Philosophy, Theology, History, Science, Big Questions
  • Homepage
    • Collections of Works By Great Thinkers
    • How To Become A Christian
    • Apologetics: Who Need's It
    • Ask ?'s
    • Introduce a New Topic to Discuss
    • Other Recommended Websites / Reading
    • 12 Pitfalls of the Foolish Apologist
    • Apologetics 101: The Basics
  • Phil. Theology
  • Phil. of Religion
    • Arguments for the Existence of God
    • Objections to the Arguments for the Existence of God
    • Defeaters of Divine Hiddenness
    • Defeaters of the Problem of Evil and Divine Silence
    • More Arguments Against Christian Theism
    • The Problem of Miracles
    • Incompatible Properties Argument
    • Reformed Epistemology
    • Molinism
    • Primary Sources On Big Topics In Phil. Of Religion
  • Phil. of Science/Time
    • The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics
    • Fine-Tuning is a Fact
    • Absolute Beginnings
    • God/Time/Cosmology
    • Scientific Realism
  • Biblical Studies
    • Substantial New Testament Puzzles (In Progress)
    • Substantial Old Testament Puzzles (In Progress)
    • Evolution and Christianity
    • Rethinking Biblical Inspiration (In Progress)
    • The Gospels: Guilty Until Proven Innocent?
    • The Historical Case for the Resurrection >
      • Objections to the Resurrection
  • Scholarly Naturalism
    • Paul Draper
    • J.L. Schellenberg
    • Gregory Dawes

Isn't John the Baptist an Exception to NT Wright's Argument in the Resurrection of the Son of God?

2/1/2012

8 Comments

 
They couldn't have thought that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead in the sense of Resurrection because Jesus and John were contemporaries.  Rather, what people meant was that Jesus had taken on the mantle of John the Baptists ministry just as other had thought that John the Baptist had taken on the mantle of Elijah (WLC). 

FROM AN E-MAIL BY N.T. Wright in response to my asking if he thought Craig's answer above was plausible:

Yes: Herod’s answer is at first sight a puzzle. But the evangelists who report it are also among those who very clearly support the standard Jewish view of resurrection. I think the best answer is that Herod, to be honest, was unlikely to be using language very precisely. He surely did know of Jesus and John – it was an insecure monarch’s daily preoccupation to keep an eye on possibly dangerous men and movements – but having beheaded the one and then getting the other one it’s the kind of bluster someone like him might say. I once spoke in St Mary’s College Baltimore and the Principal, over-enthusiastically, said it was like hearing Raymond Brown come back from the dead. My comment was not that his theology was faulty but that I wondered what Brown had done wrong to be reincarnated as an Anglican bishop. It is likely that Herod was not well informed about the precise nuances of Pharisaic belief about resurrection, and that just as Josephus (who certainly was well informed) could represent the doctrine in ways that conformed more to pagan beliefs in eg reincarnation, so Herod could have thought of ‘resurrection’ as a kind of ‘reincarnation’. One way or another, I don’t find the passage troubling. Mark, after all, goes on in ch 9 to say that the disciples, faced with Jesus’ warning not to tell people about the transfiguration until the Son of Man had been raised from the dead, were puzzled as to what this ‘rising from the dead’ might mean. One person in the middle of history? Surely not…

Hope this helps

Tom Wright

Prof N T Wright

St Andrews

8 Comments
Beau Quilter
6/27/2016 02:12:23 pm

Hilarious. In the face of obvious evidence (and not the only evidence) that Jews in the first century could certainly buy into the idea of a bodily resurrection, Wright responds that Herod must've gotten it wrong.

Somebody got it wrong.

Reply
Beau Quilter
6/28/2016 03:06:32 pm

There is so much that is bogus about this response.

In the first place it doesn't matter if Herod was "not well informed about the precise nuances of Pharisaic belief about resurrection"! Most of Jesus' disciples would not have been "well informed" about "Pharisaic belief" (even assuming that such Pharisees were as limited in their beliefs as Wright asserts). The issue is not about what "well informed Pharisees" would believe - it's about what the Jews who started Christianity would have believed.

Secondly, it is not at clear (as Wright asserts) that Herod knew of both Jesus and John at the same time. In fact, the passage in Mark 6 seems to indicate that he had only recently heard of Jesus "King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known." Herod had already executed John, and supposed this new miracle worker, that he was just hearing about, was a resurrected John.

Thirdly, Wright's supposition that Herod was thinking of Jesus as a kind of "reincarnation" of John is frankly idiotic. For one thing, even Wright would have to concede that reincarnation was far more removed from Jewish thought than resurrection would have been. But more importantly, reincarnation is being born again into a different body. It's ridiculous to think that Herod believed that the Jesus was John "born" into a different body - he was an adult, not a baby! What Herod believed is painfully obvious from the verse:

“John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

It's amazing the twists and turns of garbled logic an apologist like Wright can take to support his own apologetics - especially in the face of obvious, unmistakeable evidence to the contrary.

Reply
Bill
8/26/2017 03:29:47 am

Whilst I'm not as skeptical of Wright as Beau appears to be I am also a bit befuddled by his response for similar reasons. Could anyone explain?
What's more Jesus himself was a first century Jew who expected to be raised from the dead prior to the end of history... Shouldn't this at least be addressed with an off hand comment like 'oh but he was God and knew the future'? Obviously, I'd prefer something more robust like that his insight into Old Testament prophecy was truly unique... Regardless it does seem to weaken arguments based on the originality of a resurrection belief (even if a dying Messiah was unheard of).

Reply
Juanny
2/11/2019 08:24:14 am

I agree. It does seem that way. And yet, I think Wright's argument is really about that could have caused a group of faithful Jewish disciples (including those who were downright skeptical of Jesus such as James and Paul) to believe in such a radical modification to the Jewish faith. It is unclear whether Jesus went into great depths about what all he shared with his disciples about his death and resurrection. Wright points out that during a time where Resurrection was a hot topic, it is strange that Jesus did not seemingly talk much about it. The Bible only records one place where Jesus touched on the nature of resurrection. And besides this and a few ambiguous verses, Jesus only predicted his death and resurrection 3 times. And when he did, it left his disciples utterly bewildered (precisely because that claim is so unusual and abnormal for traditional Jewish belief). I think we should take the Bible on its word here; even if the disciples were technically familiar with Jesus's resurrection before it happened, I think it's safe to say (based on the gospels themselves) that they weren't expecting a bodily resurrection. So the fact that not only they, but skeptics and 500 others experienced Christ is a fact that is very strange indeed, and requires a very strange explanation.

Left here the atgument only gets us so far; it is when compared to just how unsatisfactory naturalistic explanations are that this account really shines. And when paired with other evidences (the empty tomb, the disciples' martyr death, the character of the disciples, the strange yet satisfying way Christ fits and fulfills so many of our deep life questions, the witness of actual experience walking with the Holy Spirit, and the failure of naturalistic and other worldviews, etc.) I'd say the this argument can work well.

Juanny
2/11/2019 08:11:20 am

Firstly, that the disciples were at least familiar with the traditional Jewish teaching on resurrection is quite certain. They were, after all, faithful Jews.

Secondly, Wright did not argue for the point about John and Jesus being contemporaries. That is Craig's point.

Thirdly, we don't know who the "some" were. They might or might not be Jewish. So claiming that reincarnation is far removed from Jewish thought is assuming it was Jewish opinion to begin with. Also, Wright is claiming that reincarnation is far closer to Roman thought than resurrection, and we're talking about the Roman Herod's thought here, so your point doesn't really stick. Who said reincarnation had to begin as an infant?

When we're confronted with evidence that doesn't necesarrily add up with our bigger, well-supported picture we have to reconcile that evidence to the bigger picture rather than vice versa.

You're going to need more than Herod's ambiguous claim to unsettle Wright's larger argument. For the earliest Christians, something convinced them to modify the traditional understanding of Resurrection and God to make way for a resurrected God-man. Every other option; hallucinations, visions, spiritual sensations, etc. in themselves are not enough to make a traditional Jew interpret those experiences in such a way as to convince them the end times ehere all bodies would be raised had come and that a man was at once God. They just aren't. We can throw up our hands and just vaguely say "they were crazy" but that is hardly historical or substantive. We can also just say "well, whatever. There's some other explanation." And so be it. But recognize where your presuppositions push you to look for and weigh evidences in favor of your biases. Imagine if a Christian were to use one ambiguous verse to support their position in the face mass evidence to the contrary.

Reply
Beau Quilter
2/21/2019 09:14:57 am

Firstly, all the indications we have from contradictory gospels are that the disciples were working class Jews, such as fisherman. How faithful the were as Jews or how familiar with the nuance of pharisee thought on the resurrection can only be complete guess work. In all likelihood, they were illiterate, the norm for working people in that century.

Secondly, Wright agrees with Craig and adds "he surely did know of Jesus and John – it was an insecure monarch’s daily preoccupation to keep an eye on possibly dangerous men and movements". Wright has no idea what Herod "surely did know", of course, and the only writing we have on the subject seems to indicate that Jesus' ministry followed John's - he may have had no notoriety at all until after John's death. Wright is making wild guesses that support his notions.

Thirdly, we may not know exactly who the "some" were, but why on earth would gentiles be supposing that Jesus was Elisha or one of the prophets? Those are Jewish interests! And are you unaware that Herod was a Jew? Do you even know the meaning of the word reincarnation? It has always been the notion of physical rebirth.

There is far more than Herod's completely UNambiguous claim of a resurrection to unsettle Wright's position. For example, Wright goes to great lengths to argue that even the Greeks had no resurrection notions prior to Christ. He does this by supposing that the Greek philosophical tradition represented all Greeks, ignoring the long history of Greek mysticism that characterized the Greek and Roman populace. Even the early Christian fathers contradict him:

"And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter."

Justin Martyr

John
2/27/2019 01:14:43 pm

This is because John is Jesus! Jesus was never a real person but John was, the whole story of Jesus is stolen from the life of John etc etc.

Reply
Bill
4/10/2020 02:48:33 am

How did you come to that conclusion?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed