Who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".

Occam waves hello!

[Maeght]

I don't disagree that it's possible the resurrection appearances were recorded later than the first edition of the first published gospel. There may be reasons for that other than "therefore they made it up".

So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Occam waves hello!

Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?

[ProfessorDavey]

Occam?, or your conspiracy theory, Davey?

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

Zero historical scholarship involved here. Plus I suspect a shifting of the definition of Occams razor from not multiplying entities beyond necessity to not multiplying entities

[Nearly Sane]

No applying Occam leads to 'made it up/exaggerated/ etc' rather than there was a biologically impossible 'resurrection'. Particularly where there is clear evidence that the earliest gospel written was edited centuries later to include post-resurrection appearances when earlier versions did not include them. And in addition the very earliest 'resurrection' claims (in Paul) don't describe a physical resurrection at all, merely a vision or dream.

But if by conspiracy theories, you mean that later writers edited/amended earlier versions to give a different version of events, well there is amply evidence of this in the form of the ending or Mark. And as we only have actual gospel text from hundreds of years after they are purported to have been written we do not know and cannot know how many other sections were similarly altered to suit the purposes of the early church.

I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think Occam works in this context. I think that there is no method to determine the truth of a non natiralustic claim is the issue.

Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.

[Spud]

So from that, is it possible that it didn't happen?

Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.

[Maeght]

Well, the hypothesis is that the details in Matthew 28 about the guards and the great commission are later additions.
But the disciples going to Galilee (Mt 28:16) follows naturally from Jesus' words, "after I have risen, I will go before you to Galilee" in chapter 26. So it's not clear cut.
If Mark and Luke were following Matthew up to the angel at the tomb, the fact that they don't include the appearance in Galilee suggests it wasn't in their copies of Matthew. So Luke got his details of the appearances from another source and Mark might have done the same.
If the resurrection did happen, more than one person would be available as a witness to appearances, so for Matthew not to include one doesn't mean it didn't happen, as Luke and John have independent accounts.

If he said that rather than it being claimed that he said that by the authors of the Gospels years after the events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.

But you are assuming that all resurrection are supernatural...

[Gordon]

But you are assuming that all resurrection are supernatural...

1. Has there been more than one, or just one?

2. Either way, how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred?

3. If you conclude there was a resurrection, was this a natural process and, if so, what was that process?

4. If not natural, but you believe it happened, in what ways have you substantiated that supernatural forces were at work?

5. Have you considered that the Jesus claim might be fictitious propaganda?

All reasonable questions to ask of a Christian.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. Has there been more than one, or just one?

Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning?

2. Either way, how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred?

In the case of Christ yes.

3. If you conclude there was a resurrection, was this a natural process and, if so, what was that process?

Natural for God. The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems

5. Have you considered that the Jesus claim might be fictitious propaganda?

Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is

[Dicky Underpants]

Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning? In the case of Christ yes. Natural for God. The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is

Jesus had a few miracle working contemporary rivals. All propaganda about them, and none about Jesus?

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - I think Occam works fine in this context. It is about identifying the explanation with the fewest necessary assumptions rather that whether those assumptions are able to be proved. In this case the assumption that there was a supernatural event falls foul of Occam as there are simpler explanations that do not require this additional assumption.

Yet the razor works on explanations that have the same value in terms of methodology and explanatory terms which is not the case here. You could arguably be steelmanning this but it seems to me a misuse of the razor, and hides the fact that there is no methodology for evaluating supernatural claims.

[Spud]

Occam waves hello!

The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.

[Nearly Sane]

The other miracles in Matthew's gospel send their greetings.

Fantastic claims without a methodology to validate don't become more likely by the use of more fantastic claims without a methodology to validate them

[Gordon]

Has the universe had just one beginning or several? If one are you then prepared to accept by your own logic that the universe had a supernatural beginning?

Nice evasion attempt, Vlad - the question I asked you was about resurrections and not universes.

In the case of Christ yes.

My question was " how have you checked out that the 'dead' then 'not dead' states in the same person actually occurred" I get that you believe this in the case of Jesus but what due diligence have you carried out?

Natural for God.

What does this actually mean? Does it mean that anything this God does becomes 'natural' for an 'all the omnis' supreme supernatural being but would not be naturalistic as we humans understand it? It reads like meaningless special pleading.

The term Supernatural is a moveable feast, it seems

Not really: it is a label used to indicate fantastical/superstitious claims that cannot be explored using methodological naturalism. It is for those who make these claims to justify them.

Yes, there is no contempory historical account that it is

We're back to provenance again: since little is known about who wrote what, where and when, along with later editing, and since the accounts that Christians believe were likely written by members of the Jesus fan club, then the risks of propaganda, exaggeration and mistakes cannot be easily dismissed. Are you saying that you accept that there are these risks in relation to the NT content?