Sunday, April 09, 2023

"Weak evidence" that warrants belief in Jesus' Resurrection



My friend and loyal atheist opponant "Pixie" states: "The empty tomb is not even considered a historical fact in mainstream history as the evidence is so weak. It all adds up to pretty flimsy evidence that cannot be verified."[https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2023/04/atheist-reduction-of-knolwedge-to.html]

I will post more "weak eveidece" on Wednesday.

The Gospel accounts of the resurrection were transmitted faithfully from the very beginning. How do we know this? The same way we know that any aspect of ancient world history is a probably true: the documents are trustworthy. Now skepitics are probably spitting milk out their noses reading this, but its true.There are three areas of reliability, and two major misconceptions that have to be avoided. Let me start with the misconceptions:

(1) The idea that "reliable" means "realisitic."

I'm sure many skeptics reading this are saying, How can they be reliable when they speak of miracles?. But reliable doesn't' necessarily mean "realistic." This doesn't mean they aren't hard to believe, or that they don't require an assumption about metaphysics; reliable doesn't' mean true. What it does mean I'll get to in a minute.

big misconception number two:

(2) Faithful transmission of history would have to mean that we can prove that eye witnesses wrote the documents. Or worse, that the name sakes wrote the documents (John wrote John, Matthew wrote Matthew). None of that has to be the case.

faithful transmission means the content has been passed down from source to antoher for generations without significant alteration. Trustworthy doesn't mean "we can prove its true," it means we can trust, within a reasonable estimation, that what we have recorded today is what we would find being transmitted in the earilest times. Here is how we know:

I. The evidence of the Manuscripts (Ms) and the stories themselves.

II. Early date of the Resurrection narrative.

III. Reliability of the Community.

I. The evidence of the Manuscripts (Ms) themselves.

I wont belabor the point about the documents, since that has been talked to death on message boards for years. See my pages on Bible: canonical Gospels for a lot of good info on this point. But, the often quoted statistic is that the NT MS are generally 98% reliable. What that means is, that to within 98% all the thousands of MS that we possess (24,000 of all types including fragments) say the same things. we don't find passages with wildly different events. There is no one secret passage somwhere that offers some totally different account of what happened. Such a Ms just doesnt' exist and there is no evidence that such a thing ever did exist. The closest we come to that is Secret Mark the fragment found by Martin Smith at Mar Saba; but even Secret Mark assumes the world of the Gospels, it assumes a particular event recorded in Mark, it doesn't' change the basic facts of the story at all.

Now skeptics have been known to argue, "but they are just copying the same story." That's the point! If those events didn't happen, or at least if they were not been taught from the beginning as "the truth," we should find other versions. NO program of eradication could take out all copies in the ancient world. Some fragment of a Gospel would have survived somewhere. If there was a version of the story in which Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or in which he rose on the 8th day, or whatever, we would have a copy of it. The fact that the manuscripts give a cooherent and unified testimony going all the way back as early as it can go (and not contradicted by 35 lost gospels we do possess) indicates that this is a good representation of what happened (see F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents,Are they Reliable?

Unified Narratival Framework

The Gospel of Luke is greatly substantiated by artifacts and history, what about the other Gospels, especially the first Gospel Mark? In the totality of the Synoptic tradition we have a unified framework which is kept intact. We do not see the growth and elabortaion of myth. As Stephen Neil points out, quoting Edwin Clement Hoskyns (1884-1937) in The Riddle of the New Testament (p.104) Neil begins by saying,

"We hold with some confidence that Mark is the earliest of the Gospels and that both Matthew and Luke use him in the Composition of their Gospels, if there is any tendency to heighten the drama...we shall certainly find it in those points at which Matthew and Luke differ from Mark. Do we in fact find that this is the process which has taken place? After a careful survey of the evidence Hoskyns answers in the negative. Matthew and Luke have far more material than Mark...but essentially the presentation of Jesus is the same, and if there is any tendency it is not toward heightening the majesty and mystery of Christ it is rather in the opposite direction--Jesus is a little tamed, a little softened and brought a little nearer to ordienary categories of human existence" (p. 216). He then quotes Hoskyns himself: "In this process of editing they nowhere heighten Marks tremendous picture of Jesus. No deifying of a prophet, or of a mere preacher of righteousness can be detected. They do not introduce Hellenistic superstition or submerge in the light of later Christian faith the lineaments of Mark's picture of Jesus.They attempt to simplify Mark, he is more difficult to understand than they are...."

Rather than seeing a myth spreading and growing and moving toward a deified Christ what we actually see is a stable framework of assumed and testified fact and a relatively stable explanation of what the facts mean. This is in sharp contrast to the skeptic's idea that the simple facts grew out of proportion with re-telling until they culminated in the fantastical notion that Jesus rose from the dead!

II. Early Date of Resurrection Narrative.

A.Myth Takes Centuries to Develop

The importance of early claims is this. Myth takes time to develop. Legends might spring up over night, but they take time to assume a consistent form. William Lane Craig quotes prof. Sherwin-White ("Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth 1 (1985): 89-95)

"For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses."

B.Resurrection Claims Made Early

(1) Markon Account Very Early

The early date of the transmissions are borne out by the Texts themselves. They are clean and free of myth. The Markon version is especially pure. Consider the use of the phrase "on the third day" which we find in Paul's statement above about the 500 witnesses. Throughout the NT that phrase is used of the Resurrection. Even in Gospels latter than Mark's it is used. But not in Mark. In Mark we are receiving something from the purest strata of the early days. William Lane Craig, (The History of the empty Tomb of Jesus" New Testament Studies 21 (1985):39-67)

Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, (pp. 166-167):

In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.

(2)Gospel Phraseology implies early telling

"The use of 'the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition. The tradition of the discovery of the empty tomb must be very old and very primitive because it lacks altogether the third day motif prominent in the kerygma, which is itself extremely old, as evident by its appearance in I Cor 15. 4. If the empty tomb narrative were a late and legendary account, then it could hardly have avoided being cast in the prominent, ancient, and accepted third day motif.{81} This can only mean that the empty tomb tradition ante-dates the third day motif itself. Again, the proximity of the tradition to the events themselves makes it idle to regard the empty tomb as a legend. It makes it highly probable that on the first day of the week the tomb was indeed found empty." (Caraig)

(3) Pauline Tesimony Earlier than written Gospels

Paul's statement about the 500 and the credal confession were written prior to any of the Gospels. This places the teaching about 20 years after the fact. That pushes the pre-Markon material in Mark back even further, to near the date of the events (because it took time to form into a credal statement).

"Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable."
[Craig] Leadership University (Webstie) original "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Truth 1 (1985): 89-95]

We can also include in along with this Pauline testimony Hebrews and 1 Peter. Accounts of points that correspond to Gospels circulating by AD 70 (see Luke Timothy Johnson quotation under point I).

C. Pre Markan Redaction Pushes Date of original Writting to mid Century>

However the material upon which the Gospels are based dates back to an earlier period, and in a form which is essentially the same as that which is found in the Synopitics. This actually pushes the date of the Gospel story, including the death, burial and resurrection (including the empty tomb) to A.D. 50.

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that the Gospel accounts are dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this accounted ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." Hemut Koster Ancient Christian Gospels p. 231

(1) Diatessaron

The Diatessaron ..of Titian is the oldest known attempted harmony of the Gospels. It probably dates to about 172 AD and contains almost the entire text of the four canonicals plus other material, probably from other Gospels and perhaps oral traditions. It is attested to in many works and is probably the first presentation of the Gospel in syriac.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:

"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possible the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. [From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424]

While textual critics find it more significant that the early implications are for Jewish Christianity, I find it significant that the pre-Markan material in the Diatesseran includes a miracle story. Those miracles just never really fall out of the story. They are in there from the beginning. But for our purposes the most important point to make is that here we have traces of pre-Markan material. That is, Mark as we know Mark was not the earliest Christian Gospel written, it is merely the earliest of which we have a full copy. The date assigned to the composition of Mark is not the date assigned to the sources used to redact that composition. This pushes the written record of the Jesus story before A.D. 60 and makes it at least contemporaneous with Paul's writings. In other words it is clear that written Gospels with Jesus in an historical setting, and with Mary and Joseph the Cross and the empty tomb existed and circulated before the version of Mark that we know, and at the same time or before Paul was writing his first epistle (150'sAD).

(2) Papyrus Egerton 2

The Unknown Gospel (Egerton 2) preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:

Koster says:

"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....[Koester , 3.2 p.215]

Koseter shows that the Gospels are based upon pre-markan material which dates from A.D. 50 and ends witht he empty tomb, the resurrection appearnces of Jesus he believes were added from other sources. In this theory is partially in agreement with Crossen who also believes that the pre-Markan material can be traced to A.D. 50 and includes the empty tomb. Koester also uses the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter and several other works to demonstrate the same point.[please see Jesus Puzzell 2 for more on this point] This puts the actual writing of the Gospel tradition just 20 years after the original events. There still many eye-witnesses living, the communities which had witnessed the events of Jesus' ministry would have still basically been intact. The events would be somewhat fresh, and plenty of oportunity for witnesses to correct mistakes.

Thus the basic historical validity for the Gospels can be upheld, since they are based upon material which actually goes back to within a mere 20 years of the original events. This means that many of he eye witnesses would have been in the community and able to correct any mistakes or fabrications which were put into the text.

Almost all NT scholars put the writing of the Synoptic Gospels within the plausable life span of eye witnesses, Mark around 65, Matt. around 70 and Luke 80. In Ancient Christian Gospels, (1991) Helmutt Koster identifies a proto-Gospel which underlies the synoptic and John, and which has traces in the Gospel of Peter. (Koster is a major textual critic and is certainly placed in the Liberal camp).

(c) Peter not copy of Matt.

"The Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the traditions of interpriting old testament materials, for the description of Jesus' suffering and death; it shares such traditions wtih the canonical Gospels, but is not dependent upon the canonical writtings....[Dominic Crosson] argues that this activity [interpretation of scritpure as nuleous of passion narrative]...resulted in the composition of a litterary document at a very early date, i.e. in the middle of the first century." (Koster, 218).

"The Gospel of Peter as a whole is not dependent upon any of the canonical Gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospels of Mark and John. All three writtings, independently of each other use an older passion narrative which is based upon a exigetical tradition that was still alive when these Gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access...However, framgements of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised from the Tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Koster, 240).

(b) Passion account developed early

"The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early becasue it is one and the same account used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and John, and as will be argued below, by the Gospel of Peter. However, except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb the different stories of the appearence of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from one single source....each of the authors of the extant Gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories form their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Ibid. 220).

(c) empty tomb part of original story

"Stories of the passion narrative were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering Crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb....for the story of Jesus' burial and the discovery of the empty tomb the Gospel of Peter used the source that also that underlys Mark and John, which ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." (ibid.231).

William Laine Craig tells us:

" The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity. The empty tomb story was part of, perhaps the close of, the pre-Markan passion story. According to Pesch,{79} geographical references, personal names, and the use of Galilee as a horizon all point to Jerusalem as the fount of the pre-Markan passion story. As to its age, Paul's Last Supper tradition (I Cor 11. 23-25) presupposes the pre-Markan passion account; therefore, the latter must have originated in the first years of existence of the Jerusalem Urgemeinde. Confirmation of this is found in the fact that the pre-Markan passion story speaks of the 'high priest' without using his name (14. 53, 54, 60, 61, 63). This implies (nearly necessitates, according to Pesch) that Caiaphas was still the high priest when the pre-Markan passion story was being told, since then there would be no need to mention his name. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37, the terminus ante quem for the origin of the tradition is A.D. 37. Now if this is the case, then any attempt to construe the empty tomb account as an unhistorical legend is doomed to failure." (The History of the empty Tomb of Jesus" New Testament Studies 21 (1985):39-67)

"Like the burial story, the account of the discovery of the empty tomb is remarkably restrained. Bultmann states, '. . . Mark's presentation is extremely reserved, in so far as the resurrection and the appearance of the risen Lord are not recounted.' {55} Nauck observes that many theological motifs that might be expected are lacking in the story: (1) the proof from prophecy, (2) the in-breaking of the new eon, (3) the ascension of Jesus' Spirit or his descent into hell, (4) the nature of the risen body, and (5) the use of Christological titles.{56} Although kerygmatic speech appears in the mouth of the angel, the fact of the discovery of the empty tomb is not kerygmatically colored. All these factors point to a very old tradition concerning the discovery of the empty tomb."

III. Community as Author

We do not have to know the exact identity of the authors, because the original material comes from the community itself

A.Oral tradition was not uncontroled.

Oral tradition in first-century Judaism was not uncontrolled as was/is often assumed, based on comparisons with non-Jewish models. From pg. 53-55 in B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), "Authenticating the Activities of Jesus" (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998):

"...[T]he early form criticism tied the theory of oral transmission to the conjecture that Gospel traditions were mediated like folk traditions, being freely altered and even created ad hoc by various and sundry wandering charismatic jackleg preachers. This view, however, was rooted more in the eighteenth century romanticism of J. G. Herder than in an understanding of the handling of religious tradition in first-century Judaism. As O. Cullmann, B. Gerhardsson, H. Riesenfeld and R. Riesner have demonstrated, [22] the Judaism of the period treated such traditions very carefully, and the New Testament writers in numerous passages applied to apostolic traditions the same technical terminology found elsewhere in Judaism for 'delivering', 'receiving', 'learning', 'holding', 'keeping', and 'guarding', the traditioned 'teaching'. [23] In this way they both identified their traditions as 'holy word' and showed their concern for a careful and ordered transmission of it. The word and work of Jesus were an important albeit distinct part of these apostolic traditions.

"Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.(25)

(22. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer.

23. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 3:14; Titus 1:9; 2 John 9-10; Jude 3: Rev 2:13, 24. Cf. Abot 1:1; Philo, The Worse Attacks the Better 65-68. 24. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 298-311. 25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4 (1967) 431-55.

Also, there wasn't an necessarily a long period of solely oral transmission as has been assumed:

"Under the influence of R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius the classical form criticism raised many doubts about the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, but it was shaped by a number of literary and historical assumptions which themselves are increasingly seen to have a doubtful historical basis. It assumed, first of all, that the Gospel traditions were transmitted for decades exclusively in oral form and began to be fixed in writing only when the early Christian anticipation of a soon end of the world faded. This theory foundered with the discovery in 1947 of the library of the Qumran sect, a group contemporaneous with the ministry of Jesus and the early church which combined intense expectation of the End with prolific writing. Qumran shows that such expectations did not inhibit writing but actually were a spur to it. Also, the widespread literacy in first-century Palestinian Judaism [18], together with the different language backgrounds of Jesus' followers--some Greek, some Aramaic, some bilingual--would have facilitated the rapid written formulations and transmission of at least some of Jesus' teaching.[19]" (p. 53-54)

------------------ 18. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.25 204: The Law "orders that (children) should be taught to read."; cf. idem, Ant. 12.4.9 209; Philo, Embassy to Gaius 115, 210, Further, see R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 2.7; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1981; 4th ed., 1998) 112-15. 19. Jesus had hearers and doubtless some converts from Syria (Matt 4:25), the Decapolis (Matt 4:25; Mark 3:8; 5:20; 7:31), Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:8; 7:24, 31; Matt 15:21).

N. T. Wright, critiquing the Jesus Seminar's view of oral tradition as uncontrolled and informal based on some irrelevant research done in modern Western non-oral societies writes:

"Against this whole line of thought we must set the serious study of genuinely oral traditions that has gone on in various quarters recently. [65] (p. 112-113)

--------------- 65. For example, see H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), referring to a large amount of earlier work; Bailey, "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition," 34-54. The following discussion depends on these and similar studies, and builds on Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 418-43; and idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, 133-37.)

"Communities that live in an oral culture tend to be story-telling communities. They sit around in long evenings telling and listening to stories--the same stories, over and over again. Such stories, especially when they are involved with memorable happenings that have determined in some way the existence and life of the particular group in question, acquire a fairly fixed form, down to precise phraseology (in narrative as well as in recorded speech), extremely early in their life--often within a day or so of the original incident taking place. They retain that form, and phraseology, as long as they are told. Each village and community has its recognized storytellers, the accredited bearers of its traditions; but the whole community knows the stories by heart, and if the teller varies them even slightly they will let him know in no uncertain terms. This matters quite a lot in cultures where, to this day, the desire to avoid 'shame' is a powerful motivation. "Such cultures do also repeat, and hence transmit, proverbs, and pithy sayings. Indeed, they tend to know far more proverbs than the orally starved modern Western world. But the circulation of such individual sayings is only the tip of the iceberg; the rest is narrative, narrative with embedded dialogue, heard, repeated again and again within minutes, hours and days of the original incident, and fixed in memories the like of which few in the modern Western world can imagine. The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told. "And the stories about Jesus were nothing if not important. Even the Jesus Seminar admits that Jesus was an itinerant wonder-worker. Very well. Supposing a woman in a village is suddenly healed after a lengthy illness. Even today, even in a non-oral culture, the story of such an event would quickly spread among friends, neighbors and relatives, acquiring a fixed form within the first two or three retellings and retaining it, other things being equal, thereafter. In a culture where storytelling was and is an art-form, a memorable event such as this, especially if it were also seen as a sign that Israel's God was now at last at work to do what he had always promised, would be told at once in specific ways, told so as to be not just a celebration of a healing but also a celebration of the Kingdom of God. Events and stories of this order are community-forming, and the stories which form communities do not get freely or loosely adapted. One does not disturb the foundations of the house in which one is living."[B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 113-115.]



17 comments:

Kristen said...

Very interesting material. N. T. Wright was also quoted today in the religious editorial section of the New York Times today as saying that the word used in the Gospel accounts meaning "resurrection " was always used to mean actual physical coming back to life, and not in a spiritualized reference to new beginnings or anything like that.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Good point Kristen I did not knw that,

Anonymous said...

The empty tomb cannot be verified. That is a simple fact. You can verify relativity by conducting experiments are seeing if relativity correctly predicted the outcome. That is simply not possible with the empty tomb.

Joe: The Gospel accounts of the resurrection were transmitted faithfully from the very beginning. How do we know this? The same way we know that any aspect of ancient world history is a probably true: the documents are trustworthy.

Sure, if we assume the gospels are true, then Christianity is easy to prove. Personally, I do not assume that.

Joe: Let me start with the misconceptions: (1) The idea that "reliable" means "realisitic."

Does anyone actually think that? I know I do not.

I think the gospels are not reliable, and not realistic, but that does not imply I think those are the same thing.

Joe: I. The evidence of the Manuscripts (Ms) and the stories themselves.

The evidence of the manuscripts only shows that once the stories were written down they changed very little. Even then we do know they changed somewhat even so - the ending of Mark proves that.

More importantly we have no way of knowing whether what was written in the first place was trustworthy.

Joe: II. Early date of the Resurrection narrative.

An early date for a very simple resurrection narrative, that merely says Jesus was buried, rose on the third day, and was seen by various people. For all we know, that refers to the disciples seeing a bright light while out fishing in Galilee, and nothing at all like the accounts in the gospels.

The account in Mark is from forty years later. Likely it is based on earlier accounts, but we do not know what embellishments it had already picked up.

And most telling of all is Mark indicates Jesus was seen in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

The claim that the empty tomb was in the narrative by AD 50 is dubious, and stands in contradiction to its absence from Paul's account in 1 Cor 15. Certainly there was some kind of narrative, but when the empty tomb was added to it is unclear, and your dating is not supported by the works you cite.

Indeed, the claim that Jesus was buried in a tomb is highly unlikely. Joseph of Arimathea had no desire to do that - he was one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus - and the Romans had good reason to forbid it. The idea that an empty tomb was closer than the common grave for crucified criminals is nonsense.

Joe: (c) Peter not copy of Matt.

You really need to read Brown's book again.

After working through the table and lists above (...), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt the author of GPet had any written Gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or had heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day, so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the Gospels of Luke and John...
- Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p 1334-5

Brown thinks Peter was not copied from Matthew, but that the author had previous heard Matthew being read in cghurch services, and based his work on that, and other gospel readings. And that makes the Gospel of Peter later than Matthew.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
The empty tomb cannot be verified. That is a simple fact. You can verify relativity by conducting experiments are seeing if relativity correctly predicted the outcome. That is simply not possible with the empty tomb.

Joe: The Gospel accounts of the resurrection were transmitted faithfully from the very beginning. How do we know this? The same way we know that any aspect of ancient world history is a probably true: the documents are trustworthy.

Sure, if we assume the gospels are true, then Christianity is easy to prove. Personally, I do not assume that.

You are assumimg they are not true, My basis for assumimg they are true is the witnesses that attest to theepty7 tomb or the risen Christ.

Joe: Let me start with the misconceptions: (1) The idea that "reliable" means "realisitic."

Does anyone actually think that? I know I do not.

You can find all kinds of stuff on message boards.

I think the gospels are not reliable, and not realistic, but that does not imply I think those are the same thing.

I didn't write that for you I wrote many years ago before I know you.

Joe: I. The evidence of the Manuscripts (Ms) and the stories themselves.

The evidence of the manuscripts only shows that once the stories were written down they changed very little. Even then we do know they changed somewhat even so - the ending of Mark proves that.
That gives us no basis to doubt them. it shows the eye witness testimony was alive and well by mid century, That is what was being written down,

More importantly we have no way of knowing whether what was written in the first place was trustworthy.

sure we do all the early stuff agrees, there is no counter literature that calls it false.

Joe: II. Early date of the Resurrection narrative.

An early date for a very simple resurrection narrative, that merely says Jesus was buried, rose on the third day, and was seen by various people. For all we know, that refers to the disciples seeing a bright light while out fishing in Galilee, and nothing at all like the accounts in the gospels.

that's just doubt for dout's sake. there's no critical basis in that cliam,

The account in Mark is from forty years later. Likely it is based on earlier accounts, but we do not know what embellishments it had already picked up.
All that stuff Koester did about pre Mark narrative is supportive of eye witnesses of empty tomb.

And most telling of all is Mark indicates Jesus was seen in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

no he does not say that. He was seen n Jeruslaem, and they went to Galilee

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The claim that the empty tomb was in the narrative by AD 50 is dubious,

supported by Koester and eight other heavy guys including Brown

and stands in contradiction to its absence from Paul's account in 1 Cor 15. Certainly there was some kind of narrative, but when the empty tomb was added to it is unclear, and your dating is not supported by the works you cite.

Paul was nit a witness he says nothing to contradict the Gospel account.

Indeed, the claim that Jesus was buried in a tomb is highly unlikely. Joseph of Arimathea had no desire to do that -

J of A hs been dead for 2000 years I think your usual mind reading abilities, impeccable though they may be, area big challenged by that,

he was one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus - and the Romans had good reason to forbid it. The idea that an empty tomb was closer than the common grave for crucified criminals is nonsense.

Dumping him in ca comon grave would procaine the Holy day, Brown believes he was burried n a proper tom he find no problem, the Romans would not forbid it they allowed Jews to do their things religiously



Joe: (c) Peter not copy of Matt.

You really need to read Brown's book again.


He dies nit say Peter copied mattiew. he says influenced by that is not the sameand he says other gospels too.


After working through the table and lists above (...), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt the author of GPet had any written Gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or had heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day, so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the Gospels of Luke and John...
- Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p 1334-5

Brown thinks Peter was not copied from Matthew, but that the author had previous heard Matthew being read in cghurch services, and based his work on that, and other gospel readings. And that makes the Gospel of Peter later than Matthew.

That supports my poimt, Obviously Pete was put together as a text after Matthew no one doubts that. Koester shows he contains earlier stuff. He has the preMark redaction

Anonymous said...

Joe: You are assumimg they are not true, My basis for assumimg they are true is the witnesses that attest to theepty7 tomb or the risen Christ.

No, I assume we cannot tell if they are true or not.

Joe: That gives us no basis to doubt them. it shows the eye witness testimony was alive and well by mid century, That is what was being written down,

The works we have date from AD 70 with Mark. We have no idea what changes were beng made before that point. There is good evidence something was written down by mid century, but we cannot be sure what that is.

Further, the evidence of the manuscripts cannot tell us anything because the earliest manuscripts are from the second century. They tell us literally nothing about how the stoery changed before thatpoint. And given their fragmentary nature even they fall short of proving the gospels were not altered in the first few centiries.

Joe: sure we do all the early stuff agrees, there is no counter literature that calls it false.

It agrees because it is all based on a single account - that pre-Markan passion narrative.

There is no counter literature because (a) no one cared enough to write it; and (b) there was no mechanism in place to preserve it.

Joe: that's just doubt for dout's sake. there's no critical basis in that cliam,

Mark makes it clear that the author believed Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

Mark 16:6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”

Further, a bright light was what the Jews expected:

Daniel 12:3 And those who have insight will shine like the glow of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

And at least one saw:

Acts 9:3 Now as he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him

Joe: All that stuff Koester did about pre Mark narrative is supportive of eye witnesses of empty tomb.

Except Koester thonks the empty tmb was made up!

Joe: no he does not say that. He was seen n Jeruslaem, and they went to Galilee

The disciples saw what they throught was the risen Jesus in Galilee. Mark 16:7 makes it clear that Mark beieved that was the case. See also the Gospel of Peter.

The Jerusalem appearances were made up later, and independanently, which is why they are so divergent.

Joe: supported by Koester and eight other heavy guys including Brown

So quote them.

Joe: Paul was nit a witness he says nothing to contradict the Gospel account.

The gospel autrhors were not witnesses either!

Paul is quoting an early creed that undoubtedly was composed by the people who were there. There was no empty tomb, and the reason they believed Jesus was raised on the third day was not that anyone saw him on that day, but "according to scripture".

Joe: J of A hs been dead for 2000 years I think your usual mind reading abilities, impeccable though they may be, area big challenged by that,

As I said last time "he was one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus". But you knew that, you chose to break my sentence into a fragment that left that off so you could make your ignorant comment.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Joe: Dumping him in ca comon grave would procaine the Holy day,

No it would not. All the law required was the body was buried.

Joe: Brown believes he was burried n a proper tom he find no problem, the Romans would not forbid it they allowed Jews to do their things religiously

The religious law required the body was buried, it did not require it to be buried in a tomb or honourably in any way.

Can you quote Brown on this subject?

Here is Josephus on the topic (recalling that the gospels report Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, of which Joseph was a member):

He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner.
https://lexundria.com/j_aj/4.202/wst

Joe: He dies nit say Peter copied mattiew. he says influenced by that is not the sameand he says other gospels too.

Okay, fine. That still makes Peter later than Matthew.

Your quote-mine of "the composition of a litterary document at a very early date, i.e. in the middle of the first century" makes it seem that Koester believes Peter was written around AD 50, and that is not true - he goes on to say that he disagrees with Crossan, and dates it significantly later.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: You are assumimg they are not true, My basis for assumimg they are true is the witnesses that attest to theepty7 tomb or the risen Christ.

No, I assume we cannot tell if they are true or not.

Joe: That gives us no basis to doubt them. it shows the eye witness testimony was alive and well by mid century, That is what was being written down,

The works we have date from AD 70 with Mark. We have no idea what changes were beng made before that point. There is good evidence something was written down by mid century, but we cannot be sure what that is.

No I established that over and over again. We know a lot about PMR through textual critical methods.


Further, the evidence of the manuscripts cannot tell us anything because the earliest manuscripts are from the second century. They tell us literally nothing about how the stoery changed before thatpoint. And given their fragmentary nature even they fall short of proving the gospels were not altered in the first few centiries.


WE know the empty tomb was set in writting by AD 5o. thats part of the PMR see Koester.


Joe: sure we do all the early stuff agrees, there is no counter literature that calls it false.

It agrees because it is all based on a single account - that pre-Markan passion narrative.


If there were counter traditions they would show up by the time of the canonical gospels.

There is no counter literature because (a) no one cared enough to write it; and (b) there was no mechanism in place to preserve it.


foolish answer, that'soneofthose I can'tbe wromgeither wayamswers, since hehad a huge following with big crowds and eole cared enough to write the gospel of Thomasand soon there would be counters.


Joe: that's just doubt for dout's sake. there's no critical basis in that cliam,

Mark makes it clear that the author believed Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

Mark 16:6 But he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; see, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”


Peter and John had veen t the tomb. MM saw him in jerusaem before they went to Galeleee

Further, a bright light was what the Jews expected:

Daniel 12:3 And those who have insight will shine like the glow of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

Metaphir--Jesus himself was the bright light.

And at least one saw:

Acts 9:3 Now as he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him

Joe: All that stuff Koester did about pre Mark narrative is supportive of eye witnesses of empty tomb.

Except Koester thonks the empty tmb was made up!


i doubt that but it'sirrelivamt, he has no evidence of that the was textual evidence f the the enoty tmb written at midcentury

Joe: no he does not say that. He was seen n Jeruslaem, and they went to Galilee

The disciples saw what they throught was the risen Jesus in Galilee. Mark 16:7 makes it clear that Mark beieved that was the case. See also the Gospel of Peter.

He is talking about the disciples as a whole gathered ther to see Jesus that does not negate the two or three sporadic grave side appearences such as Mary wit Jesus.



The Jerusalem appearances were made up later, and independanently, which is why they are so divergent.

you are wishing away the counter evidence, that disprove your assertion so hey it's made up!' maybe the galeliee is made up?




Joe: supported by Koester and eight other heavy guys including Brown

So quote them.



K have ths us all crap we have been through before

Anonymous said...

Joe: No I established that over and over again. We know a lot about PMR through textual critical methods.

We do not KNOW any of it. Schoars have lots of opinions on it. Many date it to AD 50, and many say the empty tomb was in it. We do not know exactly what was in it.

Joe: WE know the empty tomb was set in writting by AD 5o. thats part of the PMR see Koester.

You choose to believe that means the empty tomb was in the narrative from AD 50, but it could as readily be the case that there was a passion narrative from AD 50 and the empty tomb got added in say AD 60.

Bear in mind that Koester believes the empty tonbv was made up, and you seem to consider him an authority on this.

Joe: If there were counter traditions they would show up by the time of the canonical gospels.

Why would they show up? We know Christianity had plenty of opponents. What more would we expect to see in documents that have the purpose of promoting Christianity?

Joe: foolish answer, that'soneofthose I can'tbe wromgeither wayamswers, since hehad a huge following with big crowds and eole cared enough to write the gospel of Thomasand soon there would be counters.

But it is a simple fact that Christianity preserved books that promote Christianity, and not those that argued against it. That you do not like the fact does not make it any less true.

This is an argument from silence fallacy, and this is a silence we would expect whether you are wrong or right.

Joe: Metaphir--Jesus himself was the bright light.

Not in Daniel 23 - that is talking about the general resurrection. All the righteous will be resurrected as bright lights.

And that is what Paul saw! Or did Paul merely see a metaphor?

The idea that Jesus was walking around in his original body contradicts Paul in 1 Cor 15, where he makes a big deal about flesh and blood not being allowed in the afterlife.

Joe: He is talking about the disciples as a whole gathered ther to see Jesus that does not negate the two or three sporadic grave side appearences such as Mary wit Jesus.

The fact that the early creed in 1 Cor 15 does not include Mary makes this unlikely. That Mark 16 also does not have Mary see Jesus makes it almost certainly a later embellishment.

Joe: you are wishing away the counter evidence, that disprove your assertion so hey it's made up!' maybe the galeliee is made up?

But Mark was written when the disciples were likely still alive, so would have been restricted in how much the story can be embellished. This is why the empty tomb is found by women who never told anyone - no one had heard of the empty tomb until decades after the event. Mark is forced to have Jesus seen in Galilee becase that is where it happened, and if he claimed otherwise the still-living disciples would say otherwise.

When Matthew was written, the last of them was dead, and he could pretend the women told the disciples of the empty tomb because no one was a live to say otherwise.

Luke could pretend Jesus was wondering around Jerusalem eating fish because no one was a live to say otherwise.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: Paul was nit a witness he says nothing to contradict the Gospel account.

The gospel autrhors were not witnesses either!

Yes they were, the community produced the gospels, they did retellings by the eye witnesses all the time, s the eye witness testimony is woven into the fabric of the text



Paul is quoting an early creed that undoubtedly was composed by the people who were there. There was no empty tomb, and the reason they believed Jesus was raised on the third day was not that anyone saw him on that day, but "according to scripture".


the empty tomb itself does not have to be the focuss but the risen Lird is.


Joe: J of A hs been dead for 2000 years I think your usual mind reading abilities, impeccable though they may be, area big challenged by that,

As I said last time "he was one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus". But you knew that, you chose to break my sentence into a fragment that left that off so you could make your ignorant comment.

my ignorant comment comes from Brown

Pix

12:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Joe: Dumping him in ca comon grave would procaine the Holy day,

No it would not. All the law required was the body was buried.

yes t would go read Bruwn on that,

Joe: Brown believes he was burried n a proper tom he find no problem, the Romans would not forbid it they allowed Jews to do their things religiously

The religious law required the body was buried, it did not require it to be buried in a tomb or honourably in any way.

Can you quote Brown on this subject?


I don't have the book but I have and have probably witten it soewhere,

Here is Josephus on the topic (recalling that the gospels report Jesus was accused of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, of which Joseph was a member):

He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner.
https://lexundria.com/j_aj/4.202/wst

J of A may not have thought he blasphemed.

Joe: He dies nit say Peter copied mattiew. he says influenced by that is not the sameand he says other gospels too.

Okay, fine. That still makes Peter later than Matthew.

Your quote-mine of "the composition of a litterary document at a very early date, i.e. in the middle of the first century" makes it seem that Koester believes Peter was written around AD 50, and that is not true - he goes on to say that he disagrees with Crossan, and dates it significantly later.

you quote mine, I am a histoiran I research, I never said that quote appled to peter.that Koester sayng the PMPN ends with empty tomb and dates tahtat 50,

Anonymous said...

Joe: Yes they were, the community produced the gospels, they did retellings by the eye witnesses all the time, s the eye witness testimony is woven into the fabric of the text

But who knows what else was also woven ito the fabric?

We know the authors changed the story to suit their purposes because we can see in Mark the women told no one about the empty tomb, and yet in Matthew, a work that copies Mark to a huge extent, the women immediately told the disciples.

Are you really going to pretend new information came to light after more than forty years? No. The narrative was changed between Mark and Matthew to suit the author.

And we have no way of knowing how much it changed before Mark.

Joe: the empty tomb itself does not have to be the focuss but the risen Lird is.

Obviously, because the empty tomb was not a thing for twenty years!

Joe: my ignorant comment comes from Brown

Brown did not break my sentence into two parts and then ignore the second part to make the comment. That was all you, Joe. Itr was your ignorant comment.

Joe: yes t would go read Bruwn on that,

All I have to hand is this, which only says burial was certain, not burial in a tomb.

"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausibleÅ  While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)

I will check later if there is any more.

Here is the scriptural law Joseph was following:

Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."

All it says is the criminal has to be buried, not that he goes in a tomb.

Joe: J of A may not have thought he blasphemed.

He was a member of the Sanhedrin, and the gospels report that all the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus of blasphemy.

Joe: you quote mine, I am a histoiran I research, I never said that quote appled to peter.that Koester sayng the PMPN ends with empty tomb and dates tahtat 50,

You say:

"The Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the traditions of interpriting old testament materials, for the description of Jesus' suffering and death; it shares such traditions wtih the canonical Gospels, but is not dependent upon the canonical writtings....[Dominic Crosson] argues that this activity [interpretation of scritpure as nuleous of passion narrative]...resulted in the composition of a litterary document at a very early date, i.e. in the middle of the first century." (Koster, 218).

This gives the reader the impression that Koester believes the Gospel of Peter dates from the middle of the first century. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Koester goes on to say why he thinks Crossan is wrong, and later makes clear he thinks Peter was written after Matthew.

This is a quote-mine. You are taking a text out-of-context to make it appear to mean something when actually it does not.

Pix

Anonymous said...

Kristen: Very interesting material. N. T. Wright was also quoted today in the religious editorial section of the New York Times today as saying that the word used in the Gospel accounts meaning "resurrection " was always used to mean actual physical coming back to life, and not in a spiritualized reference to new beginnings or anything like that.

Can you elaborate on what he actually said? I cannot access the NYT article, but I found a quote on Twitter:

“It’s beyond question that when the first followers of Jesus used that language about him, they intended to say something definite about his being bodily alive, albeit in a whole new way,” says the theologian N.T. Wright in an interview

The "in a whole new way" bit seems very important. Did they understand Jesus to be resurrected in a new body? That is, a physical body, but only made of heavenly matter (for lack of a better phrase), that shines brightly like a star?

This would fit with Daniel 12, with what Paul experienced and what Paul describes in 1 Cor 15.

Pix

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Anonymous said...
Joe: Yes they were, the community produced the gospels, they did retellings by the eye witnesses all the time, s the eye witness testimony is woven into the fabric of the text

But who knows what else was also woven ito the fabric?


There is no reasom to susptect anythig,


We know the authors changed the story to suit their purposes because we can see in Mark the women told no one about the empty tomb, and yet in Matthew, a work that copies Mark to a huge extent, the women immediately told the disciples.

Mary Magdelon separated from the group and told the disciples,


Are you really going to pretend new information came to light after more than forty years? No. The narrative was changed between Mark and Matthew to suit the author.


not changed in a way that contradicts the basic telegony, That's just a matter presentation.


And we have no way of knowing how much it changed before Mark.


wrong. They can and have reconstructed a lot of the PMR. You offer no reasom to think ay contradictions exist.



Joe: the empty tomb itself does not have to be the focuss but the risen Lord is.

Obviously, because the empty tomb was not a thing for twenty years!


so? That is not proof of anything,


Joe: my ignorant comment comes from Brown

Brown did not break my sentence into two parts and then ignore the second part to make the comment. That was all you, Joe. Itr was your ignorant comment.


you are desperate to find a contradiction but you don't have one,

Joe: yes t would go read Bruwn on that,

All I have to hand is this, which only says burial was certain, not burial in a tomb.


Ni one supports the mass grave theory, the Jews would not have had one on that day because to close to the holiday. The Moses law says must be a proper burial, they did nots consider mas grave proper.


"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausibleÅ  While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)

That says the probity is with the NT account,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I will check later if there is any more.

Here is the scriptural law Joseph was following:

Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."

All it says is the criminal has to be buried, not that he goes in a tomb.

bury means tomb,I am about to post a bunch of stuff from Brown that blows away your position

Joe: J of A may not have thought he blasphemed.

He was a member of the Sanhedrin, and the gospels report that all the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus of blasphemy.


That's a translation. I need to see the Greek to know if it distinguishes between every member or the body as a whole.


Joe: you quote mine, I am a histoiran I research, I never said that quote appled to peter.that Koester sayng the PMPN ends with empty tomb and dates tahtat 50,

You say:

"The Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the traditions of interpriting old testament materials, for the description of Jesus' suffering and death; it shares such traditions wtih the canonical Gospels, but is not dependent upon the canonical writtings....[Dominic Crosson] argues that this activity [interpretation of scritpure as nuleous of passion narrative]...resulted in the composition of a litterary document at a very early date, i.e. in the middle of the first century." (Koster, 218).

This gives the reader the impression that Koester believes the Gospel of Peter dates from the middle of the first century. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

No it doesn't. Not how I read it.

Koester goes on to say why he thinks Crossan is wrong, and later makes clear he thinks Peter was written after Matthew.

This is a quote-mine. You are taking a text out-of-context to make it appear to mean something when actually it does not.

Pix

Desperate reaction to having been proved wrong

3:54 AM
Anonymous said...
Kristen: Very interesting material. N. T. Wright was also quoted today in the religious editorial section of the New York Times today as saying that the word used in the Gospel accounts meaning "resurrection " was always used to mean actual physical coming back to life, and not in a spiritualized reference to new beginnings or anything like that.

Can you elaborate on what he actually said? I cannot access the NYT article, but I found a quote on Twitter:

“It’s beyond question that when the first followers of Jesus used that language about him, they intended to say something definite about his being bodily alive, albeit in a whole new way,” says the theologian N.T. Wright in an interview

The "in a whole new way" bit seems very important. Did they understand Jesus to be resurrected in a new body? That is, a physical body, but only made of heavenly matter (for lack of a better phrase), that shines brightly like a star?

This would fit with Daniel 12, with what Paul experienced and what Paul describes in 1 Cor 15.

Pix

Interestng point Kristen

Anonymous said...

Joe: There is no reasom to susptect anythig,

Just assuming the gospel accounts are true is naive.

(1) From a probabalistic point of view, it is far more likely they were made up than someone was raised from the dead. Unless we first assume Christianity is true.

(2) They contradict each other. Mark says the women told no one, Matthew that they immeditely told the disciples. Mark says the risen Jesus was first seen in Galilee, Luke and John say Jerusalem.

Joe: Mary Magdelon separated from the group and told the disciples,

Mark states the women told no one, not that most of the women told no one. You are making this up.

Joe: not changed in a way that contradicts the basic telegony, That's just a matter presentation.

How many other changes were made that do not change the basic narrative, like saying Jesus was buried in a tomb, when really he was buried in a common grave?

Joe: wrong. They can and have reconstructed a lot of the PMR. You offer no reasom to think ay contradictions exist.

Koester is clear that the early passion narrative was an evolving and changing story. Scholars have reconstructed - to some degree - what it was like in its later form. To suppose it was therefore like that from AD 50 is wrong.

Joe: so? That is not proof of anything,

I was agreeing with you at that point.

Joe: you are desperate to find a contradiction but you don't have one,

Says the guy who feels obliged to break by posts up into fragments of sentences so he can ignore the end of the sentence! Desparate indeed.

Joe: Ni one supports the mass grave theory, the Jews would not have had one on that day because to close to the holiday. The Moses law says must be a proper burial, they did nots consider mas grave proper.

Crossan supports a mass grave (or that the corpse was just left on the cross).

Moses law does NOT require proper burial. That is why you repeatedly fail to quote the OT to suppose this BS.

Deuteronomy 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."

Joe: That says the probity is with the NT account,

Agreed - but only with regards to:

* Jesus was buried
* It was done because of Jewish law
* It was likely done by Joseph of Arimathea

It does not say Jesus wasa buried in a tomb - the text does not even address that.

Joe: bury means tomb,I am about to post a bunch of stuff from Brown that blows away your position

Someone put in a common grave for criminals is also buried. You are looking more and more desparate.

Joe: That's a translation. I need to see the Greek to know if it distinguishes between every member or the body as a whole.

Read Brown. He is clear that Joseph was acting according to Jewish law, not beause he was secretly a Christian. The bit you quoted says that!

Pix

Kristen said...

Pix, you asked me to elaborate on what NT Wright said about the resurrected body of Jesus. I'm trying to paste in another quote from the article.

Kristen said...

Here it is: "He was definitely embodied but his body seemed to be different. The way they cash that out is that he’s gone through death and out the other side, beyond the reach of pain, corruption, decay or death itself."