Trouble in Paradise? Helmut Koester was a Liberal!

Image result for Helmut Koester
Helmut Koester 1926-2016

Much of the arguments that I make on this blog revolve around the basic concept that I call "PMPN" (pre Mark Passion Narrative). It is a particular document but it is also a hypothetical constrict like Q. The important thing about this notion is that it includes the empty tomb. Helmut Koester and John D. Crosson say it ends with the empty tomb: Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that "this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE." [1] Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century! Both scholars dated the document about AD 50. This is a powerful testimony to the truth of the resurrection because it means the empty tomb was not invented byMark, it existed well before mark was written. It also means it was preached very early in the history of the Kyrigma, (the preached gospel). The problem is some atheist   apologists think they have the death  blow to this argument,So let's examine that.

The death blow is that they have a quote from a scholar saying that Helmut Koester, my major source on the PMPN, believed that the empty tomb was made up. Koester's theory says that  Christians were venerating Jesus' tomb prior to AD 66 when they were forced to leave Jerusalem due to the revolt against Rome. When they came back they had to explain why non one was venerating Jesus' tomb. They said it's because it's empty.[2] Now he points out in his view, it's empty not because he rose but possibly for any number of reasons, including they took the body with them when they split town. He also mentions other possibilities. That was in 66. By the time Mark was written they Incorporated the empty tomb as an apologetic device into the Gospel narrative.[3] At this point, in the heat of message board battle, they start trying to shame me. O my  major source says it I have to accept it. If he right about the one thing (PMN and it;s date) how could he not be right about the other? 

First let's set some boundaries, if one quotes a source because said source is expert in some area and one is documenting a point with in the domain of  that source's expertise one is not then obligated to believe everything the source said. This is especially true if one considers things beyond the expertise of that source. Dating the probable writing of a hypothetical source is is much different from expressing a conjecture about the resurrection. Koester was an expert in Biblical scholarship no one is an expert in the resurrection. No expert can tell us Jesus did or did not raise from the dead. Dating the PMPN is a matter of scientific investigation. Textual criticism is a science. It is tied to physical evidence  (reading Manuscripts). not believing in the resurrection is an opinion,

Nor am I shocked to know that Koester did not believe in the resurrection. He studied under Rudolf Bultmann so it was to be expected,even though Craig studied with a guy (Kasemann) who also studied under Bultmann (Craig was Bultmann's "grand student"). Be that as it may I expected as much from Koester. I am not shocked nor does it dampen my faith. In fact it strengthens my position in terms of the argument, since Koester is less likely to support the early date for empty tomb for religious reasons. Since it actually supports a position contrary to his view he is less likely to argue for that position out of bias. 

There is an important contradiction between Koester's exploitation of the creation of the empty tomb and his statement about the PMPN. The two come almost ten years apart. His theory places the  the beginning of talk about an empty tomb after AD 66 and yet his statement about the PMPN dates the document around  AD 50.(see FN1). So in that almost ten years he apparently changed his mind about   the theory  of invention. The really significant thing to note is the PMPN negates his whole theory because that theory depends upon the disruption of Christian life in Jerusalem as related to the Jewish revolt. But the PMPN comes about 20 years earlier, it misses that whole process of leaving town. 

Koester clearly states that the PMPN ends with the empty tomb, He says it more than once:

A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based. [4]
He is saying the four gospels draw upon the same source for passion narrative and empty tomb but the individual sightings of the release Jesus come from a variety of different source; yet in saying this he  clearly says: "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb." [ibid]

Many scholars agree with Koester,certainly Crosson did.[5] Gerd Theissen supports it and argues vociferously for it,[6] Reginald Fuller.[7]The PMPN remains consensus in the field: "the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars."[8]Perhaps the most noteworthy source of agreement is the Catholic Scholar Raymond Brown. While he does not necessarily  speak of the PMPN as particular document he clearly believed there were sources prior to Mark that spoke of the resurrection and the empty tomb.

Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence.  [9]
"In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt." [10]
"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" [11]


Finally, Koester;s theory was wrong bcasue they they did venerate the tomb n the first century they never lost tack of it. This is too complex to go into herelIrefer thereader to my two part essay on the matter.[12]

Here is a source that understands Brown the way I read him to see GPet as using an early independent source not connected to Mark but equally old or older,Ron Cameron argues that the Gospel of Peter is independent of the canonical four (The Other Gospels, pp. 77-8):
Identification of the sources of the Gospel of Peter is a matter of considerable debate. However, the language used to portray the passion provides a clue to the use of sources, the character of the tradition, and the date of composition. Analysis reveals that the passion narrative of the Gospel of Peter has been composed on the basis of references to the Jewish scriptures. The Gospel of Peter thus stands squarely in the tradition of exegetical interpretation of the Bible. Its sources of the passion narrative is oral tradition, understood in the light of scripture, interpreted within the wisdom movement. This accords with what we know of the confessions of the earliest believers in Jesus: in the beginning, belief in the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was simply the conviction that all this took place "according to the scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3-5). In utilizing scriptural references to compose the work, the Gospel of Peter shows no knowledge of the special material distinctive to each of the four gospels now in the New Testament. The developed apologetic technique typical of the Gospel of Matthew and of Justin (a church writer who lived in the middle of the second century), which seeks to demonstrate a correspondence between so-called prophetic "predictions" in the scriptures and their "fulfillments" in the fate of Jesus, is lacking. The use of quotation formulas to introduce scriptural citations is also absent.[13]


Sources

[1] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992,  218.

[2] James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster Press, 1985,77.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfAcOPGt69YC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=koester+empty+tomb&source=bl
&ots=RyAekwJVX1&sig=BnvoF2QV0yRqKVrGU17ZbO-buhs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj44P-DlrTaAhUmLMAKHdqWAqkQ6AEIOTAG#v=onepage&q=koester%20empty%20tomb&f=false 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_tomb#cite_ref-10

(accessed 4/16/18)


[3] Jesus The Evidence (episode 3) Video. published you tube (May 11,2012) begin frame 12:08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUywIdr9ems
(accessed 4/16/18)
Caveat: this source is a very heavy handed anti- Christian propaganda of the dying rising savior God-copy cat savior kind,

[4] Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, op cit,220.

[5] Ibid, 218

[6] Peter Kiby, "The Passion  Narrative," Early Christian Writings, (updated April 2018)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html
(accessed 4/16/18)

Peter Kirby is an atheist,a talented amateur he does not an  advanced degree of which I am aware he did do some seminary  I believe, He is a fine researcher.

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid.

[9] Raymond Brown,  The Death of the Messiah, Anchor Bible; Box edition (February 1, 1994)1322


[10] Ibid, 1325

[11] Ibid., 1287

[12]Joseph Hinman, "Have Tomb Will Argue," The Religious a prori (No date given) website
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/have-tomb-will-aruge.html

part 2: 
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2016/05/have-tomb-will-argue-part-2.html

(accessed 4/16/18)

13 Rod Cameron,  lThe other Gospels: Non Canonical Gospel Texts. Louisville, Kentucky:Westminster John Knox Press; 1st edition (January 1, 1982 77-78.


Comments

The Pixie said…
The issue here is that you are cherry-picking. You pick the bits from Koester and Crossan that you want to be true, and ignore the bits you want to be false.

Joe: There is an important contradiction between Koester's exploitation of the creation of the empty tomb and his statement about the PMPN. The two come almost ten years apart. His theory places the the beginning of talk about an empty tomb after AD 66 and yet his statement about the PMPN dates the document around AD 50.(see FN1). So in that almost ten years he apparently changed his mind about the theory of invention.

There is no contradiction. Koester understood the PMPN to be a fluid document (or set of documents). It was not left unchanged from when it was written until Mark got to it. It was edited and added to over that time.

The most likely scenario - one that agrees with Koester on both points - is that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN, but not in AD 50; it was a later addition.

Every time we have the discussion I ask you for evidence that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN that early, and every time you trot out evidence the PMPN was that early and that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN at some point, but never anything to support this claim that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN from the start.

Now we have a whole blog post doing just that!
Joe Hinman said…

1 – 1 of 1
Blogger The Pixie said...
The issue here is that you are cherry-picking. You pick the bits from Koester and Crossan that you want to be true, and ignore the bits you want to be false.

sorry I don't mean to offed you. that is just stupid, bleeding stupid.First of all the PMPN is a major thee running through the whole book. I can't recite every single passage in the book in the text box for a blog post.

Secondly, I don't have the book anymore but I know I'm right.I now the materail extremely well and I've been over it a hundred times.I am not drawing upon memory alone I am quoting passages I've used in other writings,

Thirdly, the claim itself is idiotic. Do you really think he says in one chapter the PMPN includes the empty tomb then in the next he says it doesn't? What do you think I'm leaning out? That is a very stupid criticism that could be made of any paper,absolutely any writer could leave something out and cherry pick the stuff that helps him.so undermine all dialectical discussion all paper writing.

you are just carping because you know you are wrong and have been shown up and you have no answer,


Joe Hinman said…
Joe: There is an important contradiction between Koester's exploitation of the creation of the empty tomb and his statement about the PMPN. The two come almost ten years apart. His theory places the the beginning of talk about an empty tomb after AD 66 and yet his statement about the PMPN dates the document around AD 50.(see FN1). So in that almost ten years he apparently changed his mind about the theory of invention.

There is no contradiction. Koester understood the PMPN to be a fluid document (or set of documents). It was not left unchanged from when it was written until Mark got to it. It was edited and added to over that time.

really? so now you are an expert on what he thought? have you read the book? I have not seen anything about fuidility in the book. Why don't you quote the passage? with page number.

that is no answer, that would have no bearding, look it is an absolute contrition. His explanation assumes that they had to leave Jerusalem in 66. That's the reason they had to explain something that required the tomb be empty. So without that you have no argument'Yes the PMPN includes the thing they are going to explain in it before the reason for it comes to exist.




The most likely scenario - one that agrees with Koester on both points - is that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN, but not in AD 50; it was a later addition.

that absolutely dishonest you are making up things he does not say and talking liberties with the text you have no right to take. He saying nothing of the kind.Nowhere does he say they put the empty tomb in latter. You are merely giansaying the evidence because you can't stand to be wrong.



Every time we have the discussion I ask you for evidence that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN that early, and every time you trot out evidence the PMPN was that early and that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN at some point, but never anything to support this claim that the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN from the start.


you argue like a child.You relay think it's a realistic argument to assume for no reason at all that he didn't think the empty tomb was in the AD50 version? why?

I quoted him verbatim clearly saying the document was written around mid century and that it ends with the empty tomb. How stupid it would be to conclude that he really meant the tomb was put in latter he just didn't say it.


Now we have a whole blog post doing just that!

No we don't because I'm not going to cater to your stupid little tantrum.

you produce a statement by Koester clearway saying the empty tomb was was put in latter, decades after the document was circulation or shut up.

Anonymous said…
Joe: really? so now you are an expert on what he thought? have you read the book? I have not seen anything about fuidility in the book. Why don't you quote the passage? with page number.

Yes, I have read the book.

"During the first period of their transmission, all gospel texts were very unstable."
- Koester, in Ancient Christian Gospels, p 219

Joe: that absolutely dishonest you are making up things he does not say and talking liberties with the text you have no right to take. He saying nothing of the kind.Nowhere does he say they put the empty tomb in latter. You are merely giansaying the evidence because you can't stand to be wrong.

Why else do you think Koester said the Empty Tomb was made up around AD 66, but the PMPN was around in AD 50? As the quote above proves, he believed the early texts were subject to revision, and that implies the Empty Tomb was a later addition.

Joe: you argue like a child.You relay think it's a realistic argument to assume for no reason at all that he didn't think the empty tomb was in the AD50 version? why?

Because he thinks the Empty Tomb was not made up until later. Think it through.

Joe: I quoted him verbatim clearly saying the document was written around mid century and that it ends with the empty tomb. How stupid it would be to conclude that he really meant the tomb was put in latter he just didn't say it.

So he believed:

The PMPN was written around AD 50
The Empty Tomb was made in around AD 66
The early text were very unstable

Seems pretty safe to conclude he thought the Empty Tomb was added later.

Pix
F2Andy said…
Joe: Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.

How often do you trot this out? It is not true.

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

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
It is true you have taken up Skeptical's habit of not reading most of what the other guy says, I know what I said is true.

You quote Brown saying the best way to explain the difference is quoting fro memory i think you took that quote out of context because he could not account for the data on the chart by that idea. The point of the chart is to show that GPete is pulling together quotes from different sources, That would not be accounted for just by working from memory,for one thing the author of GPet probably did not have all those MS to choose from.


Now look how your quote is contradicted by the statements I quote:


GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [9]

>>>that shows that he;s using Luke and John as well as PMPN elsewhere he says Matt had access a prior source on the guards that would not be Mark obviously.He says GPet also had that access, so that i snot memory that's access to source we don't have.

This quote also shows that he is using the chart to demonstrate the relationship of the different sources,


"In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt." [10]

that implies coping MS not working from memory,no one;s memory is that bad, it's accounted for different authors working from different sources and one source they all share,

"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" [11]

that clearly says He is not claiming the relationship is just working from memory but upon an independent story, if he used memory to recall that story so what? he still says it' an independent source! that source Koester dates to 50AD.

Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said...
Joe: really? so now you are an expert on what he thought? have you read the book? I have not seen anything about fuidility in the book. Why don't you quote the passage? with page number.

Yes, I have read the book.

I studied it in close reading for several years

"During the first period of their transmission, all gospel texts were very unstable."
- Koester, in Ancient Christian Gospels, p 219

that in no way gives us a reason to think the empty tomb was added after the date assigned. He is also speaking of canonical Gsopels because he had MS evidence,there is no MS of PMPN to back this up.

Joe: that absolutely dishonest you are making up things he does not say and taking liberties with the text you have no right to take. He saying nothing of the kind.Nowhere does he say they put the empty tomb in latter. You are merely giansaying the evidence because you can't stand to be wrong.

Why else do you think Koester said the Empty Tomb was made up around AD 66,

HE MADE THAT STATEMENT 10 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE THE BOOK iM QUOTING DON'T YOU GET THAT??? YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL BASIS TO Justify YOUR INFERENCE, NO WAY TO CONNECT IT TO THE END OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE EMPTY TOMB,

remember the rationale for his explanation is eliminated if the PMPN had empty tomb in AD 50 you not pretend a reason to think it did not. We have no idea that he was thinking of these two things when he made that statement in 84.


but the PMPN was around in AD 50? As the quote above proves, he believed the early texts were subject to revision, and that implies the Empty Tomb was a later addition.

Joe: you argue like a child.You relay think it's a realistic argument to assume for no reason at all that he didn't think the empty tomb was in the AD50 version? why?

Because he thinks the Empty Tomb was not made up until later. Think it through.


He said that in 1984 but we have evidence that he still accepted that explanation in 1992.

Joe: I quoted him verbatim clearly saying the document was written around mid century and that it ends with the empty tomb. How stupid it would be to conclude that he really meant the tomb was put in latter he just didn't say it.

So he believed:

The PMPN was written around AD 50
The Empty Tomb was made in around AD 66

No you are asserting that what he said 10 previous still heldeven he doensw;t meniotnit in 92. No reasontotink that he still toughtso wheniktcontradicts his book in 92.

It's a logical contradiction, how could he hold that the empty tomb was writen in the text in 50 but made up in 66? It was written about before it was made up. To explain that you have to depart from our evidence and assert your conjecture to explain it,the simpler explanation is he did not have the information on PMN in 1984.



The early text were very unstable

far to veg to comet to this passage, you are asserting you know what it means when it is not said,

Seems pretty safe to conclude he thought the Empty Tomb was added later.


Of course it does because you would have to change your ideology otherwise. In 1970 it seemed real safe to assume the Walrus was Paul?

John "no, 9" that proves Paul was dead and the current Paul is really Billy shears, it proves it man it's so obvious!

so do you do chemistry this way? we don't need to test this in the lab it would be so cool if it were true,

Joe Hinman said…
I added this to the end of the paper

Me"Here is a source that understands Brown the way I read him to see GPet as using an early independent source not connected to Mark but equally old or older,Ron Cameron argues that the Gospel of Peter is independent of the canonical four (The Other Gospels, pp. 77-8):

quote
Identification of the sources of the Gospel of Peter is a matter of considerable debate. However, the language used to portray the passion provides a clue to the use of sources, the character of the tradition, and the date of composition. Analysis reveals that the passion narrative of the Gospel of Peter has been composed on the basis of references to the Jewish scriptures. The Gospel of Peter thus stands squarely in the tradition of exegetical interpretation of the Bible. Its sources of the passion narrative is oral tradition, understood in the light of scripture, interpreted within the wisdom movement. This accords with what we know of the confessions of the earliest believers in Jesus: in the beginning, belief in the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was simply the conviction that all this took place "according to the scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3-5). In utilizing scriptural references to compose the work, the Gospel of Peter shows no knowledge of the special material distinctive to each of the four gospels now in the New Testament. The developed apologetic technique typical of the Gospel of Matthew and of Justin (a church writer who lived in the middle of the second century), which seeks to demonstrate a correspondence between so-called prophetic "predictions" in the scriptures and their "fulfillments" in the fate of Jesus, is lacking. The use of quotation formulas to introduce scriptural citations is also absent.[13]end quote


what that says is that the independent bits of GPete don't read like something shapped in mid second century but conform to the form of statement of early early material from the deigning of the christian faith, meaning it uses a PMPN. It pre dates Mark. Note he includes the resurrection. above quote lime 9 "believers in Jesus: in the beginning, belief in the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection"
The Pixie said…
Joe: You quote Brown saying the best way to explain the difference is quoting fro memory i think you took that quote out of context because he could not account for the data on the chart by that idea.

And yet he is very clear that that is exactly what Brown believes.

Joe: The point of the chart is to show that GPete is pulling together quotes from different sources, That would not be accounted for just by working from memory,for one thing the author of GPet probably did not have all those MS to choose from.

Brown says he has none of the manuscripts. The author had access to Matthew, which he knew well, and to Luke and John, which he knew rather less well, but he did not have the manuscript for any when he was writing.

Joe: Now look how your quote is contradicted by the statements I quote:

GPet follow the classical flow ...


All Brown says there is that the author did not study Matthew carefully and then deliberately shift episodes around. Instead - if we read what Brown said elsewwhere - the author recorded what he remembered of Matthew, and got the order wrong because he was doing it from memory.

The problem here is that you have committed yourself to one version of the story, and you are seeing what Brown says through that perspective, and that has misled as to what Brown has actually said.

Joe: This quote also shows that he is using the chart to demonstrate the relationship of the different sources,

"In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative ...


Why does Brown particularly compare Peter to Matthew? The answer is that Brown believes Peter is derived from Matthew primarily. He is noting that while Peter is derived from Matthew, there is a lot more variation between the two, compared to either Mark and Matthew, or Mark and Matthew. Why is there such a divergence? Because the author of Peter was working from memory, while the authors of Matthew and Luke had the manuscript to work from.

Joe: that implies coping MS not working from memory,no one;s memory is that bad, it's accounted for different authors working from different sources and one source they all share,

"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but ...


Brown specifically says here that Peter drew on Matthew!

Joe: that clearly says He is not claiming the relationship is just working from memory but upon an independent story, if he used memory to recall that story so what? he still says it' an independent source! that source Koester dates to 50AD.

What makes you think that other source is the PMPN? Brown says no such thing in your quote. You are reading into it what you want to read, not what he actually says.

In all likelihood, the author of Matthew was recording the stories circulating in his community; he did not make anything up. One such story was the virgin birth, and so it also appears in Luke, but was doubtless invented after Mark, borrowed from the pagans. Another was the guards on the tomb, invented to counter anti-Christian claims, again later than Mark, and so duly recorded by Matthew. It is possible the author of Peter used this same source, rather than, or in addition to, Matthew.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that in no way gives us a reason to think the empty tomb was added after the date assigned.

By itself, no. But when we add in that he dated the PMPN to AD 50, and the invention of the Empty Tomb to AD 66, then it absolutely does.

Joe: He is also speaking of canonical Gsopels because he had MS evidence,there is no MS of PMPN to back this up.

No, he is speaking of all the early gospels. It may be supposition on his part, given we have no manuscripts, but it is the supposition of a world authority on the subject.

Bear in mind that as we have no manuscripts, we have zero reason to think the gospels were stable at that time.

Joe: HE MADE THAT STATEMENT 10 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE THE BOOK iM QUOTING DON'T YOU GET THAT??? YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL BASIS TO Justify YOUR INFERENCE, NO WAY TO CONNECT IT TO THE END OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE EMPTY TOMB,

You keep clutching this straw.

The reality is that he dated the PMPN to AD 50, and the invention of the Empty Tomb to AD 66, and he very clearly stated "all gospel texts were very unstable". You are so committed to your position that you cannot see the simple conclusion that the Empty Tomb was added later.

Joe: remember the rationale for his explanation is eliminated if the PMPN had empty tomb in AD 50 you not pretend a reason to think it did not. We have no idea that he was thinking of these two things when he made that statement in 84.

And the rationale for your claim is eliminated if the Empty Tomb was added to the PMPN around AD 66.

Joe: He said that in 1984 but we have evidence that he still accepted that explanation in 1992.

We have no reason to think he changed his mind. He was already 58 in 1984, 39 years after starting his studies under Bultmann. What do you think made him change his mind, aged about sixty, that he had not already come across in nearly forty years of research on the topic?

Joe: It's a logical contradiction, how could he hold that the empty tomb was writen in the text in 50 but made up in 66? It was written about before it was made up. To explain that you have to depart from our evidence and assert your conjecture to explain it,the simpler explanation is he did not have the information on PMN in 1984.

It was not in the written text in AD 50.

It is quite simple, at least for those of us not committed to a certain world view. The PMPN was first written in AD 50, and over the years it was substantially edited and added to, including the addition of the Empty Tomb in about AD 66.

Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim the PMPN was written around AD 50.

Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim the Empty Tomb was made up around AD 66.

Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim that "all gospel texts were very unstable".

No contradiction, and matches what Koester says, without having to speculate that he changed his mind about what happened aged sixty.
Joe Hinman said…
you have no evidence to back your reading of Koester,you are making a conjecture that is groundless, I have other scholars backing my view.

It is more parsimonious to assume the learned something new and changed his mind than to just assume he meant something he did not say.

It could also be that he did contradict himself.


Joe: He is also speaking of canonical Gsopels because he had MS evidence,there is no MS of PMPN to back this up.

No, he is speaking of all the early gospels. It may be supposition on his part, given we have no manuscripts, but it is the supposition of a world authority on the subject.

You are asserting that with no text to back it up. The fact that PMPN is hypo ethical means he can't mean that because he would have no basis in texts,

Bear in mind that as we have no manuscripts, we have zero reason to think the gospels were stable at that time.

even if he was including PMPN that still does not mean he meant the empty tomb was not part of it; He says clearly it was written in 50 and it ended with empty tomb, there is no reason to understand it any other way.

Joe: HE MADE THAT STATEMENT 10 YEARS BEFORE HE WROTE THE BOOK iM QUOTING DON'T YOU GET THAT??? YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL BASIS TO Justify YOUR INFERENCE, NO WAY TO CONNECT IT TO THE END OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE EMPTY TOMB,

You keep clutching this straw.

that's a tree, no way that is a straw because if i'm right it totally undoes your argument. Get this,you have no reason to not accept it,you have no basis in your answer, you are basing it in total conjecture, Your only reaon is that you need to to think it to keep your argument alive,

The reality is that he dated the PMPN to AD 50, and the invention of the Empty Tomb to AD 66,

In different works 10 years apart and in the latter work made no reference to the foremer,


and he very clearly stated "all gospel texts were very unstable".

with no definition of what refers to, canonical, pre-canon, what? no basis for connecting unstable to no empty tomb? It;s spliced together by your imagination


You are so committed to your position that you cannot see the simple conclusion that the Empty Tomb was added later.


the Walrus was Paul, it's obviously a reference to his death,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: remember the rationale for his explanation is eliminated if the PMPN had empty tomb in AD 50 you not pretend a reason to think it did not. We have no idea that he was thinking of these two things when he made that statement in 84.

And the rationale for your claim is eliminated if the Empty Tomb was added to the PMPN around AD 66.


which there there is no reason to accept because Koester sassy they wrote the PMPN in 5o and it ended with the empty tomb,he did not latter they aded an empty tomb,he never never never says that, never.

Joe: He said that in 1984 but we have evidence that he still accepted that explanation in 1992.

which was before he knew about the PMPN.

We have no reason to think he changed his mind.

except that it contradict his argument, you are using circular reasoning to try and connect it, you have to assume he said something you don't have a record of him saying,

He was already 58 in 1984, 39 years after starting his studies under Bultmann. What do you think made him change his mind, aged about sixty, that he had not already come across in nearly forty years of research on the topic?

Danker's work on the Diatesseron.

you are workings under the absurd assumption that empty tomb as part of PMPN means he;s suddenly an evangelical. He could still reject the resurrection and just explain it differently,


Joe: It's a logical contradiction, how could he hold that the empty tomb was writen in the text in 50 but made up in 66? It was written about before it was made up. To explain that you have to depart from our evidence and assert your conjecture to explain it,the simpler explanation is he did not have the information on PMN in 1984.

It was not in the written text in AD 50.


Koester says it was. "written mid century and end ended with the empty tomb,

It is quite simple, at least for those of us not committed to a certain world view. The PMPN was first written in AD 50, and over the years it was substantially edited and added to, including the addition of the Empty Tomb in about AD 66.


that's a lie you are merely tweeting the evidence the most absurd thing is you are doing it for the reasons you attribute to me,you have to deny the resurrection. And you are too Myopic to see that saying empty tomn is in PMPN is not proof of resurrection,

Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim the PMPN was written around AD 50.

no it contradicts it you have to lie about the evidence to make it fit,

Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim the Empty Tomb was made up around AD 66.

only by pretending the evidence says what it does not say,if we taken on face value it says he contradicts,




Note that this fits perfectly with Koester's claim that "all gospel texts were very unstable".

if you pretend that Unstlable means it was;t part of the end but hes says it was

YOU AREA LIAR
Joe Hinman said…
Koester, ACG 218

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."

Obviously if the gospels were dependent upon it it contained the empty tomb before Mark was written,so Mark did not invent it.

Koester'[s BS explanation does;'t work this time frame.
Mark written in 70, Christians leave in 66 that starts the disruption of venerating the tomb, that eventually leads to a need to explain.

that BS explanation takes time not just four years but a lot more time.
The Pixie said…
Joe: It is more parsimonious to assume the learned something new and changed his mind than to just assume he meant something he did not say. It could also be that he did contradict himself.

It is more parsimonious to assume he did not contradict himself, and did not change his mind. And really no reason to suppose either.

Joe: You are asserting that with no text to back it up. The fact that PMPN is hypo ethical means he can't mean that because he would have no basis in texts,

He said "all gospel texts were very unstable". I think that means all. Why would it not?

At best your argument is that we cannot know either way, which is perfectly compatible with the PMPN from AD 50, with the Empty Tomb added to it in AD 66. However, the fact that other texts were freely modified actually makes it highly likely the PMPN was too, which is probably the basis for Koester's comment.

Joe: with no definition of what refers to, canonical, pre-canon, what? no basis for connecting unstable to no empty tomb? It;s spliced together by your imagination

It says all. I think that means all. He goes on to say the canonicals became more stable, indicating he was not just talking about them, and this was in a book about the early gospels, not just canonicals.

Joe: which there there is no reason to accept because Koester sassy they wrote the PMPN in 5o and it ended with the empty tomb,he did not latter they aded an empty tomb,he never never never says that, never.

He never said the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN in AD 50. That is something you are reading into it.

Joe: except that it contradict his argument, you are using circular reasoning to try and connect it, you have to assume he said something you don't have a record of him saying,

But there is no contradiction. You assert there is a contradiction where there is none, then use that to claim he must have changed his mind. No contradiction. Nothing to suggest he changed his mind.

Pix: He was already 58 in 1984, 39 years after starting his studies under Bultmann. What do you think made him change his mind, aged about sixty, that he had not already come across in nearly forty years of research on the topic?

Joe: Danker's work on the Diatesseron.

What new information could that have been, given the Diatessaron was based on the canonicals?

Joe: you are workings under the absurd assumption that empty tomb as part of PMPN means he;s suddenly an evangelical. He could still reject the resurrection and just explain it differently,

I am working under the assumption that he believed what he said: The PMPN was first written in about AD 50, the Empty Tomb was invenbted around AD 66, and the gospels were very unstable.

Joe: Koester says it was. "written mid century and end ended with the empty tomb,

Sure. But he never says it ended with the Empty Tomb when it was first written.

Pix: It is quite simple, at least for those of us not committed to a certain world view. The PMPN was first written in AD 50, and over the years it was substantially edited and added to, including the addition of the Empty Tomb in about AD 66.

Joe: that's a lie you are merely tweeting the evidence the most absurd thing is you are doing it for the reasons you attribute to me,you have to deny the resurrection. And you are too Myopic to see that saying empty tomn is in PMPN is not proof of resurrection,

I am looking at the simplest explanation that fits what Koester actually said. I am not the one suggesting he suddenly changed his mind at the age of sixty, or that his position had a huge contradiction in it that he presumably never noticed.

Joe: if you pretend that Unstlable means it was;t part of the end but hes says it was

"Unstable" in this context means subject to editing and addition; that allows for adding the Empty Tomb later. What do you think he meant by "all gospel texts were very unstable"?
Joe Hinman said…
It is more parsimonious to assume he did not contradict himself, and did not change his mind. And really no reason to suppose either.

right that's why I say he changed. What's really stupid is to get out of the contradiction by insisting on things he never said. You are only doing it because you can't face the fact that your world view is not backed by the evidence,

At best your argument is that we cannot know either way, which is perfectly compatible with the PMPN from AD 50, with the Empty Tomb added to it in AD 66.

wrong we can know what fits the facts, your misinterpretations are not based on any reading only on your need to explain away the problem.

However, the fact that other texts were freely modified actually makes it highly likely the PMPN was too, which is probably the basis for Koester's comment.

that is far from giving us a reason to think the empty tomb was added latter, Koester says it was there in 50 when it was written,50.

you have not even touched my last argument it totally disperses your assertion. even if we granted that the ET was put in after 50 we asserted completely that Koester never abandoned his AD66 explication it still doesn't work. Because
66 is just the year that they began leaving Jerusalem. But 79 was the year Mark was written and the Temple fell, They did not return in 70 they were still in exile that is historically proven.

They not have had time to comeback before Mark was written,Yet Koester says all four canonicals drew upon PMPN. Tat means the empty tomb was already part of it.



Joe Hinman said…
It also pretty stupid of Koester to argue that they needed to explain not venerating the tomb,It would be pretty obvious, they had to leave because of the Romans that exploitation is good enough,
The Pixie said…
Joe: right that's why I say he changed. What's really stupid is to get out of the contradiction by insisting on things he never said. You are only doing it because you can't face the fact that your world view is not backed by the evidence,

If you can find any evidence he said the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN when first written, present it. So far you have not.

Here is an expanded quote that makes it clear he believed all the gospels were very unstable:

"During the first period of their transmission, all gospel texts were very unstable. The text of the canonical gospels later enjoyed a certain degree of protection, beginning with the process of canonization in the 3d and 4th centuries CE. Apocryphal gospels, however, never shared the privilege."
- Koester, in Ancient Christian Gospels, p 219

So far you have show he believed the PMPN was first written in AD 50, and you have shown he believed it had the Empty Tomb when Mark read it, but given we know Koester believed the text to be "very unstable", it certainly does not follow that the Empty Tomb was in it when first written.

Pix: At best your argument is that we cannot know either way, which is perfectly compatible with the PMPN from AD 50, with the Empty Tomb added to it in AD 66.

Joe: wrong we can know what fits the facts, your misinterpretations are not based on any reading only on your need to explain away the problem.

The misinterpretation is your Joe. You are making a big assumption about the Empty Tomb being in the PMPN in AD 50, an assumption that is clearly invalidated by Koester's statement that all the gospels were "very unstable".

That assumption leads you to an apparent contradiction in Koester's position, but the contradiction disappears when the assumption is discarded. That is very good evidence the assumption is wrong.

Unfortunately you are too committed to your unfounded assumption to see that.

Joe: that is far from giving us a reason to think the empty tomb was added latter, Koester says it was there in 50 when it was written,50.

And yet you can offer no evidence to support this, something I have been pointing out for years now.

You present evidence Koester believed the Empty Tomb was in the PMPN, but never any evidence he believed it was there in AD 50. And we know for a fact that it believed it was "very unstable", because he made that clear.

Joe: you have not even touched my last argument it totally disperses your assertion. even if we granted that the ET was put in after 50 we asserted completely that Koester never abandoned his AD66 explication it still doesn't work. Because
66 is just the year that they began leaving Jerusalem. But 79 was the year Mark was written and the Temple fell, They did not return in 70 they were still in exile that is historically proven.

They not have had time to comeback before Mark was written,Yet Koester says all four canonicals drew upon PMPN. Tat means the empty tomb was already part of it.

It also pretty stupid of Koester to argue that they needed to explain not venerating the tomb,It would be pretty obvious, they had to leave because of the Romans that exploitation is good enough,


So what is your point? Are you saying Koester was wrong?

What was in the PMPN about the Empty Tomb? As discussed elsewhere, the women at the tomb could easily be something Mark made up to support his own narrative, as he needed someone to see the tomb was empty, he needed to explain why it was not common knowledge earlier and he needed a good finish. It then seems possible that all the PMPN said was that the tomb was empty, no more than that. How many years does it take for a short sentence to get added? Perhaps not many at all.

I know you will jump on this as mere speculation - and I accept it is - but it does offer a plausible explanation. It fits with what we know of Koester's position, and I think it more likely he believe that than that he was an idiot.
Joe Hinman said…


It's ridiculous to expect hi to anticipate this discussion, he did say it was written in 50 and ended with the empty tomb. To English speakers that says it, it is your burden of proof to show he did not mean it,

your argument is ludicrous, you are throwing a tantrum;I must be right I must,well you are not. you can't prove your argument,




Joe: you have not even touched my last argument it totally disperses your assertion. even if we granted that the ET was put in after 50 we asserted completely that Koester never abandoned his AD66 explication it still doesn't work. Because
66 is just the year that they began leaving Jerusalem. But 79 was the year Mark was written and the Temple fell, They did not return in 70 they were still in exile that is historically proven.

They not have had time to comeback before Mark was written,Yet Koester says all four canonical drew upon PMPN. That means the empty tomb was already part of it.

It also pretty stupid of Koester to argue that they needed to explain not venerating the tomb,It would be pretty obvious, they had to leave because of the Romans that exploitation is good enough,

So what is your point? Are you saying Koester was wrong?

Obviously

What was in the PMPN about the Empty Tomb? As discussed elsewhere, the women at the tomb could easily be something Mark made up to support his own narrative, as he needed someone to see the tomb was empty, he needed to explain why it was not common knowledge earlier and he needed a good finish.

It's not very likely that the women would be part of all five Gospels if they were just the creation of Mark. Especially since they are in Peter that uses an indeed net tradition not derived from Mark. It is also possible Mark made up the women but not the Resurrection the empty tomb That;not likley eitiher,

after all John does not follow Mark they both follow common ancestor PMPN.,




It then seems possible that all the PMPN said was that the tomb was empty, no more than that. How many years does it take for a short sentence to get added? Perhaps not many at all.

keep that obfuscation going at all cost

your arguments are ludicrous I will waste my time further,

Of course Koester was not an idiot, neither are you, but he like you had to plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason,
The Pixie said…
Joe: It's ridiculous to expect hi to anticipate this discussion, he did say it was written in 50 and ended with the empty tomb. To English speakers that says it, it is your burden of proof to show he did not mean it,

And he also said it was "very unstable".

Your claim is based on the PMPN not changing. Koester is very clear that that was not the case.

Pix: Are you saying Koester was wrong?

Joe: Obviously

Then you can no longer cite him as an expert authority. If he was knowledgeable on this topic, he would not make such an obvious error.

Joe: It's not very likely that the women would be part of all five Gospels if they were just the creation of Mark.

Why? Luke and Matthew copied Mark, Peter was based on Matthew primarily. Not much of a stretch to suppose John was familiar with Mark, given it was written thirty years later.

Joe: Especially since they are in Peter that uses an indeed net tradition not derived from Mark.

Raymond Brown believes Peter was based primarily on Matthew. Was he wrong? Should we also reject him as an authority if he got it so badly wrong?

Joe: It is also possible Mark made up the women but not the Resurrection the empty tomb That;not likley eitiher,

I am not claiming Mark made up the resurrection or Empty Tomb.

Joe: after all John does not follow Mark they both follow common ancestor PMPN.,

How do you know that John was not also influenced by Mark? As I understand it, more and more scholars are coming to this conclusion (see here and here).

Joe: Of course Koester was not an idiot, neither are you, but he like you had to plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason,

I thought Koester was an ordained minister. Why would he "plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason"?

Once more you are starting from a faulty assumption, and it is leading you to a conclusion that is clearly nonsense, and yet you seem unable to even consider the initial assumption to be the problem.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: It's ridiculous to expect hi to anticipate this discussion, he did say it was written in 50 and ended with the empty tomb. To English speakers that says it, it is your burden of proof to show he did not mean it,

And he also said it was "very unstable".

Your claim is based on the PMPN not changing. Koester is very clear that that was not the case.
_____________my answer:


no he does not. I told you to quote the passage why aren't you quoting it? where is it? you are asserting that BS without any valid reason. For one thing we don;t have any MS evidence, there are no copies of the PMPN IT'S AL CONJECTURE FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS there's way to judge from that how the original docent changed.

If I'm wrong find the quote and show me,


GIVE IT U PMPN YOU YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR ELEMENT,


you have not answered my time arguent,
Joe Hinman said…
I thought Koester was an ordained minister. Why would he "plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason"?

Go study the history of theology you have a lot to learn. remember I said hes studied with Baultmann? His big thing was demythologize the bible, 19th century liberals were notbelievers, they believed in God but were more like deists. Bultmann wanted to give upmiracles a dSN and reduce theology to existentialism,

Once more you are starting from a faulty assumption, and it is leading you to a conclusion that is clearly nonsense, and yet you seem unable to even consider the initial assumption to be the problem.

you don';t know shit about this stuff, it.;s totally idiotic to pretend you can just image you know what an author meant then use it as evidence to back it up, stupid ,it;s unethical,dishonest anti-intellectual you should be ashmed,
The Pixie said…
Joe: no he does not. I told you to quote the passage why aren't you quoting it? where is it? you are asserting that BS without any valid reason. For one thing we don;t have any MS evidence, there are no copies of the PMPN IT'S AL CONJECTURE FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS there's way to judge from that how the original docent changed.

Then your argument fails.

You are admitting that we have no way of knowing whether or not the PMPN changed or not, and it therefore follows that we have no way of knowing if the Empty Tomb was in it from the start or not.

Joe: you don';t know shit about this stuff, it.;s totally idiotic to pretend you can just image you know what an author meant then use it as evidence to back it up, stupid ,it;s unethical,dishonest anti-intellectual you should be ashmed,

I am not the one saying an ordained minister felt a need "to plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason".

You are citing Koester as one of your most important sources and at the same time accusing him of saying nonsense to promote an ideology he did not believe in!
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: no he does not. I told you to quote the passage why aren't you quoting it? where is it? you are asserting that BS without any valid reason. For one thing we don;t have any MS evidence, there are no copies of the PMPN IT'S AL CONJECTURE FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS there's way to judge from that how the original docent changed.

PX:Then your argument fails.

You are admitting that we have no way of knowing whether or not the PMPN changed or not, and it therefore follows that we have no way of knowing if the Empty Tomb was in it from the start or not.
_______________Answer:
I ah the only one here with incidental support for my composition, you don't have any,Ido,l I am not arguing that it changed so I don't need to prove that.

It does not follow that we can;t know that the ET was it to begin with. It does not follow that just because we can't prove the nature of the documents. evolution over time without a copy of it doesn't mean that we can't prove the nature of it. It's a different issue. We can prove what was in it because the way other documents quote it'

I am not saying absolutely it cloud never be proven that it changed but you don't have that proof, it's not every likely that he said it when I quoted him flat out saying it wars in the original writing,

_______________end answer

Joe: you don';t know shit about this stuff, it.;s totally idiotic to pretend you can just image you know what an author meant then use it as evidence to back it up, stupid ,it;s unethical,dishonest anti-intellectual you should be ashmed,

I am not the one saying an ordained minister felt a need "to plug the materialist ideology at all cost even the cost of reason".

You are citing Koester as one of your most important sources and at the same time accusing him of saying nonsense to promote an ideology he did not believe in!

______________Answer:
If you can't understand scholarship methods any better than that you shouldn't not be bothering those of us who do, This is just standard theological method since Aquinas; if we are going to base argument on logic and use scientific method such as exegesis then what the individual theologian really believes has nothing to do with it. What matters in this kind of discussion is what can be proven.

Otherwise I should just say I believe the resurrection it's part of the faith nothing else is important.

you had your chance to to win by logic you can;t carry it off,


my position is supported by the preponderance of the evidence,



4/20/2018 07:09:00 AM Delete

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

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

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

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?

Early Church Mythers, told you they were coming.

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity