Did the Resurrection Belief Result from a Corrupted Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible?

Image result for image of greek hades
Hades, Greek god of the dead

Read the first five books of the Old Testament and try to find a clear, unambiguous reference to an afterlife.  I don’t think you can do it.  The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc., never involve believers in Yahweh talking about an afterlife in the presence of God or a belief that they will see their deceased loved ones again after death.  And there is definitely no mention of a “resurrection”.  Yet, if one reads the OT books written at the end of the Old Testament period, one CAN find unambiguous references to an afterlife and even a resurrection.  Why is that??  I wrote a post on this topic several years ago.  I will repost it below:

 

Gary:  Oh…my….god!

I cannot believe what I am reading…and from the premier orthodox/evangelical Bible scholar and apologist of our time!  Listen to NT Wright’s statements below from the fourth chapter of his monumental work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, regarding the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, written in Egypt in the third century B.C.:

NT Wright:  As the Bible (Old Testament) was translated into Greek the notion of resurrection became, it seems, much clearer, so that many passages which might have been at most ambiguous became clear, and some which seemed to have nothing to do with resurrection might suddenly give a hint, or more than a hint, in that direction.

The passages (found only in OT books written at the end of the Old Testament era) which already speak unambiguously of bodily resurrection come through loud and clear; there is no attempt to soften them.  Daniel 12.2-3, 13, and the relevant passages in 2 Maccabees (e.g. 7.9, 14; 12.44) all use what became the standard ‘resurrection’ language, namely the Greek verbs anistemi and egeiro and their cognates.

We find the same with Isaiah 26, both in the verse that denies resurrection (14) and the verse that affirms it (19).  They both emerge clearly in the Greek:  26.14 declares that the dead will not see life, and that ‘the doctors’ will not rise.  In its turn, 26:19 insists that the dead will be raised, and that those in the tombs will be aroused.  Similarly, the passage in Hosea (6.2) that some think (whatever its original meaning) provided a key influence for both Isaiah and Daniel, is also explicit in the Greek:  on the third day we shall be raised and live in this presence.  No second-Temple reader would have doubted that this referred to bodily resurrection.

Cavallin lists other passages where, despite the lack of actual reference in the original, the translators may have intended to refer to resurrection: .  These include Deuteronomy 32.39, Psalms 1.5 and 21.30 (22.29).  In addition, he notes the striking way in which the LXX (Septuagint) has reversed the sense of Job 14.14; instead of blank denial of a future life (‘if a man die, shall he live again?’), the LXX declares boldly, ‘If a man dies, he shall live’ .  In the same way, the deeply obscure passage Job 19.26a (‘after my skin has been thus destroyed’) has been turned around:  God ‘will resurrect my skin’.  Finally, the LXX adds a postscript to the book.  After 42.17, where Job dies, an old man and full of days, it adds (42.17a LXX):  ‘It is written of him that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise’.  Clearly, whoever drafted the translation of LXX Job had no doubt both of the bodily resurrection and of the propriety of making sure the biblical text affirmed it.

Gary“God”, the original author in the Hebrew, obviously did not explain himself well enough.  The translator had to help God out.

NT Wright:  A similar point emerges from the LXX of Hosea 13.14.  The Hebrew text asks, ‘Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?  Shall I redeem them from Death?’  and expects the answer ‘No’.  The LXX, however, has turned this into a positive statement:  I shall rescue them from the hand of Hades, and I shall redeem them from Death.  Someone who read the text in this way might well then hear overtones of resurrection in the next chapter as well:  ‘I will be like the dew to Israel…they shall blossom as the vine…’

In light of this, we may cautiously suggest some other passages in which similar influence might be present….

Gary:  What is NT Wright clearly inferring here?  Answer:  Jewish translators in third century B.C Egypt, translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek to form the Septuagint, purposely altered the original text (of God’s holy, inerrant Word) to support the emerging/evolving Hellenistic concept, which was at that moment in time permeating Jewish culture and even its religious beliefs during the Greek Empire’s occupation, of a life after death, a belief not found anywhere in the Pentateuch nor in the subsequent other pre-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible!

How on earth can Rev. Wright and other knowledgeable conservative Christian scholars and apologists see this blatant “doctoring” of the Holy Bible, and still believe in its inerrancy???  (Or any concept of divine inspiration??)

And most damning of all is this:  Jesus did not use the Hebrew Bible in his teachings.  He used the Septuagint, a text which modern research clearly shows was ‘doctored’ to conform to a Hellenistic (pagan) world view of an after-life.  This means that Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God the Creator, and author of the Hebrew Bible, preached his sermons from a foreign translation that he knew, being God, taught a pagan concept of life after death.

Oh…my…god!

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Did the Resurrection Belief Result from a Corrupted Greek Translation of the Hebrew Bible?

  1. Actually, I thought this stuff was pretty common knowledge among the Jews…

    I mean, the Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection at all, and, perhaps not even an afterlife.

    Some Jews believed in a form of reincarnation…

    In the NT, it was the Pharisees that believed in a resurrection. But, the NT is unambiguous: not every Jew did believe in a resurrection at all.

    So, I’m not sure what the big “surprise” is here….

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Gary, you’re “simplistic” mentality shows through with abundant clarity here.

    Science has show us that a belief in some type of “afterlife” is virtually universal:

    “Most people, regardless of race, religion or culture, believe they are immortal. That is, people believe that part of themselves-some indelible core, soul or essence-will transcend the body’s death and live forever. But what is this essence? Why do we believe it survives? And why is this belief so unshakable?

    A new Boston University study led by postdoctoral fellow Natalie Emmons and published in the January 16, 2014 online edition of Child Development sheds light on these profound questions by examining children’s ideas about “prelife,” the time before conception.” [ from Science Daily ]

    In Judaism, there is not and never was a “formal dogma” regarding the afterlife at all. Judaism concerns itself with living according to “the Law”, in the here-and-now, and whatever happens in the afterlife, happens.

    Jews – the individual persons – would not have been any different than anyone else in having some sense that there is “life after death”, or at least, that “they” – the persons “spirit” or “essence” – does not just vanish, but, ends up someplace.

    This “idea” didn’t “come from pagans”. It just comes from “who we are, as humans”, if Emmons study is to be taken seriously. It’s like a hardwired feature.

    Now, the form of the supposed afterlife might be The Great Sleep in Sheol, or it might be Life Like an Angel in the Heavens, or it might be Reincarnation, or, it might be Resurrection – but, Resurrection has a very Jewish “flavor” to it. It has to do with (as you should know) the body and spirit rejoining in a form that is fit for an eternal life.

    So, it is (to me) insipldly ignorant to make such a ridiculously simplistic statement that “resurrection” was either “borrowed” or “stolen” from some other culture. Ideas about the afterlife – including a “dying god rising to heaven” – have been around at least since Egyptian times.

    But, unless you can grasp that in Judaism, there is not now, nor ever was a dogma regarding the afterlife, then, all you’re doing is advancing from one ignorance to the next….

    Like

    1. In Judaism, there is not and never was a “formal dogma” regarding the afterlife at all. Judaism concerns itself with living according to “the Law”, in the here-and-now, and whatever happens in the afterlife, happens.

      You have no idea whether or not the Jews who wrote the Pentateuch believed in an afterlife. As usual, you are simply blowing hot air.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. AHHH, so, you must think that somehow, the Emmon’s study applies only to people from, say, the last 50 years? or maybe 100 or 1000?

        OK, sure, that’s fine. Whatever.

        My guess, though, is that people have believed in some kind of “person permanence” since “humanoids” became human.

        Why do I say that? Because in anthropology, one of the very main things they look at is whether a “discovered skeleton” was buried with personal items, like tools and beads, because burial with ritual is one of the very things that makes humans “human”. And, a “burial with ritual” signifies some type of belief in an afterlife.

        So, yeh, Gary, you can figure what you want. But, you’ve already displayed your ignorance loudly enough.

        Like

        1. Please give an example of anthropologists finding even ONE pre-exilic Jewish grave that contained personal items buried with the body, indicating that the Jews who buried him or her believed that the deceased would be able to enjoy his or her possessions in the afterlife.

          Just because “most” cultures have believed in an afterlife does not prove that ancient Jews did. After all, most ancient cultures believed in many gods (polytheism). Jewish monotheism seems to have been a very, very rare outlier in the ancient world. Once again, your beliefs are based on assumptions.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. re: “Please give an example of anthropologists finding even ONE pre-exilic Jewish grave that contained personal items buried with the body, indicating that the Jews who buried him or her believed that the deceased would be able to enjoy his or her possessions in the afterlife.”

            Are ;you for real, Gary? Or am I just talking to a dysfunctional AI machine?

            It’s NOT about “cultures”, Gary. It’s about HUMAN BEINGS. And it is an overwhelming number of humans that believe in some kind of existence after this life.

            YOU are the one making assumptions, my friend.

            Emmon’s study was cross-cultural.

            And, I’m NOT saying that everybody who believes in an afterlife buries their dead with artifacts.

            Are ;you really that dimwit?

            Like

              1. Gary –

                I’ve provided anthropological and archaeological evidence that people, cross-culturally, have had beliefs in an afterlife of some sort, going back perhaps as far as 100,000 years.

                Your question specifically about Hebrews is YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE “EXCEPTIONALISM” all your arguments always seem to require.

                People in all cultures, going back thousands of years before there was a small group called “Hebrews”, have been hardwired to believe in an afterlife.

                But, GARY says the HEBREWS MUST HAVE BEEN AN EXCEPTION. And, the fact that nobody can provide some kind of documentation from 3,500 years ago specifically saying “we, the Hebrews, believe in an afterlife” is more than enough for Gary to come to a conclusion!!!

                Gary, sometimes you are so full of crap it must ooze out your nose…

                Like

                1. No amount of evidence or logic is going to change your deluded mind, my non-Trinitarian Christian friend. Your precious superstition is just too emotionally comforting for you to ever consider abandoning it.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. don’t go conflating ideas of “resurrection” with ideas of “afterlife”, Gary.

                    I have no problem acknowledging that the resurrection idea was a later development, nor do I have any problem acknowledging that it was influenced by Platonic thought.

                    And, my “being convinced” of Jesus’ resurrection would still remain “as is”, even if the Jews had never thought up the idea of resurrection.

                    You COMPLETELY misrepresent what NT Wright had to say, when you said “What is NT Wright clearly inferring here? Answer: Jewish translators in third century B.C Egypt, translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek to form the Septuagint, purposely altered the original text (of God’s holy, inerrant Word) to support the emerging/evolving Hellenistic concept, which was at that moment in time permeating Jewish culture and even its religious beliefs during the Greek Empire’s occupation, of a life after death, a belief not found anywhere in the Pentateuch nor in the subsequent other pre-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible!”

                    That is NOT what NT Wright was saying at all. Wright was talking about RESURRECTION, not – as you say – “life after death, a belief not found anywhere in the Pentateuch nor in the subsequent other pre-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible”.

                    So, you’ve twisted the words of NT Wright – but then, you’re famous for twisting peoples words. And you’re lousy at it, because you get caught doing it time and time again.

                    Your contention that there are no pre-exilic books that talk about an afterlife is entirely bogus, and, it proves nothing at all.

                    We’re not talking about MY belief in the resurrection of Jesus. We’re talking about your extreme ignorance in making such a ridiculous claim, via the twisting of NT Wrights words.

                    It doesn’t MATTER, in this conversation, whether I believe in the resurrection or afterlife or any such thing. That is entirely irrelevant.

                    What is relevant is what anthropologists say, what modern research regarding the virturally universal human tendency to believe in an afterlife says, and what the pre-exilic writings say. And, on all three counts, you, my friend, have made a TOTALLY BOGUS CLAIM, based on nothing but your own word-twisting.

                    Deal with it.

                    Like

          2. “100,000 years ago – The oldest known ritual burial of modern humans at Qafzeh in Israel: a double burial of what is thought to be a mother and child. The bones have been stained with red ochre. ”

            [ The beginning of religion at the beginning of the neolithic Archived 2008-09-10 at the Wayback Machine ]

            Like

  3. Gary, outstanding catch on N.T. Wright. As I guess you’ve been pointing out to tunnel-visioned, zealous, Christian apologists their crude, misguided, unfounded, erroneous translations and TRUE understanding of Second Temple Sectarian Judaism and the Tanakh versus THEIR Hellenistic (purely Greco-Roman) mistransliterations and biased Greek projections upon the “Old Testament” Scriptures—in particular Messianic books/passages—just as I’ve been pointing out the controversy and contradictions… the ostrich head in the sand tactic persists, even with several of your commentors here. 😉

    Tonight PBS’s renown show NOVA is airing right now “Dead Sea Scroll Detectives” which wonderfully dives into exactly what you and I have been trying to present and point out to zealous, hyper-biased Evangy Xian apologists the bigger context of what REALLY happened between 516 BCE to 70 and 74 CE Palestine, the actual Roman soil, seeding, roots, and Greco-Roman harvesting of Hellenistic Christology/Christianity! It is well worth watching! Here’s the link:

    https://www.pbs.org/video/dead-sea-scroll-detectives-preview-4l8hof/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What you don’t seem to get, Tattoo, is this: It is utterly and entirely irrelevant where anybody got a “resurrection” belief from — IF Jesus was, in fact, bodily resurrected in an historical event.

      NOTHING that was written, theorized, theologized, philosophized, pondered, borrowed from some other belief system, etc, etc, etc, makes one bit of difference IF Jesus were, in fact, bodily resurrected. Because IF he was, then that resurrection was not caused by anybody’s “theology” (or any other type of theory) that preceeded that resurrection.

      The Jews could have “borrowed” their entire belief system from the Hittites down the road, having no belief in a resurrection at all, and IF Jesus were resurrected, in an historical event, then it flat wouldn’t matter one bit where the Jews got ANY of their beliefs from.

      You don’t seem to get that.

      But, of course, you don’t think the resurrection happened. And, that’s fine.

      But what you’re TRYING to say is that the story of Jesus’ resurrection had something to do with Hellenist influences in Judaism, blablablabla. And, if Jesus were NOT actually resurrected, I’d probably agree with you.

      But, I am convinced that Jesus was, in fact, bodily resurrected in an historical event – which renders (in my view) all your usual blatherings as moot points…

      (maybe I should say it render’s Price’s points as moot, because that seems to be where you get a lot of your ideas from)

      Like

      1. 😴 And here we go again ignoring your own promise and my constant reminders. I repeat…

        All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. I’ll repeat for your cranial density: I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do several months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read this 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you. 🙂

        Like

          1. 😴 And here we go again ignoring your own promise and my constant reminders. I repeat…

            All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. I’ll repeat for your cranial density: I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do several months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read this 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you. 🙂

            Like

      2. Your logic is typical of most Christians: “I have already decided that Jesus was bodily resurrected, so I don’t care what evidence you present that indicates that the concept of a bodily resurrection was a human invention and that Jesus’ alleged resurrection was just a new twist to this ancient invented supernatural belief.”

        You believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus because you WANT to. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind. (Sounds like Republican members of Congress: Trump is innocent of quid pro quo no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them.)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. At the 6:20 mark, following is a part of the show’s transcript most important to your blog-post here. “[ ]” denotes my insertions for more clarity for your commentors:

          Narrator:
          During the period the scrolls were being created, the Hebrew Bible, for Christians the Old Testament, was still a work in progress.

          John Collins of Yale University Divinity School:
          The Bible [Hebrew or “Old Testament”] existed in multiple forms and was not finalized. Probably even in the time of Jesus, there were somewhat different forms of the text in circulation.

          Joel Baden of Yale University Divinity School:
          The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that the notion of sort of “the” Bible is sort of a fake one.

          Narrator:
          The scrolls give us a window into this formative time, including glimpses of alternative versions of well-known bible stories we never knew existed. For example, when we read the Bible today, Sarah, the wife of Abraham, is beautiful, but few other details are given.

          Joel Baden:
          She almost never speaks. I mean, Rebecca puts her to shame, Rachel puts her to shame. They are far more interesting than Sarah.

          Narrator:
          But an alternative version, found among the scrolls, paints a fuller picture.

          John Collins:
          (Reading Hebrew Bible) “How graceful are her eyes and how precious her nose.”

          Lawrence H. Schiffman of NYU and Yeshiva University:
          (Reading Hebrew Bible) “How lovely is her breast, and how beautiful her white complexion.”

          Matthias Henze of Rice University School of Religion:
          (Reading Hebrew Bible) “And her legs so perfectly apportioned.”

          Joel Baden:
          The idea that we should have this about Sarah, who [in today’s Old Testament] is among the most bland and boring, tells us something about how willing they were to play around with that text [in later decades/centuries].

          Narrator:
          The documents reveal clear signs of the human hand behind the texts, like this copy of Psalms.

          Pnina Shor, Dir. Dead Sea Scrolls Project and Israel Antiquities Authority:
          You can really see the scribe behind this. Every time he made a mistake, he scrapped it out. But this actually brings the scribe, you know, back to life. He’s so human.

          The program continues on 2-3 fascinating and revealing different topics, but soon returns to the subject of no official “Canon” of an Old Testament, much much less any New Testament, during Jesus’ lifetime. It is a really excellent NOVA episode Gary.

          Therefore, since ALL of the first, post-70 CE earliest Church Fathers who supervised the translating and Canonization of today’s Christian Bible were Greek/Hellenistic born-and-raised, Stoic-Hellenic educated MEN—certainly not Hebrew-Aramaic—there are many errors and mistranslated (contextual and otherwise) found in today’s Christian Bibles. Christians today are completely naive of how drastically different 1st-century CE Hebrew-Aramaic Judaism/Messianism was from what later became by the start of the 4th-century Greco-Roman or Hellenistic-based Christology/Christianity. It did not represent much at all what Yeshua bar Yosef’s teachings, reforms, and beliefs actually had been.

          Transcript source:
          https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/dead-sea-scroll-detectives/

          Liked by 2 people

  4. Gary –

    from “Jewish Views of the Afterlife” by Simcha Pault Raphael, professor of Jewish studies, Temple University: “Judaism has always upheld a belief in life after death”

    Sadducees may not have believed in an afterlife DOCTRINALLY – which is to say, they held no “official” view of the afterlife, being concerned only with following the Law in the “here and now”. This does NOT mean that any particular Sadducee may or may not have believed there was some type of “survival”.

    However, it is quite clear that Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots all believed in an afterlife.

    But, those are 1st century, and you or Dimwit Tattoo might say “Hellenism, Hellenism”, so, I won’t make much of the existence of those beliefs at that time.

    Here are some much earlier – all pre-Hellenism – references to an afterlife:

    Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ezekiel 37:1-14) – babylonian exile era

    “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up” (1 Samuel 2:6) — 8th century BCE

    ps 16 – no later than babylonian era
    For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
    Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
    11 You will make known to me the path of life;
    In Your presence is fullness of joy;
    In Your right hand there are pleasures forever.

    ps 49 – no later than babylonian era
    But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol,
    For He will receive me.

    ps 73 – no later than babylonian era
    With Your counsel You will guide me,
    And afterward receive me to glory.

    isaiah 25 – (proto-isaiah, 8th & 7th century bc)
    And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples,
    Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.
    8 He will swallow up death for all time,

    I really can’t believe I’ve gone through this exercise for you, Gary. Probably the single most commonly-held view among humans is a belief in some type of afterlife, and that has apparently been going on since (at the very least) the beginning of recorded history – and, if anthropologists are right, it’s been going on a whole heck of a lot longer time than that.

    Why, in Gods name, you think a small group of people in the middle east would somehow be “exempt” from this most-human tendency is far, far, FAR beyond me.

    But, then, you rarely make a great deal of sense to me.

    Like

  5. nt wright is not to be trusted on what he says

    https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/ds4dc3/m_david_litwa_on_n_t_wright_and_resurrection/?st=k2owmvyp&sh=232bfee3

    “Wright strongly affirms the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection; it is something that happened to Jesus “which had happened to nobody else.”

    No legitimate scholar talks like this. This is why I have no problem calling Wright an apologist.

    If you read NTW, double check everything he says. He plays fast and loose and overstates things. He also make assumptions he cannot methodologically justify, for example, his assumption that the resurrection of Jesus was originally conceived of as a literal resuscitation of a cadaver as opposed to a belief that Jesus had been directly translated to Haven, which is much more consistent with the evidence and with both Jewish and Greco-Roman beliefs.

    He also makes a lot of categorical claims about “Jewish” beliefs, which is a category error since there was no homogenized Jewish religion. There were all kinds of Jewish beliefs who believed all kinds of different things. You can’t come to a conclusion about what Paul or Jesus believed based on their ostensible “Judaism,” which is question-begging in the first place and further complicated by the fact that we are talking about at least one highly atypical Jew in Paul and possibly another in Jesus.

    Wright is not interested in discovering what is true, he is interested in preaching the Gospel.

    Liked by 2 people


    1. No legitimate scholar talks like this. This is why I have no problem calling Wright an apologist.”

      I added another paragraph to the OP which I had meant to add originally but somehow didn’t. Litwa pretty much agrees that it’s an “apologetic attempt” by Wright.

      In the end, Wright’s highly apologetic attempt to establish the uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection fails because of a superficial comparison. In general, we might grant him that hellenized peoples may not have believed in a return of the dead to ordinary (mortal) human life—but this is not what Jesus’ resurrection is! Jesus’ resurrection much more resembles the stories of deified men immortalized after their deaths. These men are not just immortalized in their souls, but in their bodies as well. It is this postmortem corporeal transformation that allows one to compare their stories with the resurrection of Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. “No legitimate scholar talks like this. This is why I have no problem calling Wright an apologist.”

    You’re not the only one. I was just reading a Dale Allison book and he opened both barrels over Wright’s comments about Matthew’s resurrection of the saints.

    ////
    Again, to take an example from a more conservative source, consider N. T. Wright’s evaluation of the following lines from Matthew’s ac count of the crucifixion: “At that moment … the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many” (27:51-53). This astounding series of prodigies left no trace in the other Gospels or Acts or Paul or, for that matter, Josephus; and if such marvels really had some basis in fact, they would instantly have become the bedrock of Christian apologetics, especially as the text speaks of many graves and many witnesses. But all we have is Matthew’s two and a half verses, written sixty or so years after the crucifixion. Surely, then, if anything in the New Testament is haggadic fiction, this is it. Wright, however, has this to say: “some stories are so odd that they may just have happened;’ and Matt. 27:51-53 “may be one of them:’ These lame words lack all historical sense. They are pure apologetics, a product of the will to believe, and a prize illustration of theological predispositions moving an intelligent man to render an unintelligent verdict.
    ///

    Yikes.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/ds4dc3/m_david_litwa_on_n_t_wright_and_resurrection/?st=k2owmvyp&sh=232bfee3

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Outstanding comments Mr.Heathcliff. 😉

      Wright, however, has this to say: “some stories are so odd that they may just have happened;’ and Matt. 27:51-53 “may be one of them:’ These lame words lack all historical sense. They are pure apologetics, a product of the will to believe, and a prize illustration of theological predispositions moving an intelligent man to render an unintelligent verdict.

      From my years of study, research, and many many hours consulting with Rabbinical Jewish scholars of Second Temple Judaism, what you have pointed out about NT Wright and 98% of all modern, very zealous, Christian apologists is what a broad swath of Jewish and Secular scholars define as ancient Greek Apotheosis or as you correctly define Mr.Heathcliff: “pure apologetics, a product of the will to believe, and a prize illustration of theological predispositions moving an intelligent man to render an unintelligent verdict.” Hellenist religious leaders did that from at least the 1st- thru 4th-century CE (and beyond) and modern Christian Fundamentalists, evangelists, and apologists—or propagandists—still do it today. 🙂

      Like

        1. 😴 And here we go again ignoring your own promise and my constant reminders. I repeat…

          All your past and current comments-replies to me merely demonstrate you are nothing more than a poorly educated Evangelical Agitator/Antagonist. Nothing more. You have not and do not show the ability to engage equitably in productive, civil discourse or debate. I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. I’ll repeat for your cranial density: I am not the least bit interested in anything you say here. For the 100th plus time, MOVE ALONG, engage others, ignore my comments like you promised you would do several months ago. This will be my cookie-cutter template reply to you from here on out. Try to comprehend this. Read this 5-10 times if you have to if you can read English. This will be all you illicit every single time. Done with you.

          Like

  7. O. M. G.

    This whole discussion has turned into a forum for mythicists…

    I think I’ll leave it to you guys….

    I got no time for this nonsense….

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s