Search This Blog

Monday, March 29, 2010

Current Visions of Jesus vs. NT Reports of the Risen Jesus

I have just finished reading Philip Wiebe's book, Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. Wiebe is the former Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Trinity Western University in Canada.

Wiebe interviews 30 people who claim to have seen the risen Jesus. He analyzes their claims and compares them to the reports of those in the NT who claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. He explains:
Some of the advantages of dealing with reports derived from living subjects, as opposed to ancient documents, can readily be itemized: Living subjects can be scrutinized for signs of sincerity; living subjects can be cross-examined to determine whether language is being used to assert a proposition, rather than being used in some performative sense that excludes assertion; living subjects can be questioned about ontological commitments implicit in their descriptions; living subjects can be quizzed about further details of their experiences; living subjects can be scrutinized for signs of psychopathology in order to satisfy the misgivings of skeptics; living subjects can be scrutinized for deception. These factors give reports from contemporary experience greater epistemic value than those coming from antiquity (p. 91).

In a future post, I will discuss some of Wiebe's views on the contemporary visions of Jesus but today I want to point out some of his problems with the NT accounts.

He says:
A number of curious features of the NT documents support the contention that they do not have as much historical "concreteness" as traditionalists have assigned to them. Because the Resurrection belief is both extraordinary and crucial for Christianity, one might expect numerous and detailed accounts defending its authenticity. Moreover, in view of early opposition toward Christians and skepticism of Christianity, writers of documents that began to appear some twenty-five or more years after the alleged events took place might be expected to have gone to considerable lengths to reply to those who rejected the claim that the Resurrection occurred. But this is not what we see. The authors content themselves with several brief stories, or one or two slightly more detailed accounts, or with a list of appearances (such as Paul's) so sketchy that its evidential value is almost negligible. . . . When one compares the kind of detail that can be obtained from someone reporting a contemporary vision or apparition with that available concerning the NT appearances, it is obvious the NT presents very little information (p. 129).

I think he is right. The accounts that we have in the NT are quite sketchy and the appearances were to a very select few. In Acts 10:40-41, Peter said: but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen -by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. I have often thought that God could have confirmed the truth of the resurrection by having Jesus appear to the Roman rulers in Jerusalem, to the Jewish authorities, to the whole city. Matthew 27:53 claims that the saints who were resurrected at the time of Jesus death went into the city and appeared to many. Now of course, there is no historical confirmation of this either, which makes the account highly suspect, but at least it says they appeared to many. Yet Jesus only appears primarily to his disciples. If he had appeared to Pilate and Herod and the High Priest, and this was confirmed by history, then the apologists for Jesus' resurrection would have a case.

In his debates, William Craig always talks about the four historical "facts" upon which virtually all scholars agree. (1) Jesus of Nazareth was killed and then buried; (2) the tomb in which he was buried was found empty on Sunday morning; (3) the disciples and others reported seeing Jesus alive after his death; (4) the Christian faith spread quickly and widely throughout the Roman empire. He maintains that the best explanation of these "facts" is that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. What Craig doesn't say in his debates is that the scholars whom he says agrees with his "facts," for the most part, do not agree with his explanation of the "facts." As Wiebe points out: The traditional view is widely seen by recent biblical scholars as giving too little attention to questions about the literary forms of the NT documents, the role that editors (redactors) might have had in piecing together various oral traditions, the sources of the accounts, and the results of historical criticism. The plausibility of the Resurrection of Jesus, as traditionally understood, is widely questioned (p. 120). It would seem that Craig is anxious to refer to scholars when they agree with him but not when they disagree.

Another interesting thing about the appearances reported in the NT is the reference to doubting. Wiebe writes: Although the long ending of Mark is not generally taken to be authentic, it is of interest that it too makes reference to some of the eleven being hard of heart and unwilling to believe those who reported they had seen Jesus. The account of the walk to Emmaus in Luke describes how Jesus scolded his two companions for being slow to believe, and John, finally, mentions the unbelief of Thomas. Various explanations for these doubts could be offered, but one explanation that must be considered is that the appearances may not have been as "historically concrete" as are those that form the normal experience of public objects and events (p. 130). The contemporary witnesses of the risen Jesus whom Wiebe interviews have one thing in common--they do not doubt what they have experienced. Why did some of the ones that Jesus appeared to in the NT doubt? Let me speculate. Perhaps it was a technique used by the gospel writers in order to make their case for the resurrection stronger. In other words, they sought to emphasize to their readers that the disciples didn't accept the idea of Jesus' resurrection too quickly or too easily. Some of them required proof. This would strengthen the apologetic value of the gospels.

The idea that the disciples doubted doesn't seem to ring true, however. As Keith Parsons observes:
It is very odd that the gospels depict the disciples as skeptical of the Resurrection. After all, the disciples had supposedly seen Jesus raise others from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, cast out demons, cure the sick, the lame, and the blind, feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and appear in glistening raiment with Moses and Elijah while a divine voice boomed "This is my beloved son..." By this time it should have been clear even to the slowest disciple that Jesus was a supernatural being possessed of awesome miraculous powers. After all that it would surely be a pretty simple trick to come back from the dead. So something is out of place here. Either the disciples, dumb as they were, could not have been so skeptical of the resurrection, or they had not witnessed the miracles they allegedly did. Either way, the credibility of the gospels is undermined (Why I am not a Christian).

It is also strange that some of the disciples did not recognize Jesus when he first appeared to them. The two disciples who walked to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus, Mary Magdalene did not recognize him just outside his tomb, and the disciples who fished in the Sea of Galilee did not recognize Jesus standing on the shore (Wiebe, pp. 130-31). Once again, Wiebe points out that all of the people he interviewed said they immediately recognized the person in their vision as Jesus. Why didn't all the disciples recognize him? I think it could be another case of a technique on the part of the gospel writers to strengthen the apologetic value of their writings.

I found this book by Wiebe to be fascinating and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in the NT claims that Jesus rose from the dead. In the next post, I will deal with some of the contemporary visions of Jesus he reports.

13 comments:

  1. I have often thought that God could have confirmed the truth of the resurrection by having Jesus appear to the Roman rulers in Jerusalem, to the Jewish authorities, to the whole city.

    Oh, but then they wouldn't have needed faith!

    It would seem that Craig is anxious to refer to scholars when they agree with him but not when they disagree.

    Of course. Massive case of denial and confirmation bias - and he's one of the best they've got.

    Why didn't all the disciples recognize him? I think it could be another case of a technique on the part of the gospel writers to strengthen the apologetic value of their writings.

    Ken, I'm not sure I see how this follows. I'd think it would be the opposite - if they were serious about apologetics, they'd have doctored the account even more to say everyone recognized him.

    BTW, "Witness" didn't stick around very long, did he?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cipher,

    Thats a good point about the disciples "not recognizing." I am not sure what to make of this. Perhaps, they record this to show that it was not easy for them to believe; it took a special "opening of their eyes"? Similar to what Calvinists say must happen before anyone gets "saved." I don't know. I need to think about this one some more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ---

    I wonder if their not recognizing Jesus was an attempt to give credence to the idea of a glorified body, and Jesus' body here would be especially hard to recognize given that the last time the disciples aw Jesus, he had been beaten toa bloody pulp and he had a large hole in his side. So, if he had a "glorified" body, they may not recognize it right away. Also, the glorified body tradition predates the gospel accounts, as far as I know.

    Also, concerning Jesus' being buried in Joseph of Arimethea's tomb, and the tomb being so prominently noted in the Gospel accounts, but not in the epistles, and I'm not even sure it's mentioned in Acts, but maybe in passing, I always had a suspicion. I know that historical critics like to look for "embarassing" stories as evidence of a truth claim, but given the later nature of this story, is it possible that the apologists created this part of the account, knowing that people might think, "why would they make that up?", thereby giving extra weight to the claim that Jesus' tomb was empty.

    Just a couple thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Exploring,

    I think you may be correct. I tend to think that Paul's believed in a spiritual or as you say glorified body for Jesus that was not identical with his human physical body. Eventually the docetists came along who said that Jesus never had a physical body at all (see 1 John 4) and so when Luke's gospel was written, he goes to great lengths to try and show that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body. John's gospel does the same--with Thomas touching the nail scars, etc. The earlier oral tradition, however, which they also included in their gospels was that Jesus was not easily recognizable.

    As for J of A, no he is not mentioned at all in Acts nor in any of the epistles. He is only mentioned in the Gospels. This is another reason why I find the story about him in the gospels very dubious. If the gospel accounts were true, could you imagine a greater witness to the resurrection than him? He would have been mentioned by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Peter would have said in his sermon, "look Jesus was buried in J of A's tomb but he is risen, you can go and look for yourselves, you can go and ask J of A if Jesus was really dead when he placed him the tomb". Yet there is no mention at all of J of A outside the gospels.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since apologists routinely classify Paul as an "eyewitness" of the resurrection on account of his vision, would these modern people who claim that Jesus appeared to them also be so classified?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ken and all,

    Interesting stuff. Tho it's pretty detailed analysis, it's the kind of thing I find fascinating. Asking more and more questions of the text DOES lead us toward greater clarity. I say that as for a quasi-academic like me, interested in theory AND application to personal "real" issues for people and society today.

    Tho I no longer have existential or "crisis of faith" issues involved in all this, I think it's of value (and did I mention fascinating?) to pursue.... One might THINK, after centuries of detailed study, including at least a couple including "skeptical" analysis, that there wouldn't be much new to find. That especially since our earliest data is relatively limited (The NT, a few early non-canonical sources, Josephus, etc.). But very insightful, important stuff is still being uncovered, theories refined, etc. That is partly because even "critical scholarship" has often hung onto theological assumptions/allegiances that have limited and biased research (Bultmann might be a good example, but only one of hundreds).

    A couple thoughts: Indeed, Ken, I think it is vital that we continually analyze the Gospels/Acts in terms of their apologetic/polemical purposes.... very central to what they are. And that not just in relation to Jews or pagans, but also toward other types of Jesus-following or early Christian groups, as you touch on re. docetism. That is one of the reasons it is so important to do what virtually no leaders nor lay Christian (conserv. or otherwise) do: read and study the gospels as individual works with somewhat differing (though overlapping) points to make... points designed to bolster their groups claims or beliefs, to support their lines of authority, etc.

    The most striking "outlier" is Mark.... Contrast it, without the later-added several-verse ending, with all the rest... NO appearances of Jesus risen, he having been and apparently remaining a great mystery (secretive about his identity, puzzling), a rejected man (even by God), etc.

    Howard

    ReplyDelete
  7. As I read through the NT yet again, but this time from a non-devotional perspective, I am still astounded at how many polemical arguments there are and how powerfully and poetically many of them are written. Some day I will have to read the Quran just to discover whether its warnings and polemics are also powerfully and poetically written.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve,

    Yes they should but as Wiebe points out in his book, many non-charismatic evangelicals and especially Calvinists are dubious about any accounts of visions since the NT. I guess God could work in the NT days but not today.

    Catholics say that most Protestants are guilty of rationalism in denying the validity of the experience of the mystics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric,

    Good luck with the Quran. I have found it virtually impossible to understand. It may be because there is no good contemporary English translation

    ReplyDelete
  10. John's gospel does the same--with Thomas touching the nail scars, etc.

    That's another thing that's always pissed me off. It's all right for Thomas to say, "I won't believe unless I can put my finger in the holes" (and, btw, eeww) - they make him a freaking saint - but if I want the same consideration, who the hell do I think I am?

    ReplyDelete
  11. I read this today and thought it very interesting
    "One of the most elementary rules in the analysis of testimony is that which requires the exercise of caution against the interested witness. A witness's interest is obvious when he himself may benefit from the perversion of the truth or may thereby benefit someone or some cause dear to him. Certain kinds of propaganda are perhaps the worst examples of deliberate perversion of truth out of a desire to benefit a cause." (Gottschalk p. 156)

    ReplyDelete
  12. What about the recent medical proof that there is life after death?

    There's no question that religions were created out of a psychological need to establish a justification for our existence in an intimidatingly infinite universe... But I have some questions you need to reconcile.

    You have to concede that there are many occurrences that can't be explained by religion or science. Just watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium." There are many like her. She will tell you details about your deceased parents and grand parents that you have to admit that's impossible for her to know.

    Watch this YouTube on the new "post death experience" phenomenon. Google: “Look at profound evidence” (Long video, jump ahead to mid-video)

    Near Death Experiences (1975, Raymond Moody) didn't prove life after death because frontal lobe stimulation can simulate the experience. But recently “post” death experiences have proved life after death. “Post” death experiences are reported in patients who've been clinically dead for 1,2 or even 3 hours!

    These “corpses” have gone hours without heart or brainwave function. They are absolutely dead, but after unexplainable resuscitations, doctors are witnessing, respecting and documenting these patients' accurate accounts of things that happened during their “brain dead” hours in the ER or morgue. There is a substantially escalating curve on these scientific investigations now.

    They note that long after death, patients recall verbatim conversations and activities of the doctors, nurses and even family members in and outside the hospital. Consistent with NDE's, patients still say it's better on the other side and they'll never fear dying again.

    Notably, many of the ER doctors witnessing “post death experiences” have been atheists whom now concede that life absolutely goes on after death. These scientific atheists are accepting the irrefutable evidence that patients experience life hours after they die...

    You know if there is life existence beyond death, there has to be a creator who created that dimension. How do you square this burgeoning life after death phenomenon with your atheism?  What if you were in a morgue, and a corpse sat up and commented on your recent conversations?  Be honest! And please... don't say this is a bio-chemical, nervous reaction!

    Brad O'Donnell; Author, "Where to Now Saint Paul?" 
    video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiA

    ReplyDelete
  13. What about the recent medical proof that there is life after death?

    There's no question that religions were created out of a psychological need to establish a justification for our existence in an intimidatingly infinite universe... But I have some questions you need to reconcile.

    You have to concede that there are many occurrences that can't be explained by religion or science. Just watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium." There are many like her. She will tell you details about your deceased parents and grand parents that you have to admit that's impossible for her to know.

    Watch this YouTube on the new "post death experience" phenomenon. Google: “Look at profound evidence” (Long video, jump ahead to mid-video)

    Near Death Experiences (1975, Raymond Moody) didn't prove life after death because frontal lobe stimulation can simulate the experience. But recently “post” death experiences have proved life after death. “Post” death experiences are reported in patients who've been clinically dead for 1,2 or even 3 hours!

    These “corpses” have gone hours without heart or brainwave function. They are absolutely dead, but after unexplainable resuscitations, doctors are witnessing, respecting and documenting these patients' accurate accounts of things that happened during their “brain dead” hours in the ER or morgue. There is a substantially escalating curve on these scientific investigations now.

    They note that long after death, patients recall verbatim conversations and activities of the doctors, nurses and even family members in and outside the hospital. Consistent with NDE's, patients still say it's better on the other side and they'll never fear dying again.

    Notably, many of the ER doctors witnessing “post death experiences” have been atheists whom now concede that life absolutely goes on after death. These scientific atheists are accepting the irrefutable evidence that patients experience life hours after they die...

    You know if there is life existence beyond death, there has to be a creator who created that dimension. How do you square this burgeoning life after death phenomenon with your atheism?  What if you were in a morgue, and a corpse sat up and commented on your recent conversations?  Be honest! And please... don't say this is a bio-chemical, nervous reaction!

    Brad O'Donnell; Author, "Where to Now Saint Paul?" 
    video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiA

    ReplyDelete