Baciccico's "Women at the Tomb" (D 1709)
The women at the empty tomb who were the first to preach the Gospel strike an important blow for women in the church, yet they are written off as made up, fictional, the product of folk lore, by the major and most accomplished scholars working under the assumptions of the form critical school. Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The form critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 19th century.
The other thing that is well worth considering is that the form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[1]
My task here is to rehabilitate the historicity of the women of the empty tomb,who are maligned by critical ideology.
Form criticism assumes that there were no authors there were no historical individuals and of course don't even think about an eye witness. It's all made up out of whole cloth by the anonymous folk. This kind of criticism is still dominant and although most of it's founding assumptions have been put to bed modern liberal scholarship is loath to let go. They still make the tired old assumptions that the church fathers are not even worth reading.They assume no authors and no eye witnesses. These assumptions have been ably challenged by believing scholars such as Mark Goodacher, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham. The latter has made the greatest contribution in my view, with his great ground breaking work Jesus and the Eye Witnesses.[2]
Before moving on I want to clearly delineate the difference in my argument about community as author [3] vs form critical assumptions. Form critics speak of community as author in the sense that there are no individual authors and the myths spread like wildfire by means of folklore. When I use the term I mean there is no one single author but I do not exclude individuals who initiate the work yet the community is the author to the extend that it is a production of the redaction process and oral tradition but not to exclude either eye witnesses or a single initiating author. For example I believe that (based upon Papias) a redaction process combined Mathew's saying source with a narrative framework, to produce the Gospel of Matthew.
I have three arguments for historicity of the women:
(1) The Web of historicity.
(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN)
(3) The counter productive nature of female witness.
(1) The Web of historicity: The characters of the Gospels are always assumed to be historical and many of them are tied to historical figures. There are no folkloric characters, This is the amazing challenge Bauckham has brought with his great book.[4] In seminary I had a female professor who had the reputation of always flunking men and believers, (I got an "A" out of her by disagreeing with her). One day she made the Statement that no sub apostolic writer ever claimed to have known the apostles. After class I told her Irenaeus of Lyons talks about how Polycarp used to tell him about knowing John. She looked dumbfounded like she could barely grasp It. It made no difference in her teaching the rest of the term. These are dogmatic assumptions that have no basis in actual fact. For a rousing defense of historicity of John, and other figures in the Gospels see my debate with Bradley Bowen of Secular Outpost Blog [5]
The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person. Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?,The woman at the well may have been hypothetical but MM was not. The reality is the Gospels deal in historical people not folklore. Bauckham's method see the designations of the women (all the figures from the Gospels) as code to the reader as to who was being discussed so the communities knew who the witnesses were. In so doing he's tagging specific women as witnesses to the tomb but not just any women, specific one;s to the exclusion of others,Meaning it is a historically definable reality with real flesh and blood people.
Luke, who names the women only at the end of his account of their visit to the tomb, lists, besides the indispensable Mary Magdalene, Joanna, who is peculiar to his Gospel and already introduced at Luke 8:3, and the other Mary. His reference to Joanna surely indicates the distinctive source of his distinctive empty tomb story.1 Like Matthew he omits Mark's Salome, but he does not simply reproduce the list of women followers of Jesus he had employed earlier in chapter 8 of his Gospel. Mary Magdalene and Joanna he knew to be witnesses of the empty tomb, but Susanna, the third name in his earlier list, he evidently did not. If, as I have suggested and allowing for the evangelists' freedom as storytellers, the stories of the women are substantially as the women themselves told them, then we must regard the differences between the stories as irreducible. We cannot go behind them to a supposedly original version. Nor can we dispense with the angels and reconstruct a less mythologically laden event. These are the stories as doubtless different women told them. They are different performances of the oral traditions, and their differences are such as would have been expected and unproblematic in performances of oral tradition, no greater and no more problematic than those between the three narratives of Paul's conversion that all occur in Acts.[6]It makes sense, consider if the story was entirely fiction we could reduce it by deconstruction to an original narrative, Being the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event we cannot combine them to make a coherent event because it is based upon these perspectives,Now we can theorize as to the actual events but we can't get at it by reducing the eye witness accounts, they are not working from a single unified narrative but form their experiences.They contradict each other because they have different perspectives,
(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) is the earliest writing of the Gospel and it includes the women.For an understanding of the PMPN see two essays Iv'e written in the past [7][8].
"That Mark was Using and Relied upon a pre Markan Passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eye witness Testimony."[9] The Gospel of Peter (GPete--an apocryphal work--we don't want to use this as a guide to doctrine but it is an historical artifact). Early readings preserved in the GPete illustrate that even tough the Gospel in the form in which we have it is late, (second century), it drew upon a very early independent source, Ray Brown showed that the Passion narrative in GPete drew upon this early source that was not dependent upon Matthew or Mark. MM is in it and I will presently give argument that she is from the earliest strata.[10]
(3) The counter productive nature of female witness. Women in both Greek and Hebrew culture were regarded as appendages to men. Not so much true in Asia Minor where Paul grew up but very much the case in Corinth and in Jerusalem. In Hebrew law women could not be considered valid witnesses in court, the testimony of one man outweighed that of two women.[11] If they are making it up anyway why use women? For that matter why allow it to even be known that women saw him? That can be answered: they were the witnesses and in that situation where they needed everyone they could get, owing to the special nature of the case, they could not afford to be picky.
Bart Erhman tries to invent supposedly logical and creative reasons why they would invent women. He argues: first that they were not in court, Secondly, "Well, for openers, maybe women would. We have good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in the early Christian communities. We know from the letters of Paul – from passages such as Romans 16 – that women played crucial leadership roles in the churches: ministering as deacons, leading the services in their homes, engaging in missionary activities."[12] The court rule reflected the culture so saying they are not in court is lame, they are in the culture. The argument that women would make them up is irrelevant because the women would not be inventing a Gospel. The community would not accept it, the women as witnesses went to Peter to get him to come and look he validated their claim, Why invent fictional women then validate their claim? He is making form critical assumptions--seeing it as folklore. Yet by acknowledging their critical role in the community he's giving us a reason to assume that real women were involved.
He Then argues: "Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty."[13] That's a better reason to think real women would have been involved because it does not outweigh the liability of female witness. All the reasons he presents are like this they all work was reasons to think women would have been involved and they do not outweigh the liability. Ehrman himself is aware of this: "Again, I’m not saying that I think Mark invented the story. But if we can imagine very easily a reason for Mark to have invented it, it is no leap at all to think that one or more of his predecessors may also have had reasons for doing so. "[14]He never actually gives a reason that outweighs the problem. Sure they would have a reason for introducting women but as long as they are making it up they would invent a reason to have a man there too.
There are two basic counter arguments with which I will deal:
(1) It's in Mark
(2) Paul Does not mention them.
It's in Mark: There are atheists I know who seem to imply Mark has to be the first and so being in Mark must mean the author of Mark invented it. Of course this is based upon form critical assumptions, but we can put more fiber into the argument. The argumet is based upon the gradual increase in complexity from Mark through Matt and Luke to John. For example the men in white are men in Mark but by Luke they are a bad of angels. In Mark the women are afraid and run off and and tell no one. In Luke they are given a message of hope and go off joyously. That progression of development in the narrative is true but it doesn't prove it's made up or the women didn't exist. I've seen this on message boards.
As indicated above Mary M. is in the earliest strata, She is in the pre Mark redaction. Mark could not invent her. We can see from the readings that that they are early, In the Gospel of Peter it says: "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."[14]
Mark 16"[1] When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." (ESV)
Matthew: 28, "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. "(ESV)
Luke 24 "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.." (NIV) "10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."
John 20 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.."(NIV)
First, The Peter passage feels the necessity of explaining who Mary M. was. ("Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord "). None of the others do this, why? Because they are all written 60 plus year after the events and for people who grew up hearing about it, Mary . was well known in Christian community, But if this passage in Peter was written just a few years after they might feel she needed an introduction.Secondly, GPete takes lengths to describe preparing the body and mourning rituals (flagellation). None of the others mention the latter and only Mark and Luke mention the spices, Everyone knew 60 years latter why the women went no need to make a big thing of it,Thirdly, the mention of fear and the Jewish anger, strangely absent from the canonical other than Mark. That is something that might be mentioned when the events are recent and emotion fresh in the mind, but 60 years latter no one reading it had experienced that fear no point.
(2) Paul Does not mention them.
Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses. He's writing to a Greek audience and it would be read by Judaizers and James church people.He does it the way a Rabbi does things. It might also be that Paul wasn't told abouit them. He got his information from people not from books, he could not google the resurrection. He must have discussed those events with James and with Peter but would either have gone to great pains to tell him of the women?
The historicity or lack thereof of the women of the tomb is neither support for nor argument against the historical nature of the narrative at large, because it derives from the narrative at large,, The assumptions we make about the women determine how we see their historicity, Yet I think there is a sense of support for the reliability of the text that derives from knowing there are good arguments for the historical nature of the women.
Sources
[1] Richard Bauckham, "A Croquette of From Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website, no date listed.
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43180
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load
Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.
[2]____________. Jesus and The Eye Witnesses: The Gospel as Eye Witness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wb. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Second Edition, 2017/2006. no page indicated.
[3] Joseph Hinman, "Community as Author part 1," The Religious a priori. website no date listed.
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/community-as-author-part-1.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
part 2
part 3
[4]Richard Bauckham, Jesus and The Eye Witnesses:... op. cit, chapter 1 "From Historical Jessu to Jesus of Testimony,: 2 "what Papias says about eye witnesses: 1-12, 13-30.
[5] Joseph Hinman,"Hinman Bowen Debate," The religious A priori, website, No date, originally published on CADRE Comment's blog, Agust 2,2016.
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/hinman-i-enjoying-its-fun-i-hope-fun.html
[6]Richard Bauckham,"The Women at the Tomb:the Credibility of their Story,"pdf, The Laing Lecture at London Bible College,no date
http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/The%20Women%20&%20the%20Resurrection.pdf
(accessed 2/2/18)
[7]Joseph Hinman, "Gospel Behind the Gospels, part 2," Religious a priori. website, no date
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
[8] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017)
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
(access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Defending the Resurrection
[9]James Bishop, "Jesus in The Pre Mark Passion Narrative," James Bishop's Theologoical Rationalism:Where reason and Evidence meet faith (June 13, 2015)
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/06/13/jesus-in-the-pre-markan-passion-narrative/
(accessed 2/2/18)
[10] Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, A commentary on the Passion narratives in the Four Gospels. Volume 2. New York: Dobuleday 1994 1322
[11]Bart Ehrman, "The Women AT the Tomb." The Bart Ehrman Blog. no date (first coment April 4, 2014).
https://ehrmanblog.org/women-at-the-tomb/
(accessed 2/2/18)
[13]Ibid
[14]Ibid
17 comments:
(1) The Web of historicity: The characters of the Gospels are always assumed to be historical and many of them are tied to historical figures
You seem to be saying it must be true because the characters involved were real. That is plain nonsense.
Joe: The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person.
That is quite a reach. It is certainly likely the characters were real, but to say they MUSt be real because they have both a name and a location...
Joe: (2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) is the earliest writing of the Gospel and it includes the women.
It is uncertain if it included the women. As this is apologetics, not history, you, of course, pretend that it is certain. In fact all you say of the PMPN is that it existed, which is pretty well established. You offer no arguments to make us think it included the women at all!
The other big point about the PMPN is that it says the story came from a single source, contradicting the claim " These are the stories as doubtless different women told them." It is just one story, as relayed by the PMPN. later authors took that and modified as suited their purpose, and not because each had access to a different witness.
Joe: (3) The counter productive nature of female witness. Women in both Greek and Hebrew culture were regarded as appendages to men.
The problem the inventor of the women at the tomb had is that there was no witness - because it was made up later.
He could either: say the tomb was empty but no one saw it; say reliable witnesses found it, but have people wonder why no one was talking about it and preaching about it and verifying it at the time; or have unreliable witnesses find it, and say they never told anyone.
Women as witnesses fit perfectly.
Joe: There are atheists I know who seem to imply Mark has to be the first and so being in Mark must mean the author of Mark invented it.
If that is about me, my position is that if it is NOT in Mark then the later author likely made it up.
Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.
Paul does not mention them because the empty tomb had not been invented when he was writing.
At best all you have argued is that they were invented before or when the PMPN was written.
Pix
Anonymous said...
(1) The Web of historicity: The characters of the Gospels are always assumed to be historical and many of them are tied to historical figures
You seem to be saying it must be true because the characters involved were real. That is plain nonsense.
There is really nothing in the NT that is mythological. Everything is historical to the fine details of people names on city walls. It is clear some of the women were historical such the two Marys. The probability is they all were.
Joe: The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person.
That is quite a reach. It is certainly likely the characters were real, but to say they MUSt be real because they have both a name and a location...
OK
Joe: (2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) is the earliest writing of the Gospel and it includes the women.
It is uncertain if it included the women. As this is apologetics, not history, you, of course, pretend that it is certain. In fact all you say of the PMPN is that it existed, which is pretty well established. You offer no arguments to make us think it included the women at all!
Remember the study I alluded to from the last discussion? He based his conclusion that the were real upon careful exegesis and this is more than just wanna be. Bauckham has a theory that the Johanine author included a lot eye witness names encoded and he complex formula as to how to spot them. I can't remember it have to read it again but It's a brilliant work.
The other big point about the PMPN is that it says the story came from a single source, contradicting the claim " These are the stories as doubtless different women told them." It is just one story, as relayed by the PMPN. later authors took that and modified as suited their purpose, and not because each had access to a different witness.
Not a contradiction, we know they used more than one source. PMR is not Q those are different sources.
Joe: (3) The counter productive nature of female witness. Women in both Greek and Hebrew culture were regarded as appendages to men.
The problem the inventor of the women at the tomb had is that there was no witness - because it was made up later.
Not an answer. irrelevant, The fact is women would be counterproductive the reader would not accept them, no reason to use them, Unless they really were there,
He could either: say the tomb was empty but no one saw it; say reliable witnesses found it, but have people wonder why no one was talking about it and preaching about it and verifying it at the time; or have unreliable witnesses find it, and say they never told anyone.
How did that help? That's a crazy answer because you are assuming he didn't have Peter to fall back on,
Women as witnesses fit perfectly.
How? Since they would not add anything to the account, Your idea that they explain the lack of public knowledge of the res is a crazy answer It's convoluted reasoning. I'll deal with that latter.
Joe: There are atheists I know who seem to imply Mark has to be the first and so being in Mark must mean the author of Mark invented it.
If that is about me, my position is that if it is NOT in Mark then the later author likely made it up.
I was not referring to you because I wrote this for the Cadre years ago. But that is a dogmatic ideological position rooted in form criticism.
Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.
Paul does not mention them because the empty tomb had not been invented when he was writing.
But we know it was because Koester says the PMR prospected a written document by mid cemetery and it implied the empty tomb. Paul was traveling abound Asia minor and southern Europe he missed out on the developments around Jerusalem and Syria.
At best all you have argued is that they were invented before or when the PMPN was written.
The assertion that they were invented is dogmatic and ideological. It's clear the earlier they appear in the literature the more probable their historicity. they were there from the very first..
The issue the counter productive nature of women is countered by it's use as explanation for the lack of public knowledge of the res. I will answer this in the main blog piece next time.
Joe: Remember the study I alluded to from the last discussion? He based his conclusion that the were real upon careful exegesis and this is more than just wanna be. Bauckham has a theory that the Johanine author included a lot eye witness names encoded and he complex formula as to how to spot them. I can't remember it have to read it again but It's a brilliant work.
You have a habit of reading into the text what you want to see there. You certainly did that with Brown and with Koester, so I will reserve judgment on this one.
Joe: Not a contradiction, we know they used more than one source. PMR is not Q those are different sources.
Q is a collection of sayings, so not a source for the passion.
However, my point is that sometimes you say the PMPN is the source all the gospels used, and other times you say actually they all had their own sources. I appreciate it could be a mix of both, but what it looks like is that all used one source until that ended, then threw in anything they liked after that.
Joe: Not an answer. irrelevant, The fact is women would be counterproductive the reader would not accept them, no reason to use them, Unless they really were there,
No, Joe. The fact is that there was no reliable witness because it did not happened. So Mark (or someone earlier) invented unreliable witnesses.
Joe: How did that help? That's a crazy answer because you are assuming he didn't have Peter to fall back on,
If we suppose that part of Peter pre-dates Mark, then it was the author of the PMPN who made up the women because there was no reliable witness, because it never happened.
Joe: How? Since they would not add anything to the account, Your idea that they explain the lack of public knowledge of the res is a crazy answer It's convoluted reasoning. I'll deal with that latter.
The women add supposed eye witnesses to the account.
I am saying there was no public knowledge of the empty tomb. I having been saying for years now that the empty tomb was made up, not the resurrection. We can be pretty sure from 1 Cor 15 that is AD 50 there was public knowledge of the resurrection - but not of the empty tomb. Why not? It had not been invented yet.
That meant there was no chance of a reliable witness. Mark could not claim Peter had seen the empty tomb because people would remember Peter talking about what happened, what he saw. I think we can be certain Peter will have done that a lot. Same for any disciple; they were all tasked with spreading the gospel, so would all be telling everyone about the resurrection. And none would mention the empty tomb when they described seeing Jesus, because it was made up later.
Or, as Mark would have us believe, because it was only seen by women who were too afraid to tell anyone.
Joe: But we know it was because Koester says the PMR prospected a written document by mid cemetery and it implied the empty tomb. Paul was traveling abound Asia minor and southern Europe he missed out on the developments around Jerusalem and Syria.
So the author of the PMPN made up the empty tomb in AD 50, and the story had not made it to Paul - or he just discounted it because no one had mentioned it previously.
Or the empty tomb was added later. In a footnote on page 220, Koester says of the PMPN (my emphasis); "However, it is doubtful whether this account was as comprehensive or as fixed a literary document as Crossan assumes." I take that to mean the text got frequently altered to some degree. Such as adding the empty tomb.
Joe: The assertion that they were invented is dogmatic and ideological. It's clear the earlier they appear in the literature the more probable their historicity. they were there from the very first..
The assertion that they are historical events is equally as dogmatic and ideological.
Further, the creed in 1 Cor 15 gives us reason to think they were NOT there from the first.
Pix
The women add supposed eye witnesses to the account.
A counter productive eye witness. The only reason God led the evangelists to include the women's testimony is because it helps women. Not because being women helps the story,
I am saying there was no public knowledge of the empty tomb. I having been saying for years now that the empty tomb was made up, not the resurrection. We can be pretty sure from 1 Cor 15 that is AD 50 there was public knowledge of the resurrection - but not of the empty tomb. Why not? It had not been invented yet.
If there was a resurrection there had to be an empty tomb. You don't assume the res happened you just assume they had a story I assume it happened. you have evidence that they did nit talk about the empty tomb, Id not it could as well be because they figured someone could have stolen the body. So more important than empty tomb is sightings of the risen Christ.
That meant there was no chance of a reliable witness. Mark could not claim Peter had seen the empty tomb because people would remember Peter talking about what happened, what he saw.
You are begging the question. You have no evidence people did not remember. We have evidence they did. They talk about it in all four canonical gospels and GPete. GPete is known to have an old tradition that predates Mark.
I think we can be certain Peter will have done that a lot. Same for any disciple; they were all tasked with spreading the gospel, so would all be telling everyone about the resurrection. And none would mention the empty tomb when they described seeing Jesus, because it was made up later.
GPete mentions the empty tomb
Or, as Mark would have us believe, because it was only seen by women who were too afraid to tell anyone.
Nowhere does Mark say that. You are milking the atheist BS on Mark but most scholars do not accept that.
Joe: But we know it was because Koester says the PMR prospected a written document by mid cemetery and it implied the empty tomb. Paul was traveling abound Asia minor and southern Europe he missed out on the developments around Jerusalem and Syria.
Mu mistake. I did not mean it implies it it says it. Koester says Crossen says PMR ends with empty tomb.
So the author of the PMPN made up the empty tomb in AD 50, and the story had not made it to Paul - or he just discounted it because no one had mentioned it previously.
You keep wanting to make ideological assertions and pass them off as proof. That is not proof it is Bull shit. But we can push the empty tomb further back, midcentury was the written document but it took from oral tradition.
Or the empty tomb was added later. In a footnote on page 220, Koester says of the PMPN (my emphasis); "However, it is doubtful whether this account was as comprehensive or as fixed a literary document as Crossan assumes." I take that to mean the text got frequently altered to some degree. Such as adding the empty tomb.
That quote saying nothing about the empty tomb so you read into it "Pix is right and Joe is wrong."
Joe: The assertion that they were invented is dogmatic and ideological. It's clear the earlier they appear in the literature the more probable their historicity. they were there from the very first..
The assertion that they are historical events is equally as dogmatic and ideological.
I just traced it back to the oral tradition supporting the PMR and you have no evidence of any kind only your ideology,
Further, the creed in 1 Cor 15 gives us reason to think they were NOT there from the first.
I already explained that, From the James crutch (highly patriarchal), The women weren't talked about until the gospels but doesn't mean they weren't real.
Joe: Irrelevant, the issue is pre Mark material. Sayings tell us things,
Like what?
Joe: That's like saying you Matthew quotes Mark then you uses Q but Q is not in Mark, But Matt can use both,
But why does Matthew follow Mark so closely if the author has another witness to hand? In your scenario, the author has the gospel of Mark and an eye witness, and he is choosing to go with what Mark says over the eye witness for most of the account. Why is that?
I believe the author was effectively writing a second edition of Mark with new material added - but that new material was whatever rumours were circulating in the community at the time (plus references back to the OT). There were no witnesses the author had access to, just stories he got third hand and assumed were true.
Joe: Now you are into circular reasoning. The issue were discussing is the historicity of these people you can't answer that by asserting they are not historical. You are using the conclusion as a premise to reach the conclusion you use as a premise.
I am showing how my scenario explains what we see in the gospel. Why does Mark use women as witnesses? Because the event was made up and so naturally there were no reliable witnesses.
Joe: No Pete the epistle Pete the man,
Sorry, my bad. But you are wrong. I am assuming Mark did have Peter to fall back on - but Peter knew nothing about the empty tomb because it was made up.
Joe: A counter productive eye witness. The only reason God led the evangelists to include the women's testimony is because it helps women. Not because being women helps the story,
If it did not happen, Mark had the choice of either the women as witnesses or no witnesses. Having the women as witnesses was the better option.
Later accounts were not hampered as Mark was - all the people who would have been around at the time were dead. They were free to insert male witnesses, and ultimately to exclude the women.
Joe: If there was a resurrection there had to be an empty tomb. ....
Resurrection certainly does not imply anyone ever saw the empty tomb.
Maybe the resurrection was in a new body, as Paul and Josephus both believed.
Maybe Jesus was buried in a communal grave, which is almost certain, given that was all the Jews required and likely all the Romans would permit.
Maybe Jesus was buried in a tomb, but no one ever saw that it was empty.
Joe: ... You don't assume the res happened you just assume they had a story I assume it happened. you have evidence that they did nit talk about the empty tomb, Id not it could as well be because they figured someone could have stolen the body. So more important than empty tomb is sightings of the risen Christ.
Of course the sighting are more important, but that does not mean the empty tomb is not at all important. Look how strongly you want to argue for it! Look at how the author of Matthew is so keen to counter the claims the body was stolen; clearly the empty tomb was important to him.
Of course, it was not so important to the first Christians, but that is because it had not been invented.
Pix
nonymous said...
Joe: Irrelevant, the issue is pre Mark material. Sayings tell us things,
Like what?
pretty obvious
Joe: That's like saying you Matthew quotes Mark then you uses Q but Q is not in Mark, But Matt can use both,
But why does Matthew follow Mark so closely if the author has another witness to hand? In your scenario, the author has the gospel of Mark and an eye witness, and he is choosing to go with what Mark says over the eye witness for most of the account. Why is that?
How do you figure there's a conflict? There is nothing in the text that tells us this. Matt used several sources one was Mark. We happen to have Mark.
I believe the author was effectively writing a second edition of Mark with new material added - but that new material was whatever rumours were circulating in the community at the time (plus references back to the OT). There were no witnesses the author had access to, just stories he got third hand and assumed were true.
I don't think they would treat rumors om the same level as eye witness testimony
Joe: Now you are into circular reasoning. The issue we're discussing is the historicity of these people you can't answer that by asserting they are not historical. You are using the conclusion as a premise to reach the conclusion you use as a premise.
I am showing how my scenario explains what we see in the gospel. Why does Mark use women as witnesses? Because the event was made up and so naturally there were no reliable witnesses.
Nothing in the text says or implies it's made up. The role of the women is not a reason to think the account is fictional. That is an ideological assumption. You allow that assertion to govern the text rather than using the text to understand the history
Joe: Not Pete the epistle Pete the man,
Sorry, my bad. But you are wrong. I am assuming Mark did have Peter to fall back on - but Peter knew nothing about the empty tomb because it was made up.
That doesn't make seems. the author relies on Peter but makes up the most important event in the text which Pete knew nothing about?
Joe: Joe: Irrelevant, the issue is pre Mark material. Sayings tell us things,
Pix: Like what?
Joe: pretty obvious
You cannot think of one single thing we could have got from Q that helps your argument, can you? Just admit it!
Joe: How do you figure there's a conflict? There is nothing in the text that tells us this. Matt used several sources one was Mark. We happen to have Mark.
The author of Matthew used over 90% of Mark, he clearly considered the gospel to be his primary source. Why would he do that if he had access to an eye witness? Mark was not an eye witness; his gospel is a poorer source than any actual eye witness.
Far more likely - especially given this was ca. AD 85 and the original witnesses were likely dead - the author had access only to rumours circulating in his community that he thought were based on eye witness reports.
Joe: I don't think they would treat rumors om the same level as eye witness testimony
People are saying the disciples stole the body, and there is a rumour there was a guard on the tomb. Does the author include the unsubstantiated rumour or not?
Spoiler alert: He does.
Joe: Nothing in the text says or implies it's made up.
Well, duh!
Joe: The role of the women is not a reason to think the account is fictional. That is an ideological assumption. You allow that assertion to govern the text rather than using the text to understand the history
The absence of the empty tomb from 1 Cor 15 and the fact that burial in a tomb is itself very unlikely are both good reasons to think the women were fictional. The fact that the disciples do not mention the empty tomb when preaching in Acts is further evidence.
The inconsistencies between the gospels proves the authors were not that careful with the truth.
Joe: That doesn't make seems. the author relies on Peter but makes up the most important event in the text which Pete knew nothing about?
Peter knew nothing about it because it was made up.
In my scenario, Mark has been following Peter around for decades. He writes the gospel based on what Peter has told him - including the sighting of the risen Jesus in Galilee. When it comes to the empty tomb, however, he has nothing. It is in the PMPN, but Peter knew nothing about, so never mentioned it. Mark wants to include the empty tomb, so invents the women finding it, but says they told no one, explaining why Peter never mentioned it.
In your scenario, Mark has been following Peter around for decades. He writes the gospel based on what Peter has told him. Except he decides that the first time Peter saw the risen Jesus was not really important, so omits that. And the sighting on the road to Emmaus. And when Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room - that was not important either. And when Jesus appeared to the disciples a week later. But that appearance in Galilee weeks later, that is the one he will reference. Oh, and rather than mention that Peter, the guy he has travelled with for decades, saw the tomb was empty, he just mentions some women witnessing, knowing they would be considered unreliable, and to emphasise how unreliable they were he said they told no one, even though he knew that they immediately told Peter.
I think mine makes more sense than yours.
Pix
Joe: Luke and Acts are one document and Luke accepted the tomb.
Sure, which makes it even more odd that his accounts of the disciples preaching do not mention the empty tomb.
Joe: We don't have the ending. WE don't know what it said. You need that assumption to cover your excuse to doubt so that becomes fact in your mind. There is nothing to establish it as fact in reality,
And you need this make-believe ending of Mark to support your claims.
Joe: That is not at all likely, but it could say Jesus lived on Mars so therefore it must say that,
We do not know how it changed. But we do know that the empty tomb was not in the earliest account, which Paul relates in 1 Cor 15.
Joe: No one is going to say I know this is not true but it will help the faith if it is thought to be true so I'll just stick this in. No one thinks it works that way. There probably was an empty tomb.
When you have been arguing with creationists as long as I have you will know that certain religious people will and do lie to promote their faith. No reason to suppose that was not true back then too.
Joe: One verse where he fails to talk about it. Argument from silence, literally. Still a fallacy
It is a silence where we would expect no silence. If the empty tomb was real we would expect it to be in that creed in 1 Cor 15. The most likely reason for its omission is that it was made up later.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Joe: Irrelevant, the issue is pre Mark material. Sayings tell us things,
Pix: Like what?
Joe: pretty obvious
You cannot think of one single thing we could have got from Q that helps your argument, can you? Just admit it!
I am sure I could but I prefer not to waste my time. Let's stick with the major issues.
Joe: How do you figure there's a conflict? There is nothing in the text that tells us this. Matt used several sources one was Mark. We happen to have Mark.
The author of Matthew used over 90% of Mark, he clearly considered the gospel to be his primary source. Why would he do that if he had access to an eye witness? Mark was not an eye witness; his gospel is a poorer source than any actual eye witness.
It could be that he knew Mark's authority was Peter. Another issue He clearly valued Mark but wanted to combine it with other information which he also valued.
Far more likely - especially given this was ca. AD 85 and the original witnesses were likely dead - the author had access only to rumors circulating in his community that he thought were based on eye witness reports.
None of it was rumors. Goodspeed said the information was rightly confided. Christians memorized certain works and could spirt them back from memory. That's how oral tradition worked. It was not just copying rumors.
Joe: I don't think they would treat rumors on the same level as eye witness testimony
People are saying the disciples stole the body, and there is a rumor there was a guard on the tomb. Does the author include the unsubstantiated rumor or not?
Oral tradition does not deal in rumors, They would not incorporate rumors into the sacred testimony. That idea comes from From criticism 19th century German know alls who used German folk songs as their model for transmission.
Spoiler alert: He does.
???
Joe: Nothing in the text says or implies it's made up.
Well, duh!
Joe: The role of the women is not a reason to think the account is fictional. That is an ideological assumption. You allow that assertion to govern the text rather than using the text to understand the history
The absence of the empty tomb from 1 Cor 15 and the fact that burial in a tomb is itself very unlikely are both good reasons to think the women were fictional. The fact that the disciples do not mention the empty tomb when preaching in Acts is further evidence.
Burial in a tomb is not unlikely, when they discovered that tomb with names Jesus and Mary and so the skeptics claimed it was Jesus; tomb they could not be bothered with the idea that tombs were hard to come by.
The inconsistencies between the gospels proves the authors were not that careful with the truth.
Not at all. You are working from that form critical model that sees it as German folks songs. They were a lot more careful than that. But they also have a personal expression model. you are working from a model that it's either rumors or to be correct it has to be all the same words. They could balance personal expression with the inclusion of proper information,
24 AM
Joe: That doesn't make sense. the author relies on Peter but makes up the most important event in the text which Pete knew nothing about?
Peter knew nothing about it because it was made up.
You miss the point, they were transmitting sacred truth. It would be abhorrent to make it up. Anything Peter knew noting about would be totally unacceptable would have no place in the testimony, this was sacred testimony not fiction writing.
In my scenario, Mark has been following Peter around for decades. He writes the gospel based on what Peter has told him - including the sighting of the risen Jesus in Galilee. When it comes to the empty tomb, however, he has nothing. It is in the PMPN, but Peter knew nothing about, so never mentioned it. Mark wants to include the empty tomb, so invents the women finding it, but says they told no one, explaining why Peter never mentioned it.
with nothing to back it up against all reason Peter would know nothing about the crux of the whole kerygma? That's nuts. That would be unacceptable. Besides Peter saw the empty tomb. He and John followed Mary to it in John the Gospel.
In your scenario, Mark has been following Peter around for decades. He writes the gospel based on what Peter has told him. Except he decides that the first time Peter saw the risen Jesus was not really important, so omits that. And the sighting on the road to Emmaus. And when Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room - that was not important either. And when Jesus appeared to the disciples a week later. But that appearance in Galilee weeks later, that is the one he will reference. Oh, and rather than mention that Peter, the guy he has travelled with for decades, saw the tomb was empty, he just mentions some women witnessing, knowing they would be considered unreliable, and to emphasise how unreliable they were he said they told no one, even though he knew that they immediately told Peter.
Classic mistakes, We don't know Mark knew Peter. You have to keep that open. Take the text as it comes stop trying to second guess it. All those things yo mention are coming from other sources. Peter and Mark may not have seen all those docs.
I think mine makes more sense than yours.
You alter the text to fit your view rather than allowing the text to inform your view.
And to be clear, they all believed Jesus was resurrected; Mark likely believed the tomb was empty. The women were added as a literary device.
That is bull shit. First these guys were fishermen. they wouldn't know a literary device from a hole in the ground. It's a lie they would not lie to help the faith, they did not need to. they believed he rose from the dead, no need to lie! they knew the women, they got the story from them,
Joe: Paul did not believe that. It's misinterpretation.
Seems pretty clear to me.
I am no longer sure to what that refers.
1 Cor 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Modern Christians interpret it differently, but that does not mean Paul meant it that way.
o I've disproven that,
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/resurrection-refutting-no-body-theory.html
Joe: It was not required, they had private tombs. That is clearly contradicted by the supposed family of Jesus discovered in the 80s, Joe of A was important so he would have had a private grave.
let's try to write less. can you boil it own to three most important points?
Peter
Joe: In my scenario, Mark has been following Peter around for decades. He writes the gospel based on what Peter has told him - including the sighting of the risen Jesus in Galilee. When it comes to the empty tomb, however, he has nothing. It is in the PMPN, but Peter knew nothing about, so never mentioned it. Mark wants to include the empty tomb, so invents the women finding it, but says they told no one, explaining why Peter never mentioned it.
Joe: with nothing to back it up against all reason Peter would know nothing about the crux of the whole kerygma? That's nuts. That would be unacceptable. Besides Peter saw the empty tomb. He and John followed Mary to it in John the Gospel.
Read what it says in Acts. Peter did not cite the empty tomb as evidence.
And if the empty tomb was the crux, why is it absent from the creed in 1 Cor 15?
The empty tomb was simply not part of the kerygma for the first decade or so. It was made up later.
Joe: Classic mistakes, We don't know Mark knew Peter. You have to keep that open. Take the text as it comes stop trying to second guess it. All those things yo mention are coming from other sources. Peter and Mark may not have seen all those docs.
They did not see those docs because they had yet to be made up!
I agree we do not know who the author of Mark was. However, he must have been deeply entrenched in the Christian community. It is just not plausible to imagine he could write the gospel, and be unaware of those appearance in Jerusalem.
There were no witnesses
Joe: You are redefining the witnesses to suit your needs. Obviously the 12 were there. You have to assume some history in the text all the texts say they were there,
On the contrary, it is pretty clear the disciples fled Jerusalem when Jesus was arrested. It is obvious there was no witness to Jesus supposed appearance before the Sanhedrin, nor to when he met Pilate. Yet somehow we have accounts of what happened!
Pix
All of that is nothing but athyeist dogmatism, Nothing t back up any of it,
There's another very good reason why the oral creed that Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15 leaves out the empty tomb. It's because the witnesses of the empty tomb were women-- who were considered unreliable witnesses. So when the young church develops a basic apologetic for the Resurrection, which is largely for giving proofs to outsiders, they leave out the part that is based on the testimony of women. But because of the appearance of Jesus to women, women become leaders and workers in the group in ways that Judaism didn't allow (see the last chapter of Romans: most of the leaders and workers Paul commends in that section are women). This is why Saul in Acts begins going into houses and arresting both men and women. When the Crucifixion occurred, the Romans and the Jewish leaders alike considered women negligible and ignored them, so it was safe for them to remain with Jesus as he died, and not to hide like the male disciples did. But by the time Saul began persecuting the church, women had become leaders and were deemed dangerous. Their testimony and work became respected by men who previously would have rejected it. But that doesn't mean the rest of the culture accepted women's testimony, so the creed in 1 Cor 15 leaves it out.
Post a Comment