days later, the foregoing article arrived in the mail. When I requested it, I had no idea that it had been written by none other than Matthew Perman. It was a pleasant surprise.

Did They Or Didn't They? (4)

This is the fourth in a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 

In the Autumn 1991 issue, we began a series of articles designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels. Gallons of ink have been used in attempts to explain away these inconsistencies, but some of the variations in the accounts are so discrepant that only the very gullible could possibly believe the far-fetched scenarios that bibliolaters have resorted to in trying to harmonize them. Of these discrepancies, none is more obvious than the variations in what the gospel writers said that the women did to spread word of the empty tomb after hearing from the angel(s) that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Matthew and Luke both said that the women hurried from the tomb to tell the disciples what the angel(s) had told them (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9). Even John, whose version of the story differs significantly from the synoptic accounts, said that Mary Magdalene ran to find Peter and "the other disciple" to tell them that the body of Jesus had been taken away (20:2). Three of the gospel writers, then, clearly depicted the eagerness of the women to report to the disciples what they had found at the empty tomb.

Mark, however, recorded this part of the story in an entirely different way. After telling of their encounter with an angel, who told them that Jesus was risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee (16:6-7), Mark said that the women were too frightened to tell others what they had seen:

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid (v:8).

The discrepancy is obvious, but it is even more obvious if Matthew's and Luke's accounts are juxtaposed with Mark's:

And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word (Matt. 28:8).And they remembered his (Jesus's) words and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest (Luke 24:8-9).

Luke's account even recorded an alleged conversation between Jesus and two disciples (on resurrection day) in which one of the disciples said that the women had reported finding the tomb empty:

Moreover, certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive (24:22-23).

So the facts in this matter are apparent enough: three gospel writers said that the women ran to report the empty tomb; one said that they were so frightened by what they had seen that "they said nothing to anyone." A rule of evidence noted in an earlier article in this series ("The Resurrection Maze," Spring 1992, p. 12) states that two or more contradictory statements cannot all be right. So who was right in the way this part of the resurrection story was told? Were Matthew, Luke, and John right in saying that the women ran to report the empty tomb to the other disciples? Or was Mark right when he said that they were so frightened that they said "nothing to anyone"? Did they tell anyone what they had seen or didn't they? That's the problem that inerrantists must resolve.

The Resurrection Maze (3)

This is the third of a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 

When two or more statements contradict one another, they cannot all be right. If we apply this rule of evidence to the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection, we have to conclude that at least some of the testimony was erroneous. If some of it was erroneous, then the Bible inerrancy doctrine itself must be erroneous.

Inconsistencies in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection are too numerous to discuss in a single article, so I will limit discussion at this time to just a few. Matthew began his narrative of the events of that day by telling us that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the sepulcher "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (28:1). The time factor that he identified contrasts sharply with the testimony of Mark, Luke, and John, who said, respectively, that the time was "very early on the first day of the week... when the sun was risen" (16:1) or "on the first day of the week, at early dawn" (24:1) or "on the first day of the week... while it was yet dark" (20:1). By stretching imagination, perhaps we could reconcile the testimony of Matthew and Luke. If it was "beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week," we could maybe grant that this could be called "early dawn," but how could the sun already be risen if it was only beginning to dawn? And if the sun had already risen, as Mark claimed, how could it have been "yet dark," as John said? For that matter, how could it have been "yet dark" if the morning had reached any stage that could be correctly described as "dawn"? I grew up on a farm, so I can remember getting up many times as it was "beginning to dawn" or while it was still "early dawn," but it certainly wasn't "yet dark." By looking outside, I could see clearly enough to recognize objects. Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside. So how could it possibly be that John was right in the time factor that he specified but the other three were also right in their time factors? This is a chronological discrepancy that bibliolaters have never satisfactorily explained.

As noted, Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb. Mark identified the women as "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (16:1). Luke said that the women who went to the tomb were "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them" (24:10), and John mentioned only Mary Magdalene (20:1). We have all heard the Gleason Archer-John Haley type of explanation for the "variances" in these names. Matthew chose to identify only two of the women, John chose to identify only one, but their failure to mention the presence of Salome or Joanna or "the other women" would not mean that they were not there. The same line of reasoning is usually applied to the variations in the number of angels reported at the scene. Matthew said that "an angel" (one) descended from heaven (28:2). Mark spoke of "a young man... arrayed in a white robe" (16:5), who was presumably an angel, but Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) wrote of two angels. If there were two, then there had to be one, inerrantists will say, but in a matter as vitally important as the testimony to a resurrection, inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, this kind of "explanation" has dubious merit at best. However, it is the stock explanation of inerrancy defenders in matters like these, so I will simply mention it, leave it to the readers to judge its merit, and go on to other discrepancies that no stretch of imagination can satisfactorily resolve.

Did They Tarry In The City? (2)

This is the second of a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 
So much depends on the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, the whole superstructure of Christianity would collapse. To this, agreed even the Apostle Paul, whom some New Testament scholars consider to be the real architect of Christianity:

(I)f Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (1 Cor. 15:17-19, KJV).

As vital to Christianity as the resurrection is, it rests upon the flimsiest of evidence: four contradictory "gospel" accounts and some scattered references in the New Testament epistles to a risen Messiah. And that's it. As far as scholars have been able to determine, none of the gospel accounts of the resurrection were written by anyone who could have been an eyewitness to the event, and most of the epistolary references to it were made by the Apostle Paul, who by his own admission did not witness it either. He claimed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus.

The contradictory nature of the hearsay accounts of the resurrection constitute the most damaging evidence against it. If alleged eyewitnesses to an event as extraordinary as the revivification of a dead man should contradict themselves in a court of law as patently as did the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in their telling of the resurrection story, no intelligent jurors would give a speck of credence to their testimony, yet millions of Christians have accepted a resurrection story that is riddled with discrepancies.

In future issues of TSR, we will look at several points of discrepancy in the four resurrection accounts, but for now I will focus on just one: an alleged post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee. If one were to ask a Christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of Jesus met him in Galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "Yes, they did." After all, Matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted" (28:16-27).

That seems clear enough, and if Matthew had been the only one to write about postresurrection events, this meeting in Galilee would certainly be believable to anyone who could accept the premise that a dead man had been resurrected. Considered in the context of all four gospel accounts of the resurrection, however, this meeting in Galilee poses tremendous credibility problems, because Luke said in his gospel that Jesus told his disciples on the night of his resurrection that they were to stay in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high" (24:49). According to the same writer (Luke), this power came to them about fifty days later when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:3-5; 2:1-4), but by then Jesus had already ascended back to heaven, because he had remained on earth only forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). So if Luke was right and Jesus did tell his disciples on the night of his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem until they received "power from on high" and if this power from on high did not come to them until fifty days later and if Jesus remained on earth for only forty days after his resurrection and if the disciples obeyed Jesus's command not to leave Jerusalem until they had received power from on high, how could they have possibly met him on a mountain in Galilee as Matthew claimed?

A Discussion On The Believability Of Alleged Bible Miracles

The following is a discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian on the believability of miracles. I have not used the Christian's actual name rather I've used "CHRISTIAN" as the designation for this person. The Christian's irrational logic is amazing--I doubt this person uses such logic in other areas of their life:

       CHRISTIAN 
     Your reasoning is circular.

theist - there are examples of miracles in both biblical and nonbiblical historical accounts - and here are some specific examples.  The presumption in reading historical accounts must be first in favor of the accounts. 

Till - miracles are unbelievable.

theist - why is that? 

Till -   I don't accept proof for miracles. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because the credibility of any proof is impeached by the claim itself. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because miracles are unbelievable

TILL

No, no, you are misrepresenting my position, so I will have to rewrite your little script.

CHRISTIAN  

No, I think I got it right.

TILL
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick.  (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)

Till: Miracles are unbelievable. 

Theist: Why is that? 

Till: Because no verifiable miracle has ever been demonstrated.

CHRISTIAN
First, you must define what you mean by "verifiable."

More Inerrantist Desperation

From the Errancy Discussion List, July 31, 1995:

Nanson
...(the)...prophecy from Isaiah, which says that he'd [Jesus] be dead for 3 days and 3 nights.

TILL

Isaiah made no such prophecy; in fact, there is no prophecy ANYWHERE in the OT that the Messiah would rise from the dead on the third day. Yet Jesus allegedly said in Luke 24:46 that it had been "written" that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that Christ had risen again the third day "according to the scriptures," so here are two NT passages that allege that the OT had spoken of a resurrection of the Messiah on the third day. I have made the challenge enough in both public and written debates to know that no one can produce any such OT reference. It is my contention, in fact, that there is NO prophecy anywhere of the Messiah's resurrection, period, although both Peter and Paul (according to Luke) claimed that Psalm 16:8 had prophesied of the resurrection (Acts 2:25-30; 13:35). Anyone can read that scripture in context and clearly see that it is straining imagination to the limits to make it a reference to the resurrection of Jesus.

Here is Paul Nanson's chance to make me eat dirt, because I am sending him a cc of this posting. To really show me up, all that he needs to do is produce an OT prophecy of the resurrection of the Messiah on the 3rd day. He can't do it. No one can do it.

Vain attempts have been made to cite Hosea 6:2 as a prophecy of the Messiah's resurrection on the third day, but just look at what it says: "Come, and let us return to Yahweh; for He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up. After two days He will revive us; On he third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His sight."

Notice the plural objects of the raising up: "He will revive US; on the third day He will raise US up." Taken in context, the reader will see that this was a prophecy that referred to the nation of Israel. To try to make it a reference to the resurrection of Jesus is... well, typical inerrantist desperation.

We will now wait patiently for Nanson or some like-minded inerrantist to cite the OT scripture that said the Christ would rise again on the 3rd day.

Farrell Till

The Conspiracy Theory as a Persuasive Device

The following is a comment by Farrell Till to "OSM", a 

Christian apologist--from the Yahoo errancyn discussion

group, May 3, 1999:

Another posting discussed the way that persuasive devices are 
used by those who want extraordinary claims to be believed. A 
common persuasive device is the "conspiracy theory," which is 

most commonly used to explain the absence of evidence that 

one could reasonably expect would exist if an extraordinary claim 

were really true. Probably the best contemporary example that 

I could cite would be the famous Roswell incident. UFO buffs claim 

that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, NM, some 50 years 

ago. The simplest way to prove that this happened would be to 

produce the wreckage of the spacecraft and the bodies of the 

aliens who were aboard it, but no such evidence has ever been 

produced. UFO believers have an explanation for the absence 

of this evidence: the U. S. government has classified all of the 

evidence and kept it from public viewing. In other words, the 

U. S. government has conspired to hide from the public that this 

incident actually happened.

Christian apologists will sometimes resort to the conspiracy 
theory to explain the absence of any disinterested contemporary 
references to Jesus of Nazareth or extraordinary events that 
should have caused secular records to make some mention of 
them. They argue, with no evidence to support it, that the 
enemies of Christianity destroyed all such records in order to 
contain the spread of Christianity. In other words, the enemies 
of  Christianity conspired to destroy secular records that referred 
to Jesus of Nazareth, and that is why no such records exist. 
 Some apologists have even used this theory to explain why 
there are so many similarities in Christianity and pagan religions,
such as, the virgin birth of a savior-god and his resurrection 
from the dead. They actually argue that Satan arranged for 
such beliefs as these to develop in paganism prior to Christianity 
so that when the real thing came along, people would reject it 
as just another tale of a virgin-born, resurrected savior. In other 
words, Satan conspired to arrange history so that the coming of 
the real savior would be less credible.

In recent weeks, we have been seeing OSM's resort to a variation 
of the conspiracy theory in the matter of the Roman guard that 
was allegedly posted at the tomb of Jesus. The extraordinary 
claim of the gospel writers that Jesus had actually risen from the
dead certainly needed persuasive devices to make it credible, and 
Matthew filled his crucifixion/resurrection part of his gospel with 
such devices: (1) A Roman centurion seeing events that happened 
at the time of Jesus's death allegedly said, "Truly this was the son 
of God." This was the familiar device of corroborating testimony
from hostile sources. (2) An earthquake allegedly opened the 
tombs of many saints, who rose from the dead and went into the 
city where they appeared to many witnesses. This, of course, 
would be the device of eyewitness testimony (which in this case 
turns out to be only uncorroborated hearsay). (3) Witnesses 
allegedly saw the body being wrapped in linen cloth and placed 
in a tomb. (4) A Roman guard was allegedly put at the tomb as 
a precaution to keep the body of Jesus from being stolen from 
the tomb. (5) Witnesses allegedly saw the tomb opened and an 
angel telling them that Jesus had risen from the dead. (6) The 
guards were allegedly bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus
had come and taken the body of Jesus out of the tomb while 
they slept. At this point, Matthew turned to the device of accusing 
the enemies of Jesus of conspiring to hide the truth from the 
general public.

There is no reason at all why #6 cannot be viewed as just a 
variation of the conspiracy theory, which Matthew used for no 
other reason than to give some semblance of credibility to an 
otherwise unbelievable tale. In the resurrection narratives, the 
gospel writers were saying, without actually spelling it out, 
"You see, these things did happen, because people saw them," 
but in Matthew's case, he provided the added device of the
conspiracy theory. He was telling his readers, even the enemies 
of Jesus know that these things happened, and to keep the 
public from knowing that Jesus had risen from the dead, they 
conspired to hide the truth by bribing the Roman guards to say 
that the disciples of Jesus stole the body while the guards were 
sleeping. There is no more reason to believe that the bribery 
of the guards actually happened or even that a guard was
placed at the tomb than there is to believe that a Roman 
centurion actually said, "Truly this man was the son of God," 
or that an earthquake opened the tombs of many saints who 
were resurrected and seen by many people inside the city. OSM 
likes to talk about such and such having "the ring of truth." Well, 
in my opinion, this tale about the Roman guards and their bribery 
has the "ring" of just another persuasive device that a writer 
used to try to give some semblance of credibility to an 
unbelievable story.

OSM has said that if this tale about what the guards had said 
were not true, then those who had lived at the time of the events 
would have said, "Hey, I don't remember ever hearing anyone 
say anything about guards who claimed that the body had been 
stolen," but I will be commenting on this is another posting about 
attempts to prove the incredible on the grounds of what would 
have or would not have happened if the claim were not true.

Just one more comment is in order concerning the tale that 
Matthew spun about the Roman guards. Besides the absurdity 
of thinking that Roman guards would have sealed their fate by 
saying that they had gone to sleep on duty, there is the matter 
of a serious flaw in what the guards were allegedly bribed to say. 
The chief priests and elders said to the guards, "Say that his 
disciples came by night and stole him away WHILE WE SLEPT" 
(Matt.28:13). In concocting this persuasive device, Matthew
showed little respect for the intelligence of the general public, 
because anyone with any ability at all to reason critically would 
wonder, "Well, if the guards were asleep, how could they know 
what happened to the body?" After seeing this flaw in the tale 
the guards were telling, what would have kept people from 
thinking that since guards who were asleep would not be able 
to know what had happened to a body that had vanished, maybe 
Jesus, as his disciples were claiming, had indeed risen from the 
dead while the guards, by their own admission, were asleep.
Hence, Matthew was actually saying that the guards had accepted 
a bribe to say something that would probably have resulted in 
their death but would not in any way have proven that Jesus did 
not rise from the dead as his disciples were claiming. If OSM 
wants to see this as some kind of wonderful evidence that the 
resurrection happened as claimed, then all I can say is that there 
is no law against gullibility, but he shouldn't assume that everyone 
else is as gullible as he is.

Simon Greenleaf

The following is an excerpt from a debate between a 
Christian,  Fitzpatrick, and Farrell Till on the alleged 
resurrection of Jesus Christ--from the Errancy Discussion 
list, November 15, 1998:

FITZPATRICK

Now let me address the question of whether the NT is 

historically accurate in claiming that the resurrection of 

Jesus of Nazareth took place. In other words, are 

the four Gospels good evidence for the events they 

declare? The inquiry into the goodness of this

evidence is actually a legal question.

One man who was highly skilled at dealing with evidence 

was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was the famous Royall Professor 

of Law at Harvard University and succeeded Justice Joseph 

Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university. 

The rise of Harvard law School to its eminent position 

among the legal schools of the United States is to be 

ascribed to the efforts of these two men. Greenleaf produced 

his famous three-volume work, A Treatise on the Law of 

Evidence, which still is considered one of the greatest single 

authorities on this subject in the entire literature of legal 

procedure.

Greenleaf examined the value of the historical evidence for the

resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He rigorously

applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on

evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An 

Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the 

Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws

of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence 

for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than 

for just about any other event in history.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf's great work, "An Examination of the 

Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence 

Administered in the Courts of Justice" can be found at the 

following Web page: (no longer available, but check here, 

kwh) Now although I am a Registered Patent Agent, am  

somewhat familiar with legal reasoning, and can practice

Patent Law before the Patent Bar, I am not a regular  

attorney, and am not, therefore, legally competent to 

pass judgement on this work. It is highly convincing to me 

and seems to cover all the bases, legally speaking. Perhaps 

one of your skeptic friends who is an attorney of law can 

assess the strength of Dr. Greenleaf's legal reasoning 

here. If, as I believe, the evidence for the resurrection of  

Jesus Christ is good enough to stand up in any court of law, 

then, on that basis, I re-present the argument of my 

previous e-mail. Mr. Till, what is your answer to the legal 

reasoning of Dr. Simon Greenleaf concerning the strength

of the evidence for the four Gospels and thus for the 

resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead?

TILL

Simon Greenleaf was a [19]th-century professor of law 

at Harvard University, but he was also a devout believer 

in Christianity and the inspiration of the Bible.  That, of 

course, would not prove that his claims that Mr. Fitzpatrick 

summarized above are incorrect, but it does give sufficient 

reason to question his objectivity.  One thing that is very 

evident in apologetic literature is that those who believe in 

the Bible have no difficulty finding reasons to believe that 

it is "the word of God," and so it was with Simon Greenleaf.  

I don't have a copy of Greenleaf's work that Fitzpatrick 

cited above, but I have read quotations from it in apologetic 

literature.  From what I have seen, it is evident that 

Greenleaf, like Fitzpatrick and almost all biblical inerrantists, 

based his defense of the resurrection on the assumption 

that the NT records were historically accurate.  The following 

is a quotation from Greenleaf that can be found in Josh 

McDowell's *Evidence That Demands a Verdict, * p. 192.  

In reading it, please notice that from beginning to end 

Greenleaf assumed the accuracy of the NT.  I will 

interrupt the quotation from time to time to comment on 

Greenleaf's reasoning.