The Historicity of the Women of the Tomb

Image result for religious a priori resurrection



The women at the empty tomb who were the first to preach the Gospel strike an important blow for women in the church, yet they are written off as made up, fictional, the product of folk lore, by the major and most accomplished scholars working under the assumptions of the from critical school. Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The from critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 19th century.  

The other thing that is well worth considering is that the form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[1]

 My task here is to rehabilitate the historicity of the women of the  empty tomb,who are maligned by  critical ideology.

Form criticism assumes that there were no authors there were no historical individuals and of course don't even think about an eye witness. It's all made up out of whole cloth by the anonymous folk. This kind of criticism is still dominant and although most of it's founding assumptions have been put to bed modern liberal scholarship is loath to let go. They still make the tired old assumptions that the church fathers are not even worth reading.They assume no authors and no eye witnesses. These assumptions have been ably challenged by believing scholars  such as Mark Goodacher, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham. The latter has made the greatest contribution in my view, with his great ground breaking work Jesus and the Eye Witnesses.[2] 

Before moving on I want to clearly delineate the difference in my argument about community as author [3] vs form critical assumptions. Form critics speak of community as author in the sense that there are no individual authors and the myths spread like wildfire by means of folklore. When I use the term I mean there is no one single author but I  do not exclude individuals who initiate the work yet the community is the author to the extend that it is a production of the redaction   process  and oral tradition but not to exclude either eye witnesses or a single initiating author. For example I believe that (based upon Papias) a redaction process combined Mathew's saying source with a narrative framework, to produce the Gospel of Matthew.

I have three arguments for historicity of the women:

(1) The Web of historicity.

(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN)

(3) The counter productive nature of female witness.

(1) The Web of historicity: The characters of the Gospels are always assumed to be historical and many of them are tied to historical figures. There are no folkloric characters, This is the amazing challenge Bauckham has brought with his great book.[4] In seminary I had a female professor who had the reputation of always flunking men and believers, (I got an "A" out of her by disagreeing with her). One day she made the Statement that no sub apostolic writer ever claimed to have known the apostles. After class I told her  Irenaeus of Lyons talks about how Polycarp used to tell him about knowing John. She looked dumbfounded like she could barely grasp It. It made no difference in her teaching the rest of the term. These are dogmatic assumptions that have no basis in actual fact. For a rousing defense of historicity of John, and other figures in the Gospels see my debate with Bradley Bowen of Secular Outpost Blog [5]

The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person. Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women  can't accomplish things why bother?,The woman at the well may have been hypothetical but MM was not. The reality is the Gospels deal in historical people not folklore. Bauckham's method see the designations of the women (all the figures from the Gospels) as code to the reader as to who was being discussed so the communities knew who the witnesses were. In so doing he's tagging specific women as witnesses to the tomb but not just any women, specific one;s to the exclusion of others,Meaning it is a historically definable reality with real flesh and blood people.


Luke, who names the women only at the end of his account of their visit to the tomb,  lists, besides the indispensable Mary Magdalene, Joanna, who is peculiar to his Gospel and already introduced at Luke 8:3, and the other Mary. His reference to Joanna surely indicates the distinctive source of his distinctive empty tomb story.1 Like Matthew he omits Mark's Salome, but he does not simply reproduce the list of women followers of Jesus he had employed earlier in chapter 8 of his Gospel. Mary Magdalene and Joanna he knew to be witnesses of the empty tomb, but Susanna, the third name in his earlier list, he evidently did not. If, as I have suggested and allowing for the evangelists' freedom as storytellers, the stories of the women are substantially as the women themselves told them, then we must regard the differences between the stories as irreducible. We cannot go behind them to a supposedly original version. Nor can we dispense with the angels and reconstruct a less mythologically laden event. These are the stories as doubtless different women told them. They are different performances of the oral traditions, and their differences are such as would have been expected and unproblematic in performances of oral tradition, no greater and no more problematic than those between the three narratives of Paul's conversion that all occur in Acts.[6]
It makes sense, consider if the story was entirely fiction we could reduce it by deconstruction to an original narrative, Being the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event we cannot combine them to make a coherent event because it is based upon these perspectives,Now we can theorize as to the actual events but we can't get at it by reducing the eye witness accounts, they are not working  from a single unified narrative but form their experiences.They contradict each other because they have different perspectives,


(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) is the earliest writing of the Gospel and it includes the women.For an understanding of the PMPN see two  essays Iv'e written in the past [7][8].

"That Mark was Using and Relied upon a pre Markan Passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eye witness Testimony."[9] The Gospel of Peter (GPete--an apocryphal work--we don't want to use this as a guide to doctrine but it is an historical artifact). Early readings preserved in the GPete illustrate that even tough the Gospel in the form in  which we have it is late, (second century), it drew upon a very early independent source, Ray Brown showed that the Passion narrative in GPete drew upon this early source that was not dependent upon Matthew or Mark. MM is in it and I will presently give argument that she is from the earliest strata.[10]


(3) The counter productive nature of female witness. Women in both Greek and Hebrew culture were regarded as appendages to men. Not so much true in Asia Minor where Paul grew up but very much the case in Corinth and in Jerusalem. In Hebrew law women could not be considered valid witnesses in court, the testimony of one man outweighed that of two women.[11] If they are making it up anyway why use women? For that matter why allow it to even be known that women saw him? That can be answered: they were the witnesses and in that situation where they needed everyone they could get, owing to the special nature of the case,  they could not afford to be picky.


Bart Erhman tries to invent supposedly logical and creative reasons why they would invent women. He argues: first that they were not in court, Secondly, "Well, for openers, maybe women would.   We have good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in the early Christian communities.  We know from the letters of Paul – from passages such as Romans 16 – that women played crucial leadership roles in the churches:  ministering as deacons, leading the services in their homes, engaging in missionary activities."[12] The court rule reflected the culture so saying they are not in court is lame, they are in the culture. The argument that women  would make them up is irrelevant because the women would not be inventing a Gospel. The community would not accept it, the women as witnesses went to Peter to get him to come and look he validated their claim, Why invent fictional women then validate their claim? He is making form critical assumptions--seeing it as folklore. Yet by acknowledging their critical role in the community he's giving us a reason to assume that real women were involved.

He Then argues: "Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history.  Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men.   And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body?   Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty."[13] That's a better reason to think real women would have been involved because it does not outweigh the liability of female witness. All the reasons he presents are like this they all work was reasons to think women would have been involved and they do not outweigh the  liability. Ehrman himself is aware of this: "Again, I’m not saying that I think Mark invented the story.  But if we can imagine very easily a reason for Mark to have invented it, it is no leap at all to think that one or more of his predecessors may also have had reasons for doing so"[14]He never actually gives a reason that outweighs the problem. Sure they would have a reason for introducting women but as long as they are making it up they would invent a reason to have a man there too.

There are two basic counter arguments with which I will deal:


(1) It's in Mark

(2) Paul Does not mention them.

It's in Mark: There are atheists I know who seem to imply Mark has to be the first and so being in Mark must mean the author of Mark invented it. Of course this is based upon form critical assumptions, but we can put more fiber into the argument. The argumet is based upon the gradual increase in complexity from Mark through Matt and Luke to John. For example the men in white are men in Mark but by Luke they are a bad of angels. In Mark the women are afraid and run off and and tell no one. In Luke they are given a message of hope and go off joyously. That progression of development in the narrative is true but it doesn't prove it's made up or the women didn't exist. I've seen this on message boards.


As indicated above Mary M. is in the earliest strata, She is in the pre Mark redaction. Mark could not invent her. We can see from the readings that that they are early, In the Gospel of Peter it says: "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."[14]

Mark 16"[1] When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." (ESV)


Matthew: 28, "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. "(ESV)

Luke 24 "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.." (NIV)  "10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."

John 20 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.."(NIV)

First, The Peter passage feels the necessity of explaining who Mary M. was. ("Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord "). None of the others do this, why? Because they are all written 60 plus year after the events and for people who grew up hearing about it, Mary . was well known in Christian community, But if this passage in Peter was written just a few years after they might feel she needed an introduction.Secondly,  GPete takes lengths to describe preparing the body and mourning rituals (flagellation). None of the others mention the latter and only Mark and Luke mention the spices, Everyone knew 60 years latter why the women went no need to make a big thing of it,Thirdly, the mention of fear and the Jewish anger, strangely absent from the canonical other than Mark. That is something that might be mentioned when the events are recent and emotion fresh in the mind, but 60 years latter no one reading it had experienced that fear no point.

(2) Paul Does not mention them.

Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses. He's writing to a Greek audience and it would be read by Judaizers and James church people.He does it the way a Rabbi does things. It might also be that Paul wasn't told abouit them. He got his information from people not from books, he could not google the resurrection. He must have discussed those events with James and with Peter but would either have gone to great pains to tell him of the women?

The historicity or lack thereof of the women of the tomb is neither support for nor argument against the historical nature of the narrative at large, because it derives from the narrative at large,, The assumptions we make about the women determine how we see their historicity, Yet I think there is a sense of support for the reliability of the text that derives from knowing there are good arguments for the historical nature of the women.




Sources

[1] Richard Bauckham, "A Croquette of Form Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website,  no date listed.
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43180
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load
Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.

[2]____________. Jesus and The Eye Witnesses: The Gospel as Eye Witness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wb. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Second Edition, 2017/2006. no page  indicated.

[3] Joseph Hinman, "Community as Author part 1," The Religious a priori. website no date listed.
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/community-as-author-part-1.html
(accessed 2/2/18)

part 2

part 3


[4]Richard Bauckham, Jesus and The Eye Witnesses:... op. cit, chapter 1 "From Historical Jessu to Jesus of Testimony,: 2 "what Papias says about eye witnesses: 1-12, 13-30.

[5] Joseph Hinman,"Hinman Bowen Debate," The religious A priori, website, No date, originally published on CADRE Comment's blog, Agust 2,2016.
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/hinman-i-enjoying-its-fun-i-hope-fun.html

[6]Richard Bauckham,"The Women at the Tomb:the Credibility of their Story,"pdf, The Laing Lecture at London Bible College,no date
http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/The%20Women%20&%20the%20Resurrection.pdf
(accessed 2/2/18)

[7]Joseph Hinman, "Gospel Behind the Gospels, part 2," Religious a priori. website, no date
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html
(accessed 2/2/18)

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

[9]James Bishop, "Jesus in The Pre Mark Passion Narrative," James Bishop's Theologoical Rationalism:Where reason and Evidence meet faith (June 13, 2015)
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/06/13/jesus-in-the-pre-markan-passion-narrative/
(accessed 2/2/18)


[10] Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, A commentary on the Passion narratives in the Four Gospels. Volume 2. New York: Dobuleday 1994 1322

[11]Bart Ehrman, "The Women AT the Tomb." The Bart Ehrman Blog. no date (first coment April 4, 2014).
https://ehrmanblog.org/women-at-the-tomb/
(accessed 2/2/18)

[12]Ibid
[13]Ibid
[14]Ibid

Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person. Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?

The women presumably were real, but that does not prove they saw the empty tomb. More likely is that the author used them because they were now dead, so could not naysay the account.

The use of known individuals is well established, just look at the authorship of Matthew. The gospel was attributed to a known person, when it was almost certainly not written by him.

Joe: It makes sense, consider if the story was entirely fiction we could reduce it by deconstruction to an original narrative, Being the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event we cannot combine them to make a coherent event because it is based upon these perspectives

And yet you insist all the gospel narratives are based one a single account in the pre-Markan passion narrative. Perhaps you need to decide whether they are all based on the pre-Markan passion narrative, or instead are the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event.

Joe: That can be answered: they were the witnesses and in that situation where they needed everyone they could get, owing to the special nature of the case, they could not afford to be picky.

Mark needed witnesses who were not reliable to explain why they had not told anyone at the time. He also needed witnesses who had a reason to go to the tomb, especially given that the disciples had fled (see chapter 14). And he also needed witnesses who were dead when he was writing.

Joe: That progression of development in the narrative is true but it doesn't prove it's made up or the women didn't exist.

There is no proof either way. All we can say is that it makes sense that Mark made it up.

Joe: As indicated above Mary M. is in the earliest strata, She is in the pre Mark redaction. Mark could not invent her. We can see from the readings that that they are early, In the Gospel of Peter it says: "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them),

Why was she afraid of the Jews, and not the Romans? It was the Romans who had crucified Jesus. If this was a real event, it would have been the Romans she was afraid of. The more likely scenario is that this is a later addition to Peter, added after the narrative had been massaged to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews (a process we see clearly in the gospels).

Joe: First, The Peter passage feels the necessity of explaining who Mary M. was. ("Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord ").

Sounds like the same evolution Joseph of Arimathea went through.

If you can show all this was in the earliest version of Peter, then you have successfully pushed back when it was made up. However, as far as I know, we do not know what was in the original versin of Peter.

Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.

I agree Paul offers no help to my argument. He just does not go into enough detail to warrant mentioning the women even if it did happen.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said…
Joe: The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person. Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?

The women presumably were real, but that does not prove they saw the empty tomb. More likely is that the author used them because they were now dead, so could not naysay the account.

that doesn't work. That assumes modern concepts of evidence, the reason to talk about them and name them was because they were alive and people knew their story, just name dead people who were real would not mean anything.

The use of known individuals is well established, just look at the authorship of Matthew. The gospel was attributed to a known person, when it was almost certainly not written by him.

Not for fun of naming real people but because they story was known or because it intruded it to younger people but the story was corroborated the comminity bore witness,

Joe: It makes sense, consider if the story was entirely fiction we could reduce it by deconstruction to an original narrative, Being the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event we cannot combine them to make a coherent event because it is based upon these perspectives

PX:And yet you insist all the gospel narratives are based one a single account in the pre-Markan passion narrative. Perhaps you need to decide whether they are all based on the pre-Markan passion narrative, or instead are the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event.

there are clearly multiple sources but that means corroboration,

Joe: That can be answered: they were the witnesses and in that situation where they needed everyone they could get, owing to the special nature of the case, they could not afford to be picky.

PX: Mark needed witnesses who were not reliable to explain why they had not told anyone at the time. He also needed witnesses who had a reason to go to the tomb, especially given that the disciples had fled (see chapter 14). And he also needed witnesses who were dead when he was writing.

no he does't. PMPN pre dates Mark.(thus "PRe Mark" they did tell,why Mark aid they did not we don't know but Mark got it from perilous sources that say they did tell,other versions of Mark contradict it. It probably means the one's MM split fr did not tell anyone until latter, but MM did.

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: That progression of development in the narrative is true but it doesn't prove it's made up or the women didn't exist.

There is no proof either way. All we can say is that it makes sense that Mark made it up.

we have stronger reason to believe in the women than not,

Joe: As indicated above Mary M. is in the earliest strata, She is in the pre Mark redaction. Mark could not invent her. We can see from the readings that that they are early, In the Gospel of Peter it says: "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them),

PX:
Why was she afraid of the Jews, and not the Romans? It was the Romans who had crucified Jesus. If this was a real event, it would have been the Romans she was afraid of. The more likely scenario is that this is a later addition to Peter, added after the narrative had been massaged to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews (a process we see clearly in the gospels).

I can see you've never done any political action. go see Life of 'brain by Monty Python, note the scene where after they talk about her evil factions they are fighting they go "remember the Romans,?" "O yea, the Romas..."


the Jews rally motivated Jesus' death the Romans were jut doing the Sanhedrin a favor,that's real obvious you need to get that,It can't flue anti Semitism because they were all Jews.


Joe: First, The Peter passage feels the necessity of explaining who Mary M. was. ("Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord ").

Sounds like the same evolution Joseph of Arimathea went through.

that doesn't beat the argent but it is not the same,

If you can show all this was in the earliest version of Peter, then you have successfully pushed back when it was made up. However, as far as I know, we do not know what was in the original versin of Peter.

why would a second century source explain who Mary was when e even four first centuries sources didn't think was necessary?

Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.

I agree Paul offers no help to my argument. He just does not go into enough detail to warrant mentioning the women even if it did happen.
2/05/2018 12:23:00 AM

so I win ;-)
The Pixie said…
Joe: that doesn't work. That assumes modern concepts of evidence, the reason to talk about them and name them was because they were alive and people knew their story, just name dead people who were real would not mean anything.

You assume they were still alive, and you assume people knew their story. Is that not what you are trying to prove?

Joe: Not for fun of naming real people but because they story was known or because it intruded it to younger people but the story was corroborated the comminity bore witness,

But we know the community was happy to embellish. Look at Joseph of Arimathea becoming a Christian in later accounts (taken to extreme with Pilate who was eventually canonised by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in the sixth century). Look at spices the women brought, they were lugging around hundred pounds of aloe and myrrh by the time of John! Look at the virgin birth suddenly appearing in the stories, even though they still counted genealogy via Joseph. Look at the Jerusalem appearances that started to appear once all the witnesses were dead. Look at the earthquake and dead walking in Matthew.

As a reliable witness, the community sucks!

Joe: there are clearly multiple sources but that means corroboration,

Give some detail here. The accounts of the passion narrative in Mark, Matthew and Luke are very similar. There is no need to think Matthew or Luke drew from any other source (not until the empty tomb). Which bits are you saying come from different sources? And why?

See the problem is that the bits Matthew and Luke copied faithfully are the boring bits. What additions are there look like embellishments invented to increase honour to Jesus in death. It is easy to imagine why they made up Joseph or Arimathea as a Christian. It is easy to imagine why they made up anointing the body with a hundred pounds of spices. We do not need to suppose any other sources at all.

Joe: no he does't. PMPN pre dates Mark.(thus "PRe Mark" they did tell,why Mark aid they did not we don't know but Mark got it from perilous sources that say they did tell,other versions of Mark contradict it.

You are assuming the women were in the PMPN. We do not know why Mark said they told no one, but a rational reason is that they were invented by him and he was explaining why no one had heard of it before.

As far as I know, ALL versions of Mark say the women told no one. Some (or one?) versions go on to contradict that, and say that actually they did.

Joe: It probably means the one's MM split fr did not tell anyone until latter, but MM did.

Does that really make sense?

So three women go into the tomb, see it is empty, talk to the guy. Two of the women say nothing, the other talks to the disciples, and tells them of the empty tomb, and they go on to see Jesus, effectively founding Christianity. Some decades later the whole community has not heard about the one women telling the disciples, but is aware of the two women who never said anything, and so Mark records that the women said nothing.

Is that right?
The Pixie said…
Joe: I can see you've never done any political action. go see Life of 'brain by Monty Python, note the scene where after they talk about her evil factions they are fighting they go "remember the Romans,?" "O yea, the Romas..."

Are you aware that that is not a documentary?

Are you saying the women had more reason to fear the other Jews than the Romans?

Joe: the Jews rally motivated Jesus' death the Romans were jut doing the Sanhedrin a favor,that's real obvious you need to get that,It can't flue anti Semitism because they were all Jews.

That is nonsense. The Romans did not do favours like that, and the Sanhedrin had no need to ask them to. The Sanhedrin were free to execute blasphemers under Roman rule, and did just that with James. Jesus was crucified as a threat to Roman authority, and it was the Romans the women would have feared.

The exoneration of the Romans started once Christianity took hold in the gentile world, shifting the blame more and more to the Jews. When we read that the women were afraid of the Jews we can be reasonably sure that the text is relatively late - especially when it does not qualify the Jews, indicating they were afraid of all, despite being Jews themselves.

Joe: why would a second century source explain who Mary was when e even four first centuries sources didn't think was necessary?

The most likely reason is that there was a story circulating that she was not one of his followers (or possibly that she was his wife), and the author wanted to make clear his own opinion (like Matthew with the guards on the tomb; it was a respond to what other were saying).
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: that doesn't work. That assumes modern concepts of evidence, the reason to talk about them and name them was because they were alive and people knew their story, just name dead people who were real would not mean anything.

You assume they were still alive, and you assume people knew their story. Is that not what you are trying to prove?

you have given no valid reason to assume they were dead,We are trekking abouit alive by PMPN not Mark. That's just 18 years. Nor need they be alive for their stories to be known,Its obvious their stories are known because they get talked about. It's the same story they are telling,

Joe: Not for fun of naming real people but because they story was known or because it intruded it to younger people but the story was corroborated the comminity bore witness,

But we know the community was happy to embellish. Look at Joseph of Arimathea becoming a Christian in later accounts (taken to extreme with Pilate who was eventually canonised by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church in the sixth century).


that's rubbish, there are no accounts of him becoming a Christian,NOT in any Gospel The so called embellishments are all within the lines. They did do romances after the second century but they have core story that is set in stone they don;t violate it. they try to bring it to life but they don't move beyond the lines,don't forget it is conjecture to say he was not a Christian,


Look at spices the women brought, they were lugging around hundred pounds of aloe and myrrh by the time of John!

that is historical. There are books that talk about that. That's why they had a lot of women in the party,

Look at the virgin birth suddenly appearing in the stories, even though they still counted genealogy via Joseph.

so what?


Look at the Jerusalem appearances that started to appear once all the witnesses were dead. Look at the earthquake and dead walking in Matthew.

I've already disproved that nosecone, you still expect the Gospels to be documentaries,

As a reliable witness, the community sucks!


especially when you did for conjectures then enshrine them so deeply no disproof matters

Joe: there are clearly multiple sources but that means corroboration,

Give some detail here. The accounts of the passion narrative in Mark, Matthew and Luke are very similar. There is no need to think Matthew or Luke drew from any other source (not until the empty tomb). Which bits are you saying come from different sources? And why?

you know so little about it,It's clear you have not gone over it with a parallel off the four side by side or translated from Greek. First Mark, Matthew, and Q that''s three sources,Matthew has material not in Mark or Q. that is called "M." There''s Material in Luke unique to Luke called "L." The PMPN material is not identical to the Gospels but is along the lines For example the tradition in GPet is based upon spams for the trial and Matthew is not,so they are not identical,That's five sources.There are three Marks and two Lukes,

the amazing thing is how much they kept in line so it's all the sane story,


Joe Hinman said…
See the problem is that the bits Matthew and Luke copied faithfully are the boring bits. What additions are there look like embellishments invented to increase honour to Jesus in death. It is easy to imagine why they made up Joseph or Arimathea as a Christian. It is easy to imagine why they made up anointing the body with a hundred pounds of spices. We do not need to suppose any other sources at all.

the Gospels don;t say Jo of A was a Christen, this is all just your opinion,

Joe: no he does't. PMPN pre dates Mark.(thus "PRe Mark" they did tell,why Mark aid they did not we don't know but Mark got it from perilous sources that say they did tell,other versions of Mark contradict it.

You are assuming the women were in the PMPN. We do not know why Mark said they told no one, but a rational reason is that they were invented by him and he was explaining why no one had heard of it before.

again you are making form critical assumption form criticism is on the way out.O-u-t it
is gone,bye bye, those assumptions are stupid and they are based upon Herder and Goethe and German folk music. If we assume they are witting history and not folk music then they don't have a reason to make things up. it would be stupid for them to do it because it would crate multiple versions, there are not multiple versions,

why invent a group of women who accomplish no purpose since they never talked to anyone we cant know about it,so the fact that we know means they told, you are still not getting it thorough your head MM went off from them so she's not part of the group that didn't tell,


As far as I know, ALL versions of Mark say the women told no one. Some (or one?) versions go on to contradict that, and say that actually they did.

I documented ms that say they did tell th qt was in fn Bible gateway,

Joe: It probably means the one's MM split fr did not tell anyone until latter, but MM did.

Does that really make sense?


I had four pages on it but they have been lost on Doxa. GPet focuses on MM so that backs John, But GPet she is talking to someone saying now we can mourn and beat ourselves so she obviously was with someone,

So three women go into the tomb, see it is empty, talk to the guy. Two of the women say nothing, the other talks to the disciples, and tells them of the empty tomb, and they go on to see Jesus, effectively founding Christianity. Some decades later the whole community has not heard about the one women telling the disciples, but is aware of the two women who never said anything, and so Mark records that the women said nothing.

Is that right?

I am going to write a thing on it for next Monday so I'll explain then.i,I need to replace those lost pages anyway
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: I can see you've never done any political action. go see Life of 'brain by Monty Python, note the scene where after they talk about her evil factions they are fighting they go "remember the Romans,?" "O yea, the Romas..."

Are you aware that that is not a documentary?

It was a very fictionalized society, it explains something about that kind of society,

Are you saying the women had more reason to fear the other Jews than the Romans?

in that moment they did,

Joe: the Jews rally motivated Jesus' death the Romans were jut doing the Sanhedrin a favor,that's real obvious you need to get that,It can't flue anti Semitism because they were all Jews.

That is nonsense. The Romans did not do favours like that, and the Sanhedrin had no need to ask them to. The Sanhedrin were free to execute blasphemers under Roman rule, and did just that with James. Jesus was crucified as a threat to Roman authority, and it was the Romans the women would have feared.

yes they id you are not very well read in history of the period,the Romans did stuff that worked for the,

The exoneration of the Romans started once Christianity took hold in the gentile world, shifting the blame more and more to the Jews. When we read that the women were afraid of the Jews we can be reasonably sure that the text is relatively late - especially when it does not qualify the Jews, indicating they were afraid of all, despite being Jews themselves.

Hebrew culture was diverse and factional, the factions were bloody and fought each other,the heterodox factions were the enemies of the periphrasis most of then died frighting Rome or became Christians but they were at odds and fighting each other as late as middle ages, look up Karaites they are still fortnight that;the non Talmudic Jews,

Joe: why would a second century source explain who Mary was when e even four first centuries sources didn't think was necessary?

The most likely reason is that there was a story circulating that she was not one of his followers (or possibly that she was his wife), and the author wanted to make clear his own opinion (like Matthew with the guards on the tomb; it was a respond to what other were saying).

there is no trace of such a story, that's pure conjecture and it is bullshit,there is no such source. What we find throukgh out second century is MM is part of the story,
The Pixie said…
Joe: you have given no valid reason to assume they were dead,

We do not know if they were dead or not. I am putting this forward as a plausible explanation as to why we have the accounts that we do. There is a reason Mark said they never told anyone. I think my scenario is more plausible than yours.

Joe: We are trekking abouit alive by PMPN not Mark. That's just 18 years. Nor need they be alive for their stories to be known,Its obvious their stories are known because they get talked about. It's the same story they are telling,

You are assuming the PMPN is a single unchanging document. It was more likely revised and modified as new information came to light (or became established in the community). Look at the various endings on Mark to see that process in action.

Joe: that's rubbish, there are no accounts of him becoming a Christian,NOT in any Gospel

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews

Joe: The so called embellishments are all within the lines.

The dead walking around Jerusalem was "within the lines"?

Joe: They did do romances after the second century but they have core story that is set in stone they don;t violate it. they try to bring it to life but they don't move beyond the lines,don't forget it is conjecture to say he was not a Christian,

But you are setting the lines to include whatever is in the gospels, and so of course what the gospels say is within the lines! It is a circular argument.

When the lines are defined by what is in Mark, we can see that the later gospels go well outside the lines.

Joe: that is historical. There are books that talk about that. That's why they had a lot of women in the party,

Seriously? One hundred pounds of spices is the weight of a large dog. According to here (a Christian website, by the way), the spices would be worth $150,000-$200,000 in today's terms.

I have just reread the verse in John, and realised it was supposedly Nicodemus with the one hundred pounds of spices, but he did it the evening of the first day of Passover. Joseph was rushing to get Jesus buried before that day started, so it gives even less time for Nicodemus to source $150,000 worth of spices. How could he do that in the middle of preparations for Passover?

And this also removes any need for the women to go to the tomb!

Mark says the women went to anoint the body. If Nicodemus already smothered the body in one hundred pounds of the stuff, what were they doing? John's embellishment has introduced a new contradiction.

Joe: I've already disproved that nosecone, you still expect the Gospels to be documentaries,

On the contrary, I am arguing against your claim that they are documentaries. They are definitely not, as embellishments like the walking dead and the 100 pounds of spices clearly show.
The Pixie said…
Joe: you know so little about it,It's clear you have not gone over it with a parallel off the four side by side or translated from Greek. First Mark, Matthew, and Q that''s three sources,Matthew has material not in Mark or Q. that is called "M." There''s Material in Luke unique to Luke called "L." The PMPN material is not identical to the Gospels but is along the lines For example the tradition in GPet is based upon spams for the trial and Matthew is not,so they are not identical,That's five sources.There are three Marks and two Lukes,

The Q source is generally believed to be a book of sayings, so I guess does not have the passion narrative.

You claim Matthew had another source, but an alternative scenario is he just made stuff up (or included stuff made up by the community), the walking dead being a clear example.

As far as we know, there was a single source on the passion narrative, the PMPN, and we have no access to it, and have no idea how it changed over time. Oh, and it is not clear how it was devised in the first place; how much is witness accounts and how much guesswork drawing on scripture? It is entirely reasonable that everything else was later embellishment. Is it coincidence that all the additions to the account in Mark are more fantastic than the original (in the sense of serving to enhance the apologetics or to enhance the glory of Jesus)?

Joe: the Gospels don;t say Jo of A was a Christen, this is all just your opinion,

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews

Joe: If we assume they are witting history and not folk music then they don't have a reason to make things up. it would be stupid for them to do it because it would crate multiple versions, there are not multiple versions,

Of course there are multiple versions. Each gospel is a different version.

Joe: why invent a group of women who accomplish no purpose since they never talked to anyone we cant know about it,so the fact that we know means they told, you are still not getting it thorough your head MM went off from them so she's not part of the group that didn't tell,

You said it yourself. Mark was filling in the blanks. The myth of the empty tomb was established in the community, and he needed a way to add it to his narrative, and to link that to the sightings in Galilee.

Joe: I documented ms that say they did tell th qt was in fn Bible gateway,

Sure, there is a version that says they told some one. But it also earlier says they did not. Looks like the bit about them telling was a later addition, which is why it is in only that one version and why it contradicts the earlier verse, and was added to try to harmonise the later gospels.

Joe: I am going to write a thing on it for next Monday so I'll explain then.i,I need to replace those lost pages anyway

Cool.

It is not just a case of harmonising the accounts, but of saying why Mark wrote what he did. Why did Mark say the women told no one?

Is it plausible that he did not know the one of the three told the disciples, and yet somehow knew of the finding of the empty tomb?
The Pixie said…
Joe: in that moment they did,

Why, Joe? Why were three Jews afraid of all the Jews? Were they afraid of each other?

The idea that all the Jews were to blame for Jesus' death is relatively late, indicating this passage is also relatively late. The women had far more to fear from the Romans as it was the Romans who were in authority and the Romans who had crucified Jesus.

Joe: yes they id you are not very well read in history of the period,the Romans did stuff that worked for the,

So find the precedent that shows the Romans crucified someone, anyone, for blasphemy who was not also charged with treason. Then explain why James was stoned by the Jews and not crucified by the Romans. See, I am not well read on the history of the period, but I know you are, so this will be trivial for you. And I am sure you know that merely asserting it is not going to cut it.

Joe: Hebrew culture was diverse and factional, the factions were bloody and fought each other,the heterodox factions were the enemies of the periphrasis most of then died frighting Rome or became Christians but they were at odds and fighting each other as late as middle ages, look up Karaites they are still fortnight that;the non Talmudic Jews,

If the text said the women were afraid of a certain sect you might have a point. But it says "the Jews".

But hey, you are well read in the history of the time. Can you tell us of an incident where one faction attacked women attending to the recently dead? As I understand it, the fighting was between factions with different ideologies, and attacking women on their way to a tomb sounds pretty unlikely to me for a religious sect, even if it is the tomb of one accused of blasphemy.

In our last discussion, your argument was based on the the Jews having a certain respect for the dead, even those executed for blasphemy. Now you seem to have flipped to saying they would attack anyone going to the grave of such a person.

Joe: there is no trace of such a story, that's pure conjecture and it is bullshit,there is no such source. What we find throukgh out second century is MM is part of the story,

Yes, it is conjecture. It is a hypothesis that fits the facts we have. I am not saying MM was not around at the time of the crucifixion, I agree she probably was. However, she may not have been a follower, or equally maybe she was a follower, and enemies of Christian made up stories about her and Jesus, and Peter wanted to set the record straight. Clearly he had some reason to spell out that she was a follower, and the most likely reason was to counter objections of the time.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: you know so little about it,It's clear you have not gone over it with a parallel off the four side by side or translated from Greek. First Mark, Matthew, and Q that''s three sources,Matthew has material not in Mark or Q. that is called "M." There''s Material in Luke unique to Luke called "L." The PMPN material is not identical to the Gospels but is along the lines For example the tradition in GPet is based upon spams for the trial and Matthew is not,so they are not identical,That's five sources.There are three Marks and two Lukes,

The Q source is generally believed to be a book of sayings, so I guess does not have the passion narrative.

sayings tell us stuff too

You claim Matthew had another source, but an alternative scenario is he just made stuff up (or included stuff made up by the community), the walking dead being a clear example.

No it's not, No scholar takes that seriously ,Crosson says they didn't make stuff up the most liberal scholars ridicule that idea, No one thinks that,besides we can tell when we are dealing with a copying of a source,




As far as we know, there was a single source on the passion narrative, the PMPN, and we have no access to it, and have no idea how it changed over time. Oh, and it is not clear how it was devised in the first place;

no I already explained why that's crap,Q and other sources can be almost as old as PMPN


how much is witness accounts and how much guesswork drawing on scripture? It is entirely reasonable that everything else was later embellishment. Is it coincidence that all the additions to the account in Mark are more fantastic than the original (in the sense of serving to enhance the apologetics or to enhance the glory of Jesus)?

total ignorance, we know when a reading is in an earlier for it's like the reading we have but different that's copying not making it up.




Joe: the Gospels don;t say Jo of A was a Christen, this is all just your opinion,

John 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews

except there, But Brown had no facts to prvoe it, it's just his assumption/

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: If we assume they are witting history and not folk music then they don't have a reason to make things up. it would be stupid for them to do it because it would crate multiple versions, there are not multiple versions,

Of course there are multiple versions. Each gospel is a different version.


exactly

Joe: why invent a group of women who accomplish no purpose since they never talked to anyone we cant know about it,so the fact that we know means they told, you are still not getting it thorough your head MM went off from them so she's not part of the group that didn't tell,

You said it yourself. Mark was filling in the blanks. The myth of the empty tomb was established in the community, and he needed a way to add it to his narrative, and to link that to the sightings in Galilee.


Id he was making it up he would makeup a man and find an excuse to put him on secne so he could be a valid witness,


Joe: I documented ms that say they did tell th qt was in fn Bible gateway,

Sure, there is a version that says they told some one. But it also earlier says they did not. Looks like the bit about them telling was a later addition, which is why it is in only that one version and why it contradicts the earlier verse, and was added to try to harmonise the later gospels.

your thinking is so mature,no scholar would accept this one statement over the vast preponderance of the evidence, you can't offer a single reason to be so obsessed with that one statement against all the other sources, It;s not even rational because they can't know about it if they never told anyone,saying they made it up doesn't up because he still has to have a viable way to know it, he can't just say I made it up ,,besides all that the author was not even there he was not an eye witness I don't think you understand the conceit of the witness s fancying out among the communities you don;t seem to gras the significance,,
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: in that moment they did,

Why, Joe? Why were three Jews afraid of all the Jews? Were they afraid of each other?


their leader was executed and some of the charges Agilent him were heresy so as his followers they could be persecuted,


The idea that all the Jews were to blame for Jesus' death is relatively late, indicating this passage is also relatively late. The women had far more to fear from the Romans as it was the Romans who were in authority and the Romans who had crucified Jesus.

I did not argue:all the jews were to blame: I specifically said they were jews Jew on jew and not about antisemitiosm,

Joe: yes they id you are not very well read in history of the period,the Romans did stuff that worked for the,

So find the precedent that shows the Romans crucified someone, anyone, for blasphemy who was not also charged with treason. Then explain why James was stoned by the Jews and not crucified by the Romans. See, I am not well read on the history of the period, but I know you are, so this will be trivial for you. And I am sure you know that merely asserting it is not going to cut it.


you are concussed,he was charged with several things among them blasphemy and then so the Romans could do the dirty work he was charged with political sedition they Roans knew he was no threat but they did it to help prevent rebellion.

Joe: Hebrew culture was diverse and factional, the factions were bloody and fought each other,the heterodox factions were the enemies of the periphrasis most of then died frighting Rome or became Christians but they were at odds and fighting each other as late as middle ages, look up Karaites they are still fortnight that;the non Talmudic Jews,

If the text said the women were afraid of a certain sect you might have a point. But it says "the Jews".

that's the way they talk about them, we know GPet was Jewish he PMPN are ore Jewish that;s how we spot the readings,there are two reasons. They were being alienated from the synagogues, this was at least AD 50. Also they had Samaritans i the John continuity,

But hey, you are well read in the history of the time. Can you tell us of an incident where one faction attacked women attending to the recently dead? As I understand it, the fighting was between factions with different ideologies, and attacking women on their way to a tomb sounds pretty unlikely to me for a religious sect, even if it is the tomb of one accused of blasphemy.

Joe Hinman said…
you want us to think that they would er attack women in the first century but somehow they would by the late second? They wrote that not I, if they knew it could happen in second it could happen in the first too.They would not have to attack them to arrest them for heresy then stone them,

In our last discussion, your argument was based on the the Jews having a certain respect for the dead, even those executed for blasphemy. Now you seem to have flipped to saying they would attack anyone going to the grave of such a person.

It doesn't say they were Ariadne of being attacked when tending to the body It says they were afraid, they still had to go home,

Joe: there is no trace of such a story, that's pure conjecture and it is bullshit,there is no such source. What we find throukgh out second century is MM is part of the story,

Yes, it is conjecture. It is a hypothesis that fits the facts we have.

No it does NOT! there is no fact that MM was no longer known and was not tought to be Jesus' girlfriend,you are asserting the facts point to the text being made up that is totally circuital reasoning,


I am not saying MM was not around at the time of the crucifixion, I agree she probably was. However, she may not have been a follower, or equally maybe she was a follower, and enemies of Christian made up stories about her and Jesus, and Peter wanted to set the record straight.

that's is inane, she only known becauseof her devotion, She anoints his feet with oil which means he is Messiah, she i listed among the women who follow him arid,

your reasoning is circular, you think doubts gives you a licence to makeup any thing you need to assert then because it bolsters doubt it must be true,,



Clearly he had some reason to spell out that she was a follower, and the most likely reason was to counter objections of the time.

the most insane things about that is without it her veining a believer there;s no reason whyshe would follow him around and anoint him with i,
The Pixie said…
Joe: sayings tell us stuff too

What do the sayings tell us about the passion narrative?

Joe: No it's not, No scholar takes that seriously ,Crosson says they didn't make stuff up the most liberal scholars ridicule that idea, No one thinks that,besides we can tell when we are dealing with a copying of a source,

Seriously? Can you quote Crossan or one of these liberal scholars? On what basis do they think it actually happened?

Why do several other verses in other books say Jesus was the only one resurrected at that time, for example 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, John 3:13.

Why is there no historical record of it? This would have been an unprecedented event, witnessed by thousands, and yet we have no record of it. Furthermore, why did the Jews not adopt Christianity in droves? This was the ultimate proof that Jess was the messiah, but as far as we can tell, not one Jew acted on the event.

Why do none of the other gospel mention it?

These should be trivial to answer given all scholars think it was historical; I am sure you will find the answer in any book or web site on the issue.

Joe: no I already explained why that's crap,Q and other sources can be almost as old as PMPN

Just waiting for you to tell us what bits of the passion narrative were in Q, and what other sources there were.

Joe: total ignorance, we know when a reading is in an earlier for it's like the reading we have but different that's copying not making it up.

So you should be able to explain why all the later additions in Matthew, Luke and John consistently make the apologetics better or give more honour to Jesus.

My guess is that it is because they are embellishments made up by the Christian community specifically to make the apologetics better or give more honour to Jesus, but clearly you know better and will present a plausible scenario. Bit odd you have not already done so really.

Joe: except there, But Brown had no facts to prvoe it, it's just his assumption/

It follows the usual pattern where the later version gives more honour to Jesus, supporting my hypothesis that the later additions are embellishments.

Joe: Id he was making it up he would makeup a man and find an excuse to put him on secne so he could be a valid witness,

He did not want a reliable witness. A reliable witness would have told someone. He needed an unreliable witness, someone who could plausibly have been too afraid to say something.

Joe: your thinking is so mature,no scholar would accept this one statement over the vast preponderance of the evidence, you can't offer a single reason to be so obsessed with that one statement against all the other sources,

Maybe these scholars need to think a bit more deeply about the text then. The author was writing a sacred text (he probably did not consider it scripture, but sacred nevertheless). He would have carefully considered each word. There is some reason for every sentence he wrote.

Joe: It;s not even rational because they can't know about it if they never told anyone,saying they made it up doesn't up because he still has to have a viable way to know it, he can't just say I made it up ,,besides all that the author was not even there he was not an eye witness I don't think you understand the conceit of the witness s fancying out among the communities you don;t seem to gras the significance,,

They did not know about it, it was made up!
Joe Hinman said…
hey Pix unfortunate I am not going to have time to pursue this discussion now, I have extra editing that must be done on two books. I have asked Mike to put up message boards for the old Doxa Boards, should come soon,
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: sayings tell us stuff too

What do the sayings tell us about the passion narrative?

Joe: No it's not, No scholar takes that seriously ,Crosson says they didn't make stuff up the most liberal scholars ridicule that idea, No one thinks that,besides we can tell when we are dealing with a copying of a source,

Seriously? Can you quote Crossan or one of these liberal scholars? On what basis do they think it actually happened?

It's stupid to think they would study the bible everyday to find the word on Messiah then make up a bunch of stuff about Jesus, it's not folk music.you are doing the form critical bullshit

Why do several other verses in other books say Jesus was the only one resurrected at that time, for example 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, John 3:13.


that is not what it is saying not what first fruits from the dead is you don;t don;t understand the tereonology,

Why is there no historical record of it? This would have been an unprecedented event, witnessed by thousands, and yet we have no record of it. Furthermore, why did the Jews not adopt Christianity in droves? This was the ultimate proof that Jess was the messiah, but as far as we can tell, not one Jew acted on the event.

that is so stupid, that's the little message boas crap, not worthy of you

Why do none of the other gospel mention it?


the resurrection> they all mention it

These should be trivial to answer given all scholars think it was historical; I am sure you will find the answer in any book or web site on the issue.

Joe: no I already explained why that's crap,Q and other sources can be almost as old as PMPN

Just waiting for you to tell us what bits of the passion narrative were in Q, and what other sources there were.

ni passage in Q describes the rectification tha doesn;t' mean they don;t tell us anteing, use your brain

Joe Hinman said…


Joe: It;s not even rational because they can't know about it if they never told anyone,saying they made it up doesn't up because he still has to have a viable way to know it, he can't just say I made it up ,,besides all that the author was not even there he was not an eye witness I don't think you understand the conceit of the witness s fancying out among the communities you don;t seem to gras the significance,,

They did not know about it, it was made up!

pure idiocy I already answered that drivel .why doen;t the/gospels say "this is made up crap hey believe our made up crap,they wanted people to Blevins it so they can;t say I t made up,if they say some one did X they have to show how they know it

they never say no one knows this but here;s what happened not that we know it now but we do,
The Pixie said…
Joe: It's stupid to think they would study the bible everyday to find the word on Messiah then make up a bunch of stuff about Jesus, it's not folk music.you are doing the form critical bullshit

It is the process that today gives us Jesus face on a slice of toast. People believe what they want to believe. They want a sigh from God, and they see it on the toast.

They wanted Jesus to be buried with a shed-load of spices, so slowly the idea crept into the narrative. They wanted Joseph of Arimathea to be a Christian, and slowly the idea was adopted. They wanted his death to be Earth shattered, so we get the dead walking and the earthquake... But only after people arpound at the time would all be dead.

Joe: that is not what it is saying not what first fruits from the dead is you don;t don;t understand the tereonology,

So explain it!

My understanding is that Paul saw Jesus as the Jewish messiah, the promised king of the Jews, who would usher in the messianic age, the kingdom of God, which would lead to the resurrection for all the righteous. Jesus was Lord to Paul because he was king, not because he was God, and Jesus was the prototype for the general resurrection... The first fruits of the harvest.

The implication is that no one else had been resurrected.

Joe: that is so stupid, that's the little message boas crap, not worthy of you

But again you cannot explain why it is wrong.

Joe: the resurrection> they all mention it

I was talking about the dead saints walking around. Only Matthew mentions it.

Joe: ni passage in Q describes the rectification tha doesn;t' mean they don;t tell us anteing, use your brain

Q was a collection of sayings. It gave no details about the passion narrative.

Joe: pure idiocy I already answered that drivel .why doen;t the/gospels say "this is made up crap hey believe our made up crap,they wanted people to Blevins it so they can;t say I t made up,if they say some one did X they have to show how they know it

But very clearly they do not show how they know it.

How do they know what the angel said to Joseph? How do they know what Pilate said to Jesus? There are events that they clearly had no way of determining, but somehow recorded anyway as they they were there.

Joe: they never say no one knows this but here;s what happened not that we know it now but we do,

Right, because the idea of the empty tomb was already established in the community. No one saw it, but everyone knew about it. How could Mark put that into a narrative? He needed someone to find it, and he need that person to not then tell anyone.
Joe Hinman said…
They wanted Jesus to be buried with a shed-load of spices, so slowly the idea crept into the narrative. They wanted Joseph of Arimathea to be a Christian, and slowly the idea was adopted. They wanted his death to be Earth shattered, so we get the dead walking and the earthquake... But only after people arpound at the time would all be dead.

do you really thin they made up Jewish burial practices for the Gospel? I've read about those practices they really did bury people that way,it was not impossible to manage and a small number of women always did it,

My understanding is that Paul saw Jesus as the Jewish messiah, the promised king of the Jews, who would usher in the messianic age, the kingdom of God, which would lead to the resurrection for all the righteous. Jesus was Lord to Paul because he was king, not because he was God, and Jesus was the prototype for the general resurrection... The first fruits of the harvest.

that argumet was not part of the discussion you are changing the context of my answers,

The implication is that no one else had been resurrected.

Joe: that is so stupid, that's the little message boas crap, not worthy of you

But again you cannot explain why it is wrong. yes I do in the next sentence

HERE=>Joe: the resurrection> they all mention it

I was talking about the dead saints walking around. Only Matthew mentions it.

that is irrelevant it was not part of the discussion, it doesn't change the resurrection of Jesus, it can go either way,
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: ni passage in Q describes the rectification tha doesn;t' mean they don;t tell us anteing, use your brain

Q was a collection of sayings. It gave no details about the passion narrative.

it doesn't have to be part of the narrative to tell us things useful in understanding the narrative, For example 1/3 of GTom is from Q source. might identify Q with Passion narrative,

Joe: pure idiocy I already answered that drivel .why doen;t the/gospels say "this is made up crap hey believe our made up crap,they wanted people to Blevins it so they can;t say I t made up,if they say some one did X they have to show how they know it

But very clearly they do not show how they know it.

they do actually because the change and say they did tell that;s why they have those other MS you are just cloning to bone,

How do they know what the angel said to Joseph? How do they know what Pilate said to Jesus? There are events that they clearly had no way of determining, but somehow recorded anyway as they they were there.

Joe: they never say no one knows this but here;s what happened not that we know it now but we do,

Right, because the idea of the empty tomb was already established in the community. No one saw it, but everyone knew about it. How could Mark put that into a narrative? He needed someone to find it, and he need that person to not then tell anyone.

they venerated the physical location that is now the the Holy Seolechur as early as mid first century,so obviously soe people did see iot,

stop making things up.stop ignoring facts,stop refusing to accept facts to gaurd your precious doubt,
Joe Hinman said…
Gospel Of Peter

XII. 50 Now early on the Lord's day Mary Magdalene, a disciple (fem.) of the Lord-which, being afraid because of the Jews, for they were inflamed with anger, had not performed at the sepulchre of the Lord those things which women are accustomed to do unto them that die and are (51) beloved of them- took with her the women her friends and 52 came unto the tomb where he was laid. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and said: Even if we were not able to weep and lament him on that day whereon he was 53 crucified, yet let us now do so at his tomb. But who will roll away for us the stone also that is set upon the door of the tomb, that we may enter in and sit beside him and perform 54 that which is due? for the stone was great, and we fear lest any man see us. And if we cannot do so, yet let us cast down at the door these things which we bring for a memorial of him, and we will weep and lament until we come unto our house.

XIII. 55 And they went and found the sepulchre open : and they drew near and looked in there, and saw there a young man sitting in the midst of the sepulchre, of a fair countenance and clad in very bright raiment, which said unto them: 56 Wherefore are ye come? whom seek ye? not him that was crucified? He is risen and is departed; but if ye believe it not, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not here: for he is risen and is departed thither whence he was sent. 57 Then the women were affrighted and fled. XII.


_________

this is older than Mark, that's why it;s Pre Mark,whatever Mark was getting at by saying they did not tell anyone that was written after this account there; is no reason to that the Mark statement is the final word on who said what.

Probably he meant the women who entered the tomb did not go tell Peter, they said not until after MM told Peter then they became part of the body of witness,

my argument that MM separated fro then before going into the tomb will be made clear on Monday. Got to have something to post on that day. ;-)
The Pixie said…
Joe: do you really thin they made up Jewish burial practices for the Gospel? I've read about those practices they really did bury people that way,it was not impossible to manage and a small number of women always did it,

I think they exaggerated the known practices. I imagine anointing with myrrh and aloe was common. I am very doubtful that happened with Jesus, given the Romans had set out to dishonour him as much as possible. I find the claim of around a hundred pounds of spices to be ludicrous, and a clear embellishment, representing what the community wanted to have happened, not what actually did.

Joe: that argumet was not part of the discussion you are changing the context of my answers,

We are heading off-topic, I agree, but you said: "that is not what it is saying not what first fruits from the dead is you don;t don;t understand the tereonology", and I was explaining my position. Why don't you start a thread on the dead saints walking around in Matthew?

Joe: yes I do in the next sentence
HERE=>Joe: the resurrection> they all mention it


But I was talking about the resurrected saints, who are only mentioned by Matthew.

Joe: it doesn't have to be part of the narrative to tell us things useful in understanding the narrative, For example 1/3 of GTom is from Q source. might identify Q with Passion narrative,

Tell me one thing we get from Q about the passion.

Joe: they do actually because the change and say they did tell that;s why they have those other MS you are just cloning to bone,

What does that mean?

Joe: they venerated the physical location that is now the the Holy Seolechur as early as mid first century,so obviously soe people did see iot,

You assert that they did venerated it that early. That is quite different to proving it. The most likely scenario - as I showed in the earlier thread - is that Joseph of Arimathea had Jesus buried in the grave next to the crucifixion site for just that purpose. It is almost certain the Romans would permit no more than that, and Jewish custom required no more than that. The idea that the Romans built a temple on such a dishonourable site is not credible.

Joe: stop making things up.stop ignoring facts,stop refusing to accept facts to gaurd your precious doubt,

I was going to say that to you!

Joe: this is older than Mark, that's why it;s Pre Mark,whatever Mark was getting at by saying they did not tell anyone that was written after this account there; is no reason to that the Mark statement is the final word on who said what.

We do not know its providence. We do not know how it has been edited and added to over the first couple of centuries of its life - and we do know editing and addition happened, because we have different versions of Mark. Parts of Peter may well be older than Mark, or may draw on the PMPN, rather than on Mark. However, the bit about the women looks to be decades later than Mark, given the way the Jews are portrayed.

Joe: Probably he meant the women who entered the tomb did not go tell Peter, they said not until after MM told Peter then they became part of the body of witness,

So you think he knew MM told the disciples straight away, but nevertheless said the women told no one? Why would he do that?
Joe Hinman said…
I think they exaggerated the known practices.

so what? besides some trans say 75 pounds, it was 34 kilograms,



I imagine anointing with myrrh and aloe was common. I am very doubtful that happened with Jesus, given the Romans had set out to dishonour him as much as possible. I find the claim of around a hundred pounds of spices to be ludicrous, and a clear embellishment, representing what the community wanted to have happened, not what actually did.

once they turn the body over they are out of the picture,
The Pixie said…
Joe: so what? besides some trans say 75 pounds, it was 34 kilograms,

That is still a vast amount. The web site I cited about said 75 pounds, and that was $150,000-$200,000 in today's terms. For a guy who insisted his followers give up their material goods!

Where do you think they would get all that on such short notice with the Passover just hours away?

once they turn the body over they are out of the picture,

Historical evidence for that? We know they preferred to keep the body on the cross, so we know they were concerned about the body. Although they respected the custom of burial, it does not follow that they allowed the burial tpo be honour.

The Jews of the time were known for venerating the tombs of saints. The Romans would want to avoid that happening for a supposed messiah.

Everything points to the Romans ensuring a dishonourable burial.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said…
Joe: so what? besides some trans say 75 pounds, it was 34 kilograms,

That is still a vast amount. The web site I cited about said 75 pounds, and that was $150,000-$200,000 in today's terms. For a guy who insisted his followers give up their material goods!

that does not mean it costs that in their society since it was the way they buried al; the time it wasn't a big deal you are clutching at straws,

Where do you think they would get all that on such short notice with the Passover just hours away?

probably they place they got it all the time, this was standard it is not somnethying they just for this one burial,

once they turn the body over they are out of the picture,

Historical evidence for that? We know they preferred to keep the body on the cross, so we know they were concerned about the body. Although they res

how many times do we have to go through this???,I wont tell you this again, BROWN SAYS THE ROMANS LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE,WHICH INCLUDED BURIAL PRACTICES THE DID TRY TO ACCOMMODATE IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET A BODY OFF THE CROSS, THEY HAD TO DO IT FOR THE HOLY DAY AND THE ROANS WOULD NOT WANT A REVOLT.

The Jews of the time were known for venerating the tombs of saints. The Romans would want to avoid that happening for a supposed messiah.

that is BULL SHIT bull honky dodo you do not have any backing for that claimi,

Everything points to the Romans ensuring a dishonourable burial.

Everything in your ignorant attempt to find any excuse to avoid belief, Real schools know better,


Brown disproves all of your nonsense this is why you are afraid to read him
The Pixie said…
Joe: that does not mean it costs that in their society since it was the way they buried al; the time it wasn't a big deal you are clutching at straws,

Anointing with aloe and myrrh was a the custom, using 75 to 100 pounds of the stuff certainly was not! We are talking about 20 to 26 US gallons of the stuff!

Myrrh was a material that was comparable to gold in its worth, as the story of the wise men attests.

Joe: probably they place they got it all the time, this was standard it is not somnethying they just for this one burial,

You are claiming people often just had 20 gallons of the stuff lying around? Something comparable to gold in value...

Joe: how many times do we have to go through this???,I wont tell you this again, BROWN SAYS THE ROMANS LET PEOPLE HAVE THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE,WHICH INCLUDED BURIAL PRACTICES THE DID TRY TO ACCOMMODATE IF IT WAS POSSIBLE, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET A BODY OFF THE CROSS, THEY HAD TO DO IT FOR THE HOLY DAY AND THE ROANS WOULD NOT WANT A REVOLT.

We have been through this dozens of times, and every time you cite Brown saying the Romans would let the corpse be buried, and then pretend that that means buried with honour. So let us hope this really is the last time because frankly your straw man is getting wearing.

You have NEVER quoted Brown saying the Romans would allow an honourable burial. And it is an honourable burial that we disagree on.
Joe Hinman said…
read this essay I wrote on the argent about the Romans not allowing decent burial of tose crucified:

Here


"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 implausibleŠ 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)
The Pixie said…
Brown: "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.

All this claims is there was a burial. No claim of an honourable.

Brown: 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 implausible

Seems reasonable. But again, he is not saying there was an honourable burial, and Joseph of Arimathea - as a non-Christian Jew - had no reason to want to give Jesus an honourable burial. All Jewish sensitivity required was the body in the ground. No more than that.

Brown: 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.

What is he saying is in the "preGospel account"?

Looking now at your web page, Joe, it is again arguing for burial, with precious little indicating specifically an honourable burial. You even say this:

Joe: Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

I know you like to stop the discussion around this time, so I will leave it that.
Joe Hinman said…
you re really clutching at straws, Brown said in the quote just the right things that destroy your argument now you are still trying to spin hew trajectories.

The Pixie said...
Brown: "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.

All this claims is there was a burial. No claim of an honourable.

in the context it.s obvious,oF course you refuse to read the page I LINKED TO WHERE SEVERAL OTHER EXPERTS AGREE WITH HIM, yOU ARE CLUTCHING THOSE STRAWS, THAT THE KIND OF BULL SHIT DISINGENIOUSNESS WORD PLAY CRAP THAT DESPERATE PEOPLE RESEOT TO WHEN THEY CAN'Tlt GO OF A LIE that's BEEN EXPOSED,
Joe Hinman said…

Looking now at your web page, Joe, it is again arguing for burial, with precious little indicating specifically an honorable burial. You even say this:

enough of yioiur lies. your obfuscation, you desperately seek to cling to the lie that has been disproved over and over again, now get it through your head your lie is possessed!

Brown defines what he means by burial when he says "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"

Jo of A did not thorough Jesus body in the garbage heep, he put him in his own tomb that and nothing else but that is what Brown means, you know it is, you know you are full of shit,
Joe Hinman said…
your 66 SanH argument is foolish, I already quoted a quote days ago for f Rabbinical authority sayungnoeon who dies fighting Rome or is crucified for insurrection against Rome would fail to be buried with honors,



Jesus was not executed on criminal charges.

Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.

Jesus was executed by the Romans, not for blasphemy, but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]

Brown again:

"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]
Joe Hinman said…
While it is true that in some cases the Romans did leave the bodies of crucified victims on crosses for extended periods of time (typically to horrify rebellious locals), the basic rules for how to treat the crucified was laid out in "The Digest of Justinian" 48:24 in which Ulipian tells us that the bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be denied to their relatives, and this is extended by Julius Paulus to include any who seek them for burial (see R.E. Brown, "Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, pg. 1207).

Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves. Quoting from The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):>


"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239
Joe Hinman said…
I am closing the topic now

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

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

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

The Meaning of the Manger

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition