CADRE Comments

PART 8: LIKE ONE UNTIMELY BORN Starting from back here , I've been arguing that Mark (the GosMark author) didn't invent the tomb of Jesus Christ or even the emptiness of the tomb: the hypothesis doesn't fit the actual facts of the textual characteristics, and the implications of those textual characteristics, and so I would regard that theory as historically impossible (even though not metaphysically impossible) even if I was an atheist. But as tomb sceptics are well aware, the only earliest texts that mention a tomb are the four canonical Gospels -- and Acts, which people are sometimes less aware of, since the tomb and its emptiness are only mentioned by heavy implication once (in Simon Peter's first sermon) and only mentioned once explicitly in the first main report of a sermon from Paul of Tarsus. Some sceptics, not only Jesus Myth proponents (though naturally them, too), like to appeal to an argument from silence in the epistles (and RevJohn) about the tomb, ...

PART 7: DISAPPEARING ACTS OF THE TOMB Part 1 of this series is way back here. Recently I've been looking at curious problems surrounding the empty tomb narratives in the Gospels and how they point away , in one or two categories I think quite decisively, from GosMark's having invented the empty tomb. But enough about the Gospel accounts. How about some disappearing Acts? No, not the Ascension account in Acts. I'm talking about the tomb! 7.) The canonical book of Acts is quite notable, not only for having some seriously primitive(-seeming) language in talking about the risen Jesus, but in a lack of detail during reported preaching about the empty tomb. And by a lack of detail, I mean almost no mention of the tomb at all! To begin with, it's important to notice, and to keep in mind, that regardless of whether Acts and GosLuke were written by the same guy, and regardless of any redactional theories of Acts' composition; whoever put Acts together in its fina...

PART 6: SPECIAL AUTHORITATIVE SNOWFLAKES SHATTERING ON A TOMB In recent parts of this series (which starts back here) , I've been looking at how various subtle problems around the empty tomb in the Gospel narratives, just don't mesh well with the idea that GosMark's author invented the empty tomb. I've passed by the topic of today's entry a couple of times already, but now I'm going to focus a squinty eye on it more closely. (If I sound not that reverent to some parts of the topic, that's because per Part 1 I'm talking about why I would think GosMark's author did not invent the empty tomb even if I was an atheist.) 6.) The canonicals, including GosMark, jump through hoops to make the blundering apostles relevant authorities to their readers, especially thanks to being eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus who posthumously reaffirms their authority, gives them spiritual power, etc. But in none of the accounts, including GosMark, and even including t...

PART 5: OBLIVION-GUSHING DOES NOT HELP We've been doing this a while, starting back here at Part 1. Currently I'm looking at a number of problems that tend to cluster around the Gospel tomb accounts, and how their existence as problems doesn't follow cleanly from the proposal that GosMark's author simply invented the tomb (or even its emptiness). In the previous Part, that problem was women being the first witnesses to the tomb, in the sense of them being women at all. But there are more subtle problems associated with those women: 4.) GosMark's invention of the tomb, and so of the women being at the tomb (or even his invention of the women, too), does not fit the embarrassing GosLuke material of the apostles deriding the women's report as "oblivion-gush". Peter is a partial exception in GosLuke; but the brief verse about him rushing out to check the tomb is late (and meant to clarify something in the Emmaus story itself about people, plural...

PART 4: LOVE A TOMB At this point rather than providing a summary, it's probably better to just start back at Part 1 with the introduction of the question, or Part 2 with the first decisive reason why I answer, "Nope, I don't think it's possible that GosMark's author did invent the empty tomb," and why I would argue that even if I was an atheist. But in Part 3 , I ended by pointing out that even though the tomb story was clearly accepted by Christian groups broadly without any known early competition against it and without any evident problems in itself, tomb stories did still tend to come with associated problems. And those associated problems, I'll be arguing, add to the evaluation. One such problem, mentioned back in Part 1, is that, whenever GosMatt was written, at least some Jewish opponents were appealing to a very early accusation, with authoritative force, of disciples having stolen the body; an explanation that, despite its own associate...

PART 3: A FLOCK OF TOMBS In Part 1 , I introduced the question of whether it's possible the GosMark author invented the empty tomb; and in Part 2 I referred back to a detailed analysis of options, concerning a remnant of Christian vs Jewish polemic in GosMatt, that answers a decisive and sepulchral "NO!" But that evidence doesn't stand alone, out on the edge of a pond in the mist. There's a substantial amount of unquiet quacking going on around the pond! Thus we come to: 2.) At no point in any layer of early tradition is there any alternative proposed to an empty tomb. That includes Paul, who is at worst only neutral on the topic of how Jesus was buried. Where the topic isn't neutral, though, the tomb is the only option in view. This might not seem like a major piece of evidence; and I admit it usually isn't treated as such. As I said in Part 1, my list is topical in order, not in order of importance; and so I acknowledge this isn't anywhere...

PART 2: IF IT WADDLES LIKE A TOMB AND IT QUACKS LIKE A TOMB... In Part 1 , I introduced the question, "Is it possible that the author of GosMark invented the empty tomb?" After circling the question to get a bead on it, I said I would be answering with a (sepulchral) "NO!" -- and that I would still answer this, even if I was an atheist or some other relevantly similar non-Christian. But I didn't start giving any reasons yet for why I myself would answer that way regardless of my religious beliefs or lack of them. So where will I actually start? Where I said I had already started as a procedural test, several years ago: 1.) After a ridiculously exhaustive multi-part analysis of various hypothetical options , starting from extreme scepticism about the source material (as in, everything is totally being made up by the author), I concluded that the only historically plausible theory explaining the resulting polemic exchange concerning the tomb guards in G...

PART 1: A SEPULCHRAL NO GosMark's author sheerly invented the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth! {/clickbait} This has long been an article of faith for fringe sceptical theories; the most recent wave of which was kicked off back in the 90s by Burton Mack popularizing the theory during the heydey of the Jesus Seminar. Ideas that Mark invented the empty tomb tend to be associated with developmental theories of John Dominic Crossan as well, although he actually argues (somewhat notoriously in how he goes about it and what he tries to make of it) that someone else invented the empty tomb tradition much earlier than Mark did! (For sake of expediency I'm using "Mark" as a shorthand for "the author", without intending an assumption of author identity. More on this qualification soon.) JDC essentially argues that Mark borrowed written material, much later also found in GosPeter. The actual argument for pre-Markan written tomb material (even from Cross...

So! -- this is an oldie, but... ..... .... uh... well... it's an oldie... where I come from.... (Originally posted on Themestream long, long ago in the early days of internet blogging. Recalled for purposes of contributing to a Facebook post about a similar satire in these modern days. I actually did have the dream as a dream, but with somewhat less detail. No doubt inspired by Gregory Boyd's Cynic Sage or Son of God , which I had been dictating to tape at the time.) I had a dream one night, that put me in one of those stressful situations which although highly improbable is still possible enough to be frightening. In this case, I found myself on a floodlit indoor lecturing stage at a small wooden desk with a microphone. This was to my left; on the other side of the stage, at a desk similar to mine, sat another man who looked very annoyed to be wasting his time there. Between us, set forward closer to the stage edge, stood a podium, also with microphone, and a transpare...

A helpful, concise discussion about determining the genre of literary works is A Preface to Mark , by Christopher Bryan. Genre is, of course, an important first step in properly understanding the purpose and meaning of any ancient document. The strength of Bryan’s discussion about determining genre is the concise two points he makes about the nature of genre and his use of contemporary as well as classical examples. First, “genre involves a cluster of elements. So striking are these elements that we can entirely understand why one might be tempted to regard them as ‘rules.’ Yet they are not precisely ‘rules,’ for they need not all be present in one example. The genre of a particular work is established by the presence of enough generic motifs in sufficient force to dominate.” A Preface to Mark , page 13. Second, “a work of one genre may contain motifs from another. This means that in establishing genre we need to identify the dominant cluster of motifs: just one or two will not ...

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21: A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross. First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John). As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus. Luke 23:26. As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. Matt 27:32. Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.” It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some...