Pixie wrote this in the comments to "Is there a pre Mark Redaction? part 1" (this last thursday.)
Anonymous said...
Calling an earlier version a "redaction" is very strange!
Joe:[this paragraph is what I said with which he takes issue] In this essay I am going to dispel this myth by demonstrating that there were written records of the gospel events that existed before the writing of Mark's gospel. I will further demonstrate that there were multiple sources transmitting the information. Mark's was not the first gospel written but merely the first of the canonical gospels to be written. None of the early works survive in MS form but we find traces of them in copies of latter works.Nor was Mark' the first teaching of the Resurrection.
Pix:Absolutely agree there were earlier records, written and oral. The creed in 1 Cor 15 - which I see you mention - is said to be an oral tradition from just a few years after the crucifixion. The "third day" motif therefore was in the account from the start.
But the text itself says that comes from scripture, not eye witness accounts. They knew Jesus rose on the third day because that is what it says in Hosea 6. It is certainly not saying Jesus was seen that or that the empty tomb was found that day.
Pix:
Anonymous said... Calling an earlier version a "redaction" is very strange!
Not at all that's what scholars call it. only the first writing was not a redaaction.
Joe: In this essay I am going to dispel this myth by demonstrating that there were written records of the gospel events that existed before the writing of Mark's gospel. I will further demonstrate that there were multiple sources transmitting the information. Mark's was not the first gospel written but merely the first of the canonical gospels to be written. None of the early works survive in MS form but we find traces of them in copies of latter works.Nor was Mark' the first teaching of the Resurrection.
Pix: Absolutely agree there were earlier records, written and oral. The creed in 1 Cor 15 - which I see you mention - is said to be an oral tradition from just a few years after the crucifixion. The "third day" motif therefore was in the account from the start.
Yet at other times he seems to argue that Mark invented the empty tomb.His statemet in the previous comment section that John didn't write about it until 60 years latter.
But the text itself says that comes from scripture, not eye witness accounts. They knew Jesus rose on the third day because that is what it says in Hosea 6. It is certainly not saying Jesus was seen that or that the empty tomb was found that day.
I answered this previously and Tim did as well. No they did not get the idea for the emty tomb from OT. They understood the event as proepshy reflected in OT that isn't where the idea originated. It was an historoical event in their own time. Pixie has an ideological destination where he wants the evidence to go. If the evidence does not take him there the evidence is at fault.There is no reurrection in OT. Not connected to Messiah, they find hints in Isah 53 but nothing explicit.
Pix likes to make much of the fact that Mark says (6:8) the women left in fear and told no one,for him this means never in their lives did they tell anyone. It means nothing to him that Mark says in v 12 *chapter 16 Mary M. told the Apostles.I get the impression that he thinks Mark really ended on v8 with the women not telling anyoone. That's ridiculous becaue Mark believed in the resurrection. why would he end the accoumt on a note of defeat and fear with no idea the res was real? Absurd. Moreover, a foot note (16:8) in NIV says: "Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): 'Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter.'"
Logically the women must have told someone or we would not know of it.Mary M. told Peter and peter and John went to the tomb. so the word got out that day while it was still the empty tomb. Notice she falls away from the group in Matt. and goes back seperately to tell what they saw.
Joe: a passage from my essay "did Mark invent the epty tomb?"
in respnce to argumemt that Mark 16 ends with v8[1]
All that proves is that those particular verses are not found in any Ms that is not proof that the Gospel really ended at v8, or if it did, why it did. There is no particular reason to assume that we know why and just becuase it did end at 8 does not establish a logical reason to believe that Mark made up the empty tomb. The "added verses are 16:9-20." There are scholarly arguments that they are valid. "...[T]he witnesses which bring the verses into question are few, and that the verses are quoted by church Fathers very early, even in the second century." [2] F.H.A. Scrivener makes arguments for vv9-20 as the proper ending. This is an older source quoted at length by Marlowe.[3] My purpose is not to argue for the ending of Mark, I wont belabor that point. No logical reason is given as to why a short abrupt ending means Mark made up the tomb.
My view is that Mark did not end at v8 the orignal ending is lost.
RECOMENDED READIMG (linked)
Story of empty tomb datedt mid first century
Historicity of the women
Resurrection pages
empty tomb in Christian preaching pre dates Mark
NOTES
[1] Joesph Hinmab "Did Mark Invent the Empty Tomb?" Religious a priori, no date given http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-mark-invent-empty-tomb.html [accessed april 8, 2022]
[2] Michael D. Marlowe. "Bible Research, Textual Criticism, Finding the Ending of Mark," Bible Research: Internet Resources for Students of Scripture. site dated since Feb 2001. On line http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html accessed 4/13/2014.
Marlowe also presentes F.H.A. Scrivener's arguments from 1984, that argue for Mark 16:9-20 as the valid ending.[accessed april 8, 2022]
[3] Marlowe, quoting Scrivener, Ibid, http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent accessed 4/13/2014
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent [accessed april 8, 2022]
43 comments:
I want to first state my own position. I will acknowledge that it is far from certain, but I consider it the mostky likely scenario, given the evidence we have.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans. In accordance with Jewish custom, a member of the Sanhedrin asked for the body to be taken down, which the Romans permitted, and the body was then buried in a communal grave. There was no honourable burial and this nothing special to Jesus; this is what they did.
The disciples fled Jerusalm at Jesus arrest (Mark 14), and went back to their old jobs. However, one day, while fishing on Galilee Peter saw something he understood to be the risen Jesus (John 21 and Gospel of Peter), and later other disciples saw it too.
Within a couple of years, the religion is back, and the creed Paul states in 1 Cor 15 is established. The OT says the dead will be raised on the third day (Hosea 4), and so they assume that happened to Jesus, who at this stage was understood to be a man appointed by God to be the new King of the Jews - the standard Jewish belief, shared by both Paul and Mark.
1 Cor 15:3 ... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
Jesus' sayings were recorded. Jesus had taught them to gis disciples, so they were able to repeat them word-for-word.
Later Paul converted and wrote his letters, and some time after that the story of the empty tomb appeared, possibly following an earlier story that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and around this time versions of the pre-Markan passion narrative were written down.
When Mark wrote his gospel, the empty tomb was well established, but he needed a way to include it in the narrative, so invented the women witnessing the empty tomb. They were dead, so could not dispute it, and he had them tell no one so those who were alive at the time would not wonder why there were no stories of an empty tomb back then.
When later gospels were written, beliefs about Jesus had changed. In Matthew and Luke he is special from birth, while in John, written even later, he was special before that. Furthermore, when these books were written all the original witnesses were dead, and there was no one around to say the fanciful stories did not happen. This is when stories of Jesus' appearances in Jerusalem were invented, and later incorporated into gospels.
Pix
Yet at other times he seems to argue that Mark invented the empty tomb.His statemet in the previous comment section that John didn't write about it until 60 years latter.
He may have invented it, or he may have been repeating a story made up at some point after AD 50.
I answered this previously and Tim did as well. No they did not get the idea for the emty tomb from OT.
I never said they did. They got various bits of the story from the OT, but not the empty tomb. The one I was talking about was the third day motif, which is from Hosea 4.
There is no reurrection in OT. Not connected to Messiah, they find hints in Isah 53 but nothing explicit.
There was a belief in a resurrection for everyone, as we see in Daniel. It was believed that the arrival of the messiah would start that process, but the messiah was not supposed to die!
When Jesus died and the disciples believed they had seen him later, they had to re-consider their beliefs. Paul sums it up by saying Jesus was the first fruits - the prototype for what would soon happen to all the faithful.
It means nothing to him that Mark says in v 12 *chapter 16 Mary M. told the Apostles.I get the impression that he thinks Mark really ended on v8 with the women not telling anyoone. That's ridiculous becaue Mark believed in the resurrection. why would he end the accoumt on a note of defeat and fear with no idea the res was real?
To be clear, I am sure Mark believed in the resurrection.
However, all modern scholars recognise that Mark 9 to 19 were added later. Plenty of Bibles acknowledge this fact, and it is incredible that you are arguing otherwise.
So yes, Joe, the contents of verse 12 means nothing to me, and yes I think Mark really ended on verse 8 with the women not telling anyone. How you can then conclude I think Mark did not believe in the resurrection I do not know.
Logically the women must have told someone or we would not know of it.
Not if it never happened. If the empty tomb was made up, then no witnesses are required.
No logical reason is given as to why a short abrupt ending means Mark made up the tomb.
Agreed. It is the absense of an empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 that means the empty tomb was made up, possibly by Mark.
What Mark 16:1-8 does tell us is that Mark believed the risen Jesus was (first) seen in Gailiee, not Jerusalem.
Pix
answer to first comment part 1
Anonymous said...
I want to first state my own position. I will acknowledge that it is far from certain, but I consider it the mostky likely scenario, given the evidence we have.
Why is resurrection not most likley? Because you are ideologically predisposed not to consider it?
Jesus was crucified by the Romans. In accordance with Jewish custom, a member of the Sanhedrin asked for the body to be taken down, which the Romans permitted, and the body was then buried in a communal grave. There was no honourable burial and this nothing special to Jesus; this is what they did.
wrong that is atheist hog wash. Scripture says Jo of A lent them his own tomb,
The disciples fled Jerusalm at Jesus arrest (Mark 14), and went back to their old jobs. However, one day, while fishing on Galilee Peter saw something he understood to be the risen Jesus (John 21 and Gospel of Peter), and later other disciples saw it too.
That doesn't impinge upon actual sightings of risen Jesus.
Within a couple of years, the religion is back, and the creed Paul states in 1 Cor 15 is established. The OT says the dead will be raised on the third day (Hosea 4), and so they assume that happened to Jesus, who at this stage was understood to be a man appointed by God to be the new King of the Jews - the standard Jewish belief, shared by both Paul and Mark.
Give me the verse a number I don't find it. I'm using NIV. In any case that does nit mean the7 got the idea itself from OT. They interpreted the meaning of the event with which they were faced but the event did happen in their day. read this:
1 Cor 15:3 ... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve.
that means the event was foretold in prophesy it does not mean they got the idea from OT. They really had an empty they did not get the idea itself from OT.
Jesus' sayings were recorded. Jesus had taught them to gis disciples, so they were able to repeat them word-for-word.
so?
part 2
Later Paul converted and wrote his letters, and some time after that the story of the empty tomb appeared, possibly following an earlier story that Jesus was buried in a tomb, and around this time versions of the pre-Markan passion narrative were written down.
Nope that is BS! Paul says reresection was one of the things he was taught. Paul speaks of the resurrections, No way to have a res withiest an empty tomb. All five Gospels speak of empty tomb. The fith being GPete which is not canonical.
When Mark wrote his gospel, the empty tomb was well established, but he needed a way to include it in the narrative, so invented the women witnessing the empty tomb. They were dead, so could not dispute it, and he had them tell no one so those who were alive at the time would not wonder why there were no stories of an empty tomb back then.
when d you think Mark was written? Most scholars say 70, Mark knew Peter so it's NOT as though it was written a hundred years latter. You have no knowledge the women were dead. you made it up.
When later gospels were written, beliefs about Jesus had changed. In Matthew and Luke he is special from birth, while in John, written even later, he was special before that.
Do you not know those were written within 15 years of Mark. Not enough time for such developments. Paul spoke of the redirection writing in the 50s.
Furthermore, when these books were written all the original witnesses were dead,
Nonsense. you don't understand the time frame, Paul wrote about the resurrections in the 50s. Mark was written in 70s. Someone Jesus's age would be about 75, that is very possible. But Paul interviewed witnesses
and there was no one around to say the fanciful stories did not happen. This is when stories of Jesus' appearances in Jerusalem were invented, and later incorporated into gospels.
atheist fantasy land, Paul estabois9es that all that stuff was around by AD 55
btw gospel of Peter was written first century maybe pre Mark it has empty tomb,
Why is resurrection not most likley? Because you are ideologically predisposed not to consider it?
Actually, I dd not rule out resurrection. Peter saw something he thought was the risen Jesus; perhaps it was! But it was in Galilee, not Jerusalem.
wrong that is atheist hog wash. Scripture says Jo of A lent them his own tomb,
And, like every other fundie, you assume that if it is in the gospel, it must be true!
That doesn't impinge upon actual sightings of risen Jesus.
We do not know what they saw. What we do know is they believed it was the risen Jesus, and it was most likely in Galilee.
Give me the verse a number I don't find it. I'm using NIV. In any case that does nit mean the7 got the idea itself from OT. They interpreted the meaning of the event with which they were faced but the event did happen in their day. read this:
Sorry, I got the chaper wrong. It is this:
Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
They assumed that that was what happened to Jesus - God restored him on the third day. This is why Paul says it is according to scripture.
that means the event was foretold in prophesy it does not mean they got the idea from OT. They really had an empty they did not get the idea itself from OT.
It was not foretold. You said so youyrself: "There is no reurrection in OT. Not connected to Messiah, they find hints in Isah 53 but nothing explicit."
Hosea 6:2 is about all the resurrected, not the messiah. They extrapolated from that.
And again, this is about the third day, not the empty tomb.
Nope that is BS! Paul says reresection was one of the things he was taught.
So why did you say: "There is no reurrection in OT. Not connected to Messiah, they find hints in Isah 53 but nothing explicit."?
Please make up your mind on this, Joe. Either the OT has the resurrection of the messiah or it does not. Please pick one and stick with it.
Paul speaks of the resurrections,
Paul, prior to being a Christian, believed there would be a general resurrection when the messiah arrived; he did not expect the messiah to die at all. After he converted, he continued to believed there would be a general resurrection, but now believed Jesus was the prototype for that.
Pix
No way to have a res withiest an empty tomb. All five Gospels speak of empty tomb. The fith being GPete which is not canonical.
Nonsense! If Jesus was buried in a communal grave there would be no empty tomb. If Jesus was resurrected in a new body there would be no empty tomb. Even if no one happened to look there would be no empty tomb event.
when d you think Mark was written? Most scholars say 70, Mark knew Peter so it's NOT as though it was written a hundred years latter. You have no knowledge the women were dead. you made it up.
If Jesus was born in 4 BC, and Mary was 16 when he was born, then she would be 90 when Mark was written. Sure, I do not know if she was dead, but it seems pretty likely.
Do you not know those were written within 15 years of Mark. Not enough time for such developments. Paul spoke of the redirection writing in the 50s.
Maybe the stories were already circulating when Mark was written, but were generally considered unlikely. Fifteen years later opinion had swayed, and they seemed much more likely. And perhaps that was the impetus to write the new gospels.
Nonsense. you don't understand the time frame, Paul wrote about the resurrections in the 50s. Mark was written in 70s. Someone Jesus's age would be about 75, that is very possible. But Paul interviewed witnesses
I agree, it is very possible for Mark. But not for the later gospels.
That is the point, joe. When Mark was written, there was a constraint on him to get it right - there were witnesses around to point out that Jesus was not seen in Jerusalem, etc.
atheist fantasy land, Paul estabois9es that all that stuff was around by AD 55
No he does not. He establishes there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected, but he gives us no clue where the risen Jesus was seen.
btw gospel of Peter was written first century maybe pre Mark it has empty tomb,
And like Mark, the gospel has the disciples see the risen Jesus in Galilee, not Jerusalem.
We have a time period up to around AD 55 when they believed Jesus was seen in Galilee, and there was no empty tomb. Paul's letters belong to that time.
We have a time period from around AD 55 up to around AD 75 when they believed Jesus was seen in Galilee, and there now they believed there was an empty tomb. Peter and Mark belong to that time.
We have a time period from around AD 75 on when they believed Jesus was seen in Jerusalem, and there was empty tomb. Matthew, Luke and John belong to that time.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Yet at other times he seems to argue that Mark invented the empty tomb. His statement in the previous comment section that John didn't write about it until 60 years latter.
He may have invented it, or he may have been repeating a story made up at some point after AD 50.
All scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history and that it was in oral tradition before 50
you really don't understand how things work. No scholar thinks the events of the Gospels were invented by Mark. That is ludicrous. WE all know they pre date 50 Koester says that. He says the empty tomb was in writing by 50. Crosson agrees. read the links I provided you might learn something
I answered this previously and Tim did as well. No they did not get the idea for the emty tomb from OT.
I never said they did. They got various bits of the story from the OT, but not the empty tomb. The one I was talking about was the third day motif, which is from Hosea 4.
No they did not get bits of the story from OT, they got confirmation in OT but events were in their lives,
Joe: There is no resurrection in OT. Not connected to Messiah, they find hints in Isah 53 but nothing explicit.
There was a belief in a resurrection for everyone, as we see in Daniel. It was believed that the arrival of the messiah would start that process, but the messiah was not supposed to die!
When Jesus died and the disciples believed they had seen him later, they had to re-consider their beliefs. Paul sums it up by saying Jesus was the first fruits - the prototype for what would soon happen to all the faithful.
Joe: It means nothing to him that Mark says in v 12 *chapter 16 Mary M. told the Apostles. I get the impression that he thinks Mark really ended on v8 with the women not telling anyone. That's ridiculous because Mark believed in the resurrection. why would he end the account on a note of defeat and fear with no idea the res was real?
To be clear, I am sure Mark believed in the resurrection.
However, all modern scholars recognize that Mark 9 to 19 were added later. Plenty of Bibles acknowledge this fact, and it is incredible that you are arguing otherwise.
Not trye because I quoted some who thnk 9-20 nelomgs there
So yes, Joe, the contents of verse 12 means nothing to me, and yes I think Mark really ended on verse 8 with the women not telling anyone. How you can then conclude I think Mark did not believe in the resurrection I do not know.
Logically the women must have told someone or we would not know of it.
Not if it never happened. If the empty tomb was made up, then no witnesses are required.
It never happened does not explain why he would make up women as the first witnesses..
Joe: No logical reason is given as to why a short abrupt ending means Mark made up the tomb.
Agreed. It is the absence of an empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 that means the empty tomb was made up, possibly by Mark.
Paul says he rose, resurrections = empty tomb. He had to be burred in a tomb when he rises he has to leave the tomb empty..
What Mark 16:1-8 does tell us is that Mark believed the risen Jesus was (first) seen in Gailiee, not Jerusalem.
No he doesn't bit if he no boig deal.
Pix you argue all the eye witnesses would be dead by the time the Gospels are written, You use Mary as your example. But use John assume he's 20 in 30. When Mark was written in 70 he would be 60.
You have a good point because one of the reasons for writing was that the witnesses were dying off. But they had not all died.
No way to have a res withiest an empty tomb. All five Gospels speak of empty tomb. The fith being GPete which is not canonical.
Nonsense! If Jesus was buried in a communal grave there would be no empty tomb. If Jesus was resurrected in a new body there would be no empty tomb. Even if no one happened to look there would be no empty tomb event.
He was nit burred in a communal grave. The Gospels tell us this.
when d you think Mark was written? Most scholars say 70, Mark knew Peter so it's NOT as though it was written a hundred years latter. You have no knowledge the women were dead. you made it up.
If Jesus was born in 4 BC, and Mary was 16 when he was born, then she would be 90 when Mark was written. Sure, I do not know if she was dead, but it seems pretty likely.
The other women who accompanied her to the tomb were probably younger than Jesus t
JOE:Do you not know those were written within 15 years of Mark. Not enough time for such developments. Paul spoke of the redirection writing in the 50s.
Maybe the stories were already circulating when Mark was written, but were generally considered unlikely.
You have no basis for that kind of claim. Here let me tell you the big news about the risen Christ but it's probably unlikely.BS!!!! You are constantly trying to set things up to favor your ideological view. Try working with what history gives us.
Fifteen years later opinion had swayed, and they seemed much more likely. And perhaps that was the impetus to write the new gospels.
did it again, you have no reason to say that you have no knowledge and no evidence bit it helps your predilection so that's the way it is. Preponderance of the evidence suggests that Christianity was wildly popular. It continued tp be so well into second century
Nonsense. you don't understand the time frame, Paul wrote about the resurrections in the 50s. Mark was written in 70s. Someone Jesus's age would be about 75, that is very possible. But Paul interviewed witnesses
I agree, it is very possible for Mark. But not for the later gospels.
Matthew was written in 80 only 10 year latter.
That is the point, joe. When Mark was written, there was a constraint on him to get it right - there were witnesses around to point out that Jesus was not seen in Jerusalem, etc.
horse shit he was seen. you are just trying to arrange things again, the end of Luke hev walks the streets of Bethsade which was on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
atheist fantasy land, Paul estaboises that all that stuff was around by AD 55
No he does not. He establishes there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected, but he gives us no clue where the risen Jesus was seen.
nonsense! Paul say he appeared to various people. Most non canon gospls have him appearing to witnesses.
btw gospel of Peter was written first century maybe pre Mark it has empty tomb,
And like Mark, the gospel has the disciples see the risen Jesus in Galilee, not Jerusalem.
Please tell me you are nit thinking that's a proof that there was no tomb Jerusalem? they would not take him to galilee to bury him. quote GPete where it says he appared in Galalee?
We have a time period up to around AD 55 when they believed Jesus was seen in Galilee, and there was no empty tomb. Paul's letters belong to that time.
We have a time period from around AD 55 up to around AD 75 when they believed Jesus was seen in Galilee, and there now they believed there was an empty tomb. Peter and Mark belong to that time.
that is horse shit! even Crosson would ay its bunck. It's just Ludacris and silly. Crosson, Koester Danker all say empty tomb existed well before it was written. Being written in 50 meany it was spread about for several before that,
We have a time period from around AD 75 on when they believed Jesus was seen in Jerusalem, and there was empty tomb. Matthew, Luke and John belong to that time.
no, He rose in Jerusalem,. why would he say I';; meet you in galelee if they were there already? No major scholar agrees with you
All scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history and that it was in oral tradition before 50
No they do not.
Habermas claims the empty tomb as one of his "minimal facts". But even he admits:
"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."
From here:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
Turns out pretty much all Christian scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history; others, not so much
you really don't understand how things work. No scholar thinks the events of the Gospels were invented by Mark. That is ludicrous. WE all know they pre date 50 Koester says that. He says the empty tomb was in writing by 50. Crosson agrees. read the links I provided you might learn something
First off, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the empty tomb was made up before Mark.
Please stop pretending I said Mark made up the empty tomb!
Koester actually says the PMPN was a flexible document that underwent many changes, which fits perfectly with my scenario.
Crossan is famous for saying Jesus was probably left on the cross top be eaten by crows or dogs. Your beliefs are closer to mine than to his!
https://www.apprising.org/2008/12/03/john-dominic-crossan-the-body-of-jesus-eaten-by-crows-or-dogs/
I answered this previously and Tim did as well. No they did not get the idea for the emty tomb from OT.
Again, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the third day motif came from the OT, not the empty tomb.
Please stop pretending I said they got the idea of the empty tomb from the OT!
No they did not get bits of the story from OT, they got confirmation in OT but events were in their lives,
And you know that because it says it in the gospels. If it is in the gospels, it must be true, right?
Outside of fundamentalism, that is not going to cut it.
Not trye because I quoted some who thnk 9-20 nelomgs there
Wow, you really want to go down that road. Your position is that the ending of Mark must be part of the original because you found a handful of scholars who agree with you?
Where are these quotes you claim to have presented? I cannot see any such quotes in this discussion. I cannot see any scholars named even. Are they fundamentalists who - like you - just assume the gospels are true? Or are they scholars at real universities?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/was-mark-16-9-20-originally-mark-gospel/
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
Pix
It never happened does not explain why he would make up women as the first witnesses..
He needed witnesses who were known to the community, who could not refute him as they were dead, and who could plausibly have said nothing about it at the time. The two women were perfect!
Paul says he rose, resurrections = empty tomb. He had to be burred in a tomb when he rises he has to leave the tomb empty..
As I said before:
Nonsense! If Jesus was buried in a communal grave there would be no empty tomb. If Jesus was resurrected in a new body there would be no empty tomb. Even if no one happened to look there would be no empty tomb event.
No he doesn't bit if he no boig deal.
Yes he does. Go read the Bible, Joe!
Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
This contradicts the other gospels - and the later ending of Mark - all of which claim Jesus was seen in Jerusalem that day.
However, it does match the gospel of Peter, which, as you say, is earlier.
Pix you argue all the eye witnesses would be dead by the time the Gospels are written, You use Mary as your example. But use John assume he's 20 in 30. When Mark was written in 70 he would be 60.
You have a good point because one of the reasons for writing was that the witnesses were dying off. But they had not all died.
Again, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the women died before Mark was written, the other witnesses before the other gospels were written..
Please stop pretending I said all the witnesses were dead before Mark was written!
He was nit burred in a communal grave. The Gospels tell us this.
And like every other fundie, you believe that if it is written in the gospel it must be true.
The other women who accompanied her to the tomb were probably younger than Jesus t
We do not know, and it is possibly for people to die young. I cannot be sure they were dead, but you cannot be sure they were alive. My scenario is certainly plausible.
You have no basis for that kind of claim. Here let me tell you the big news about the risen Christ but it's probably unlikely.BS!!!! You are constantly trying to set things up to favor your ideological view. Try working with what history gives us.
I was talking about the Jerusalem appearances. Looking back, I see you were talking about the resurrection, so apologies for the confusion.
To be clear, Paul and Mark firmly believed in the resurrection, but not the appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem, though the stories may well have been circulating when Mark was written.
Pix
horse shit he was seen. you are just trying to arrange things again, the end of Luke hev walks the streets of Bethsade which was on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
How do you know he was seen in (or around) Jerusalem? Are you going down the fundie road again, and assuming that if it is in the gospel it must be true?
Pix: No he does not. He establishes there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected, but he gives us no clue where the risen Jesus was seen.
Joe: nonsense! Paul say he appeared to various people. Most non canon gospls have him appearing to witnesses.
Talk me through the reasoning here Joe. I accept that Paul says Jesus appeared to various people. How do you get from that to Paul saying Jesus was seen in Jerusalem?
Please tell me you are nit thinking that's a proof that there was no tomb Jerusalem? they would not take him to galilee to bury him.
There is no proof of any of this on either side of the debate.
The most likely scenario is either Jesus was left on the cross - as Crossan believes - or the Jews were allowed to take him down and bury him in a communal grave, as they would do with any crucifixion victim.
quote GPete where it says he appared in Galalee?
Here is the ending of the gospel of Peter. Verse 59 says they went home, i.e., to Galilee. Peter then saw Jesus whilst fishing in verse 60.
[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html
no, He rose in Jerusalem,. why would he say I';; meet you in galelee if they were there already? No major scholar agrees with you
He does not do that in the original - i.e., Mark. It is the man in the tomb who says that. Jesus has already departed.
Pix
One scholar who agrees with me, Professor of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
Pix
Tabor used to be a friend of mine. He's a fine scholar but consciously anti belief. So his views are too ideological.
My view is that the ending of Mark is lost.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
All scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history and that it was in oral tradition before 50
No they do not.
The major one's do
Habermas claims the empty tomb as one of his "minimal facts". But even he admits:
"Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority."
only 25% support your view you think that's an endorsement?
From here:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
Turns out pretty much all Christian scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history; others, not so much
You can't assume from that that the majority of non christians accept the no tomb idea.
Joe:you really don't understand how things work. No scholar thinks the events of the Gospels were invented by Mark. That is ludicrous. WE all know they pre date 50 Koester says that. He says the empty tomb was in writing by 50. Crosson agrees. read the links I provided you might learn something
First off, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the empty tomb was made up before Mark.
Pix:Please stop pretending I said Mark made up the empty tomb!
you say a lot of things that imply that you think that
Koester actually says the PMPN was a flexible document that underwent many changes, which fits perfectly with my scenario.
He does not say it did't have empty tomb nor does he same it was late.
Anonymous said...
It never happened does not explain why he would make up women as the first witnesses..
He needed witnesses who were known to the community, who could not refute him as they were dead, and who could plausibly have said nothing about it at the time. The two women were perfect!
The town drunk is known to the community no one wants his witness. WE know if they made it up they would leave out the women because the James church tried to do that. They taught Paul a creedal statement that did not include the women.
Paul says he rose, resurrections = empty tomb. He had to be burred in a tomb when he rises he has to leave the tomb empty..
As I said before:
Nonsense! If Jesus was buried in a communal grave there would be no empty tomb. If Jesus was resurrected in a new body there would be no empty tomb. Even if no one happened to look there would be no empty tomb event.
why do you always go in for all the hokey hogwash? The new body Paul talks about was the old body revamped. It does need an empty tomb because there is no physical part left. There is no reason think any of the stuff you spout. no reason at all. The Gospels say he had a tomb it accounts for who gave it.
x
Anonymous Anonymous said...
horse shit he was seen. you are just trying to arrange things again, the end of Luke hev walks the streets of Bethany (said Bethsede oops sorry) which was on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
How do you know he was seen in (or around) Jerusalem? Are you going down the fundie road again, and assuming that if it is in the gospel it must be true?
If you think believing the Gospels as historical document is fundie you are sadly mistaken, I take the Gospels especially Luke as histories. You show me they are not. Luke says he walked through Bethany and Paul inadvertently confirms it
Pix: No he does not. He establishes there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected, but he gives us no clue where the risen Jesus was seen.
Luke? chapter 24 50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
Joe: nonsense! Paul say he appeared to various people. Most non canon gospls have him appearing to witnesses.
Talk me through the reasoning here Joe. I accept that Paul says Jesus appeared to various people. How do you get from that to Paul saying Jesus was seen in Jerusalem?
I don't think I said that. He says he appeared to 500 and the only time we have an indication of that being possible is when he walks through the streets of Bethenandy.
why could;t he appear to them in Jerusalem then arrange to eet them in Galaee?
Please tell me you are nit thinking that's a proof that there was no tomb Jerusalem? they would not take him to galilee to bury him.
There is no proof of any of this on either side of the debate.
Yes by the atheist dogma that nothing in the bible could possibly true, The resiurrectim this i based c;ea;ryand firmly in Jersuel,.why was his brother based in Jerusalelm mot Galelee?
The most likely scenario is either Jesus was left on the cross - as Crossan believes - or the Jews were allowed to take him down and bury him in a communal grave, as they would do with any crucifixion victim.
Totally unlikely since it would prpfane the Passover. No witness supports taht idea. The community of the holy Speicher has always said this is where he was cruised, bride and rose, right here
quote GPete where it says he appared in Galalee?
Here is the ending of the gospel of Peter. Verse 59 says they went home, i.e., to Galilee. Peter then saw Jesus whilst fishing in verse 60.
they went home did they? from where? where were they thatthey had to return hom from?
[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html
no, He rose in Jerusalem,. why would he say I';; meet you in galelee if they were there already? No major scholar agrees with you
because he wanted to be in Galelee. He grew up there
He does not do that in the original - i.e., Mark. It is the man in the tomb who says that. Jesus has already departed.
That does not deny that he made appearances in Jerusalem,
I think he left Galilee and went back to Jerusalem so the apostles would be there with all the Jews from different lands; that is on Pentecost.
Tabor used to be a friend of mine. He's a fine scholar but consciously anti belief. So his views are too ideological.
I have a scholar with good standing that I can name who agrees with me. I have yet to see you do that.
My view is that the ending of Mark is lost.
And yet previously you were using the contents of Mark 16:9-20 to support your position!
Make your mind up Joe.
only 25% support your view you think that's an endorsement?
I think it destroys your claim that "All scholars accept that the empty tomb existed in history".
You can't assume from that that the majority of non christians accept the no tomb idea.
It is in the Habermas article I linked to:
"From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” "
you say a lot of things that imply that you think that
No, Joe. You have decided in advance that that is what I believe, and then read it into my comments.
He does not say it did't have empty tomb nor does he same it was late.
The point is that we do not know either way.
The town drunk is known to the community no one wants his witness.
I guess that is why Mark did not use him then
WE know if they made it up they would leave out the women because the James church tried to do that. They taught Paul a creedal statement that did not include the women.
Not sure what you mean. The creedal statement in 1 Cor 15 does not include the women because it pre-dates the invention of the story.
why do you always go in for all the hokey hogwash? The new body Paul talks about was the old body revamped. It does need an empty tomb because there is no physical part left. There is no reason think any of the stuff you spout. no reason at all. The Gospels say he had a tomb it accounts for who gave it.
Or Paul is talking about replacing the old body, which is the usual Jewish belief (see Josephus). But even if you are right, there is still no necessity for an empty tomb. If Jesus was buried in a tomb with another body, there would be no empty tomb.
As usual, you are assuming the gospels are right in every detail.
If you think believing the Gospels as historical document is fundie you are sadly mistaken, I take the Gospels especially Luke as histories. You show me they are not. Luke says he walked through Bethany and Paul inadvertently confirms it
Taking the gospels as necessarily true is fundie thinking.
They are not historical documents. This is a claim made by Christians ignorant of how history is done. Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration. We do not have that for any of the gospels. And yes, that is inevitable, given the age they would be, but tough. Without the original manuscripts, they are not historical documents.
Further, Luke could have been the best historian of his age, but he was not there at the crucifixion, he did not see the risen Jesus. He is relying on what other said, and having to evaluate how reliable they are. And if he is like you, he will set the bar very low if he wants it to be true.
Pix
Joe: atheist fantasy land, Paul estabois9es that all that stuff was around by AD 55
Pix: No he does not. He establishes there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected, but he gives us no clue where the risen Jesus was seen.
Joe: Luke? chapter 24 50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
This is just nonsense. We are discussing your claim that Paul supports the risen Jesus being seen in Jerusalem. Luke is dated to AD 80-90, well after Paul was writing, ca AD 55.
I don't think I said that. He says he appeared to 500 and the only time we have an indication of that being possible is when he walks through the streets of Bethenandy.
why could;t he appear to them in Jerusalem then arrange to eet them in Galaee?
Now that is a bit more like it. That is plausible, but far from certain. However, we have precious little about Jesus in Galilee after the resurrection. The later gospels definitely played it down. Luke, your great historian, does not mention it at all!
Pix: There is no proof of any of this on either side of the debate.
Joe: Yes by the atheist dogma that nothing in the bible could possibly true, The resiurrectim this i based c;ea;ryand firmly in Jersuel,.
My point is that nothing is proven. I did not mean to imply anything more than that.
why was his brother based in Jerusalelm mot Galelee?
Presumably because there more people to convert, exactly the same reason Jesus went to Jerusalem.
Totally unlikely since it would prpfane the Passover. No witness supports taht idea. The community of the holy Speicher has always said this is where he was cruised, bride and rose, right here
And if it says it in the gospel, it must be true, according to fundie Joe.
In reality, the Jews may not have had a choice. It was up to the Romans. I tend to towards the body being taken down, but it is far from certain.
I think it unlikely there were any Christian witnesses. As Mark says in chapter 14, they fled when Jesus was arrested.
they went home did they? from where? where were they thatthey had to return hom from?
They were in Jerusalem with Jesus - remember the Last Supper - then Jesus was arrested, they fled Jerusalem, and went home, to Galilee. This is not complicated, Joe.
That is what the gospel of Peter says.
because he wanted to be in Galelee. He grew up there
I think you are reply to yourself here.
That does not deny that he made appearances in Jerusalem,
It is possibly that Jesus appeared in Jerusalem later, after they got back from Galilee. That would be at least a week after the resurrection, and could be months later. Not at all what the later gospels claim.
If Jesus was not seen until at the earliest some days after his resurrection, then where does the Third Day motif come from? No one saw him then. It comes from scripture.
You cite Koester. Perhaps you should read this:
"One can assume that the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of Scripture."
- Koester, The Ancient Christian Gospels, p224
Pix
You cite Koester. Perhaps you should read this:
"One can assume that the only historical information about Jesus' suffering, crucifixion, and death was that he was condemned to death by Pilate and crucified. The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of Scripture."
- Koester, The Ancient Christian Gospels, p224
I do not merely cite Koester, I've read his book 25 times and I quote from it assiduously and profusely. This statement doesn't mean as much you think. It says we can assume the only real facts historically are Pilate crucified him. But most of what he talks about is what PMR says. That does nit mean that PMR is historical fact. But it is evidence. They wouldn't make claims that have no basis in reality.
I grant that details such as Mary M. not recognizing Jesus then calling him Rabbi that is embellishment. That is no big deal. That is not saving knowledge. You are not unsaved if you don't believe it.
Or Paul is talking about replacing the old body, which is the usual Jewish belief (see Josephus). But even if you are right, there is still no necessity for an empty tomb. If Jesus was buried in a tomb with another body, there would be no empty tomb.
No he does not talk about it being replaced. That was not the Jewish belief. He talks about the body being glorified huge difference,
As usual, you are assuming the gospels are right in every detail.
I never said that, you can't distinguish between something obviously factual like Jo of A giving his tomb, vs something as obviously poetic license such as specific dialogue. Denying any historicity is not liberal its atheist,
Joe:If you think believing the Gospels as historical document is fundie you are sadly mistaken, I take the Gospels especially Luke as histories. You show me they are not. Luke says he walked through Bethany and Paul inadvertently confirms it
Taking the gospels as necessarily true is fundie thinking.
You don't know the difference in historical truth and necessary truth. Historical truth is contingent.
They are not historical documents. This is a claim made by Christians ignorant of how history is done.
I am a historian, I was in PhD program for several years. You are ideologically indoctrinated, So you find any degree of historicity abhorrent. I have not pushed much as historical. Anything that supports the resurrection is too much for you. You don't even think rationally about it. What I said about ending of Mark is totally unacceptable for a real fundie,
Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration. We do not have that for any of the gospels. And yes, that is inevitable, given the age they would be, but tough. Without the original manuscripts, they are not historical documents.
Nonsense, A document need not be a swore affidavit to be historical. Historical document need not vouch safe the truth of various events to historical. History is probability Documents that tell us this group made this claim is a historical document weather it proves the claim is true or not. History is probability it is a matter of the burden of proof. You want to assert that it's a fact Jesus had no tomb, The people who were there say he did. I do not claim a gay named Joe of Arimathea really loaned his tomb. But that claim is made by the people who were there. I must assign their claim a higher probably than yours. Your burden to over turn that,
Further, Luke could have been the best historian of his age, but he was not there at the crucifixion, he did not see the risen Jesus. He is relying on what other said, and having to evaluate how reliable they are. And if he is like you, he will set the bar very low if he wants it to be true.
He talked to people who were there and you have not, You don't know jack shit about where I place the bar.
I do not merely cite Koester, I've read his book 25 times and I quote from it assiduously and profusely. This statement doesn't mean as much you think. It says we can assume the only real facts historically are Pilate crucified him. But most of what he talks about is what PMR says. That does nit mean that PMR is historical fact. But it is evidence. They wouldn't make claims that have no basis in reality.
He specifically states that the disciples got most of the details from the OT, rather than seeing it for themselves. As I said.
Until you can find a quote that says otherwise, my claim that the third day motif comes from Hosea 6, rather than a witness, stands.
In fact, given what you say above, it is strange I cannot find any quotes of Koester in either your post or your subsequent comments...
No he does not talk about it being replaced. That was not the Jewish belief. He talks about the body being glorified huge difference,
The text can be understood either way. Personally, I think he is talking about a different body.
Here is Josephus on the beliefs of the Pharisees:
14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14
I never said that, you can't distinguish between something obviously factual like Jo of A giving his tomb, vs something as obviously poetic license such as specific dialogue. Denying any historicity is not liberal its atheist,
No, you never said it, but you assumed it. You said: The Gospels say he had a tomb it accounts for who gave it. What is the evidence he had a tomb? The Gospel says it, so that proves it!
Typical fundie thinking.
You don't know the difference in historical truth and necessary truth. Historical truth is contingent.
I meant "necessarily true" in the sense of established as fact. Taking the gospels as established as fact is fundie thinking.
I am a historian, I was in PhD program for several years. You are ideologically indoctrinated, So you find any degree of historicity abhorrent. I have not pushed much as historical. Anything that supports the resurrection is too much for you. You don't even think rationally about it. What I said about ending of Mark is totally unacceptable for a real fundie,
You are claiming the gospels are "historical documents". They are not.
Nonsense, A document need not be a swore affidavit to be historical.
I never said that. I said "Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration."
Historical document need not vouch safe the truth of various events to historical.
I never said that. I said "Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration."
History is probability Documents that tell us this group made this claim is a historical document weather it proves the claim is true or not.
No it is not. A historical document is the physical document itself; the Magna Carta, the original US Constitution, etc. We do not have that for the gospels. We have copies of copies of copies, with no way to tell how they have been changed. And the ending of Mark 16 tells us there have been some changes.
Pix
History is probability it is a matter of the burden of proof. You want to assert that it's a fact Jesus had no tomb, The people who were there say he did.
Again, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I started: "I want to first state my own position. I will acknowledge that it is far from certain, but I consider it the mostky likely scenario, given the evidence we have."
Please stop pretending I said my claims are facts
We do not even know that there were any of Jesus' followers there to see where he was buried. The most likely scenario is they fled Jerusalem for fear of being next on the cross, as Mark 14 indicates. It was common practice for Joseph of Arimathea to get the bodies taken down off the cross, so they had reason to hope that that happened to Jesus. They hoped he got buried properly, rather than chucked in a communal grave, so assumed that happened.
Again, this is the most likely scenario. This fits with what we know of the times. It is reasonable to suppose the disciples fled; it is reasonable to suppose the Jewish authorities asked for the body to be taken down; it is reasonable to suppose the Romans would deny an honourable burial; it is reasonable to suppose the Jewish authorities would just want the body in a communal grave.
I do not claim a gay named Joe of Arimathea really loaned his tomb. But that claim is made by the people who were there. I must assign their claim a higher probably than yours. Your burden to over turn that,
You are assuming they were there. I find that unlikely.
I never said that, you can't distinguish between something obviously factual like Jo of A giving his tomb, vs something as obviously poetic license such as specific dialogue. Denying any historicity is not liberal its atheist,
Why is it obviously factual?
In Mark, Joseph is a pious member of the Sanhedrin, not a Christian. He has no motivation to treat Jesus with any respect. That motivation was made up for later gospels.
The Romans saw Jesus (rightly or wrongly) as a rebel leader. The humiliation of crucifixion was, in part, to quash any future revolt. The last thong they wanted was for Jesus to be venerated after death. They could appease the Jews by allowing burial in a communal grave - that was all the Jewish custom required - but they had good reason to refuse burial in a tomb.
On the other hand, the early Christians, who likely were not there, had good reason to make up burial in a tomb.
He talked to people who were there and you have not,
What people? How do you know they were there? How reliable were these people? We have no way to know. Maybe he talked to none of the original witnesses, but only had third or fourth hand accounts. We do not know.
You don't know jack shit about where I place the bar.
You just assume the gospels are true without actually considering the alternatives, so I have a pretty good idea.
Pix
test
Pix He [Koester] specifically states that the disciples got most of the details from the OT, rather than seeing it for themselves. As I said.
No! quote him, you are interpreting his words. You don't seem tp understand how they used the OT. The events in their lives has to be prior. they could not make up an empty tomb from a verse in the OT because there isn't one. There are implied resurrections verses but not one about an empty tomb. You misunderstand what it means to use scripture in relation to Jesus' life.
Until you can find a quote that says otherwise, my claim that the third day motif comes from Hosea 6, rather than a witness, stands.
there is n such verse in that chapter. I ran this buy my prof from Perkins who is a renown church historian. He says your view is contrary to any sense of history. There is no mention of an empty tomb in that chapter. Any implication of resurrections is mere implication, you have to have an actual evet to use it for.
part 2
In fact, given what you say above, it is strange I cannot find any quotes of Koester in either your post or your subsequent comments...
you haven't read Koester because you dom't know what he says. I don't have a quote because I don't have the book here in the nursing home. It's packed away in boxes I'll never see again. But I know the ideas he coveys. Besides I do quote him in my post on PMR. In the post on PMR part 1 I reference Koester in fn 5.
No he does not talk about it being replaced. That was not the Jewish belief. He talks about the body being glorified huge difference,
The text can be understood either way. Personally, I think he is talking about a different body.
Bull Shit! I've never seen any scholar who says that.
Here is Josephus on the beliefs of the Pharisees:
14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned, the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does co-operate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.
- Jewish War 2.8.14
That does not mean they would understand Jesus' ghost running around to be a resurrection. Not a resurrection unless his body that died comes alive again!
Joe:I never said that, you can't distinguish between something obviously factual like Jo of A giving his tomb, vs something as obviously poetic license such as specific dialogue. Denying any historicity is not liberal its atheist,
No, you never said it, but you assumed it. You said: The Gospels say he had a tomb it accounts for who gave it. What is the evidence he had a tomb? The Gospel says it, so that proves it!
You have not the faintest idea how historians work. The Gospel authors were there, they knew the people who saw Jesus risen. You have nothing to back your view except a vague idea of this had to happen because we must doubt the Bible. That is not evidence, doubt is not evidence. The Gospel authurs were there, They knew the principles
Typical fundie thinking.
typical atheist horse shit,
Joe:You don't know the difference in historical truth and necessary truth. Historical truth is contingent.
I meant "necessarily true" in the sense of established as fact. Taking the gospels as established as fact is fundie thinking.
If you think it's established as fact that there was no empty tomb you really know nothing at all about what historians do. I am a trained historian. You are wrong: The empty tomb is closer to being a fact than your speculation, There are those from the era and location who claim to be witnesses. No witness anywhere ever claimed it was made up. You may think the witnesses for Resurrections are lying, There are no facts here. But I witnesses you have none, your witnesses can't lie but only because you don't have any. My witnesses may be lying. your witnesses can't lie but only because you have no witnesses,. You also have no real evidence that my witnesses lie.
I am a historian, I was in PhD program for several years. You are ideologically indoctrinated, So you find any degree of historicity abhorrent. I have not pushed much as historical. Anything that supports the resurrection is too much for you. You don't even think rationally about it. What I said about ending of Mark is totally unacceptable for a real fundie,
part 3
You are claiming the gospels are "historical documents". They are not.
Nonsense, A document need not be a swore affidavit to be historical.
I never said that. I said "Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration."
Historical document need not vouch safe the truth of various events to be historical.
Pix: I never said that. I said "Historical documents are the original documents; the manuscripts that can be physically tested for date and signs of alteration."
Joe History is probability Documents that tell us this group made this claim is a historical document weather it proves the claim is true or not.
No it is not. A historical document is the physical document itself; the Magna Carta, the original US Constitution, etc. We do not have that for the gospels. We have copies of copies of copies, with no way to tell how they have been changed. And the ending of Mark 16 tells us there have been some changes.
Based upon age of the Ms in relation to the events and the Number of MS we know the readings are early and probably match the original. Much more valid than most ancient MS
No! quote him, you are interpreting his words. You don't seem tp understand how they used the OT. The events in their lives has to be prior.
I did quote him. He is perfectly clear. "The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of Scripture."
they could not make up an empty tomb from a verse in the OT because there isn't one.
Again, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the third day motif came from the OT, not the empty tomb.
Please stop pretending I said they got the idea of the empty tomb from the OT!
Again and again you do this.
There are implied resurrections verses but not one about an empty tomb. You misunderstand what it means to use scripture in relation to Jesus' life.
And you repeatedly misunderstand what "Please stop pretending I said they got the idea of the empty tomb from the OT!" means.
there is n such verse in that chapter. I ran this buy my prof from Perkins who is a renown church historian. He says your view is contrary to any sense of history. There is no mention of an empty tomb in that chapter. Any implication of resurrections is mere implication, you have to have an actual evet to use it for.
That is because you are once more battling your straw man where you pretend I said they got the idea of the empty tomb from the OT. They got the third day motif from the OT, as supported by the Koester quote.
Here is the verse, though I already quoted it.
Hosea 6:2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.
you haven't read Koester because you dom't know what he says.
I have read him; he says: The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of Scripture."
I don't have a quote because I don't have the book here in the nursing home. It's packed away in boxes I'll never see again. But I know the ideas he coveys. Besides I do quote him in my post on PMR. In the post on PMR part 1 I reference Koester in fn 5.
The quote in the PMR article is about a sayings gospel - quite a different situation.
Bull Shit! I've never seen any scholar who says that.
James Tabor:
Resurrection of the dead, according to both Paul and Jesus, has nothing to do with the former physical body. Paul’s objectors taunted him—“How are the dead raised? In what kind of a body will they come forth?—he called them fools—as obviously they had no clue about the concept of resurrection, mistaking it for corpse revival (1 Corinthians 15:34). Paul says that Jesus had become, what he calls, a life-giving spirit. The difference between this idea and that of the Greek notion of the immortal soul is difficult to understand, but in the Hebraic view of things the distinction was important. Simply put, in Greek thought death was a friend—that released one from the bonds of the lower, mortal, decaying, material world. In Hebrew the created world is good—even very good—and death is seen as enemy—but one that can be conquered. Paul writes that the “last enemy to be destroyed is death,” and then the creation, which is good, will be “released from its bondage to decay” (1 Corinthians 15:26; Romans 8:21).
https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-confused-about-the-earliest-christian-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead/
Pix
That does not mean they would understand Jesus' ghost running around to be a resurrection. Not a resurrection unless his body that died comes alive again!
What did Paul see, Joe? A bright light and a voice. Paul was an enemy of the Christians, but that was enough to convince him, because that was what he expected to see from the resurrected.
You have not the faintest idea how historians work. The Gospel authors were there, they knew the people who saw Jesus risen.
It is laughable that you accuse me of not knowing how historians work, and in the very next sentence make a claim so far removed from real history!
The gospel authors were NOT there, Joe. Possibly Mark and Luke were authored by St Mark and St Luke, but that is far from certain. And neither of them were witnesses - they were not there.
You have nothing to back your view except a vague idea of this had to happen because we must doubt the Bible. That is not evidence, doubt is not evidence. The Gospel authurs were there, They knew the principles
That is just your fundamentalism talking. You are utterly sure Jesus was buried in a tomb because that is your religious belief, and the gospels support that. It is possible, but it is pretty unlikely because the Romans would be unlikely to allow it, and the Jewish authorities had no reason to ask for it.
If you think it's established as fact that there was no empty tomb you really know nothing at all about what historians do.
I never said that. You are the one who is dogmatic in your position.
I am a trained historian. You are wrong: The empty tomb is closer to being a fact than your speculation, There are those from the era and location who claim to be witnesses.
Where do they claim that?
No witness anywhere ever claimed it was made up.
Of course not! But we would not expect that, so this fails as evidence. An argument from silence, where we would expect silence either way, is a failed argument.
You may think the witnesses for Resurrections are lying, There are no facts here.
I do not. I think there were sincere. But what they saw was in Galilee, not Jerusalem. The Jerusalem appearances were made up once the witnesses were all dead.
I am a historian, I was in PhD program for several years. You are ideologically indoctrinated, So you find any degree of historicity abhorrent.
Are you going to claim you are NOT ideologically indoctrinated?
I have not pushed much as historical.
Burial in a tomb, the empty tomb, the appearances in Jerusalem... That seems like a lot to me.
Anything that supports the resurrection is too much for you. You don't even think rationally about it.
It is, then, ironic that I am not arguing against the resurrection. I am arguing against the burial in a tomb, the empty tomb, the appearances in Jerusalem... But the disciples saw something in Galilee that they believed was the risen Jesus. What that was we have no way of knowing, but perhaps it really was Jesus?
Based upon age of the Ms in relation to the events and the Number of MS we know the readings are early and probably match the original. Much more valid than most ancient MS
Pix
I did quote him. He is perfectly clear. "The details and individual scenes of the narrative do not rest on historical memory, but were developed on the basis of allegorical interpretation of Scripture."
The empty tomb is not an allegorical interpretation nor is it a detail or an individual scene. That quote does not apply. That does not say there are no historical basis to the Gospel
Joe:they could not make up an empty tomb from a verse in the OT because there isn't one.
Again, you need to read what I actually write, not just mouth off about what you think I believe. In my first comment I laid out my position, and I stated the third day motif came from the OT, not the empty tomb.
they could not have sold that he rose on the third day if he didn't. They would have groups who were stuck with the day it really was and there would be traces of that belief. there are none,
Please stop pretending I said they got the idea of the empty tomb from the OT!
so where do you think they got the empty tomb?
You did say:
Pix "He [Koester] specifically states that the disciples got most of the details from the OT, rather than seeing it for themselves."
why should I not think you include the empty tomb? where do you think they got it
Bull Shit! I've never seen any scholar who says that.
James Tabor:
Resurrection of the dead, according to both Paul and Jesus, has nothing to do with the former physical body. Paul’s objectors taunted him—“How are the dead raised? In what kind of a body will they come forth?—he called them fools—as obviously they had no clue about the concept of resurrection, mistaking it for corpse revival (1 Corinthians 15:34). Paul says that Jesus had become, what he calls, a life-giving spirit. The difference between this idea and that of the Greek notion of the immortal soul is difficult to understand, but in the Hebraic view of things the distinction was important. Simply put, in Greek thought death was a friend—that released one from the bonds of the lower, mortal, decaying, material world. In Hebrew the created world is good—even very good—and death is seen as enemy—but one that can be conquered. Paul writes that the “last enemy to be destroyed is death,” and then the creation, which is good, will be “released from its bondage to decay” (1 Corinthians 15:26; Romans 8:21).
https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-confused-about-the-earliest-christian-view-of-resurrection-of-the-dead/
that does not mean soul goes into a different body,
Yhat passage means the old body will be renewed. Doesn't mean exchanged for another body,
Joe:
That does not mean they would understand Jesus' ghost running around to be a resurrection. Not a resurrection unless his body that died comes alive again!
Pix: What did Paul see, Joe? A bright light and a voice. Paul was an enemy of the Christians, but that was enough to convince him, because that was what he expected to see from the resurrected.
You really think Paul's conception of resurrection was a light and a voice? He makes it quite clear in 1 Corinthians that resurrection is a body coming back to life.
Joe:You have not the faintest idea how historians work. The Gospel authors were there, they knew the people who saw Jesus risen.
It is laughable that you accuse me of not knowing how historians work, and in the very next sentence make a claim so far removed from real history!
The gospel authors were NOT there, Joe. Possibly Mark and Luke were authored by St Mark and St Luke, but that is far from certain. And neither of them were witnesses - they were not there.
Only two of the authors are even claimed to be preset im the evets covered in the Gospels. True Luke and Mark were not. When say "there" I don't mean during the events the Gospels discuss. They knew the Apostles. John and Mathew were preset in the evets covered. I don't want to go into authorship now. Assume the community produced the works the community was led by eye witnesses.
You have nothing to back your view except a vague idea of this had to happen because we must doubt the Bible. That is not evidence, doubt is not evidence. The Gospel authurs were there, They knew the principles
That is just your fundamentalism talking. You are utterly sure Jesus was buried in a tomb because that is your religious belief, and the gospels support that. It is possible, but it is pretty unlikely because the Romans would be unlikely to allow it, and the Jewish authorities had no reason to ask for it.
Your little childish name calling campaign is not going to intimidate me into giving up positions Ive developed over the years, you atheist.
Joe:If you think it's established as fact that there was no empty tomb you really know nothing at all about what historians do.
Pix:I never said that. You are the one who is dogmatic in your position.
I am a trained historian. You are wrong: The empty tomb is closer to being a fact than your speculation, There are those from the era and location who claim to be witnesses.
Where do they claim that?
Papias said that New wrote a gospel. why would they name Gospels after unimportant people like Luke and Mark? I think of the community as author we know there were eye witnesses,
No witness anywhere ever claimed it was made up.
Of course not! But we would not expect that, so this fails as evidence. An argument from silence, where we would expect silence either way, is a failed argument.
It does not fail as evidence. You 3xpectations do not determine what is evidence, you have no evidence at all to back up assertions such as body was never put in a tomb. No proof at all. WE at least have accounts that say he did. The documents were produced by the early Christian community, That was their reason for being a community because they knew the tomb was empty.
You may think the witnesses for Resurrections are lying, There are no facts here.
PixI do not. I think there were sincere. But what they saw was in Galilee, not Jerusalem. The Jerusalem appearances were made up once the witnesses were all dead.
I am a historian, I was in PhD program for several years. You are ideologically indoctrinated, So you find any degree of historicity abhorrent.
Are you going to claim you are NOT ideologically indoctrinated?
No quote the contrary I am more homes about facing reality .
I have not pushed much as historical.
Burial in a tomb, the empty tomb, the appearances in Jerusalem... That seems like a lot to me.
You are doubt oriented. you can't measure historicity by quantity,
Anything that supports the resurrection is too much for you. You don't even think rationally about it.
It is, then, ironic that I am not arguing against the resurrection. I am arguing against the burial in a tomb, the empty tomb, the appearances in Jerusalem...
You don/t even know what resurrections is without a tomb to rise from there's no res.
But the disciples saw something in Galilee that they believed was the risen Jesus. What that was we have no way of knowing, but perhaps it really was Jesus?
They also touched it and put their fingers in the wounds.w upi ,ist think the Aposltes were retarted. I loved my mo, more thananythingInever once thought I seeimgher whenI saw otherwoemn after shedied,I can tell the difference.they saw something and tought it was Jesus butit was really the easter bunny.
Based upon age of the Ms in relation to the events and the Number of MS we know the readings are early and probably match the original. Much more valid than most ancient MS
totally ignornat, schlars do nt determine histority by the ageof the MS
The Third Day Motif
I want to be clear, because you are struggling here. I am claiming that the third day motif - the claim that Jesus rose on specifically the third day - came from the Old Testament, and more specifically Hosea 6.
I am not saying the empty tomb comes from the OT. I am not saying Koester says the empty tomb comes from the OT.
I appreciate there is a relationship in the narrative, the tomb was supposedly empty because Jesus had risen on the third day, but that does not imply that I am saying the empty tomb came from the OT. The third day motif is very early belief, perhaps appearing within just a few years, as recorded in 1 Cor 15. I believe the empty tomb was made up significantly later, perhaps around AD 50. Paul believed Jesus rose on the third day, he did not believe the empty tomb.
The empty tomb is not an allegorical interpretation nor is it a detail or an individual scene. That quote does not apply. That does not say there are no historical basis to the Gospel
So as I just said, you are confusing the third day motif with the empty tomb. The quote applies to the third day motif.
they could not have sold that he rose on the third day if he didn't. They would have groups who were stuck with the day it really was and there would be traces of that belief. there are none,
No, Joe.
The risen Jesus was seen weeks or even months after the crucifixion, once the disciples were back home and had returned to their old lives. The disciples tried to understand what happened, and turned to scripture. There, in Hosea, they found that God would raise the dead on the third day. That was there answer. God had raised him on the third day, and then they had seen him at some later point.
The Empty Tomb
so where do you think they got the empty tomb?
I do not know, but I would guess that a proper burial in a tomb was invented first, just down to wishful thinking. Perhaps people later wondered where the body was - as at this time they believed, like Paul, that Jesus was raised in a new heavenly body - and since there was no tomb with a body, they concluded the body had vanished.
Stories of people vanishing when they die were certainly circulating. This is Josephus, on Moses:
When Moses had spoken thus at the end of his life, and had foretold what would befall to every one of their tribes afterward, with the addition of a blessing to them, the multitude fell into tears, insomuch that even the women, by beating their breasts, made manifest the deep concern they had when he was about to die. ... Now as he went thence to the place where he was to vanish out of their sight, they all followed after him weeping; but Moses beckoned with his hand to those that were remote from him, and bade them stay behind in quiet, while he exhorted those that were near to him that they would not render his departure so lamentable. Whereupon they thought they ought to grant him that favor, to let him depart according as he himself desired; so they restrained themselves, though weeping still towards one another. ... and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God.
- Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.48)
There are plenty of Pagan examples too. Plutarch gives us four examples in Life of Romulus 27-28.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.html#27
Later the empty tomb became equated with Jesus rising, and Jesus was believed to have been raised in his original body. It is not clear whether this was before or after Mark.
Pix
that does not mean soul goes into a different body,
Yes it does. Read the whole article.
You really think Paul's conception of resurrection was a light and a voice? He makes it quite clear in 1 Corinthians that resurrection is a body coming back to life.
His conception of the resurrection was something he perceived as a light and a voice. We know that, because that is what is reported in Luke - and it really does look like Luke was around to talk to Paul about it. For once we have a decent second-hand account.
Read how Daniel describes the resurrected. Read how Jesus describes them in his argument with the Sadducees. The Jews believed they would be like angels, they would shine like stars. Think about it for yourself: Do you want to be resurrected in an angel-like body that shines like a star? Or get brought back to life in the broken body you died in?
1 Cor 15 is about a person coming back to life, in a new body.
Only two of the authors are even claimed to be preset im the evets covered in the Gospels. True Luke and Mark were not. When say "there" I don't mean during the events the Gospels discuss. They knew the Apostles. John and Mathew were preset in the evets covered. I don't want to go into authorship now. Assume the community produced the works the community was led by eye witnesses.
So what the authors did was compile the gospels from the stories circulating in the community. The author of Matthew did not make up the guards on the tomb, but someone else in the community did, and the author included it as it helped the apologetic against the rumours of the Jews.
And these stories could circulate unchecked because the people who were there were all dead by now.
Your little childish name calling campaign is not going to intimidate me into giving up positions Ive developed over the years, you atheist.
You might like to consider how often you call atheists "fundies".
That aside, you are assuming the empty tomb as fact on the basis that it is in the gospel. That does not make it fact.
Papias said that New wrote a gospel.
Papias said Matthew wrote a book of saying in Hebrew. The Gospel of Matthew is not a book of saying and was written in Greek. Two different texts.
why would they name Gospels after unimportant people like Luke and Mark? I think of the community as author we know there were eye witnesses,
Mark and Luke are certainly plausible as authors. Matthew and John, not so much. There are plenty of non-canonical works attributed to people we can be pretty sure did not write them, which gives us plenty of precedent.
It does not fail as evidence. You 3xpectations do not determine what is evidence, you have no evidence at all to back up assertions such as body was never put in a tomb. No proof at all. WE at least have accounts that say he did. The documents were produced by the early Christian community, That was their reason for being a community because they knew the tomb was empty.
I need proof, you just need evidence. Heaven forbid we should debate on a level playing field!
Neither of us can prove our claims.
What I can do is point out the most likely scenario, and further point out that what evidence we have fits that - including the fact that no witness ever claimed it was made up.
The reason there was an early Christian community was the resurrection, not the empty tomb. Look at the creed in 1 Cor 15. The empty tomb is not mentioned, the resurrection is. That tells us beyond any reasonably doubt what the reason for the community was.
You are doubt oriented. you can't measure historicity by quantity,
You made a claim about quantity, "I have not pushed much as historical", and I disputed it.
Pix
You don/t even know what resurrections is without a tomb to rise from there's no res.
Really? So if Jesus had been buried in a communal grave, that would made the resurrection impossible for God? That is clearly nonsense.
God is supposedly all-powerful, and therefore perfectly capable of resurrecting someone, even if his body had rottened away centuries ago. The OT tells us that; it has God raising bodies from dust.
No tomb required.
They also touched it and put their fingers in the wounds.w upi ,ist think the Aposltes were retarted. I loved my mo, more thananythingInever once thought I seeimgher whenI saw otherwoemn after shedied,I can tell the difference.they saw something and tought it was Jesus butit was really the easter bunny.
No they did not. All those Jerusalem appearances were made up later, after the original witnesses were all dead.
Jesus was seen in Galilee, as the oldest available gospel makes clear, not Jerusalem.
Pix
No, Joe.
The risen Jesus was seen weeks or even months after the crucifixion, once the disciples were back home and had returned to their old lives. The disciples tried to understand what happened, and turned to scripture. There, in Hosea, they found that God would raise the dead on the third day. That was there answer. God had raised him on the third day, and then they had seen him at some later point.
quite foolish MM saw him on the third day the day he rose.
They also touched it and put their fingers in the wounds.w upi ,ist think the Aposltes were retarted. I loved my mo, more thananythingInever once thought I seeimgher whenI saw otherwoemn after shedied,I can tell the difference.they saw something and tought it was Jesus butit was really the easter bunny.
No they did not. All those Jerusalem appearances were made up later, after the original witnesses were all dead.
again no evidence. Not a simple witness in history says that. It's a 20th century idea you have no backimg.
quite foolish MM saw him on the third day the day he rose.
Well, the gospel says that, and if the gospel says it, it must be true....
again no evidence. Not a simple witness in history says that. It's a 20th century idea you have no backimg.
Read Mark 16. He clearly believed Jesus was seen in Galilee, not Jerusalem. This was the earliest gospel (we have), the only one written when witnesses were likely still alive. It is supposedly written by the scribe of the first man to see the risen Jesus - surely we can expect him to get the location right!
By the way, I read your latest post. Just so you know, I see nothing particular contentious, so will not be commenting.
Pix
that is utter bull hit. Mark obviously believed people could travel. Such a stupide idea. Jesu could only be in one place.
that is utter bull hit. Mark obviously believed people could travel. Such a stupide idea. Jesu could only be in one place.
Then the issue is: where was the risen Jesus seen first? Mark is clear it was Galilee, later gospels written after the witnesses were dead, say Jerusalem.
Pix
Post a Comment