6.1 scientific and historical-critical challenges Flashcards
1
Q
What are the different views on the resurrection?
A
- the resurrection as experience
- the resurrection as fiction
- the resurrection as myth
2
Q
What is meant by the resurrection as experience?
A
- after the body had been moved/disappeared the disciples effectively in their fervour hallucinated the resurrection appearances (hallucination hypothesis)
3
Q
What is meant by resurrection as fiction?
A
- it’s fiction in the sense that there were a series of errors that led to the disciples falsely attributing a resurrection narrative to events that had another perfect;ly reasonable explanation
4
Q
What are the two hypotheses part of the view that the resurrection is fiction?
A
- theft hypothesis
- swoon hypothesis
5
Q
What is meant by the theft hypothesis?
A
- Jesus’ disciples stole his body to make believe the resurrection had taken place
6
Q
What is meant by the swoon hypothesis?
A
- Jesus didn’t die on the cross, he just passed out and later recovered in the tomb
7
Q
What is meant by resurrection as myth?
A
- the resurrection was a mythological story by the ECC who couldn’t face that their spiritual leader was guilty of sorcery and wasn’t the son of God
- they drew too heavily on Jewish prophecy and myths (SS)
8
Q
What is a criticism of the view of resurrection as myth?
A
- it’s difficult to imagine how such a myth would occur when there were seemingly so many eyewitnesses and so many testimonies about the resurrection appearances
9
Q
What does Bultmann add to the view of resurrection as myth?
A
- the resurrection is a story that needs to be interpreted to reveal the symbolic meaning for scientific-thinking people
10
Q
How is the empty tomb used in the resurrection narratives?
A
- as evidence to show the resurrection occures, not as a theological foundation for the resurrection
11
Q
How does Frank Morison approach his study of the resurrection accounts?
A
- he takes a historical and rationalist approach
12
Q
How many possible hypotheses does Morison consider?
A
6
13
Q
What is Morison’s background?
A
- he grew up agreeing with the (then) new challenges to Christianity from German critics and decided to write a book exposing the resurrection as myth BUT whilst researching, he came to the opposite conclusion
14
Q
What are the six naturalistic explanations Morison explores?
A
- Joseph of Arimathea removed the body
2+3. the authorities(Roman/Jewish) removed the body - Jesus didn’t really die
- The women made a mistake
- the grave wasn’t visited by the women
15
Q
How can the resurrection be explained by Joseph of Arimathea?
A
- placing Jesus’ body in his tomb was only a temporary arrangement and Joseph later moved the body to another place
16
Q
How does Morison refute the explanation of Jospejh of Arimathea removing the body?
A
- he would’ve removed the body before dawn otherwise he’d have been seen by the women
- if we assume Joseph was motivated to bury Jesus as a pious member of the Sanhedrin, then why didn’t he take the other two theives?
17
Q
How does Morison refute the explanation that either the Roman or Jewish authorities removed the body?
A
- Pilate was a ’very obstinate man’ and most unlikely to change his mind about Jesus’ burial
- if they’d moved it, they could’ve refuted the resurrection by producing the body
18
Q
How does Morison refute the explanation that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross?
A
- it ignores the deadly character of crucifixion
- references Strauss = a half dead body couldn’t have convinced the disciples that he had ‘conquered death’
19
Q
How does Morison refute the explanation that the women made a mistake?
A
- if it was so dark that they went to the wrong tomb, it’s unlikely that the gardener would be working
- it would be strange for the disciples to leave the women alone
20
Q
How does Morison respond to the explanation that the grave wasn’t visited by the women?
A
- it’s the only logical alternative to the resurrection
21
Q
What kind of approach does Wilson take in his study of the resurrection?
A
- a historical approach and he investigates the resurrection as if it’s a mystery to be solved
22
Q
What is Wilson’s aims in his analysis of the empty tomb?
A
- to identify the real tomb of Jesus through looking at archaeological evidence
23
Q
What are the two possibilities Wilson considers for ythe empty tomb?
A
- the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
- The Garden Tomb
24
Q
What does Wilson find about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
A
- it is nothing like the original as:
- a pagan temple had been built on top of it
- when it was rediscovered the excavations were badly done
- centuries of conflict in this part of the world means nothing is left of it
25
What does Wilson find about the Garden Tomb?
- it is more authentic looking BUT there is little evidence to suggest this was the real tomb
26
How does Wilson conclude his analysis of the empty tomb?
- he deems it inconclusive and so moves on to consider the evidence for what happened to Jesus’ body
27
How can Wilson’s approach be argued to be sceptical?
- he notes a number of discrepancies between the Gospel accounts: the different women mentioned who visited the tomb, the various figures seen at the tomb
28
What does Wilson liken the inconsitencies in the narrative to?
- ‘the garblings and inconsistencies have the same quality as the memories of witnesses after a **road accident**’
29
What are the six hypotheses that Wilson explores?
1. the women went to the wrong tomb
2. unknown to the disciples, some independent person removed the body and invented the whole story
3. the disciples themselves removed the body + invented the whole story
4. the disciples saw not the real Jesus, but hallucinations
5. Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross, but was resuscitated, or in some other way survived
6. Jesus really did rise from the grave
30
How does Wilson argue that the first hypothesis was addressed by the Gospel writers?
- the synoptics show the women as taking careful note of where the body was laid - **Luke 23:55**
31
How does Wilson argue that the fourth hypothesis is addressed by the Gospel writers?
- the accounts emphasise the ‘reality’ of the experience; Luke refers to Jesus eating fish (**24:43**)
32
Why does Wilson dismiss the swoon hypothesis?
- Wilson goes to great lengths to describe the brutal nature of crucifixion, rendering the swoon hypothesis unlikely
- refers to Strauss’ argument - ‘it is impossible a being stolen half dead out of the sepulchre’ could convince the disciples of who he was
33
Why is the sixth hypothesis the most persuasive for Wilson?
- Peter’s transformation from a ‘**denying and demoralised**’ disciple to a passionate preacher
- Paul’s evidence of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus (**1 Corinthians 15:5-8**)
- the first followers’ confidence in Jesus as Messiah; they did not waver even when facing death
34
How are Morison and Wilson different in their focus on the Gospels?
- Wilson: also uses evidence from acts and the letters of Paul + highlights the discrepancies in the accounts
- Morison: tends to harmonise the four Gospel accounts into one + used selected details to support his case
35
How do Morison and Wilson differ in their investigation of the empty tomb?
- Morison gives greater consideration to Joseph of Arimathea - Wilson to the disciples removing the body
- The hypothesis that the tomb was not visited by the women is only considered by Morison
- Wilson adds the resurrection as his sixth hypothesis
36
What are the strengths of Morison’s approach?
- methodical approach
- shows how they contradict the NT/human nature
- a rationalist who prefers naturalistic explanations to the supernatural
- the only hypothesis left is that the resurrection happened
37
What are the weaknesses of Morison’s approach?
- ignores the details that do not support his argument e.g. the women seeing an Angel in Mt’s account
- doesn’t follow through on his view that improbable events are more likely than miracles
- doesn’t consider that the Early Church might not have preached a bodily resurrection but rather a spiritual one
38
What are the strengths for Wilson’s approach?
- places the resurrection of Jesus within a historical context by identifying the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the ‘empty tomb’
- presents a case that the transformation of the lives of Peter and the other disciples is best explained by the resurrection
- his analysis of the hypotheses leads him to think the best explanation for the resurrection is the fearless faith of the early believers
39
What are the weaknesses of Wilson’s approach?
- critical of his own argument - points out that the Gospel accounts were written to counter the earlier arguments of those who denied a bodily resurrection
- spends a lot of time on the more sensational hypothesis but less on the body being stolen
- accepts the resurrection was a real event on the basis of the transformation of the disciples only ‘believed’ it happened
40
How does Bultmann view the resurrection?
- the resurrection is something that happened in the experience of the disciples, not an event of past history; Jesus was ‘raised up’ in the **kerygma**
- the gospel accounts are best understood **mythologically** and one should live as though the resurrection was true rather than trying to prove it
41
How does Barth view the resurrection?
- as something that has left a mark on history
- stresses that historical scholarship cannot be the foundation of faith
- the evidence of the ‘empty tomb’ doesn’t necessarily imply the resurrection and is of little value in laying the foundation for the risen Christ
