Real Contradiction in the Resurrection Accounts?

Image result for Giotto the empty tomb


Our atheist friend the regular on the comment section "Pixie" has an argument about the Resurrection accounts that is interesting and deserves answering:

Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonization fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!...Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.

again:
We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, because when he was writing there were no stories of Jerusalem appearances. He wrote of the Empty Tomb because that is what the community held to, and wrote that the women said nothing because that explained why stories of the Empty Tomb were not circulating at the time.[1]

So he is saying in Mark the angel tells the women Jesus will go meet them in Galilee they should go there, That is a contradiction to all the Jerusalem-based sightings of the risen Christ, In fact the same statement is made in two Gospels:


mark 16

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”
Matt 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew records that they did go to Galilee and that's where he gives them the great commission.


Mat 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee. He shows the travelers on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus. It tells us "on that same day":(24:13) that is Easter, the day of the resurrection, Then they invite Jesus to break bread when they get home. They realize who he is and he disappears and they get up and go back to Jerusalem and tell the 12 then and there. The journey was only about five miles. Jesus appears among them he eats in front of them, Then he leads then out to Bethany where he ascends into the sky, It all happens in one day and evening  no time to go to Galilee which would be abut a three day walk.

Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee. [2] The justification for the dividing line the Greek word "de"(pronounced "day"). The NIV translates it merely as"he said to them" some versions put "then he said..." "I maintain that it is a merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44ff on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11)."[3]


He wants us to assume that there's an invisible break we are just not told about. It puts several days between v43 where he eats fish and 44 where he shows his hands and feet. In the part of Texas from which I come we call this "rationalization," (one of our folksy colloquialisms). Because it's unlikely he would wait so long, he just ate to prove he is flesh and blood then why wait several days to show his hands and feet? That's bad enough but Luke lowers the boom on this answer in v50 where he leads then back to Bethany for the ascension.So they waited three days to walk down to Galilee to see his hands and feet then turned and walked back to Bethany to watch him ascend.I think in the way Luke tries to pin it down he actually does create a contradiction with the other Synoptics (Matthew Mark, and Luke).


This need not be a faith destroying problem,We know Luke was not a eye witness  he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of his research but in so doing leaves out room for other accounts he did not consult . Clearly Luke draws upon a Jerusalem based tradition (which is consistent with the notion of a Luke-Mary connection, also with the Pauline circle since Paul made contact with James who stayed in Jerusalem),[4] The witnesses of the Jerusalem community  omitted rather than renounced the Galilee community, but they conflated the time frame,

Remember my basic assumption is that the witnesses fanned out among the various communities. Thus, each community reflects the perspective of those witnesses in its midst. Thus John  focused on Mary Madeline as the major witness to the resurrection, the others do not. John's account seems to be told from Mary's perspective but it does acknowledge that there were other women with her at the tomb too ("we don't know where they have laid him"--John 20:2). The most likely explanation for the focus on her perspective is that she is the one of the major witnesses that wound up in that community,

 I am not saying the James' Church was at odds with the Galilee band. I am just saying that over time the accounts conflated the experience of  the community to the exclusion of others in some way. Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition,After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord,[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of  fear,  mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.



[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...[6]
James Tabor argues  that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.[7] We know there was some mild power struggle in the early church in which Peter and James vied to impress one another,[8]

Omission is not contradiction, It is well known that major aspects of the synoptic are left out of John and that John includes major aspects not in the synoptic; for example John includes the whole Galilean ministry not  in the synoptics,  "Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels."[9] Yet no serious scholar tries to suggest that this is an out-and-out contradiction. It's merely a difference in sources. A difference in the "take."

Now the question arises, how do we know what in the account is genuine and what is not? This is not the hopeless conundrum the skeptic will try to build it into.  Were it not possible to answer this point by means of textual criticism we would not have it as a problem in the first place.Two points enable solution: (1) We can spot the older readings as the discovery of  the Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) has been consistent with MS evidence;  the existence or pre mark redaction--sources of the gospel written before Mark of course not canonical but nevertheless influenced the canonical gospels. This view is now consensus.[10]  for more on PMPN (see my article article "story of empty tomb dated mid first century."[11] (2) we can ascertain those points upon which all witnesses  agree. They all agree that the tomb was empty they all agree Jesus was seen alive again. None of the accounts including apocryphal accounts deny these points, for at least three centuries after the events. Each account is fueled by the unique perspective of the set of witnesses in that community. They do not contradict each other they are cumulative.

My Point is we can take agreement between canonical and extra canonical sources as consensus. We don't want to use them as theological guides but as historical artifacts. Like a pot shard these apocryphal works testify as to the beliefs going around in given era and given local. It can be reckoned as fairly obvious that the   cross, the empty, tomb the resurrection of Jesus were early and universal, and undisputed. Two major sources of which I speak are the Gospel of Peter (GPet) and Gospel of Thomas(GTom). There is the Epistle of the Apostles, very orthodox but attributed to middle of second century.Epistle  Egerton 2. Most of these are tainted with Gnosticism and contradict orthodox theology. For this reason many Christian apologists just date them to later second century and dismiss them as false and ignore them. That's not honest because major scholarship, even by orthodox schools (such as Raymond Brown)  place these works as early or as  containing  early influences. Some perhaps even earlier than the canonical gospels. Again they are not theologically reliable but as historical artifacts we can't overlook them.


Skeptics often argue that Mark ends with no resurrection even though clearly says he is risen and in an atmosphere of fear and secrecy. But Marks's ending is lost so we don't know what it said. But in echoing the Galilee command it acknowledges that tradition, That's even more interesting that Mark is said to be the memoirs of Peter who according to the Pre Mark redaction led the contingent back to Galilee. Matthew not only preserves the command but says they went.  All gospels, both canonical and otherwise agree with the empty tomb and the resurrection. In light of these facts we can;t regard the omission of Luke, who was not privy to the original events, as a serious contradiction to events, a major contradiction in terms of Luke;s accuracy but it doesn't raise any theological contradiction.



Sources


[1] Anonymous (aka "Pixie") Comment Section,in Joseph Hinman, 
 "Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels," Cadre Comments blog (Jan, 7, 2018)

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/01/breaking-news-liberals-are-not-fundies.html
(accessed Jan 11, 2018)


[2] Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr. "God and Stay Discrepancy," Reformed Answers (third Millennial Ministries) (no date given)

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/44375
(accessed 1/11/18)
Nally is D.D., M.Div. is the Theological Editor at Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM).

[3] Ibid.


[4] James was from Galilee but we know he stayed in Jerusalem because he became head of the Jerusalem church according to Josephus' "brother passage."

[5] "The Gospel of Peter," Trans Raymond Brown, Early Christian Writings. Peter Kirby Editor. (website coywrite 2001)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html
(accessed 1/11/18)
[6] Ibid

[7] James Tabor, "The Surprising Ending of The Lost Gospel of Peter," Taborblog, published by Christian Origins website (December. 2015).

https://jamestabor.com/the-surprising-ending-of-the-lost-gospel-of-peter/
(accessed 1/11/18)
James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89).
Tabor is a fine scholar but his Jesus Dynasty book denies the resurrection,  [8] Ibid

[9] W Hall Harris III, "Two Major Differences in John and The Synoptic," from Commentary on the Gospel of John,    Bible .Org Web site.

https://bible.org/book/export/html/1151
(access 1/25/18)
Harris is Prof  New Testament Dallas Theological Seminary.
[10] Peter Kirbey, "The Passion Narrative," Early Christian Writings, website

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
(access 1/25/18)
"Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations."


[11] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017)
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
(access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Deeding the Resurrection

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee.

There is a discrepancy between Luke and Acts, in that Luke reads as though Jesus ascended the same day he was resurrected, whilst Acts has Jesus around for forty days. Pretty much everyone agrees that Luke and Acts were written by the same author, and so it seems likely that the author believed Jesus was around for a few weeks, but chose to compress the account for dramatic or literary reasons in Luke. So really I have no problem with inserting a couple of weeks between Luke 24:43 and 24:44 (by the way, you should reread what those verses are; they are not the ones ytiu think they are).

However, that does not resolve the issue.

The issue is about where Jesus FIRST was the disciple. Luke, even with this interpretation, still has Jesus seen first in Jerusalem, which contradicts Mark (Matthew is not clear that the Galilee sighting was the first).

Joe: This need not be a faith destroying problem,We know look was not a eye witness he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of hi research but in so doing leave out room for other accounts he did not consult .

Except that we know he did consult Mark, because he copied so much of it!

Joe: Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition,After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord,[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of fear, mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.

This fits with the Markan account (not the talking cross, but the "much more realistic account").

The most likely scenario is the disciples fled Jerusalem, as Jesus prophesised in Mark 14, and took up their old careers, just as the Gospel of Peter says (and perhaps John 21?). It was there that there saw what they thought was the resurrected Jesus, and it was these sightings that Mark and Matthew refer to. This would also be the sightings Paul records, first Peter and so on.

I am not arguing against the resurrection, what I am saying is that if did happened, then it was witnessed in Galilee. My feeling is that the disciples really did see something there, they really believed it was Jesus. These sightings are very early, and almost certainly the reason for Christianity surviving.

The Jerusalem accounts only appear much later, half a century or more after the event. Plenty of time for the people who were there to have died, and giving free rein to embellishment and fantasy.
Joe Hinman said…
darn you folk on the other side of the Pond. you awake too early! Just kidding ;-)

good to see you man

The Pixie said...
Joe: Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee.

There is a discrepancy between Luke and Acts, in that Luke reads as though Jesus ascended the same day he was resurrected, whilst Acts has Jesus around for forty days. Pretty much everyone agrees that Luke and Acts were written by the same author, and so it seems likely that the author believed Jesus was around for a few weeks, but chose to compress the account for dramatic or literary reasons in Luke. So really I have no problem with inserting a couple of weeks between Luke 24:43 and 24:44 (by the way, you should reread what those verses are; they are not the ones ytiu think they are).

It occurs to me that that might not be the ascension,even though I've always assumed so,I will study the language on that text,

However, that does not resolve the issue.

The issue is about where Jesus FIRST was the disciple. Luke, even with this interpretation, still has Jesus seen first in Jerusalem, which contradicts Mark (Matthew is not clear that the Galilee sighting was the first).

as I pointed out it does not contradict Mark, We don't know what Mark says after that point.Moreover you need to list Jerusalem sightings there are not that Many,John is not part of the problem,It's really just Mtt who acknowledges Galilee

Joe: This need not be a faith destroying problem,We know look [edited to Luke] was not a eye witness he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of his research but in so doing leave out room for other accounts he did not consult .

Except that we know he did consult Mark, because he copied so much of it!

but not the ending. in fact since he did use so much mark he might be copy in Mark;s lost ending with the quote of the ascension,

Joe: Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition,After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord,[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of fear, mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.

This fits with the Markan account (not the talking cross, but the "much more realistic account").

I said that, But you are still assuming mark was first ever written about it ant is not,

The most likely scenario is the disciples fled Jerusalem, as Jesus prophesised in Mark 14, and took up their old careers, just as the Gospel of Peter says (and perhaps John 21?). It was there that there saw what they thought was the resurrected Jesus, and it was these sightings that Mark and Matthew refer to. This would also be the sightings Paul records, first Peter and so on.

As I said that accounts for the 12 but not James.James and his band stayed in Jerusalem,that's who Luke talked to.

I am not arguing against the resurrection, what I am saying is that if did happened, then it was witnessed in Galilee. My feeling is that the disciples really did see something there, they really believed it was Jesus. These sightings are very early, and almost certainly the reason for Christianity surviving.

The Jerusalem accounts only appear much later, half a century or more after the event. Plenty of time for the people who were there to have died, and giving free rein to embellishment and fantasy.

No that's false, you are basing that on Luke but Luke is based upon earlier sources,there are different groups of disciples.

1/29/2018 12:36:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
Paul's creedal statement says Jesus appeared first to James, he doesn't even mention the women.

Using Baukham's method we might theorize that Mary Magdalene went with John's group and other women with Mark or Matt and Jame's band didn't talk about the women.That may be why Luke;s Gospel was saved and used, because it was accepted by the Jerusalem church.
The Pixie said…
Joe: as I pointed out it does not contradict Mark, We don't know what Mark says after that point.Moreover you need to list Jerusalem sightings there are not that Many,John is not part of the problem,It's really just Mtt who acknowledges Galilee

Not sure what you are saying. Mark states that Jesus had left the tomb and already gone ahead to Galilee. That is not compatible with Jesus seeing the disciples in Jerusalem before seeing them in Galilee. Mark contradicts John and Luke.

Joe: but not the ending. in fact since he did use so much mark he might be copy in Mark;s lost ending with the quote of the ascension,

But Mark says Jesus went ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there.

Joe: I said that, But you are still assuming mark was first ever written about it ant is not,

Obviously I am not because I cited Paul!

There was a narrative that stated very quickly after the crucifixion, and Paul in 1 Cor 15 is presumably reciting the creed based on that. The narrative developed over time, and what we have in Mark is a snapshot of that narrative at that time. Matthew and Luke give us snapshot of the narrative a while later (perhaps after diverging). Peter, given its later redaction, gives a rather murky snapshot.

Joe: As I said that accounts for the 12 but not James.James and his band stayed in Jerusalem,that's who Luke talked to.

What makes you think James stayed in Jerusalem? Oh, right, Luke, the account I am saying is basically made up. The more likely scenario is James fled with the rest, returning to his home in Galilee.

Joe: No that's false, you are basing that on Luke but Luke is based upon earlier sources,there are different groups of disciples.

What earlier sources? And how early are they? It is doubtful the author of Luke made up the appearances himself, but they could still have been made up thirty to forty years after the crucifixion. Plenty of time for false stories to get embedded in the community.

Joe: Paul's creedal statement says Jesus appeared first to James, he doesn't even mention the women.

First to Peter, James was last. He does not mention the women because they were part of the Empty Tomb narrative, made up later (and according to Mark, they did not see Jesus).

I have just got "The Death of the Messiah, vol 1" by the way; looking forward to reading it.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: as I pointed out it does not contradict Mark, We don't know what Mark says after that point.Moreover you need to list Jerusalem sightings there are not that Many,John is not part of the problem,It's really just Mtt who acknowledges Galilee

Not sure what you are saying. Mark states that Jesus had left the tomb and already gone ahead to Galilee. That is not compatible with Jesus seeing the disciples in Jerusalem before seeing them in Galilee. Mark contradicts John and Luke.

First of all Mark was not an eye witness either.So like Luke he probably filled in too many blanks with his own narrative rather than sticking to just what he was told. So there is room for Jesus making appearances in Jerusalem on the way to Galilee, There are MS with different endings and a couple of them include Jerusalem sightings,

Joe: but not the ending. in fact since he did use so much mark he might be copy in Mark;s lost ending with the quote of the ascension,

But Mark says Jesus went ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there.

doesn't have to be an absolute statement,

Joe: I said that, But you are still assuming mark was first ever written about it ant is not,

Obviously I am not because I cited Paul!

I mean Gospel accounts of Passion narrative,

There was a narrative that stated very quickly after the crucifixion, and Paul in 1 Cor 15 is presumably reciting the creed based on that. The narrative developed over time, and what we have in Mark is a snapshot of that narrative at that time. Matthew and Luke give us snapshot of the narrative a while later (perhaps after diverging). Peter, given its later redaction, gives a rather murky snapshot.

you are making assumptions to fill in gaps in order to suit your theory,

Joe: As I said that accounts for the 12 but not James.James and his band stayed in Jerusalem,that's who Luke talked to.

What makes you think James stayed in Jerusalem? Oh, right, Luke, the account I am saying is basically made up. The more likely scenario is James fled with the rest, returning to his home in Galilee.

We know James was head of the Jerusalem church we find him there in Acts and in Josephus, we don't find him anywhere else. Paul shows us a tradition that says he first appeared to James,He could have done that right before he appeared to the women. There is an apocryphal tradition of Jesus appearing to James we see him in The Apocryphon of James and James infancy Gospel,

Joe: No that's false, you are basing that on Luke but Luke is based upon earlier sources,there are different groups of disciples.

What earlier sources?

the one;s he tells us he used,

And how early are they? It is doubtful the author of Luke made up the appearances himself, but they could still have been made up thirty to forty years after the crucifixion. Plenty of time for false stories to get embedded in the community.

you keep assuming if anyone said something they had to accept it. The longer you go from the time line the more in stone things get set, So it;s less possible to make up a bunch of sightings 40 years after because that's 40 years of telling it one way, then to impose a bunch of new stuff would be realty hard.

We know James tradition would be around in the 40s because Paul mentions it (1 Cor) and it's already a creed like statement in the 50's


Joe: Paul's creedal statement says Jesus appeared first to James, he doesn't even mention the women.

First to Peter, James was last.

New International Version 1 Cor 15:7
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

New Living Translation
Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

English Standard Version
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.





1/29/2018 05:00:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
He does not mention the women because they were part of the Empty Tomb narrative, made up later (and according to Mark, they did not see Jesus).

Perhaps, but not likely, why make up a sighting by women when women weren't credited with being valid witnesses, in Hebrew court if man contradicted testimony of two women they would believe the man. Moreover, you are follow from critical assumptions, Bauckham shows us the bankruptcy of form critical methods. His method asserts that mentioning names is a way of citing eye witnesses,mentioning the women was because they were in the comunuity,

I have just got "The Death of the Messiah, vol 1" by the way; looking forward to reading it.

great. I need to read that again
The Pixie said…
Joe: First of all Mark was not an eye witness either.So like Luke he probably filled in too many blanks with his own narrative rather than sticking to just what he was told. So there is room for Jesus making appearances in Jerusalem on the way to Galilee,

Mark is the earliest full account that we have, so is our best guide to what really happened. It is at least likely that people were still alive who could remember the events when Mark was written, preventing the fantastical embellishments we see later (dead saints walking around, earthquake, sky darkening).

The most likely scenario is that the conversation in the tomb is a blank that Mark filled in. It is telling that he specifically says the witnesses never told anyone, which gets around the problem that people who were there never heard about it.

Mark had a narrative to construct involving the empty tomb and the sightings in Galilee, and so created the events inside the tomb to link the two.

Joe: There are MS with different endings and a couple of them include Jerusalem sightings,

So then the ending of Mark 16 is in contradiction with the first half. You will have the problem that the first half says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee.

Joe: doesn't have to be an absolute statement,

Sure. We can just pretend any of the Bible is metaphorical. Maybe Jesus never really existing, and it is all meant figuratively.

Or we can go by what the text actually says, and then look at why the author wrote it that way.

For Mark, the text says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee. The most likely reason for that was Mark was alluding to the only appearances he had heard of, those in Galilee.

Joe: you are making assumptions to fill in gaps in order to suit your theory,

I am filling in the blanks, just as you said the gospel writers did. We cannot KNOW what happened, we have to speculate to some degree. So tell me; what assumptions do you disagree with and why?

Joe: We know James was head of the Jerusalem church we find him there in Acts and in Josephus, we don't find him anywhere else. Paul shows us a tradition that says he first appeared to James,He could have done that right before he appeared to the women. There is an apocryphal tradition of Jesus appearing to James we see him in The Apocryphon of James and James infancy Gospel,

We do know very little about James with regards to the events around the crucifixion (or anything really). Paul does say James saw Jesus, but after the 500. Peter was first.

It is entirely possible Jesus appeared to James weeks after he appeared to Peter, and okay, that could have been in Jerusalem, but it could as easily have been Galilee, and James went to Jerusalem after that, and later (perhaps years later) became head of the church there.
The Pixie said…
Joe: you keep assuming if anyone said something they had to accept it.

You keep assuming they would not accept it.

Joe: The longer you go from the time line the more in stone things get set, So it;s less possible to make up a bunch of sightings 40 years after because that's 40 years of telling it one way, then to impose a bunch of new stuff would be realty hard.

We only have to look at the non-canonical gospels to see that that is nonsense. People were happy to make stuff up for centuries later.

You only have to look up "jesus face toast" to see how eagerly people will believe something they want to believe.

Joe: We know James tradition would be around in the 40s because Paul mentions it (1 Cor) and it's already a creed like statement in the 50's

Paul says James saw Jesus after the disciples and after the 500:

1 Cor 15:5 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.

Are you saying there are two creeds there, with 5 to 6 being one, and 7 to 8 being an alternative account?

Joe: Perhaps, but not likely, why make up a sighting by women when women weren't credited with being valid witnesses, in Hebrew court if man contradicted testimony of two women they would believe the man. Moreover, you are follow from critical assumptions, Bauckham shows us the bankruptcy of form critical methods. His method asserts that mentioning names is a way of citing eye witnesses,mentioning the women was because they were in the comunuity,

But they were very poor witnesses; they were so scared they never said anything about it!

As you said, the gospel authors had to fill in the blanks. The author of Mark had the empty tomb that no one had actually seen and the appearance in Galilee. So he invents the conversation in the tomb, killing two birds with one stone. But that presented a problem: How come no one had heard of that before? His solution - two witnesses who were not credited with being valid, witnesses who he could plausibly say never told anyone. Witnesses who were conveniently dead by the time he was writing.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: you keep assuming if anyone said something they had to accept it.

You keep assuming they would not accept it.

Joe: The longer you go from the time line the more in stone things get set, So it;s less possible to make up a bunch of sightings 40 years after because that's 40 years of telling it one way, then to impose a bunch of new stuff would be realty hard.

We only have to look at the non-canonical gospels to see that that is nonsense. People were happy to make stuff up for centuries later.

wrong! (1) none of the literature not any of it contradicts the basic 11 points which include resurrection or empty tomb,

(2) you assert that all of that material was invented late and this is a false assumption, For example the apocryphn of James dates to second century but the tradition that Jesus appeared to him first was discussed by Paul in about AD 52. So the material could have been around a longtime. The Diatesseron is another example while it dates to late second century but has readings in it that are very early.

(3)those are specific to various communities. So might get a community to accept another communities idea that here is another appearance Jesus made but not accept whole new characters never heard of before like the women playing a crucial role that impends upon the whole story. hey we just realized Jesus was not crucified like we've heard all our lives,he was stabbed,


You only have to look up "jesus face toast" to see how eagerly people will believe something they want to believe.

that is in harmony with the pineapple I just disused,it doesn't change anything in the Jesus story. O yea he also appeared on this piece of toast,a lot different than saying o btw the first person he appeared to after raising was this arctic fisherman you've never heard of before,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: We know James tradition would be around in the 40s because Paul mentions it (1 Cor) and it's already a creed like statement in the 50's

Paul says James saw Jesus after the disciples and after the 500:

right, right, we misunderstood each other, my fault, I wasn't clear."

1 Cor 15:5 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.

right but look at the first foir verses that;s ore important than who he appeared to first,"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 "


Are you saying there are two creeds there, with 5 to 6 being one, and 7 to 8 being an alternative account?

there are no creeds at this stage, The phrase is "creedal statements meaning creed-like not actual creeds,there are several of the throughout the Pauline corpus. tht is a minor point,



Joe: Perhaps, but not likely, why make up a sighting by women when women weren't credited with being valid witnesses, in Hebrew court if man contradicted testimony of two women they would believe the man. Moreover, you are follow from critical assumptions, Bauckham shows us the bankruptcy of form critical methods. His method asserts that mentioning names is a way of citing eye witnesses,mentioning the women was because they were in the comunuity,

But they were very poor witnesses; they were so scared they never said anything about it!

MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!MARK WAS NOT FIRST MARK WAS NOT FIRST!

you constantly argue as though being in Mark is proof that is was invented by mark bullshit that is totally untrue. The women are reflected in Peter. We don't have the ending of Mark, There are endings of mark that have them going to the apostles,


As you said, the gospel authors had to fill in the blanks. The author of Mark had the empty tomb that no one had actually seen and the appearance in Galilee.

you really just see what you want to see,I've said repeatedly Brown proves there is an equally old and totally independent tradition that shows up in Peter that goes back to pre Pre Mark Passion narrative. what do you think pre Mark Means?

So he invents the conversation in the tomb, killing two birds with one stone. But that presented a problem: How come no one had heard of that before? His solution - two witnesses who were not credited with being valid, witnesses who he could plausibly say never told anyone. Witnesses who were conveniently dead by the time he was writing.

Mark did not invent the resurrection he did not invent the empty tomb,they are part of the pre Mark passion narrative,Mark did not invent the pre Mark Passion narrative,

1/30/2018 12:35:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: right but look at the first foir verses that;s ore important than who he appeared to first,"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 "

What has that to do with James? I still do not get what you are saying about this.

Joe: MARK WAS NOT FIRST...

Sorry, I meant Mark is the earliest full account that we have.

Oh, wait. That is what I said.

Joe: you constantly argue as though being in Mark is proof that is was invented by mark bullshit that is totally untrue. The women are reflected in Peter.

If we assume Peter is not dependant on Mark in that regard (and we have no idea how Peter has been redacted subsequently), that merely moves the date of the invention of the women. It is no big deal to me.

Joe: We don't have the ending of Mark, There are endings of mark that have them going to the apostles,

So we have one author saying both that Jesus went to Galilee ahead of the disciple and saying he did not! You think that helps his credibility?

Note that Gospel of Peter also states that Jesus had already gone to Galilee when the tomb was found:

And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

If you are right about this being independent then the two earliest and independent sources that we have say Jesus went to Galilee without being seen in Jerusalem first, compared to the two later texts, at least one we know depends on Mark, claiming otherwise.

Joe: Mark did not invent the resurrection he did not invent the empty tomb,they are part of the pre Mark passion narrative,Mark did not invent the pre Mark Passion narrative,

That fits with what I have been saying.
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: right but look at the first foir verses that;s ore important than who he appeared to first,"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 "

What has that to do with James? I still do not get what you are saying about this.


the tradition that he did appear to James (weather first or not) was there in the 50s and already creed-like. Sp it was very early. Thus very probable James had community in Jerusalem who had res sightings of their own and that is how Luke got them,

Joe: MARK WAS NOT FIRST...

Sorry, I meant Mark is the earliest full account that we have.

we know another tradition that included the women is older

Oh, wait. That is what I said.

Joe: you constantly argue as though being in Mark is proof that is was invented by mark bullshit that is totally untrue. The women are reflected in Peter.

If we assume Peter is not dependant on Mark in that regard (and we have no idea how Peter has been redacted subsequently), that merely moves the date of the invention of the women. It is no big deal to me.

It puts them among the earliest strata of empty tomb lore,so why assume they didn't exit?

Joe: We don't have the ending of Mark, There are endings of mark that have them going to the apostles,

So we have one author saying both that Jesus went to Galilee ahead of the disciple and saying he did not! You think that helps his credibility?

right because he said he;s going t go he did not say he will dogmatically not see anyone else before he goes,even if they put the words in his mouth that could be a function of besting the Galilee branch,

Joe Hinman said…
Note that Gospel of Peter also states that Jesus had already gone to Galilee when the tomb was found:

And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

that does not say he did not see anyone one else along the way. You assume meet me in Galilee means I wont see anyone else before I go it does not.

If you are right about this being independent then the two earliest and independent sources that we have say Jesus went to Galilee without being seen in Jerusalem first, compared to the two later texts, at least one we know depends on Mark, claiming otherwise.


WHERE DOES IT SAY NO OE SAW HIM IN JERUSALEM? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT! No passage says it,

Joe: Mark did not invent the resurrection he did not invent the empty tomb,they are part of the pre Mark passion narrative,Mark did not invent the pre Mark Passion narrative,

That fits with what I have been saying.

wrong
Joe Hinman said…
there are different versions of Mark we know, we know Mark drew upon earlier material, see my essay "Did mark invent the empety tomb?"

this is in Bible gateway footnote on Mark 16

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=ESV

Mark 16:9 Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9–20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. These manuscripts then continue with verses 9–20

we see even though it says they told no one it then says they tell Peter and the others,I odds are this is not the original ending but it could be influenced by it, it;s possible the view we know is not end of the story.
Anonymous said…
Joe: the tradition that he did appear to James (weather first or not) was there in the 50s and already creed-like. Sp it was very early. Thus very probable James had community in Jerusalem who had res sightings of their own and that is how Luke got them,

But so what?

That is perfectly consistent with Jesus going directly to Galilee, seeing Peter et al there, and then later coming back to Jerusalem to see James.

Or alternatively, James seeing Jesus in Galilee (which is where he came from, so entirely reasonable), just a bit later than the rest.

It gives no support to Luke and John's claims that Jesus was seen in Jerusalem on Easter day.

Joe: we know another tradition that included the women is older

No we do not. While Peter does draw from an earlier source, we do not know what came from the earlier source and what was later added from the synoptics.

Joe: It puts them among the earliest strata of empty tomb lore,so why assume they didn't exit?

Because Mark says they never told anyone. So how did he know about it?

Joe: right because he said he;s going t go he did not say he will dogmatically not see anyone else before he goes,even if they put the words in his mouth that could be a function of besting the Galilee branch,

Read what it says. Both Mark and Peter say Jesus had already gone on ahead.

Joe: that does not say he did not see anyone one else along the way. You assume meet me in Galilee means I wont see anyone else before I go it does not.

Yes, it really does. "He is risen and gone away" means he is not here now.

Joe: WHERE DOES IT SAY NO OE SAW HIM IN JERUSALEM? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT! No passage says it,

Read the text. The man in the tomb states Jesus has already departed.

Compare to John, which says Jesus was still there at the tomb to talk to Mary, and later the same day saw the disciples still in Jerusalem. Was he there as the latest account claims, or had he already left as the earliest accounts claim?

Joe: we see even though it says they told no one it then says they tell Peter and the others,I odds are this is not the original ending but it could be influenced by it, it;s possible the view we know is not end of the story.

Why do you think this was not a later addition, by someone attempting to harmonise the accounts?

"But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

Basically your position is that the author stated that they told no one, but then in the next sentence said that actually they did tell people?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: the tradition that he did appear to James (weather first or not) was there in the 50s and already creed-like. Sp it was very early. Thus very probable James had community in Jerusalem who had res sightings of their own and that is how Luke got them,

But so what?

so no one made anything up. You have two sets of believers, one stayed in Jerusalem and one wet to Galilee. Some witness speak of one group some speak of the other, none made up either group.

That is perfectly consistent with Jesus going directly to Galilee, seeing Peter et al there, and then later coming back to Jerusalem to see James.

Or alternatively, James seeing Jesus in Galilee (which is where he came from, so entirely reasonable), just a bit later than the rest.

what possible reason could you have for sticking James in Galilee? We no examples of him ever being there other than being called Jesus' brother? Every example we have of Ja es He;s in Jerusalem. i Acts, Galatians, Josephus, the James apocrypha, and the canonical Gospels.

It gives no support to Luke and John's claims that Jesus was seen in Jerusalem on Easter day.

why should it?

Joe: we know another tradition that included the women is older

No we do not. While Peter does draw from an earlier source, we do not know what came from the earlier source and what was later added from the synoptics.

yea we do. The tradition that strikes that Mark-like cord is not quoting Mark. Those are not lines ro Mark in Peter. There must have been source common to Mark and Peter, that source clearly deals with the women,

Joe: It puts them among the earliest strata of empty tomb lore,so why assume they didn't exit?

Because Mark says they never told anyone. So how did he know about it?

that is a total Bull shit answer. How does not telling anyone mean they were made up? Obviously hat's not an absolute statement because it's contradicted by other versions of Mark, you tenaciousness cling to that one sentience; this one idea above all must be kept literal and exact why> because it's your excuse to doubt?

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: right because he said he;s going t go he did not say he will dogmatically not see anyone else before he goes,even if they put the words in his mouth that could be a function of besting the Galilee branch,

Read what it says. Both Mark and Peter say Jesus had already gone on ahead.

He's already gone it does not say he didn't see anyone along the way!

Joe: that does not say he did not see anyone one else along the way. You assume meet me in Galilee means I wont see anyone else before I go it does not.

Yes, it really does. "He is risen and gone away" means he is not here now.

no it means he's not here now it does not mean he didn't show himself to anyone else first. it says nothing about not showing himself to other, you are reading in what you want to be there,

why this one statement have to equal all truth you don't believe in inspiration or internecine so what can't this text be wrong?


Joe: WHERE DOES IT SAY NO OE SAW HIM IN JERUSALEM? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT! No passage says it,

Read the text. The man in the tomb states Jesus has already departed.

after appearing to people in Slammer it does not say what he did before he left.

Compare to John, which says Jesus was still there at the tomb to talk to Mary, and later the same day saw the disciples still in Jerusalem. Was he there as the latest account claims, or had he already left as the earliest accounts claim?

more obscurantist fallacy, you don't believe in inerrant scriptures why are are you imposing it now? why must this one thing be literal and complete?

I've already explained this, John is a different set of witnesses,it's based upon a different take,


Joe: we see even though it says they told no one it then says they tell Peter and the others,I odds are this is not the original ending but it could be influenced by it, it;s possible the view we know is not end of the story.

Why do you think this was not a later addition, by someone attempting to harmonise the accounts?

is English not your native tongue? i Just said it's an addition but could be influenced by the original, why should the reading you have be the one we must protect?

"But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

let's read it this way: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.[having already appeared to others in Jerusalem] There you will see him" [when you gt there but already appeared to James here] where is the contradiction?

Basically your position is that the author stated that they told no one, but then in the next sentence said that actually they did tell people?

your position is this is not a redaction based upon the assumptions of a community but a transcript of tape recording of what was actually said?
Joe Hinman said…
Unfortunately my page on Res harmony is down. It;s been been so for some time apparently. Were it not down you would see my assert to the women and different numbers and different names and different orders of who saw what to stick John o to the synoptic and deal with the logistics,I argue that Mary Madeline (MM) left the group when they first saw the stone ajar.

She told John he's not in the tomb, they went back to see as the other women who had just seen the angles were on their way back. So when it says they told no one that is speaking of the main body of women. So that is one way it could be true they told no one and yet the men were told. MM split off and told them but the group which was still "they" told no one,
Joe Hinman said…
Mark simple omits the fact that MM s;lit off but John records it and he also makes clear she had been with others "we don't know where they laid him." We don't know.

Mark was not there, he did not see MM come back and tell them. So he just omits the fact.
The Pixie said…
Joe: so no one made anything up. You have two sets of believers, one stayed in Jerusalem and one wet to Galilee. Some witness speak of one group some speak of the other, none made up either group.

Joe: what possible reason could you have for sticking James in Galilee? We no examples of him ever being there other than being called Jesus' brother? Every example we have of Ja es He;s in Jerusalem. i Acts, Galatians, Josephus, the James apocrypha, and the canonical Gospels.

The issue here is where Jesus appeared FIRST.

If you want to claim Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem, then that only helps you if you can show that that was the first appearance. That certainly contradicts Paul's creed, and I think all the other accounts too.

So what is your point?

Joe: yea we do. The tradition that strikes that Mark-like cord is not quoting Mark. Those are not lines ro Mark in Peter. There must have been source common to Mark and Peter, that source clearly deals with the women,

Why? How can you know that they draw that from an independent source rather than a later redactor editing Peter and drawing on Mark?

Joe: that is a total Bull shit answer. How does not telling anyone mean they were made up? Obviously hat's not an absolute statement because it's contradicted by other versions of Mark, you tenaciousness cling to that one sentience; this one idea above all must be kept literal and exact why> because it's your excuse to doubt?

I "cling" to that sentence because it is in all manuscripts, giving us far more reason to think it is original than any of the various endings.

The author of Mark had a choice; to say the women told no one, or to omit it. The only reasons I can think of for choosing to include it are either that they never told anyone - which leaves us wondering how he knew - or he made it up to fill in blanks in the narrative. I invite you to offer an alternative.

Joe: He's already gone it does not say he didn't see anyone along the way!

Joe: no it means he's not here now it does not mean he didn't show himself to anyone else first. it says nothing about not showing himself to other, you are reading in what you want to be there,

Are you saying Jesus was seen BEFORE the empty tomb was found?

Joe: why this one statement have to equal all truth you don't believe in inspiration or internecine so what can't this text be wrong?

There has to be a reason for every statement to be there. For any statement (in any book) the original author, or the later redactor, or whoever, had a reason for making the statement. That reason could be because it happened, or because he mistaken thought it did happen, or he was trying to resolve a contradiction, or something else.

The author of Mark chose to say that Jesus had already left before the empty tomb was found. Why?

It could be he believed that to be the case (but that would argue against the Jerusalem appearances). My guess he was filling in the blank between the empty tomb and the Galilean appearances (but again that would argue against the Jerusalem appearances).

Why do you think he wrote it?

Joe: after appearing to people in Slammer it does not say what he did before he left.

Not sure what you are saying, but Mark and Peter are clear that Jesus had already departed BEFORE the empty tomb was found.

Joe: more obscurantist fallacy, you don't believe in inerrant scriptures why are are you imposing it now? why must this one thing be literal and complete?
I've already explained this, John is a different set of witnesses,it's based upon a different take,


A take that is contradicted by Mark.

Mark states Jesus had already left for Galilee before the empty tomb was found.

John says Jesus was seen in the vicinity of the empty tomb, after the tomb was found.

One of them has to be wrong on that issue.
The Pixie said…
Joe: is English not your native tongue? i Just said it's an addition but could be influenced by the original, why should the reading you have be the one we must protect?

Sorry misread.

But of course it was influenced by the original. The original said the women never told anyone, and they needed a way to fit that with the later inventions.

Joe: let's read it this way: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee.[having already appeared to others in Jerusalem] There you will see him" [when you gt there but already appeared to James here] where is the contradiction?

So you are having Jesus appear in Jerusalem BEFORE the empty tomb is found?

That would contradict John, which clearly has Jesus seen after the empty tomb was found.

That would contradict Paul, who has James see Jesus after Peter.

Joe: your position is this is not a redaction based upon the assumptions of a community but a transcript of tape recording of what was actually said?

My position is that each and every statement was written for a reason.

Mark chose to wrote that the women never spoke to anyone because that fitted his invention of them finding the empty tomb, which he added to the narrative to connect the empty tomb to the appearances in Galilee.

A later redactor chose to add a verse where the women tell Peter to retrospectively fit with the later gospels.

Joe: She told John he's not in the tomb, they went back to see as the other women who had just seen the angles were on their way back. So when it says they told no one that is speaking of the main body of women. So that is one way it could be true they told no one and yet the men were told. MM split off and told them but the group which was still "they" told no one,

Did Mark know MM told someone?

Think carefully here. If MM told Peter, and the disciples then looked at the tomb and confirmed it is empty, it is quite a stretch to think that Mark knew nothing about it.

Is this what you are suggesting:

MM told Peter, and some of the disciples then looked in the tomb and confirmed it empty (possibly seeing Jesus). However, none of them told Mark. In fact, no one told him for thirty to forty years! Over the next few decades he heard nothing about the disciples seeing the empty tomb at all, and so, when he was writing the gospel he wrote that the women never told anyone.

Kind of undermines Mark's credibility as a historian if he somehow failed to find out about this...

Or are you saying that Mark knew MM had told the disciples, and that the disciples then looked in the tomb, but he nevertheless chose to say that the women did not tell anyone, even though he knew that was not true?
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: so no one made anything up. You have two sets of believers, one stayed in Jerusalem and one wet to Galilee. Some witness speak of one group some speak of the other, none made up either group.

Joe: what possible reason could you have for sticking James in Galilee? We no examples of him ever being there other than being called Jesus' brother? Every example we have of Ja es He;s in Jerusalem. i Acts, Galatians, Josephus, the James apocrypha, and the canonical Gospels.

The issue here is where Jesus appeared FIRST.

If you want to claim Jesus appeared to James in Jerusalem, then that only helps you if you can show that that was the first appearance. That certainly contradicts Paul's creed, and I think all the other accounts too.

No that's nonsense. when Paul says Jesus appeared first to Peter he is not exclude the appearances to the women, it is true for both Greeks and Hebrews that women were not addressed,they were excluded from all important proceedings, he was just speaking rabbinic ally not counting those appearances. Am mg the important people Jesus appeared first to Peter. Now that's wrong and Paul himself was a lot more pro woman than people realize but through habit he was speaking as a rabbi of his day would. If man addressed Greek audience of 50 women and one man he would still address them as "brothers," or gentlemen,same was true of Hebrew address.

So what is your point?

It took the men three days to walk to Galilee. in those three days he could have appeared to James

Joe: yea we do. The tradition that strikes that Mark-like cord is not quoting Mark. Those are not lines ro Mark in Peter. There must have been source common to Mark and Peter, that source clearly deals with the women,

Why? How can you know that they draw that from an independent source rather than a later redactor editing Peter and drawing on Mark?


all the textual critics and bible scholars I've seen argue PMPN establish methods for understanding what is derived from what, Brown lays some of that himself. I am using Brown's method as much as I see to. I will deal with some of that in my post on Monday about why the women weren't made up.


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: that is a total Bull shit answer. How does not telling anyone mean they were made up? Obviously hat's not an absolute statement because it's contradicted by other versions of Mark, you tenaciousness cling to that one sentience; this one idea above all must be kept literal and exact why> because it's your excuse to doubt?

I "cling" to that sentence because it is in all manuscripts, giving us far more reason to think it is original than any of the various endings.

It says in every MS Jesus rose from the dead but you doubt that don't you? you are only cling to the stuff you helps your doubt, Moreover I do not doubt that Mari wrote that sentence, Mark was not an eye witness,he writing from the perspective of the Galilee bunch.

The author of Mark had a choice; to say the women told no one, or to omit it. The only reasons I can think of for choosing to include it are either that they never told anyone - which leaves us wondering how he knew - or he made it up to fill in blanks in the narrative. I invite you to offer an alternative.

or he means no one at that time,or he i excluding MM because she operated from them,

Joe: He's already gone it does not say he didn't see anyone along the way!

Joe: no it means he's not here now it does not mean he didn't show himself to anyone else first. it says nothing about not showing himself to other, you are reading in what you want to be there,

Are you saying Jesus was seen BEFORE the empty tomb was found?



this is just ludicrous. you focus so narrow mindedly on this one phrase but completely reject the whole faith, he must have said they told no one that must be believed absolutely, but when they all agree he rose fro the dead that's right out,,

Mark is doing what I said Luke did, he creates a time frame based upon his understanding which reflects what he was told by certain set of witnesses, it's not a complete picture, that;s why we have four Gospels,
Joe Hinman said…
have to close it up down so I can work on the one for Monday, that will be about why they didn't make up the women,
The Pixie said…
Joe: No that's nonsense. when Paul says Jesus appeared first to Peter he is not exclude the appearances to the women, it is true for both Greeks and Hebrews that women were not addressed,they were excluded from all important proceedings, he was just speaking rabbinic ally not counting those appearances. Am mg the important people Jesus appeared first to Peter. Now that's wrong and Paul himself was a lot more pro woman than people realize but through habit he was speaking as a rabbi of his day would. If man addressed Greek audience of 50 women and one man he would still address them as "brothers," or gentlemen,same was true of Hebrew address.

I was more concerned that you keep saying that James saw Jesus first, and that is certainly contradicted by Paul.

Paul's account does fit with Mark's, as Mark does not claim the women saw Jesus. I will accept that it can be fitted with later accounts in the manner you say.

Joe: It took the men three days to walk to Galilee. in those three days he could have appeared to James

However, Paul tells us that did not happen; Jesus did not see James until after he had seen the other disciples and the 500.

Joe: It says in every MS Jesus rose from the dead but you doubt that don't you? you are only cling to the stuff you helps your doubt, Moreover I do not doubt that Mari wrote that sentence, Mark was not an eye witness,he writing from the perspective of the Galilee bunch.

And you cling to the stuff that helps your faith.

I do not doubt that Mark believed Jesus had risen from the dead. As I said, we need to explain why the author chose to write what he did. The text in Mark makes sense if we assume he believed in the empty tomb and in the Galilean appearances, but did not believe in the Jerusalem appearances. It makes sense if we assume he made up the women to link the tomb and Galilee.

Joe: or he means no one at that time,

That is plausible, but still contradicts claims she then went straight to Peter and told him.

Joe: or he i excluding MM because she operated from them,

Really? So three women saw it, and one left the other two to tell Peter, and you are saying it makes sense to then record that they told no one?

Joe: this is just ludicrous. you focus so narrow mindedly on this one phrase but completely reject the whole faith, he must have said they told no one that must be believed absolutely, but when they all agree he rose fro the dead that's right out,,

So talk me through why the author of Mark chose to say the women told no one and why he chose to say that Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee. Tell me how it made sense to the author if you are right.

Joe: Mark is doing what I said Luke did, he creates a time frame based upon his understanding which reflects what he was told by certain set of witnesses, it's not a complete picture, that;s why we have four Gospels,

That is what I am saying. Except I can give details of what his understanding was, and how it led him to say what he did.

See if you can do that.
The Pixie said…
Okay, signing off then...

My point is that each author broadly believed what he recorded was true, and each author had a reason to wite what he wrote.

Paul believed Peter was the first to see the risen Jesus, so that is what he wrote, presumably repeating a very early belief.

The author of Mark believed Jesus first appeared to the disciples in Galilee, and so he wrote that Jesus had already gone there. He did not believe Jesus appeared in Jerusalem first (or at all I would guess). Likewise, the author of Peter believed Jesus first appeared to the disciples in Galilee. This appearance was almost certainly to Peter first when we consider Paul too.

That said, I would guess Mark made up the women to link the tomb to the Galilean appearances - though it could have been added to the narrative early. In either case, Mark recorded that they said nothing to anybody because no one at the time of the crucifixion knew about the empty tomb. Mark believed the empty tomb, but he knew the disciples had not seen it. If the women had seen it, how could that be? They never told anyone.

All these accounts are relatively early, when people who were around at the time might reasonably be expected to be alive.

The stories of the Jerusalem appearances appeared later, perhaps even later than Matthew. The authors of Luke and John recorded them some 60 years after the event, honestly believing them to be true, but clearly mistaken. Some later redactors modified Mark in an attempt to harmonise it.

If you disagree, and I am sure you do, you need to explain why Mark chose to say that the women said nothing, and why he chose to say that Jesus had already gone to Galilee. And remember that Peter, not James, saw Jesus first!

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger