The Historicity of The Women at The Tomb
Baciccico's "Women at the Tomb" (D 1709)
The women at the empty tomb who were the first to preach the Gospel strike an important blow for women in the church, yet they are written off as made up, fictional, the product of folk lore, by the major and most accomplished scholars working under the assumptions of the from critical school. Form criticism is a philosophy and methodology of Biblical criticism, "Criticism" in relation to the Bible does not mean talking about how bad the Bible is (too long and hard to understand) but refers to a means of analysis in a systematic sense. Form criticism seeks to analyze the historical development of the New Testament by understanding the forms in which the writing developed. The major scholars of that school were Rudolph Bultmann (1584-1976) and Martin Franz Dibelius (1883-1947). The from critics understood the Gospels as folk lore, their major paradigm for this view was the collection of German folk songs which were popular for intellectuals and poets in the 19th century.
The other thing that is well worth considering is that the form critics at the beginning of the 20th century were working with probably the best models of oral tradition that were around at the time. But we now know a great deal more about oral tradition. They were reliant, mostly, on the way that folk tales were transmitted in European history. And of course, these are the kind of things that were passed down over centuries. It's a very different process, really, from the transmission of gospel traditions over a few decades in the New Testament period. Folk tales were also, by definition, fictional material, and people who passed on fictional material were often interested in creative development of it. They didn't feel bound to transmit material accurately. But we now know far more about oral tradition. We have studies of oral tradition from all societies all over the world, Africa and parts of Asia, and so forth, lots of data about how oral traditions work. And one of things we can say is… Actually, there is very little we can say about oral tradition in general.[1]
My task here is to rehabilitate the historicity of the women of the empty tomb,who are maligned by critical ideology.
Form criticism assumes that there were no authors there were no historical individuals and of course don't even think about an eye witness. It's all made up out of whole cloth by the anonymous folk. This kind of criticism is still dominant and although most of it's founding assumptions have been put to bed modern liberal scholarship is loath to let go. They still make the tired old assumptions that the church fathers are not even worth reading.They assume no authors and no eye witnesses. These assumptions have been ably challenged by believing scholars such as Mark Goodacher, N.T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham. The latter has made the greatest contribution in my view, with his great ground breaking work Jesus and the Eye Witnesses.[2]
Before moving on I want to clearly delineate the difference in my argument about community as author [3] vs form critical assumptions. Form critics speak of community as author in the sense that there are no individual authors and the myths spread like wildfire by means of folklore. When I use the term I mean there is no one single author but I do not exclude individuals who initiate the work yet the community is the author to the extend that it is a production of the redaction process and oral tradition but not to exclude either eye witnesses or a single initiating author. For example I believe that (based upon Papias) a redaction process combined Mathew's saying source with a narrative framework, to produce the Gospel of Matthew.
I have three arguments for historicity of the women:
(1) The Web of historicity.
(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN)
(3) The counter productive nature of female witness.
(1) The Web of historicity: The characters of the Gospels are always assumed to be historical and many of them are tied to historical figures. There are no folkloric characters, This is the amazing challenge Bauckham has brought with his great book.[4] In seminary I had a female professor who had the reputation of always flunking men and believers, (I got an "A" out of her by disagreeing with her). One day she made the Statement that no sub apostolic writer ever claimed to have known the apostles. After class I told her Irenaeus of Lyons talks about how Polycarp used to tell him about knowing John. She looked dumbfounded like she could barely grasp It. It made no difference in her teaching the rest of the term. These are dogmatic assumptions that have no basis in actual fact. For a rousing defense of historicity of John, and other figures in the Gospels see my debate with Bradley Bowen of Secular Outpost Blog [5]
The women could not have achieved lasting fame outside the Gospels, but the fact that they gave her a name and a geography (of Magdalah) means the character must have been based upon an actual person. Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?,The woman at the well may have been hypothetical but MM was not. The reality is the Gospels deal in historical people not folklore. Bauckham's method see the designations of the women (all the figures from the Gospels) as code to the reader as to who was being discussed so the communities knew who the witnesses were. In so doing he's tagging specific women as witnesses to the tomb but not just any women, specific one;s to the exclusion of others,Meaning it is a historically definable reality with real flesh and blood people.
Luke, who names the women only at the end of his account of their visit to the tomb, lists, besides the indispensable Mary Magdalene, Joanna, who is peculiar to his Gospel and already introduced at Luke 8:3, and the other Mary. His reference to Joanna surely indicates the distinctive source of his distinctive empty tomb story.1 Like Matthew he omits Mark's Salome, but he does not simply reproduce the list of women followers of Jesus he had employed earlier in chapter 8 of his Gospel. Mary Magdalene and Joanna he knew to be witnesses of the empty tomb, but Susanna, the third name in his earlier list, he evidently did not. If, as I have suggested and allowing for the evangelists' freedom as storytellers, the stories of the women are substantially as the women themselves told them, then we must regard the differences between the stories as irreducible. We cannot go behind them to a supposedly original version. Nor can we dispense with the angels and reconstruct a less mythologically laden event. These are the stories as doubtless different women told them. They are different performances of the oral traditions, and their differences are such as would have been expected and unproblematic in performances of oral tradition, no greater and no more problematic than those between the three narratives of Paul's conversion that all occur in Acts.[6]It makes sense, consider if the story was entirely fiction we could reduce it by deconstruction to an original narrative, Being the result of several different perspectives that observed some actual event we cannot combine them to make a coherent event because it is based upon these perspectives,Now we can theorize as to the actual events but we can't get at it by reducing the eye witness accounts, they are not working from a single unified narrative but form their experiences.They contradict each other because they have different perspectives,
(2) The Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) is the earliest writing of the Gospel and it includes the women.For an understanding of the PMPN see two essays Iv'e written in the past [7][8].
"That Mark was Using and Relied upon a pre Markan Passion story is one that is widely accepted by most scholars today, and because it goes back so early it is probably based upon eye witness Testimony."[9] The Gospel of Peter (GPete--an apocryphal work--we don't want to use this as a guide to doctrine but it is an historical artifact). Early readings preserved in the GPete illustrate that even tough the Gospel in the form in which we have it is late, (second century), it drew upon a very early independent source, Ray Brown showed that the Passion narrative in GPete drew upon this early source that was not dependent upon Matthew or Mark. MM is in it and I will presently give argument that she is from the earliest strata.[10]
(3) The counter productive nature of female witness. Women in both Greek and Hebrew culture were regarded as appendages to men. Not so much true in Asia Minor where Paul grew up but very much the case in Corinth and in Jerusalem. In Hebrew law women could not be considered valid witnesses in court, the testimony of one man outweighed that of two women.[11] If they are making it up anyway why use women? For that matter why allow it to even be known that women saw him? That can be answered: they were the witnesses and in that situation where they needed everyone they could get, owing to the special nature of the case, they could not afford to be picky.
Bart Erhman tries to invent supposedly logical and creative reasons why they would invent women. He argues: first that they were not in court, Secondly, "Well, for openers, maybe women would. We have good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in the early Christian communities. We know from the letters of Paul – from passages such as Romans 16 – that women played crucial leadership roles in the churches: ministering as deacons, leading the services in their homes, engaging in missionary activities."[12] The court rule reflected the culture so saying they are not in court is lame, they are in the culture. The argument that women would make them up is irrelevant because the women would not be inventing a Gospel. The community would not accept it, the women as witnesses went to Peter to get him to come and look he validated their claim, Why invent fictional women then validate their claim? He is making form critical assumptions--seeing it as folklore. Yet by acknowledging their critical role in the community he's giving us a reason to assume that real women were involved.
He Then argues: "Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty."[13] That's a better reason to think real women would have been involved because it does not outweigh the liability of female witness. All the reasons he presents are like this they all work was reasons to think women would have been involved and they do not outweigh the liability. Ehrman himself is aware of this: "Again, I’m not saying that I think Mark invented the story. But if we can imagine very easily a reason for Mark to have invented it, it is no leap at all to think that one or more of his predecessors may also have had reasons for doing so. "[14]He never actually gives a reason that outweighs the problem. Sure they would have a reason for introducting women but as long as they are making it up they would invent a reason to have a man there too.
There are two basic counter arguments with which I will deal:
(1) It's in Mark
(2) Paul Does not mention them.
It's in Mark: There are atheists I know who seem to imply Mark has to be the first and so being in Mark must mean the author of Mark invented it. Of course this is based upon form critical assumptions, but we can put more fiber into the argument. The argumet is based upon the gradual increase in complexity from Mark through Matt and Luke to John. For example the men in white are men in Mark but by Luke they are a bad of angels. In Mark the women are afraid and run off and and tell no one. In Luke they are given a message of hope and go off joyously. That progression of development in the narrative is true but it doesn't prove it's made up or the women didn't exist. I've seen this on message boards.
As indicated above Mary M. is in the earliest strata, She is in the pre Mark redaction. Mark could not invent her. We can see from the readings that that they are early, In the Gospel of Peter it says: "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."[14]
Mark 16"[1] When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." (ESV)
Matthew: 28, "Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. "(ESV)
Luke 24 "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.." (NIV) "10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles."
John 20 "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.."(NIV)
First, The Peter passage feels the necessity of explaining who Mary M. was. ("Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord "). None of the others do this, why? Because they are all written 60 plus year after the events and for people who grew up hearing about it, Mary . was well known in Christian community, But if this passage in Peter was written just a few years after they might feel she needed an introduction.Secondly, GPete takes lengths to describe preparing the body and mourning rituals (flagellation). None of the others mention the latter and only Mark and Luke mention the spices, Everyone knew 60 years latter why the women went no need to make a big thing of it,Thirdly, the mention of fear and the Jewish anger, strangely absent from the canonical other than Mark. That is something that might be mentioned when the events are recent and emotion fresh in the mind, but 60 years latter no one reading it had experienced that fear no point.
(2) Paul Does not mention them.
Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses. He's writing to a Greek audience and it would be read by Judaizers and James church people.He does it the way a Rabbi does things. It might also be that Paul wasn't told abouit them. He got his information from people not from books, he could not google the resurrection. He must have discussed those events with James and with Peter but would either have gone to great pains to tell him of the women?
The historicity or lack thereof of the women of the tomb is neither support for nor argument against the historical nature of the narrative at large, because it derives from the narrative at large,, The assumptions we make about the women determine how we see their historicity, Yet I think there is a sense of support for the reliability of the text that derives from knowing there are good arguments for the historical nature of the women.
Sources
[1] Richard Bauckham, "A Croquette of From Criticism of The Gospels." Third Millennium Ministries, website, no date listed.
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/43180
(accessed 2/2/18)
these guys have video to down load
Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge; F.B.A.; F.R.S.E) is a widely published scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament.
[2]____________. Jesus and The Eye Witnesses: The Gospel as Eye Witness Testimony. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wb. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Second Edition, 2017/2006. no page indicated.
[3] Joseph Hinman, "Community as Author part 1," The Religious a priori. website no date listed.
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/community-as-author-part-1.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
part 2
part 3
[4]Richard Bauckham, Jesus and The Eye Witnesses:... op. cit, chapter 1 "From Historical Jessu to Jesus of Testimony,: 2 "what Papias says about eye witnesses: 1-12, 13-30.
[5] Joseph Hinman,"Hinman Bowen Debate," The religious A priori, website, No date, originally published on CADRE Comment's blog, Agust 2,2016.
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/hinman-i-enjoying-its-fun-i-hope-fun.html
[6]Richard Bauckham,"The Women at the Tomb:the Credibility of their Story,"pdf, The Laing Lecture at London Bible College,no date
http://richardbauckham.co.uk/uploads/Accessible/The%20Women%20&%20the%20Resurrection.pdf
(accessed 2/2/18)
[7]Joseph Hinman, "Gospel Behind the Gospels, part 2," Religious a priori. website, no date
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/gospel-behind-gospel-part-2.html
(accessed 2/2/18)
[8] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017)
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2017/04/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
(access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Defending the Resurrection
[9]James Bishop, "Jesus in The Pre Mark Passion Narrative," James Bishop's Theologoical Rationalism:Where reason and Evidence meet faith (June 13, 2015)
https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/06/13/jesus-in-the-pre-markan-passion-narrative/
(accessed 2/2/18)
[10] Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave, A commentary on the Passion narratives in the Four Gospels. Volume 2. New York: Dobuleday 1994 1322
[11]Bart Ehrman, "The Women AT the Tomb." The Bart Ehrman Blog. no date (first coment April 4, 2014).
https://ehrmanblog.org/women-at-the-tomb/
(accessed 2/2/18)
[13]Ibid
[14]Ibid
Comments
I find that quite believable, but I wonder how that fits with Q, which is generally thought to be written in Greek, while Matthew's work was in Hebrew, according to Papias. Do you think they are two different documents, or was Q a later reworking of Matthew's text, which then got used by the authors of Luke and Matthew?
Joe: ... the character must have been based upon an actual person.
Agreed.
Joe: Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?
For exactly that reason. Mark is the earliest version we have, so presumably most closely resembles the original story. In that story the women find the empty tomb, but are too afraid to tell anyone about. In a very real sense they failed to accomplish what was demanded of them - telling the disciples and Peter.
6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Joe: They contradict each other because they have different perspectives,
Most modern scholars say Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, not on different witness accounts. They are called the synoptics specifically because they are NOT different perspectives.
Joe: Ray Brown showed that the Passion narrative in GPete drew upon this early source that was not dependent upon Matthew or Mark.
Brown's view, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is that the author of Peter was using the other gospels as his source, but was working from memory.
Joe: In Hebrew law women could not be considered valid witnesses in court, the testimony of one man outweighed that of two women.[11] If they are making it up anyway why use women? For that matter why allow it to even be known that women saw him?
Specifically because the women failed as witnesses, and supposedly saw the event but failed to tell anyone.
First Century Christian: There was an Empty Tomb, so of course Jesus was resurrected.
First Century Sceptic: How come I never heard anything about that at the time?
First Century Christian: Because... er... because it was seen by women, and they did not say anything.
Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.
Paul does not mention the women because the whole Empty Tomb thing had still to be invented. The fact thart he does not mention the Empty Topmb is a far bigger problem for Christianity.
Joe: Yet I think there is a sense of support for the reliability of the text that derives from knowing there are good arguments for the historical nature of the women.
But all you have argued is that they were in the pre-Markan passion narrative, not that it actually happened - and even that argument is far from conclusive.
I find that quite believable, but I wonder how that fits with Q, which is generally thought to be written in Greek, while Matthew's work was in Hebrew, according to Papias. Do you think they are two different documents, or was Q a later reworking of Matthew's text, which then got used by the authors of Luke and Matthew?
Q is a source Matt used, but that is the final version of matt. In my view the "Apostle" wrote the saying source it was combined with the narrative OS Q might have been put in to that mix.
Joe: ... the character must have been based upon an actual person.
Agreed.
Yea!
Joe: Not that authors can't make up characters but why make up a female character in a patriarchal society where women can't accomplish things why bother?
For exactly that reason. Mark is the earliest version we have, so presumably most closely resembles the original story. In that story the women find the empty tomb, but are too afraid to tell anyone about. In a very real sense they failed to accomplish what was demanded of them - telling the disciples and Peter.
We know there as a pre mark redaction so he was not the earliest. Being earliest does not preclude true story
6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Joe: They contradict each other because they have different perspectives,
Most modern scholars say Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, not on different witness accounts. They are called the synoptics specifically because they are NOT different perspectives.
Wrong! they say they both use Mark not that they both reproduce Mark. They use him different ways because each adds new material not in the other Matt has M and Luke has L.
Brown's view, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is that the author of Peter was using the other gospels as his source, but was working from memory.
That is wrong,I set you straight every time you told this distorted notion, he does not say let's put this in canon this is the way was, he speculates that might have been the case, it does not change fact that he says there was a pre Mark redaction, get it stairght learn the turth,
Joe: In Hebrew law women could not be considered valid witnesses in court, the testimony of one man outweighed that of two women.[11] If they are making it up anyway why use women? For that matter why allow it to even be known that women saw him?
Specifically because the women failed as witnesses, and supposedly saw the event but failed to tell anyone.
"the Women" don;t tell anyone in John that is matched, Mary Magdalene does,she departed from the others riht away,she did not go in the tomb with them.
First Century Christian: There was an Empty Tomb, so of course Jesus was resurrected.
First Century Sceptic: How come I never heard anything about that at the time?
First Century Christian: Because... er... because it was seen by women, and they did not say anything.
there is no basis for saying they didn't hear of it. WE have archaeological proof they venerated the tomb in first century, Corbo found the temple of Venus and the shirne of Jupiter the tomb sight so we know the Romans marked it. they put those there to destroy the Christian sight, the christians used that to mark the sight,
Joe: Paul doesn't mention the women (1 Cor 15:5-7) because women were not considered valid witnesses.
Paul does not mention the women because the whole Empty Tomb thing had still to be invented. The fact thart he does not mention the Empty Topmb is a far bigger problem for Christianity.
You have no basis for that assertion you are just making contrary bs, why invent women when it will make them look stood and detour converts, you don't have an answer to that.
Joe: Yet I think there is a sense of support for the reliability of the text that derives from knowing there are good arguments for the historical nature of the women.
But all you have argued is that they were in the pre-Markan passion narrative, not that it actually happened - and even that argument is far from conclusive.
No I have given evidence that these women were real haircloth people, they joined the early communities and people could ask them did you really see the empty tomb ? they would say yes. why else would anyone join
The assumption is that since Mark was written first and it does not mention the guards, than Matthew added the point about the guards for apologetical purses, to answer the argument of the Jews that the disciples stole the body.
B. Matt is only Canonical Gospel to mention Guards, but Gospel of Peter also mentions them.
The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.
C. GPet follows OT for Passion Narrative and Res.
1) Use of OT passages for Passion narrative.
Gospel of Peter (GPet) follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather following Matthew. Jurgden Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Borwn, and the very popular Charles Dominik Corssan also agree (Koster, 218).
It is upon this basis that Crossan constructs his "cross Gospel" which he dates in the middle of the first century, meaning, an independent source upon which all the canonical and GPet draw. But the independence of GPet from all of these sources is also guaranteed by it's failure to follow any one of them.
2) GPet does not follow any of the canonical, but is in general agreement with them.
Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
Quote:GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1322]
As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:
Quote:"In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt." [Brown, 1325]
"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287
Nevertheless Mark is the earliest version we have.
Joe: Wrong! they say they both use Mark not that they both reproduce Mark. They use him different ways because each adds new material not in the other Matt has M and Luke has L.
But the passion narrative does come from Mark, a single perspective.
Joe: "the Women" don;t tell anyone in John that is matched, Mary Magdalene does,she departed from the others riht away,she did not go in the tomb with them.
You are just making stuff up. Mark gives no indication they split up at all, and states none of them said anything.
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
Matthew and Luke again give no indication they split up, but have them all immediately tell the disciples.
Matthew 28:8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them [b]and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
John only has Mary Magdalene, and has her tell the disciples straight away.
John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
Joe: there is no basis for saying they didn't hear of it.
The absence of an Empty Tomb is 1 Cor 15 is a very good basis for that.
Joe: WE have archaeological proof they venerated the tomb in first century, Corbo found the temple of Venus and the shirne of Jupiter the tomb sight so we know the Romans marked it. they put those there to destroy the Christian sight, the christians used that to mark the sight,
That is a long way from proof.
Joe: You have no basis for that assertion you are just making contrary bs, why invent women when it will make them look stood and detour converts, you don't have an answer to that.
The only credible reason for Paul omitting the Empty Tomb is that he was not aware of it, given he did mention the burial.
As I said previously, the later invention used women specifically because they are not credible witnesses, and so could believably not say a word to anyone, as the original story had it in Mark.
If you read Acts and the Pauline epistles you will see that what they used to convert potential Christians was the Old Testament. I think Acts has a single instance of the disciples saying they say the resurrected Jesus, but besides that it is all quotes from scripture.
Joe: No I have given evidence that these women were real haircloth people, they joined the early communities and people could ask them did you really see the empty tomb ? they would say yes. why else would anyone join
Or the guy who made it up used them because they were dead by then. Again, nothing in Acts leads us to suppose the Empty Tomb was discussed or used as an apologetics tool by the early church.
Quote:GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1322]
Brown then goes on to say that the author was not "studying Matthew carefully", but instead was repeating it from memory, more specifically from passages read out of order during services.
This has been pointed out before. I am not alone in thinking this:
"In The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown maintains that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical gospels by oral remembrance of the gospels spoken in churches."
From here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html
And here:
https://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0100_gospel_peter.html
"Brown (The Death of the Messiah) even suggests that the author's source in the canonical gospels was transmitted orally, through readings in the churches, i.e. that the text is based on what the author remembers about the other gospels, together with his own embellishments."
From here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
"Thus, he prtomotes the idea of the "oral dependency" of GP on the canonical works."
From here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1qHKGmydMnMC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22gospel+of+peter%22+brown&source=bl&ots=ARNUiQlyOX&sig=ACfU3U3kzBKuQY_2fw9KAPHOtQhSPc7ScQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBqLSrkL_lAhVRVRUIHZ6HDkA4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22gospel%20of%20peter%22%20brown&f=false
Joe: We know there as a pre mark redaction so he was not the earliest. Being earliest does not preclude true story
Nevertheless Mark is the earliest version we have.
that does not mean any of the story originated with Mark
Joe: Wrong! they say they both use Mark not that they both reproduce Mark. They use him different ways because each adds new material not in the other Matt has M and Luke has L.
But the passion narrative does come from Mark, a single perspective.
NO! Absolutely not! think about the terms: "pre Mark PASSION NARRATIVE" that means the passion narrative before Mark!
Joe: "the Women" don;t tell anyone in John that is matched, Mary Magdalene does,she departed from the others right away,she did not go in the tomb with them.
PX:You are just making stuff up. Mark gives no indication they split up at all, and states none of them said anything.
I am going by John, Mary comes to the declines by herself saying:we don't know where they laid him." Indicating she was with the others and left them. Mark gives no indication WE don't have his full account. We lost the ending, If we had it he might give an accounting of that.
Gpet has an earlier tradition than Mark in it. It i derived from he pre Mark redaction
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
they don't include Mary obviously they did say something because know about them.
Matthew and Luke again give no indication they split up, but have them all immediately tell the disciples.
Yes they do I have a whole page defending it.
Matthew 28:8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them [b]and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
read the previous link I have whole page explaining my argument,
Luke 24:8 And they remembered His words, 9 and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.
Obviously a general summary by someone who wan;t there there. he's not trying to account for every little detail.
John only has Mary Magdalene, and has her tell the disciples straight away.
reasons based in Matthew and Gepet. read the link above.It's complex
John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”
he's not concerned with the other women because they are not in his community he knew and lived with and cared for Mary Magellanic so that's who he talks about, he;s not a 20th century writer he;s not writing a documentary hes not a historian
The absence of an Empty Tomb is 1 Cor 15 is a very good basis for that.
not it;snot. he writing to people totally removed from that era they were on a different continent and they did not value a woman;s testimony.
Joe: WE have archaeological proof they venerated the tomb in first century, Corbo found the temple of Venus and the shirne of Jupiter the tomb sight so we know the Romans marked it. they put those there to destroy the Christian sight, the christians used that to mark the sight,
That is a long way from proof.
It is direct proof. that proves it completely. It proves they had the tory of ttomin first century, are you afraid you are going to hell? you need to reaeetacork;sblog today,
Joe: You have no basis for that assertion you are just making contrary bs, why invent women when it will make them look stood and detour converts, you don't have an answer to that.
The only credible reason for Paul omitting the Empty Tomb is that he was not aware of it, given he did mention the burial.
that's Bull shit, The tomb as a rhetorical device may not have evolved that doesn;t mean they have no tomb. Koester dates it ad 50 for PMR
As I said previously, the later invention used women specifically because they are not credible witnesses, and so could believably not say a word to anyone, as the original story had it in Mark.
your explanation assumes he had a text he had to sell then the writting had to fit the fact to the text,but he is supposed to in your view the author he wouldnt need to have women in it if there were no women, that does not explain why he make up women when they are not credible witnesses.
If you read Acts and the Pauline epistles you will see that what they used to convert potential Christians was the Old Testament. I think Acts has a single instance of the disciples saying they say the resurrected Jesus, but besides that it is all quotes from scripture.
they relate to OT to show fulfillment of prophesy not to make up fiction
Joe: No I have given evidence that these women were real historical people, they joined the early communities and people could ask them did you really see the empty tomb ? they would say yes. why else would anyone join
Or the guy who made it up used them because they were dead by then. Again, nothing in Acts leads us to suppose the Empty Tomb was discussed or used as an apologetics tool by the early church.
he made up people who were dead? that understanding is comical. no way anyone could just make up such a story and impose it on a community with no witnesses to back it up.
10/28/2019 07:12:00 AM
Joe: Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
Quote:GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1322]
Brown then goes on to say that the author was not "studying Matthew carefully", but instead was repeating it from memory, more specifically from passages read out of order during services.
that has nothing to do with my argumemt man! My argument says Gpet is not dependent upon matt. What Gpet does with Matt is irrelevant,that does not change the fact he also uses another source in addition to Matt another eatery source,the pre mark redaction
This has been pointed out before. I am not alone in thinking this:
"In The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown maintains that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical gospels by oral remembrance of the gospels spoken in churches."
that pertain sto his use of Matt, which does not negate his his use of the espalier source.
From here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html
And here:
https://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0100_gospel_peter.html
"Brown (The Death of the Messiah) even suggests that the author's source in the canonical gospels was transmitted orally, through readings in the churches, i.e. that the text is based on what the author remembers about the other gospels, together with his own embellishments."
Nothing there prevents him using Pre mark redactiom
once aasm herehe says Gpet used anothersource bedies Matt:"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287
10/28/2019 05:37:00 AM
From here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
"Thus, he prtomotes the idea of the "oral dependency" of GP on the canonical works."
From here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1qHKGmydMnMC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22gospel+of+peter%22+brown&source=bl&ots=ARNUiQlyOX&sig=ACfU3U3kzBKuQY_2fw9KAPHOtQhSPc7ScQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBqLSrkL_lAhVRVRUIHZ6HDkA4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22gospel%20of%20peter%22%20brown&f=false
You really do not understand, you think that quotes back your position it does not. It proves what I said Gpet is not dependnet on the NT gospels it is based upon earilier tradition
And I never said that was the case.
Joe: NO! Absolutely not! think about the terms: "pre Mark PASSION NARRATIVE" that means the passion narrative before Mark!
Nevertheless, the authors of Luke and Matthew got it from Mark, so whatever Mark's source, that was a single perspective.
Joe: I am going by John, Mary comes to the declines by herself saying:we don't know where they laid him." Indicating she was with the others and left them. Mark gives no indication WE don't have his full account. We lost the ending, If we had it he might give an accounting of that.
What you are doing is picking-and-choosing the details you want, and ignoring those that are inconvenient.
What we do have of Mark is clear the women acted as a group, telling no one. Talk us through the perspective here. Whose perspective is this, and why did he or she not mention the group splintering and why did he or she say the women told no one?
Whose perspective is in Matthew, and why did he or she not mention the group splintering and why did he or she say the women immediately told the disciples?
If John is right, then Mary Magdalene was the ONLY woman there. Whose perspective is this? Why did he or she not even mention the other women?
Why do NONE OF THEM mention the women splitting into two groups?
they don't include Mary obviously they did say something because know about them.
The passage indicates ALL the women. Or do we get to insert anything into the passage if it makes a good story? Perhaps we can insert space aliens coming down and bringing Jesus back to life? Is that okay?
Joe: Yes they do I have a whole page defending it.
No they do not.
And your page that supposedly defends Matthew and Luke saying the women split up has only one quote from both gospels, "And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb...", which certainly gives no suggestion they split up.
You have decided the women split up, and are then doing all you can to force each narrative to conform to your hypothesis, regardless of how much you need to distort the text to make it work.
Joe: he's not concerned with the other women because they are not in his community he knew and lived with and cared for Mary Magellanic so that's who he talks about, he;s not a 20th century writer he;s not writing a documentary hes not a historian
That is fair comment, but nevertheless, John still gives no support to your claim that the women split up. We have four accounts, and none of them suggest the women broke into two groups.
And Brown says Peter is VERY MUCH dependent on Matthew.
You really need to go back and read the book - or at least the section "Overall Proposal About Composition Based on Sequence and Content", which is from page 1332 to 1336, where Brown first looks at alternatives, and why they fail, before, at the bottom of page 1334, he presents his own hypothesis:
After working with the tables and lists above (and the massive vocabulary difference), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt that the author of GPet had written any gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the gospels of Luke and John - perhaps travelling speakers who rephrased salient stories - so that he knew some of their contents but had little idea of their structure.
Please note that it is specifically Matthew that Brown singles out as being behind the Gospel of Peter.
You appear to think that because Brown states "I doubt that the author of GPet had written any gospel before him" that means it is independent to them, but that is quite the opposite of what Brown is saying. All he means by that is that the author was working from memory.
because in that passage hes discussing the relationship of G pet to Matt, that does not mean there are not other places where he says gpet had other influence
You appear to think that because Brown states "I doubt that the author of GPet had written any gospel before him"
You have said that line wrong every time now. you say:had written any gospel before him" that means he never wrote a gospel before, it really says "I doubt that he had a written Gospel Before him: meaning he did not copy from a ms but from memory, that does not rule out other gospels.
that means it is independent to them, but that is quite the opposite of what Brown is saying. All he means by that is that the author was working from memory.
there is no reason why it should mean that,I quoted him directly saying there was another influence along with matt you keep ignoring it.
Here:
"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287
not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story,
not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story,
not only
not only
not only
clearly says something other than mattt behind Gpet
thi is from your source: "for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence.that direclty disproves your position. Gpet is not dependent upon Matt
1. Brown believes it is independent of the canonicals
2. Brown believes it is entirely dependant on the canonicals
3. Brown believes it is dependant on the canonicals but also draws on other sources
You have made various statements that indicate - rightly or wrongly - that you hold to the first:
Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:
that has nothing to do with my argumemt man! My argument says Gpet is not dependent upon matt. What Gpet does with Matt is irrelevant,that does not change the fact he also uses another source in addition to Matt another eatery source,the pre mark redaction
You really do not understand, you think that quotes back your position it does not. It proves what I said Gpet is not dependnet on the NT gospels it is based upon earilier tradition
And from your last post:
thi is from your source: "for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence.that direclty disproves your position. Gpet is not dependent upon Matt
That is simply not true. Brown is clear that he believes Peter is based on the canonicals, especially Matthew.
"After working with the tables and lists above (and the massive vocabulary difference), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt that the author of GPet had written any gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the gospels of Luke and John - perhaps travelling speakers who rephrased salient stories - so that he knew some of their contents but had little idea of their structure."
Brown, Death of the Messiah, vol 2, p1334-5
In your last post you seem to have changed your position dramatically.
because in that passage hes discussing the relationship of G pet to Matt, that does not mean there are not other places where he says gpet had other influence
Okay, yes, this does allow for other sources too. So what?
Perhaps the guards on the tomb were made up between Mark and Matthew. Matthew included part of that narrative, but the author of Peter had access to the full story, so included extra details.
Perhaps the guards were made up by the author of Matthew, but the story developed more details over time. When Peter was written, the author drew on that developed story.
There is NOTHING in Brown's works to suggest the pre-Markan passion narrative was the other source as you would have us think.
There are broadly three possibilities for he Gospel of Peter
1. Brown believes it is independent of the canonicals
2. Brown believes it is entirely dependant on the canonicals
3. Brown believes it is dependant on the canonicals but also draws on other sources
You have made various statements that indicate - rightly or wrongly - that you hold to the first:
Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:
that has nothing to do with my argumemt man! My argument says Gpet is not dependent upon matt. What Gpet does with Matt is irrelevant,that does not change the fact he also uses another source in addition to Matt another eatery source,the pre mark redaction
You really do not understand, you think that quotes back your position it does not. It proves what I said Gpet is not dependnet on the NT gospels it is based upon earilier tradition
And from your last post:
thi is from your source: "for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence.that direclty disproves your position. Gpet is not dependent upon Matt
That is simply not true. Brown is clear that he believes Peter is based on the canonicals, especially Matthew.
that is not a quote form me it's a quote from your source,i quite it from the book you linked to, the exact quote:"for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence." omlu thethat direclty disproves your position. Gpet is not dependent upon Matt that is me
"After working with the tables and lists above (and the massive vocabulary difference), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt that the author of GPet had written any gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the gospels of Luke and John - perhaps travelling speakers who rephrased salient stories - so that he knew some of their contents but had little idea of their structure."
Brown, Death of the Messiah, vol 2, p1334-5
the passage on the passion narrative he shows that the trial of Jesus follows pslams not matt, he assumes that is following PMR
9/2019 06:07:00 AM
because in that passage hes discussing the relationship of G pet to Matt, that does not mean there are not other places where he says gpet had other influence
I never told you my position was what you said above. You see more aspects of it now.
Okay, yes, this does allow for other sources too. So what?
so that's my position Gpet is not directly dependent upon Matt in th way Matt is dependent upon Mark but he i informed by Matt yet not afraid to depart from him,
Perhaps the guards on the tomb were made up between Mark and Matthew. Matthew included part of that narrative, but the author of Peter had access to the full story, so included extra details.
Brown references that other source specifically has a reference to a source for the guards on the tmob,So you have two sources for the guards.
Perhaps the guards were made up by the author of Matthew, but the story developed more details over time. When Peter was written, the author drew on that developed story.
that other guard soruce is PMR
There is NOTHING in Brown's works to suggest the pre-Markan passion narrative was the other source as you would have us think.
I think it follows logically, It makes no sense for a latter source to invent guards since the involvement was growing and doing fine without them what's the motivation?
10/2
It includes a quote from the book, but the bit I highlighted is you. My point is that you have stated several times that Brown believes the Gospel of Peter is not dependent on Matthew.
Joe: the passage on the passion narrative he shows that the trial of Jesus follows pslams not matt, he assumes that is following PMR
So what? Most of the passion narrative ultimately comes from the Old Testament. This in no way suggests Brown does not think Peter depends on Matthew. At best it proves it does not solely depend on Matthew (but I was not claiming that anyway).
Joe: I never told you my position was what you said above. You see more aspects of it now.
Then make you position clear.
Do you accept that Brown believes Peter is (at least partly) dependent on Matthew?
Joe: so that's my position Gpet is not directly dependent upon Matt in th way Matt is dependent upon Mark but he i informed by Matt yet not afraid to depart from him,
Are you REALLY going there? Do you not understand what literally dependence actually is? Or are you deliberately twisting the meaning to make it look like your argument has some merit?
Joe: Brown references that other source specifically has a reference to a source for the guards on the tmob,So you have two sources for the guards.
that other guard soruce is PMR
Are you claiming Brown thinks that? I have see nothing to suggest it.
It looks to me like you are using Brown's name to lend authority to your theory, but are then ignoring his position on this, and instead going to the claims of Crossan - which are very much a minority position - to support it.
Joe: I think it follows logically, It makes no sense for a latter source to invent guards since the involvement was growing and doing fine without them what's the motivation?
The motivation is clearly stated in Matthew - it was to counter claims the disciples had stolen the bodies. The fact that it is absent from Mark indicates it was made up. The fact that the women approaching the tomb were worried about moving the rock, but not about dealing with the soldiers, indicates it was made up.
Joe: that is not a quote form me it's a quote from your source,i quite it from the book you linked to, the exact quote:"for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence." omlu thethat direclty disproves your position. Gpet is not dependent upon Matt that is me
It includes a quote from the book, but the bit I highlighted is you. My point is that you have stated several times that Brown believes the Gospel of Peter is not dependent on Matthew. your quote agrees with me
the passage from the book you quoted just said that. Here it again not me this is that book:"for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence." end quote
see the quote marks. Yes I have said that before that means your book agrees with me!!!!
Joe: the passage on the passion narrative he shows that the trial of Jesus follows pslams not matt, he assumes that is following PMR
So what? Most of the passion narrative ultimately comes from the Old Testament. This in no way suggests Brown does not think Peter depends on Matthew. At best it proves it does not solely depend on Matthew (but I was not claiming that anyway).
Your guy just aid Brown does not believe Gpet depends upon matt, I quoted Brown saying that.
Joe: I never told you my position was what you said above. You see more aspects of it now.
Then make you position clear.
Gpet uses both Matt and Pre Mark redaction.
that depends upon what you mean by dependent (ahaahahaha_) seriously. He uses Matt as a source but does;t copy it for passion narrative
Joe: so that's my position Gpet is not directly dependent upon Matt in th way Matt is dependent upon Mark but he i informed by Matt yet not afraid to depart from him,
Are you REALLY going there? Do you not understand what literally dependence actually is? Or are you deliberately twisting the meaning to make it look like your argument has some merit?
that is exactly the position of the guy you quoted you should read that book not just that one passage.
Joe: Brown references that other source specifically has a reference to a source for the guards on the tmob,So you have two sources for the guards.
that other guard soruce is PMR
Are you claiming Brown thinks that? I have see nothing to suggest it.
the guy you quoted says that
It looks to me like you are using Brown's name to lend authority to your theory, but are then ignoring his position on this, and instead going to the claims of Crossan - which are very much a minority position - to support it.
o tyey are the minority the website by Peter Kriby quotes rouses saying the PMR has come to be major view
Joe: I think it follows logically, It makes no sense for a latter source to invent guards since the involvement was growing and doing fine without them what's the motivation?
The motivation is clearly stated in Matthew - it was to counter claims the disciples had stolen the bodies. The fact that it is absent from Mark indicates it was made up.
Gpet was written in the middle of the second century a hundred years after Matt, they would not have that motive by that time, why would Gpet include guards? By that time the norm was gospel with no guards.You might say GPet got the guards from Matthew that is not hat Brown says, he said there was an independent version of the guard story: thisis totally quote from Brown: "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287
The fact that the women approaching the tomb were worried about moving the rock, but not about dealing with the soldiers, indicates it was made up.
you don't think the guy who made up the guards would have had sense to make up the women being worried about guards? there are good reasons why the women would not have known about the guards, They may not have known about them, they didn't have phones they wouldn't heard it on the radio no one went and told them they just may not have known.Or They may have known guards would be put but they didn't know they were there already.
Joe: the passage from the book you quoted just said that. Here it again not me this is that book:"for Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence." end quote
Okay, I had not realised you were quoting that from here.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1qHKGmydMnMC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22gospel+of+peter%22+brown&source=bl&ots=ARNUiQlyOX&sig=ACfU3U3kzBKuQY_2fw9KAPHOtQhSPc7ScQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBqLSrkL_lAhVRVRUIHZ6HDkA4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22gospel%20of%20peter%22%20brown&f=false
Sorry, did I say quote? I meant quote-mine. When read in context it is clear that it is saying the author did not copy from a written text, but from what he remembered had been told to him. Not literary dependency, but oral dependency.
For Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence. The later evangelist would not have created a work like GP if he had been working with written copies of his source material, in Brown's estimation. Thus, he promotes the idea of the "oral dependency" of GP on the canonical works.
The text is still clear; Brown's position is that Peter depends on the canonicals, especially Matthew.
Joe: Gpet uses both Matt and Pre Mark redaction.
Then why keep claiming that Peter does not depend on Matthew? Have you changed your mind? Are you trying to be deliberately confusing? Do you not understand what dependence means in this context?
Joe: that depends upon what you mean by dependent (ahaahahaha_) seriously. He uses Matt as a source but does;t copy it for passion narrative
In the context of this argument, surely it has to be clear that dependence means using it as a source! How can your argument make any sense otherwise?
I.e., did the author had direct access to the pre-Markan passion narrative, and used that as a source, rather than a work derived from it?
Joe: Gpet uses both Matt and Pre Mark redaction.
What is your evidence for that?
Joe: o tyey are the minority the website by Peter Kriby quotes rouses saying the PMR has come to be major view
So quote it then. The fact you have not, and not even provided a link, tells me that the web site says the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative is a majority view, not that the author of Peter had direct access to it.
Joe: You might say GPet got the guards from Matthew that is not hat Brown says, he said there was an independent version of the guard story: thisis totally quote from Brown: "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287
But nothing to suggest Brown thinks that source is the pre-Markan passion narrative? Why is that? Because Brown thinks it was made up.
Here is a longer quote from Brown (p1305-6):
I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story. That does not mean, however, that the GPet is more original. It is quite possible that by the 2d cent. when GPet was written (and thus after the time when Matt had drawn on his source), the guard-at-the-sepulcher story had continued to develop in extraGospel narration and become a longer and more elaborate composition. While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources (see appendix I below), I agree with him that the relationship is not to be treated simply in terms of literary dependence of GPet on the canonical Gospels. In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material.
Note is particular "I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts". He is adamant that the story of the guards dates from later than Mark. That single fact is enough to destroy your argument.
Why does he reject the historicity of the guards? From p1311-2:
Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other canonical Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle mentioned is the stone. Certainly the evangelists would have to explain how the women hoped to get into the tomb if there was a guard placed there precisely to prevent entry. In the other Gospels the stone is already removed or rolled back when the women get there. How can we reconcile that with Matt's account where, while the women are at the sepulcher, an angel comes down out of heaven and rolls back the stone? There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about his resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); but they touch on the minor details of the story. The lack of harmony with the other Gospels touches on the heart of the story, i.e., the very existence of a guard.
Joe: you don't think the guy who made up the guards would have had sense to make up the women being worried about guards?....
Brown is with me on this one. The fact that the women were not worried about the guard indicates to both Brown and me that the guard never existed.
I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story. That does not mean, however, that the GPet is more original. It is quite possible that by the 2d cent. when GPet was written (and thus after the time when Matt had drawn on his source), the guard-at-the-sepulcher story had continued to develop in extraGospel narration and become a longer and more elaborate composition. While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources (see appendix I below), I agree with him that the relationship is not to be treated simply in terms of literary dependence of GPet on the canonical Gospels. In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material.
Note is particular "I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts". He is adamant that the story of the guards dates from later than Mark. That single fact is enough to destroy your argument.
No he does not say the sotry dates from latter than mark. Here is what he says:
"While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources (see appendix I below), I agree with him that the relationship is not to be treated simply in terms of literary dependence of GPet on the canonical Gospels."
Gpet's passion account is not older than Matt. but you forget the paragraph begins saying Matt used the source with the gaurds in it, so that means it has to pre date Matt.
"I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story," I guess it could mean he wrote it himself.Then broke it up with antor story that seems like a silly thing to say. In that other quote he says Matts ued an endpoint guard source.
It says the former. i never said it claimed the latter
Pre-dates Matthew yes, but not Mark.
Joe: "I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story," I guess it could mean he wrote it himself.Then broke it up with antor story that seems like a silly thing to say. In that other quote he says Matts ued an endpoint guard source.
Brown is saying the story appeared (was made up) between Mark and Matthew.
Joe: It says the former. i never said it claimed the latter
You certainly presented it as though you meant the former.
But we are reaching agreement here! The guards were invented after Mark, but before Matthew, and the author of Peter did not directly use the pre-Markan passion narrative.
For Brown the overall lack of agreement in vocabulary and word order between Gpet and NT gospel renders improbable the idea of literary dependence. The later evangelist would not have created a work like GP if he had been working with written copies of his source material, in Brown's estimation. Thus, he promotes the idea of the "oral dependency" of GP on the canonical works.
U never denied that he had an oral decency theory I've proven my case that he did assert the use of an impediment source by Gpet. That is all I care about
That is not true because: (1) you have repeatedly claimed Peter does not depend on Matthew; and (2) what we care about is whether the other source pre-dates Mark or not.
Let us deal with number (1). You made a post (presumably copied from elsewhere) that starts:
A. Skeptic's Argument that Only Matthew Mentions Guards.
In it you stated:
Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.
That is not true. Brown's position is that Peter IS dependent on the canonicals, and especially on Matthew.
Later you said:
You really do not understand, you think that quotes back your position it does not. It proves what I said Gpet is not dependnet on the NT gospels it is based upon earlier tradition
Also:
that has nothing to do with my argumemt man! My argument says Gpet is not dependent upon matt.
You have repeatedly claimed Peter does not depend on Matthew, and now here you are pretending otherwise.
As for (2)
You have repeatedly claimed that the other source pre-dates Mark.
Gpet uses both Matt and Pre Mark redaction.
Gpet has an earlier tradition than Mark in it. It i derived from he pre Mark redaction
... the fact he also uses another source in addition to Matt another eatery source,the pre mark redaction
That contradicts Brown's position; Brown takes the view that the story is not true, and appeared between Mark and Matthew.
Furthermore, whether the story is pre- or post-Mark is vital to your argument, so to claim that all you care about is whether there was another source is flat out wrong.
You are citing Brown as an authority, then quote-mining his work to make it appear that he agrees with you, when the truth is he does not. He is with me on this one. The guard was made up for apologetic purposes.
Brown (again) " in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material."
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story
So you admit Peter is partly dependent on Matthew? Why did you earlier claim it was not?
And are you going to address the fact that Brown believes the other source post-dates Mark, and the guards on the tomb were made up, or persist in pretending Brown says it was in the pre-Markan passion narrative?
So you admit Peter is partly dependent on Matthew? Why did you earlier claim it was not?
Partly dependent I can accept. I forced a hard core anti-dependent stance in relation to the guards, he's not dependent for the guards.
And are you going to address the fact that Brown believes the other source post-dates Mark, and the guards on the tomb were made up, or persist in pretending Brown says it was in the pre-Markan passion narrative?
where does Brown say it post dates mark there is no basis for the crack pot idea that Mark invented the empty tomb. Koester and Crosson date PMR empty tom story at 50. That's fror writtimg.
Obviously the women had to have told at some point for we would not know about them.So that does not mean they never said anything the rest of their lives.MM split off and went alone to the men before the other women went into the tomb.How do I know she split from the? John reflects her going to the men alone but she tells hem something that alludes to the other women:"we don't know where they have laid him." Had she gone with them into the tomb she would have met the angel she would have known he was risen.
Great. So all those times you claimed it was not dependant on Matthew were plain wrong.
Joe: where does Brown say it post dates mark there is no basis for the crack pot idea that Mark invented the empty tomb. ...
Brown (p1305-6):
While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources
He is also quite clear that he believes it never happened, a fact you seem keen to ignore (p1311-2):
Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other canonical Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle mentioned is the stone. Certainly the evangelists would have to explain how the women hoped to get into the tomb if there was a guard placed there precisely to prevent entry. In the other Gospels the stone is already removed or rolled back when the women get there. How can we reconcile that with Matt's account where, while the women are at the sepulcher, an angel comes down out of heaven and rolls back the stone? There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about his resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); but they touch on the minor details of the story. The lack of harmony with the other Gospels touches on the heart of the story, i.e., the very existence of a guard.
Joe: ... Koester and Crosson date PMR empty tom story at 50. That's fror writtimg.
Irrelevant, if Brown is right.
Joe: Obviously the women had to have told at some point for we would not know about them.
Not if the incident was made up. In that case, it works best if they never told anyone. And that is what Mark says happened!
Joe: So that does not mean they never said anything the rest of their lives.MM split off and went alone to the men before the other women went into the tomb.
None of the four accounts suggest MM split off. You are just making this up.
Joe: How do I know she split from the? John reflects her going to the men alone but she tells hem something that alludes to the other women:"we don't know where they have laid him." Had she gone with them into the tomb she would have met the angel she would have known he was risen.
John says she was the only one there! And that she never saw the empty tomb, that important job was left for the men to do! According to John, there was just one woman, and all she saw was the stone rolled away.
John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
Joe: Partly dependent I can accept. I forced a hard core anti-dependent stance in relation to the guards, he's not dependent for the guards.
Px:Great. So all those times you claimed it was not dependent on Matthew were plain wrong.
that's pretty unfair because we talked about the distinction between several different types of dependence. It really matters what you mean by it. For one thing Gpet is not dependent upon Matt for the guards, nor the word order, nor the outline of the story.
Joe: where does Brown say it post dates mark there is no basis for the crack pot idea that Mark invented the empty tomb. ...
Brown (p1305-6):
While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources
he's talking the writing of gpet not the sources G pet drew upon, I agree gpet is second century,
He is also quite clear that he believes it never happened, a fact you seem keen to ignore (p1311-2):
Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed....snip...
that does not mean he thought the res did;t happen It I have answered that argument,<.b>
Joe: ... Koester and Crosson date PMR empty tom story at 50. That's fror writtimg.
Irrelevant, if Brown is right.
the evidence doesn't support him.But Brown was a believer
Joe: Obviously the women had to have told at some point for we would not know about them.
PxNot if the incident was made up. In that case, it works best if they never told anyone. And that is what Mark says happened!
No Bible scholar goes along with the idea they just made it up. That;s a childish trick Crosson says that,unread people resort to that idea.
Joe: So that does not mean they never said anything the rest of their lives.MM split off and went alone to the men before the other women went into the tomb.
None of the four accounts suggest MM split off. You are just making this up.
obviously they do because I just told you why
Joe: How do I know she split from the? John reflects her going to the men alone but she tells hem something that alludes to the other women:"we don't know where they have laid him." Had she gone with them into the tomb she would have met the angel she would have known he was risen.
John says she was the only one there!
du@ would she bother hin with the machinations of who went where with whom? He thought that because that;s all he saw. He does not say :"she was the only one."
And that she never saw the empty tomb, that important job was left for the men to do! According to John, there was just one woman, and all she saw was the stone rolled away.
she didn't go insider it because the open door made her think the body was taken,
John 20:1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.
so now you are a fundamentalist? when it suits you it;s litter word for word true but when it suits iti;s made up. he didn't see the other woodmen why should he record them? He only saw her, he didn;t know the full story,
11/01/2019 02:04:00 AM Delete
Dependency has one meaning in this context, that the author of one document used the other as a source. Surely you must know that? Brown does distinguish between literal dependency (the author read the other document) versus oral dependency (the author heard it read aloud), but that it all, and that doers not affect our discussion.
The author of Peter used Matthew as a source, so Peter depends on Matthew.
And that is true of the gospel as a whole as well as the guard on the tomb section, as Brown says in a quote you have used yourself: "in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material."
Brown: While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources
Joe: he's talking the writing of gpet not the sources G pet drew upon, I agree gpet is second century,
When he says "one of their main sources", he actually is talking about the sources Peter draws on. And he says he firmly disagrees that those sources are older than the canonicals.
Joe: that does not mean he thought the res did;t happen It I have answered that argument,<.b>
This is about whether Brown thinks the guard on the tomb was made up, as you know perfectly well. This is just a red herring. Brown is clear that he believes the guard on the tomb was made up, and you are refusing to accept you are wrong.
Joe: the evidence doesn't support him.But Brown was a believer
When Brown agrees with you (or you think he does), he is the great authority. When he disagrees with you just claim the evidence does not support him, with no attempt to say why this great scholar got it wrong. Cherry-picking at its finest.
Does Crossan - who famously thinks Jesus' body was eaten by dogs - believe the women found the Empty Tomb? I find that very hard to believe. Habermas as part of his "minimal facts" thesis says about 75% of scholars accept the Empty Tomb. That means 25% do not. I presumable those that reject it all think the women were made up.
Joe: obviously they do because I just told you why
Obviously they do not because if they did you could quote the verse.
Joe: du@ would she bother hin with the machinations of who went where with whom? He thought that because that;s all he saw. He does not say :"she was the only one."
Great, so we agree there is nothing saying the split up. Thanks.
Joe: she didn't go insider it because the open door made her think the body was taken,
So according to John, the women did not find the Empty Tomb!
Joe: so now you are a fundamentalist? when it suits you it;s litter word for word true but when it suits iti;s made up. he didn't see the other woodmen why should he record them? He only saw her, he didn;t know the full story,
There has to be a reason for every verse in the Bible, so in that respect I am like a fundamentalist. However, I think there are reasons beyond "because it happened". There is a reason Mark had the Empty Tomb found be women - they were unreliable, so could fail to tell everyone. When the author of Matthew got hold of it, he was stuck with the women, but felt he could modify it slightly, and add an appearance to Jesus to make it more apologetically secure. Then the author of John got hold of it, and wanted to play down the women's role, so has just one woman, and she only sees the stone rolled away. At each step in the story's evolution there is a reason for the changes.
Dependency has one meaning in this context, that the author of one document used the other as a source. Surely you must know that? Brown does distinguish between literal dependency (the author read the other document) versus oral dependency (the author heard it read aloud), but that it all, and that doers not affect our discussion.
wrong Brown himself distinguished between types of dependence in relation to Gpet. apparently some scholars had raised different kinds of issues. I have o trouble with influence. Except for the guards
The author of Peter used Matthew as a source, so Peter depends on Matthew.
as one source
And that is true of the gospel as a whole as well as the guard on the tomb section, as Brown says in a quote you have used yourself: "in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material."
that stuntmen speaks generally of the relation of Matt to Gpet when he he get;s specific about the guards he says they are from the other source, he says nothing about Gpet's guards coming from Matt
Brown: While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources
Joe: he's talking the writing of gpet not the sources G pet drew upon, I agree gpet is second century,
When he says "one of their main sources", he actually is talking about the sources Peter draws on. And he says he firmly disagrees that those sources are older than the canonicals.
wrong, you are running two things together ignoring context. He talks about Gpet's sources but he doe not say the endpoint guard source is second century nor does he say it's post Mark.
Joe: that does not mean he thought the res did;t happen It I have answered that argument,
This is about whether Brown thinks the guard on the tomb was made up, as you know perfectly well. This is just a red herring. Brown is clear that he believes the guard on the tomb was made up, and you are refusing to accept you are wrong.
Bull shit,you working hard at twisting things to make him say that. so what anyway? Brown is not the great scholar he doesn't know it all.
Joe: the evidence doesn't support him.But Brown was a believer
When Brown agrees with you (or you think he does), he is the great authority. When he disagrees with you just claim the evidence does not support him, with no attempt to say why this great scholar got it wrong. Cherry-picking at its finest.
He was a great scholars but none of these guys really knows the truth,none of contemn know if Jesus did or did not raise from the dead,All anyone can do is be honest with ourselves about why we think things, "because so and so says it is never good enough by itself
11/01/2019 08:09:00 AM
Does Crossan - who famously thinks Jesus' body was eaten by dogs - believe the women found the Empty Tomb? I find that very hard to believe. Habermas as part of his "minimal facts" thesis says about 75% of scholars accept the Empty Tomb. That means 25% do not. I presumable those that reject it all think the women were made up.
That is slip shod reasoning; he says one thing I don't like so nothing he say is trustworthy. That is not logical.It all depends upon the reasons for interjection. I don't find the argumemt from silence is a good reason.
Joe: obviously they do because I just told you why
Obviously they do not because if they did you could quote the verse.
I cod quote it if I looked
Joe: du would she bother hin with the machinations of who went where with whom? He thought that because that;s all he saw. He does not say :"she was the only one."
Great, so we agree there is nothing saying the split up. Thanks.
I;ve already exclaimed that my argument derives from the fact that my thesis makes sense out of what he does say, you are just being silly
Joe: she didn't go insider it because the open door made her think the body was taken,
So according to John, the women did not find the Empty Tomb!
He doesn't deny it he doesn't deal with it. try to keep up
Joe: so now you are a fundamentalist? when it suits you it;s litter word for word true but when it suits iti;s made up. he didn't see the other woodmen why should he record them? He only saw her, he didn;t know the full story,There has to be a reason for every verse in the Bible, so in that respect I am like a fundamentalist. However, I think there are reasons beyond "because it happened". There is a reason Mark had the Empty Tomb found be women - they were unreliable, so could fail to tell everyone.
that makes no sense at all. First of all you argue that Mark made up the empty tomb then say he has to put women in because they are unreliable? That's crazy! what does that mean? that's a reason to just not use them. He has no reason to make up the women with the empty tomb he made up.
When the author of Matthew got hold of it, he was stuck with the women.
Not if your assumption that they make things up is true
but felt he could modify it slightly, and add an appearance to Jesus to make it more apologetically secure. Then the author of John got hold of it, and wanted to play down the women's role, so has just one woman, and she only sees the stone rolled away. At each step in the story's evolution there is a reason for the changes.
why would he play down the women? he still has her allude to the others, the reasons you propose are meaningless.
Joe: wrong Brown himself distinguished between types of dependence in relation to Gpet.
I specifically said that! And his distinction does not alter the fact that you are wrong.
Joe: apparently some scholars had raised different kinds of issues. I have o trouble with influence.
Then at best you are being misleading every time you say Peter does not depend on Matthew if you do not make clear what you mean. Frankly, I think that that is deliberate, and I feel absolutely sure next time you trot this out you will continue to mislead.
Joe: Except for the guards
And yet Brown is clear that the guard on the tomb in Peter depends on Matthew.
Joe: as one source
Yes, so the guard on the tomb in Peter depends on Matthew.
Joe: that stuntmen speaks generally of the relation of Matt to Gpet when he he get;s specific about the guards he says they are from the other source, he says nothing about Gpet's guards coming from Matt
Here is the statement in context, showing that actually Brown was speaking specifically about the Gospel of Peter.
I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story. That does not mean, however, that the GPet is more original. It is quite possible that by the 2d cent. when GPet was written (and thus after the time when Matt had drawn on his source), the guard-at-the-sepulcher story had continued to develop in extraGospel narration and become a longer and more elaborate composition. While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources (see appendix I below), I agree with him that the relationship is not to be treated simply in terms of literary dependence of GPet on the canonical Gospels. In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt, as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material.
Joe: Bull shit,you working hard at twisting things to make him say that. so what anyway? Brown is not the great scholar he doesn't know it all.
He is the great scholar who built his reputation on Peter when he agrees with you, but when he disagrees he "is not the great scholar he doesn't know it all".
You are the guy who routinely cites Brown to support your position here. Are you going to stop citing him with regards to the guard on the tomb now? Of course not! You can still fool the ignorant masses about this, I am sure.
Pix
Joe: That is slip shod reasoning; he says one thing I don't like so nothing he say is trustworthy. That is not logical.It all depends upon the reasons for interjection. I don't find the argumemt from silence is a good reason.
So you think that scholars like Crossan who think the Empty Tomb was made up believe that the women finding the Empty Tomb actually happened?
Have you thought this through? Perhaps you should.
Joe: I cod quote it if I looked
How hard is it to look it up? Are you aware you can read the Bible on line nowadays? Just go to Bible Gateway, and look at four chapters. It really is not that difficult.
Well, not if the verses exist. Of course, in this case it is impossible, because they do not.
Joe: I;ve already exclaimed that my argument derives from the fact that my thesis makes sense out of what he does say, you are just being silly
It also makes sense that is was made up, and indeed I think that makes more sense.
Joe: He doesn't deny it he doesn't deal with it. try to keep up
It is clearly absent from the narrative, and a plain reading of the narrative (i.e., not trying to force another version on it) indicates the women never saw the tomb was empty.
Sure you can twist the text all you want, but the author of John choose to make it read as though the Empty Tomb was found by the men.
Joe: that makes no sense at all. First of all you argue that Mark made up the empty tomb then say he has to put women in because they are unreliable? That's crazy! what does that mean? that's a reason to just not use them. He has no reason to make up the women with the empty tomb he made up.
That is not what I said. The Empty Tomb was made up prior to Mark; he made up the women finding it to link the Empty Tomb to the resurrection sightings in Galilee. He used women because they were unreliable, so that explained why they failed to tell anyone.
At the time the Empty Tomb was supposedly discovered, no one in Jerusalem heard about the Empty Tomb. People would remember that it was not like that. There likely was no Easter at all; the disciples had fled the city, and only saw Jesus (whatever they did see) some time later in Galilee. It was common knowledge that nothing happened in Jerusalem until the disciples returned. There was no mo mystery about an Empty Tomb, no sightings of Jesus.
Mark was writing within those constraints, so selected three women who presumably were chosen because they were already dead, and made up that they found the Empty Tomb, were told Jesus would be seen in Galilee, but never told anyone.
Joe: Not if your assumption that they make things up is true
The author of Matthew was a compiler, with the problem of compiling a story that married Mark's account with the later stories of the women seeing Jesus.
Joe: why would he play down the women? he still has her allude to the others, the reasons you propose are meaningless.
And yet clearly he does play down the women. He leads us to think it was the men who found the tomb empty, not the women. I suggest that is because men were perceived as better witnesses. What reason do you propose?
Pix
Pix : Dependency has one meaning in this context, that the author of one document used the other as a source. Surely you must know that? Brown does distinguish between literal dependency (the author read the other document) versus oral dependency (the author heard it read aloud), but that it all, and that doers not affect our discussion.
what you just said is two kinds of dependence not one. Also and between translating ideas into one;s own words vs copying word for word
Joe: wrong Brown himself distinguished between types of dependence in relation to Gpet.
I specifically said that! And his distinction does not alter the fact that you are wrong.
obviously that depends upon what kind of dependence you are claiming
Joe: apparently some scholars had raised different kinds of issues. I have o trouble with influence.
Then at best you are being misleading every time you say Peter does not depend on Matthew if you do not make clear what you mean. Frankly, I think that that is deliberate, and I feel absolutely sure next time you trot this out you will continue to mislead.
Now my view of GP's demulcent upon Matt has changed a lot over the post couple of years,I used to think they both depended upon PMR and that was it. Then I read statements by Brown and seemed to think there was some dependence on Matt in ideas but not in wording,
Joe: Except for the guards
And yet Brown is clear that the guard on the tomb in Peter depends on Matthew.
cleanly not you just loitering obviously general sweetmeats to specifically include guards when they don't.
Joe: as one source
Yes, so the guard on the tomb in Peter depends on Matthew.
No he never says that,
Joe: that stuntmen speaks generally of the relation of Matt to Gpet when he he get;s specific about the guards he says they are from the other source, he says nothing about Gpet's guards coming from Matt
I have argued that Matt broke up a consecutive guard-at-the-sepulcher story to interweave it with the women-at-the-tomb story, while GPet preserved the original consecutive form of the guard story.
broke up the sophistry hu? he made it up then he broke it up right"? how can we know that?Do we have the galley copy that he wrote then broke up? Obviously he broke up a story that already existed he got from a prior source both Matt and Gpet used that source
That does not mean, however, that the GPet is more original. It is quite possible that by the 2d cent. when GPet was written (and thus after the time when Matt had drawn on his source), the guard-at-the-sepulcher story had continued to develop in extraGospel narration and become a longer and more elaborate composition.
That statement proves that he as using a story he did not invent.It means that the fact that Gpet used a pre existing story that pre dates Matt doesn't mean he is more original because Mattt used that source too. That fits the PMR. It doesn't make any sense to think to answer the idea that quoting Matt would make Gpet more original.
start here mark the quote immediately following
While I disagree firmly with Crossan's contention that much of the GPet passion account antedated the canonical passion accounts and was one of their main sources (see appendix I below), I agree with him that the relationship is not to be treated simply in terms of literary dependence of GPet on the canonical Gospels. In this particular instance, in my judgment, what is found in GPet is best explained in terms of the author's knowing canonical Gospels (perhaps by distant memory of having heard them), especially Matt,
stop here
what I just marked out does not included the guareds, that ]s about general dependence of Gpetom Matt. not the guards, now comes the guards:
as well as an independent form of the guard-at-the sepulcher story, and of his own activity in combining these two sources of material.
No it's saying the guards come from a source Independence and one existing to Matt,
Joe: Bull shit,you working hard at twisting things to make him say that. so what anyway? Brown is not the great scholar he doesn't know it all.
He is the great scholar who built his reputation on Peter when he agrees with you, but when he disagrees he "is not the great scholar he doesn't know it all".
You are the guy who routinely cites Brown to support your position here. Are you going to stop citing him with regards to the guard on the tomb now? Of course not! You can still fool the ignorant masses about this, I am sure.
I don't support him for things he doesn't say
Pix
It is clearly absent from the narrative, and a plain reading of the narrative (i.e., not trying to force another version on it) indicates the women never saw the tomb was empty.
Yet when John tells the story in such a way as to reflect that idea you assert he's just manipulating the text. Obviously Luke represents a faction that says they did. If those witnesses wound up in a different community John and Mark would not reflect their discovery.
Sure you can twist the text all you want, but the author of John choose to make it read as though the Empty Tomb was found by the men.
Yet not in such a way as to deny the women their involvement
Joe: that makes no sense at all. First of all you argue that Mark made up the empty tomb then say he has to put women in because they are unreliable? That's crazy! what does that mean? that's a reason to just not use them. He has no reason to make up the women with the empty tomb he made up.
That is not what I said. The Empty Tomb was made up prior to Mark; he made up the women finding it to link the Empty Tomb to the resurrection sightings in Galilee. He used women because they were unreliable, so that explained why they failed to tell anyone.
At the time the Empty Tomb was supposedly discovered, no one in Jerusalem heard about the Empty Tomb. People would remember that it was not like that. There likely was no Easter at all; the disciples had fled the city, and only saw Jesus (whatever they did see) some time later in Galilee. It was common knowledge that nothing happened in Jerusalem until the disciples returned. There was no mo mystery about an Empty Tomb, no sightings of Jesus.
Mark was writing within those constraints, so selected three women who presumably were chosen because they were already dead, and made up that they found the Empty Tomb, were told Jesus would be seen in Galilee, but never told anyone.
he did not make up the women. Look Koester says all four canonical gospels draw upon the PMR. All four have the women its clear PMR had the women. There could have been different oral traditions about them
I know this comment is not at all pertinent to your article or the discussion which took place here. So I apologize for that. I also do not mean to come off as paranoid, but I think something needs to be said anyway.
Beware of that "Monica" which has left a comment on this thread. I suspect that "she" is one of many internet trolls and spammers. My blogger referral links data is filled with a URL that contains the name "Monica" and goes to a cite with morally objectionable content. I clicked on the link as a result of my ignorant curiosity--very foolish of me indeed.
I do not mean to stir up anything, and could quite possibly be wrong. If, however, this "Monica" is the same person sending me all this annoying referrer spam, then I kindly ask that you stop doing what you have been doing. Find other people who are actually interested in your moral depravity.
1. What does being a woman have to do with failing to tell other people?
2. Even without the last twelve verses, you still have the implication that the women eventually told others about their experience.
3. You don't need the women to make a connection between the empty tomb and Galilee. The Angels waiting at the tomb serve that role - anyone could have stumbled upon the empty tomb and met the angels.
4. This still doesn't address the heart of the issue: why would any early Christian fabricate a story that would knowingly weaken the case for Jesus' Resurrection? Try to spin it however you want - making the first and primary witnesses of Jesus' Resurrection and empty tomb would have discredited the narrative.
"Mark was writing within those constraints, so selected three women who presumably were chosen because they were already dead, and made up that they found the Empty Tomb, were told Jesus would be seen in Galilee, but never told anyone."
If Mark was fabricating events he would have went with one of the dead apostles. Or any other dead male, Jesus follower. Not women, you dolt.
-ChristSeeker