https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2021/05/welcome-to-religious-priori.html
The Gospel Behind the Gospels The concept of a pre Mark redaction that was written before the Gospel of Mark, from which Mark and all the canonicals drew. this is not the Q source. It was probably circualting as early as 50-55 AD.
Skeptics of the New Testament usually assume a long gap exists between the events in the gospels and the recording of the events in writing, They further tend to assume that the first source of writing about these events was the gospel of Mark. Thus they assume events were exaggerated and miracles were made up and so on during this gap period. 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.
I. Traces of Gospel Material in Gap
A, The circulation of Gospel material can be shown in four areas:
(1) Oral tradition
(2) saying source Material
(3) Non canonical Gospels
(4) traces of pre Markan redaction (PMR)
(canonical material that pre-date Mark, assumed the to be the first Gospel, also called Pre Mark Passion narrative PMPN).
B. Oral Tradition (in Two Major Sources)
Scholars have always recognized that the telling of the gospel stories began with the transmission of oral tradition. Of course the problem with oral tradition is that it's not written, Once written it becomes written tradition. Yet the form of the oral transmission can cling to the writing, It is possible to identify sources of oral tradition even when written down. We see oral tradition reflected in the New Testament in two major sources:
C. Pauline references to sayings
The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:
Our earliest Christian literature, the letters of Paul, gives us glimpses of the form in which the story of Jesus and his teaching first circulated. That form was evidently an oral tradition, not fluid but fixed, and evidently learned by all Christians when they entered the church. This is why Paul can say, "I myself received from the Lord the account that I passed on to you," I Cor. 11:23. The words "received, passed on"[1]reflect the practice of tradition—the handing-down from one to another of a fixed form of words. How congenial this would be to the Jewish mind a moment's reflection on the Tradition of the Elders will show. The Jews at this very time possessed in Hebrew, unwritten, the scribal interpretation of the Law and in Aramaic a Targum or translation of most or all of their Scriptures. It was a point of pride with them not to commit these to writing but to preserve them.[2]
In my essay "Community as author" I will deal with the validity of oral tradition. At this point I give examples of the traces of oral tradition in Paul's writings: 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has long been understood as a formula saying like a creedal statement. "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1Cr 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1Cr 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Two problems: (1) Doesn't conform to a canonical reading; (2) seems to contradict the order of appearances of the epiphanies (the post resurrection sightings in Gospels--in fact doesn't even mention the women, ). Nevertheless it is in general agreement with the resurrection story, and seems to indicate an oral tradition already in circulation by the AD 50s, and probably some time before that since it has had to be formed into a formulation statement. This is because Paul was writing in the 50s. These are clear references to events mentioned in the Gospels written decades before the Gospels were written,
Second major source of oral tradition:
D.The nature of pericopes
Pericopes are little story units we find in the Gospels like the good Samaritan. The nature of the pericopes themselves shows us that the synoptic gospels are made up of units of oral tradition. Many skpetics seem to think that Mark invented the story in the Gospel and that's the first time they came to exist. But no, Mark wrote down stories that the church had told for decades. Each unit or story is called a "pericope" (per-ic-o-pee). This is "A term used in Latin by Jerome for sections of scripture and taken over by form Critics to designate a unit, or paragraph, of material, especially in the gospels, such as a single parable, or a single story of a miracle."[3] Terence C. Mournet tells us, "Dunn Suggests, during the course of his investigations, that the variation within the pericopes under examination is reflective of is reflective of their indebtedness to the oral transitioning process described by Bailey where traditions are changed (flexible) during their retelling but remain within the boundaries established by the communities." [4] There is room in oral form or a minor variations but along an agreed upon range, the rage is no doubt set by the first telling of the eye witnesses and what the community certain it originally heard. That range of agreement constitutes a control om the dissemination of information. On this basis Baultmann developed "form criticism" because the important aspect was the form the oral tradition too, weather parable, narration, or other oral form.
E. Saying Source Material
The saying source was the forerunner of the narrative Gospel. Church father Papias who studied with Apostle John said that Matthew first wrote his gospel as a list of Jesus' teachings in Hebrew,called The Loggia. There's hypothetical Q source, Gospel of Thomas,k Egerton 2 and others. Here I will focus just On Thomas, and deal with others in part II. We see traces of pre Mark redaction in all of those I just mentioned (except Loggia we don't have a copy)..
(1). Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas which was found in a Coptic version at Nag Hammadi, but also exists in another form in several Greek fragments, is a prime example of a saying source. The narratival elements are very minimal, amounting to things like "Jesus said" or "Mary asked him about this,and he said..." The Gospel is apt to be dismissed by conservatives and Evangelicals due to its Gnostic elements and lack of canonicity. While it is true that Thomas contains heavily Gnostic elements of the second century or latter, it also contains a core of sayings which are so close to Q sayings from the synoptics that some have proposed that it may be Q (see Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels).[5] There are 46 sayings that parallel Q sayings in Thomas. This is what I call the orthodox core of the book.[6]
Be that as it may, there is good evidence that the material in Thomas comes from an independent tradition,that it is not merely copied out of the synoptics but represents a PMR. Through Statistical Correlation Analysis of Thomas and the Synoptic, Steven Davies argues that the Gospel of Thomas is independent of the canonical gospels on account of differences in order of the sayings. [7] Lisa Haygood of Fullerton states "serious probability exists that Thomas preserves an older tradition of the historical Jesus than that of the synoptic Gospels."[8] Stephen J. Patterson compares the wording of each saying in Thomas to its synoptic counterpart with the conclusion that Thomas represents an autonomous stream of tradition:
If Thomas were dependent upon the synoptic gospels, it would be possible to detect in the case of every Thomas-synoptic parallel the same tradition-historical development behind both the Thomas version of the saying and one or more of the synoptic versions. That is, Thomas' author/editor, in taking up the synoptic version, would have inherited all of the accumulated tradition-historical baggage owned by the synoptic text, and then added to it his or her own redactional twist. In the following texts this is not the case. Rather than reflecting the same tradition-historical development that stands behind their synoptic counterparts, these Thomas sayings seem to be the product of a tradition-history which, though exhibiting the same tendencies operative within the synoptic tradition, is in its own specific details quite unique. This means, of course, that these sayings are not dependent upon their synoptic counterparts, but rather derive from a parallel and separate tradition.[9]
There are several other non canonical Gospels perhaps the most important for apologetic is Gospel of Peter and I will deal with that and others in part II.
(2). evidence of saying source in Pauline references
Koster theorizes that Paul probably had a saying source like that of Q available to him. Paul's use of Jesus' teachings indicates that he probably worked from his own saying source which contained at least aspects of Q. That indicates wide connection with the Jerusalem church and the proto "Orthodox" faith.
Parable of Sower 1 Corinthians 3:6 Matt.These passages indicate that Paul knew versions off Jesus' teaching and Gospel stories two decades before Mark was written, What this means is the Gospel material was being transmitted in an era decades before the writing of Mark. This material also indicates oral tradition (as with the pericopes) we can assume this material goes back to era of the events themselves since we only abouit about 18 years between Crucifixion and Paul's early epistles
Stumbling Stone Romans 9: 33 Jer 8:14/Synoptics
Ruling against divorce 1 cor 7:10 Mark 10:11
Support for Apostles 1 Cor 9:14 Q /Luke 10:7
Institution of Lord's Supper 1 Cor 11:23-26 Mark 14
command concerning prophets 1Cor 14:37 Synoptic
Apocalyptic saying 1 Thes. 4:15, 21
Blessing of the Persecuted Romans 12:14/ Q/Luke 6:27
Not repaying evil with evil Romans 12:17 and I Thes 5:15/...Mark 12:12-17
Paying Taxes to authorities Romans 13:7 Mark 9:42
No Stumbling Block Romans 14:13/...Mark 9:42
Nothing is unclean Romans 14:14 Mark 7:15
Thief in the Night 1 Thes 5:2 Q/ Luke 12:39
Peace among yourselves 1 Thes Mark 9:50
Have peace with Everyone Romans 12:18/.... Mar 9:50
Do not judge Romans 13: 10 Q /Luke 6:37
F, On The third Day William Lane Craig makes this argument. The phrase as Used by Paul im 1 Cor. 15
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that 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. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. Craig tells us:
As for the “third day” motif, it is more probable that this is tied to the empty tomb tradition than to the appearance traditions. The phrase appears in the third line of the formula, which is a summary of the empty tomb narrative (see comparative chart in The Son Rises, pp. 49-50). It seems to be a theologically loaded rendering of the phrase “the first day of the week,” which is used in the empty tomb narrative. Notice, too, that the third day is always associated with the event of Jesus’ rising from the dead, never with the appearances.[10]
Sources
[1] Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937
[2] Ibid.
[3] "Pericope," Oxford Biblical Studies Online, Oxford University Press, 2016 online resource http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e1449 (accessed 10/14/16)
[4] Terence C. Mournet, Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q..Tubingen,Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 98.
[5] Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: their /History and Development, Edinburgh: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, March 1, 1992.
[6] Mahlon H. Smith, "Gospel of Thomas," Synoptic Gospels Pro,er 1997, online resource http://virtualreligion.net/primer/thomas.html (accessed 10/14/16)
[7] Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)
[8] Lisa Haygood, "The Battle To Authenticate 'The Gospel of Thomas'," LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/lux/vol3/iss1/6
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=lux (accessed 10'/12/16)
[9] Stephen J. Patterson ,The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, p. 18
[10] William Lane Craig, "186 the Witness if The Pre Pauline Tradition ti The Empty Tomb" Reasonable Faith (Nov 8,2010) https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-witness-of-the-pre-pauline-tradition-to-the-empty-tomb/
Calling an earlier version a "redaction" is very strange!
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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.
None of this proves that the gospels are free of exagerations and embellishments. What we see in them is a trajectory from Mark to John with events getting ever more fanciful. The differences between the later gospels and Mark is the best evidence that there is stuff that is just made up.
The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:
But what was that material? I think it will be Jesus' sayings, rather than, for example, the events of the passion. The pericopes are a great example of the sort of material we would expect to be well preserved - words first uttered by Jesus, and so it was important to repeat them exactly.
The early examples you cite are sayings documents; it was Jesus' saying that were tightly regulated.
And that has a big impact when it comes to evalating the miracles. I accept there was a pre-Mark passion narrative, but it is unlikely to have included the resurrection. It is not even clear if it included the empty tomb. And it is typically dated to twenty years after the event - long enough that people would get it broadly right, but would still have to fill in the details.
Pix
I am going to deal with the things above this point in[where you say "None of this proves that the gospels..."] a special blog piece on Monday, I will answer the things below the point today.
ReplyDeleteNone of this proves that the gospels are free of exagerations and embellishments. What we see in them is a trajectory from Mark to John with events getting ever more fanciful. The differences between the later gospels and Mark is the best evidence that there is stuff that is just made up.
that's bullshit/ It's the result of theists try8ing to find some way to tell it' made up. It could jut as easily be that each author is seeking to be a better historian.
The great scholar Edgar Goodspeed held that oral tradition was not haphazard rumor but tightly controlled process,and that all new converts were required to learn certain oral traditions and spit them back from memory:
the context is clear. he was speaking of what things were told a new convert to set theology for the chruch a d keep ot pure. Thzt is what Paul is talking about when he says "this what was given tome,
But what was that material? I think it will be Jesus' sayings, rather than, for example, the events of the passion.
wrong the events of the passion are the point
The pericopes are a great example of the sort of material we would expect to be well preserved - words first uttered by Jesus, and so it was important to repeat them exactly.
The early examples you cite are sayings documents; it was Jesus' saying that were tightly regulated.
Pericopes are not necessarily sayings, all miracles are pericpoes.
And that has a big impact when it comes to evalating the miracles. I accept there was a pre-Mark passion narrative, but it is unlikely to have included the resurrection
No false it did include it. I wrote an article that was published.
. It is not even clear if it included the empty tomb. And it is typically dated to twenty years after the event - long enough that people would get it broadly right, but would still have to fill in the details.
Now you know most scholars believe the material was in oral tradition during 20 years. It's not like they didn't have the idea/
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument but, at a high level, you're summarizing some key pieces of knowledge about sacred "texts" (oral or written) that pre-date the manuscripts that we have actually received.
ReplyDeleteSo far so good. The label "a pre-Markan redaction" does puzzle me. Your phrasing indicates that you're using redaction to refer to a version of a text. Perhaps pre-Markan redactions or per-Markan tradition might be clearer. If it's an existing term, it might be worth explaining that. It would have been worthwhile to add additional details like that and turn this into a multi-part series.
Now, Pix response is far more problematic. Let's take one of his key points:
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.
The text does not say that Hosea, et al. are its source. What is says is that the events it describes happened according to scripture. In other words, the author is arguing that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Bible 001 stuff folks. But, Pix collapses the set of texts (Hosea, Isaiah, etc) the author says Jesus fulfilled with the completely different set of "texts" (written and oral) with the material about Jesus that the author draws upon.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your argument but, at a high level, you're summarizing some key pieces of knowledge about sacred "texts" (oral or written) that pre-date the manuscripts that we have actually received.
ReplyDeleteYes right. a lot o scholarly writing is about theoretical speculation over MS we don't have such as Q.
So far so good. The label "a pre-Markan redaction" does puzzle me. Your phrasing indicates that you're using redaction to refer to a version of a text. Perhaps pre-Markan redactions or per-Markan tradition might be clearer.
I am highly imitative and this is the way Textual critics talk. It is a standard phrase to say PMR post Mark redaction. Redactions create layers marking a period in transmission, I am merely imitating the way the scholars talk.
If it's an existing term, it might be worth explaining that. It would have been worthwhile to add additional details like that and turn this into a multi-part series.
Now, Pix response is far more problematic. Let's take one of his key points:
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.
The text does not say that Hosea, et al. are its source. What is says is that the events it describes happened according to scripture. In other words, the author is arguing that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Bible 001 stuff folks.
that was my answer to him
But, Pix collapses the set of texts (Hosea, Isaiah, etc) the author says Jesus fulfilled with the completely different set of "texts" (written and oral) with the material about Jesus that the author draws upon.
<.good point thanks Tim
>
Joe
ReplyDeletethat's bullshit/ It's the result of theists try8ing to find some way to tell it' made up. It could jut as easily be that each author is seeking to be a better historian.
Wow, that is quite an optimistic view. So you think the author of John, writing sixty or more years after the event, when all the original witnesses were dead, got it more right than Mark did, writing just forty years later, having lived in a community with the original witnesses.
That is quite a stretch there.
The reality is that, like any fundie, you ASSUME the gospels are true, and are using this to rationalise that.
wrong the events of the passion are the point
You miss understand me. The events of the passion are what is important to us as we true to determine what happened.
What was important to the first Christians - specifically with regards to recording them word-for-word - was Jesus saying. The passion was not scripture. What Jesus said was, at least in some sense, so it was vital that his sayings were recorded verbatim.
No false it did include it. I wrote an article that was published.
Plenty of scholars think otherwise.
Furthermore, we do not know how it changed; it could have been added later. Or the empty tomb got made up in AD 50, just before the PMPN was written down.
At the end of the day what we do know is the empty tomb was absent from the original account that Paul recorded in 1 cor 15.
Pix
Tim
ReplyDeleteThe text does not say that Hosea, et al. are its source. What is says is that the events it describes happened according to scripture. In other words, the author is arguing that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Bible 001 stuff folks.
That is the Christian spin, but that does not make it true.
Read Mark 16, without the additional ending, and it is clear that Mark believed the resurrected Jesus was first seen in Galilee.
Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 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.’”
See also Mark 14. Galilee is about three days from Jerusalem.
Put that togather with Paul, and we have quite a different resurrection story. In this version, God raises Jesus on the third day, as per scripture, but Jesus is not seen until later. At some point, Jesus is seen in Galilee, first by Peter and then by the other disciples.
This is likely what both Paul and Mark believed, and fits with what we have of the Gospel of Peter, by the way. I would further suggest John 21 is an echo of this too.
The empty tomb was made up between Paul writing 1 Cor 15 and Mark writing his gospel. The appearances of Jesus in Jerusalem were made up later.
I appreciate you will likely reject this out of hand as it contradicts your religious dogma, but this is what the evidence points to.
But, Pix collapses the set of texts (Hosea, Isaiah, etc) the author says Jesus fulfilled with the completely different set of "texts" (written and oral) with the material about Jesus that the author draws upon.
I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but it is very likely the gosperl authors drew on the OT to fill in gaps (or used sources that did). Later, these get cited as fulfilled prophecies.
Pix
Joe
ReplyDeletethat's bullshit/ It's the result of theists try8ing to find some way to tell it' made up. It could jut as easily be that each author is seeking to be a better historian.
Wow, that is quite an optimistic view.
It's not but things appear that why when one is not burden with the need to doubt the Gospel.
So you think the author of John, writing sixty or more years after the event, when all the original witnesses were dead, got it more right than Mark did, writing just forty years later, having lived in a community with the original witnesses.
That is quite a stretch there.
They did nit wait yo years to start talking about the event fay one of that first Easter morning. They talked since day one, They passed an oral tradition that could not vary and they began writing aboiut it at latest in AD 50.
The reality is that, like any fundie, you ASSUME the gospels are true, and are using this to rationalise that.
U am not a fundy Mr. dawkamentalist '-) why should I assume it's true?
Joe:wrong the events of the passion are the point
Pix: You miss understand me. The events of the passion are what is important to us as we true to determine what happened.
They were important to those who lived them too.
What was important to the first Christians - specifically with regards to recording them word-for-word - was Jesus saying. The passion was not scripture. What Jesus said was, at least in some sense, so it was vital that his sayings were recorded verbatim.
the events were just as important especially the empty tomb the sight of his resurrections,
No false it did include it. I wrote an article that was published.
Plenty of scholars think otherwise.
Number doesn't prove anything. their reasons are ideological
Furthermore, we do not know how it changed; it could have been added later. Or the empty tomb got made up in AD 50, just before the PMPN was written down.
Neither evidence nor probability support that.
At the end of the day what we do know is the empty tomb was absent from the original account that Paul recorded in 1 cor 15.
almost all scholars agree empty tomb was there in the fort accounts. We dodn't have the first account but probability supports that, The idea that empty tomb was added 60 years latter is what atheist hacks on the net think, That is not what scholars say
ReplyDeletePixie said: So you think the author of John, writing sixty or more years after the event, when all the original witnesses were dead, got it more right than Mark did, writing just forty years later, having lived in a community with the original witnesses.
the trend is to give John an early date, AD60s. The idea that it was 60 years latter is outmoded. If Jesus Died in AD 30 writing it in AD60 is not 60 years latter. It's a bit over 30 years. That was far from the first mention of the empty tomb.
Mark believes the resurrection. More on this in another blog piece. monday.
no real scholar thinks Mark made up the empty tomb.
ReplyDeleteIt's not but things appear that why when one is not burden with the need to doubt the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteFundamentalists assume a document is true. Historians do not, they look for collaborating evidence.
They did nit wait yo years to start talking about the event fay one of that first Easter morning. They talked since day one, They passed an oral tradition that could not vary and they began writing aboiut it at latest in AD 50.
You appeared to be claiming the later gospels were more accurate ("It could jut as easily be that each author is seeking to be a better historian."). Re-reading, I may have misunderstood? My response was that Mark, the earliest gospel, will be most reliable, because the author had access to eye witnesses - and more importantly, the fact that eye witnesses were still alive will have been a check on embellishing the story too much.
You are now asserting that the "oral tradition that could not vary", but that is a dubious claim. I will accept Jesus' saying were carefully preserved, but the words of the disciples - that is, when they stated what happened on the first Easter - would not be regarded in the same way, and need not have been carefully preserved.
U am not a fundy Mr. dawkamentalist '-) why should I assume it's true?
You should not. And yet that is what you seem to do: "one is not burden with the need to doubt the Gospel."
They were important to those who lived them too.
But not in the same sense. They would not be the need to record it word-for-word, because it was the accounts of the disciples -they would not feel the ned to recall that verbatim.
Indeed, it is likely Jesus taught the disciples to remember his sayings. He certainly did not do that for the account of his death.
Number doesn't prove anything.
It proves there is not the certainty you would have us believe.
their reasons are ideological
As are yours...
Neither evidence nor probability support that.
So the same as for your hypothesis that the empty tomb was true. Except for the fact that 1 Cor 15 does not mention the empty tomb, suggesting it had not been made up yet.
almost all scholars agree empty tomb was there in the fort accounts. We dodn't have the first account but probability supports that, The idea that empty tomb was added 60 years latter is what atheist hacks on the net think, That is not what scholars say
What scholars, Joe?
the trend is to give John an early date, AD60s. The idea that it was 60 years latter is outmoded. If Jesus Died in AD 30 writing it in AD60 is not 60 years latter. It's a bit over 30 years. That was far from the first mention of the empty tomb.
Again, who is saying that?
Mark believes the resurrection....
That is what I said. But he believed a different version where: "God raises Jesus on the third day, as per scripture, but Jesus is not seen until later.
Pix