Is The New Testament A Lie: Point 5 – No liar would have had Jesus appear to women first.

This is one just one post that is part of a point by point discussion regarding whether the New Testament writers were lying or not. Each point being its own post. All the points that I’ve published so far are found in this post: Are The New Testament Writers Lying? : A Point By Point Discussion. This is an ongoing discussion, so please be patient and com back often

Robin Harrison comments in blue
Dan Muhlenkamp in black

Point 5: The writers would never have the risen Jesus appear to women first.

This proof alone would lead a knowledgeable investigator to eliminate the possibility that the authors are lying. At the time this was written women were not allowed to testify in a court proceeding because they were considered totally unreliable as witnesses. A common complaint against the Bible made by non-believers is that God is a chauvinist. God is not, but the writers certainly appear to be. When you read the entire text of the New Testament it is apparent that the writers do not hold any of the women mentioned in any high regard and none of them have any lasting power or influence. The risen Jesus and empty tomb are the absolute bedrock of the New Testament and all Christianity. No one at that time concocting a lie about something so important, that they hoped would be taken seriously, would ever have Jesus first appear to women and then never mention the women again. There is not one logical reason for them to come up with that lie, not one.

It’s interesting how often Christians and Atheists alike, say things like “God would have done this” or “Jesus would have done that.” In my mind it’s humors that we are so presumptuous to believe we know the characteristics of the power that created the universe. Wouldn’t a God make himself known to all? Wouldn’t God spread his word directly to all people not through a web of prophets that happened to all fight for the same country? Wouldn’t God get humanity right the first time? But since stories have God doing things that do not make sense, those stories must not be lies! …A majority of lies that humans put together, could have been put together a lot more logically – they could have been much better lies. Saying that if these fishermen were lying, they would have come up with a better lie doesn’t make much sense to me!

I must assume Robin did not read the point carefully. Most of his argument is about presuming we know what God would have done. He then gives several of his own presumptions, I assume as examples of humans presuming to know what God would do. I could not agree more that humans should follow the advice God gives in the Bible and realize that “my thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways” Isaiah 55:8. The problem is, my point has nothing to do with what God would do. It is about what humans would do, and we, as humans ourselves, are very capable of making reasonable presumptions regarding human behavior. As a matter of fact, is entire argument is based on his observation of a common human behavior that he has observed and he states in his first sentence that such a behavior is often done by Christians and Atheists!

“Saying that if these fishermen were lying, they would have come up with a better lie” is extremely reasonable and I can only assume Robin hasn’t raised any children or been lied to much. I remember when I was dating my lovely wife I was at an outdoor party without her. While in a conversation with another young lady, the girl repeated took a flower she was carrying and struck me on the neck. Well, about an hour later, it looked as if during the throws of passion someone had claimed me by putting numerous “hickies” upon my neck. When my then girlfriend later came to the party she quickly asked for an explanation. I told her the truth and she laughed and immediately believed me because no sane person would come up with such a lie! Someone knowledgable about the culture of the time, and honest, would say the same thing about these fishermen. They didn’t come up with a poor lie. They told a story so outrageous that it’s only hope of being believable is for it to be true, and, I believe, backed up by a living, active, logical, and knowable God.

Lets take a modern courtroom criminal trial. If the best witness the prosecution brings forth is someone that the jurors believe is completely unreliable, would any defense attorney build his case around a police frame up? Get real. When someone is promoting a lie they generally look to make the case a strong as possible, not weaken it. Using the w0men as witnesses, at that time and in that society, would be like bringing a convicted and obviously high drug abuser to testify that he saw the Jetsons flying their car without a license. The New Testament writers have no reason to do that other than they want to tell the truth as they see it, even if it makes the story harder to believe. Using Robin’s own practice of observing human behavior, and having been lied to many times, I strongly and emphatically stand by my conviction that liars seek to strengthen, not weaken, their lies.

I wrote a post explaining why I believe the New Testament is NOT a lie. I received 2 thoughtful responses from Thomas Muhr and Robin Harrison. Thomas’ response was shorter and more general, but very good. Robin’s response is a point by point essay. I believe each point and his comments are worth considerable discussion and decided to make each point its own post by merging the two papers and adding my comments. Additional comments by Robin or anyone else is encouraged. Links to all related discussions are in the discussion center post below.

5 Comments

vinnyjh57 on September 5, 2012 at 10:06 pm

There is not one logical reason for them to come up with that lie, not one.

There is an incredibly simple and logical reason. The readers of a story invented thirty years after the event was supposed to have occurred would naturally wonder why they had not heard the story before. The silly unreliable women running away without telling anyone explains it perfectly.
Reply
- Dan Muhlenkamp on September 7, 2012 at 5:42 am
  
  That is a fantastic point and very thoughtful. I GREATLY appreciate your response. However (you knew there would be a however right) we know from historians outside the Bible, like Josephus, that the story was well known well within that time frame. There were Christian communities before the stories were written because they clearly are written to distinct people or communities.
  
  Having said that, I do think your point is worth further consideration. I don’t think it is an absolute “door-slammer”, but niether is my “however”. Thanks Again!
  Reply
  - vinnyjh57 on September 7, 2012 at 7:55 am
    
    I don’t recall anything in Josephus about the empty tomb. Moreover, he was writing around 90 AD so i don’t think he helps us much in determining which stories were already well known at the time Mark was written.
    
    Our earliest source is Paul and he tells us that Jesus was buried, resurrected and that he made appearances, but he never tells us about anyone visiting the empty tomb. He might have believed that Jesus’ tomb was empty, but it might not have mattered to him whether anyone had seen it or known where it was since the appearances would have been sufficient proof of the resurrection for. As the appearance stories were told and retold, there were no doubt many skeptics who claimed that the disciples were drunk or dreaming. The temptation to add details to the story to confirm the physicality of the experiences would have been very great. If that is what happened, it is fairly easy to see why someone might have invented a story about someone finding the empty tomb and why they might need a reason to explain why the story hadn’t been heard before.
    
    Another possibility is that the community for whom the story was originally written simply didn’t share the prevailing attitude toward women. Some tradition holds that Mark was composed in Rome where most Christians were pagan converts. The status of women under Roman law was better than it was under Jewish law and we know from Paul’s letter to the Romans that there were many prominent women in the Christian community there. In such a situation, it might have been perfectly natural to invent a story in which women played a significant role.
    Reply
    - Dan Muhlenkamp on September 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm
      
      You are really very good and thoughtful. Impressed! Now I believe that since the four gospels are all written by different people at different times and in different places, and they all have the women at the tomb, it makes concocting the lie more difficult. But I will concede that since it is likely all the gospel writers had Mark (or maybe Q) as a source, it would be possible.
      
      But, I must concede that you have come up with a plausible explanation. I still think this point is a valuable consideration, along with the other points, that argues for the honesty of the gospels. What do you think?
      Reply
      - vinnyjh57 on September 8, 2012 at 9:18 am
        
        I’m very skeptical about the argument that “if these fishermen were lying, they would have come up with a better lie.” I just don’t know how to gauge something like this.
        
        To my mind, Joseph Smith’s stories about the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates are among the most absurd and obvious confabulations I have ever heard. Nevertheless, Smith thought that someone would believe them. On one hand, I might say that Smith could have come up with much better lies than he did. On the other hand, there are some 14,000,000 Mormons in the world today so I guess I would have to say that Smith’s lies were really good.
        
        As it turns out, the stories that those fishermen told turned out to be extremely effective in winning converts to their beliefs. Putting lowly women in a prominent place appealed to the poor and disenfranchised. Making Jesus’ disciples initially look foolish and weak served to emphasize the transformative power of the conversion experience. If they were lying, the lies were in fact excellent ones.
        
        Even if there were some way to objectively determine that the fishermen’s stories could be improved, it is my experience that people tell bad lies all the time. People may want to tell the best lie that they can, but they often do not recognize the holes in their own stories. I cannot count the number of times where I have heard about some politician caught in a lie and said to myself “Why didn’t he just tell the truth?” The fact that I can identify some flaw in a story doesn’t mean the person who told the story recognized it. Even if he did recognize the problem, he might not have been able to figure out how to solve it.