Community as author



Image result for early Christian community



My argument "Community as author" postulates that if we don't know the individual authors of the gospels we can still look to the communities that produced the gospels as the authors because they contained not only the actual authors/redactors but many eye witnesses, to the events of Jesus' life. 

Modern scholars are now more likely to  think  in terms of communities producing Gospels rather than  in terms of individual authors.  Communities Sprang up quickly. As Luke Timothy Johnson puts it, "Acts shows how rapidly the message spread across vast geographic areas. Within seven or eight years separate communities existed in Jerusalem,Judea, Sameria, and Syria. In 20 years there were communities in Cyprus and Asia Minor...."[1] 


One school of Scholarship which might take this view of community authorship is the "form critics."

Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The from critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 18th century.  They assumed the process was like that of European folklore.[2]
[Form Critics believed] the stories about Jesus, were transmitted orally until they reached the writers of the Gospels. ...[they imagined] a period of oral transmission between the original eyewitnesses, who must have originated traditions about Jesus, and the writers of the Gospels. A period of oral transmission, in which the sayings and the stories were transmitted from person to person, within the early Christian communities. And they saw this as a potentially very creative process, in which all kinds of developments of the tradition as a potentially very creative process, in which all kinds of developments of the tradition could have taken place, in which many of the contents of the Gospels were created by the early communities. And they also saw it as a sort of process in which the traditions were passed on anonymously. They weren't attributed to Peter or James or one of the eyewitnesses, but simply, the communities kind of owned these traditions and passed them on. So, there was a period, as it were, in which all sorts of things could have happened to the transmission. Many gospel scholars took that basic picture but argued that the transmission was fairly conservative, that the traditions were preserved fairly accurately, but others allowed all sorts of creative developments in that period of oral transmission....the form critics ignored the very simple fact that the eyewitnesses, who were there at beginning of the transmission of the traditions, were still there throughout the period when the traditions were circulating orally. So, it wasn't as though, you know, these things happened independently. The eyewitnesses were there. They themselves continued to tell their stories and report the teachings of Jesus....it would be natural for a gospel writer to turn to the eyewitnesses who were still around to get his material for the gospel. So, I think the continuing role of the eyewitnesses, who weren't simply superseded by this anonymous tradition, is a very important fact.[3]
We can see the Folkloric model  is operative today.  In his discussion of oral tradition in the origins of Christianity Michael White speaks of the centrality of  "story telling." "...In the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves. At that moment we have caught an authentic and maybe one of the most historically significant parts of the development of Christianity."[4] Yet White does not discount historical basis of the stories, He asserts that those aspects of the history that revitalized the movement would have been passed on. "It's rather clear from the way that the stories develop in the gospels that the Christians who are writing the gospels a generation after the death of Jesus are doing so from a stock of oral memory, that is, stories that had been passed down to probably by followers."[5]

That proves nothing about the development of historical memory in oral tradition in the Gospels.The problem is that the development of for, criticism assumed a story telling mode; based European folklore. It doesn't even consider the way oral tradition was handled in ancinet Palestine. As Bauckham tells us: 
... The form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[6]
The first notion about oral tradition that needs to be discarded is the idea that it's like playing "the telephone game." Oral tradition is not wild rumors or randomly spread. It;s not like the so called "telephone game" because that game requires whispers and there are no  controls on what is said. There were most probably controls, because the Jews had a controlled version of oral tradition, through which the Torah was handed down.[7]

Skeptics assume our knowledge of Jesus is based upon legend because they assume oral tradition is just wild rumors. G. Boyd & P. Eddy, among other scholars  demonstrate that the early Christians were literate, wrote, and they admired writing and book learning   in addition to knowing how to pass on information orally:


To summarize, it seems we have every reason to conclude that the oral traditions about Jesus in the early church were passed on in a generally reliable fashion. Notes taken during Jesus’ ministry would have constrained the extent to which these traditions could have evolved. But, even more significantly, everything we’re learning about oral traditions in orally dominated cultures suggests that the earliest Jesus communities would have cared about the historicity of their traditional material and would have been perfectly capable of preserving this historicity. And this, of course, is not good news for anyone who insists that the Gospels’ portrait of Christ is largely, if not entirely, legendary.[8]
Moreover, Michael Strickland tells us "This article considers the important ways in which oral tradition was incorporated with written tradition in the early church. By considering sayings in 1 Clement, Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians and Irenaeus' Letter to Florinus, the article makes the case that early Christian writers, including the gospel authors, were careful to accurately and faithfully combine reliable oral tradition with their accepted written sources."[9]

Stephen Neil wrote  "No one is likely to deny that a tradition that is being handed on by word of mouth is likely to undergo modification. This is bound to happen, unless the tradition has been rigidly formulated and has been learned with careful safeguard against the intrusion of error" Neil adds in a fn: "This is exactly the way in which the tradition was handed on among the JewsIt is precisely on this ground that Scandinavian scholar H. Risenfeld in an essay entitled 'The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings' (1957) has passed some rather severe strictures on the form cuticle method."[10]

One of the Major points made in discussion on this blog has been that the Jews may have had  strong careful oral tradition but the Christians didn't because it was the rabbis who had those skills. That is not proven  and no evidence was offered to that effect. Moreover, all  the documentation given thus far in this paper disproves that theory.All of the above sources allude to the proficiency of early church in their oral tradition, as do Chilton and Evans:

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

Luke used one of the same technical terms, speaking of eyewitnesses who 'delivered to us' the things contained in his Gospel and about which his patron Theophilus had been instructed. Similarly, the amanuenses or co-worker-secretaries who composed the Gospel of John speak of the Evangelist, the beloved disciple, 'who is witnessing concerning these things and who wrote these things', as an eyewitness and a member of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples.[24] In the same connection it is not insignificant that those to whom Jesus entrusted his teachings are not called 'preachers' but 'pupils' and 'apostles', semi-technical terms for those who represent and mediate the teachings and instructions of their mentor or principal.[11]
N.T. Wright tells us "The storyteller in such a culture has no license to invent or adapt at will. The less important the story, the more the entire community, in a process that is informal but very effective, will keep a close watch on the precise form and wording with which the story is told."[12]


The Bultmannian view of the Synoptic tradition us the basis of the form critical approach, Informal, uncontrolled oral tradition. But there is another critical scholarly approach, "In sharp contrast to the form-critical view is the Scandinavian school of Riesenfeld and Gerhardsson. Riesenfeld argues:

The mnemonic techniques, condensations, use of written notes, techniques of repetition, are all documented with precision. Then, turning to the gospel tradition and early Christianity, the 'word of the Lord' is explained as a word passed on using the above-mentioned devices of the Jewish schools. Evidence from Luke and Paul is presented to demonstrate that Jesus taught his disciples like other rabbis and that the early church organized a 'college' of the apostles along Jewish lines. Evidence for this is found in the recitation formulas, the frequent references to 'the tradition' and 'the word of the Lord', and the importance of Jerusalem as a source from which the word proceeds. Gerhardsson's conclusion to the matter is: 'When the Evangelists edited their Gospels, ... they worked on a basis of a fixed, distinct tradition from, and about, Jesus - a tradition which was partly memorized and partly written down in notebooks and private scrolls, but invariably isolated from the teachings of other doctrinal authorities. [13]
Bailey demonstrates the techniques used n Gospels that illustrate controlled oral tradition, he says of Pauline writings: "Paul makes use of the recitation formula, 'What I have received I delivered unto you'. Thus some formal controlled oral tradition existed, and anyone with a good memory could, and can, become a reciter of what he/she has memorized. But Paul cannot become a reciter of the informal controlled oral tradition."[14]

The most crucial  point to remember is that this period of oral transmission only lasted 18 years and a. the while there were many eye witnesses making up all the communities.



NOTES


[1] Richard Bauckham, "A Croquette of From Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website,  (2011-2020)
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43180
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load
Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.

Form criticism assumes that there were no authors there were no historical individuals and of course don't even think about an eye witness. It's all made up out of whole cloth by the anonymous folk. This kind of criticism is still dominant and although most of it's founding assumptions have been put to bed modern liberal scholarship is loath to let go. They still make the tired old assumptions that the church fathers are not even worth reading.They assume no authors and no eye witnesses. These assumptions have been ably challenged by believing scholars  such as Mark Goodacher, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham. The latter has made the greatest contribution in my view, with his great ground breaking work:  Jesus and the Eye Witnesses: The Gospel as Eye Witness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wb. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Second Edition, 2017/2006. no page  indicated. see also L.T. Johnson The Writtings of the New Testament Fortress Press,  1986, 117. 

[2] Richard Bauckham, "A Croquette of From Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website,  (2011-2020)
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load
Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.

[3] Ibid.

[4] L. Michael White, "The Importance of Oral Tradition,"  Frontline:   Jesus to Christ. Originally an episode on a series on PBS, On line version published by PBS.org. oriignally puibloished 1998, online copywriter 2014.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html (accessed 11/10/18)

White is Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin

[5] Ibid.

[6]Richard Bauckham, "A Critique of Form Criticism of The Gospels." op cit

[7]Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism, Oxford University Press, 2004. p lv


[8]G. Boyd & P. Eddy, "How Reliable Were The Early Church's Oral Traditions?"Re Knew,
This essay is based on sections of G. Boyd & P. Eddy, Lord or Legend? (Baker, 2007). For a fuller discussion with full bibliographic citations, see P. Eddy & G. Boyd, The Jesus Legend (Baker, 2007).


[9]Michael Strickland, "The Integration of Oral and Written Jesus Tradition in the Early Church,"
Journal of Early Christian History: Vol 5, No 1, 132-143.Published online: 24 May 2017


[10] Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1961, London: University of Oxford Press, 1964, 250. 


[11]B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans* (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus(NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998): 53-55. Chilton and Evens foot notes:
22. O. Cullmann, "The Tradition," in Cullmann, The Early Church (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956) 55-99; B. Gerhardsson The Origins of the Gospel Traditions (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); H. Riesenfeld The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1-29; Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer 
23. Rom 6:17; 16:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Phil 4:9; Col 2:6-7; 2 Thess
24. John 19:35; 21:24-25; cf. 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 21-23. Cf. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) 298-311.\ 
25. On parallels with other rabbis and their disciples and other Jewish usage cf. Mark 2:18 = Luke 5:33; K.H. Rengstorf TDNT 1 (1964) 412-43;.TDNT 4 (1967) 431-55.

[12] N.T. Wright, "Five Gospels But No Gospel," in B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans,    op cit 12-113 

[13] Kenneth E Bailey. "Informal controlled Oral Tradition and The Synoptic Gospels" Biblical Studies.org. UK. (January 1995)This article was originally published in the Asia Journal of Theology (1991), pp. 34-54.

"Professor Bailey was formlerly Theologian in Residence in the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East (Cyprus) and Research Professor of Middle Eastern NT Studies (Jerusalem). He has had extensive experience of Middle Eastern life which, in this article, he uses to examine the traditions that lie behind the Synoptic Gospels."  


[14] Ibid

[15] further reading proves my point




Comments

The Pixie said…
The idea that each gospel is the product of its community is perfectly reasonable.

However, if that is the case, can you explain why the community that produced Mark was not aware of or chose to omit the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus in and around Jerusalem, and instead recorded that Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee?

My view, by the way, is that those sightings were later embellishments. Mark does not include them because they had yet to be invented.
The Pixie said...
The idea that each gospel is the product of its community is perfectly reasonable.
Last week you said it was childish

However, if that is the case, can you explain why the community that produced Mark was not aware of or chose to omit the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus in and around Jerusalem, and instead recorded that Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee?

we don't know that they did since we don't have the lost ending. If they did one reason might be because they only had eye witnesses form the Galilee faction,

My view, by the way, is that those sightings were later embellishments. Mark does not include them because they had yet to be invented.

Naw! why you didn't you ever say that before? all those other hundreds of times that said it I didn't think you meant it,
The Pixie said…
Joe: Last week you said it was childish

I said the idea that each existed in isolation was childish.

Joe: we don't know that they did since we don't have the lost ending. If they did one reason might be because they only had eye witnesses form the Galilee faction,

Then we can re-phrase the question as relating to where Jesus was first seen after being resurrected. Mark says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there. Luke and John say the disciples in Jerusalem that day - and Luke has Jesus tell the disciples not to leave the city!

Note that Matthew confirms Mark. We know the author copied extensively from Mark only a decade or so later (94% of Mark is also in Matthew); we can be pretty sure he saw the lost ending, if there was one, and that is the sighting in Galilee. Therefore we can be pretty sure it did not include any appearances in Jerusalem.

The issue here is that you need some explanation for why Mark wrote what he did. Why did the author say the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee if he knew they saw him in Jerusalem first? It is not plausible that the author had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances - if they really happened - as Jesus was seen by all the disciples, who then spent the next few decades telling everyone all about it.

Last time around, you said: "Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities, but you have to account for differences that didn;t exist because you read them in we don;t need them." That Mark would say that Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee, whilst Luke says the disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem, indicates two communities with zero contact between them. Given how much of Mark is in Luke, this is clearly nonsense.

Do you think Peter was in the Markan community, or the Lukan one? Either way, the community would know whether the disciple went to meet Jesus in Galilee or stayed in Jerusalem. The same is true for every disciple, as Mark suggests they all went to Galilee and Luke says they all saw Jesus in Jerusalem.

So how does "different sets of witnesses in different communities" explain the very different accounts in the gospels?
Joe: Last week you said it was childish

I said the idea that each existed in isolation was childish.

I accept that because you brought up isolation.

Joe: we don't know that they did since we don't have the lost ending. If they did one reason might be because they only had eye witnesses form the Galilee faction,

Then we can re-phrase the question as relating to where Jesus was first seen after being resurrected. Mark says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there. Luke and John say the disciples in Jerusalem that day - and Luke has Jesus tell the disciples not to leave the city!

It]s foolish to limit the risen Christ the same physical limitations of a regular person.several possibilities: (1) biased assumption of the redactor. (2) he had already appeared to Mary when he said that, He appeared to Mary then went to Galilee.(3)someof the epiphainies in Jerusalem can be embellishments

Note that Matthew confirms Mark. We know the author copied extensively from Mark only a decade or so later (94% of Mark is also in Matthew); we can be pretty sure he saw the lost ending, if there was one, and that is the sighting in Galilee. Therefore we can be pretty sure it did not include any appearances in Jerusalem.

like I just said he appeared tp Mary and to James then sent to Galilee

The issue here is that you need some explanation for why Mark wrote what he did. Why did the author say the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee if he knew they saw him in Jerusalem first? It is not plausible that the author had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances - if they really happened - as Jesus was seen by all the disciples, who then spent the next few decades telling everyone all about it.

I think what i said above

Last time around, you said: "Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities, but you have to account for differences that didn;t exist because you read them in we don;t need them." That Mark would say that Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee, whilst Luke says the disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem, indicates two communities with zero contact between them. Given how much of Mark is in Luke, this is clearly nonsense.

Luke's time frame is wrong,those sightings must have happened when he came back from Galilee Just before assertion> Or they could be emendation

Do you think Peter was in the Markan community, or the Lukan one? Either way, the community would know whether the disciple went to meet Jesus in Galilee or stayed in Jerusalem. The same is true for every disciple, as Mark suggests they all went to Galilee and Luke says they all saw Jesus in Jerusalem.

Peter was from Galilee so its hard to see him staying in Jerusalem. All of Mark is Galilee oriented. That is sued as an indication that Peter stands behind the text.

So how does "different sets of witnesses in different communities" explain the very different accounts in the gospels?

that answer deals more with related to the discovery of the empty tomb and the furst few hours after

2/24/2020 05:11:00 AM
The Pixie said…
Joe: I accept that because you brought up isolation.

It was implicit in your claim that one community said the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee, another community in Jerusalem. If there was communication between the communities, the real events would be established, and we would have a single narrative.

The wider issue is that you make claims without actually thinking them through. "Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities" sounds plausible at first glance, but if you actually think about how that happened, it stops being plausible. Sadly, you seem unable or unwilling to do that.

Joe: It]s foolish to limit the risen Christ the same physical limitations of a regular person.several possibilities: (1) biased assumption of the redactor. (2) he had already appeared to Mary when he said that, He appeared to Mary then went to Galilee.(3)someof the epiphainies in Jerusalem can be embellishments

So construct a narrative that fits the evidence. You can have Jesus appear in numerous places at one if you want, that is fine. But not the disciples. Either they went to Galilee to see Jesus or they saw him first in Jerusalem (or they split up to do both).

I am not so bothered about Mary. It is plausible the lost ending of Mark matches Matthew, and Jesus appeared to her first, and later gospels just skipped that. The issue is where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus.

Joe: like I just said he appeared tp Mary and to James then sent to Galilee

Okay, so you reject the accounts in Luke and John of the disciples seeing Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Easter day. That is all I have been trying to say for weeks. Unfortunately, I very much expect you will do an about face on this, but for now I am happy.

Joe: Luke's time frame is wrong,those sightings must have happened when he came back from Galilee Just before assertion> Or they could be emendation

Do you think the account in John is similarly after they had been to Galilee? I ask because it states otherwise:

John 20:19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “[b]Peace be with you.”

Joe: Peter was from Galilee so its hard to see him staying in Jerusalem. All of Mark is Galilee oriented. That is sued as an indication that Peter stands behind the text.

So was Peter absent from the locked room in Jerusalem that John describes? John specifically mentions Peter was there just hours before.

Joe: that answer deals more with related to the discovery of the empty tomb and the furst few hours after

It is certainly related, but the issue is nevertheless where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus.
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: I accept that because you brought up isolation.

It was implicit in your claim that one community said the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee, another community in Jerusalem. If there was communication between the communities, the real events would be established, and we would have a single narrative.

Luke tried to make a comprehensive account that dose not mean the others wanted that, they were distilling their community stories based upon their witnesses,

The wider issue is that you make claims without actually thinking them through. "Differences are accounted for by different sets of witnesses in different communities" sounds plausible at first glance, but if you actually think about how that happened, it stops being plausible. Sadly, you seem unable or unwilling to do that.

Bull sit, I've been thinning it through since 1979. the problem is you have no idea what the issues really are.

Joe: It]s foolish to limit the risen Christ the same physical limitations of a regular person.several possibilities: (1) biased assumption of the redactor. (2) he had already appeared to Mary when he said that, He appeared to Mary then went to Galilee.(3)someof the epiphainies in Jerusalem can be embellishments

PX:So construct a narrative that fits the evidence. You can have Jesus appear in numerous places at one if you want, that is fine. But not the disciples. Either they went to Galilee to see Jesus or they saw him first in Jerusalem (or they split up to do both).
they met in Galilee then came back.

I am not so bothered about Mary. It is plausible the lost ending of Mark matches Matthew, and Jesus appeared to her first, and later gospels just skipped that. The issue is where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus.

That is not part of the PMPN that ends with empty tomb,according to Koester

Joe: like I just said he appeared tp Mary and to James then sent to Galilee

Okay, so you reject the accounts in Luke and John of the disciples seeing Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Easter day. That is all I have been trying to say for weeks. Unfortunately, I very much expect you will do an about face on this, but for now I am happy.

You have not studied John in depth. I had harmonized it,it all fits all four fit hand in glove, its real complex.

Joe: Luke's time frame is wrong,those sightings must have happened when he came back from Galilee Just before assertion> Or they could be emendation

Do you think the account in John is similarly after they had been to Galilee? I ask because it states otherwise:

not the bit where Mary, John and, Pete go to see the empty tomb, Jesus appears to Mary, The stuff with eatting together and all is.

John 20:19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “[b]Peace be with you.”

the gathering maybe historical but the time is off,

Joe: Peter was from Galilee so its hard to see him staying in Jerusalem. All of Mark is Galilee oriented. That is used as an indication that Peter stands behind the text.

So was Peter absent from the locked room in Jerusalem that John describes? John specifically mentions Peter was there just hours before.

the redactors were not there so they supplying info given by witnesses then placing it in their own understanding of the time frame

Joe: that answer deals more with related to the discovery of the empty tomb and the furst few hours after

It is certainly related, but the issue is nevertheless where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus.

why is that a major concern? they were more considered with the fact that the tomb was empty,

Anonymous said…
Joe: Luke tried to make a comprehensive account that dose not mean the others wanted that, they were distilling their community stories based upon their witnesses,

So talk us through it, Joe. Which disciples were likely to be in the community that decided not to mention the first time the risen Jesus appeared to them? Because I really do not find that plausible.

Joe: Bull sit, I've been thinning it through since 1979.

Then you have had over forty years to decide which disciples were likely to be in the community that decided not to mention the first time the risen Jesus appeared to them.

Joe: the problem is you have no idea what the issues really are.

The big issue is what actually happened.

And I do not think you have a coherent narrative of what actually happened. I think you are hiding behind these vague idea about "distilling their community stories based upon their witnesses", but when we get down to specifics, you know that your version does not really fit together.

That is why again and again you fail to get specific.

Joe: they met in Galilee then came back.

So why did Luke, who you just said "tried to make a comprehensive account" omit the journey to Galilee?

So why did John say Jesus appeared to the disciples that day in Jerusalem?

This is what I mean about your ideas not fitting together. You come out with one to explain one thing, and another to explain something else, but the two do not mesh together. There is no coherent narrative, just a bunch of ad hoc explanations.

Joe: You have not studied John in depth. I had harmonized it,it all fits all four fit hand in glove, its real complex.

To be clear, this is indeed about them eating together, and Jesus appearing. John states this was the same day, so how had the disciples already got back from Galilee, which was about three days away?

Joe: the gathering maybe historical but the time is off,

Okay, fair enough. But then the question is, why do John and Luke omit the Galilee sightings, the first appearance of the risen Jesus to the disciples?

Joe: why is that a major concern? they were more considered with the fact that the tomb was empty,

You really think an empty tomb was more important to them than he risen Jesus? How can that possibly be the case? The empty tomb is nothing but an indicator to the risen Jesus, how can it be more important than the risen Jesus himself? Presumably Jesus spoke to them when he saw them. I would suggest his words were more significant than the silence of the tomb.

If the empty tomb was so important, why did Paul not mention it?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Because Paul came on board well after Christ was crucified? Paul's story starts with the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr his conversion comes from a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Paul became a Christian well before he met the Apostles and it's not clear what he even knew of that history. Paul's writing is relating his own experiences, he only talks briefly about what he received from the other Apostles. His initial doubts about Jesus were much different than those of the other believers. They all thought Jesus was dead, so finding the tomb empty was a big revelation to them. Paul met the risen Jesus, but I'm not sure there's any evidence that he met the crucified one.

I mean, I just can't see Paul going out to Golgotha nor the burial grounds for a tour on Passover when it's unclean to touch a dead body, can you? What on earth would he be doing there? Why would he talk about stuff he didn't see when he has so much to say from his own personal experiences?

- Photocrat
The Pixie said…
Joe: here are my pages harmonizing events, 3 pages.

Three pages about finding the empty tomb. There is nothing about the first sighting of the risen Jesus.

The only times the word "galilee" appears in those three pages is a quote of Matthew on the third one. So how can you pretend that those pages address the issue of the disciples seeing Jesus in Jerusalem or Galilee?

What you need is a scenario that makes clear who saw what and when, and also makes clear why the authors of the gospels recorded what they did (and omitted what they did).

I will show you how this goes. Jesus was crucified and buried in a communal grave, the disciples returned to their old lives. At some point Peter saw the risen Jesus in Galilee, and soon after the other disciples did too. They spread the word. Paul later noted that Jesus died, was buried and then rose on the third day, the third day being taken from scripture, not because that is when Jesus was seen. As he story grew, a more honorable burial was assumed. That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50. When Mark wrote his gospel, he invented the discovery of the empty tomb by the two women saying they never said anything because witnesses were still alive who would remember otherwise. Then the author of Matthew decided to update the gospel, expanding Mark's, and altered it so the women did tell people. The authors of Luke and John went even further, including the stories already circulating that Jesus was seen in Jerusalem.

It is a relatively straightforward account that fits the evidence that we have. And it even allows for Jesus to be resurrected. You just have to let go of this need to prove every claim of the gospels.
I mean, I just can't see Paul going out to Golgotha nor the burial grounds for a tour on Passover when it's unclean to touch a dead body, can you? What on earth would he be doing there? Why would he talk about stuff he didn't see when he has so much to say from his own personal experiences?

- Photocrat


you make good points Photocart, my point was it doesn't matter when Paul became a Christian, his writings are all from 50s and early 60s. a period when the empty tomb is a universally accepted basic ideal of the Jesus story. It would be foolish to conclude that since he doesn;t talk about it it had not been invented yet
Joe: here are my pages harmonizing events, 3 pages.

Three pages about finding the empty tomb. There is nothing about the first sighting of the risen Jesus.

that's just bull shit, it;s all sightings, Mary;s trip to the tomb was one of the first sightings. we only know James even saw the risen Christ because of one line in a Pauline epistle.

The only times the word "galilee" appears in those three pages is a quote of Matthew on the third one. So how can you pretend that those pages address the issue of the disciples seeing Jesus in Jerusalem or Galilee?

go back to the basis of Textual criticism, learn what a pericope is and learn what they do with them.

What you need is a scenario that makes clear who saw what and when, and also makes clear why the authors of the gospels recorded what they did (and omitted what they did).


You did not read my three pages,

I will show you how this goes. Jesus was crucified and buried in a communal grave, the disciples returned to their old lives. At some point Peter saw the risen Jesus in Galilee, and soon after the other disciples did too. They spread the word.

YOU ARE MAKING UP BULL SHIT RATHER THAN ADNIT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD! CRUCIFIXION VICTIMS WERE NOT ALWAYS PUT IN COMMON GRAVES, THE SURVIVORS OF JESUS SAID HE WAS BURRED IN A TOMB NO REASON TO ASSUME HE WAS NOT,

Paul later noted that Jesus died, was buried and then rose on the third day, the third day being taken from scripture, not because that is when Jesus was seen. As he story grew, a more honorable burial was assumed. That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50.

Only 18 years after the event the idea of inventing a land mark so close to the event when most of the witnesses are still alive is nuts, that's a stupid idea.


When Mark wrote his gospel, he invented the discovery of the empty tomb by the two women saying they never said anything because witnesses were still alive who would remember otherwise.

more stupid Markism. Mark invented Jesus himself, hey mark must have evened Palestine maybe he invented Rome. Anything kn the book of Mark Mark invented.The empty tomb was circulating in writing by 50. Mark was written in 70 so obviously he did not invent it.


Then the author of Matthew decided to update the gospel, expanding Mark's, and altered it so the women did tell people. The authors of Luke and John went even further, including the stories already circulating that Jesus was seen in Jerusalem.

It's very tempting to make up stories to support one's personal views,

It is a relatively straightforward account that fits the evidence that we have. And it even allows for Jesus to be resurrected. You just have to let go of this need to prove every claim of the gospels.

It's personally crafted twaddle designed to get you off the hook so you don;t have to face God. It totally ignores most of the evidence and shapes the facts to fit the need,
suppose I told you that John kennedy's body was found shot and dead in the rose garden of the white house? You might think there's something wrong here, what about Dallas? why do you think no one tries to do that?

40 years if talking about Jesus then they make up a tomb when no one ever heard of no one questions it? there is no way the Jesus cult would grow after 40 years without a story about his resurrection. They would have to cover that base every early,

Koester's discussion about PMR disproves your idea.

Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (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! [Koester, ACG 218-220]

Koester on 220 says:

""A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source....Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."

This solves the issues you raise in this thread. The empty tomb shows up in writing as early as mid century way before Mark. That disproves your assertions above. But in favor of your view Koester says the epiphanies are from different sources and don't necessarily go all the way back.

The empty tomb could not have been invented by Mark. It was part of the PMR mid century,
The Pixie said…
Photocrat: Because Paul came on board well after Christ was crucified?

It is an interesting claim, but I am not sure it qite fits the facts. It is generally recognised that 1 Cor 15 includes a very early creed:

1 Cor 15:3...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

This is not what Paul personally believed, this is what Christianity believed at that time. And there was no empty tomb.
that i what Paul believed, It;s obvious he;s quoting because he believes it, ut also disproved your assertions about the empty tomb,
why would he want to pass it on, and call it first importance if he did not believe it?
The Pixie said…
Joe: that's just bull shit, it;s all sightings, Mary;s trip to the tomb was one of the first sightings. we only know James even saw the risen Christ because of one line in a Pauline epistle.

Maybe you should go back and read those pages yourself. Quote that bit that discusses the sightings in Galilee. Maybe I missed it?

Joe: go back to the basis of Textual criticism, learn what a pericope is and learn what they do with them.

No idea what you point is.

Joe: You did not read my three pages,

They do not address of the issue of which disciple saw the risen Jesus where and when.

Joe: YOU ARE MAKING UP BULL SHIT RATHER THAN ADNIT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD! CRUCIFIXION VICTIMS WERE NOT ALWAYS PUT IN COMMON GRAVES, THE SURVIVORS OF JESUS SAID HE WAS BURRED IN A TOMB NO REASON TO ASSUME HE WAS NOT,

If you had read what I wrote, it actually said Jesus had risen ("Peter saw the risen Jesus in Galilee").

Joe: Only 18 years after the event the idea of inventing a land mark so close to the event when most of the witnesses are still alive is nuts, that's a stupid idea.

And yet that is what Crossan believes.

Remember, the claim was originally that there was an empty tomb, not that anyone had seen the empty tomb. That came later, and that was two women who never told anyone.

Joe: more stupid Markism. Mark invented Jesus himself, hey mark must have evened Palestine maybe he invented Rome. Anything kn the book of Mark Mark invented.The empty tomb was circulating in writing by 50. Mark was written in 70 so obviously he did not invent it.

That fits with what I said ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50.").

Joe: It's very tempting to make up stories to support one's personal views,

So go ahead and do it. Make up a story that fits the evidence, including which disciple saw the risen Jesus where and when. I do not think you can because the inconsistencies are too big.

And I think you know that, given your reluctance to try.

Joe: It's personally crafted twaddle designed to get you off the hook so you don;t have to face God. It totally ignores most of the evidence and shapes the facts to fit the need,

But it is "twaddle" you seem unable to refute - because it fits the evidence. You assert "It totally ignores most of the evidence", but you are unable to actually support that claim. Most of your objections are to what you think I wrote, and not to what I actually wrote. I did not say Jesus was not resurrected. I did not say Mark invented the empty tomb. The one real objection you have is on something I can claim support from a Christian scholar you routinely cite.

Joe: Koester's discussion about PMR disproves your idea. ... This solves the issues you raise in this thread. The empty tomb shows up in writing as early as mid century way before Mark. ... The empty tomb could not have been invented by Mark. It was part of the PMR mid century,

Not at all. Koester's position is perfectly consistent with mine ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50."). Perhaps you should have actually read my post. It might have saved some ranting.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that i what Paul believed, It;s obvious he;s quoting because he believes it, ut also disproved your assertions about the empty tomb,

I agree Paul quotes it because he believes it. That is not the point.

The point is that this represents the collective belief of Christians at that time, not just the personal belief of Paul. Photocrat's point is predicated on this being Paul's personal view ("I mean, I just can't see Paul going out to Golgotha nor the burial grounds for a tour on Passover when it's unclean to touch a dead body, can you?"), but that is not what we are talking about.

The creed is the collective belief and it omits the empty tomb. Why? It had yet to be invented.

By the way, I posted another fairly length response earlier, did it get lost?
Joe: that's just bull shit, it;s all sightings, Mary;s trip to the tomb was one of the first sightings. we only know James even saw the risen Christ because of one line in a Pauline epistle.

Maybe you should go back and read those pages yourself. Quote that bit that discusses the sightings in Galilee. Maybe I missed it?

irrelevant,Jesus hung around about a month after the res.plenty of time to to Galilee ad back/ You are trying to create a problem where there is not one,

Joe: go back to the basis of Textual criticism, learn what a pericope is and learn what they do with them.

No idea what you point is.

Preicopes are individual units of story that can be moved around,so they are veritable depending upon the editor. but they do tell us historical truth they don;t tell us the chronological sequence,

Joe: You did not read my three pages,

They do not address of the issue of which disciple saw the risen Jesus where and when.


yes they do,


Joe: YOU ARE MAKING UP BULL SHIT RATHER THAN ADNIT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD! CRUCIFIXION VICTIMS WERE NOT ALWAYS PUT IN COMMON GRAVES, THE SURVIVORS OF JESUS SAID HE WAS BURRED IN A TOMB NO REASON TO ASSUME HE WAS NOT,

If you had read what I wrote, it actually said Jesus had risen ("Peter saw the risen Jesus in Galilee").

then what's our point?

Joe: Only 18 years after the event the idea of inventing a land mark so close to the event when most of the witnesses are still alive is nuts, that's a stupid idea.

And yet that is what Crossan believes.

he;s stuck in the materialist mindset.Actually he doesn't believe that he is much more cogent than to think anything in Mark is made up by Mark,

Remember, the claim was originally that there was an empty tomb, not that anyone had seen the empty tomb. That came later, and that was two women who never told anyone.

they saw the tomb empty that very day,That;s why John, Peter, and Mary went to it,

Joe: more stupid Markism. Mark invented Jesus himself, hey mark must have evened Palestine maybe he invented Rome. Anything kn the book of Mark Mark invented.The empty tomb was circulating in writing by 50. Mark was written in 70 so obviously he did not invent it.

That fits with what I said ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50.").

No obviously it had to have been part of the oral tradition is when it began to be written about.

Joe: It's very tempting to make up stories to support one's personal views,

So go ahead and do it. Make up a story that fits the evidence, including which disciple saw the risen Jesus where and when. I do not think you can because the inconsistencies are too big.

We could believe the early chruch's sightings with no tomb and no body,s long as Christ is risen, they idea that they could introduce a tomb latter assumes they were stupid,

And I think you know that, given your reluctance to try.

I am not interested in making things up I;m interested in finding the truth

Joe: It's personally crafted twaddle designed to get you off the hook so you don;t have to face God. It totally ignores most of the evidence and shapes the facts to fit the need,

But it is "twaddle" you seem unable to refute - because it fits the evidence.

I just refuted it, it only fits when you ignore most of the evidence as you are doing


You assert "It totally ignores most of the evidence", but you are unable to actually support that claim. Most of your objections are to what you think I wrote, and not to what I actually wrote. I did not say Jesus was not resurrected. I did not say Mark invented the empty tomb. The one real objection you have is on something I can claim support from a Christian scholar you routinely cite.

ok you said: Koester's position is perfectly consistent with mine ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50."). That is an improvement over Markism it;s still erant nonsense, it was put in to writing around 50 it had to be the center of the faith from the beginning,ho cloud they turn a faith about something slse into a faith abut a risen savior when it had had established track record about something else?

Joe: Koester's discussion about PMR disproves your idea. ... This solves the issues you raise in this thread. The empty tomb shows up in writing as early as mid century way before Mark. ... The empty tomb could not have been invented by Mark. It was part of the PMR mid century,

Not at all. Koester's position is perfectly consistent with mine ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50."). Perhaps you should have actually read my post. It might have saved some ranting.

u grant you that i misunderstood what you were saying but you are still wrong,

2/25/2020 04:32:00 AM Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.
The point is that this represents the collective belief of Christians at that time, not just the personal belief of Paul. Photocrat's point is predicated on this being Paul's personal view ("I mean, I just can't see Paul going out to Golgotha nor the burial grounds for a tour on Passover when it's unclean to touch a dead body, can you?"), but that is not what we are talking about.

right

The creed is the collective belief and it omits the empty tomb. Why? It had yet to be invented.

Just because the y had not yet started thinking of the enormity tomb as a symbol of the resurrection doesn;t mean there was no empty tomb,



By the way, I posted another fairly length response earlier, did it get lost?


I don't know but I never hold back anything you write
The Pixie said…
Where did the DISCIPLES FIRST see the risen Jesus

Joe: irrelevant,Jesus hung around about a month after the res.plenty of time to to Galilee ad back/ You are trying to create a problem where there is not one,

The issue is where the disciples FIRST saw the risen Jesus.

If there was really no problem here, you would be able to readily answer that. Instead you point to three pages of discussion about when the women found the empty tomb, and now here you are saying this.

If you cannot answer the question, man-up and admit it.

Joe: Preicopes are individual units of story that can be moved around,so they are veritable depending upon the editor. but they do tell us historical truth they don;t tell us the chronological sequence,

And again, no idea what you point is.

Joe: yes they do,

But you cannot quote the bit that addresses the question - or even answer the question - because...

Oh, right. It does not exist and you have no answer.

Joe: then what's our point?

The point was that I could construct a narrative that is coherent and that fits the evidence that we have. My narrative offers an answer to the question; where did the disciples first see the risen Jesus.

You patently cannot construct a narrative that is coherent, and so you are unable to answer that question.
The Pixie said…
A Coherent Narrative

Joe: I am not interested in making things up I;m interested in finding the truth

How can you find the truth unless you are prepared to speculate a little?

Science is all about finding the truth, and a big part of that is speculating; proposing new hypotheses. Of course, you then have to see how your hypothesis fits the evidence. In science that is done by making and testing predictions.

The same principles apply here. We propose a possible scenario and then look at how it fits the evidence. If it is coherent and a good fit, then it is more likely to be the truth than if it is not. This is what I have done. I am pretty sure this is how real history is done and forensic science - I certainly hope it is, anyway.

What you seem to do, however, is rather more ad hoc. You start from a basic assumption that the gospels are true. Then for each bit of evidence, you devise an ad hoc explanation. There is no coherent narrative because as often as not your ad hoc explanations contradict each other.

My way is about determining what is true based on the evidence. You way is about deciding what you want to be true, and then rationalising the evidence. I think my way is a better way of finding the truth.

Joe: I just refuted it, it only fits when you ignore most of the evidence as you are doing

What evidence? You slagging off Crossan? Your assumption that the gospels are necessarily true, therefore the empty tomb was seen that day by John, Peter, and Mary?
The Pixie said…
Joe: they saw the tomb empty that very day,That;s why John, Peter, and Mary went to it,

Certainly that is what later gospels claimed, but that does not make it true.

Joe: No obviously it had to have been part of the oral tradition is when it began to be written about.

Why?

Joe: We could believe the early chruch's sightings with no tomb and no body,s long as Christ is risen, they idea that they could introduce a tomb latter assumes they were stupid,

And yet plenty of scholars agree with me that the empty tomb was made up. Crossan I already mentioned, Koester and Tabor too, I think, and Brown. All scholars you cite as authorities. Do these scholars think the Christians were stupid? I doubt it.

Joe: ok you said: Koester's position is perfectly consistent with mine ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50."). That is an improvement over Markism it;s still erant nonsense, it was put in to writing around 50 it had to be the center of the faith from the beginning,ho cloud they turn a faith about something slse into a faith abut a risen savior when it had had established track record about something else?

What evidence do you have that it was part of the oral tradition any earlier than that?

The fact that it is absence from the creed in 1 Cor 15 is very strong evidence that it was NOT in "the center of the faith from the beginning".
The Pixie said...
Where did the DISCIPLES FIRST see the risen Jesus

Joe: irrelevant,Jesus hung around about a month after the res.plenty of time to to Galilee ad back/ You are trying to create a problem where there is not one,

The issue is where the disciples FIRST saw the risen Jesus.



If there was really no problem here, you would be able to readily answer that. Instead you point to three pages of discussion about when the women found the empty tomb, and now here you are saying this.

If you cannot answer the question, man-up and admit it.


no one knows there's no way to tell.That means you don;t know either, you have a theory but you don't know either. The problem with this kind of thinking relates to the point I was making about Pericopes. Pericopes are shuffled around into different time frames because they used to fill rhetorical needs. For example The synoptic put the cleansing of the temple at the end of the ministry John puts it at the first, emitting like it probability happened but when we don't know. Si Gospel chronology is not exactly iron clad.When Mark tells us he said go meet him in Galilee that is no guarontee tahthe really said that.

There is a contradiction between Mark and Matthew on one hand,and Luke and John on the other as to where he wanted them to meet him cannot assume that Mark being write first means its actually reflected that knowledge,.



Joe: yes they do,

But you cannot quote the bit that addresses the question - or even answer the question - because...

Oh, right. It does not exist and you have no answer.


the bits you quote don;t address it either.


Joe: then what's our point?

The point was that I could construct a narrative that is coherent and that fits the evidence that we have. My narrative offers an answer to the question; where did the disciples first see the risen Jesus.

you are making fallacious assumption about the historicity of the info you are using.

You patently cannot construct a narrative that is coherent, and so you are unable to answer that question.

I did do that,I don't have to cover the first meeting of the boys to have a coherent framework,

2/26/2020 01:15:00 AM
Joe: I am not interested in making things up I;m interested in finding the truth

How can you find the truth unless you are prepared to speculate a little?

I speculate all the time,you don't listen

Science is all about finding the truth, and a big part of that is speculating; proposing new hypotheses. Of course, you then have to see how your hypothesis fits the evidence. In science that is done by making and testing predictions.

gee really thanks for telling me,they didn't cover that in philosophy of scinece in my PhD work

The same principles apply here. We propose a possible scenario and then look at how it fits the evidence. If it is coherent and a good fit, then it is more likely to be the truth than if it is not. This is what I have done. I am pretty sure this is how real history is done and forensic science - I certainly hope it is, anyway.

there are other things wrong with your methodology than that, even moreso with the assumptions you make,

What you seem to do, however, is rather more ad hoc. You start from a basic assumption that the gospels are true. Then for each bit of evidence, you devise an ad hoc explanation. There is no coherent narrative because as often as not your ad hoc explanations contradict each other.

you start form the assumption that they are wong excpet for Mark.It's only wrong about it;s basic faith,

My way is about determining what is true based on the evidence. You way is about deciding what you want to be true, and then rationalising the evidence. I think my way is a better way of finding the truth.

self aggrandizing nonsense,

Joe: I just refuted it, it only fits when you ignore most of the evidence as you are doing

What evidence? You slagging off Crossan? Your assumption that the gospels are necessarily true, therefore the empty tomb was seen that day by John, Peter, and Mary?

I out gun you on every evident challenge you pretend it didn't happen your inviolable methodology is always right because you refuse to be realistic about your working nethod,

2/26/2020 01:15:00 AM
Joe: ok you said: Koester's position is perfectly consistent with mine ("That led to the empty tomb being invented later, perhaps around AD 50."). That is an improvement over Markism it;s still erant nonsense, it was put in to writing around 50 it had to be the center of the faith from the beginning,ho cloud they turn a faith about something slse into a faith abut a risen savior when it had had established track record about something else?

What evidence do you have that it was part of the oral tradition any earlier than that?

the ast majority of scholars don't assume that if something appears in a work it must be invited by the guy who wrote the book,especially true when we have no prior works that totally foolish to assume it must have been mentioned for the first time merely because it;s in that work when there is no other way to know if it's in any thing before.
we know that the Gosples ere usingorak tradition os the odds are it was niosed about before the PMR in oral tradition. U;ve said this many tomes let it sink in,


The fact that it is absence from the creed in 1 Cor 15 is very strong evidence that it was NOT in "the center of the faith from the beginning".

Argument from silence, modern bible schoolwork do not based major issues upon argument from silence.
Anonymous said…
Joe: no one knows there's no way to tell.That means you don;t know either, you have a theory but you don't know either.

That is right, I do not know. But I have the ability to think, to speculate, to propose a narrative that is coherent and fits the evidence, and so is more likely to be true than your claims, given you cannot.

Given a choice between a coherent narrative that fits the evidence and an incoherent narrative that has gaps where the evidence should fit, I will go for the former every time. It might be wrong, but it is far more like to be right than the latter!

Look it this way. My hypothesis is plausible. Your is not.

Joe: The problem with this kind of thinking relates to the point I was making about Pericopes. Pericopes are shuffled around into different time frames because they used to fill rhetorical needs.

Utterly unrelated. If you think passages are out of order, then say that, and present the order you think the events occurred. The fact that the gospel authors mixed up the order IN NO WAY stops you coming up with a coherent narrative. In fact, it makes it easier, because it allows you to ignore the sequence in the gospels, at least to some degree.

What stops you is the inherent inconsistencies in your beliefs. We both know that there is no coherent narrative possible from your claims. This is why you cannot say where the disciple first saw the risen Jesus. You know that if you are pinned down to one location, your other claims collapse, and so you hide behind red herrings and obfuscation.

Joe: There is a contradiction between Mark and Matthew on one hand,and Luke and John on the other as to where he wanted them to meet him cannot assume that Mark being write first means its actually reflected that knowledge,.

But we can assume a certain set of events happened in a specific order, and that that sequence of events ultimately gave rise to the evidence we have today. Or rather, I can. Apparently you cannot. You want to say one sequence one day, and another on another day. You have to, because ultimately there is no coherent narrative underlying your belief.

Joe: the bits you quote don;t address it either.

I thought I had been clear that my position is that the disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus in Galilee, and the Jerusalem sights were made up post-Mark. I have a coherent narrative I can present, so I can be clear about this.

Joe: you are making fallacious assumption about the historicity of the info you are using.

I think the assumptions are all pretty reasonable, and there are Christian Biblical scholar who you consider to be authorities who agree with those assumptions.

Joe: I did do that,I don't have to cover the first meeting of the boys to have a coherent framework,

It is not coherent if you are obliged to have gaps in it! A major part of the evidence about the Passion we have today is Mark saying Jesus had gone on ahead to see the disciples in Galilee. Another part is Luke and John describing the Jerusalem appearances. Clearly your narrative fails to fit that evidence if it leaves a gaping hole at that point in the story!

Joe: I speculate all the time,you don't listen

Here is a great example of you not being coherent. last time around you said " I am not interested in making things up", now you "speculate all the time". Which is? oh, I see, whatever suits the moment.

Joe: gee really thanks for telling me,they didn't cover that in philosophy of scinece in my PhD work

So act like you know it!

Joe: there are other things wrong with your methodology than that, even moreso with the assumptions you make,

That would be more convincing it you could say what, let alone back it up.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: you start form the assumption that they are wong excpet for Mark.It's only wrong about it;s basic faith,

That is how hypothesis testing goes. You make a hypothesis based on some assumptions, and see how it fits the evidence. Turns out it fits very well. Better than you can do.

Joe: self aggrandizing nonsense,

That you apparently cannot refute.

Joe: I out gun you on every evident challenge you pretend it didn't happen your inviolable methodology is always right because you refuse to be realistic about your working nethod,

No you do not, because at every point all you have is ad hoc explanations. You are patently unable to form a single coherent narrative that fits the evidence. That means my scenario beats yours by default.

Joe: the ast majority of scholars don't assume that if something appears in a work it must be invited by the guy who wrote the book,especially true when we have no prior works that totally foolish to assume it must have been mentioned for the first time merely because it;s in that work when there is no other way to know if it's in any thing before.

Therefore it must be true? Is that REALLY your argument?

Joe: we know that the Gosples ere usingorak tradition os the odds are it was niosed about before the PMR in oral tradition. U;ve said this many tomes let it sink in,

Again, that does not prove the empty tomb was part of the oral tradition, or that the oral tradition was not partly invented stories.

As I keep pointing out, Koester, Crossan, Tabor and Brown are four Biblical scholars, all Christians except possibly Tabor, all cited by YOU as authorities, and all agree with me that the empty tomb was made up.

When is that going to sink in Joe?

Joe: Argument from silence, modern bible schoolwork do not based major issues upon argument from silence.

This is silence where we would expect to see something, so the silence is significant. It is not just that Paul does not mention the empty tomb, but that there is a specific point in 1 Cor 15 where we would expect him to if he had heard of it.

The most reasonable explanation for why Paul did not mention the empty tomb is that he had not heard about it; it was not part of that early creed. It was invented later.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: no one knows there's no way to tell.That means you don;t know either, you have a theory but you don't know either.

That is right, I do not know. But I have the ability to think, to speculate, to propose a narrative that is coherent and fits the evidence, and so is more likely to be true than your claims, given you cannot.

come on man smell the coffee, time after time I;ve defended my own some speculations and theories and you know it. Some of them you agreed were reasonable. Such as my theory that Matthew wrote a saying source and the continuity supplied the narrative. I was defended elder John as the author of the fourth Gospel long before I read Bauckham,

Given a choice between a coherent narrative that fits the evidence and an incoherent narrative that has gaps where the evidence should fit, I will go for the former every time. It might be wrong, but it is far more like to be right than the latter!

You just don't know shit about scholarship, maybe that works in chemistry where you can demonstrate your theories but we can't go back in time,anyone can invent a speculative hunk of bull shit it can't be proved what good is it? Anyone can back up a hunck of BS with facts and nonunion pieces from other scholars, that is not proof.

Look it this way. My hypothesis is plausible. Your is not.

Mine is "We don;t know." How is not knowing implausible? I think not knowing is what we do best.

Joe: The problem with this kind of thinking relates to the point I was making about Pericopes. Pericopes are shuffled around into different time frames because they used to fill rhetorical needs.

Utterly unrelated. If you think passages are out of order, then say that, and present the order you think the events occurred.

I just shot several holes in your theory, instead of defending it you try to make the fact that I found them seem like a weakness in my scholarship,that is totally manipulative and self serving.


The fact that the gospel authors mixed up the order IN NO WAY stops you coming up with a coherent narrative. In fact, it makes it easier, because it allows you to ignore the sequence in the gospels, at least to some degree.


you are so mixed up you don't have the slightest idea what Phelps are for fuk you asshole! you are dumping shit all over my work you are too arrant to examine it with detachment,


What stops you is the inherent inconsistencies in your beliefs. We both know that there is no coherent narrative possible from your claims.


WE don't know That's as historically curate as any scholar on the eplnaetn ters of the question here,, My essay was about how the modern church can deal with the unknown authorship of the Goosesteps, you did not even attempt to deal wit that,you imposed your own issues because you think you can answer thewhich clearly you cannot, when confronted with holes in your theory you viciously turn on the critic,


This is why you cannot say where the disciple first saw the risen Jesus. You know that if you are pinned down to one location, your other claims collapse, and so you hide behind red herrings and obfuscation.

we can;t way because we don;t know,what you really mean is Im not willing to call pretentious bullish brilliant,when you are willing to deal with my essay and the issue I wrote about and treat with common courtesy I;ll talk.


It is not coherent if you are obliged to have gaps in it! A major part of the evidence about the Passion we have today is Mark saying Jesus had gone on ahead to see the disciples in Galilee. Another part is Luke and John describing the Jerusalem appearances. Clearly your narrative fails to fit that evidence if it leaves a gaping hole at that point in the story!

Yor answer is to just take that statement at face value when I point out the flaw in ot you start attacking ,u knowledge and my abilities. Not brilliant not scholarly it's It's indulgent,If you want to post on here n future you need to tlak about my essay mot your bullshiut,

The Pixie said…
Joe: come on man smell the coffee, time after time I;ve defended my own some speculations and theories and you know it. Some of them you agreed were reasonable. Such as my theory that Matthew wrote a saying source and the continuity supplied the narrative. I was defended elder John as the author of the fourth Gospel long before I read Bauckham,

The point is that you have no coherent narrative.

Sure you have a theory about John, but how does that fit with your theory about the women finding the empty tomb? Or where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus?

Joe: You just don't know shit about scholarship, maybe that works in chemistry where you can demonstrate your theories but we can't go back in time,anyone can invent a speculative hunk of bull shit it can't be proved what good is it? Anyone can back up a hunck of BS with facts and nonunion pieces from other scholars, that is not proof.

I am not saying it is proven, I am saying it is plausible.

And further more, I am saying yours is not, because you cannot provide a coherent narrative of what actually happened.

Joe: Mine is "We don;t know." How is not knowing implausible? I think not knowing is what we do best.

So now you flip back to not speculating. Interesting how quickly you flip-flop from one to the other.

Talking of which, it is curious how certain you are that the empty tomb was real, for example, given you admission that your position is that you do not know.

When it suits you, you speculate, when it does not, you do not. When it suits you you are certain of what happened, when it does not, you do not know. It is ad hoc all the way.

I just shot several holes in your theory, instead of defending it you try to make the fact that I found them seem like a weakness in my scholarship,that is totally manipulative and self serving.

And now you are back to knowing with utter certainty! How quickly it changes.

I just shot several holes in your theory, instead of defending it you try to make the fact that I found them seem like a weakness in my scholarship,that is totally manipulative and self serving.

I have no idea what that relates to. As far as I can recall your only comment was that you believed the empty tomb was part of the original story, a claim I have most assuredly countered. Your other objections were based on not properly reading what I had posted.

Joe: you are so mixed up you don't have the slightest idea what Phelps are for fuk you asshole! you are dumping shit all over my work you are too arrant to examine it with detachment,

Nothing coherent there, I see.

Joe: WE don't know That's as historically curate as any scholar on the eplnaetn ters of the question here,,

And so we flip back to not knowing. You change your position so fast I am getting dizzy!

Joe: My essay was about how the modern church can deal with the unknown authorship of the Goosesteps, you did not even attempt to deal wit that,you imposed your own issues because you think you can answer thewhich clearly you cannot, when confronted with holes in your theory you viciously turn on the critic,

I have no idea how an essay that deals with the unknown authorship of the gospels relates to our discussion.

Joe: we can;t way because we don;t know,what you really mean is Im not willing to call pretentious bullish brilliant,when you are willing to deal with my essay and the issue I wrote about and treat with common courtesy I;ll talk.

What I really mean is that if your claims are coherent, you will be able to propose a plausible narrative of what actually happened that fits the evidence. It might be wrong, we would have no way of telling, but if it is plausible then that would confirm that your claims make sense.

That you are unable to do that confirms, to the contrary, that your claims do not make sense; that you explanations are ad hoc and inconsistent.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Yor answer is to just take that statement at face value when I point out the flaw in ot you start attacking ,u knowledge and my abilities. Not brilliant not scholarly it's It's indulgent,If you want to post on here n future you need to tlak about my essay mot your bullshiut,

Okay, I can see I have hit a raw nerve here. To me, the fact that you cannot say where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus is a huge problem for you. It highlights that at the end of the day Christianity has no actual sequence of events for that first Easter - the gospel accounts are just too divergent to allow for a coherent narrative.

As far as I can see this discussion and the one on the previous thread was just you refusing to confront that very basic issue, and throwing out one red herring after another.

You talk about scholarship, but do you honestly believe a historian writing a book about Julius Caesar's life will be happy saying he was born in Rome in 90 BC in one chapter to fit the evidence discussed there, and then say it was in Pompeii in 100 BC to fit the evidence discussed in another chapter? Such shoddy work would make him a laughing stock! Any historian worth his salt has to be able to present a coherent narrative if he is to be taken seriously.

Why should the events around the passion be any different? Oh, because you cannot do it.

Perhaps you should reflect on why you cannot do it. What that should tell you is that some of your underlying assumptions are wrong.
Joe: come on man smell the coffee, time after time I;ve defended my own some speculations and theories and you know it. Some of them you agreed were reasonable. Such as my theory that Matthew wrote a saying source and the continuity supplied the narrative. I was defended elder John as the author of the fourth Gospel long before I read Bauckham,

The point is that you have no coherent narrative.

yes I do I have. I have not tied to demonstrate that because there is no reason to. I had my own purpose in this essay I don't appreciate you subverting it.

Sure you have a theory about John, but how does that fit with your theory about the women finding the empty tomb? Or where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus?

It fits in fine but what if it didn't/ tAHT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE AND WHY WOULD IT MATTER?

Joe: You just don't know shit about scholarship, maybe that works in chemistry where you can demonstrate your theories but we can't go back in time,anyone can invent a speculative hunk of bull shit it can't be proved what good is it? Anyone can back up a hunck of BS with facts and nonunion pieces from other scholars, that is not proof.

I am not saying it is proven, I am saying it is plausible.

It's subservient the purpose of the thread.

And further more, I am saying yours is not, because you cannot provide a coherent narrative of what actually happened.

that was not the issue, that is a subvention of my essay, but I have that,

Joe: Mine is "We don;t know." How is not knowing implausible? I think not knowing is what we do best.

So now you flip back to not speculating. Interesting how quickly you flip-flop from one to the other.

just becasue I dont; speculate nowdoesntmeanIneverdo

Talking of which, it is curious how certain you are that the empty tomb was real, for example, given you admission that your position is that you do not know.

When it suits you, you speculate, when it does not, you do not. When it suits you you are certain of what happened, when it does not, you do not know. It is ad hoc all the way.

JOe"I just shot several holes in your theory, instead of defending it you try to make the fact that I found them seem like a weakness in my scholarship,that is totally manipulative and self serving.

The Pixie said...
Joe: Yor answer is to just take that statement at face value when I point out the flaw in ot you start attacking ,u knowledge and my abilities. Not brilliant not scholarly it's It's indulgent,If you want to post on here n future you need to tlak about my essay mot your bullshiut,

Okay, I can see I have hit a raw nerve here. To me, the fact that you cannot say where the disciples first saw the risen Jesus is a huge problem for you. It highlights that at the end of the day Christianity has no actual sequence of events for that first Easter - the gospel accounts are just too divergent to allow for a coherent narrative.

That is blatantly stood.clearly wear not give all the fats. None of the Gospels even tell us about Jame's sighting and Paul monitions it as the first sighting. There is a hole in the knowledge but it's there weather we like it or not pretending we can answer it when we can;t wont help.

As far as I can see this discussion and the one on the previous thread was just you refusing to confront that very basic issue, and throwing out one red herring after another.

It was never the issue you drug us into it because you could not answer the argument I had made.But in fact I did admit there is a contradiction on that point between Mark and Matt on one hand and Luke and John on the other. But that is not a significant enough problem to disrobe the faith, It does not crates contradiction the basic Jesus narrative,It;s nothing but an oddity in the development of events,

You talk about scholarship, but do you honestly believe a historian writing a book about Julius Caesar's life will be happy saying he was born in Rome in 90 BC in one chapter to fit the evidence discussed there, and then say it was in Pompeii in 100 BC to fit the evidence discussed in another chapter? Such shoddy work would make him a laughing stock! Any historian worth his salt has to be able to present a coherent narrative if he is to be taken seriously.

two birthplaces for the key figure is not analogs to not knowing where the group first saw the risen Christ. You still have not explained why both groups could not see him on the day, Jesus is supernatural you know,

Why should the events around the passion be any different? Oh, because you cannot do it.

because the key event is a miracle?

Perhaps you should reflect on why you cannot do it. What that should tell you is that some of your underlying assumptions are wrong.

I have done it, to the best pf our abilities given the scant evidence.
question what difference would it make if they saw him first in Galilee or in Jerusalem?

whichever it was we know all concerned admit he was risen, what's the difference?
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes I do I have.

I do not believe that for a moment, given the way you have so desperate dodged giving it.

I have not tied to demonstrate that because there is no reason to. I had my own purpose in this essay I don't appreciate you subverting it.

Okay, if you see this as off-topic, I will drop it.

I thought this thread was in response to the discussion on the other thread, so it was reasonable to discuss here. The point about communities - as far as I was concerned - was the idea that one community could know about the trip to Galilee, the other the sightings in Jerusalem. I did not dispute the community as author idea, I disputed the idea that they could be so isolated.

I think by now it is clear that this was another ad hoc explanation, and that you have no single coherent idea of what actually happened (no wonder you want to declare the discussion to be off-topic).

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: yes I do I have.

I do not believe that for a moment, given the way you have so desperate dodged giving it.

Because it;s moving us away from what I wanted to talk about. It also BS because what if I don't have a scenario of what I think happens,so what? what difference does that make? that is not a prerequisite for being an historian,

Joe:I have not tried to demonstrate that because there is no reason to. I had my own purpose in this essay I don't appreciate you subverting it.

Okay, if you see this as off-topic, I will drop it.

I thought this thread was in response to the discussion on the other thread, so it was reasonable to discuss here. The point about communities - as far as I was concerned - was the idea that one community could know about the trip to Galilee, the other the sightings in Jerusalem. I did not dispute the community as author idea, I disputed the idea that they could be so isolated.

you seem cognizant of the possibility that both groups had sightings

I think by now it is clear that this was another ad hoc explanation, and that you have no single coherent idea of what actually happened (no wonder you want to declare the discussion to be off-topic).

since we don't have definitive evidence we are stuck with ad hoc and no single coherent understanding, except that the community as a whole contained people who saw the risen Christ.
Anonymous said…
You lost the debate, Sloppy Joe.
anyone can make up a pile of bullshit and line it with a few facts and pretend. you lost the debate badly. You have no argument.

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