Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

Not only that, but they made some wild stretches to make it seem like Jesus was fulfilling prophecies that sometimes weren't even prophetic or had nothing to do with some future messiah to begin with. So it sort of looks like they ran out of prophecies and started grabbing any Old Testament verse that they could get their hands on.

Actually, as far as I know, evangelists used normal hermeneutical method of the day.

[Looking4Answers]

Actually, as far as I know, evangelists used normal hermeneutical method of the day.

 

The hermeneutic of the day, huh? Are you sure you didn't mean of the minute? There was a hermeneutical war between Jewish literalism, Greek allegory and a mutant between the two! And even the Jewish literalists couldn't agree one with another. One camp, like the Sadducees took the laws of Moses literally, but rejected things like miracles, angels and the resurrection. They would quickly want to stone the adulterer and the adulteress. Another camp, like the Pharisees, were more allegorical in their understanding of things like the law, but believed in miracles and the like. But they would allow the adulterer and adulteress to go free, interpreting the law of Moses to mean that the god of Israel wanted reform and did not literally mean for people to be stoned!

 

And then there were all these splinter groups, like the Essene, who had their own methods of interpreting the Scriptures. They couldn't agree with anyone else, so they had to separate themselves out in the middle of nowhere, content to let the rest of the world go to hell (according to their own beliefs) while they sought, as a commune, to be the sons of light.

 

Then the Greeks were in the mix as well. They liked to worship this, that and whatever they could imagine. And they liked to take what they found and mix it with what they already had! So Old Testament stories were told right along side stories about Hercules and the 20,000+ other gods they had piled up. And their joy in the telling was quite catching to many of the Jews who were quite well adapted to the Greek culture. As they became more Hellenized, more and more Greek ideas would mix in with whatever brand of Judaism they had ever so loosely clung to.

 

Yea, they used the hermeneutical method of the day ... and they had dozens of hermeneutical methods to choose from! Then along came Paul ... and yet another got added to the list ...

[Badger]

I mean it was common practise among the Jews to interpret the OT (or the Hebrew Bible) typologically, and the evangelists, most notably Matthew, followed the same method. We can't blame them using standards of their day.

[Badger]

Why not? Don't you believe enough in the story? Are you telling me that you do have some doubt? I thought you're arguing that this story is evident and without any doubt at all?

Yes, I do have doubts. Faith and doubt are my friends.

[Badger]

So you can present all the historical evidence you want and all the historians you want and when they say "belief" all this means is the historians are saying that they (ie. the disciples) believed something happened and not that they (ie. the historians) believe (or know) something happened. These are very different.

Indeed they are. I quoted Ehrman, along with some others, to support the claim that it is historical fact that the disciples believed Jesus' resurrection.

[Ouroboros]

Why not? Don't you believe enough in the story? Are you telling me that you do have some doubt? I thought you're arguing that this story is evident and without any doubt at all?

Yes, I do have doubts. Faith and doubt are my friends.

Very good. I commend you for that.

[Looking4Answers]

I mean it was common practise among the Jews to interpret the OT (or the Hebrew Bible) typologically, and the evangelists, most notably Matthew, followed the same method. We can't blame them using standards of their day.

 

It was not the common practice. That was a part of the point of my last post. There were a variety of ways of understanding the Scriptures (Old Testament). Some did rely on types, some did not. Some looked for a literal person to be the messiah, some did not. Some relied heavily on symbolism, some on literalism. It was a mixed bag back in Jesus' day (and well before) and was often such a point of contention that sword would be drawn against sword in order to prove a point (no pun intended).

 

A lot of Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament was focused on reading what was NOT written in the text. They would look at Noah, for example, and despite him being saved on the arc, would declare that he was disobedient to god. Why? Because they would extrapolate from B'resheet (Genesis) that Noah waited until the water was ankle deep before entering the arc. And all this was derived from the little statement that god closed the door to the arc. Nowhere does it indicate that Noah waited until the waters were up to his ankles before entering the arc. But they derive this from what little information is there and some word or other being used in the Hebrew and, in some cases, numerology (the taking of the numeric values of letters and words and using a formula to derive new words from the actual words and, as a result, find hidden meaning in texts).

 

Matthew's Gospel did not necessarily follow the common practice of the day. It seems that he may have broken a few common rules himself (if there were any common rules).

[Looking4Answers]

I quoted Ehrman, along with some others, to support the claim that it is historical fact that the disciples believed Jesus' resurrection.

 

I have a real problem with this (as I am sure you would guess). How can anyone know what the disciples believed or not? We cannot even verify that they existed, let alone what they believed. All we have is a set of religious texts TELLING US what they supposedly said, what they supposedly did and what they supposedly believed. This does not, in and of itself, make it historical and certainly does not make it a historical fact. Ehrman and others may say this, but they are on shaky ground, I would think.

[Ouroboros]

I quoted Ehrman, along with some others, to support the claim that it is historical fact that the disciples believed Jesus' resurrection.

 

I have a real problem with this (as I am sure you would guess). How can anyone know what the disciples believed or not? We cannot even verify that they existed, let alone what they believed. All we have is a set of religious texts TELLING US what they supposedly said, what they supposedly did and what they supposedly believed. This does not, in and of itself, make it historical and certainly does not make it a historical fact. Ehrman and others may say this, but they are on shaky ground, I would think.

I think when apologists claim that they know the disciples believed in the resurrection, it's based on the inductive argument that there was indeed a movement, and the movement did indeed believe, and even died for their belief, and hence (so they claim) the first disciples would have believed the same thing. The question I hear is, "Why would anyone die willingly for something they knew was false?"

 

But my thoughts are, how do we know that the first disciples died as martyrs? How do we know that the ones who came up with the lie are the same ones who died willingly? There's an assumption there that the stories about some apostle Mark, or John, or whatever, being killed this or that way, are the same people who also walked with Jesus. It's just as possible (considering that those names were extremely common) that there's a mixup, or perhaps a later generation of disciples. We know that Paul in one verse talks about the 12 and in the next verse talks about the apostles, like they were different people, so there is a big chance that the first disciples died a natural death or perhaps killed in 70 AD, but for completely different reasons, and the apostles begin other first generation followers who blindly believed their predecessors story.

[Looking4Answers]

But my thoughts are, how do we know that the first disciples died as martyrs? How do we know that the ones who came up with the lie are the same ones who died willingly? There's an assumption there that the stories about some apostle Mark, or John, or whatever, being killed this or that way, are the same people who also walked with Jesus. It's just as possible (considering that those names were extremely common) that there's a mixup, or perhaps a later generation of disciples.

 

We don't even know that any of them died as martyrs. All we have is tradition. And a lot of this tradition was popularized in the 1600's through books like Martyr's Mirror and Fox's book of Martyrs. Much of the purpose of these books was not to so much prove the death of the saints, but to speak out against the Catholic church, making them seem like the villains throughout all history since the time of Christ.

[Ouroboros]

We don't even know that any of them died as martyrs.

That too. But I thought some (or a few of them) were documented in some old journals from that time, like Roman documents, or whatever. So you're telling me that there's no documentation on their martyrdom either?

[Looking4Answers]

So you're telling me that there's no documentation on their martyrdom either?

 

Frankly, I have not researched the subject enough to say that for certain. I do know that the subject of gathering this information became really popular in the 1600's, resulting in the publication of both Martyr's Mirror and Fox's Book of Martyrs. They certainly did draw on earlier texts to compile their works, but how historical were the texts they used? How much of the information was drawn from the writings of earlier Christians and not from, say, actual Roman execution orders? If you read the accounts, they are a bit too ... complete. It is like the Roman officials documented every single word uttered.

 

In Martyr's Mirror many of the supposed documents claimed as reference were supposed Roman court documents that were purchased by believers after a saint's execution in order to preserve the memory of the dead. This, in and of itself, is suspect. Were documents that plentiful that the Roman government wrote down every single word that the tortured were saying? Were they that plentiful that so many of these supposed documents could be purchased because they were cheap enough that a local assembly of believers could afford them? And where are these documents today? Why do they only appear in these Christian works? Or are they still out there somewhere?

 

The saints looked so saintly and the others so evil and obstinate in these works. It is hard to read this material without thinking that it is nothing more than propaganda ... which is what it was. So the material is suspect and their source material is suspect as well (from what I remember).

[Ouroboros]

Well, it doesn't surprise me.

 

Which just undermines the argument for the "martyrs don't die for lies," since it's not even obvious if they did.

[Looking4Answers]

When I was deep in my faith, I used to read Martyr's Mirror like one would read a novel. I couldn't put it down. But I was always struck with the amount of detail contained in many of the accounts ... like they were a story being told to elicit an emotion. In many cases the doomed individuals were tried on a specific belief or doctrine and an argument would ensue where the doomed saint would speak up for or defend the doctrine against the statements of their accusers. Now it all seems quite contrived.

[Badger]

It was not the common practice.

"Biblical interpretation in the New Testament church shows in a remarkable way the Jewishness of earliest Christianity. It followed exegetical methods common to Judaism and drew its perspective and presuppositions from Jewish backgrounds," claims Edward Ellis (The Old Testament in early Christianity, 121) Ellis recognizes, however, that early Christian's christological exposition of the Scripture, totally focusing upon Jesus as the Messiah, differed from that of other religious groups and theologies in Judaism. Richard Longenecker makes similar statement. "The early Christians used many of the same exegetical procedures as were common within the various branches of then contemporary Judaism, and that they did so quite naturally and unconsciously." (in G. K. Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, 384)

 

Here is interesting survey about typological interpretation in Judaism and Christianity > http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html

[Badger]

I have a real problem with this (as I am sure you would guess). How can anyone know what the disciples believed or not?

I have answered to this question already. I will cite myself,

The linguistic data shows the material recorded in 1 Cor 15:3-7 is actually early creed or tradition; this is also affirmed by Paul's claim the material is not his own, but he had received it instead. Critical scholars dates this piece of tradition to within five years of the crucifixion. For instance, Jesus Seminar dates it no later than AD 33, and Gerd Ludeman concludes the "tradition mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE." (Resurrection of Jesus, 38) Furthermore, there are other passages as well containing early traditions where the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus are present. "The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place." (John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99) What generated this bold belief in Jesus' resurrection rather soon after his death? Here recent scholars generally agree: it was because of the disciples experiences, which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Ehrman puts it this way, "We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that... he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead." (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 230)

[mwc]

Indeed they are. I quoted Ehrman, along with some others, to support the claim that it is historical fact that the disciples believed Jesus' resurrection.

All questions of the disciples aside...what relevance is there to the report that the disciples believed in the resurrection?

 

What I am saying is there are second hand reports (this is what the texts we have are) that the disciples believed that a resurrection happened.

 

When my wife was young she went to a Scientologist school. When LRH died they announced it and let it be known to everyone that he had went on to his "spirit life" (they put it in their own terms which I don't recall but my wife does). They all believed, on that very day, that LRH had accomplished the very thing he said that he would do, the church promised he would do and that everyone could also do. They were saddened but extremely happy that he had made this decision (yes, it was his decision to die and leave his body). He is supposedly going to return just as "jesus" will but this is another issue.

 

What I am pointing out to you is that I have, within my life, an example of people that believed that their leader did a promised thing exactly as he said that he would. They believed it on that very day. It didn't take days, weeks, months or years. It took moments. There is nothing unique in the story of "jesus" that I've not heard in the story of LRH. Nothing. It's a slightly different (ie. the physical resurrection aspect) but the point where the followers immediately believe "something" is the same.

 

Should all the historians of the world gather and look at this epic event they should notice that LRH's "disciples" also believed in his "transcendence" (I should look to see what they call this but it's really beside the point). Does that make it so? Or does it simply make their belief so? Only the latter of course. So what does that prove?

 

mwc

[Badger]

It raises some questions like what caused those phenomena? However, it does not prove much by itself. We may always speculate that they experienced some kind of hallucinations or visions. Therefore this fact should not be separeted from other relevant events or factors.

[mwc]

It raises some questions like what caused those phenomena? However, it does not prove much by itself. We may always speculate that they experienced some kind of hallucinations or visions. Therefore this fact should not be separeted from other relevant events or factors.

But the Scientologists believed, not because of hallucinations or anything of that nature, but simply because that was what was supposed to happen. It happened because it happened. We're told that "jesus" told them time and time again but they didn't understand what he meant and then after they saw him they "got it."

 

Well, the Scientologists "got it" too. Right away. LRH died and it took a very simple explanation. The leaders said it and the rest "got it." Why? Because the leaders said it. Amazing. So did LRH tell the leaders what would happen when he died and they only "got it" when he died? Maybe. Or perhaps he wrote a letter to be opened upon his death and then the one who read it "got it" and passed that information on to the rest who also "got it." It doesn't matter. He died. The information went out. They "got it."

 

It's a modern example of the phenomenon. It took moments for it to happen. The church existed for years. Then he died. Then this new information is incorporated. No problem. If the leaders suddenly sent out a memo that they got a message from LRH stating something I'm sure it would be incorporated the same way. It's a matter of belief and not fact. It doesn't have to make sense nor does it have to be based in reality. No memo needs to come from LRH it can be invented whole cloth. They just need to make the claim and state they got it from LRH and believe it accurate.

 

Compare this to the stories of gospels where the "jesus" only appears to the select group. Paul makes a contradictory claim of course but it's still only to "believers." The "believers" think LRH accomplished his goal but they cannot present someone like me with any evidence. Nothing. Just the announcement. I guess it is true then? Not that he is simply dead but that he did what he said he would in death as well? You assert a similar claim. If taken as absolutely true you wind up in a similar position only 2000 years removed.

 

So understand that all belief is based upon belief of belief. Nothing more. You believe the story of a believer (an anonymous believer at that). You don't believe in any direct evidence. There is none. You are the Scientologist sitting in the audience when the leaders came out and announced that LRH had moved on to do his work without his body and you believed that announcement and rejoiced even though there was no evidence. You are the same. Exactly the same. And when you tell me that "jesus" is off somewhere doing something and will return you are the same as the Scientologist that tells me that LRH is off somewhere doing something and will return. The very same.

 

mwc

[Badger]

But the Scientologists believed, not because of hallucinations or anything of that nature, but simply because that was what was supposed to happen. It happened because it happened. We're told that "jesus" told them time and time again but they didn't understand what he meant and then after they saw him they "got it."

The resurrection, in Second Temple Judaism, was supposed to happen in the end of the world, not after three days. Jewish concept(s) of resurrection differed notably from early Christian belief, while there was some correspondence. Well, I'm sure you know all this. Quite naturally the disciples weren't expecting such a resurrection.

 

So understand that all belief is based upon belief of belief. Nothing more. You believe the story of a believer (an anonymous believer at that). You don't believe in any direct evidence. There is none. You are the Scientologist sitting in the audience when the leaders came out and announced that LRH had moved on to do his work without his body and you believed that announcement and rejoiced even though there was no evidence. You are the same. Exactly the same. And when you tell me that "jesus" is off somewhere doing something and will return you are the same as the Scientologist that tells me that LRH is off somewhere doing something and will return. The very same.

That's bad analogy. I'm not scientologist any more than Ehrman, Funk, Koester, Sanders, and so on. They all grant that the disciples thought that they saw Risen Jesus and were convinced that he is not death but very alive. Moreover, in my last post I just told you this fact does not stand alone.

[mwc]

The resurrection, in Second Temple Judaism, was supposed to happen in the end of the world, not after three days. Jewish concept(s) of resurrection differed notably from early Christian belief, while there was some correspondence. Well, I'm sure you know all this. Quite naturally the disciples weren't expecting such a resurrection.

No. The disciples were told more than once of a resurrection.

Matthew 16:21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

This is just one example. I'm not going to bother posting them all. The teaching existed. Supposedly he was teaching it himself. That they understood it is beside the point. That it was being taught is what is important.

 

However, it must have been understood at some level because there is the following:

63 and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, "After three days I will rise again.' 64 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."

Even those who weren't his disciples had heard the teaching and understood it to mean a resurrection event of some kind. They weren't confused or bound by the strict Jewish interpretation of resurrection it would appear otherwise they would think that all tombs would be opened (and G.Matthew indicates that the tombs of the "saints" were and they walked about which is one idea of a Jewish resurrection so it's not far fetched but, again, off point).

 

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

As you can see the final message from the author of Matthew is that even upon seeing "jesus" with their own eyes that some of them doubted. How can this be? It's never clarified nor resolved. Of course G.Matthew does not involve an ascension nor do any of the 11 go to the empty tomb. The women are the only visitors and they instruct the men to go to the mountain in Galilee where some remain unconvinced.

 

What key elements are important here? They are all convinced by the women to go to Galilee. The women claim something happened and the men trust the women and go (a reasonable distance but essentially back home). Once there they "see" their resurrected master but this fails to convince all of them. The women are actually more convincing than "jesus" otherwise they wouldn't have even went up the mountain.

 

That's bad analogy. I'm not scientologist any more than Ehrman, Funk, Koester, Sanders, and so on. They all grant that the disciples thought that they saw Risen Jesus and were convinced that he is not death but very alive. Moreover, in my last post I just told you this fact does not stand alone.

Did they? Did the disciples think that? Only in some versions of the story it would seem. I believe I've pointed out how they may not have all been convinced in G.Matthew.

 

As for the rest, if you think that I actually claimed you, or any of the rest, were actually Scientologists then you misunderstood. You and they are the same and what you write seems to indicate that you understand that much.

 

mwc

[Badger]

This is just one example. I'm not going to bother posting them all. The teaching existed. Supposedly he was teaching it himself. That they understood it is beside the point. That it was being taught is what is important.

What does this prove?

 

As you can see the final message from the author of Matthew is that even upon seeing "jesus" with their own eyes that some of them doubted. How can this be? It's never clarified nor resolved.

I think it is only to be expected that the eleven would have been in a state of hesitation and indecision; they found themselves in "a situation of cognitive dissonance par excellence" (Walsh and Keesmaat, quoted from Word Biblical Commentary)

[mwc]

This is just one example. I'm not going to bother posting them all. The teaching existed. Supposedly he was teaching it himself. That they understood it is beside the point. That it was being taught is what is important.

What does this prove?

What does it prove? I'll separate the quotes so that hopefully it is more clear.

 

I said:

But the Scientologists believed, not because of hallucinations or anything of that nature, but simply because that was what was supposed to happen. It happened because it happened. We're told that "jesus" told them time and time again but they didn't understand what he meant and then after they saw him they "got it."

 

Then you said:

The resurrection, in Second Temple Judaism, was supposed to happen in the end of the world, not after three days. Jewish concept(s) of resurrection differed notably from early Christian belief, while there was some correspondence. Well, I'm sure you know all this. Quite naturally the disciples weren't expecting such a resurrection.

You see? It proves the teaching came before the supposed event. What you had to say about Jewish resurrection is not important. There was a new teaching supposedly presented to the disciples. Whether or not they fully comprehended it is beside the point. That it was taught and in their minds is what is important. That they could recognize it when it/if occurred is what is important. So to specifically have "jesus" say that he will die, be resurrected in three days and do this prior to the event is the important part. Otherwise we could understand the disciples being surprised at what was to have taken place. They would have naturally expected a Jewish resurrection involving all people at the end of the world.

 

The parallel is that the Scientologists were not all privy to the "big picture" but they had enough information so that when the "big day" came and the announcement was made they simply accepted it as what was supposed to occur. If some had their doubts perhaps the others "explained" them away? Who knows? But the parallel exists.

 

I think it is only to be expected that the eleven would have been in a state of hesitation and indecision; they found themselves in "a situation of cognitive dissonance par excellence" (Walsh and Keesmaat, quoted from Word Biblical Commentary)

Hesitation? Indecision? "17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." I could be wrong but "saw him...worshiped him" doesn't indicate either of those things to me. No "cognitive dissonance par excellence" here (except maybe on the part of Walsh and Keesmaat). Since "some doubted" is never explained by G.Matthew we cannot know what the author meant or how it is resolved.

 

In the short ending of G.Mark nothing happens with the disciples. It's cut off though it's similar to G.Matthew (ie. everyone is supposed to meet in Galilee). The longer ending seems to ignore that and he ends up chastising the disciples for not believing the reports of the others. How convenient. Believe the believers or "jesus" will be angry is the message. And that's what we're still told today.

 

The other two gospels expand on this. G.Luke makes a point to believe because of what the "prophets" wrote (ie. prophecy derived from the Jewish texts are evidence of "jesus"). And G.John has his own unique take but it boils down to doubting Thomas and people who believe without seeing are better off. This is a fairly common theme played out through the texts.

 

So it's not just the disciples doing it because the were suffering from a lack of knowledge on "jesus'" brand of resurrection. Even the local Jews in power understood it well enough to want to post guards. It's not from "cognitive dissonance par excellence" since they "saw him" and "worshiped him." It would appear that at times, since the story can't be properly resolved, they had doubts and that's because the idea of believing the believers needed to be instilled. This was, and is, a very important lesson and one you're trying to teach me. I just refuse to learn it (again).

 

mwc

[Badger]

It proves the teaching came before the supposed event. What you had to say about Jewish resurrection is not important. There was a new teaching supposedly presented to the disciples. Whether or not they fully comprehended it is beside the point. That it was taught and in their minds is what is important. That they could recognize it when it/if occurred is what is important. So to specifically have "jesus" say that he will die, be resurrected in three days and do this prior to the event is the important part.

It sounds like the tomb was found empty and the disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus simply because Jesus had taught this will happen. Maybe he happened to predict all this.

 

The parallel is that the Scientologists were not all privy to the "big picture" but they had enough information so that when the "big day" came and the announcement was made they simply accepted it as what was supposed to occur. If some had their doubts perhaps the others "explained" them away? Who knows? But the parallel exists.

It does not explain the empty tomb or post-mortem appearances.

 

Hesitation? Indecision? "17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." I could be wrong but "saw him...worshiped him" doesn't indicate either of those things to me. No "cognitive dissonance par excellence" here (except maybe on the part of Walsh and Keesmaat). Since "some doubted" is never explained by G.Matthew we cannot know what the author meant or how it is resolved.

The key to a proper understanding of the statement is the definition of the verb

distazein

. To begin with, it must be stressed that the verb does not refer to unbelief, nor even perplexity. As I. P. Ellis has pointed out, the evangelist had available

apistein

for "disbelieve" and

aporein

for "be perplexed." The word occurs in the NT only here and in 14:31. In the latter passage, Peter walks on the water until he sees the wind and becomes afraid. Then Jesus addresses him as

oligopiste

, "O little faith," and asks

eis ti edistasas

, "Why did you doubt?" The doubt here amounts to hesitation, indecision (Ellis documents this meaning of the word in Plato and Aristotle), and perhaps uncertainty. In Peter's case the doubt indicates a divided mind brought about by a lack of an adequate measure of faith, not a lack of faith altogether. This appears to be somewhat, but not altogether, different from the reference to

dialogismoi

, "doubts," that were arising in the hearts of the disciples as they confronted the risen Jesus according to Luke 24:38. To be noted, incidentally, is the fact that a few lines later Luke can refer to a combination of

apistounton

, "disbelieving," and

charas

, "joy," in the minds of (all, not some) of the disciples (Luke 24:41).

[mwc]

It sounds like the tomb was found empty and the disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus simply because Jesus had taught this will happen. Maybe he happened to predict all this.

Predict? As in special pleading? Then, yes, predict. Otherwise, no.

 

It does not explain the empty tomb or post-mortem appearances.

It does unless you desire a 1 to 1 explanation of events and then it does not. Since that appears to be what you seek then you will very likely remain safe knowing that you will not be confronted with such a parallel.

 

The key to a proper understanding of the statement is the definition of the verb distazein. To begin with, it must be stressed that the verb does not refer to unbelief, nor even perplexity. As I. P. Ellis has pointed out, the evangelist had available apistein for "disbelieve" and aporein for "be perplexed." The word occurs in the NT only here and in 14:31. In the latter passage, Peter walks on the water until he sees the wind and becomes afraid. Then Jesus addresses him as oligopiste, "O little faith," and asks eis ti edistasas, "Why did you doubt?" The doubt here amounts to hesitation, indecision (Ellis documents this meaning of the word in Plato and Aristotle), and perhaps uncertainty. In Peter's case the doubt indicates a divided mind brought about by a lack of an adequate measure of faith, not a lack of faith altogether. This appears to be somewhat, but not altogether, different from the reference to dialogismoi, "doubts," that were arising in the hearts of the disciples as they confronted the risen Jesus according to Luke 24:38. To be noted, incidentally, is the fact that a few lines later Luke can refer to a combination of apistounton, "disbelieving," and charas, "joy," in the minds of (all, not some) of the disciples (Luke 24:41).[/indent]

So I have to once again argue against an "expert" that isn't even involved in the discussion? Okay.

 

I don't recall stating anything about "disbelief" or "perplexity." Since we still utilize the same essential definition (ie. to be uncertain or undecided) today I see no problem here as far as the definition of the word is concerned.

 

What I stated was that some "doubted." I also stated that the author of G.Matthew does not resolve this. You are attempting to resolve this matter but that is something entirely different. If you can show me in the text of G.Matthew where this is addressed I would be grateful. I know you cannot do this though.

 

So the verse stands. The eleven go to the mountain. They "see" (and the word used is a tricky one as it is where we get "video" but it is used for both literally seeing something as well as simply "perceiving" something and commonly used for visions and the like) "jesus" and lay themselves prostrate like dogs (ie. to worshiping). But some are "doubtful" (ie. they are undecided, hesitant, unconvinced...you pick the word you like).

 

Some of the disciples "see" and "worship" and some do not. The author then moves on without addressing this further.

 

My comments on the other gospel authors was simply to note that I am aware of their views and not to harmonize the stories.

 

mwc