Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mars Man · 05-07-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by biblicalstudies.org.uk

The very variation in the different narratives of the empty tomb, which are in one sense embarrassing, argues that these accounts stem from separate and independent traditions, all of which witness to the tomb's being empty.

Comments please.

It would seem to me (as the above posts seem to hint at somewhat indirectly) that the deal is due to a variation in oral tradition among the troupes that produced the exemplars we ended up with. To me, that would mean 'different, and independent' traditions. (and they need not have been from the very get go)

DramaQ · 05-09-2010, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

The author of Luke claims to be a Greek physician who compiled stories about Jesus after his death.

Where does the author(s) of "Luke" make such a claim?

Solo · 05-09-2010, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It matters a lot to conservative Christians regarding the stolen body issue. Whether or not a body is missing is irrelevant unless you first know where it was put in the first place. Assuming for the sake of argument that the body of Jesus was put somewhere, what non-biblical evidence says where the body was put? The stolen body issue that conservative Christians promote assumes that the location of the tomb was known by critics, but what evidence suggests that that was the case?

You know well there is no "non-biblical" evidence that would put the body of Jesus in any particular place. What are all these these rhetorical contortions supposed to accomplish ?

Jiri

PhilosopherJay · 05-09-2010, 09:55 AM

Hi Joe,

In regards to Mark 16:8 and Matthew 28:8, I agree that "The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell." This establishes a probable direct relationship between them. However, I am not sure that we can say that Mark 16:8 is the basis for Matthew 28:8. I can demonstrate that it is the reverse.

Let us say that Mark is editing Matthew and gets to 28:8. He knows Celsus' criticisms including the fact that the disciples did not see Jesus.

Anti-Celsus (1:31):

Quote:

And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity

He knows that Celsus (writing circa 180 C.E.) has said that only one woman, and perhaps one other had seen Jesus after his death. This indicates that Celsus was familiar with a source where only Mary saw Jesus after his death and perhaps a second source where one other man saw him.

We can assume from this that Celsus was unfamiliar with Mark 16:1-8 where three women see Jesus, but familiar with Mark 16:9-13

Quote:

16.9Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 16.10She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 16.11But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. 16.12After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 16.13And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Mark 16:9-16:13 is almost certainly an earlier resurrection story then the women in the tomb story at Mark 16:1-16:8. Thus we have perhaps two versions of Mark. The first with just 16:9-16:13 and the second with 16:1-16:8 added.

Now, it is also clear that we are dealing with two versions of Matthew. In the first 28:8-10 is immediately followed by 28:16-17. Matthew 28:11-15 appears to be a digression and the two pieces match perfectly when we take it out.

Quote:

28.8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 28.9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Hail!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 28.10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."
28.16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them
28.17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted

So we have the first version of Mark which contains 16:9-13. Matthew reads this. The first version of Matthew changes this to Matthew 28:8-10 and 28:16-17. He adds more women who see Jesus and instead of all the Disciples not believing, he has the disciples go to Galilee and has some disciples believing.

Mark now reads the criticism of his work by Celsus and reads Matthew's revised version of his work. He decides to adopt Matthew's multiple women attesting to the risen Jesus, but he decides that their testimony should not count for anything. He then adds 16:14-20, in which all the disciples see for themselves Jesus and believe.

Quote:

16.14Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 16.15And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16.16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 16.17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 16.18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." 16.19So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 16.20And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

There is another revision of Matthew where 28:18-20 is added to bring it into line with Matthew:

Quote:

28.18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 28.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 28.20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Thus we get this order:

Mark: Only Mary sees Jesus and none of the disciples believe her
Matthew (revising Mark): Three women see Jesus and some of the disciples believe her when they go to Galilee
Mark revised, based on Matthew: Three women see Jesus and all the disciples believe.
Matthew revised again based on Mark: All the disciples now believe. The two gospels are in harmony despite the contradictions within each.

Thus we get a complex dialectical process where the gospels are influencing each other.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar...omb_stein.html

Comments please.

JW:
There are many issues here but a scientific analysis of the related Gospel narratives indicates that "Mark" is the original source and there is relatively little variation. I've already demonstrated this in:

The Original Ending of "Mark". Debate - James Snapp, Jr. verses Joseph Wallack

Specifically here you can see how closely the subsequent Gospel "Matthew" followed "Mark's" Empty Tomb story:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...1&postcount=86

Mark. Mark 16	Matthew Matthew 28
16.1-8. The visit to the tomb.	28.1-8. The visit to the tomb.
16.1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 16.2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.	28.1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
16.3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
16.4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.	28.2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. 28.3 His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
16.5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.	28.4 and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as dead men.
16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!	28.5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 28.6 He is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
16.7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.	28.7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples, He is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
16.8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.	28.8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

JW:
"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

Not much doubt here that "Mark" was "Matthew's" source for the Empty Tomb story and the lack of any significant editing on the part of "Matthew" indicates it was "Matthew's" only source here.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Solo · 05-09-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" to 16:8 (AE) sure looks like "Matthew's" source to 28:8. Most of the content and nouns are the same or at least similar and both have the strong emotion of fear/amazement for flavor. The only significant difference is the last line of each where "Matthew's" women run to tell as opposed to "Mark's" woman who run not to tell.

Yeah, you can say "significant difference" again. Without God changing his mind about that there would be no good news except for a handful of psychos in third heaven on one day and haunted in hot hell on another. To them it was a great relief to know that in the afterlife they would get the euphoria and the bastards who laugh at them the torture, and both would be maintained in permanence.

Jiri

aa5874 · 05-09-2010, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Just a quick addendum to JoeWallack's post - not only does an examination of Matthew and Mark side-by-side strongly suggest that Mark is, in fact, the primary source for Matthew, but an examination of Luke shows that it, too, is primarily derived from Matthew.

But, gMark cannot tell you of the ORIGIN of JESUS.

The readers of gMark MUST HAVE another source to find out about THE ORIGIN of JESUS.

It must be that either Jesus did live or that there was some other source about JESUS available to the readers of gMark about the ORIGIN of Jesus.

If a person reads gMark ALONE it will be become apparent that the author EXPECTED his readers or audience to have been ALREADY familiar with JESUS.

This is how the author of gMark introduces Jesus for the very FIRST TIME in his book.

Mark 1.9

Quote:

"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John in Jordan"

This introduction by gMark blatantly signifies that there was some other source or tradition about Jesus BEFORE gMark.

1.When was JESUS born before THOSE DAYS?

The author of gMark has no answer.

2. How old was Jesus in THOSE DAYS?

The author of gMark has no answer.

3. Was JESUS a PHANTOM in THOSE DAYS?

The author of gMark has no answer.

4. Was JESUS actually a JEW in THOSE DAYS?

The author of gMark has no answer.

In order for gMark's JESUS to make SENSE those questions must have been answered BEFORE by some other source.

The JESUS story or tradition appears to have been well-established to understand gMark's JESUS.

It must be that it was known JESUS was from Nazareth of Galilee BEFORE gMark was written.

GMark was NOT the first story, source or tradition of Jesus, perhaps the MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLES as found in the writings of Justin Martyr but certainly NOT gMark.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.