"The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective" Critical Book Review -- Part 3: Gospel Contradictions?

Twelve Disciples after the Crucifixion? (And "three days")
Lapide presents a reason to distrust the New Testament as the word of God, from 1 Corinthians 15:5: "'The twelve' as a closed group of the first witnesses include also Judas -- this both agrees with the consciousness of Jesus to be sent to all of Israel and contradicts the supposed suicide of Judas (Matt. 27:5)." (page 98-99)

I had never thought of that until I read it just then. It makes sense: the tale of Judas is a legend, and so Paul didn't know about it. However, Lapide's own book helped me come up with a reasonable response.

"'On the third day' has nothing to do with the date or with the counting of time but contains for ears which are educated biblically a clear reference to God's mercy and grace which is revealed after two days of affliction and death by way of redemption." (page 92)

(Some people charge the Bible is wrong to say Jesus was in the tomb "for three days" when He really was dead for only one full day, two full nights, and part of two days. One answer is how it's much simpler to say "the Messiah must suffer, die, and on the third day, rise" than "the Messiah must suffer, die, and after one full day, two full nights, and part of two days, rise." We often refer to being gone from our house, say 10 to 5, as being "out all day," even though, completely literally, that's incorrect.)

So what if, like "the third day," the reference to a dozen of Disciples was just the ingrained name for their group, whether or not it was completely literally correct? Christian apologist J.P. Moreland points out one of the pieces of evidence that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an early creed: the phrase "the twelve" is very Jewish, pre-Pauline, primitive, and early(1).

Interestingly enough, Bart Ehrman also seems to favor my idea:

"The fact that Paul speaks of 'the twelve' as having seen Jesus at the resurrection means either that he does not know the stories about Judas (as was possibly true of Mark and John as well) or, as I have suggested, that the name 'the twelve' was attached to this group as a group, even when one of them was no longer with them." (2)

Now I must pause for a moment from continuing onto more Bible difficulties. I have seen miracles in my life when I write and study. I don't remember very many specifics about anything prior to this blog at the beginning of 2020, but still can recall the main points. Often, Barnes and Noble would have a sale when I would want to buy books, and once my mother swung by Bi-Mart and discovered B&N giftcards were 20 percent off! Since my mom already gets an educator discount, I got 20% off, and then 20% more, and then 20% more. Also, when I was writing stuff these last couple years, every once in a while, for some reason, I would crack the book open to find something, and it would just fall onto the exact page I was looking for.

Then, as of this year, I can recall getting an exact page by just opening a book only once, but have "just happened" to find good sources to quote in my posts. From part 1 of this Blog Project, I wasn't looking for the quote from Paul Meets Muhammad. Furthermore, before I came across Lapide's argument of growing legend in the Gospel accounts, Licona had Muhammad cite it, reminding me before I was planning to write about it. I was searching for a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer from Ravi Zacharias for here, but instead came across his presentation of Corinth instead, which was perfect for the very next post I was planning to write. I then remembered when I had first read Zacharias's book about a year ago that it would have been good to cite it when talking about the troublesome passages from 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. Finally, I was about to put Ehrman's book down, when my eyes "coincidentally" fell upon the quote above.

Can Jesus be God and also Feel Distant from Himself?
Mark 15:34, 37 And at three in the afternoon, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" ... With a loud cry, Jesus breathed His last.

Lapide said, "The best proof for the solid faith in the resurrection is probably the realistic way in which the two oldest Gospels describe the painful death and Jesus' cry of despair on the cross" (page 109-110)

He cites: "The cry of despair on the cross (Mark 15:34) argues for this theory. The divine intervention which the Lord expected for the moment of the greatest need failed to appear." (page 68) The theory is that Jesus expected His parousia at the cross, to be revealed as the glorified Son of Man. But He was wrong. It didn't happen.

For the Christian, they have to ask, considering their theology that Jesus always has been God, how does His question here make sense? How could Jesus ever despair?

First we must take into account what Jesus being part of the Trinity means. He has the Divine nature, and also a human one. How this entirely works is beyond humans, but we do know that it means Jesus could never sin. As a man alone He could, but He isn't a man alone. Therefore He has a separate essence which is to be considered, but not profaned.

I learned from Randy Alcorn's If God is Good (see this post for information about the subject of evil) that despair is a lost hope, an evil stage after simply being depressed and/or disappointed. So Jesus didn't despair because as God He knew no hope was lost, contrary to what Lapide and his source think.

Instead, Jesus was citing verse 1 from Psalm 22, which is basically the narrative of His last days on earth. The question asked doesn't mean that God made a mistake, or that He had no answer. Rather, I think it is quite clear. When God the Father's Son took on the sins of the world, He had to look away and leave Jesus alone, for Him to die. So the Father did "forsake" Jesus at Golgotha, because Jesus had done nothing wrong yet endured the most excruciating death ever invented. And all three beings in the unity of God knew that answer, and had planned the crucifixion even before sin entered the world.

Finally, Jesus's human nature leaves a perfect opening to express Himself in such a way. He is enduring unimaginable physical pain, but that is outweighed by the Perfect One being separated, for the first and only time in all of reality, from His Father whom He loves.

(A defense of the Trinity is coming up, next post!)

The Resurrection Narratives are False because They Contradict Each Other

I have already dealt with the events at the empty tomb elsewhere, where I point out that contradictions in historical accounts don't debunk any subject that everyone who mentions it agree on. So this charge as a historical objection doesn't necessitate complete error in tales about the Disciples seeing Jesus.

Lapide observes: "The location of the resurrection appearances was Galilee according to Mark and Matthew; Jerusalem according to Luke. ...neither Mark nor Matthew speaks of appearances in Jerusalem nor does Luke mention any in Galilee; and in the Acts of the Apostles, also ascribed to Luke, the Risen One charged the disciples explicitly 'not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father' (Acts 1:4). Luke thus is familiar only with appearances in and near Jerusalem; he does not know anything about the appearances in Galilee." (page 113)

For starters, just because Luke doesn't mention something, doesn't mean he doesn't know about it. Attempting to back up that assumption however with Acts 1:4, see also Luke 24:49, is more plausible. Isn't it a mistake for Jesus to tell His Disciples to not leave Jerusalem, but then appear to them in Galilee?

I am indebted to the insights of Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe who deal with some supposed errors of Jesus's resurrection(3). The command to "tarry" (the word in their translation) means to make Jerusalem their headquarters, and doesn't reserve them from leaving on short trips. There is time, because Acts 1:3 says He appeared to the apostles over a period of forty days. Interestingly enough, had Luke thought that they couldn't leave Jerusalem, his wording of events in Acts 1:12 sure is weird. He bothers to mention the apostles "returned to Jerusalem." Sure, the Mount of Olives is right outside the city, but they still had left it. If he wanted to make the point that they shouldn't ever leave Jerusalem, why even include that wording? (This point, by itself, I don't believe proves my thoughts; it just is plausible and keeps the Bible from being disproven.)

Next question. Mark and Matthew both say the Disciples should go to Galilee, where they will see Jesus. Then why does He appear to them on the road to Emmaus, and in Jerusalem?

I was sitting on my bed yesterday, all comfortable (this stay-at-home order has given me a lot of time for that), recording these answers on paper to prevent eyestrain, when suddenly I got a stroke of genius. I couldn't believe I hadn't thought of it before, or that the idea had to pop into my head suddenly instead of through gradual, cool, rationalistic thought. (Interestingly enough, the night before I was hit with a great idea that I also could have thought of earlier, which I will present in probably two posts.)

As you may already know, from me or other sources, one piece of evidence for the empty tomb is how a woman's testimony would damage, not support, a story. Pinchas Lapide points out: "In a purely fictional narrative one would have avoided making women the crown witnesses of the resurrection since they were considered in rabbinic Judaism as incapable of giving valid testimony (compare Luke 24:11)." (page 95)

Luke 24:11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

Where the Disciples should have believed them because Jesus said He would rise again, instead the eleven were all hiding away in Jerusalem, and Peter (more specifically, Simon Peter) was left wondering what had happened to the body for a time even after he had visited its former resting place (24:12, 33-3; 1 Corinthians 15:5).

So it makes sense that when you read the last chapter of Luke's Gospel, Jesus spends a lot of time tending to their doubt, with His appearances and quoting scripture. He couldn't get them to believe the women and go to Galilee.

This deals with all of Lapide's objections. However, my research to come up with answers also created more questions, some including the non-synoptic Gospel of John.

The second problem Geisler and Howe answer is whether or not Jesus ascended from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:9, 12) or Bethany (Luke 24:50). Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, and so Luke, who wrote both passages and wouldn't contradict himself, saw no problem associating Bethany with the Mount as a general location. There has been times in Acts where he doesn't use the completely formal geographical naming. As a matter of fact, my NIV translation usefully says Jesus led them to "the vicinity of Bethany." (I am not assuming Luke wrote both. That Luke-Acts had the same author is generally granted even by skeptical scholars. See the very beginning of each book. Also, I am planning on publishing a couple of posts all about the Acts of the Apostles sometime in the next couple of months.)

Now, in John 20, when He first appears to the Disciples is clearly the same event as in Luke. It was on the evening of the first day, Jesus proclaims "Peace be with you!" and He shows them His physical body. But John says that Thomas, "one of the twelve," wasn't with them then; he saw Jesus later, after claiming he wouldn't believe unless he touched his Master. In contrast, Luke records that the "Eleven" were there, and all were testifying to the resurrection! Interesting how here, we have a problem like the first one I dealt with in this post. With that in mind, Luke seems to be writing like a very accurate historian because of this minute (not using the term for any amount of Disciples, like John uses) detail, which I claim he is. So I will have to beat my way out of a corner on this one.

To begin with, it isn't necessitated that Thomas was there right when Jesus appeared. He could have left while everyone else was still talking, and most of them could have been saying that the Lord had appeared to Peter instead of all. A generalization like this doesn't threaten historical credibility, even considering the use of the specific "Eleven." Luke just could have not found it important to be so detailed right there, made more plausible with the following evidence:

Or, the author could have just wanted to make the point that all Eleven came to faith. He doesn't even mention any names except when the whole group is talking about Peter. This is especially significant with "those with them." Sure, when Cleopas and his companion show up, the Disciples are clearly there, and the others are probably the apostles from 24:10, but still no names. Compare this to the accuracy of Acts 1:13. So, Luke could be using the word "Eleven" to mean any amount of Disciples, just definitely not Judas (Judas's death is recorded in Acts 1:18; this doesn't prove Mark or John didn't know and it was invented, only the other two evangelists bother with the traitor post-crucifixion). Then all worshiped Jesus in verses 50-53. As for John, it was written by a different author who cared about "doubting Thomas" for some reason; possibly because the author was the Disciple John.

So onto John 21:14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

If this is true, then it sounds like Jesus showed up to them that one time described in the last two Gospels, and then a week later to literally all eleven, and then sometime later to seven at the Sea of Galilee.

This could definitely be the case. Perhaps after the time at the Sea of Galilee, He told the seven present to all see Him later, for what was recorded in Matthew. It is also possible this was the third time the author wrote about, but considering he wanted to present the important miracles of Jesus -- as obvious from 20:30-31 and the long-winded appearance stories -- such is probably not the case.

(Here it is worth mentioning that John apparently didn't deem the appearance to Peter [Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5] as in the same category of appearing to multiple Disciples, such as seven.)

Now, with this as probably the case, why would they wait a week to go to Galilee, when Jesus initially wanted them to go there? My first thought is that the answer could be that wasn't immediately necessary anymore because His followers messed up the first plan by not going. And since Matthew and Mark completely ignore Luke and John, and vice versa, no one needed to have recorded Jesus telling them that.

Finally (whew! what a relief to see this "finally"), isn't it implausible that they would still doubt after at least two times seeing the resurrected Jesus, as Matthew says happened at Galilee without naming anyone (28:17)?

I don't think so. The Disciples persisted in not understanding Jesus's need as the Messiah to die because the Jews were expecting the Savior to conquer Rome and not die, even after the resurrection (Mark 8:31-33; Acts 1:6; see more examples in part 4 of this Blog Project). Matthew 11:3 reports John the Baptist doubting Jesus's identity, even though he had already firmly believed in Jesus and preached about His arrival, which was fulfilled (see the various first chapters of all Gospels). But the Disciples had more of a miracle to deal with than John the Baptist. They were witnessing the resurrection of a dead Messiah, who was crucified by God, which proves He was accursed and therefore a horrible criminal (Galatians 3:13)! These were feeble men following Jesus, and only saw Him every once in a while. No one alive today has ever experienced anything like that. So it is totally plausible that they would think they saw a ghost even after testifying to the resurrection (Luke 24:33-37) and the like. (By the way, in any case, in Matthew only some doubted [believers of anything can have doubts], but all worshiped.)

Did Jesus Falsely Predict His Second Coming?
Lapide cites: "In regard to the mission of the Twelve ... Jesus ... tells them in plain words (Matt. 10:32) that He does not expect to see them back in the present age. The Parousia of the Son of Man, which is logically and temporally identical with the dawn of the Kingdom, will take place before they shall have completed a hasty journey through the cities of Israel to announce it. ...It is equally clear,... that this prediction was not fulfilled. ... It should be noted that the non-fulfillment of Matt. 10:23 is the first postponement of the Parousia. ..." (page 67)

He explains: "'You are the anointed one!' Peter says to Jesus (Mark 8:29). 'This is the king Messiah!' Rabbi Akiba says to Bar-Kokbha a century later (Ta'anit 68b).
"When however, both failed as saviors of Israel, their numerous followers -- depending on the strength of their faith -- split... The undiscouraged disciples on their way to Emmaus called Jesus 'A prophet mighty in deed and word' -- even after the crucifixion. But those in Israel (Baraitha to Sanhedrin 43a) who could not forgive him the breakdown of the messianic hopes they had pinned on him called him 'A magician who has deceived Israel.'" (page 134)

Matthew 10:23 "Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

Fortunately for me, this was the only verse, at least that I saw, to prove Jesus predicted the end times in the first century. Classical apologist Paul Copan has explained in two chapters the complete difficulty "Was Jesus Mistaken About an Early Second Coming?" (4) He cites Bertand Russel and four instances from the Gospels where this seems to be the case.

Still, from my head, I alone cannot give any good answer. I never bothered to really understand, . But Copan, focusing more on examples from other major passages of scripture to give biblical context, on pages 170-171 helps to explain our verse (brackets original).

"The same can be said for our passage (Matt. 24:30/Mark 13:26): the majority of interpreters see this as referring to Jesus' enthronement, not his parousia. And this fits with what Jesus said elsewhere, using the same verb 'come [erchomai]': Matthew 10:23; Mark 8:38, Matthew 16:27, Luke 9:26
"Jesus warned his own generation ('this generation'), which was ripe for judgement (i.e. AD 70). His first-century Jewish audience naturally would have understood Jesus' claim in light of Daniel 7:13-14 -- the Son of Man who 'comes on the clouds' to the Father ('Ancient of Days) for exaltation, vindication, and heavenly enthronement, taking his co-regency and authority over the nations, surrounded by an angelic court. To 'come in the clouds' is to be 'seated at the right hand of God.' (It would be strange for Jesus to come to earth in a sitting position!)
"When Jesus was being condemned, he announced to those judging him that '[f]rom now on' (Matt. 26:64 NRSV) they would see him -- the Son of man -- coming on the clouds, seated at God's right hand. The implication of the phrase from now on is that within their lifetime, these leaders would see this vindication in at least three ways: Jesus' resurrection and ascension, the spread of the church throughout the entire (civilized) world (Matt. 24:14), and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple."

The scene at this time where Jesus is present is heavenly, not earthly. As for His actual second coming to Earth, "that day or hour no one knows" Mark 13:32.

Citations: 
1. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI. 1987), 150.
2. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 121.
3. Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 1992), 400-401.
4. Paul Copan, When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 2008), 162-190.