Holding and Gerkin debated the following proposition: 

"The social world of the NT provides indications that only a bona fide, supernatural resurrection can explain the emergence and growth of Christianity."

Holding defended the affirmative and Gerkin defended the negative.

For background information, both participants are going to be relying and expounding and cross-refuting their initial proposals to be found here for Holding and here for Gerkin. 

Holding's posts are in plain text 

Gerkin's posts are in bold.

Here's a quick index for the debate:

Round 1: Survival Scenario begun.

Round 2: Survival Scenario continued. 

Round 3: Survival Scenario continued. 

Round 4: Survival Scenario continued. Possibility of a spiritual resurrection is raised.

Round 5: Survival Scenario and spiritual resurrection wrapped up. 

Round 6: Hallucination Scenario begun. 

Round 7: Hallucination Scenario wrapped up. Conspiracy Scenario begun. 

Round 8: Conspiracy Scenario continued. 

Round 9: Conspiracy Scenario wrapped up. Closing arguments begun.

Round 10: Closing arguments. 

ROUND ONE

Because Kyle and I have agreed to a more or less running debate on this subject, I’ll be covering only as many points as I can in the space limit allowed, and with focus on as few topics as possible, and we’ll move on to other parts of his response in later debates as needed. I’d like to begin by thanking him for his kind words, for the e-friendship we have established, and for agreeing to do the Scholarly Diplomacy series with Tekton. I hope we will all learn from this exchange and am sure we will.

In his response Kyle begins with a succinct and accurate summary of my case. We’ll begin with the first place where I find myself in substantive disagreement with him beyond technical details, and that is where he proposes alternative scenarios. Let’s begin with the Survival Scenario, which is what I will devote the entirety of my first post to.

I consider the Survival Scenario to be impossible. That’s rather bold, but having taken a close look at this idea before, I would note the following:

If we accept the report of the Gospel records on this, we have a centurion who declared Jesus dead, as well as John’s account of the spear wound, which would lead us down other paths we will leave aside for the time being. I do not know whether Kyle would choose to reject the account of the centurion’s judgment as fictional; if so, we would deal with that contention in a different area, covered later in his response under the general charge of fictionalizing in the Gospels.

If however he chooses to suggest that the centurion was mistaken in his diagnosis, I would reply that the evidence is not in his favor. Among the ancients, death was an in-your-face experience. Roman soldiers worked the battlefields and enforced the judgments of death (and note that crucifixion victims were nailed/tied and undone not with machines or with robots, but by hand). Everyday persons watched as relatives and neighbors (and animals!) lived -- and died -- and took care of the body when the time came. A third of live births were dead by age 6; 60% of all people died by their mid-teens, and only 3% survived to their sixties. The Romans performed crucifixions regularly, sometimes hundreds or thousands at a time. So the centurion could certainly have made a qualified pronouncement concerning a dead body. (I have a list elsewhere of quite clear “signs of death” that such people would have been able to pick up on easily.)

Kyle moves further to suggest that Jesus survived in the tomb, pushed the stone away, and appeared to his disciples. He may offer more details supporting this idea as we progress, but let’s have a general look at this argument as it stands.

In terms of bare survival in the tomb: the temperature in the tomb was probably about 56-58 degrees Fahrenheit, which according to a doctor I have consulted would cause death by exposure on its own after 36 hours. Of course the effects prior to death are bad enough; we have a man here who had not eaten in at least 20 hours, and had nothing to drink but a little sour vinegar for about the same period. Dehydration and weakness alone, especially after significant loss of blood, bespeaks against even bare survival, let alone moving a stone from inside the tomb.

Which does lead to that point: Given the probable size of the stone (probably no more than 4 feet in height) and what it was likely made of (limestone), most authorities agree that the stone would weigh about a ton. I have difficulty seeing how even a healthy man could push such a stone away, let alone one in Jesus’ condition as stated above. I’m not a weak person by any means, but a one-ton stone is certainly beyond me, and for a person in Jesus’ condition, who needed help to carry his own cross; was lain out shivering and losing energy in a tomb with a temperature as low as 56 degrees; after hanging for hours on a cross (how do those dislocated shoulders and/or strained muscles feel about pushing anything!) -- add this together, and the only "rolling" we might have is a roll of the body onto the floor, where it can die just as well.

Kyle does note that Joseph is said to roll the stone in place by himself. Well, the Gospel of John has Pilate scourging Jesus (19:1) by himself by that reckoning; what we have here is more likely the language of representation. A man of Joseph's stature had servants (or paid burial tradesmen) and the weight of the stone tells us plainly that he did not do the act himself, and could not have. Further explanation would turn on exactly what kind of tomb Joseph had – traditional apologetics shows the tomb as one with a round stone to be rolled in place; more recent evidence suggests that the stone was a sort of “cork” that was pushed into place from the outside. If this is so then we have an additional problem for the thesis of Jesus moving the stone, since the Gospels say that the stone was “rolled away” – using a word that means that the stone was rolled over on multiple surfaces. It wasn’t just pushed off slightly so that Jesus could slip through a crack – it was actually some distance from the tomb, and turned over. But as it stands, I see no way even a crack could have been opened.

In conclusion for this first set of comments, we turn to Kyle’s suggestion that Jesus then appeared to his disciples as one resurrected. Some would remark that this would make Jesus out to be a tremendous liar; I am fairly sure Kyle would not make such an assessment, but he might go along with an idea that Jesus honestly thought he had been resurrected, and that others thought the same. Here we run into some serious interpretive difficulties. Common apologetic responses note that it would be impossible for the weak and wounded Jesus to have thought of himself, or for others to have seen him as, resurrected in line with Jewish expectations. Here are some examples of what was expected of a resurrection body:

Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.

2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.

Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

1 Cor. 15:43-4 It is sown in dishonour; 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

It is not conceivable to imagine the weak, wounded, and badly injured Jesus thinking of himself as resurrected in the classic Jewish sense described here.

I would add to this the matter of the guards at the tomb, though being that Kyle puts this aside later as relevant to several scenarios, I will also set that aside as well and suggest we focus on the core points of the Survival Scenario at his discretion. With this I will conclude my first set of comments, and close again with a note of thanks to Kyle for his participation and friendship. Your court, bud!

Before tackling JP's first post, I'd like to thank the admins here at TheologyWeb for hosting our debate. As readers may or may not know, JP and I have a history together which, while often adversarial, is quite positive. I am glad to count him among my friends, and there is no Christian I'd rather debate. My hope (for this debate and our Scholarly Diplomacy series in general) is that we can lead by example and break down the siege mentality which often exists between Skeptics & Christians. Disagreement needn't turn us into enemies.

JP's first post focuses on the Survival Scenario, which is one of three distinct "naturalistic alternatives" I proposed to account for a preached resurrection. JP declares the Survival Scenario to be flatly "impossible". He admits that this stance is rather bold, but feels it is justified his points which follow. I will argue that those points reinforce my original admission that the Survival Scenario is highly improbable, but that a judgment of "impossible" remains a bit too bold.

JP begins by citing the centurion's testimony of Jesus' death, and the spearing incident in John. He then questions whether I would consider these events to be fictional or not. I have no particular reason to doubt that a centurion pronounced Jesus dead. On the other hand, I consider the spearing account to be dubious and would dismiss it from my personal calculations. However, I attempt to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, and don't think the spearing renders survival impossible, although it certainly lowers the odds.

Naturally, if Jesus survived, then the centurion was mistaken in his diagnosis. JP argues that the ancients dealt with death on daily basis, and Roman soldiers regularly performed crucifixions, so the centurion was likely to know what he was talking about. This would be persuasive if there were evidence of anything but a cursory visual examination of Jesus' crucified body. Indeed, the centurion appears to base his judgment on no more than a crying out followed by the apparent cessation of breathing (Mark 15:38-38). Even if we accept John's account, at best the centurion examines Jesus at a spear's length. Thus, there is no close physical examination, nor does that appear to be a possibility as Jesus is not even removed from the cross by the Romans. That task falls to Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:46). Under these circumstances I suggest that a misdiagnosis is imminently possible, and cannot be ruled out barring a close physical examination.

JP proceeds to consider the chance that Jesus survived in his tomb. He notes that Jesus' condition (dehydration, weakness, blood loss, injury) militates again bare survival. And I would agree. But here is where I must stress a running theme in my argument. I do not argue that the Survival Scenario is likely--merely possible. There is a world of difference here. The annals of medicine (largely thanks to war) record many horrific injuries which by all rights ought to have killed the person who sustained them. But, for whatever reasons, miraculous survivals do occur now and again--sometimes when people have suffered injuries even more grievous than Jesus'.

But, even if Jesus survived, how did he move that darn stone? Since the stone would've likely weighed about a ton, JP suggests it would've been impossible for a healthy person (such as JP himself!) to move, much less a badly injured Jesus. I say JP is selling himself short. I drive an Isuzu Rodeo which weighs 3926 pounds, or about two tons. I am not a strong man by any means, however, I have little difficultly pushing the Rodeo a hundred feet or so. Sure, the Rodeo has wheels, but Jesus doesn't need to have moved the stone far--in fact, he only needs to create an opening big enough to escape. The stone's shape may have been conducive to this. Since it was said to have been "rolled" away, we might assume it was round. If it was spherical, it would've rolled like ball. If it was more "flattened" (like a manhole cover), it would've been weighted precariously and easy to push over. A cube or squat cylinder would've been much more troublesome, though perhaps not impossible. Jesus' condition certainly would've exacerbated the difficulties in moving the stone, but given a couple of days of consistent effort broken up by rest periods, the necessary movement is not inconceivable. Yet, even if we determine that there is simply no way Jesus could've moved the stone, escape from the tomb still cannot be completely ruled out, because Jesus may have had help. Suppose grave robbers struck Jesus' tomb, only to find a living man inside. Presumably they would've high tailed it out of there, leaving Jesus free to escape. Is that pure speculation? Sure. But is it impossible? No.

Lastly, JP contends that even if Jesus survived, Jesus could not possibly have considered his battered and broken form to have been resurrected and then represented it as such to the disciples. I actually think this is the best argument against the Survival Scenario, but it is not quite airtight. Again, rare as they are, there do exist recorded accounts of people suffering injuries as bad or worse than Jesus and then making a miraculous recovery to the point where they are up and functioning more quickly than doctors considered possible. Plus, we must consider that Jesus may have been using considerable will power to put forth the appearance of strength. And this need not call Jesus' honesty into question--people often try to "smile through the pain" for the sake of friends and their own psyche. As for Jesus having wounds on his resurrected body, this seems to gel with the gospels (at least if we accept John's Thomas story).

But could Jesus possibly delude himself and others into thinking he was resurrected? If Jesus had just been your run of the mill Galilean, I would say no. But, at the very least, Jesus was a preacher and faith healer whose followers had come to believe was the messiah. If they further considered him to be the son of God, can we blame them (or him) for concluding a supernatural resurrection when this supposed God who apparently died on the cross and was entombed is suddenly up and about? Even a doughty old skeptic like myself might've been taken in by that!

In summary, JP argues persuasively to the effect that the Survival Scenario is unlikely in the extreme. But that is not at issue, as I made such an assessment myself at the outset. Therefore, I remain unconvinced that the Survival scenario is impossible.

Back to you, JP.

ROUND TWO

I think most of you can see why I prefer Kyle to Farrell Till. The difference is like day and night, or perhaps owl and mule. To the points.

I’ll skip the spearing issue for now since it’s not central to my case, and may come up later anyway.

On ancient knowledge of death:Kyle says this “would be persuasive if there were evidence of anything but a cursory visual examination of Jesus' crucified body. Indeed, the centurion appears to base his judgment on no more than a crying out followed by the apparent cessation of breathing (Mark 15:38-38).” Well, that cessation of breathing would match a known death sign that would be associated with crucifixion victims: the “death rattle.” I will provide technical details of this if requested; beyond that, let us recall again that even though it is not reported, Jesus’ body obviously had to be taken down from the cross by hand – which means a very close physical examination was inevitable and unavoidable, and certainly enough to detect the death signs common to the knowledge of all ancient persons. (I think Kyle reads too literally here Mark 15:46! This is again language of representation – we should not suppose that Joe himself, a wealthy Sanhedrin member, popped the ladder up and the nails out!) Some might also add that centurions were trained killers who were supposed to know when a body was dead. I do not have confirmation of this at hand, nor for the sub-point that leaving such a person alive could be fatal to their own career and life, but it would certainly not be unexpected from a machine like the Roman army.

On tomb survival: Kyle tells us, “The annals of medicine (largely thanks to war) record many horrific injuries which by all rights ought to have killed the person who sustained them. But, for whatever reasons, miraculous survivals do occur now and again--sometimes when people have suffered injuries even more grievous than Jesus'.” Well, I’m going to play the Skeptic now and ask Kyle to give us his “best case” of such survival. But note here that I am speaking not just of survival, but survival followed by arduous ordeal, equivalent to the burial in the tomb, and moving of the stone, and still surviving, with no modern medical attention (at best, probably only what Jesus could do to patch himself up in that time), and no sustenance. The two cannot be separated.

On the stone: Well, I’ll admit I could probably push Kyle’s Rodeo (Shame on you, Kyle! What Would Jesus Drive? ) and his whole family in it. But that’s not what we’ve got on this Tombstone. According to what evidence we have, the “cube” is what we’re dealing with – actually, more like a T-shape from above, with a very fat leg. Major drag coefficient here! Kyle suggests: given a couple of days of consistent effort broken up by rest periods, the necessary movement is not inconceivable. I simply cannot agree! A man with no food or water, with significant blood loss, shivering in a 56 degree cave, with dislocated shoulders and/or arms, moving such a monster even an inch? (I forgot to add as well: Wounded legs from being pierced! This guy isn’t even standing, let alone getting a push off from his double Achilles heel!) Rest periods will only occur of one sort: the eternal sort of rest period! I have already consulted with a physician of emergency medicine on this subject – if Kyle can bring forth an equitable authority, I invite him to do so. Keep in mind I also noted that the stone was rolled away and that the words suggest it was moved a significant distance – not merely pushed out enough for a man to slip through.

Kyle moves on to suggest Jesus had some help, maybe unwitting help from grave robbers. Some may regard this as special pleading; it need not be, but other than the guard issue which we will address later, I would reply that we would have these problems (other than the medical ones) Kyle would need to address: 1) What evidence is there of grave robbery in Judaea at this period? Touching the dead or even stepping into a graveyard was considered defiling to a Jew, which doesn’t leave grave robbery as an employment opportunity in that era and place, and defiling the dead was considered dishonorable and offensive. 2) The matter of the stone being some distance away – which would not comport with high-tailing robbers; 3) Given Jesus’ high-profile death and burial, any robbers would surely know that they were robbing the grave of a pauper; 4) Given the number of vulnerable Passover pilgrims in town, such robbers certainly would have made one of the stupidest choices possible for enriching themselves, while passing up easy pickin’s along the road! I know criminals can be dumb at times, but I have never met one that was dumb enough to go to so much trouble for what they would have to know would be so little, even if they did not know who was in the tomb.

In addition it has occurred to me to ask: What does Kyle see as going through Jesus’ mind in the tomb? Why is he trying to get out himself and not calling out for help and waiting to be rescued? Kyle later intimates that he does not see a need to suppose that Jesus would lie about his own state – very well, we have a scenario in which Jesus alive in the tomb believes himself to be resurrected, yet would be in such pain and distress as to make it clear to all but the maniacally deluded that they weren’t in the expected glorified, resurrected body. Smile through that? Show me where it has happened before! We probably don’t want to tread too far into the tangent of Jesus’ psychology here, but it is a thought that needs to be considered.

On the appearances: Here again Kyle appeals to medical science and that idea of “people suffering injuries as bad or worse than Jesus and then making a miraculous recovery to the point where they are up and functioning more quickly than doctors considered possible.” I’ll again play the Skeptic and ask for the worst case scenario – keeping in mind not just the barriers to recovery (the ordeal) but also that it is not merely a matter of mistaking for “up and functioning” but also “raised in a glorified body” as described in the Jewish texts I noted.

In closing Kyle also suggests that the disciples could easily have concluded that Jesus was resurrected, because of his career. It would be something of a tangent, but I have argued elsewhere that the disciples were NOT expecting a resurrection at all, and that indeed a resurrection in this case would have been contrary to their every expectation as Jews. But to keep the conversation narrow I will reserve that point for later, when I see that it will probably come up.

My conclusion: I don’t think Kyle has actually chipped away at the impossibility of the Survival Scenario, and if anything, on further reflection, I think it is even more impossible than I first imagined.

Since we seem to be doing well on the subject I will stop here so that we can keep focus on the Survival Scenario. And since I have plenty of space – a kudos to Kyle and a great big thank you! I already owe him a homemade Mexican dinner so I’ll start the payoff with my homemade pico de gallo recipe. Take the following in whatever proportion you like and chop it all up together to whatever consistency you prefer: plum tomatoes; jalapeno or habanero peppers (according to your tastes in heat); cilantro; Italian salad dressing or lime juice; red onion. Careful, it’s addictive!

On ancient knowledge of death:
JP points out the clear fact that Jesus would've had to be taken down from the cross by hand, inviting close physical examination. Naturally this is so, but not by the centurion who is our witness for the prosecution here. And no, I don't imagine Joseph "popped the ladder up and the nails out!". I agree this is the language of representation but the agents Joseph employed were not likely to be centurions. Okay, but wouldn't Joseph's agents detect life signs in Jesus? Not necessarily. I doubt JP wishes to posit that no one was ever accidentally buried alive. Indeed, Jan Bondeson's Buried Alive provides a nice look at this more-common-than-we-might-think occurrence in history. Thus, based on the evidence we have at our disposal, there is simply no way we can declare 100% proof positive that Jesus died on the cross.

On tomb survival:
JP decides to play skeptic (oh sure, now you are willing to be skeptical ) and asks for my "best case" of someone miraculously surviving an injury equivalent to that of Jesus. I have not had the opportunity to extensively research this question, so fellow skeptics may curse me for bypassing a better example, but I will do my best.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, on April 25, 1998, Michael Hill had an 8 inch survival knife plunged through his skull and into his brain all the way up to the hilt. Not only did he survive, but he astonished doctors by functioning normally the next day. I don't think JP's requirement of an ensuing ordeal and a lack of modern medical treatment is relevant. Relevance lies with the total odds. And I would argue that the odds of not only avoiding instant death after having an 8 inch blade shoved into your head, but suffering very little permanent damage, are at least as small as surviving the sum total of Jesus' ordeal. But it happened.

Of course, such comparisons are hard to weigh. Apples and oranges, you say? Perhaps we should look a closer comparison. In Josephus' autobiographical The Life of Flavius Josephus, he reports seeing three friends who had been crucified by the Romans, who are then taken down from the cross at his request. One of the three survives. Let's compare. The friends were taken captive after a battle in which they were on the losing side. So they likely suffered injuries equivalent to Jesus' beatings, if not much worse. And this is barring a subsequent beating before crucifixion which we have no particular reason to discount. One might argue that Josephus had these men removed from the cross quickly, but that position is not really supported, as Josephus doesn't actually see the men being put up on the cross, but rather comes upon them already crucified. Thus, unless they were extraordinarily lucky, it is reasonable to presume that they had been on the cross for at least of couple of hours and perhaps much longer. This would be equivalent to Jesus who spent about three hours on the cross. And at this point, all three men are still alive, although two are to die shortly. But, one might say, these men were able to avail themselves of medical treatment. However, ancient medical treatment left much to be desired and was often worse than nothing, so this is a negligible advantage. Of course, these men would've had access to sustenance, but I think that is a minor consideration on the whole, and besides, we aren't likely to find a perfect one-to-one correlation. This is good enough, I believe, to establish the possibility of survival.

On the stone:
JP reiterates his case that it is inconceivable for Jesus to have moved the stone in his condition. I have little more to say here other than to respectfully submit that our information on the exact shape of the stone and extent of Jesus injuries is too sketchy to say with certainty that he could or could not have moved the stone.

As for the possibility of grave robbers, I don't want to spend too much time on the issue as I admittedly pulled it from the realm of pure speculation, but JP asks me to address three points, so I will do so quickly.

JP: 1) What evidence is there of grave robbery in Judaea at this period? Touching the dead or even stepping into a graveyard was considered defiling to a Jew, which doesn't leave grave robbery as an employment opportunity in that era and place, and defiling the dead was considered dishonorable and offensive.

Kyle: I have no specific data on grave robbery in Judea circa 30 AD, but I assume it was small niche filled in most all ancient places and times. I don't imagine defilement, dishonor and offensiveness are weighty considerations for people who make their living plundering grave sites. After all, I doubt the Jews were the only people who looked down upon such a practice.

JP: 2) The matter of the stone being some distance away ; which would not comport with high-tailing robbers;

Kyle: The term "rolled away?" in English is vague enough that I don't think it forces us to see the stone as being moved a considerable distance. Of course, I am not familiar with the original language, where the word may or may not be more exclusive in its meaning.

JP: 3) Given Jesus' high-profile death and burial, any robbers would surely know that they were robbing the grave of a pauper;

Kyle: Maybe. But let us also consider that Jesus was buried in a rich man's family tomb, from which ignorant robbers could draw a mistaken inference.

JP: 4) Given the number of vulnerable Passover pilgrims in town, such robbers certainly would have made one of the stupidest choices possible for enriching themselves, while passing up easy pickin's along the road!

Kyle: At the risk of revealing my ignorance of the grave robbery trade, I'm guessing it is something people specialize in. Thus, the Passover pilgrims would be left to the pickpockets and muggers.

JP then wonders why Jesus would try to escape himself as opposed to calling for help. This raises another possibility I hadn't even thought of! Perhaps Jesus called for help and some anonymous passerby helped him escape. If that person even bothered to step forward once the rez accounts started circulating, they could easily be dismissed. Thanks, JP! Of course, it is also possible that the tomb was too isolated for cries of help to be of any use.

JP further notes Jesus would have to be seriously deluded to consider himself resurrected in his physical state. Of course, I don't think we can totally rule out delusion, but the point is taken. I think it is far less likely that Jesus considered himself resurrected than that his disciples saw him that way--or convinced themselves ex post facto, anyway. Which segways nicely into the next point...

On the appearances:
JP indicates that the disciples would not be expecting a resurrection, and so would not have concluded such a thing from the appearance of Jesus. But, expectations aside, assume the disciples saw the man they considered the son of God get crucified, die and become entombed. Then, this same man is inexplicably back among them teaching again. What should we expect them to think? One might suggest that the disciples would've asked Jesus point blank how he returned from the grave, but Jesus had a tendency of speaking cryptically when asked point blank questions. Hence, his survival would be left open to interpretation and speculation.

My conclusion: As I have come to expect, JP has made many excellent points in regard to the Survival Scenario, in light of which I have slightly downgraded my calculations of probability. However, my ultimate verdict is unchanged: Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

I think both of our cases for the Survival Scenario have been well established at this stage. I'm guessing that further discussion will be mostly elaboration on earlier points. Thus, in the interest of covering more ground, I recommend that we move on to the Hallucination Scenario, although of course JP is free to respond to any points I have made which warrant comment, or introduce new material on the Survival Scenario if need be.

Thanks for the recipe, bud!

ROUND THREE

Things are going smoothly here, and I certainly appreciate that! Enjoy the pico!

Kyle notes that examination would not have been “by the centurion who is our witness for the prosecution…” Granting that this is so, the centurion is the “man in charge” and the people who did the job report to him, and would be as familiar with the signs of death as any other ancient person. For that matter, the centurion was there at the foot of the cross and supervising the process. What would he miss that the persons who did the handling in front of him would not? Kyle asks, “wouldn't Joseph's agents detect life signs in Jesus? Not necessarily. I doubt JP wishes to posit that no one was ever accidentally buried alive.” Keeping in mind first that it is not signs of life, but signs of death I have in mind here: I don’t wish to posit that, and I have been through the Bondesen wringer already. I rather wish to posit that nothing Bondesen offers aids Kyle’s case. Buried Alive is a quite fascinating tome that focuses especially upon a controversy only a century or so ago in which a great fear of being buried alive resulted in all manner of political action and Goldbergesque inventions (for example, caskets with connections to a bell or flag outside). Bondesen does briefly discuss detection of death in the ancient world and notes that "absence of a heartbeat was the accepted sign of death." [17] This was an obvious test to apply to Jesus. Bondesen relates further that "[r]elatively little is known about what criteria of death were actually used in classical antiquity," but he does assume that taking the pulse was part of the process, and suggests that "immobility, coldness, and incipient putrefaction probably also played a role." [18] When it comes to the question, "Was anyone actually buried alive?" Bondesen decides that the number of verified cases of this can be counted on a pair of hands -- and in many cases a premature burial was stopped by an outward sign from the supposedly deceased, and were within the context of more modern times when death became more sanitary. In short, what little window Bondesen provides for the overall possibility of a live burial, closes upon the direct experiences of the ancients.

Kyle’s example of Michael Hill is quite interesting, but not particularly useful. Injury to the brain in that manner, counter-intuitive though this may seem, doesn’t pose nearly the threat that a combination of blood loss, starvation, dehydration, and injury associated with crucifixion would. I have a physician “on call” who can probably explain why if needed, but I suspect it has to do with that various parts of the brain control different functions, so that if you stab a certain part it only affects that part of your body, not the whole body. I’ll write the physician and ask for his thoughts.

Kyle’s example drawn from Josephus is of course much more comparable in terms of nature of injury, but whether the men were put up just recently or some time before, the medical treatment does make for a difference. Kyle is aware of this and notes back that “ancient medical treatment left much to be desired and was often worse than nothing, so this is a negligible advantage.” We agree that ancient medical treatment was pretty sorry, but one of the three men did indeed die as I recall (correct me if wrong) and basic nursing and sustenance can do much more than Kyle, I think, suspects – once again, I can ask for input from my physician friend if needed. My argument here is based on the comments of sociologist Rodney Stark (Rise of Christianity) who noted that basic nursing of plague victims by Christianity did well to help many people survive (who in turn became Christians) and he alluded to findings that such basic nursing was beneficial. And of course what Kyle posits here is a case of nursing that could have done good, could have done wrong, versus none at all, and no further debilitating conditions (starvation, but notably dehydration, and cold, PLUS exertion).

Kyle submits that “our information on the exact shape of the stone and extent of Jesus injuries is too sketchy” – I have to disagree; the archaeological evidence for tomb design and practice is (pardon the pun) rock solid. Tombs of course tend not to wear away or disappear, so we have ample evidence on hand.

On grave robbers, I appreciate that Kyle admits to not having specific data. This is perhaps something worth looking into more deeply for both of us. I shall therefore leave the matter with the comment that it is the very powerful ancient concerns (or superstitions!) for not defiling or dishonoring the dead that would make grave robbery in Judaea a non-profession. But I suppose Kyle could posit that the robbers were from out of town.

On "rolled away" Kyle says that the term is “in English is vague enough that I don't think it forces us to see the stone as being moved a considerable distance.”I would have to disagree, but I’ll bring forward some comments here from Glenn Miller on the meaning of the words and words of the same family in the original language:

"The king first thought to force his way through and advanced to the pass through narrow defiles in rough country, but without opposition. The Persians allowed him to proceed along the pass for some distance, but when he was about half-way through the hard part, they suddenly attacked him and rolled down from above huge boulders, which falling suddenly upon the massed ranks of the Macedonians killed many of them.

"And Sisyphus, son of Aeolus, founded Ephyra, which is now called Corinth,1 and married Merope, daughter of Atlas. They had a son Glaucus, who had by Eurymede a son Bellerophon, who slew the fire breathing Chimera.2 But Sisyphus is punished in Hades by rolling a stone with his hands and head in the effort to heave it over the top; but push it as he will, it rebounds backward. (Apollodorus, Library and Epitome, 1.9.3. )

"Other Tyrians cast fishing nets over those Macedonians who were fighting their way across the bridges and, making their hands helpless, pulled them off and tumbled them down from bridge to earth. [Diod. Sic. Library, 17.43.10]

In each of these cases some significant movement is indicated. A mere “shove” won’t fill the bill. Miller’s other examples likewise indicate the word I associated with significant activity or movement. (It also is used to mean “wallow” as a pig does, but I think we can agree the stone won’t be doing that!)

Kyle adds: “…let us also consider that Jesus was buried in a rich man's family tomb, from which ignorant robbers could draw a mistaken inference.” They would indeed have to be quite ignorant to think such a thing, for they again would have had to miss the high-profile events associated with the previous weekend! We may again have to suggest grave robbers from out of town. I would be remiss if I did not point out that this scenario (and the idea of grave robbery as a specialty trade!) comes intimately close to special pleading. But as Kyle had admitted lack of knowledge of these practices, I will leave that aside.

Next Kyle hops on my suggestion that passersby helped Jesus escape. This won’t provide much in the way of an “escape” for the Survival Scenario, however. The persons who helped Jesus in such a case – however many there were – would hardly keep quiet about it! I would have to invite Kyle to posit therefore a “what happened then” explanation explaining this position – which is one I have never seen suggested in the literature. (Of course if the tomb was isolated – and what data we have suggests it was not – we are back to the issue of how the injured Jesus pushed the stone himself…which Kyle overlooked in his last response, though I do not assume it was intentional.)


Kyle allows that Jesus himself would probably not be fooled into thinking he was rezzed in the Jewish sense, but asks what we would expect the disciples to think. Fair question: The answer is, that the kerygma would have been, “God saved this man from death!” “God miraculously healed this man!” Based on what Jesus’ appearance would have been after such an ordeal, that is indeed the only thing we could possibly expect them to conclude; regardless of any questions they would have asked, there is no room for them to have interpreted Jesus’ survival as a rez, unless he told them so point blank – which then runs into that serious problem of how such an abused body could have been seen as rezzed. (I’ll have to pass on the general comment about Jesus’ “tendency of speaking cryptically when asked point blank questions.” Tempting though it is!)

I have some space left, so I will go ahead and move into the Hallucination Scenario. Neither of us is a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist, so I imagine this discussion will not be as productive as we might like. However, I’ll go ahead and address some points generally. I recall that one of the classic arguments against the hallucination theory is that one cannot hallucinate that which one does not consider possible. If that is so then we run headlong into an issue I alluded to earlier, namely that Jews of this time had no holding place for the idea f a single person resurrecting before the general resurrection of all men. Actually in such a case there was already something within which the Jews would have placed such an experience. They would have either also seen it as a vision, or possibly as a spirit (cf. the witch of Endor story, and note that this was indeed the disciples’ first recorded reaction in Luke) or else would have concluded that this Jesus-like being was Jesus’ guardian angel. A person’s guardian angel was assumed to take the appearance of the person they were guarding, and could appear after death (cf. in Acts, where it is assumed that it is not Peter, but “his angel” who is at the door). And of course, Hallucination is only a supplement once we have got the body out of the tomb – Kyle still needs to get rid of the body on this one.

Checking my records, I do find that Glenn Miller has written extensively on this, and if Kyle does not object I can bring that forward here for the next round.

Happy Habaneros!

This should be a somewhat brief post, as I have little more to add with regards to the Survival Scenario. I have raised a number of possibilities whereby Jesus would've survived death (for a short time anyway). JP has done his best to convince the reader that those possibilities are not worth consideration. Of course, I presume that even JP doesn't deem Survival literally "impossible". There must be some odds, no matter how great, by which Jesus might've survived. What's the the magic number, JP? One in a trillion? One in a hundred trillion? Higher? Naturally, at a certain point the odds cease to be meaningful and we can speak in practical terms of an event being "impossible". Which is where JP is at. Now, it is up to each reader to calculate their own odds. Improbable as it might be, is the Survival Scenario so ludicrous that we must completely disregard it? Decide for yourself.

Now, I will address some of the new points raised in JP's last post.

JP rejects my comparative example of Michael Hill and his survival of a brain knifing, stating that it "doesn’t pose nearly the threat that a combination of blood loss, starvation, dehydration, and injury associated with crucifixion would." He notes that he has a physician who can confirm this. I have consulted a neuroscientist on the issue and he had the following comment.

"I think it would be unscientific of me to try to give actual odds for survival of such an injury. For that matter, I think it would be unscientific to give odds for Christ's survival. Until we have a larger pool of patients with the exact same injury, or a complete record of crucifixion results, I think it would be a mistake to speculate on it. The only thing I would stake my reputation on is that anyone who asserts with scientific authority that surviving such a knife wound is more likely than surviving a crucifixion is a scientific fraud (although I would assert the same if they contended the reverse). That is the nature of science and the authority to be derived from it."

Thus, I stand by my original point--which was simply that people do, every once in a great while, survive injuries which would be lethal in a vast majority of cases.

JP continues to argue that there were no grave robbers in Judea, although he jokingly suggests they may have been from out of town. I say: why not? Perhaps they came in with all the Passover pilgrims, as that would provide a good cover for nefarious strangers. It's a possibility that cannot be entirely overlooked.

With regards to the exact meaning of the term "rolled away", JP brings forward three examples of "the words and words of the same family in the original language" courtesy of Glenn Miller. The examples don't clear things up for me. Two of the examples speak of rolling or tumbling stones "down", which does imply some distance, but this is a much different situation from the tomb stone, which is not rolled "down" anywhere. Indeed, I might note that the effort required by human agents in those examples might be nothing more than a mere shove--gravity would do the rest. In addition, if we are going to be sticklers about language, I might raise the point (courtesy of Richard Carrier) that, "The verb in every case of here [Gospel usage with regards to the stone] is a form of kuliein, which always means to roll: kuliein is the root of kulindros, i.e. cylinder (in antiquity a "rolling stone" or a even child's marble)." In other words, this word makes no sense in the context of moving a square tomb stone, the like of which were in use at the time of Jesus' death. On the other hand, the usage of that word makes perfect sense with regards to the round stones which came into use after 70 AD, which would indicate that the Gospels themselves were composed after 70 AD. But of course, that takes us into a whole other debate, which can be left aside for the time being.

As to the possibility of a random passerby helping Jesus escape, JP insists the person "would hardly keep quiet about it!". Again, I must ask: why not? Maybe the person was an out-of-towner (like our grave robbers!) unaware of the circumstances around Jesus' death. Maybe the person was a sympathizer. Regardless, I am not suggesting the resurrection stories started circulating immediately. By the time the rez was being preached, any person who stepped forward with an "I helped Jesus" tale would be branded as an enemy of the faith by believers.

As an answer to question of what we should expect the disciples to think upon seeing Jesus, JP offers that they would think, “God saved this man from death!” or “God miraculously healed this man!”. But wouldn't most conservative Christians argue that the disciples viewed Jesus as God incarnate, and insist that Jesus predicted his own resurrection? The reaction JP suggests does not gel with such ideas.

On to the Hallucination Scenario. JP suggests that "one cannot hallucinate that which one does not consider possible." But, again, if Mary thought Jesus was a God-man who predicted his own resurrection, why would she not consider such a thing possible? With God, all things are possible. Jesus taught many things which were novel and deviated from Judaism--a single resurrection preceding the general rez would've been one more such teaching. JP goes on to suggest that the Jews would've likely viewed a hallucination of a dead person as a vision or spirit appearance. This brooks the possibility that the early church did not actually hold to a tradition of physical resurrection, but that such a belief evolved by the time the Gospels were written. This becomes more likely the later you are willing to date the Gospels. Lastly, JP claims, "Hallucination is only a supplement once we have got the body out of the tomb – Kyle still needs to get rid of the body on this one." But I do address that point in my original article. For convenience sake, I will reproduce the relevant excerpt below.

"Sure, the empty tomb may have triggered Mary's delusion, but how did it get to be empty in the first place? There are various possibilities. Grave robbing was not exactly uncommon in antiquity. So the simplest suggestion is that grave robbers did strike and, of course, moved the stone. Another possibility along these lines is that Joseph realized the potential for grave robbing, and so decided to surreptitiously move the body to an undisclosed location. Admittedly, it would be a little odd for Joseph not to replace the stone if this were the case, it's not out of the bounds of reason to suppose he forgot in his haste (especially since he would've had his hands full). Before Joseph could confide in anyone about the new burial location, the resurrection stories would have started circulating, at which point Joseph might've decided to keep quiet and see where things would go. But even if Joseph replaced the stone, Mary (and whomever her companions were) might've moved it. After all, they were going to have to move the stone (or else get someone to move it) in order to anoint him (Mark 16:1-3). Supposing they did move it and the resulting empty tomb triggered Mary's delusion, it would be easy for the account to get switched around a bit such that the stone was already moved when they arrived on the scene. Indeed, it is possible that this was a calculated lie on the part of Mary and her companions lest anyone accuse them of some wrong doing with regards to the body."

Of course, JP has already criticized the grave robbing suggestion in connection with the Survival Scenario.

I do not object to JP bringing forward material by Glenn Miller on the Hallucination Scenario.

ROUND FOUR

Looks like both Kyle and I went to expert witnesses on this one! Here’s my word from that physician of critical care:

The basic issue in this case is the path of the blade. It is possible to lose large parts of your non-dominant frontal lobe and have no detectable deficit. Similarly, it is possible for the blade to pass essentially along the midline and miss all vital structures.

He also notes that Kyle was being imprecise to call Hill’s wound “mortal” (he would have had to have died for it to be mortal) but I think Kyle only meant that it had the potentiality to be mortal. However, Kyle’s source uses the rather strong word “fraud” here (!) – yet seems to me rather short on specific detail. I have also recalled one case of a gent in the 19th century who had a bar run through his head by explosives, and lost a good portion of his brain. I think this relates to what I said earlier about how parts of the brain aren’t essential to survival.

On grave robbers:. Kyle suggests that perhaps “they came in with all the Passover pilgrims, as that would provide a good cover for nefarious strangers” Here he falls into a social science difficulty that makes this scenario impracticable. In this world any person who was a stranger to a community was closely examined. Of necessity his grave robbers would have had to know enough of Jewish customs to blend in and not cause suspicion, in order to avoid hostile questioning. We would need foreign grave robbers who were able to dress, act, and speak like natives; yet also were not of events surrounding Jesus’ death which would make it clear to them that there was nothing to be stolen. We also need people who apparently went all this way ignoring the graves of persons in their own home country, and as noted, passing up much easier pickin’s from a vulnerable Passover crowd (even if it was their trade to be grave robbers, are you going to stick with hard work on such principles?). At this point the scenario becomes far too contrived to be believable. Hugh Schoenfield was known for his theory, in which he took Mark’s young man with the sheet and turned him into a virtual jack of all trades who hopped in anywhere Schoenfield needed someone to do some deed to keep the plot going. The grave robber scenario needs to many conveniences of this type to be accepted as a rational alternative.

On rolling away Kyle tells us that the examples from Miller are not effective, for “this is a much different situation from the tomb stone, which is not rolled ‘down’ anywhere.” But that is precisely the point. The word DOES show that it was rolled some distance – whether down or not is not the issue, and how much power was required is not at issue either. It is funny that he should appeal to Carrier, since Miller’s article was a response to Carrier’s. I also provided my own answer to Carrier’s claim that “rolled away” makes no sense with a squarish stone. If something must be round to be rolled, then why can automobiles "roll over" and why can planes do a "roll" manuever? Shape is not the determining factor for what defines a "roll": what defines a "roll" is the movement of an object so that it presents successive surfaces upward. Thus the Synoptics tell us (John merely says "taken away") that the squared stone was not merely moved away, but was in such a state that it had clearly been flipped over on at least two surfaces. As a side note, one may see in Mark and Luke's "rolled away" an allusion to Josh. 5:9, "And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you." I suppose reproach was round in those days!

Kyle then asks why a passerby rescuing Jesus would not keep quiet about it – perhaps being an out of towner or a sympathizer. The latter cuts close into the “stolen body” scenario so I’ll leave that aside for now. But a stranger of some sort with good intentions (vs. our grave robber) is not simply going to leave a man in Jesus’ condition to his own devices --- and certainly not after taking all the trouble to move the stone to get him out! Here again Kyle proposes a internally contradictory scenario supported with conveniences – someone who cared enough to move a huge stone, but didn’t lift a finger to get the man medical treatment! I realize that Kyle could add on to the scenario: Maybe the helper brought Jesus home and nursed him; no one saw them because it was the middle of the night – Kyle rightly anticipates that this would cause problems with the idea that rez appearances were reported to have happened as early as the third day, and remarks as a reply, “By the time the rez was being preached, any person who stepped forward with an ‘I helped Jesus’ tale would be branded as an enemy of the faith by believers.” Yes and, what? The story would or could not stop there. As the whole point of TIF has been, Christianity was a socially and religiously offensive movement. If the mysterious helper was sympathetic to the faith, we get to the same scenario as the stolen body one which we will get into later. If he was hostile to what the faith preached, then the report doesn’t go to the members of the faith – it goes to the people that count: Rome, the Sanhedrin. The need for social control of deviant movements, and reaction to excessive claims of honor, as I related in TIF, make silence of such persons an impossible response in this social context.

On the disciple’s reaction, Kyle asks, “But wouldn't most conservative Christians argue that the disciples viewed Jesus as God incarnate, and insist that Jesus predicted his own resurrection?” On the former, I am not sure what Kyle is pointing to – is he suggesting some issue with the identity of Jesus as God, so that it could not be said, “God did this to this man?” On the latter – the answer is yes, we do believe that Jesus predicted his own rez, BUT – the disciples did not understand that a resurrection was what Jesus was predicting.The words used to describe the resurrection in the Gospels are anistemi and egeiro. Both words carry a broad meaning and they are not term-specific to resurrection. Now note this from John’s Gospel: 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. How could John have believed, yet also not understood about the resurrection? Because he, and the other apostles, were not expecting a resurrection but a "taking up" of Jesus’ body, after the manner of Elijah, Moses (in the apocryphal works) or Enoch. This would have been a sign that Jesus' life was brought to an orderly conclusion and that he had been vindicated by God. This point explains several apparent anamolies in the record, which we will see Miller also recount below. If anything, seeing Jesus again was contrary to everything they expected.

Kyle hints at the idea that maybe the early church did not teach a physical rez. Well, that could be a tangent to pursue; I would have to argue that 1 Cor. 15, only 20 years after Jesus’ death, belies any such suggestion. We can get into that if Kyle wants to. He closes with an idea that Joseph may have done the deed; I will want to discuss that under the Stolen Body scenario since my answer would be the same. I am low on space so I will have to wait to bring forward material from Miller.

JP begins by quoting a physician on the Hill case. That physician charges me with imprecision in describing the Hill wound as "mortal". Just for the record, I never actually called Hill's wound "mortal", although a knife buried in the head certainly has that potential. Also, I would like to reiterate that I was using the Hill case to demonstrate the incredibly long odds of not merely surviving the knifing, but suffering minor permanent damage and functioning normally the next day . As JP's physician noted, this is possible if the blade follows exactly the right path. However, the chances of a blade being randomly stabbed into a man's head and following the correct path are miniscule. Which parallels my assessment of Jesus' survival: possible but against the odds.

I have no more to add on the grave robbing tangent. We could continue to speculate on what the theoretical grave robbers would or would not have done, but that becomes a silly exercise at this point. Perhaps, in the future, JP or myself can locate some specific historical data on grave robbing in Judea at the time of Christ and bring it to the fore. Until then, I will continue to consider grave robbing a possibility, albeit a remote one.

JP continues to contend that the word used in connection with rolling away the stone shows that it was rolled a significant distance. I still fail to see why the usage of such a word in another context where a stone happened to travel a great distance, necessitates that Jesus' tomb stone also rolled a great distance. In other words, I can roll a basketball two feet away from me or 40 feet away from me and still use the same word to describe the movement of the ball.

JP then responds to Carrier's claim that “rolled away” makes no sense with a squarish stone. He says, "Shape is not the determining factor for what defines a 'roll': what defines a 'roll' is the movement of an object so that it presents successive surfaces upward." Okay, but I think we can both agree that "rolling" a one-ton squarish stone is not the most efficient means of moving it. Such an object would not be at all conducive to "rolling" and would either be pushed or lifted and carried into place. But, you might say, the stone was rolled away by a supernatural power (angel or God), so concerns of efficiency are irrelevant. That could be persuasive were it not for Mark 15:46 where Joseph of Arimathea (read: his agents) is described as having "rolled" the stone into place. This indicates one of three options:

1) The synoptics were written after 70 AD and the round stone is an anachronism.
2) Archaeological evidence to the contrary, the specific stone used for Jesus' tomb actually was round.
3) Linguistic evidence to the contrary, "rolled" can mean a generic "moved away".

As to my suggestion that the reports of an anonymous helper who aided Jesus in escaping the tomb would be ignored by believers, JP says, "If he was hostile to what the faith preached, then the report doesn’t go to the members of the faith – it goes to the people that count: Rome, the Sanhedrin." I didn't imagine it any other way. Such a report may have been one of the reasons many people in Rome and the Sanhedrin didn't convert. In fact, I can see Matthew's story of the tomb guards as direct response to such allegations.

On the disciple's reaction, JP confirms that conservative Christians believe Jesus predicted his own rez, but he says, "the disciples did not understand that a resurrection was what Jesus was predicting." But isn't it at least possible that, once Jesus miraculously survived the crucifixion and burial, one of the disciples considered Jesus' prophecy in retrospect and applied it to the situation? As another consideration, people do come up with new ideas every once in a while. It does not seem out of the bounds of reason to suppose that one of the disciples might've interpreted Jesus' appearance in a manner contrary to contemporary Jewish thought. Such an idea might not even be that radical, as it has come to my attention that the Pharisaic sect may have believed in a physical rez.

JP closes by rejecting my suggestion of the possibility that the early church did not teach a physical rez on the basis of 1 Cor. 15. Since Richard Carrier has succinctly considered that chapter with this regards to this very issue, I hope he will not object to me bringing Carrier's analysis forward.

"1. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others, apart from when it happened (vv. 8, vs. 1-7). This makes it prima facie reasonable that all the appearances were understood by him to be visions and not literally physical.

2. His distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (vv. 42) is based on a distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (vv. 40, 47-9), and it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept it. This makes it prima facie reasonable that he means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal one.

3. He literally makes this distinction, calling the one a "natural body" (psychikos) and the other a "spiritual body" (pneumatikos), and says that they both coexist in one person (vv. 44), in that first there is a natural body which is then infused with a spiritual one (vv. 46), thus the resurrected body is clearly in his mind something lacking the physical body, the body that is conceived in a womb and only later infused with a soul.

4. The Christian lexicographer Photius understood psychikos to mean the "animal" part of man (Lexicon, s.v.), as opposed to the higher, spiritual part that was made in the image of God (and God is certainly not a physical body), and there is a lot of evidence that Paul meant this as well (cf. 3e).

5. Paul distinguishes Adam and Jesus in a certain way that supports this: Adam is regarded as being alive in the psychic sense, Jesus as giving life in the pneumatic sense (vv. 45), and Paul relates them as opposites (also vv. 22), so that as Adam was given physical form, beginning the age of sin, Jesus transcended it, ending sin. For Adam was made of dust (matter), but the resurrected Jesus was not (vv.47, cf. 48-9).

6. Paul says point blank that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 50), because flesh and blood is the perishable body, and we are resurrected as an imperishable body (ibid.). It is thus plain that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical body.

We can also note how the entire context of 1 Corinthians 15, especially vv. 33ff., supports this interpretation. Paul is clearly trying to explain what the resurrected body is like, of which Christ's resurrection is the first fruit, to Christians in Corinth who want to know. Yet he works entirely from first principles, building a theological, scripturally-based argument. He never once does the obvious: simply quote the witness of the Disciples who saw Jesus' resurrected body. Yet wouldn't that make more sense? The only rationale Paul could have for not simply saying "The resurrected body is like this, because Peter saw it, and Thomas handled it," etc. is that these things did not happen. Rather, just like Paul's revelation, the original disciples must have seen Christ only in visions, so that appealing to them would add nothing to Paul's case. Otherwise, why would he ignore this most important proof in defending his position against apparent heretics in Corinth?"

I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am, JP.

ROUND FIVE

The stone seems to be my last issue for the Survival Scenario. Kyle asks, “JP continues to contend that the word used in connection with rolling away the stone shows that it was rolled a significant distance. I still fail to see why the usage of such a word in another context where a stone happened to travel a great distance, necessitates that Jesus' tomb stone also rolled a great distance.” Given the size of the stone, and the implication of the word used that at least two surfaces were turned over in the roll, that implies a distance of at least 10 feet from the door of the tomb. For a tombstone that would be a long distance throw; of course, throwing a ball that far would be no big deal, so it is a matter of scale. In any event the distance would be enough to not fit in with a Survival Scenario and a Jesus just pushing the stone out a bit and slipping away.

Kyle brings to the fore Mark 15:46. The word here is a compound of the one we have been discussing and a prefix, pros, so that the whole meaning is “roll towards/against”. Kyle presents three options, but there is a fourth and a fifth: 4) The stone was rolled end over end into place by Joe’s people; 5) More likely, it was rolled into place on cylinders or logs of some sort, as popular depictions of building of the pyramids show. Alternatively the word could be a compound meaning, “they hired U Haul”.

Kyle briefly suggests, “Such a report (from a helper) may have been one of the reasons many people in Rome and the Sanhedrin didn't convert. In fact, I can see Matthew's story of the tomb guards as direct response to such allegations.” If so, then it is out of place that Matthew’s report of the Jewish polemic was that the body was stolen. If the polemic actually was, “He was alive and helped out” then Matthew is answering nothing, even with the guards, and this very powerful refutation disappeared without a trace – from Christian polemic, and from Jewish polemic (including rabbinic works). This is why I think the stolen body scenario is the only one of Kyle’s scenarios that really has a chance, but I’ll get back to that if and when we reach that point.

Kyle asks, “isn't it at least possible that, once Jesus miraculously survived the crucifixion and burial, one of the disciples considered Jesus' prophecy in retrospect and applied it to the situation?” I can only say that it is not. Jewish ideas about resurrection – even from the Pharisees Kyle notes – were that it was all going to happen to men at the end of the messianic age. Anything other than this would have been seen as a disruption of God’s timetable, which as I noted in TIF is one of those things that only made the faith harder for Jews to swallow.

Kyle devotes most of his space this time to reporting Carrier’s material on resurrection. I have no objection of course (especially since I have already answered Carrier’s essay ) though this will mean I’ll bring forth Miller’s material on hallucinations at a later date and copy and paste some of my own stuff.

"1. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others, apart from when it happened (vv. 8, vs. 1-7). This makes it prima facie reasonable that all the appearances were understood by him to be visions and not literally physical.

This is probably the weakest of the reasons given, and it fails on two major points. First, Paul DOES make a serious distinction between his experience and that of the others – he saw Jesus “as of one born out of due time.” (15:9) The word here is one used of a miscarriage and if we are to use this reasoning, then this statement allows us to hypothesize in return that there is prima facie evidence that his experience was understood to be different than the others.

Beyond this it is far from clear that Paul’s own descriptions are that of what he conceived of as a vision – though here, I would ask whether “vision” would mean of necessity that he did not think he was seeing a physically resurrected Jesus. Those holodeck images of real persons are of persons with physical being! I do not recall if or how Carrier uses Paul’s other descriptions (Acts 9, 22, 26; 2 Cor. 12) so I will now move to argue that the rest of 1 Cor. 15 describes a physical body

2. His distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (vv. 42) is based on a distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (vv. 40, 47-9), and it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept it. This makes it prima facie reasonable that he means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal one.

This argument leans heavily from the get-go, for the distinction Carrier claims Paul is making simply doesn’t exist in the text! The “based on” he sees simply isn’t there – the whole context here is vv. 38-47, in which Paul makes a general argument that all things have “bodies” appropriate to their function and nature – including animals. Carrier has taken 40, 42, and 47-9 from isolation and exegeted them WITHOUT their surrounding context. Oddly enough this is much the same thing that the Mormons do to this passage!

[I[3. He literally makes this distinction, calling the one a "natural body" (psychikos) and the other a "spiritual body" (pneumatikos), and says that they both coexist in one person (vv. 44), in that first there is a natural body which is then infused with a spiritual one (vv. 46), thus the resurrected body is clearly in his mind something lacking the physical body, the body that is conceived in a womb and only later infused with a soul.[/I]

This is a tremendously cockeyed reading, as my grandmother would say (!); I don’t see where Carrier gets “infused” out of v. 46 (“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”) which seems more to describe a progression; so likewise, a “co-existence” out of v. 44. (“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”) The progression idea would also fit in with Jewish expectations. But I’m going to have to ask for more elucidation here since I just don’t see “co-existence” implied. There was certainly a continuity seen between the two bodies (one was a glorified version of the other)

As an aside, though it does not seem to be mentioned here: Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harris, Risen Indeed, 120]. Here are some sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

So the word would mean that the resurrection body was dominated and directed by spirit, not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

4. The Christian lexicographer Photius understood psychikos to mean the "animal" part of man (Lexicon, s.v.), as opposed to the higher, spiritual part that was made in the image of God (and God is certainly not a physical body), and there is a lot of evidence that Paul meant this as well (cf. 3e).

Wow, this one has another Mormon moment in it! Bud, I am sending you a copy of my book soon, and I’ll just have to refer you to Ch. 1 where I discuss what “image” really means. The Mormons are wrong, and so was Photius, who BTW is rather a late witness to call in on this account! I am not sure why “3e” is cited here and what evidence is being referred to.

5. Paul distinguishes Adam and Jesus in a certain way that supports this: Adam is regarded as being alive in the psychic sense, Jesus as giving life in the pneumatic sense (vv. 45), and Paul relates them as opposites (also vv. 22), so that as Adam was given physical form, beginning the age of sin, Jesus transcended it, ending sin. For Adam was made of dust (matter), but the resurrected Jesus was not (vv.47, cf. 48-9).

This one is standard, so I’ll just cut and paste from myself direct:

Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correlates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]

6. Paul says point blank that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 50), because flesh and blood is the perishable body, and we are resurrected as an imperishable body (ibid.). It is thus plain that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical body.

Oh my, another one I can just copy and paste on!

The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech.

Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength

. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

And Pheme Perkins, author of one of the leading works on the subject of resurrection, adds [Perk.Rz, 306 that "flesh and blood" is:

...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

The closing statements offered are:

“[Paul] never once does the obvious: simply quote the witness of the Disciples who saw Jesus' resurrected body.” Yet that is more or less what he is doing when he lists all the people in 1 Cor. 15:3ff! The list is a roster of authoritative witness to the resurrected Jesus.

“The only rationale Paul could have for not simply saying ‘The resurrected body is like this, because Peter saw it, and Thomas handled it,’ etc. is that these things did not happen.” The problem here is that the heretics Paul is addressing are not people who are doubting the nature of the rez body – that is not their issue – but people who say that there is no rez AT ALL, of any kind. He does anticipate the objection “what kind of body” (v. 35) – but here is especially where things run aground for a spiritual rez idea. Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical in intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse. Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses. There is simply no way that one can read a “spiritual” rez into things once this word is used.

I am indeed thoroughly enjoying this exchange, bud. And by way of thanks I want to publicly acknowledge a favor Kyle is doing for me by dropping off some copies of my book on Mormonism to several of his area libraries.

I'm glad to see that we've just about wrapped up the Survival Scenario. But I'd like to respond to one lingering point. I noted that the usage of "roll towards/against" in Mark 15:46 indicates one of three options:

1) The synoptics were written after 70 AD and the round stone is an anachronism.
2) Archaeological evidence to the contrary, the specific stone used for Jesus' tomb actually was round.
3) Linguistic evidence to the contrary, "rolled" can mean a generic "moved away".

But JP would like to add two more options:

"4) The stone was rolled end over end into place by Joe’s people.
5) More likely, it was rolled into place on cylinders or logs of some sort, as popular depictions of building of the pyramids show."

I find these options highly unlikely because they propose absurd ways of moving a squarish one-ton stone. With regards to (4), rolling such a stone end over end would be much more difficult than just pushing it or lifting it and carrying it into place. Similarly, the method described in (5) is unnecessarily elaborate. Assuming they kept the stone somewhere in the vicinity of the tomb, breaking out the "rolling-logs dolly" appears a little ridiculous. After all, the men have to lift the stone up anyway to place it on the logs--they might as well just walk over to the tomb and set it down there instead.

JP proceeds to critique the material by Carrier that that I brought forth. I will not be defending Carrier's position in depth for two reasons.

1) I am not qualified enough in ancient history or languages to be able to add much to the discussion.
2) The idea behind my TIF critique (which is the basis for this debate) is to "give away" as much of the conservative Christian position as possible. In other words, I want to demonstrate that even if we consider the gospels to be fairly accurate, a supernatural resurrection is not the best explanation of the facts.

If Carrier is correct about the early church preaching a spiritual rez as opposed to a physical one, then the gospels were written rather late and conservative Christianity is more or less turned on its head. While I consider this a legitimate possibility, it is really outside the scope of this thread and not in the spirit of my TIF critique. So Carrier's material will have stand on its own merits for now (those interested in reading more from Carrier and the essay from whence I pulled the quote can find it at infidels.org under the title "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story").

That said, I would like to close with a summary point regarding the possibility of a spiritual rez having been taught. This is going to be what JP likes to call an "elephant", but since I used so little space this time, perhaps he will grant be an elephant allowance. I would suggest that we have no documents which can be securely dated before 70 AD that unquestionably assert a physical rez. In fact, with the possible exception of Mark, we don't have any documents securely dated before 70 AD that even mention the empty tomb. Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but I think it tells us just how shaky the evidence for a physical rez really is.

There you go, JP; that should leave you plenty of space to introduce new material.

ROUND SIX

I appreciate the chance to insert Miller’s material on hallucination at this time, and will be as brief as possible on other points.

Kyle says he would find my stone-moving methods 4) more difficult and 5) unnecessarily elaborate. Have to disagree of course. A flat, square stone is a major drag without help. Using levers to do 4), or cylinders to do 5), uses more tools but is much easier. As I noted, 5) is how the Egyptians moved pyramid stones. Were they being “unnecessarily elaborate” in their work? It’s much easier to lift for a moment and put it on logs than to lift and carry it any distance.

I also appreciate Kyle’s deference on the spiritual rez issue. It’s worth some of my words to deliver a heavy compliment to him for this. Readers know that I deal extensively with a Certain Person who thinks he becomes an authority just by opening his mouth, and many others like him. Kyle alludes as well to the dates of the Gospels, and I would very much like to suggest that as a debate question for the future. I think he is one of the few people on the Skeptical side who will fairly weigh the data. I will just state my general view here that, by the canons of dating any ancient work, there is no reason to date any Gospel past 70, though I would allow for John to be an exception.

So now here’s Miller’s stuff, the relevant portions. I will intersperse comment in bold. The relevant section starts with Miller quoting an opponent, who begins by quoting ANOMALOUS PSYCHOLOGY, by Zuzne and Jones. pp. 133, 135-136:

"Hallucinations may be visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, haptic, kinesthetic, or organic. Visual hallucinations range from simple light phenomena to the seeing of life-sized, life-like persons engaged in various activities. Objects usually appear to be three dimensional and solid. They cast shadows, people do not walk through walls and furniture, but around them, and the entire vision may not appear any less detailed, vivid, or substantial than ordinary perceptions. Sometimes, however, the hallucination may be less substantial and may appear to be larger or smaller than natural size. Micropsia and macropsia--the seeing of objects as of being of a size smaller or larger than their natural size--in hallucinations may have given rise to stories about diminutive people, such as fairies or leprechauns, or of giants.

"Auditory hallucinations most often include the hearing of voices, usually single, but sometimes multiple. . . ." (pg. 133)

Collective Hallucinations

"The same hallucination may be experienced by two or more persons. If the event is entirely subjective, as all hallucinations are, how do two or 200 people manage to coordinate and synchronize their subjective lives? Recall our discussion of the role of expectation and misperception in the preceding chapter. It is expectation that plays the coordinating role in collective hallucination. Although the subject matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits, the topics of collective hallucinations are limited to certain categories. ?These categories are determined, first, by the kinds of ideas that a group of people may get excited about as a group, for emotional excitement is a prerequisite of collective hallucinations. The most common causes of emotional excitement in groups are religious, and indeed, phenomena related to religion are most often the subject of collective hallucinations. Second, the categories are limited by the fact that all participants in the hallucination must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination. This may take the form of a publicly announced prophecy, for example, or someone suddenly looking up and saying, "Lo, in the sky!" or words to that effect. Things in the sky, or at least overhead, are the most commonly seen collective hallucinations: radiant crosses, saints, religious symbols, flying objects, sometimes all these in combination. Once the general type of hallucination is established, it is easy to harmonize individual differences in the accounts. This may take place during the hallucination or in subsequent conversations.

"Collective hallucinations have always occurred, perhaps more frequently in the past than now because of the interrelated factors that more people used to be uneducated, scientific thinking did not exist or had not yet spread widely enough, and there was a greater readiness to attribute anything inexplicable to supernatural, occult, paranormal, or divine causes. . . . " (pp 135-136)

This ends the book quote. The opponent then says:

So M of M goes to the wrong tomb, her beloved rabbi is not there, and in accordance with her default superstitious mindset and preexisting mental illness, she has an appropriate hallucination.

She reports this to some combination of the disciples (the gospels differ), who are also under stress and of the same superstitious mindset--and the rest as they say is history.

Glenn then says:

There is one MAJOR, MAJOR problem with this--the mindset of the women at the tomb (remember, it was more than just MofM) and the mindset of the disciples DO NOT FIT the description given of the pre-conditions required for a 'collective hallucination'.
The emphases in the passage you cite above are on three pre-conditions:
1"expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations"
2"emotional excitement is a prerequisite"
3"must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination"
It is VERY clear from the gospel narratives that NONE of these conditions held true before the first appearances! Consider the data:

1"expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations"
The apostles abject lack of expectation (read 'faith'!) that Jesus would rise from the dead has been a source of embarrassment to the Church for centuries! Consider just a few of the verses that document their abysmal LACK of expectations:
John 20.9: (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) NOTE: this is even at the empty tomb looking in!!!!!!
Matt 16.21ff: From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
Mark 9.9: As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.
Mark 9.31: He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." 32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
Luke 18.33: 33 On the third day he will rise again." 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
This condition OBVIOUSLY wasn't in place! Note that this meshes with what I said earlier about the disciples not expecting a rez, though Glenn does not go that far)

2."emotional excitement is a prerequisite"
How emotionally "excited" were the apostles after the miserable execution of their leader, in front of the entire nation?!!! EXCITED? Frenzied? or just TOTALLY filled with grief (Lk 22.62), despair, dejection, disillusionment (Luke 24.19ff), depression (Luke 24.17), numbness and skepticism (John 20.25; Mt 28.17; Luke 24:37-43), paralyzing fear (Mt 26.56; John 20.19)!!!
There is literally nothing in the narratives to even remotely suggest that these dejected, embarrassed souls had ANY 'excitement' coursing around in their veins---and the data that we DO have indicates a rather dark and despondent state for them (predictably so).
So this condition doesn't seem to be in place either.

3"must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination"
This is the crowning blow! Not only have we already seen above that they NEITHER understood NOR expected the resurrection, but when they were confronted with the appearances they couldn't even 'process them' correctly! Consider:
the women at the tomb were 'confused' by the experience (not well 'informed beforehand'!) [Luke 24.4]
they were afraid when they saw Jesus (Mt 28.10)
when the women told the disciples as a group, they didn't believe them at first! (cf. Luke 28.11: But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.)
Even as they saw Jesus, some STILL doubted!!!! (some 'collective experience', eh?!)--Mat 28.17 I disagree with Glenn’s use of this passage
They don't even recognize Him on a couple of occasions! (John 21.4; Luk 24.16)
They thought he was a 'ghost'--not an expected 'Risen Lord' at first (Luk 24.37)
In other words, the very description of the experiences demonstrate further that they had NO expectation of a resurrection of Christ MUCH LESS some 'broad outlines' of what to expect in terms of experiences! Their actual responses are almost embarrassing.[And not the sort of descriptions one later goes back into the document to add, to enhance one's status, let's say!]
So, this final condition doesn't seem to match either.

The net of this is simply that a 'collective hallucination' theory cannot mesh with the only data we have about the participants, their backgrounds, their varied mindsets, their mental state (or lack thereof!), their lack of expectations--both general and detailed, and their actual responses to those phenomena.

The opponent says: The nicest part about this account is that I do not need to assume any additional facts beyond what I can find in the bible. I simply apply modern psychology and subtract supernatural speculation, and I get a simple consistent picture that is consistent with the bible. No conspiracies, no deliberate lies, no cover-ups.

Glenn: Well, actually, you probably need to re-swizzle the data. What I pointed out above, is that you need to : ADD into your hypothesis the larger number of participants (at the burial site, the empty tomb, etc.) ADD in their varied backgrounds (e.g. skeptical to 'casual' to cautious) TAKE OUT of your hypothesis, the 'collective hallucination' theory, due to lack of appropriateness/relevancy to the historical situation.

In the last post, JP treats us to some of Glenn Miller's thoughts on hallucination. Interesting stuff. Unfortunately, Miller's material has little relevance to my Hallucination Scenario because Miller is discussing a collective hallucination. But this not what I propose. I merely suggest a single, individual hallucination by Mary Magdalene. My proposed Hallucination Scenario appears in the paper which is linked to at the beginning of this thread. But, since I have very little to respond to this time, I will go ahead reproduce it here.

"Mary Magdalene had "seven demons" cast out of her by Jesus (Mark 16:9). Mental illness was often equated with demon possession is ancient times, so Mary could've been psychologically unbalanced to start with. Then, in a highly charged emotional state, she had a delusional episode when visiting Jesus' empty tomb. She proceeded to tell the disciples of her "encounter" with Jesus. The disciples were understandably skeptical, but once this seed was planted it began to germinate. Perhaps two of the disciples, on the road to Emmaus, began to discuss amongst themselves the possibility of a resurrected Jesus. They were struck with the revelation that "only a resurrection could vindicate Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death." Since these men had given up their professions to follow Jesus and had come to view him as the messiah, they certainly had an interest in such a thing coming to pass. And after all, Magdalene had "seen" him, so why not they? Thus, putting their heads together, they contrived the story of Jesus appearing on the road to take back to the disciples as further "proof" of the resurrection and a way to continue their ministry. The other disciples would be eager to believe such a tale. They might very well have then expected an appearance among the themselves to be the next logical step. Inevitably, discussion would take place about what Jesus would say and do when he appeared. Even though he did not then appear, they went on to preach a resurrection based on the earlier "appearances". In the course of preaching, they began to incorporate the expected and discussed "appearance to the eleven" into their teachings as if it had actually happened. Indeed, they might've even come to believe this themselves on some level."

There is really no way to rule out Mary's hallucination since, as the quote from Anomalous Psychology points out, "...the subject matter of individual hallucinations has virtually no limits...". Yet, even though the conditions Miller cites are only required for "collective" hallucinations, we will look at them with respect to Mary as an individual anyway. The conditions are:

1) "expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations"
2) "emotional excitement is a prerequisite"
3) "must be informed beforehand, at least concerning the broad outlines of the phenomenon that will constitute the collective hallucination"

As to (1), Mary may not have been expecting a rez, but when she visited the tomb of her beloved miracle worker and there was no body to be found, who knows what conclusions she would jump to? I can easily imagine the empty tomb of a would-be messiah triggering such a hallucination--especially if the hallucinator has a history of mental illness.

Mary clearly fulfills condition (2). Oddly, Miller objects to the idea that the disciples would've been emotionally excited. He says they were "...TOTALLY filled with grief, despair, dejection, disillusionment, depression, numbness and skepticism, paralyzing fear!!! There is literally nothing in the narratives to even remotely suggest that these dejected, embarrassed souls had ANY 'excitement' coursing around in their veins...". But I think Miller is confused as to the usage of the term "emotional excitement". This isn't limited to euphoria as he seems to indicate. Indeed, any extreme emotional state (of which Miller himself has provided a laundry list) can qualify as "emotional excitement". One's emotional state can be heightened by grief as easily as it is by happiness.

Condition (3) is irrelevant for a single individual. Obviously, Mary herself was informed concerning the broad outlines of what Jesus looked and sounded like.

I guess that's all I have. You made it easy on me that time, JP.

ROUND SEVEN

Kyle tells us that Miller’s material is not particularly relevant, and if I read aright, this is because he sees Mary M. as one who “got the ball rolling” and her understanding snowballed into that of others. I think there are too many blocks to such a snowball effect for this to be possible; Kyle’s scenario of discussion and embellishment, discussion and embellishment, harbors to many conveniences and bypasses too many contextual realities (i.e., the concept of a resurrection prior to the end of the Messianic age being unknown in Judaism; that a vision of Jesus would be taken as his double angel or a spirit, as indeed happened) for me to give it any credence. I have already noted my thoughts on this with reference to a parallel to Schoenfield’s work. But let us have a look at Kyle’s application of the three conditions to Mary.


For 1, Kyle appeals to what I would again regard as a cortivance: “who knows what conclusions she would jump to”? There were already powerful templates in place which would restrict the scope of her conclusion: An ascended body. A guardian angel-double. A ghost. And, a stolen or moved body, which was the conclusion that she DID reach (John 20). It is like saying that if we discover the cookie jar empty, we will be able to imagine that it was emptied by mice. It is “imaginable” but if we have people in the house, it is not at all the first thing that will come to mind as an option, and indeed would not even be in our consideration.

I will have to leave aside (2). I would not be inclined to think that grief, etc. would be included in the category of “excitement” but unless one of us gets the book and finds out, it’s a draw.

We have some space left, so I’d like to now start into the Conspiracy Scenario and begin by defending the idea of the guards at the tomb. Kyle “consider[s] it dubious that guards were even present” and rejects it on two grounds. The first is that the account only appears in Matthew. I rather find the “only one guy reports it” argument weak. The irony is that Kyle also points out that it reports conversations that the author would not be privy to, yet he also allows for an informant – well, then, doesn’t the fact that knowledge of this event would be limited itself point to that it is something likely to appear in only one Gospel, if any at all? I agree that informers are the only way for Matthew to get this story – and I see a scenario in which these desperate guards sought a new life outside the Empire, most likely among the Parthians immediately to the East. Matthew, whose Gospel is usually thought to have originated in Antioch or Syria (also on the border of Parthian territory) is the one Gospel writer for whom these people who have been most accessible. I then see these guards coming to grips with what they have witnessed and realizing that they cannot keep it to themselves. He is also trying to answer the “stolen body” polemic in currency among Jews; for readers of the other Gospels, this was not an issue, so there was no reason to bring it up, and if anything it would be counterproductive. Luke and John rather (we cannot be sure of Mark’s original ending) stuff that speculation with the data of their rez appearances.

Kyle’s other objection is that “the guards were not posted until sometime on Saturday (Matt 27:62) leaving the tomb unguarded for all of Friday and an undetermined portion of Saturday. This would have been ample time for either Jesus to escape or for his body to be removed.” This may be true, if Matthew’s narrative is not somewhat dischronologized: I can see the request of Pilate happening just as the body is being moved to the tomb. However, if the body had indeed been removed before the guards’ arrival, the stone would already have been moved (to whatever distance) and that could hardly have been missed.

Kyle’s final suggestion is that the disciples could even have bribed the guards. I rather think that the value of their lives was more at stake once they were before the priests. They were in trouble by that time, darned if they did, darned if they didn’t; not so if the disciples approached them. As one who has some passing familiarity with prison inmates, I can assure you that while it seems odd to us, in desperate situations people like this do take whatever slight chance they can.

I’ll address more of the stolen body hypothesis next round.

JP offers little criticism of my Hallucination Scenario, other than to state that it is too elaborate to be given credence. To demonstrate this point, he proposes the following analogy, "It is like saying that if we discover the cookie jar empty, we will be able to imagine that it was emptied by mice. It is 'imaginable' but if we have people in the house, it is not at all the first thing that will come to mind as an option, and indeed would not even be in our consideration." There is an amusing irony here, as I would argue that while a man being supernaturally revivified and rising from his grave is "imaginable", it should not be the first option that comes to mind or even really in our consideration. In other words, is the "snowball effect" really more fantastic than a supernatural rez?

Then, JP starts up on the Conspiracy Scenario, specifically defending the presence of guards at Jesus' tomb. He dismisses the possibility that Matthew's guard story is fictional, speculating that one of the guards in exile was the source of the account. This is not impossible, but I'm afraid an anonymous author reporting privileged conversations without citing a source, whose story has no corroboration anywhere in the Bible and conveniently serves the rhetorical purpose of countering the stolen body polemic is just too flimsy for me to accept as historical evidence.

But, as I previously pointed out, even if we do accept the guard story, this still leaves us about a day where the tomb was unguarded and Jesus' body could've been removed. JP says, "if the body had indeed been removed before the guards’ arrival, the stone would already have been moved (to whatever distance) and that could hardly have been missed." But this assumes the stone was only moved once. If the disciples removed the body, they would've replaced the stone so that the empty tomb "revelation" could take place on the the third day in accordance with prophecy. At that time, the stone would've been moved by Mary and her companions (or their agents) in order to anoint Jesus' body. From there, it is easy to imagine the account getting switched around a bit such that the stone was already moved when they arrived on the scene. Indeed, it is possible that this was a calculated lie on the part of Mary and her companions lest anyone accuse them of some wrong doing with regards to the body.

In response to my suggestion that the guards could've been bribed by the disciples, JP indicates that they would've coughed up this piece of info under interrogation by the priests in order to save their hides. But admitting such cardinal wrongdoing seems to be much more risky than the excuse Matthew actually reports, which is that the disciples stole the body while the guards' slept. Sure, sleeping on duty might get them indicted for incompetence, but that is surely better than outright corruption. Better yet, the guards could've insisted on their own vigilance and argued that since they never actually looked in the sealed tomb or saw Jesus being placed there, they could've been guarding an empty tomb all along for all they knew. Later, when the rez accounts started circulating, the priests may have approached the guards again. This time, the guards could embrace the rez story as way to exonerate themselves, and happily go away twice the richer after the priests bought their silence. And this would gel with Matt 28:12, assuming the passage is not just a rhetorically invented excuse to pardon the lack of guard witnesses, as I actually suspect.

I eagerly await more fun with the Conspiracy Scenario.

ROUND EIGHT

It seems on the Hallucination scenario, Kyle and I have now hit the expected “wall” between us that goes beyond this debate’s parameters – naturalism vs. supernaturalism. I expect we’ll hit this soon for the Stolen Body thesis (we have in some points already), but we are here for Scholarly Diplomacy so that’s a-OK.

Kyle and I have also agreed by email to cut off this debate at the Stolen Body hypothesis, and return to the addressing of my 15 points for a second debate later on. So after this point I will be aiming for wrap-ups.

To begin on the stolen body issue. Kyle first speaks of “an anonymous author reporting privileged conversations without citing a source, whose story has no corroboration anywhere in the Bible and conveniently serves the rhetorical purpose of countering the stolen body polemic is just too flimsy for me to accept as historical evidence.” By point:


1)“an anonymous author” – obviously I do not think the author is anonymous; I find that attestation of Matthean authorship is better than it is for any other secular ancient document. But this is a rabbit trail in context. Hopefully my challenge will be answered to debate the subject of Gospel authorship and we can hash it out with someone. (Kyle has politely declined, saying he is not prepared for such a debate, and deserves respect for doing so.)

2)“reporting privileged conversations without citing a source” – since ancient writers were not in the habit of citing sources, this is a problem Kyle would have with ALL ancient writers, not just Matthew. But I think he would be consistent in his rejection on this basis. I find it of course in this light too high of a demand.

3)“whose story has no corroboration anywhere in the Bible” – I seriously question the “only one guy reports it” objection, for it would also tend to invalidate most historical claims which are found it but one source. There are also good reasons why only Matthew may report it – he may have been the only one with access to the information; or, the other writers simply had no stolen body polemic to answer, and like good attorneys, didn’t bring it up.

4) “and conveniently serves the rhetorical purpose of countering the stolen body polemic” – of course if there was a REAL polemic to counter, and this was the REAL answer, I don’t see how the result would be any different.

Now as to the stone having been moved already if the guards were there, but too late to catch what happened, Kyle argues that the stone was moved BACK (!) to its place and confusion in transmission of the records, or even a lie by the women. Well, I think here we now hit the wall, as we are now in Passover Plot territory, in which events otherwise unattested are suggested, while events recorded are dismissed. So I defer to the wall.

Now to the bribing issue. Kyle says, “…admitting such cardinal wrongdoing seems to be much more risky than the excuse Matthew actually reports, which is that the disciples stole the body while the guards' slept. Sure, sleeping on duty might get them indicted for incompetence, but that is surely better than outright corruption.” I actually believe that sleeping on duty was penalized with, um, death. The guards were in a bind, if they were indeed there. No one would believe their “an angel showed up” story except Christians. And the priests knew live witnesses lying were more valuable to them than dead ones who could say nothing to help them out. Could the guards have used the excuse that the tomb was empty when they got there, as Kyle suggests? That leads back to our wall again, and the hypothesis that the stone would have had to be moved out, then back, and then what follows to explain the record being in error.

So now I’ll bring out more on the stolen body hypothesis itself, which may be considered with or without the guards. If the body is stolen, we need perps to consider. We’ll begin with the obvious:

Suspect #1: The Followers of Jesus. The disciples, of course, would be prime suspects in such a case, but the standard reply offered to this argument, that the disciples would not have been able to preach, and suffer for, a lie, is substantially confirmed by the social context of the first century I outlined in TIF. The disciples were in a position in which their claims would be subjected to scrutiny (if they were not dismissed outright) because of their suspicious and exceptional claims to the honor of Jesus, and their preaching would have resulted in social and personal sanctions that the ancients would have found intolerable (i.e., being cut off from family), and in extreme cases, martyrdom. They did not preach their message in secret, but in the major urban centers where the two parties with the greatest ability to check their claims -- the urban wealthy who had the means to travel and investigate, and the Diaspora Jews who returned to Jerusalem regularly for festivals -- were built-in “fact checkers” stationed around the Empire who could say or do something about all of the historical claims central to Christianity: A triumphal entry into Jerusalem in blatant fulfillment of Messianic prophecy; an earthquake, a darkness at midday, the temple curtain torn in two; an execution, a claim of an empty tomb, people falling out of a house speaking in tongues; healings of illnesses and dysfunctions, and even reversals of death. All of these events took place in public venues. Christianity was highly vulnerable to inspection and disproof on innumerable points, any one of which, had they failed to prove out, would have snowballed into further doubt about the movement‘s veracity. Making such bold and audacious claims is not the way to start a false religion. One starts such a religion by linking events to obscure and nameless people. One does not claim to have healed the daughter of a synagogue ruler, or to have spoken to a Sanhedrin member, or have encountered a Roman solider who acknowledged your power, and asked you to heal his servant, and one especially does not give their names (Jairus, Nicodemus) or rank (centurion) or place of residence, and make things easier to check. A false religion sticks strictly with encounters with “Joe Smith” or “Mary Rogers” or with no-names like the woman at the well (John 4). Such persons of course would have had to be interacted with anyway, but the point is not their presence, but the presence of those of greater social standing and notice, and the claims attached to them. It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely, and even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution.

There are two added layers of difficulty for the missionary preaching of the early church, and they are related to the social prejudices I also outlined. Christianity’s prime witnesses to the empty tomb and the Resurrection were from classes of person that were regarded as the most untrustworthy and unintelligent members of society. If Christianity wanted to succeed, it should never have admitted that women were the first to discover the empty tomb or the first to see the Risen Jesus. It also never should have admitted that women were main supporters (Luke 8:3) or lead converts (Acts 16) in the movement. Women were regarded as “bad witnesses” in the ancient world: “In general Greek and Roman courts excluded as witnesses women, slaves, and children...According to Josephus...[women] are unacceptable because of the ‘levity and temerity of their sex.’”(Malina and Rohrbaugh) Women were regarded as so untrustworthy that they were not even allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals. It would have been much easier to have the male disciples of Jesus, or someone like Cleophas or even Nicodemus, find the tomb first.

It wasn’t just women who had a problem. Peter and John were dismissed as incompetent witnesses based on their social standing (Acts 4:13), and this reflects a much larger point of view among the ancients. Hailing from Galilee and Nazareth was as much of a problem for the disciples as it was for Jesus, and would have hindered their preaching. The Jews had no trust in such people as Peter and John, if we are to believe later witnesses in the Jewish writings, which referred disparagingly to men such as Peter and John as “people of the land,” and said: “...we do not commit testimony to them; we do not accept testimony from them.” Though this is a late witness from the Jewish Talmud, it represents an ancient truism also applicable in the ancient world as a whole. Social standing was intimately tied to personal character. Fairly or unfairly, a “country bumpkin” was the last person whose testimony you would believe.

The only apostolic witness who could have gotten around this stigma was Paul. With the likely exception of Matthew (who would have been rejected as a witness on other grounds -- namely, that he was a dishonest tax collector!), Paul was the only person among the disciples and witnesses to Jesus’ resurrected presence who would not have been dismissed out of hand as an unworthy witness. Significantly, however, Paul did not start any of the three largest churches in the Empire (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem) and only founded a few of the smaller ones, and he nevertheless had to depend on the witness of the disciples for practically all of his information about the historical Jesus. Paul would not be dismissed as an unworthy witness; rather, the reply to Paul would be, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” (Acts 26:24)

Thus, though they are the most obvious candidates to finger in a proposed theft of the body of Jesus, everything about the disciples as perpetrators is all wrong. They gained nothing, and knew they would gain nothing; they voluntarily entered into a difficult process in which they had everything to lose; they managed to convince others that Jesus really had been raised, in spite of the inherently suspicious and untrustworthy nature of their persons from the perspective of their contemporaries. The “best” suspects turn out to be terrible suspects. So who is left?

Suspect #2: The Authorities. Far down on the list of suspects to have taken the body of Jesus are the men who held the power, and did have possession of the body of Jesus, at certain stages: the Roman authorities, represented by Pilate and his underlings, and the Jewish authorities -- whether those supposed to be friendly to the Christian movement (like Joseph or Nicodemus) or unfriendly to it (Caiaphas or Annas).

The thesis that either Roman or Jewish authorities took the body falls upon the very simple point that is they did have the body, refuting Christianity would have simply been a matter of authority asserting itself. It would have been enough for the political leaders to say, “We took that man’s body, and did such and so.” This response would have necessitated a reply from Christian preachers and documents, which is conspicuously absent from the record. Moreover, the response of the leadership would have been perpetuated in later documents attacking Christianity. Because of their great interest in stopping the deviant Christian movement, pagan critics like Celsus, or later Jewish criticisms like those found in the Talmud, would have taken advantage of such an explanation readily, and later Christian writers would have been beholden to defend against it. The silence of the records on this account is inexplicable if the authorities from either ruling party took the body of Jesus.

Suspect #3: Whoever is Left! After the disciples, and the authorities, who remains as a suspect? Well, that’s where we get into stuff like grave robbers, or occultists seeking the skull of a “holy man” with which to practice their evil arts, and an idea I told Kyle about that even he had to laugh at, the idea that Jesus had an otherwise unknown identical twin who took the body, then impersonated the resurrected Jesus! In light of such scenarios, I would suggest that this tells us that the data, as it stands, shows that the Resurrection is the only viable explanation for the missing body of Jesus.

JP begins by taking issue with my doubts as to the authenticity of Matthew's account of the tomb guards. He thinks my standards of evidence are too high, as he says such things as, "...since ancient writers were not in the habit of citing sources, this is a problem Kyle would have with ALL ancient writers..." and, "...I seriously question the 'only one guy reports it' objection, for it would also tend to invalidate most historical claims which are found it but one source." Very well, but this is not your average, ordinary historical claim. All of history (especially ancient history) is open to skepticism, but claims of resurrected deities are going to have to measure up to stricter standards than claims that King X went to war against King Y. This is not to say supernatural events can't happen, but I think it is fair to demand better evidence than Matthew offers before believing them. But perhaps we are starting to hit that darn wall again.

On the bribing issue, I suggested that the guards might risk the excuse of sleeping on duty, rather than admit corruption. JP replies that the penalty for sleeping on duty was death. I believe that was the punishment in the Roman army, but it is far from certain that guards were Roman soldiers. I think it more likely that the guards were members of the local militia under control of the city council. And if the penalty for them sleeping on duty was death, it is odd that the priests would pay the guards to tell such a story. After all, the inevitable question would be: why aren't you dead then?

JP also dismisses my suggestion that the bribed guards could've argued that, for all they knew, they were guarding an empty tomb all along. He indicates that this leads to, "the hypothesis that the stone would have had to be moved out, then back, and then what follows to explain the record being in error." But this is not necessarily true. We can suppose that the stone was only moved once (by the conspiring disciples), and that the guards simply lied to the priests, telling them that Magdalene et al. rolled away the stone in order to anoint Jesus, at which point they discovered an empty tomb. Since the guards had been diligent (wink, wink) in their duty, they could only then assume that they were guarding an empty tomb from the get go.

JP proceeds to run down a list of possible suspects in a body abduction, and rejects them each in turn. He starts with the followers of Jesus. Most of JP's reasoning for acquitting the followers recaps major points from The Impossible Faith, arguing that Christianity could not have spread if there was no resurrection to preach. But that is beside the point, because I have already agreed to that much. So let's get down to the nitty gritty.

JP says, " It is impossible that Christianity thrived and survived while making such audacious claims falsely...", but I argue that we can assume the disciples stuck to the truth whenever possible and only made false claims when necessary in a few key instances (like the rez). This greatly reduces the possibility of being "called out". As for some of the more audacious claims (earthquake, saints rising from their graves, etc), it is unclear how extant such claims were in the preaching of the early church; it is possible that these are instances of invention taught once Christianity already had a strong base of believers, and checking the facts would be much more difficult. JP goes on to say that it would be, "...even more incredible to suppose that such claims were made with the full and continuing knowledge that the result in most cases would be rejection, ostracization, and persecution." But know we are beginning to delve into the psychology of the disciples, which is a murky area to say the least. JP thinks they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose from preaching Christianity. But I'm not so sure. After all, these men came from menial, ho-hum jobs and became part of the Messiah's inner circle. They went from being nobodies to being attached to the most important man in all of history. That had to be a heady sensation, which would be difficult for the