Story of Empty Tomb Dated to Mid First Century )

Image result for Helmut Koester
Helmutt Koester (1926-2016)

This is my contribution to a book Called Defending the Resurrection edited by J.P. Holiding. I urge the reader to buy it as there are many fine arguments made in it. Not all of this article was used. This is its original form it was changed substantially in several ways, such are the needs of editors.

Introduction

Skeptical machinations are endless, anytime the tide turns toward the apologist the skeptic will take a further step back and seek to change the ground rules in a fundamental way. So it is with the perennial resurrection debate since the tide was shifted by McDowell and then by Craig, years ago. One of the major tactics used by skeptics to change the ground rules has been to uproot all points of the compass so the apologist can’t get his/her bearings as to what events are actually historical and thus defensible. To accomplish this, the skeptic has partly pulled off a resurrection of his own, by resurrecting old ninetieth century clap trap that was dismissed ages ago. One of the major examples is the historical nature of the empty tomb. McDowell then Craig both did fine jobs of demonstrating that if the facts about the tomb are in place the debate goes to the apologist. But then the atheists used the Jesus myth idea, long disproved and discarded, to set up a new round of doubt about the historicity of the tomb. For skeptics today the four Gospels are not even factors, they are totally ignored as though they offer no evidence at all, and all that they proclaim is regarded as pure fiction. It is of paramount importance, therefore, to establish some historical facts about the case and to nail down some of the points of reference. In this department of points of reference pertaining to the narrative there can be no more important point of reference than the issue of when the story of the empty tomb began to circulate. This is a crucial issue for several reasons: (1) it’s the lynch pin upon which is hung all the empty tomb logic arguments of the major apolitical moves of the last fifty years. That means two things: (a) it would mean the writing is too early for the events to allow for development of elaborate myth; (b) it would mean that a large number of eye witnesses were still around, depending of course on how close to the events the writing could be placed. (2) The earlier the date the more it would undermine the Earl Doherty’s Jesus myth theories by distorting their time table. Thus in this article I will be focusing upon the one issue: when did the empty tomb story begin to circulate in writing?

There are a few assumptions that must be discussed up front. Why focus on writing if we can assume it was told orally first? Obviously whatever point at which the writing started, we can assume the material was orally transmitted before that point. Writing gives us a concrete means of pinning down a time frame. There’s no way to trace oral tradition as to when it began except in the most general of terms. But dating a text, however, we can be much more precise as to when the circulation began. The other major assumption that must be understood is that no one single individual wrote the Gospels. There were redactors and they came out of the communities and the communities are regarded as the authors now, not merely individuals. These communities of which I speak are those into which the earliest follows of Jesus began to group after the events which ultimately come to be represented in the Gospels. Each of the Gospels is taken by scholars today as representative of its own community.[1] So there was a Matthew community, a Mark community, a John community, and perhaps a Luke community, although I tend to attribute Luke to the Pauline circle as a whole and to the individual Luke himself. The problem this sets up for the Evangelical apologist is that it may open some other areas of conflict depending upon how deeply committed one is to an inerrant view of the Gospels. I have encountered atheists who just assert that redaction itself is proof enough that “it was all made up.” No serious scholar believes this and it’s simply a matter of understanding the more adult and sophisticated view to dismiss that bit of amateurish thinking. Yet accepting the liberal assumptions may create more problems for apologetics than it solves, this is a major issue that must be solved, and it must be solved it in the most decisive way. I will suggest solutions to the problems that are more evangelical friendly, and I assert these positions for the sake of argument, to show that even granting the assumptions of liberal scholarship the resurrection still enjoys the support of the evidence. Be that as it may my one overriding concern in this article is in proving that the resurrection circulated, in writing, by mid first century period. Therefore, I will be using the assumptions of liberal scholarship and the evidence of liberal scholars. My reason for doing this is to demonstrate that the case can be made not merely with materials from writers skeptics expect to take the conservative side, but with fairly liberal scholars who skeptics would expect to be skeptical.

In order to understand what we need to answer we must first understand the skeptical claim. The major point undermining the historicity of the empty tomb is the argument form silence; the tomb is never mentioned as such in any of the epistles or any other early Christian literature until the middle of the second century. Dale Allison remarks: "Paul did not know about Jesus' grave, and if he did not know about it, then surely no one else before him did either. The story of the empty tomb must, it follows, have originated after Paul."[2] For certain kinds of skeptics that seems like a crushing indictment. It’s actually not as powerful as it seems since it’s only an argument form silence, and argument from silence doesn’t prove anything. The apologist is apt to answer that some of the passages in the Pauline corpus imply the empty tomb, even though they don’t actually speak of it directly. While these are good points, we can do better. There’s some pretty strong evidence that the story of the empty tomb was circulating, in writing, as part of the end to the Passion narrative as early as middle of first century. The great scholar Helmutt Koester argues for a conclusion of textual criticism that can be demonstrated by scholarly methods. The point he’s making is that all four canonical Gospels and the non canonical Gospel of Peter all share mutual connection to an earlier text that included the passion narrative and that ended with the empty tomb. He 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.[3]

[and again]

"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" (Ibid). 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![4]

He is talking in both cases about the original passion Narrative of “Ur Gospel” that he sees standing behind these five works. Here he tells us that this original work, this “Ur gospel” was circulating at the mid century point and that it contained the story of the empty tomb. Thus, the empty Tomb was part of the Gospel narrative as early as mid century. If we take the conventional accepted dates it was within 20 years after the original events. How does he prove this?

The argument Koester is making comes from another scholar named Jurgen Denker, a textual critic. The basic proof of the argument is the result of textual criticism. Textual criticism is a science. Though many on both sides of the fence, skeptics and apologists find textual criticism assailable, they both assume and use it when it suits them. The atheists who argue for Q as a proof that “it’s all made up” have to accept the validity of textual criticism in order to support the idea of Q. Evangelicals, who quote Josh McDowell talking about how the NT text is 98% reliable, are actually accepted whole sale the validity of textual criticism, because that is how such a figure is arrived at. The evidence of an Ur Gospel in the passion narrative comes from readings in several manuscripts which seem to date from periods much latter than the canonical Gospels. This is deceptive, however, because even though the texts are latter than the canonical gospels, the readings in the texts are much earlier. That sounds contradictory but it is not because the manuscripts (MS) are copied from earlier readings. The earlier readings leave traces of their original sources in the way they read. In other words if we had a book written in 1950 it would probably read like a 1950’s book. The speech, the form of the language, the slang would all be like the 50s. But suppose parts of that book were copied from a book written in Shakespeare’s time. In addition to the fifties slang you would have some parts that would read like Elizabethan English. Those parts would be easy to pick out and we would know that the author was either copying something old or trying to sound old. The situation with these MS is similar. For example one of them called “The Diatessaron” is an attempt by Tatian at making a harmony of the four Gospels. This attempt dates to about 170 AD. But some readings in the Diatessaron seem to from a much earlier time. So we know by this that they are copied form very early copies that were written in a more Jewish style.

There are a couple of other aspects of this copying phenomenon that need to be understood. First of all, one often hears conservatives saying things like “there is no textual evidence for Q.” The reason for that is that when Q was incorporated into the synoptic people stopped copying it and eventually stopped using it, because it was incorporated into a text that seemed more complete. Overtime the copies of Q rotted away and on one bothered to copy it further. Secondly, as to the assumption that redaction (which simply means “editing”) in and of itself is proof that “It was all made up,” this is manifestly wrong. The assumption is based upon the fallacy that no one could purposely combine two holy books without believing that they were not “inspired.” But the reason this is a fallacy in relation to the New Testament is because at the time the process of redaction on the Gospels started the redactors did not imagine that they were editing “the New Testament!” They were not regarded as holy books. While some might think that’s a green light to make things up, its’ also reason why they would not make things up, because while they did not have a concept that they were writing the Bible (thus no need to conjure up the fabricated essence of a new religion) it does not prove in any way that they had no respect for the truth. They were neither making up the Bible nor creating the rudiments of a new religion; they had no idea of either of those things. They were merely producing a sermonic document for the edification of the community. They intended these works to be read by people they were living with and perhaps to spread into a larger circle of those who worshipped with them. But they did not think of themselves as writing “the Bible.” The process is more analogous to a modern preacher writing a sermon for Sunday; he doesn’t want to fabricates thing that aren’t true, but he’s free to change certain aspects of the order, combine different portions of other “sermons” and place ideas in different contexts and create a document that will hold the audience’s attention and teach them things, but in so doing communicate truth and a story they already knew. No intention of “make things up” need be read into it.

This is not to say that the redactors did not have great reverence for the sources they used. They saw the prior sources as testimonies of holy men signifying holy truth, even if they did not see them as scripture. As we move up in time to the post apostolic age they have an ever greater reverence for anything that tells them about the origins of the faith and the words of Christ. Yet that doesn’t mean they thought of themselves as writing the Bible. They were free to quote and blend the quotes in with other quotes from other valuable sources, but not free to “make thing up,” not free to lie or fabricate. Thus we have the creation of the works we know as the canonical Gospels as “patch works” put together out of prior sources. They didn’t see themselves as producing the canonical Gospels, they saw themselves as accurately reflecting truth for the edification of their flocks, and pulling together the great sources of truth left to the church into their own little humble sermonic contributions. In so doing they left traces of early versions and as their products were copied some of those traces hung on and they continue to testify to us of the earliest roots of the faith. Several traces of these early documents, these lost “Ur gospels” show up in the latter works of non canonical gospels, some of which are tainted with Gnosticism. The famous Nag Hammadi find The Gospel of Thomas is such a work. While it is clearly set within a heavily Gnostic framework of the third century, some of the passages prove to be an early core some of which are thought to be authentically spoken by Jesus, some of which have been theorized as making up the Q source. While Thomas is Cleary Gnostic some very anti-Gnostic traces are left. The same process of redaction we see at work in the canonicals is also at work in the non canonical gospels. So we find traces of an earlier age. Of more direct bearing on the resurrection story is the non canonical Gospel of Peter.

Gospel of Peter and the Empty Tomb

The Gospel of Peter (aka “GPet”) was discovered in the ninetieth century at Oxryranchus, Egypt. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonical story, but mainly the two are in agreement. Gpet follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather than following Matthew. Jurgen Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent and is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Raymond Brown, and John Dominick Crossan also agree.[5] It is upon this basis that Crossan constructs his "cross Gospel" which he dates in the middle of the first century, meaning, an independent source upon which all the canonical and GPet draw. But the independence of GPet from all of these sources is also guaranteed by its failure to follow any one of them. Raymond 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. Many Christian apologists think it’s their duty to show that GPet is dependent upon the canonical gospels, but it is basically a proved fact that it’s not. Such apologists are misguided in understanding the true apologetic gold mine in this fact. The fact that GPet is not dependent enables it to prove common ancestry with the canonicals and that establishes the early date of the circulation of the empty tomb as a part of the Jesus narrative. As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table that illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the entire table, but just to give a few examples:



Helmutt Koester argues for the “Ur Gosepl” and passion narrative that ends with the empty tomb. He sees GPet as indicative of this ancient source. Again, the argument is not that GPet is older than the Canonicals but that they all five share common ancestry with the Ur source. There is much secondary material in Gpet, meaning, additions that crept in and are not part of the Ur Gospel material; the anti-Jewish propaganda is intensified, for example Hared condemns Jesus rather than Pilate.[6] Koester believes that the epiphanies (sightings of Jesus after the resurrection) are from different sources, while the passion narrative up to the empty tomb is from the Ur Gospel. It is on this latter point that he Differs with Crosson, who believes that the epiphanies were part of the Cross Gospel.[7]GPet was at first thought to be a derivative of the four canonicals but some scholars began to doubt this because it seemed like a collection of snippets from the four and as Brown pointed out, that’s not the way copying is done. Koester points out that Philipp Vielhauer following Martin Dieblius,[8] noticed that in GPet the suffering of Jesus is described in terms of the OT (though literary allusion) and lacked the quotation formulae (such as “he said to him saying” or “as it has been written”) which indicated that it came from an older tradition, since it would not be nature to take those out. Koester also points out that Jurgen Denker argues that GPet is dependent upon traditions of interpretation of the OT rather than it is the four canonicals, it shares these traditions with the canonicals because they all share the same prior source.[9] Crossan uses Denker and takes it further, they both see dependence upon Psalms rather than the canonicals as a sign of being earlier than the canonicals, but Crossan theorizes the date as mid first century. Koester says in describing it, “he argues that this activity resulted in the composition of a literary document at a very early date, in the middle of the first century,” (notice he does not say “around” mid century but “in the middle”).[10] He argues that the earlier source (the Ur Gospel) was used by Mark as well as Matthew and Luke and even John, as well as Gpet.
Koester agrees with Crossan and Denker about the passion narrative (what he calls the Passion Narrative—which includes the empty tomb) circulating early. He disagrees with three specific points none of which negates this basis thesis. The three points are these: (1) Reliability of the text (of Gpet) which comes to us from one latter fragment and could have been influenced by oral traditions and the canonical gospels as read by latter copyists. (2) Crossan believes that all the variations in Gospel tradition came from a core nucleolus of very early writings that form the cross Gospel and that is the basis of the canonical Gospels (combining a saying source (Q) with a narrative Gospel). But Koester believes that the oral tradition was still going up to the early part of the second century,[11]and that it was a fountain of information for various gospel writings all along the way. (3) Crossan holds that the epiphanies (resurrection sightings) were all from the Cross Gospel; Koester holds that they were from various sources. But none of them negates the basic core thesis which all three of them hold to, which is that the Ur Gospel passion Narrative includes the empty tomb and that it circulated early, perhaps mid century. Koester tell us his true opinion when the sates at the end of his list of these three problems:

“The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one 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 from a common source.”[12]

What is he saying? First he is not disputing that the story of the empty tomb circulated early, he affirms it. He says “except for the story of the empty tomb” he means that is included with the original material, the other resurrection related sightings came from other sources.[13] Are those other sources fictional? In Koester’s mind they may be, but his conclusions are based upon the logic derived from the texts and the fragments of readings found in them, so they could be fictional or factual. They just don’t happen to be from that one original Ur Gospel; there’s noting in logic that prevents them from being part of other eye witness accounts. When he says the authors got these stories from their “own particular tradition” he means each of the communities that produced the individual canonical gospels has their own tradition sources, so these could well have been eye witness sources. Let’s bracket this for now and get back to it toward the end of the essay.

Koester sets out to demonstrate his first objection to Crossan by showing that the evolution of the gospel traditions were not set in stone and were fed by the oral tradition, I am not conserved with, but in so demonstrating he also illustrates one of the major arguments through which we know that there was an Ur Gospel passion narrative that preceded the canonical gospels. His argument against Crossan on the side point also serves to illustrate the major issue here before us in this essay. By “gospel traditions” he does not mean new fictional material was being made up, he means the way the story is told. By mid century how one told it was just as important as the content. The particular order, and traditions these were still evolving but were shaping up into a style and the style was being codified. That point is alluded to earlier where it is said that reliance on the psalms to describe Jesus suffering is earlier and that lack of certain kinds of quotation allusions are earlier than the canonical writing, that’s saying that telling it a certain way was forming up and when we see that formation not present that is an indication of an early source. When he says that Jesus’ suffering is described in terms of the psalms he is not saying the psalms gave them the idea of making up Jesus’ suffering. This is close to the idea of midrash. The Jews liked to tell things about history in terms of the Scriptures, it was like reinforcing the truth to show that what God is doing today unfolds in ways that allude to earlier acts of God. So they tell the story by making a bunch of literary allusions to the scripture.
Two such examples: the way Pilate speaks corresponds to Psalms and the response of the people to Jesus’ crucifixion is patterned after Deut. 21:8 in guilt of the people is expressed in tones that mock the prayer in the ritual:[14]

Matt 27: 24-25 Ps 26: 25-26
“so when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing….he took water before the crowd saying: ‘I am Innocent of this man’s blood, see to it yourselves.’ I hate the company of evil doers and I will not sit with the wicked, I wash my hands in innocence and go about thy alter, O lord.
“and all the people answered, his blood be upon us and upon our children.” “Set not the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of thy people O Israel.”


In acculturating these points Koester also, without explicitly saying it until latter, shows that no one would copy anything in this way. Ray Brown will make the same point as well and with a much more elaborate chart. Here are elements from one of Koester’s small charts that demonstrate the point; this deal with the mocking of Jesus after the trail before Pilate.

Gpete 3:6-9

And they put him in a purple robe Mark 5:17 they dressed him with a purple robe
Matt 27:28 they stripped him and put a scarlet robe upon him
Luke 23:11 they put a shining garment on him
John 19:2 and arrayed him in a purple robe
And sat him on the judgment seat and said judge righteously o King of Israel. John 19:13 and he sat down on the judgment seat
And one f them brought a crown of thorns and put it on his head Mark 27:15 /Matt 27-19 and plaiting a crown of thorns John 19:2 and the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on his head.

And others who stood by spat on his face Mark 14:65 one of the servants standing by struck Jesus with his hand

The supposition most skeptics will make is that the author of Gpete merely copies the existing gospels that were already known, changing a bit here and there to suit his own taste. The problem is there are so many allusions it’ clear the author was copying a tradition, and it’s a tradition a kin to the canonicals in some way, either as the common source they used or the canonicals themselves directly. No one copies in the way that it that it seems to have worked. No one would say “I want to talk about the purple robe so I’ll copy ‘they dressed him with a purple robe’ from Mark but I’ll say ‘put’ rather than dressed like Luke does.” No one copies by breaking down actual sentences from the difference sources and using a word from this and a phrase from that to make nuclear fragments like a sentence all the way thought the whole document. It could be that one would take a chapter from one and chapter from another and wedge in between still another segment from a third source, not for each and every sentence. This is a disproof of the idea that the author of Gpete merely copied the canonicals. No one copies this way. As Raymond Brown states in The Death of the Messiah:


GPet follows the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrection appearances to follow. The GPete sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any 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 GPete studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [Brown, Death of the Messiah,[15]


"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."[16]


Brown proves the tradition that Gpet follows is old and independent. It’s much less likely that the author of Gepet merely copied all his material form the canonicals. One copies an exegetical tradition, and that tradition by the time of Gpet (late second century) was already formed up in one way, and GPet shows examples of another form which should be considered earlier because it’s based upon the Psalms not upon Mark or Matthew. No one would copy in such a way as to instill all four from of the canonicals into the text, but traces of an original might be combined with latter works in that way. The arguments that Brown makes are elaborate, he presents several huge charts (no. 10 mentioned above). I can’t reproduce them here, but the marital is very important. The arguments Koester makes are extremely intricate. I do not have the time or space here to present these arguments because they take up whole books, but suffice to say many scholars, in fact the majority agree with Koester on these points. “Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.”[17]

The issues are enormously complex and due to their complexity they lead to confusion when people try to argue and prove things. May of Koester’s statements have been misinterpreted by skeptics seeking to refute my use of his material merely because they don’t read the book or consider the context. I urge the reader to read Koester’s book, Ancient Christian Gospels, and Brown’s book Death of the Messiah, as Well as Crosson’s Cross Gospel.

"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew."[18]


The other major reason for assuming the earlier date for readings in Gpet, aside from the fact that no one would copy the synoptic the way the readings indicate it would have to be copied if it was based upon the synoptic, is that the reliance of these readings upon the OT indicates a stage of transmission prior to the development that would obtain after the synoptic. In other words, as said above, the story comes to be told in a certain way; even historically true stores develop hermeneutical traditions. When a reading demonstrates characteristics prior to that development, we know it was written earlier. The Synoptic do show some reliance on the Psalms. That’s because those are traces hanging on from the Ur Gospel that show up in the synoptic. The four canonical gospels and Gpet all use these readings as they draw from the Ur Gospel but they also use other readings and had Gpet been dependent upon the canonicals exclusively it would not show such total reliance upon the Psalms but would include a great dependence upon the canonicals. Brown’s charts prove this reliance of Gpet upon the Psalms and not upon Matthew or the other canonicals.[19]

Koester shows that the scenes of mocking Jesus were based upon Isaiah 50:6, Zach 12:10 and the scapegoat ritual are also brought into it. One can understand the meaning in drawing parallels between Jesus passion and the scapegoat of atonement for Israel. The robe and the crown of thorns are derived form the scapegoat ritual as well.[20] The Gospel of Peter reveals a close relationship between the mocking to the exegetical scapegoat tradition. He argues that these parallels are closer than those drawn between that tradition and the canonicals. He presents a fairly large chart to prove it. This compares seven examples between the scapegoat tradition, Gpet and all four canonicals.[21]

“It is evident that alone in the Gospel of Peter all three Items form the Isaiah passage appear together while John only includes the first and second (scourge and strikes) and Mark and Matthew only the first and third (scourge and spitting). Moreover, only the Gospel of Peter contains the same Greek terminology for scourging in agreement with Isaiah while Mark and Matthew substitute the common Roman term for this punishment only Isaiah and the Gospel of Peter mention the cheeks explicitly with respect to the strikes.” The piercing with the reed from the scapegoat allegory is preserved only in the Gospel of Peter while John has used this item for the piercing of Jesus’ side after his death; Mark and Matthew misread the tradition and change it to “strikes with a reed.”…the relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the parallel accounts of the canonical gospels cannot be explained by a random compilation of canonical passages. It is evident that the mocking scene in this gospel is a narrative version that it is directly dependent upon the exegetical version of the tradition which is visible in Barnabas.[22]

That tradition he argues is earlier than the canonicals by virtue of his greater adherence to the OT. The date of mid first century fro the circulation of the Ur Gospel with empty tomb is based upon old rule of thumb assumptions that textual critics always work by, ten years for copy time and ten years for travel time. In other words, travel time means the time it took for it to be copied and travel times mean the time it too to circulate to other places. Counting back from the 70, the standard assumption for the Date of Mark, twenty years is about 50 years. That is how Koester explains it.


sources

[1]Stephen Neil, The Interpritation of the New Testament 1861-1961. London, NY: Oxford University press, 1964, 239.

[2]Dale C. Allison, Resurrecting Jesus: “The Earliest Christian Tradition and It’s Interpreters,” Journal for the Sutdy of Pseudepigrapha: supplement. T & T Cllark Publishers (September 30, 2005) 305-6.


[3]Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 208.

[4] Ibid. 220

[5] Ibid, 218

[6] Ibid. 217

[7] Koester, find

[8] Ibid, 218

[9] Ibid.

[10]Ibid

[11]That’s based upon Papias reportedly saying he enjoyed hearing the voices of the great men speaking the words more than reading it on paper. That does indicate that there was some use or oral tradition at that time but if Papias was really old then he could have been referring to practice that had died out in his youth.

[12]Ibid, 220

[12] Ibid., 231 fn 3 he again clarifies his position from that of Crossan. Atheists reacting to material on my website where I speak of this habitually quote Koester assuming that the issue between him and Crossan is Koster’s objection to the idea of a pre Mark redaction that includes the empty tomb. That is not it at all. He makes It quite clear he agrees with that. The issue is entirely about how material after the initiation discovery of the tomb cam to be in the account, was it original (Crossan) or latter (Koester).

[14] Ibid, 221

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

[16]Ibid. 1325

[17] Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, Website, URL: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html last visited Jan 3, 2010.

[18] Koester, 240

[19] Brown, find

[20] Koester, 224-25

[21] Ibid, 226

[22] Ibid, 226-227




Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: The other major assumption that must be understood is that no one single individual wrote the Gospels.

Do you mean that the author of Matthew took much of Mark, so in a sense the gospel was written by the author of Mark and the author of Matthew and the author of any other works referenced, plus any later redactors?

I would accept that, but at the same time there was one individual behind each gospel (synoptics anyway) who compiled it into approximately its present form.

Joe: It’s actually not as powerful as it seems since it’s only an argument form silence, and argument from silence doesn’t prove anything.

As usual you insist you opponents prove their position, whilst you merely need to show it is pretty likely to claim warrant to believe it with absolute certainty.

The argument can be compelling (if not proof) if it is a silence where we would otherwise expect no silence. The incident of the dog in the night is, I suppose, a classic example.

In this instance, we would fully expect Paul to mention the empty tomb in the creed in 1 Cor 15. That he does not is indicative (but not proof) that the empty tomb was not known to him.

Joe: There’s some pretty strong evidence that the story of the empty tomb was circulating, in writing, as part of the end to the Passion narrative as early as middle of first century. The great scholar Helmutt Koester argues for a conclusion of textual criticism that can be demonstrated by scholarly methods.

But your quote does not say that the account with the empty tomb dates to the middle of the first century. Furthermore, exactly when is that? Any time from 40 AD to 60 AD? If Koester merely says the empty tomb was in the narrative in 60 AD, that does not help you much.

You also seem to assume a single, unchanging ur-Gospel. Far more likely is that this was a fluid text that changed over time. The creed in 1 Cor 15 is, perhaps, the first step, the addition of the Empty Tomb the last step before we get to Mark (which could be described as just the next step, with Matthew and Luke further steps in divergent directions).

You also cite (indirectly) Crossan, but Crossan is famous for rejecting the empty tomb and saying it is more likely the body was eaten by crows or dogs.

Joe: Raymond 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.

You continue to misrepresent Brown. Brown's position is that Peter was based on the canonicals, but the author was working from memory, rather than copying directly from the text. Peter is absolutely dependent on the canonicals, and offers no independent insight into earlier events or texts. I e-mailed you images of his book proving this.

Joe: Crossan uses Denker and takes it further, they both see dependence upon Psalms rather than the canonicals as a sign of being earlier than the canonicals, but Crossan theorizes the date as mid first century.

Joe: Koester shows that the scenes of mocking Jesus were based upon Isaiah 50:6, Zach 12:10 and the scapegoat ritual are also brought into it.

The disciple fled Jerusalem; there were no witnesses to the first Easter. They made it up from the customs of the time, plus the Old Testament. Hence the dependence on the Psalms, Isaiah, Zachariah, etc.
The Pixie said...
Joe: The other major assumption that must be understood is that no one single individual wrote the Gospels.

Do you mean that the author of Matthew took much of Mark, so in a sense the gospel was written by the author of Mark and the author of Matthew and the author of any other works referenced, plus any later redactors?

yes that and all the other redactors of Mat


I would accept that, but at the same time there was one individual behind each gospel (synoptics anyway) who compiled it into approximately its present form.

why? Just because they used a name or a title? I think those names could designate the community.


Joe: It’s actually not as powerful as it seems since it’s only an argument form silence, and argument from silence doesn’t prove anything.

As usual you insist you opponents prove their position, whilst you merely need to show it is pretty likely to claim warrant to believe it with absolute certainty.

There is an important distinction between proof and having a positive reason, argument frm silence is not a positive reason.


The argument can be compelling (if not proof) if it is a silence where we would otherwise expect no silence. The incident of the dog in the night is, I suppose, a classic example.

you have to establish why it;snot there you can;t just assert because it;s not mentioned it;s proof.I give a playable reason why he would not mention it you must show why he has to. You have the added burden of show wing that Jesus; res was not at the root of Pauls discussion of resurrection body. Actually Pul does mentiomn thatJesuswas raised formthe dead,


In this instance, we would fully expect Paul to mention the empty tomb in the creed in 1 Cor 15. That he does not is indicative (but not proof) that the empty tomb was not known to him.

wy? he's writing to believers he;s not trying to aruge for the Res and they know the story,

answering the argument Brown Quotes Matts from memory


Some have argued that Brown did not believe in a Pre Mark redaction that he only attributes the difference n GPet and Matthew to Gepet copying from memory not from the real Ms. He does say he thinks the author copied Matt from memory not that there is no pre mark source.
A disinterested party (Jason Pratt Looked it up for me in his copy of Brown here are his findings :



Joe, per our phone call before lunch,

I went back to pp.1305-1310, which discusses the GosMatt tomb-guard story (or stories) in relation to the singular tomb-guard story in GosPete.

The general gist of Father Brown's argument here remains the same (including with his own reference to Appendix 1's overall discussion of GosPete): GosPete's author imported the guard story from (at least) two sources, those being his remembrance of reading/hearing GosMatt (but not having a copy at hand), and his remembrance of hearing someone else talk about a form on the tomb guard story independent from GosMatt's.

The citation you're probably thinking of, comes from pp.1305-1306, as Fr. Brown introduces this subsection.

"I have argued that Matt [i.e. GosMatt's final author/redactor/editor/whatever] broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while _GPet_ PRESERVED THE ORIGINAL CONSECUTIVE FORM OF THE GUARD STORY. [my all-caps emphasis] That does not mean, however, that the _GPet_ story is more original.

[...soon afterward on p.1306...]

"In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in _GPet_ [concerning the tomb-guards] is best explained in terms of the author's knowing the canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material."

This suggests that Fr. Brown thinks GosPete's other source for the tomb-guard story traces back orally behind GosMatt to a shared source of some sort, thus that some form of the tomb-guard story predates both authors.

Footnote 50 ends with something similar: "I would suspect that these [verbal similarities to usages of terms found only in GosMatt's tomb-guard story but nowhere else in GosMatt] are elements that Matt found in the original guard-at-the-sepulcher story and that therefore the author of _GPet_ could have also found them there without depending on Matt." This sentence makes no sense unless Fr.B is thinking of GosPete's oral tradition accurately reporting a shared prior tomb-guard story prior to GosMatt.

This has nothing at all to do with a pre-Markan Passion Narrative so far, however. At most he's detecting, through source criticism (via some redaction and form criticism), a tomb story predating GosMatt. Which no one anywhere denies, even among hypersceptics, so far as I know. Even the most radically late JMythers don't think "Matthew" invented the empty tomb! (Although who knows, maybe there are Griesbach or Farrar proponents among them somewhere. That would be sort-of amusing. {g})
The Pixie said…
Joe: why? Just because they used a name or a title? I think those names could designate the community.

Because of the mechanics of writing. Sure, the whole community had input, but you need one person who has a vision of the entire narrative to compose it. There is a reason why the vast majority of novels have one author - I am not saying the gospel was fiction, the same is true of biographies. This post comes from a book chapter, but a book in which each chapter is self-contained, allowing each author to work on his own part. You wrote that on your own, right? At least you for the initial draft.

Joe: There is an important distinction between proof and having a positive reason, argument frm silence is not a positive reason.

So do not say "prove".

Joe: you have to establish why it;snot there you can;t just assert because it;s not mentioned it;s proof...

And straight after saying that about proof, here you are demanding proof from your opponent!

Joe: you have to establish why it;snot there you can;t just assert because it;s not mentioned it;s proof.I give a playable reason why he would not mention it you must show why he has to. You have the added burden of show wing that Jesus; res was not at the root of Pauls discussion of resurrection body. Actually Pul does mentiomn thatJesuswas raised formthe dead,

I did not see where you explained why Paul omited the empty tomb. In fact, you only seem to discuss Paul in the paragraph that starts "In order to understand..." which merely says "some of the passages in the Pauline corpus imply the empty tomb," Can you point me to where you state why Paul would omit the empty tomb if he did know about it?

Joe: wy? he's writing to believers he;s not trying to aruge for the Res and they know the story,

So why include the story at all? They all knew Jesus had been buried, but he does include that detail.

This is generally thought to be Paul repeating an early creed. It is beyond belief that the creed would omit the empty tomb - if the empty tomb was part of the narrative at that time.

With regards to Gospel of Peter, your source confirms that Brown believes the author was working from what he remembered of Matthew, possibly drawing on other extra-canonical sources, but nothing to indicate any sources pre-Mark. Nothing in Brown suggests the author of the Gospel of Peter had access to the pre-Markan passion narrative, so gives no support to any claim about that.
Joe: why? Just because they used a name or a title? I think those names could designate the community.

Because of the mechanics of writing. Sure, the whole community had input, but you need one person who has a vision of the entire narrative to compose it. There is a reason why the vast majority of novels have one author - I am not saying the gospel was fiction, the same is true of biographies.


yes a single visionary is probably more likley



This post comes from a book chapter, but a book in which each chapter is self-contained, allowing each author to work on his own part. You wrote that on your own, right? At least you for the initial draft.

It was an anthology so all the contributions were by individual authors, I wrote this alone

Joe: There is an important distinction between proof and having a positive reason, argument from silence is not a positive reason.

So do not say "prove".

Joe: you have to establish why it;snot there you can;t just assert because it;s not mentioned it;s proof...

And straight after saying that about proof, here you are demanding proof from your opponent!

You have to prove what's asserted.I am not asserting that I can prove Jesus rose from the dead,I assert that I have good reason to think he did,


Joe: you have to establish why it's not there you can't just assert because it's not mentioned it's proof.I give a plausible reason why he would not mention it you must show why he has to. You have the added burden of showing that Jesus; res was not at the root of Paul's discussion of resurrection body. Actually Paul does mention that Jesus was raised form the dead,

I did not see where you explained why Paul omited the empty tomb. In fact, you only seem to discuss Paul in the paragraph that starts "In order to understand..." which merely says "some of the passages in the Pauline corpus imply the empty tomb,"Can you point me to where you state why Paul would omit the empty tomb if he did know about it?

My purpose was to date there is no reason why I should answer Jesus myther arguments,when the haven't been raised,NO REASON For me to bring it up

Joe: wy? he's writing to believers he;s not trying to aruge for the Res and they know the story,

So why include the story at all? They all knew Jesus had been buried, but he does include that detail.

include it in what? He mentions the resurrection for various reasons but they have to do with the context of his discussion

This is generally thought to be Paul repeating an early creed. It is beyond belief that the creed would omit the empty tomb - if the empty tomb was part of the narrative at that time.

that just depends upon how the early church looked at what they had to cover by way of a creed,of course it;s not really proven to be a creed.




4/16/2019 01:02:00 AM
With regards to Gospel of Peter, your source confirms that Brown believes the author was working from what he remembered of Matthew, possibly drawing on other extra-canonical sources,


you are trying to sweep the other sources under the rug to create the impression that there's no corroboration but Brown clearly says there were other sources that pre date ark,

but nothing to indicate any sources pre-Mark.


yes hes says they were, he;s talking about that.

Nothing in Brown suggests the author of the Gospel of Peter had access to the pre-Markan passion narrative, so gives no support to any claim about that.


there sure as hell is,Koester sure thinks so as does Danker I listed 8 scholars Koester draws upon, but Brown does too

I wrote this right after reading the secituon in in DOM the day I read it

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.

Brown:"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. [Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1322]


As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:

Brow:"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." [Brown, 1325]


the preponderance of scholars in the field agree that Gpet had a pre Mark tradition, the skeptics want to focus on Brown because he's more gibbous about that fact but it;s clear to after reading him that he saying that, but most of them do they have not a leg to stand on.
The Pixie said…
Joe: You have to prove what's asserted.I am not asserting that I can prove Jesus rose from the dead,I assert that I have good reason to think he did,

I am asserting that we have good reason to suppose the empty tomb was made up after 50 AD. I do not need to prove anything either.

Joe previous: ... I give a plausible reason why he would not mention it ...

Pix: I did not see where you explained why Paul omited the empty tomb....

Joe: My purpose was to date there is no reason why I should answer Jesus myther arguments,when the haven't been raised,NO REASON For me to bring it up

So when you said before that you gave a plausible reason, that was not actually true?

Joe: include it in what? He mentions the resurrection for various reasons but they have to do with the context of his discussion

The creed in 1 Cor 15 includes the burial, despite it being common knowledge among Christians. Why omit the empty tomb?

Joe: that just depends upon how the early church looked at what they had to cover by way of a creed,of course it;s not really proven to be a creed.

Your position is that they decided to include the burial, because that is so wondrous, but omit the empty tomb, because, really, who cares about a triviality like that? And yet, Mark chose to use the Empty Tomb as the triumphant climax to his work. Odd that.

Joe: you are trying to sweep the other sources under the rug to create the impression that there's no corroboration but Brown clearly says there were other sources that pre date ark,

So quote Brown clearly saying that.

Your friend says only that he used a source that pre-dates Matthew; nothing to suggest anything that pre-dates Mark: "At most he's detecting, through source criticism (via some redaction and form criticism), a tomb story predating GosMatt."

Joe: there sure as hell is,Koester sure thinks so as does Danker I listed 8 scholars Koester draws upon, but Brown does too

So prove it. Quote something Brown said that indicates he believed the author of Peter had access to pre-Mark material. I have seen nothing and your e-mail from your friend does not say that.

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.

Wrong. Brown's opinion is that Peter depends on the canonicals, but is out of sequence because the author was working from memory.

Joe: As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:

You have missed the entire point that Brown was making! They are out of order because the author was working from memory - he probably heard the various stories in isolation in church, and knew each story well enough, but had to guess their order. Even Wiki notes that this is Brown's position.

Joe: the preponderance of scholars in the field agree that Gpet had a pre Mark tradition, the skeptics want to focus on Brown because he's more gibbous about that fact but it;s clear to after reading him that he saying that, but most of them do they have not a leg to stand on.

But Brown is the authority here - or so you keep assuring us.
Joe: You have to prove what's asserted.I am not asserting that I can prove Jesus rose from the dead,I assert that I have good reason to think he did,

I am asserting that we have good reason to suppose the empty tomb was made up after 50 AD. I do not need to prove anything either.

you need to prove what you assert

Joe previous: ... I give a plausible reason why he would not mention it ...

Pix: I did not see where you explained why Paul omited the empty tomb....

He was writing to believers he didn't need to prove to them



Joe: My purpose was to date there is no reason why I should answer Jesus myther arguments,when the haven't been raised,NO REASON For me to bring it up

So when you said before that you gave a plausible reason, that was not actually true?

plausible In connection with dating the story whichwas my purpose



Joe: include it in what? He mentions the resurrection for various reasons but they have to do with the context of his discussion

The creed in 1 Cor 15 includes the burial, despite it being common knowledge among Christians. Why omit the empty tomb?

you assert from a creed what all the bleief they held were not all creeds deal with all the doctrines the church holds to He does cite a creed about the resurrection The empty tomb was not an issue by the 50s no one doubted it


Joe: that just depends upon how the early church looked at what they had to cover by way of a creed,of course it;s not really proven to be a creed.

Your position is that they decided to include the burial, because that is so wondrous, but omit the empty tomb, because, really, who cares about a triviality like that? And yet, Mark chose to use the Empty Tomb as the triumphant climax to his work. Odd that.


If the empty tomb had ceased to be challenged by the 50s no reason why they would present it in creeds,they idea of the empty tomb didn't necessarily have to mean proof of the event to them that as it does to us,

"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.[3]

[and again]

"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" (Ibid). 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![4]
3]Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 208.

[4] Ibid. 220
The Pixie said…
Joe: you need to prove what you assert

Okay.

The absence of the empty tomb from 1 Cor 15 is good reason to think the empty tomb was not know to him, and so was made up after 50 AD.

Joe: He was writing to believers he didn't need to prove to them

So why mention the burial? That he included the burial shows this was not about informing them of something they did not know. This was an early creed; something Paul was reciting basically to promote his own position in the community, by inserting himself at the end, so he became part of the narrative. He was telling them what they already knew - up to the part that included himself - and what they already knew did NOT include the empty tomb.

Joe: you assert from a creed what all the bleief they held were not all creeds deal with all the doctrines the church holds to He does cite a creed about the resurrection The empty tomb was not an issue by the 50s no one doubted it

That is not what a creed does. Most churches recite a creed as part of the service - but everyone there already believes the creed.

The creed was a brief history of what had happened, their core beliefs. That Jesus was buried is trivial, and I am sure no one doubted it, but it was part of the narrative, so we see it in the creed. If the empty tomb really happened it would be far more important, the first hint that Jesus was risen. Its absence from the creed makes no sense if it really happened.

Joe: If the empty tomb had ceased to be challenged by the 50s no reason why they would present it in creeds,they idea of the empty tomb didn't necessarily have to mean proof of the event to them that as it does to us,

So you think the empty tomb was no longer being challenged, but people were still saying Jesus had not been buried, so they had to include that?

So you are saying the creed originally included the empty tomb, but they decided to remove it after a few years because no one disputed it?

Joe, quoting Koester talking about Crossan: 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

So about 50 AD. That fits with Paul not knowing about the Empty Tomb, as it could easily take a couple of years for the ur-gospel to catch up with Paul on his travels. So we have a date of around 50 AD for when the empty tomb was made up.

Or, the original ur-gospel, written in 50 AD omitted the empty tomb, but the empty tomb was added later, before Mark got hold of it.

Either way fits the evidence, and both suppose the empty tomb was made up. Given you are here taking Crossan as an authority it is worth noting that he takes the view Jesus was not even buried, but instead his body was left for dogs and crows to eat.
Joe, quoting Koester talking about Crossan: 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

So about 50 AD. That fits with Paul not knowing about the Empty Tomb, as it could easily take a couple of years for the ur-gospel to catch up with Paul on his travels. So we have a date of around 50 AD for when the empty tomb was made up.

stupid argument It's only based upon argument fro, silence, since the Passion narrative circulated in writing and include the empty tomb it's pedicurists to assume Paul had never heard of it, he clearly talks about the resurrection ,so what would he have supppossed Jesus rose from? he rose from a tomb he left an empty tomb it had to be,

Or, the original ur-gospel, written in 50 AD omitted the empty tomb, but the empty tomb was added later, before Mark got hold of it.


maybe the US constitution was written by aliens, no scholar thinks that Koester and Crosson and Danker all say iteneded with empty tomb, why should we think ohterewise?

Either way fits the evidence, and both suppose the empty tomb was made up.

you have no evidence of that you can't find a clear quote that says Brown believed that


Given you are here taking Crossan as an authority it is worth noting that he takes the view Jesus was not even buried, but instead his body was left for dogs and crows to eat.


no not what he thinks He dines thewoen which is a mistake but he does not the event of resurrection,ir the tomb,

Textual criticisms assistance and the idea of disagreement with resurrection is just speculation the idea of the text ending with empty tomb is science the other is bull shit,
I know Crosson famously did not believe in the resurrection but he sure did date the empty tomb story mid first century as it appears in the earliest writing. That;s my point it;s all that mnatters here,

Your entire position is foolishly based upon argument from silence, that;s all you have that proves nothing.
The Pixie said…
Joe: stupid argument It's only based upon argument fro, silence, since the Passion narrative circulated in writing and include the empty tomb it's pedicurists to assume Paul had never heard of it, he clearly talks about the resurrection ,so what would he have supppossed Jesus rose from? he rose from a tomb he left an empty tomb it had to be,

Yes it is an argument from silence, but it is a silence where we have good reason to think it should be if it was known to Paul.

Paul's position was that Jesus got a new body, as 1 Cor 15 makes abundantly clear. Paul would have expected Jesus old body to still be whereever it was buried.

Joe: you have no evidence of that you can't find a clear quote that says Brown believed that

That Paul omits the empty tomb is evidence one of them is right. Your argument seems to be that the empty tomb was in the narrative around 50 AD, and one scenario fits that.

I did not say Brown believed that.

Joe: no not what he thinks He dines thewoen which is a mistake but he does not the event of resurrection,ir the tomb,

My understanding is that Crossan is famous (or infamous within Christianity) for believing Jesus was not bruried. If you think otherwise, please give some evidence.
http://apprising.org/2008/06/05/john-dominic-crossan-on-jesus-as-food-for-dogs/

Joe: Textual criticisms assistance and the idea of disagreement with resurrection is just speculation the idea of the text ending with empty tomb is science the other is bull shit,

Right. When it agrees with you it is science, when it disagrees, it is just speculation.

At best your textual criticisms can tell us what was written down, give a snapshot of belief in that community at an uncertain point in time. At some point the community accepted the idea of an empty tomb. You are arguing it was by 50 AD, but that still gives 20 years for it to be invented, and that still allows for Paul to not know about it when writing his letters.

However, as far as I can tell your evidence merely points to there being an ur-gospel of some sort by 50 AD, and that the empty tomb was included at some point. I see nothing to indicate the empty tomb was in it as early as 50 AD.

Joe: I know Crosson famously did not believe in the resurrection but he sure did date the empty tomb story mid first century as it appears in the earliest writing. That;s my point it;s all that mnatters here,

I think Crossan does believe in the resurrection in some sense. But the point here is that the guy you are citing as an authority says the empty tomb was made up - and not for idealogical reasons. If he is the authority here, then that indicates the empty tomb was made.

Joe: Your entire position is foolishly based upon argument from silence, that;s all you have that proves nothing.

A silence where we would not expect silence; that is an important difference. Plus, I have the scholar you consider to be the authority on my side.
Joe: stupid argument It's only based upon argument fro, silence, since the Passion narrative circulated in writing and include the empty tomb it's pedicurists to assume Paul had never heard of it, he clearly talks about the resurrection ,so what would he have supppossed Jesus rose from? he rose from a tomb he left an empty tomb it had to be,

Yes it is an argument from silence, but it is a silence where we have good reason to think it should be if it was known to Paul.

why? they are not arguing that Jesus didn't rise,He's speaking to believers who already know the story,why would it it be important to evoke the empty tomb?

Paul's position was that Jesus got a new body, as 1 Cor 15 makes abundantly clear. Paul would have expected Jesus old body to still be whereever it was buried.


No ,that that's a BS alternate anti-Christi view no scholar accepts, Ray Brown speically deneied that reading

Joe: you have no evidence of that you can't find a clear quote that says Brown believed that

That Paul omits the empty tomb is evidence one of them is right. Your argument seems to be that the empty tomb was in the narrative around 50 AD, and one scenario fits that.

If course the empty tomb was in the narrative from the first time anyone said Jesus rose from the dead, he had to rise from the grave so that means there had to be an empty tomb. the question is what christians made of it. they did not necessarily turn the tobm into an apologetically tool right away,

I did not say Brown believed that.

Joe: no not what he thinks He dines the woen which is a mistake but he does not the event of resurrection,ir the tomb,

My understanding is that Crossan is famous (or infamous within Christianity) for believing Jesus was not bruried. If you think otherwise, please give some evidence.
http://apprising.org/2008/06/05/john-dominic-crossan-on-jesus-as-food-for-dogs/

yes I know that. I am not big on telling people "you are not a Christian, If he has his own idea that he thinks makes him a Christian I don't want ot tell him he's not. Nut I think it is important to teach the literal resurrection because that's what the church has always taught, That's why i like Brown better as a theologian.

But Cross does accept the empty tomb aw written about mid first century Kokester says he does.

Your reasons for not accepting it are ideological and philosophical not historical


Joe: Textual criticisms assistance and the idea of disagreement with resurrection is just speculation the idea of the text ending with empty tomb is science the other is bull shit,

Right. When it agrees with you it is science, when it disagrees, it is just speculation.

funny how that works isn't it?

At best your textual criticisms can tell us what was written down, give a snapshot of belief in that community at an uncertain point in time. At some point the community accepted the idea of an empty tomb. You are arguing it was by 50 AD, but that still gives 20 years for it to be invented, and that still allows for Paul to not know about it when writing his letters.


not a lot of time and it would be contradicted by the eye witnesses. Logistically the facts favor resurrection you can;t set aside your materialist ideology

However, as far as I can tell your evidence merely points to there being an ur-gospel of some sort by 50 AD, and that the empty tomb was included at some point. I see nothing to indicate the empty tomb was in it as early as 50 AD.

Keoster and Crosson specifically say it was part of that early rendition read it again

Joe: I know Crosson famously did not believe in the resurrection but he sure did date the empty tomb story mid first century as it appears in the earliest writing. That;s my point it;s all that mnatters here,

I think Crossan does believe in the resurrection in some sense. But the point here is that the guy you are citing as an authority says the empty tomb was made up - and not for idealogical reasons. If he is the authority here, then that indicates the empty tomb was made.

try to learn to think critically about evidence, children use great names as authority figures but real thinkers use technicians for their expertise. Koster is an expert in understanding the text he is not a prophet,

Joe: Your entire position is foolishly based upon argument from silence, that;s all you have that proves nothing.

A silence where we would not expect silence; that is an important difference. Plus, I have the scholar you consider to be the authority on my side.

Holy full circle Batman. answer my question above

why? they are not arguing that Jesus didn't rise,He's speaking to believers who already know the story,why would it it be important to evoke the empty tomb?

4/18/2019 01:16:00 AM Delete
Leave your comme
Anonymous said…
Joe: not a lot of time and it would be contradicted by the eye witnesses. Logistically the facts favor resurrection you can;t set aside your materialist ideology


What eye witnesses? In the original telling, the only witnesses were the three women, who never told anyone. If they were not around, then there were no witnesses and nobody would expect to have heard about it at the time.

Joe: Keoster and Crosson specifically say it was part of that early rendition read it again

Where do they say that? Not in anything you quoted in the post.

Joe: try to learn to think critically about evidence, children use great names as authority figures but real thinkers use technicians for their expertise. Koster is an expert in understanding the text he is not a prophet,

The point here is that you are using a great name as an authority figure, but then cherry picking from him. Your whole argument seems to be based on Koester and Crossan's expert opinions - but only where their opinions align with your own.

Joe: why? they are not arguing that Jesus didn't rise,He's speaking to believers who already know the story,why would it it be important to evoke the empty tomb?

If it did not invoke the burial you would have a point. But it does.

These believers surely knew Jesus was crucified and buried, and Paul includes them. He omits the empty tomb. We go round and round in circles because you keep failing to address this issue. It is not about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb, it is about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb and includes the burial.

So far you have failed to do that.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: not a lot of time and it would be contradicted by the eye witnesses. Logistically the facts favor resurrection you can;t set aside your materialist ideology


What eye witnesses? In the original telling, the only witnesses were the three women, who never told anyone. If they were not around, then there were no witnesses and nobody would expect to have heard about it at the time.

Mark is not the original telling. It's only the oldest of the canonical gospels.It's foolish to assume Mark is more historically accurate than the other three canonicals.

I think each account is based upon the witnesses that wound up in each community The women who wound up in Marks community did go and say nothing but they were not Mary Magdellan or Mary the mother. Clearly they wound up in the Jeannine community,
We dom't have the original writing we don;t know what it said.the original teelling was oral.




Joe: Keoster and Crosson specifically say it was part of that early rendition read it again

Where do they say that? Not in anything you quoted in the post.

here it says there are traditions older than mark


"The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel"....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)[8]

Koester 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" page 208

quoted in original post


Joe: try to learn to think critically about evidence, children use great names as authority figures but real thinkers use technicians for their expertise. Koster is an expert in understanding the text he is not a prophet,

The point here is that you are using a great name as an authority figure, but then cherry picking from him. Your whole argument seems to be based on Koester and Crossan's expert opinions - but only where their opinions align with your own.

If I was using names as authority figures I would be afraid to disagree with them, I am not afraid to disagree with Koester when I think he's wrong

Joe: why? they are not arguing that Jesus didn't rise,He's speaking to believers who already know the story,why would it it be important to evoke the empty tomb?

If it did not invoke the burial you would have a point. But it does.

You keep assuming the empty tomb meant the same thing to them that it does to us. They did not have apologetics,They din't think aboiut proving things to people through logical manipulation of a text. They mainly valued eye witness testimony. There was no need for Paul to think about proof for his audience in the epistles, they just did not have apologetic

These believers surely knew Jesus was crucified and buried, and Paul includes them. He omits the empty tomb. We go round and round in circles because you keep failing to address this issue. It is not about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb, it is about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb and includes the burial.


I not only answered it several times but you have no comeback you instead pretend I never answers it. I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose,

you have no answer for either argument,

So far you have failed to do that.

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)



If it did not invoke the burial you would have a point. But it does.


It's how he evokes it

These believers surely knew Jesus was crucified and buried, and Paul includes them. He omits the empty tomb.

because they believed no reason to convince then,

We go round and round in circles because you keep failing to address this issue. It is not about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb, it is about explaining why Paul omits the empty tomb and includes the burial.

you are to avoid the implications of logic

So far you have failed to do that.

so far you have evaded reason
Anonymous said…
Joe: Mark is not the original telling. It's only the oldest of the canonical gospels.

The oldest we have with any actual details.

Joe: It's foolish to assume Mark is more historically accurate than the other three canonicals.

Really? You think the authors of Luke and Matthew, who copied from Mark and wrote when all the actual witnesses were likely dead, are going to be more accurate than Mark? Or John, written even later?

The anti-Jewish nature of the later gospels tells us they had less connect with the people who were actually there, given the people who were tyhere were Jews.

Joe: I think each account is based upon the witnesses that wound up in each community The women who wound up in Marks community did go and say nothing but they were not Mary Magdellan or Mary the mother. Clearly they wound up in the Jeannine community,
We dom't have the original writing we don;t know what it said.the original teelling was oral.


More likely there were no witnesses in the communities. Mark could get away with adding the women to the empty tomb because they were dead. The other gospels were written in gentile communities, after all the witnesses were dead.

Joe: here it says there are traditions older than mark

What are you talking about? Papyrus Egerton 2 is dated to the end of the second century. More importantly, it does not mention the empty tomb!

Joe: Koester says

Just so you know, he actually says that on page 231, not 208.

Koester's position - which seems a minority one - is that the text Mark used included the empty tomb. However, we have no idea how that text evolved over the preceding decades, and nothing in the quote you offer indicates Koester believes the empty tomb was in the original.

Note that on page 284 Koester talks about two versions of Mark, the earlier version used by Luke, the later by the author of Matthew. This is indicative of the fluid nature of these early texts, and proves that Koester undrestans that the text was changing.

Joe: If I was using names as authority figures I would be afraid to disagree with them, I am not afraid to disagree with Koester when I think he's wrong

That makes no sense. Of course you disagree with them when they do not fit your opinion. That does not change the fact that your argument is based very much on their authority. That is not unreasonable, given they are experts, but when you are selective on what you will accept, it looks like you have made your mind up, and are just using them to prop up your own opinion when convenient.

Joe: You keep assuming the empty tomb meant the same thing to them that it does to us. They did not have apologetics,They din't think aboiut proving things to people through logical manipulation of a text. They mainly valued eye witness testimony. There was no need for Paul to think about proof for his audience in the epistles, they just did not have apologetic

The empty tomb was the great climax to Mark's gospel! How can you claim it was not important?

Furthermore, if you read Acts, it is clear that their arguments to convert very much did revolve around text - specifically what we now call the OT.

And still your response fails to explain why Paul did mention the burial.

I am skipping the rest, because it is more of the same tired rationals, all failing to address the simple fact that Paul did mention the burial.

Pix
Joe: Mark is not the original telling. It's only the oldest of the canonical gospels.

The oldest we have with any actual details.

apparently you are not aware of how accurately textual critics can recover the older readings. The immediateness has pre Mark redaction

Joe: It's foolish to assume Mark is more historically accurate than the other three canonicals.

Really? You think the authors of Luke and Matthew, who copied from Mark and wrote when all the actual witnesses were likely dead, are going to be more accurate than Mark? Or John, written even later?

I see you don't understand the process of redaction. You just thinking in terms of books, as though they had a modern publishing industry, Different Manuscripts can contain different readings depends upon the specific manuscript.So the Ditesseron uses those four canonical gospels but in in each it preserves older readings than the conventional.

Koester talks about several versions of Mark,.


The anti-Jewish nature of the later gospels tells us they had less connect with the people who were actually there, given the people who were tyhere were Jews.

no that's BS. Luke might have more contract with eye witnesses than Mark, Mark uses one source, Mark. Luke uses Matt who used his own special Matthew source plus mark pluus himself,then Luke uses a luke source.

Joe: I think each account is based upon the witnesses that wound up in each community. The women who wound up in Marks community did go and say nothing but they were not Mary Magdellan or Mary the mother. Clearly they wound up in the Jeannine community,
We dom't have the original writing we don;t know what it said.the original telling was oral.

More likely there were no witnesses in the communities. Mark could get away with adding the women to the empty tomb because they were dead. The other gospels were written in gentile communities, after all the witnesses were dead.

that is just atheist obfuscation, The eye witness thin kills your world view,You have to deny at all costs, whatever it says you don;t care. Think about it we have works by several people who studied with Apostles. Carpool knew john, and other disciples. It makes no sense to think there are no eye witnesses in the canonical Gospels,except mark but we we have non-canonical Gospels with ancient readings that predate Mark Sych as GPet. Egertom 2 and others. You are just dogmatically denying the witnesses,


Joe: here it says there are traditions older than mark

What are you talking about? Papyrus Egerton 2 is dated to the end of the second century. More importantly, it does not mention the empty tomb!

you still don't understand the concept of copying. You think they published each Gospel and ran them off on renting presses and put them in book stores? So that all copies of Mark have the Mark reading all copiers of Luke have the Luke reading, no they copied by hand,So one guy might get a copy of Mark 30 year latter and combine it with sections form an older copy of something and you have one Ms it's the only one like it. one that contains real old readings.

there's where the Dissertation comes in. It was an attempt to make a Gospel harmony. the copies they use preserve real old readings.


Joe: Koester says

Just so you know, he actually says that on page 231, not 208.

my notes says 208

Koester's position - which seems a minority one - is that the text Mark used included the empty tomb. However, we have no idea how that text evolved over the preceding decades, and nothing in the quote you offer indicates Koester believes the empty tomb was in the original.

wrong,I;ve already quoted Kirby saying the premark redaction is consensus, Koester talks about his agreement with Crosson.

Note that on page 284 Koester talks about two versions of Mark, the earlier version used by Luke, the later by the author of Matthew. This is indicative of the fluid nature of these early texts, and proves that Koester undrestans that the text was changing.

that backs what I said above and it depressives your whole apocrypha,because of the provincials contain a reading that pre dates Mark. that fluid aspect means you can;t hold Mark over the other four and assert it has the first reading, and wecan deduce the development in the per Mark reeducation


Joe: If I was using names as authority figures I would be afraid to disagree with them, I am not afraid to disagree with Koester when I think he's wrong

That makes no sense. Of course you disagree with them when they do not fit your opinion. That does not change the fact that your argument is based very much on their authority.

their views coincide with my view, that when I argue for pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative,that;s what they say. You are trying to say that I must also take their views on the resurrection itself seriously. But that;s where your true hypocrisy comes out You set Borrow up as the be-all end-all of scholarship but you ignore the fact that he believed in the resurrection that he took Jesus for his savior,


That is not unreasonable, given they are experts, but when you are selective on what you will accept, it looks like you have made your mind up, and are just using them to prop up your own opinion when convenient.

Bs there are areas where they can;t know the Wassermann,such as did Jesus really raise from the dead, no one is an expert there,

Joe: You keep assuming the empty tomb meant the same thing to them that it does to us. They did not have apologetics,They didn't think aboiut proving things to people through logical manipulation of a text. They mainly valued eye witness testimony. There was no need for Paul to think about proof for his audience in the epistles, they just did not have apologetic

The empty tomb was the great climax to Mark's gospel! How can you claim it was not important?

I said as an apologetic tool. it was of religions importance

Furthermore, if you read Acts, it is clear that their arguments to convert very much did revolve around text - specifically what we now call the OT.

Not in the same way that we deduce logical conclusions from the tex like the emnpty proves resurrection. their use of the text was literary and prophetic

And still your response fails to explain why Paul did mention the burial.

again you have not answered either testament I made but continue to pretend I did not say them that is totally disingenuous, Skepie!

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)


(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)



I am skipping the rest, because it is more of the same tired rationals, all failing to address the simple fact that Paul did mention the burial.

because you can;t answer it
And still your response fails to explain why Paul did mention the burial.

again you have not answered either testament I made but continue to pretend I did not say them that is totally disingenuous, Skepie!

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)


(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)

(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)


(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)


(1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed. (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)

Anonymous said…
Joe: I see you don't understand the process of redaction. You just thinking in terms of books, as though they had a modern publishing industry, Different Manuscripts can contain different readings depends upon the specific manuscript.So the Ditesseron uses those four canonical gospels but in in each it preserves older readings than the conventional. Koester talks about several versions of Mark,.

Right. So there was almost certainly several versions of the pre-Markan passion narrative. This supports my position that we cannot assume the Empty Tomb was in the earliest version.

Joe: no that's BS. Luke might have more contract with eye witnesses than Mark, Mark uses one source, Mark. Luke uses Matt who used his own special Matthew source plus mark pluus himself,then Luke uses a luke source.

The witnesses were dead by the time Luke was writing in 90 AD.

Joe: that is just atheist obfuscation, The eye witness thin kills your world view,You have to deny at all costs, whatever it says you don;t care. Think about it we have works by several people who studied with Apostles. Carpool knew john, and other disciples. It makes no sense to think there are no eye witnesses in the canonical Gospels,except mark but we we have non-canonical Gospels with ancient readings that predate Mark Sych as GPet. Egertom 2 and others. You are just dogmatically denying the witnesses,

I am going by what we have. Mark was not a witness, but we can reasonably suppose he talked to them. The authors of Matthew and Luke were certainly not witnesses, and probably did not talk to any, at least, not at the time they were writing. The Gospel of John is dated even later; it might have traces of witness accounts in it, but they are so diluted by the later embellishments.

Egerton 2 gives very little about the resurrection, and no mention of the empty tomb.

The Gospel of Peter is based mostly on Matthew, according to Brown, who made his name from his work on it.

The story in Mark neatly explains why no witnesses (besides the women) were aware of the empty tomb at the time.

Joe: wrong,I;ve already quoted Kirby saying the premark redaction is consensus, Koester talks about his agreement with Crosson.

Come on, Joe, this is just nonsense. Kirby says there was a pre-Markan passion narrative; we both agree that that was so. You know this is about whether the empty tomb was part of it, and nothing in the Kirby quote addresses that.

You got your Kirby quote from the Early Christian Writings website, which includes the reconstructed text, colour-coded so we can see how many scholars consider each verse to be included.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html

The empty tomb is not even included.

Joe: that backs what I said above and it depressives your whole apocrypha,because of the provincials contain a reading that pre dates Mark. that fluid aspect means you can;t hold Mark over the other four and assert it has the first reading, and wecan deduce the development in the per Mark reeducation

What does that relate to? What is your point?

Joe: their views coincide with my view, that when I argue for pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative,that;s what they say. You are trying to say that I must also take their views on the resurrection itself seriously. But that;s where your true hypocrisy comes out You set Borrow up as the be-all end-all of scholarship but you ignore the fact that he believed in the resurrection that he took Jesus for his savior,

Do you mean Brown, the ordained Catholic priest? I would suggest that he believed in the resurrection first, and then studied the evidence. Does he believe in the resurrection because of the evidence or because of his faith? I do not know, but I would guess the latter.

On the other hand, Crossan rejects the empty tomb inspite of his faith.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: I said as an apologetic tool. it was of religions importance

So why is it absent from the creed in 1 Cor 15? Because it had not been invented.

Joe: (1)I said he was not doing apologetics, he was not trying to convenience the audience because they already believed.

So why mention the burial? Again and again you fail to explain that.

You just said the empty tomb was "of religions importance", giving even more reason to include it - if he had heard about it.

Joe: (2) I just now said they valued eye wetness testimony to risen Christ was more important then forensic proofs that he rose, (you have no answer)

So why mention the burial? Again and again you fail to explain that.

Pix
Joe:? I see you don't understand the process of redaction. You just thinking in terms of books, as though they had a modern publishing industry, Different Manuscripts can contain different readings depends upon the specific manuscript.So the Ditesseron uses those four canonical gospels but in in each it preserves older readings than the conventional. Koester talks about several versions of Mark,.

Right. So there was almost certainly several versions of the pre-Markan passion narrative. This supports my position that we cannot assume the Empty Tomb was in the earliest version.



Doesn't follow, Koester knew that when he dates it to mid first century That's part of his calculation


Joe: no that's BS. Luke might have more contact with eye witnesses than Mark, Mark uses one source, Mark. Luke uses Matt who used his own special Matthew source plus mark plus himself,then Luke uses a luke source.

The witnesses were dead by the time Luke was writing in 90 AD.

We know for a fact Luke had met eye witnesses. He did not have to meet them the year he wrote (80--that's just a speculative date he could have been writing his Gospel for decades);in Acts He was there for a lot of it even Galatians when Peter came

Joe: that is just atheist obfuscation, The eye witness thin kills your world view,You have to deny at all costs, whatever it says you don;t care. Think about it we have works by several people who studied with Apostles. Polycarp knew john, and other disciples. It makes no sense to think there are no eye witnesses in the canonical Gospels,except mark but we we have non-canonical Gospels with ancient readings that predate Mark Sych as GPet. Egertom 2 and others. You are just dogmatically denying the witnesses,

I am going by what we have. Mark was not a witness, but we can reasonably suppose he talked to them. The authors of Matthew and Luke were certainly not witnesses, and probably did not talk to any, at least, not at the time they were writing. The Gospel of John is dated even later; it might have traces of witness accounts in it, but they are so diluted by the later embellishments.

You have no basis for the claim Matt and was not a witness. You dont get the implication of the community as author argument, the community was full of witnesses the commuity produced the works,

Egerton 2 gives very little about the resurrection, and no mention of the empty tomb.

It's proof Mari was not the first writing, it also proves non canonical can Corinthian important things the cannonades don't contaminant,

The Gospel of Peter is based mostly on Matthew, according to Brown, who made his name from his work on it.

No he did not say that! he said quite clearly as was the point of the big chart that Gpet does not follow the canonicals it has an early ineptitude source, hes said that,you no quote saying what you allege you are just building a case in innuendo,

The story in Mark neatly explains why no witnesses (besides the women) were aware of the empty tomb at the time.

all Jerusalem was aware of it that's why there are other traditions the canonical don't include,

Joe: wrong,I;ve already quoted Kirby saying the premark redaction is consensus, Koester talks about his agreement with Crosson.

Come on, Joe, this is just nonsense. Kirby says there was a pre-Markan passion narrative; we both agree that that was so. You know this is about whether the empty tomb was part of it, and nothing in the Kirby quote addresses that.

How many times do I have to keep quoting that quote from Koester, he's talking about his agreement with Crosson hes says "IT ends with the emopty tomb"

Koester:"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."

he also dates that mid first century:"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" 218

You got your Kirby quote from the Early Christian Writings website, which includes the reconstructed text, colour-coded so we can see how many scholars consider each verse to be included.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html

The empty tomb is not even included.

that is not argumentative, that color coding BS is just the Jesus seminar it is meaningless. Kirby does not say that you are making conjecture, Koester I just quoted telling you what you are trying to deny,



Joe: that backs what I said above and it depressives your whole apocrypha,because of the provincials contain a reading that pre dates Mark. that fluid aspect means you can;t hold Mark over the other four and assert it has the first reading, and wecan deduce the development in the per Mark reeducation

What does that relate to? What is your point?

what Koester Just told you, The pre mark redaction included the empty tomb dates it mid first century,

Joe: their views coincide with my view, that when I argue for pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative,that;s what they say. You are trying to say that I must also take their views on the resurrection itself seriously. But that;s where your true hypocrisy comes out You set Borrow up as the be-all end-all of scholarship but you ignore the fact that he believed in the resurrection that he took Jesus for his savior,

Do you mean Brown, the ordained Catholic priest? I would suggest that he believed in the resurrection first, and then studied the evidence. Does he believe in the resurrection because of the evidence or because of his faith? I do not know, but I would guess the latter.

He didn;t study anything that led him to give it up, ye was no crosson

On the other hand, Crossan rejects the empty tomb inspite of his faith.

He should have studied with Brown (before you set Brown over Crossom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
So why is it absent from the creed in 1 Cor 15? Because it had not been invented.

I already answered this you have not answered the e argent I made, apparent you don;t understand it,

the empty tomb in was not important enough to put in a creed, it was part of the facts but since they didn't do apologetic it was not anymore important than the fact of resurrection so there's no point in including it in a creed it was not a theological issue,




THIS SECTION IS CLOSED


Koester:"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."

he also dates that mid first century:"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" 218



Koester:"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."

he also dates that mid first century:"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" 218



Koester:"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."

he also dates that mid first century:"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" 218



Koester:"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."

he also dates that mid first century:"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" 218


4/20/2019 08:49:00 PM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: Doesn't follow, Koester knew that when he dates it to mid first century That's part of his calculation

I said support, not follow. Important difference.

Joe: We know for a fact Luke had met eye witnesses. He did not have to meet them the year he wrote (80--that's just a speculative date he could have been writing his Gospel for decades);in Acts He was there for a lot of it even Galatians when Peter came

We certainly do NOT know that as a fact. That Luke is the author is contentious. But let us suppose that is so, Luke met the disciples several decades (ca. 40 AD?) before writing the gospels in 90 AD, plenty of time for his memories to fade, and certainly long enough for his beliefs to diverge from Paul's. Who knows how much revision the apostle's own stories undertook?

Joe: You have no basis for the claim Matt and was not a witness. You dont get the implication of the community as author argument, the community was full of witnesses the commuity produced the works,

It is generally accepted that the disciple was not the author of the gospel, in part because an eye witness would have no reason to copy from a second hand account, in part because of the date and in part because of the anti-Jewish nature.

Joe: It's proof Mari was not the first writing, it also proves non canonical can Corinthian important things the cannonades don't contaminant,

We both agree there was a pre-Markan passion narrative. Nevertheless Mark is the oldest we have.

Joe: No he did not say that! he said quite clearly as was the point of the big chart that Gpet does not follow the canonicals it has an early ineptitude source, hes said that,you no quote saying what you allege you are just building a case in innuendo,

You really need to re-read the book. Brown explains the events being out of order because the author had each one in isolation in church, and then composed his gospel from memory. Phone your friend again, get him to read it.

Joe: all Jerusalem was aware of it that's why there are other traditions the canonical don't include,

What evidence is there that anyone had heard of the empty tomb before the Gospel of Mark appeared?

Pix: Come on, Joe, this is just nonsense. Kirby says there was a pre-Markan passion narrative; we both agree that that was so. You know this is about whether the empty tomb was part of it, and nothing in the Kirby quote addresses that.

Joe: How many times do I have to keep quoting that quote from Koester, he's talking about his agreement with Crosson hes says "IT ends with the emopty tomb"

So nothing in the Kirby quote about it? I guess not.

Joe: what Koester Just told you, The pre mark redaction included the empty tomb dates it mid first century,

But we have established these documents were fluid. The quotes only say the empty tomb was in the narrative, and that there was "a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE". You do not have anything connecting the two; i.e., that the document from 50 AD included the empty tomb.

Joe: He didn;t study anything that led him to give it up, ye was no crosson

He should have studied with Brown (before you set Brown over Crossom)
?

Not sure what you mean.

Joe: I already answered this you have not answered the e argent I made, apparent you don;t understand it,

the empty tomb in was not important enough to put in a creed, it was part of the facts but since they didn't do apologetic it was not anymore important than the fact of resurrection so there's no point in including it in a creed it was not a theological issue,

THIS SECTION IS CLOSED


So again you fail to explain the inclusion of the burial, and your only recourse is to terminate the discussion.
Joe: How many times do I have to keep quoting that quote from Koester, he's talking about his agreement with Crosson hes says "IT ends with the emopty tomb"

So nothing in the Kirby quote about it? I guess not.

(1)Kirby's thing was not about the empty tomb specifically but about the pre mark redaction.(2)you are making an argent from silence and acting like it really answers the argument,arguments from silence are real cheesy. (3) It's Koesteradrossson together vs maybe kirby. (4)they are Marjorie experts and Kirby is not a scholar--he's an atheist apologist

Joe: what Koester Just told you, The pre mark redaction included the empty tomb dates it mid first century,

But we have established these documents were fluid. The quotes only say the empty tomb was in the narrative, and that there was "a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE". You do not have anything connecting the two; i.e., that the document from 50 AD included the empty tomb.


both statements are from the same chapter they are connected, the document that he says ended with the empty tomb is the same document that he say swas written mid first century it;s only a few lines further,


Joe: I already answered this you have not answered the e argent I made, apparent you don;t understand it,

the empty tomb in was not important enough to put in a creed, it was part of the facts but since they didn't do apologetic it was not anymore important than the fact of resurrection so there's no point in including it in a creed it was not a theological issue,

You are purposely convoluting the very important distinction between theological relevance and apologetic use. The empty tomb did not play a role in the theology because its only use theologically was as a negative space. Since they did not have apoloogetics they could hardly have thought about that, that does not negate its apologetic use in modern times
So again you fail to explain the inclusion of the burial, and your only recourse is to terminate the discussion.

I;ve kicked your ass in every exchange, if you want more punishment come and get it,

Popular posts from this blog

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

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger