Seems our local pastor has raised a hue and cry against the previous blog to do with exposing William Lane Craig's "resurrection" codswallop and high -profile bunkum. As I showed in that blog, Craig's ruminations fail but primarily because he uses the wrong probability basis. He ought to have used Bayesian statistics (Bayes theorem) and computing the
future probability of a supernatural resurrection based on the hindsight "evidence" and data. But we note the goodly pastor dodged this whale - or should we say, 9,000 pound elephant in the room- totally. Given that, we will confine skewering of his missive to what he insists are errors we make.
First, he argues that it's not in "scriptures" that Yeshua wore a robe. Ok, we will give him that (at least in John 20:11-17). But neither does it state unambiguously anywhere that he was
naked as the pastor claims! In fact, as both Bart Ehrman and Geza Vermes have pointed out, if indeed it was Yeshua he'd certainly not have been naked but have worn part of the remnant burial shroud. Even in those day, "glorified" bodies didn't go walking about naked! To confirm this, we can go to the gospel of Mark (16:5) and note:
when they entered the tomb they saw a young man, sitting on the right, clothed in a white robe". Obviously, this is either: a) Yeshua in a different guise and he is wearing a robe, or b) One of those who assisted in spiriting the body out - now caught left behind.
But these are all tiny points without significant bearing on the core premise. That is, as Vermes observes (p. 395) hyperbolic description and exaggeration was not only peculiar to the way Yeshua's words were often portrayed, but whole gospels (namely
John) themselves engaged in exaggerations of the exaggerations! This is a key point brought out by Yale Prof. Dale B. Martin in his New Testament lectures. It is also very important, because on account of these exaggerations (many due to later additions, copyist free-for-alls) we have severe clashes with the accounts of the same events in other gospels.
For example, as Prof. Martin discusses in lecture 13, does it not occur to the steadfast biblical literalists who are so effusivley proud of their "hermeneutics" (which is a big laugh, since literalism is contradictory to any hermeneutics!) that John's descriptions are overly long and embellished? When one compares the account of the trial before Pilate, for example, one finds no similar extensive elaboration in the other three! Why? The answer is that copyists inserted much more extensive material into John, probably because it was near the end of the gospel line, and they believed they could get away with it. Thus, we see liberties taken with John that are nowhere in Mark, Matthew or Luke.
In addition we have evidence of insertions and additions that make a mockery of any historical claims, as Prof. Martin has also emphasized. For example, manipulations and additions in the earlier Codex Sinaiticus ms. disclose contradictions in accounts between Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:1-11. In the former, one is led to believe Luke is claiming Yeshua ascended
on the same day as his resurrection. While in the latter, the same author (Luke) writes that it took place
"forty days after the resurrection". Is there a hermeneutic explanation? Possibly, but
NOT if one takes bible accounts literally! In that case, one is strictly confined to what words are actually presented....LITERALLY!
Now this can be examined at two levels. ON one level, there is simply a divergence of time scales owing to some screw-up in interpretation, or additions, changes to the original ms. On the other hand, one can assert the huge divergence discloses neither event (resurrection or ascension) is real and fact, but rather fiction concocted by the authors, whoever they were. After all, as the foremost historian of RC Church history Thomas Bokenkotter has noted, the "gospels weren't written to be historical or biographical fact but to convert unbelievers". What better way than to try to show that this humble Jewish rabbi conquered death?
Now, on to Hugh Schonfeld's
The Passover Plot. He observes that the plot likely began at the start of that final Passover week, and also had enlisted (p. 111) "secret disciples and sympathizers in the Sanhedrin". Schonfeld goes on to point out with such a network in place, messages could easily have been sent back and forth - between the sympathizers, hidden disciples and real 'out there' disciples - who were so terrified. In other words, the bold act of smuggling the body out need not have been carried out by the latter, but the former.
Interestingly, Schonfeld names as a prime suspect (p. 171) in the actual theft of the body "the gardener" (who some folks actually believe was really Yeshua! Oh yes, they know their hermeneutics all right!)A Coptic manuscript from Egypt, entitled
The Book of the Resurrection (attributed to the apostle Bartholomew)notes the gardener's name was Philogenes, whose son was cured by Yeshua. He speaks to Mary (not Magdalen) at the tomb and tells her:
"From the very moment the Jews crucified him, they sought out an exceedingly safe sepulchre wherein they might lay him, so the disciples might not come and carry him away secretly. Now, I said to them: 'There is tomb near my vegetable garden: bring him, lay him in it, and I myself will keep watch over him". Schonfeld speculates this has connections to the 4th gospel (John's) wherein it is described that Mary Magdalen spots a man at the tomb, who she supposes to be the gardener. As Schonfeld puts it:
"But WHAT is this incident doing in the gospel?"Indeed, since it appears in no other gospel! There are several explanations that might apply. 1. A later copyist, being aware of the Coptic ms. inserted embellishments based on it, the same way as he (or other?) copyists embellished and expatiated on the account of Yeshua's trial before Pilate. 2. Both accounts emerged from the same "hyperbolic" or "exaggerated" traditions described by Geza Vermes (ibid.) or 3. both accounts were initiated from the same fictive source - Codex Siniaticus.
Now, let's examine some of the objections brought forth:
1.FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As I have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsibleHardly! As Edward Gibbons has noted (
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) discipline in the outermost outposts of the empire was already on the wane, This is backed up by Robert Payne, in his monograph
Ancient Rome (pp. 182-186). Indeed, one element of the Judean occupation was to balance severity with "liberality" - e.g. in letting the Jews heel to their own customs. "Breaking a seal" was no big deal, not as it would be in Rome proper. The Romans had better things to do than be chasing after Jewish small fry after a small time rabble rouser was crucified whose main crime was emulating an "ancient hippie" (see John Dominic Crossan's
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant) and flouting Roman customs. So there's no way, none, that the Romans would suddenly morph into a version of an ancient SWAT team cum-DIA, FBI, CIA and whatnot!
FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." The empty tomb proves nothing- other than that the body was spirited away. Hence, leaving an empty tomb! Perhaps by the sympathizers and allies (hidden disciples) Schonfeld writes of (op. cit.) or others.
FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.Again, purely circumstantial! If, as Schonfeld shows, sympathizers in the Sanhedrin and hidden disciples were afoot, plotting from the beginning of Passover, there's no reason why they couldn't have moved this stone in concert. Anyone knowing basic physics understands
the principle of the lever (as Archimedes put it: 'Give me a lever large enough and I will move the world') and all it would have taken to suffice was a sturdy tree branch maybe 7-8 ft. long. Indeed, one burly, determined guy could have done it if the fulcrum was placed correctly! See also my physics blog at:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/05/basic-physics-mechanics-pt-simple.htmlFACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition be explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs.But again, as Gibbons has pointed out (op. cit.) discipline was already going out - especially in the outer provinces. Also as Robert Payne observes, as well as Geza Vermes, the fact is Yeshua was considered as a small time rabble rouser, not a god. They'd not have exacted such harsh measures to defend and safeguard a lowly Jewish peasant's tomb! Faced with a determined Jewish mob of covert disciples and Sandhedrin sympathizers, there's no doubt what few guards were there would have vamonosed.
FACT #5: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well establishedThis again, is a non-sequitur. The number of observers has no bearing on the actuality or veracity of an event. Over 70,000 witnesses attested to the events at Fatima in 1917, but were they real? According to the witnesses accounts, documented from the Vatican's Fatima Archives:
"The rain ceased and the clouds seemed to part...The 'sun' then began to spin on its axis like a pinwheel. As it whirled, streamers of light came from its rim and flashed across the sky, coloring the landscape and faces of the spectators with a variety of constantly changing colors.
After about four minutes, the 'sun' stopped spinning. Then, after a brief rest, it resumed its spinning and its fantastic display of varicolored light. Again, it stopped, and then resumed spinning for a third time, again throwing off light of different colors.
Then, retaining its rotary motion, this 'sun' departed from its position and boldly advanced on the earth, threatening to squash the people with its huge and fiery mass. As the heat increased, the crowd began to pray."Did this actually happen, as attested by tens of thousands - not just 500? Of course not! No observatories or astronomers in the world saw the events described by those at this single location. And make no mistake, IF the Sun were really doing such hijinks - as "advancing on the world - causing great heat",
EVERYONE and his uncle would know about it! You can't confine the purported "motions" and visual effects from a nearby star to one location!! Thus, the most logical explanation, as well as the one which fulfills Hume's test, is that it was indeed a mass hallucination. Granted this is rare and exceptional, but not to the extent of the Sun acting up and only for 70,000 witnesses at one location.
He goes on to write:
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.But as noted above, the plot by a group of unseen disciples and elements of sympathizers in the Sanhedrin would render this null and void. As for a "detachment of soldiers", hardly. Gibbon notes that at most one soldier might have been left there for guard duty, for a rabble rousing peasant. (Payne allows for 2-3). And if he went off to do his business (answering a major 'call of nature'), Yeshua's body would be there for the grabbing. It could easily be taken using the methods outlined earlier, including application of a simple lever to pry loose the impeding 2½ ton stone.
The ball remains in the court of the resurrection claimants. And unless they have actual video footage of Yeshua's resurrection and so on, they have no evidence for any miracle. Anecdotal accounts, even in bibles, do not constitute evidence - especially given what I wrote of the use of synthetic additions in hyperbolic manipulation of text and the resort to plagiarism of ancient pagan god-man tracts. (Mithra also was resurrected- but over 1,000 years before J.C.!) Heck, these resurrection claimants typically demand thousands of times more evidence from UFO witnesses
who have actual film footage and photographs! Yet they are prepared to defend their "witnesses" (like the women in John 20:11-17), merely because their accounts appear in a book plundered thousands of times by irresponsible whelps to convey the propaganda they wanted.
On the other hand, the claimants could at least make a start in the right direction if they provided the necessary and sufficient conditions for a supernatural resurrection. Then these could be used to siphon the evidence, and use Bayes theorem to arrive at the Bayes probability.
But I doubt they have the wherewithal to go that far!
