When Skeptic X can't find mistakes in the Bible, he tries to make one appear by hook or by crook. Here's an example of that sort of thing -- the theme of this article is, "Come on, the apostles couldn't possibly have been so dumb as to not know that Jesus was resurrected!"

The operative claim at work here is that the texts indicate that the apostles "had not expected [Jesus'] resurrection," or had a "skepticism of a resurrection" in spite of being told by Jesus that it would happen. On the surface this seems like rather an odd complaint from a skeptic -- by Skeptic X's usual accounting, the apostles should have been skeptical of a resurrection; skeptics usually reserve their greatest admiration for Thomas, the most skeptical of the set, who didn't believe until he had tangible proof! Why should it then be a problem that the apostles were skeptical, if indeed they were? Why is this unbelievable? But we have long learned not to expect consistency of thought from Skeptic X when he thinks that there are sound bites to be bitten. Let's have a look at some of the claims. Skeptic X first supposes he finds "skepticism" in this passage, John 20:9:

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.

Skeptic X first takes the occasion to issue the usual dirge that the OT didn't predict the resurrection at all; for that matter we presently refer the reader here to show just how few hermeneutical hints X has. But indeed, to the main issue. Were the disciples indeed so dense? Probably not -- and X is missing some points here, mainly because, as usual, he lacks the substantive training needed to get the point.

First let's understand exactly what is in John here. The words are "rise again from the dead" -- "rise again" is a word derived from the Greek anistemi. In fact this we will see is the key to the whole issue; the word is commonly used for anyone just getting up from their place. (Matthew 9:9 And he arose, and followed him.) But more on that shortly. Now let's look at X's next example of supposed skepticism:

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

Luke 24:12, sorry folks, doesn't mean skepticism -- the word is thaumazo, and it means to wonder at in the sense of marvelling or admiring. It's the same word used to describe Jesus' positive reaction to the centurion's faith (Matthew 8:10). Peter was amazed at something, indeed a miracle; but what was it? We'll get to that shortly. On the other hand, some of the other passages X notes seem a bit stronger...in English:

Luke 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

Luke 24:37-8 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

There's also the doubting Thomas incident, of course, and the some doubting even before the resurrected Jesus himself (Matthew 28:17). But now let's switch gears, to places where we are told Jesus clearly gave his people the straight dope about him being about to rise from the dead:

From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up (Matt. 16:21).

The word used this time is egeiro -- and this means be roused, or woken up, whether from bed, from death, or from obscurity. This is not as clearly implying a resurrection as you might think it is -- why? Same reason as the other word -- it, too, has a broad meaning, though it is usually used of people who have been sick. (Matthew 8:15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.) Mark, though, subs anistemi on the parallel passage, while Luke follows Matthew, using the same word only once. It is worth pointing out here that all of these writers are writing in hindsight having already seen the resurrected Jesus and touched him, and having preached the gospel for a while -- when Jesus said these words (in Aramaic), they were probably rather more ambiguous. Next up on X's list:

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry (Matt. 17:22-23).

Matthew uses egeiro here; but he uses anistemi in Matthew 20:18-19, which is also found in Mark 9:31 and Luke 18 (twice). Now X admits that in the latter case, the texts say that the disciples didn't get the point, but dismisses this as a discrepancy, because "Matthew clearly indicated that they did understand him." How? Thusly:

The first time they were told, for example, Peter took Jesus aside, rebuked him, and said, "God forbid it Lord! This must never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). The second time Jesus told them, Matthew said that they were "exceedingly sorry," but how could they have been exceedingly sorry about something they didn't even understand?

How indeed? X forgets that most of those predictions were pretty grim -- being executed, notably. That's plenty to be sorry about and to forbid! "But," X replies, "They still knew he would be resurrected, so why be sorry?" Indeed, why be sorry when any person dies? None of us seems to preserve a view of eternity long enough to stop mourning at funerals, even those of us who anticipate a resurrection.

Besides, considering the general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection in those times (Mk. 6:14-16), what was there to misunderstand when a man said he would "rise again" after he had been killed?

What indeed? This is exactly where X is out of his league, because there was something to misunderstand, and our initial John passage holds the clue. As for the above, one wonders how Herod's bewildered exclamations amount to a "general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection"! One man counts as "general acceptance"?? The man on the street didn't seem to have that idea (6:15) at any rate.

I'll tie this knot shortly, but:

On the way to Jerusalem, [Jesus] took them aside, told them that he would be (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, (4) scoured, (5) crucified, and (6) raised on the third day. After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked, (4) scoured, and (5) crucified, yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus's statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected. Why? One would think that if Jesus had really told them to expect all of these things, after witnessing the precise fulfillment of the first five of his predictions, they would have surely expected at least a possibility of the sixth.

There's X not being consistent again. Items 1-5 happened to a lot of Jews in those days; there were plenty of poor folk being bothered, and all kinds of bandits to play with. So, then, where's X's skepticism? If I tell you that I will 1) be arrested 2) go to jail 3) go to trial 4) be found guilty 5) be put in handcuffs 6) be broken out of jail by a flying green quetzalcoatl, does the fulfillment of 1-5 really impress you that #6 is sure to happen? Actually I'm being facetious -- we need to address one more set of points before we bop X on the head with the answer. In this set, he objects that some other folks did apparently get the point, and it seems strange that they did while the disciples didn't. First up:

[The apostles] had to be sought out and told, and even then they considered the news the women brought to them to be only "idle talk" (Luke 24:11). The women were telling them exactly what Jesus had said would happen, and they thought their words were just idle talk!

Indeed! Once again, where's X's usual skepticism? Let's remember that women were regarded as untrustworthy witnesses in this time; who would have put it past them to be imagining things, especially those two angels? That's why Peter did indeed make the trip in the very next verse. Luke 24:7 uses that anistemi again, and X thinks, hey, the women could recall it, but of course they did have an angel reminding them. But it really is moot. Let's move to the next set:

In the conversation that Jesus had with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, Cleopas, after summarizing the events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, clearly indicated that he understood a resurrection was supposed to happen the third day:

But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass (Luke 24:21).

Excuse me, but how does this indicate that Cleopas "understood a resurrection was supposed to happen"? There isn't an anistemi or an egeiro in sight. Maybe X can explain what he means here, but we have one more passage before we pull the big surprise:

Even the enemies of Jesus understood that he had predicted his resurrection. After Jesus had been put into the tomb, they came to Pilate to ask that precautions be taken to prevent a staged fulfillment of the prediction:

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first" (Matt. 28:62-64, NRSV).

So the women remembered that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, the disciples at Emmaus remembered it, and the enemies of Jesus remembered it. Everyone apparently remembered it except Jesus's own handpicked apostles.

X's in for a big surprise, folks. He wants to know: why weren't the apostles, at least one of them, "on the scene themselves that third-day morning at least waiting to see if Jesus would come forth"? For good reason! They weren't expecting a resurrection, all right, but they were expecting something else -- something that would remove the body, but it wouldn't be a resurrection, and there'd be nothing worth sitting and waiting for at the door of the tomb! Time to explain!

Jewish belief of this period had an expectation of resurrection, yes -- but not until the final judgment. The idea of a single person being resurrected before that (and maybe some with him, like Matt's saints) wasn't part of the package.

We have noted that the two words used to describe resurrection in the Gospels, especially anistemi, have more mundane meanings attached to them. When describing the physical resurrection, Paul almost universally uses egeiro (1 Cor. 15) -- he does use anistemi in Rom 14:9, but adds the word anazao, meaning "live again". In Eph. 5:14 he uses anistemi, but pairs it with nekros ("rise from the dead"). In his earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians, he uses anistemi (4:14). But his overall word to refer to resurrection is egeiro -- which is used mainly in the Gospels for people getting up from beds and seats.

Both words are verbs, and they carry a broad meaning -- and they are not term-specific to resurrection. The only word that is term-specific to resurrection is the noun form of anistemi -- and that is anastasis. It is used in the Gospels only with reference to the final resurrection (e.g., Matt. 22:23, "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection...") The others are general-movement words. And now this leads back to our first verse, which is the key to the whole thing:

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, and everyone else (including the chief priests and co.) were not expecting a resurrection -- they were expecting (or for the priests, expecting a claim of) a "taking up" of the 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. And now we see how it is that the disciples misunderstood and were surprised, and how the enemies still wanted the tomb guarded, and why the apostles were still sorry to see Jesus go, and why Jesus had to tell Mary, "I have not yet ascended to the Father", and why the disciples thought they were seeing a spirit -- all parties knew that Jesus predicted the body would be missing; what they didn't get the point on was the mechanism, because there was no room in their belief system for a specific resurrection prior to the general one. They knew he was going, but not that he was coming back so soon!

And so, Skeptic X fades into obscurity, never to anistemi again. It looks like our skeptical friends should have done a bit more homework before letting their mouths egeiro!

Go here for more.

Now as well, an answer from the Ebon website. Ebon as a whole glosses over our perfectly serviceable explanation in favor of surmising that Matthew's report that many saints come out of their graves after Jesus was resurrected should have contributed to an expectation that Jesus would be resurrected. By then, one might suggest, it was a little too late; and there is no indication that any of the saints appeared specifically to the disciples of Jesus and showed themselves off. Indeed Matthew specifies that they came out of their tombs and marched around after the resurrection (27:53). So much for that reading lesson.

Beyond this Ebon can't seem to get the texts to say what he wants them to say. Ebon cites three verses alleged to show that the disciples knew that Jesus would be resurrected on the third day (Mark 8:31; Matthew 20:17-19; Luke 18:31-33). Beg pardon? All three of these use anistemi, and that means Ebon is still no closer to refuting our argument. Indeed Luke even says, "And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Matthew's account is a parallel without the condemnation, and Mark has Jesus rebuking Peter for refusing to accept what Jesus had said. Rather than providing evidence that the disciples understood that Jesus was to be resurrected three days subsequent to his death in a bodily manner, the verses cited by Ebon establish quite the opposite: The disciples were taught, but did not comprehend the teaching at the time, even to the point (with Peter) of vehemently protesting it. Ebon doesn't even begin to approach the issue at the level of our reply, and his attempt to critique our reply serves only to emphasize Ebon's failure to acquire a basic understanding of the issues he presumes to tackle.

Ebon also tries a backdoor of arguing about what was believed about resurrection in Mark 6:15//Luke 9:7. He apparently neglected to click the bottom link where we gigged Skeptic X for the same error. And then there's this: "What precisely in this verse excludes the idea of still other people having the idea that John the Baptist had been resurrected? (Wouldn't such a thing be required if he was in fact Elijah?)" Nope. See here and see if you can grasp the application. He also needs to see what we said to Skeptic X on the same remark about the 1-5 miracles.

Beyond this Ebon feigns astonishment at our supposition that perhaps Jesus' original words were more ambiguous in Aramaic. If he has a real answer other than posturing, let him study Aramaic words for resurrection. Our supposition is based on the simple point that the Greek words chosen were deliberately not anastasis specifically, the noun meaning resurrection. How else could the Gospels preserve an ambiguity in the original statements by Jesus? Is this that hard to figure?

When he finally does get to our answer that Jesus' disciples expected an ascension, Ebon screeds about how sorry he feels for being able to respond so easily to this. Ah, the ravings of the uneducated hillbilly who thinks nothing as heavy as a plane can possibly fly. Ebon yanks up "the raising of Jairus' daughter, the raising of Lazarus, and the raising of the dead saints" -- the first two, of which, excuse me, were not "resurrections" as the word is properly defined in a Jewish context (and the third of which, as we have seen, was not given with any advance notice). From there Ebon blabbers on for a while using this assumed-right argument as a basis, but it is all a sham. It seems Ebon is as bad at Skeptic X in terms of playing games of linguistic equivocation.

Ebon's final slosh into the mix is to cite John 20:2-15, where he notes that Mary thinks that Jesus' body had been moved, and so was not apparently expecting an ascension. This is rather ironic, since as I note, this section contains two of the stronges passages suggesting an ascension was expected by the disciples; beyond that it might be noted that we have no indication that Mary Magdelene was ever present for any of Jesus' teachings on the subject. She is seen to travel with Jesus on one trip (Luke 8:2), but otherwise, never makes an appearance until tomb time. If Jesus operated in a typical teacher-disciple paradigm for the ancient world, then a woman would not have usually joined in the teaching sesssions; beyond that, ancient teachers typically kept certain teachings only for an inner circle of disciples. Mary's lack of knowledge, and for that matter the perplexity of the other women in Luke 24:4 (though the word refers more to a state of mind of, "Well, great, now what do we do?" -- and does not specify the reason for the perplexity -- did they think they had come to the wrong place, for example?), doesn't mean a whole lot once the broader context of the ancient world (which Ebon sees fit to ignore) is allowed into the picture.