Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 10-22-2009, 06:55 AM

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Seven

I hope that after I refute my opponent’s most recent claims about the second-century testimony of Gospel of Peter, Justin, Tatian, Epistula Apostolorum, and Irenaeus, we will all have a better appreciation of this evidence, and be able to proceed to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Eusebius. While we are revisiting the early patristic evidence, I promise a closer look at the testimony of Clement of Alexandria.

I bypass my opponent’s comments about Matthew and Luke, except to observe again that when he says that he is bringing Matthew and Luke to the witness-stand, the true identity of the witness is Streeter’s Four-Document Hypothesis and its family of sub-theories.

My opponent tried to use Gospel of Peter as evidence for the abrupt ending of Mark. It isn’t crystal-clear that the author used Mark at all; to Bart Ehrman (as, on p. 32 of “Lost Scriptures,” he referred to the author of Gospel of Peter), “It is not clear whether or not he had access to the accounts now found in the canonical Gospels.” It looks to me like the author, at some point, had read the four Gospels, but by the time of writing he was unable to consult them; he relied on some non-canonical source-materials and on very faulty remembrances of the canonical Gospels.

Does the evidence justify a view that the author of Gospel of Peter used a copy of Mark that ended at 16:8? Turning to the last part of paragraph #51, the gist of the narrative matches up with Mark 16:1-5. But the angel at the tomb, instead of telling the women to tell Jesus’ disciples and Peter that Jesus is going before them into Galilee, etc., says (in paragraph #56), “He has risen and left for the place from which He was sent.” And, the narrative continues, “Then the women fled out of fear.” The tomb-angel in Gospel of Peter does not mention Peter; he doesn’t send a message to the disciples via the women; he doesn’t mention Galilee.

The narratives already diverge before we reach the end of 16:8. The premise that an author’s non-use of a passage means that the passage was absent from the author’s source would yield the conclusion that the author of Gospel of Peter had a copy of Mark which lacked most of 16:7-8. Does my opponent think that the author’s copy of Mark lacked 16:7-8? If not, then he must acknowledge that his approach is oversimplified. Numerous features in the text show that the author recollected random details from the canonical Gospels in a way so haphazard that at some points it is difficult, and at other points impossible, to discern exactly what his copies of the Gospels contained, as opposed to what he thought they contained.

In addition, our attention should be drawn to a detail in paragraph #59: “But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.” The author apparently recalled canonical material here; notice the resemblance to John 20:10. And what passage in the canonical Gospels states that the disciples wept and grieved after Jesus’ death? Mark 16:10.

For further consideration, consider how Gospel of Peter fits a hypothesis I mentioned earlier: the hypothesis of a Johannine Ending. If, in Ephesus in the 70’s, Mark 16:9-20 was questioned, and John wrote a short narrative to supplement or replace it, beginning where 16:8 ended, then, as I wrote previously, “Possibly the Gospel of Peter was written by someone who knew the Johannine Ending and Mark 16:9-20, and borrowed from them both.” If the author of Gospel of Peter encountered the Johannine Ending, or if he encountered John 21 with an awareness of the original purpose of its main source-material, then what we see in Gospel of Peter is the natural result: instead of proceeding to Luke 24 or John 20:11-31, the author skips immediately to the scene at the beginning of John 21! In other words, to put it assertively, Gospel of Peter utilizes Mark 16:10’s reference to the disciples mourning and weeping, and exhibits the scribal mechanism that briefly caused some copyists in the 100’s to reject Mark 16:9-20: an interpretation of John 21 as the apostolically composed conclusion to Mark’s interrupted record of Peter’s remembrances.

Now about Justin. My opponent said that Mk. 16:9-20 directly contradicts 16:7; however, the text of 16:9-20 does not demand one and only one location for all the events it records. The location of the chastening-scene in 16:14 is not specified. The location of the commissioning-scene in 16:15-18 is not specified. The location of the ascension-scene in 16:19 is not specified. And the location from which the disciples went out preaching in 16:20 is not specified.

Justin affirmed that the disciples went forth from Jerusalem preaching everywhere. His affirmation was based on his Synoptics-Harmony, which blended Lk. 25:52-53 (yielding the “from Jerusalem” part of the statement) and Mk. 16:20 (yielding the “went forth preaching everywhere” part). I already covered this. (Remember the quotations from Chase and Harris?) Hort had reservations about the connection between Justin’s statement and Mk. 16:20 because Hort was unaware of the contents of the Diatessaron compiled by Justin’s student Tatian. But there is no reason for us, with that data, to deny this connection that anyone with open eyes can see.

My opponent proposed that Justin’s use of exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan (“went forth everywhere preaching”) in First Apology 45 is based entirely on Luke 24. Luke 24 does not contain those words, but my opponent tried to get around that via the following three steps. First, regarding εξελθοντες, he says that this word is implied in Luke. When Luke 24 concludes, the disciples have not gone forth from Jerusalem, but, he says, Justin got the idea from Luke 24 anyway. Second, regarding εκηρυξαν, Luke 24:47 has khrucqhnai – close enough, right? Third, regarding πανταχου, he states that this word is implied in Luke by the phrase “among all nations.” Therefore, he proposes, Luke 24 should be regarded as Justin’s source, because Luke 24 sort of conveys the idea that the disciples went forth preaching everywhere. As Justin alluded to what is predicted in Luke 24:47, by an amazing coincidence he happened to use exactly the same words that are in Mark 16:20.

That shaky case for an amazing coincidence collapses when we recall that Justin elsewhere used Luke 24:47. His use of Luke 24:47 does not look like the phrase in ch. 45. I refer to what Justin wrote in ch. 42: “Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned. And by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him.”

It is obviously improbable that Justin was inspired by Luke 24 to use the three-word phrase under examination, inasmuch as Luke 24 does not contain a single exact parallel to any of the three words in the phrase. Furthermore, when Justin actually does use verbiage from Luke 24:47, it looks nothing like Mk. 16:20; it looks like Luke 24:47. My opponent’s theory is cornered by the evidence. With all objections answered, I hope he will finally agree that there is no escape from the fact that Justin’s verbiage in First Apology 45 is completely accounted for by his use of a Synoptics-Harmony which included Mark 16:20 blended with Luke 24:52-53.

Now about the Epistula Apostolorum. My opponent claimed that Ep.Apost. follows the narrative of Mk. 16:1-8, but Ep.Apost. does not mention any angel at the tomb. Instead, in paragraphs #9-10, the author moves directly to the meeting between Jesus and the women led by Mary Magdalene. The meeting between Jesus and Mary is paralleled by Mark 16:9, not by anything in 16:1-8. Then one of the women goes to the disciples and tells them what Jesus told her to say. This certainly does not match Mark 16:1-8, considering 16:8’s statement that the women did not tell anything to anyone!

Before proceeding, I should address my opponent’s claim that “In the LE this [woman reporting to the disciples] is Mary M. and in the EPA [Epistula Apostolorum] it’s not.” The Coptic text says that the first woman to report to the disciples was Martha, and the Ethiopic text says it was Mary. The Coptic text says that the second woman to report to the disciples was Mary, and the Ethiopic text says it was Sarrha. Either way, Mary reports to the disciples.

What happens next? In the Ethiopic text, “And Mary came and told us. And we said to her, ‘What have we to do with you, O woman? He that is dead and buried, can he then live?’ And we did not believe her, that our Savior had risen from the dead.”

So we observe a sequence of three events: (1) Mary (with other women) encounters Jesus, (2) she tells the disciples that He is risen, and (3) the disciples do not believe her. From what source can such a sequence have been derived? Is it from Matthew? No; in Mt. 28 it appears that the disciples believe the message. Is it from Luke? No; Luke records no encounter between Jesus and the women at the tomb. Is it from John? No; Jn. 20 gives no indication that the main group of disciples did not believe the report. But in Mark 16:9-11 we see this sequence of events.

What happens in paragraphs #11-12? Jesus and the women go to the disciples, who remain reluctant to believe until Jesus affirms His identity and invites Peter and Thomas to touch Him, and He invites Andrew to examine His footprint. Then, the text says, “We fell on our faces before Him, and entreated Him because we had not believed Him.” Obviously the author has adapted Jn. 20:24-29 here, but the similarity to Mk. 16:14 – “He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen” – is no less obvious, inasmuch as Ep.Apost. describes the entire group, rather than Thomas only, as being chastened and admitting unbelief.

Further along in the text, in paragraphs 28-29, Jesus tells the disciples, “All that have believed on Me and that believe in Him that sent Me will I take up into the heaven . . . But all they that have offended against my commandments and have taught other doctrine . . . shall receive everlasting punishment.” (The sentence is verbose; the full text, in English, is accessible online.) This appears to be modeled upon Mark 16:16. A reminiscent phrase referring to “they that believe and they that believe not” pops up in paragraph #34.

Before leaving Ep.Apost., let’s look at paragraph #30: “He said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north.” And a little later: “Go ye and preach the mercifulness of my Father, and that which He has done through me will I myself do through you.” Filter out the influence of John 14:11-12 and Matthew 28:19-20, and what do we find? The influence of Mark 16:15, in the repeated phrase, “Go ye and preach.”

Let’s make a fresh criteria-list, answering some questions:

(1) Does Ep.Apost. contain language, and involve subjects, found in Mark 16:9-20 but not in other source-materials? Yes: Mk. 16:10’s statement that the disciples mourned and wept, Mk. 16:11’s statement that the disciples did not believe Mary’s report, Mk. 16:14’s statement that Jesus rebuked the disciples because they did not believe, 16:15’s phrase “Go ye and preach,” and 16:16’s doublet about believers’ salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation.

(2) Does the author say that he is quoting from the Gospel of Mark? No, but since he credits the entire composition to the apostles, it would be ludicrous to expect him to do so.

(3) Is the context of the proposed parallels in Ep.Apost. the same context that we find in Mark 16? Yes; the parallels occur in the course of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

My opponent said that because the Ep.Apost. contains a lot more material that is not paralleled by Mk. 16:9-20, “this claimed parallel is minor/insignificant in comparison.” That’s incorrect. The significance of the parallels to Mk. 16:10, 16:11, 16:14, and 16:15-16 is not reduced at all by the fact that the author turns to other source-materials and other subjects.

(Continued in the following post.)

JoeWallack · 10-23-2009, 08:14 AM

JW:
From: CARM Mark 16:9-20: Authentic or Not?

Quote:

Early Patristic Evidence – Part Eight

(Continued from the previous post.)
(Note: this font seems small. Remember that you can enlarge the letters onscreen by using Control + the "+" key.)

And now, Tatian. My opponent concluded (reluctantly) that “the LE is original to the Diatessaron.” His quotations about Ephrem Syrus’ commentary on the Diatessaron come from a book written before the discovery of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (copied c. 500), the chief witness to Ephrem’s commentary. That witness is over twice as old as the two abridged Armenian copies of Ephrem’s work (copied in 1195). Ephrem uses Tatian’s blend of Mt. 28:19 and Mark 16:15 in VIII:1 of his commentary. Carmel McCarthy translated the passage into English in 1993 as part of the book Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: “After they had crucified him, he commanded his disciples, ‘Go out into the whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation, and baptize all the Gentiles.’”

My opponent raised the question, “What was Tatian’s source for the LE?” He proposed that Tatian took the LE from “an unusual variation” of the Gospel of Mark. The evidence compels a different conclusion: Tatian’s main source for the distinctly Synoptic material (including Mk. 16:9-20) in the Diatessaron was the Synoptic-Harmony that his teacher Justin used.

Now we come to Irenaeus. My opponent, recognizing the strength of Irenaeus’ testimony, attempted to belittle Irenaeus’ scholarship. I already pointed out that Irenaeus exhibited some text-critical skill when sorting out a textual variant in Rev. 13:18. And even if we were to suppose that Irenaeus was as sharp as wet flour, the testimony of Irenaeus’ copies of Mark would not be impugned. The claims about Irenaeus’ scholarship are rather tangential.
Nevertheless: in my opponent’s list of alleged mistakes in the Armenian text of Irenaeus’ “Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching,” what horrible mistakes has Irenaeus committed? He misquoted Genesis 9:25. He was off by five years when he recollected Abraham’s age in Genesis 12. He resorted to a Hebrew pun to teach the eternity of the Son. (A little knowledge of Hebrew reveals Irenaeus’ poor scholarship??) He assigned a passage from Psalms to Jeremiah. He introduced Numbers 24:17 by the formula, “Moses says,” leaving himself vulnerable to the objection that in this passage in the fourth Book of Moses the actual speaker is Balaam. He attributed Zechariah 9:9 to Isaiah. He misquoted Psalm 68:17 as if it said “Sion” instead of “Sinai.”

Other items in my opponent’s mistakes-list are the Armenian translator’s mistakes. A few others appear to be mistakes that were made by the copyist of the Greek text used by the Armenian translator. And some items are not mistakes! The mistakes clearly attributable to Irenaeus are mild and minor. Some display over-cleverness, and some are symptoms of speediness, not of stupidity. The thing to see is that none of them lowers the weight of Irenaeus’ quotation of Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies III.

Finally, as promised: Clement of Alexandria. Until now I have aspired only to show that Clement’s non-use of Mark 16:9-20 cannot validly be used as evidence of the contents of his text of Mark, in light of his non-use of Mark chapters 1-9, 11, and 12. Now, however, I challenge the certitude of Metzger’s often-repeated claim that Clement shows no knowledge of the existence of Mark 16:9-20. Let’s examine Clement’s comment on Jude verse 24 in Adumbrationes, preserved in Latin by Cassiodorus:

“Now, in the Gospel according to Mark, the Lord being interrogated by the chief of the priests if he was the Christ, the Son of the blessed God, answering, said, “I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power.” But “powers” mean the holy angels. Further, when he says “at the right hand of God,” he means the self-same [beings], by reason of the equality and likeness of the angelic and holy powers, which are called by the name of God. He says, therefore, that he sits at the right hand; that is, that he rests in pre-eminent honour.”

In this attempt by Clement to show that God’s heavenly glory consists of the presence of angels, when Clement says, “Further, when he says, ‘at the right hand of God,’” (Proinde enim *** dicit ‘a dextris dei’) who is the “he”? If we say “Jesus,” then we have to deduce that Clement imagined that Jesus used the phrase “at the right hand of God,” even though Jesus never does so. That seems unlikely. But if we say “Mark,” then obviously Clement is citing Mark 16:19.

This reference has gone unnoticed, because an editor of this text in the 1800’s thought that Clement was alluding to Luke 22:69. But the Latin text in Luke 22:69 is “a dextris virtutis Dei,” not “a dextris Dei.” Furthermore, Clement’s next paragraph begins by consulting the other Gospels, which suggests that Clement was consulting Mark up to this point. All things considered, this looks more like a quotation of Mark 16:19 than it looks like anything else.

If my opponent has had enough demonstrations of the security of the testimony for Mark 16:9-20 in the early patristic evidence, perhaps we may now turn to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Eusebius.

JoeWallack · 10-25-2009, 01:14 PM

JW:
Let's do a Table to try and measure the relationship between how closely subsequent Gospels follow "Mark" 16:1-8 and the time between "Mark" and the subsequent Gospel. In general we would expect a direct relationship between variation and time.

Measurement identifications are as follows:

Edited = "Mark" is the base with limited editing.

Parallels = "Mark" is the source with the same substance but has been rewritten.

Neutral = Does not support or contradict

Contradicts

Gospel	Measurement identification
Matthew
--Mark 16:1-8	Edited
Peter
--Mark 16:1-8	Edited
Luke
--Mark 16:1-6	Edited
--Mark 16:7	Neutral
--Mark 16:8	Contradict
John
--Mark 16:1-5	Edited
--Mark 16:6	Neutral
--Mark 16:7-8	Contradict
The Epistula Apostolorum
--Mark 16:1-4	Edited
--Mark 16:5-6	Contradict
--Mark 16:7-8	Neutral

JW:
The relative chronology of "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" is better established than the chronology of "Peter" and The Epistula Apostolorum but it is generally thought that "Peter" is earlier. Thus we see here a clear relationship between how closely subsequent Gospels follow "Mark" 16:1-8 and the time distance of the Gospel from "Mark". More specific and valuable as evidence for the AE is that we see a gradual deterioration of 16:1-8 as a source starting backwards from 16:8. The earliest subsequent Gospel, "Matthew", uses all of 16:1-8 as a base. "Luke" than removes 16:8 as a source and "John" removes 16:7-8. This suggests that 16:8 is the problem for subsequent Gospels and the logical reason it is a problem is that it was the ending (no resurrection sighting followed). The related observation is that none of these Gospels has any relationship with the LE. My opponent is reduced here to trying to find nebulous similarities, something, anything, between the LE and these Gospel's post rsurrection sightings.

Thus "Matthew", "Luke", "John", "Peter" and The Epistula Apostolorum have added value as individual witnesses for the AE as cumulatively they coordinate with the expected relationship of the extent of editing of "Mark" 16:1-8 and time distance from "Mark".

Joseph

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

aa5874 · 10-25-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

....Irenaeus dating of Jesus' age also indicates that he means the emperor Claudius of 41-54. Presumably he accepts that his Jesus is born c. Herod the Great's death, close to -0- and he makes a big deal out of Jesus being close to 50 when he bought the vineyard. Thus Irenaeus' Jesus died under Claudius.

The writer USING the name Irenaeus claimed multiple times that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate from books 2-5 of Against Heresies.

Against Heresies 2

Quote:

..... It is
not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church,
[scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the
name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate......

Against Heresies 5.

Quote:

........but that same individual who formerly was ignorant,
and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him
from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in
the third book,(1) preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate...

The claim by Irenaeus that Jesus was over fifty years old even though he was about 30 years at the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate indicates that Irenaeus did not know when Pilate governorship ended and that no 2nd century heretic, gnostic, or historian saw or heard the absurd and erroneous statements in "Against Heresies" about the age of Jesus.

Also, the erroneous information about the age of Jesus in Against Heresies is an indication that it was NOT written at the supposed time but at some later date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Wallack

On the other hand, making a historical error about which emperor Governor Pilate served under is well within Irenaeus' range of error.....

But, what about Irenaeus' audience?

Irenaeus was supposed to be writing to REAL 2nd century PEOPLE, some of whom he called liars who falsify the word of God.
Such errors would have been a fatal disaster for Irenaeus if he had a real live audience.

Against Heresies

Quote:

1. INASMUCH(1) as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring
in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says,(2)
"minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and
by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the
minds of the inexperienced……

I suggest that no 2nd century heretic, Gnostic, Skeptic or historian ever saw or read the claim by Irenaeus that Jesus was over fifty years old even though he was about 30 years old at the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified under Pilate.

Irenaeus would have been mince meat if they heard about or read Against Heresies.

“Against Herersies” is much later than the 2nd century.

dog-on · 10-26-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Irenaeus was supposed to be writing to REAL 2nd century PEOPLE, some of whom he called liars who falsify the word of God.
Such errors would have been a fatal disaster for Irenaeus if he had a real live audience.

AA, not sure if you have noticed, but such issues, like accuracy for instance, do not seem to bother apologists, even today.

JoeWallack · 10-27-2009, 08:07 AM

JW:
I'm presenting "Matthew", "Peter" (Gospel of), "Luke", "John" and The Epistula Apostolorum individually and collectively as not just evidence against the LE but the earliest related Patristic evidence. My opponent's arguments as to why he thinks these are not quality evidence or even any type of evidence against the LE and should be ignored (at least as far as evidence against):

Quote:

I bypass my opponent’s comments about Matthew and Luke, except to observe again that when he says that he is bringing Matthew and Luke to the witness-stand, the true identity of the witness is Streeter’s Four-Document Hypothesis and its family of sub-theories.

JW:
I've made it clear what my argument is here:

1) The consensus of Bible scholarship is that "Matthew" and "Luke" used "Mark" as a base. If my opponent does not accept this he needs to demonstrate why. Arguing mainly that there is uncertainty is not a reason by itself to ignore as evidence.

2) "Matthew" and "Luke" largely copy "Mark" with editing for the story of 16:1-8.

3) After 16:8 "Matthew" and "Luke" have completely different stories which is quality evidence by itself against LE. The logical explanation is there was nothing after 16:8 to copy. This is also quality evidence that "Mark" in general was their source.

4) "Matthew" and "Luke" have little in common with the LE indicating it was not their source.

5) 4) indicates that "Matthew" and "Luke" were not even aware of the LE. At the time they wrote there either was no other known Gospel resurrection sighting story or only "Mark's". If "Mark" was the only one or even one of the few available, why not use something from it?

6) The "Cruncher" as the Brits say, the post resurrection stories are part of the same story as 16:1-8 so the only reasonable explanation for subsequent Gospels avoiding it like it was a snake or poison is that it wasn't there.

Quote:

My opponent tried to use Gospel of Peter as evidence for the abrupt ending of Mark. It isn’t crystal-clear that the author used Mark at all; to Bart Ehrman (as, on p. 32 of “Lost Scriptures,” he referred to the author of Gospel of Peter), “It is not clear whether or not he had access to the accounts now found in the canonical Gospels.” It looks to me like the author, at some point, had read the four Gospels, but by the time of writing he was unable to consult them; he relied on some non-canonical source-materials and on very faulty remembrances of the canonical Gospels.

JW:
Well this is just an amazing objection. "Peter" has not phrases and not just sentences but the entire 16:1-8 story that parallels "Mark". Meanwhile Justin has 3 words in common with the LE yet my opponent is certain that the LE is the source. Could Justin's 3 words have some other source? ECW gives a mid-range date for "Peter" of c. 115 and lists it as the next written after "Mark". My table of how closely subsequent Gospels follow "Mark" 16:1-8 also indicates that "Peter" was written second since it follows "Mark" 16:1-8 the closest. Even if there were Gospels as potential additional sources for "Peter" it does not negate the observation that "Mark" is the original source, maybe indirectly, but still the ultimate source. In between material can dilute the strength of the observations here but not eliminate them.

Quote:

Does the evidence justify a view that the author of Gospel of Peter used a copy of Mark that ended at 16:8? Turning to the last part of paragraph #51, the gist of the narrative matches up with Mark 16:1-5. But the angel at the tomb, instead of telling the women to tell Jesus’ disciples and Peter that Jesus is going before them into Galilee, etc., says (in paragraph #56), “He has risen and left for the place from which He was sent.” And, the narrative continues, “Then the women fled out of fear.” The tomb-angel in Gospel of Peter does not mention Peter; he doesn’t send a message to the disciples via the women; he doesn’t mention Galilee.

JW:
My opponent confesses that "Peter" "matches up with Mark 16:1-5". Thanks for that. He than notes the subsequent differences. As I noted in my table, the differences of all subsequent Gospels seem to have 16:8 as a source and than edit backwards from it to different degrees. All differences here in "Peter" are easily explained as a solution to the problem of the 16:8 AE:

"But the angel at the tomb, instead of telling the women to tell Jesus’ disciples and Peter that Jesus is going before them into Galilee, etc., says (in paragraph #56), “He has risen and left for the place from which He was sent.”

Now there is no disobeying of an angel's instructions.

"And, the narrative continues, “Then the women fled out of fear.” The tomb-angel in Gospel of Peter does not mention Peter; he doesn’t send a message to the disciples via the women; he doesn’t mention Galilee."

Note that "Peter" has gotten the related story closer in content to 16:1-8 than any other Gospel (more evidence that it was the next written). Peter is not mentioned because there is no reason to mention without instructions from the angel. Same for the disciples. Galilee does not need to be named because it is referred to. The disobeying of 16:8 is now downgraded to misunderstanding of the angel. The disciples will meet Jesus in Galilee and this is explicitly shown but "Peter" has retained the disbelief of 16:8.
Why such a small step by "Peter" compared to other Gospel's editing of 16:1-8? Because they hadn't been written yet so the External pressure was there to keep it close to 16:1-8.

Quote:

The narratives already diverge before we reach the end of 16:8. The premise that an author’s non-use of a passage means that the passage was absent from the author’s source would yield the conclusion that the author of Gospel of Peter had a copy of Mark which lacked most of 16:7-8.

JW:
Strange logic here. A comparison of an entire verse(s) missing versus most of a verse missing? Plus "Peter" has the substance of 16:7-8. Try again.

Quote:

Does my opponent think that the author’s copy of Mark lacked 16:7-8? If not, then he must acknowledge that his approach is oversimplified. Numerous features in the text show that the author recollected random details from the canonical Gospels in a way so haphazard that at some points it is difficult, and at other points impossible, to discern exactly what his copies of the Gospels contained, as opposed to what he thought they contained.

JW:
More begging of uncertainty. You can start by demonstrating that "Peter" used "John" as a source.

Quote:

In addition, our attention should be drawn to a detail in paragraph #59: “But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home.” The author apparently recalled canonical material here; notice the resemblance to John 20:10. And what passage in the canonical Gospels states that the disciples wept and grieved after Jesus’ death? Mark 16:10.

JW:
Now this is parallel evidence for the LE (see how easy that was?). As a reward for finally finding something, The Epistula Apostolorum also has
"10 And as they mourned and wept, the Lord showed himself unto them". And I am the one, saying that "Peter" is second. The weakness here is similar though to Justin (they preached everywhere), with apologies to Wieland, "weeping and sorrowful" is not distinct. It's small in the context of scope and would be implied in all the narratives (except for the one written by Caiphais).
I don't dismiss it as evidence though. I weigh it against the evidence against.

Quote:

For further consideration, consider how Gospel of Peter fits a hypothesis I mentioned earlier: the hypothesis of a Johannine Ending. If, in Ephesus in the 70’s, Mark 16:9-20 was questioned, and John wrote a short narrative to supplement or replace it, beginning where 16:8 ended, then, as I wrote previously, “Possibly the Gospel of Peter was written by someone who knew the Johannine Ending and Mark 16:9-20, and borrowed from them both.” If the author of Gospel of Peter encountered the Johannine Ending, or if he encountered John 21 with an awareness of the original purpose of its main source-material, then what we see in Gospel of Peter is the natural result: instead of proceeding to Luke 24 or John 20:11-31, the author skips immediately to the scene at the beginning of John 21! In other words, to put it assertively, Gospel of Peter utilizes Mark 16:10’s reference to the disciples mourning and weeping, and exhibits the scribal mechanism that briefly caused some copyists in the 100’s to reject Mark 16:9-20: an interpretation of John 21 as the apostolically composed conclusion to Mark’s interrupted record of Peter’s remembrances.

JW:
"Ephesus 70’s", "Mark 16:9-20", "John 21", "Luke 24", "John 20:11-31". Bingo!
Let's look at the related support:

1) No Patristic.

2) No Textual.

3) No Scribal.

4) No authority.

5) No probability. Not simple, logical or supported by the text.

= No evidence.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 10-31-2009, 01:03 PM

JW:
Now that "Matthew", "Peter", "Luke", "John" and The Epistula Apostolorum have been defended not just as evidence against LE, but the earliest related Patristic evidence, let's move on to Justin and see if he can also be considered not just a very weak witness for LE but a possible convert against LE.

Note that so far my opponent wants to claim that Justin's source for 3 connected words is the LE but refuses to accept that the source for the fab five above for The Empty Tomb story is "Mark" even though they share an entire story. This is exactly why we have criteria. So the same criteria can used for evidence regardless of whether it is for or against one's conclusions.

My opponent and I previously considered the criteria of language in evaluating Justin as a witness. Let's now look in depth at another important criteria, Scope. To what extent does Justin parallel the LE?

We go once again to Super Skeptic Neal Godfree, Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative to identify Justin's references to post resurrection information:

"Appears to disciples in Jerusalem (DT 51)"

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

Quote:

CHAPTER LI -- IT IS PROVED THAT THIS PROPHECY HAS BEEN FULFILLED.

And when I ceased, Trypho said, "All the words of the prophecy you repeat, sir, are ambiguous, and have no force in proving what you wish to prove." Then I answered, "If the prophets had not ceased, so that there were no more in your nation, Trypho, after this John, it is evident that what I say in reference to Jesus Christ might be regarded perhaps as ambiguous. But if John came first calling on men to repent, and Christ, while[John] still sat by the river Jordan, having come, put an end to his prophesying and baptizing, and preached also Himself, saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem, and would again eat and drink with His disciples;

JW:
Note that per Justin, the only distinctive prophecy fulfillment here is eating and drinking with the disciples. This is not in the LE but "Luke" not only has Jesus receive Fish Elmondine but makes a point of saying Jesus ate it.

"Always 12 disciples (no Judas) (FA 39, 50 DT 42, 53, 106)"

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Quote:

CHAPTER XXXIX -- DIRECT PREDICTIONS BY THE SPIRIT.

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." And that it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God;

JW:
Per Justin 12 are sent out by Jesus from Jerusalem. Per the LE though, it's only 11:

Quote:

"14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.

Note that "Luke" also has Jesus appear to eleven but does not say that Jesus sent eleven out into the world.

"Appears to disciples in their midst"

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

Quote:

CHAPTER CVI -- CHRIST'S RESURRECTION IS FORETOLD IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE PSALM.

"The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God

JW:
Note that "Luke" has this wording:

"24:36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you."

"Luke" also has the part about Jesus persuading that it was prophecy fulfillment. Contrast to the LE where they believe just because they see Jesus.

"Ascended to heaven (FA 51, 46)"

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Quote:

CHAPTER LI -- THE MAJESTY OF CHRIST.

And that the Spirit of prophecy might signify to us that He who suffers these things has an ineffable origin, and rules His enemies, He spake thus: "His generation who shall declare? because His life is cut off from the earth: for their transgressions He comes to death. And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His death; because He did no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth. And the Lord is pleased to cleanse Him from the stripe. If He be given for sin, your soul shall see His seed prolonged in days. And the Lord is pleased to deliver His soul from grief, to show Him light, and to form Him with knowledge, to justify the righteous who richly serveth many. And He shall bear our iniquities. Therefore He shall inherit many, and He shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to death: and He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sins of many, and He was delivered up for their transgressions." Hear, too, how He was to ascend into heaven according to prophecy. It was thus spoken: "Lift up the gates of heaven; be ye opened, that the King of glory may come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty."

JW:
Note that Justin's wording here "He was to ascend into heaven" parallels better with "Luke", "he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven" than with the LE, "after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God".

The point of this post is that Justin is quite familiar with post resurrection stories but besides the 3 connected and non-distinct words, does not refer to anything uniquely LE, contradicts the LE and appears to have used "Luke" as the primary source here:

1) References to resurrection story but not uniquely LE:

1 - Ascended to heaven. Omits "sits at the right hand of God" from the LE.

2) Contradicts LE

1 - 12 are sent out by Jesus from Jerusalem

2 - Jesus persuading with claimed prophecy fulfillment

3) References uniquely "Luke"

1 - Eating and drinking with the disciples.

2 - He stood in the midst of his brethren

Thus we have it on good authority that Justin is quite familiar with post resurrection stories and "Luke" is probably the primary source while it's questionable whether the LE is any source.

Joseph

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

aa5874 · 10-31-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

..Thus we have it on good authority that Justin is quite familiar with post resurrection stories and "Luke" is probably the primary source while it's questionable whether the LE is any source.

Justin's primary source for the resurrection story may have been from gMatthew, or the Memoirs of the Apostles or some similar source, since he made references to the resurrection using passages ONLY found in gMatthew as canonised.

Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho"

Quote:

"And though all the men of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonah, and though Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Mt 12:40 -

Quote:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matthew 28:11-15 -

Quote:

11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,

13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. 14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.

15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

The Jonas reference is ONLY found in gMatthew or the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The stolen body story can ONLY be found in gMatthew or the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr appears to be familiar with material found ONLY in gMatthew or a similar source which is very likely to be the Memoirs of the Apostles.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

JoeWallack · 11-02-2009, 07:33 AM

JW:
Continuing with Justin my opponent writes:

Quote:

Now about Justin. My opponent said that Mk. 16:9-20 directly contradicts 16:7; however, the text of 16:9-20 does not demand one and only one location for all the events it records. The location of the chastening-scene in 16:14 is not specified. The location of the commissioning-scene in 16:15-18 is not specified. The location of the ascension-scene in 16:19 is not specified. And the location from which the disciples went out preaching in 16:20 is not specified.

JW:
Justin's offending phrase, which is the key piece of evidence for my opponent for Justin as witness to the LE is:

"going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere".

Here's the contradiction:

Mark 16

Quote:

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.

Verses:

Quote:

16:14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

If the location of 16:14 is Galilee than Justin's use of "from Jerusalem" is contradicted because 16:14 - 16:20 is one connected speech which would than have the disciples go forth from Galilee.

If the location of 16:14 is Jerusalem than 16:7 is contradicted because it predicted they would see Jesus in Galilee.

Take your pick.

Quote:

Justin affirmed that the disciples went forth from Jerusalem preaching everywhere. His affirmation was based on his Synoptics-Harmony, which blended Lk. 25:52-53 (yielding the “from Jerusalem” part of the statement) and Mk. 16:20 (yielding the “went forth preaching everywhere” part). I already covered this. (Remember the quotations from Chase and Harris?) Hort had reservations about the connection between Justin’s statement and Mk. 16:20 because Hort was unaware of the contents of the Diatessaron compiled by Justin’s student Tatian. But there is no reason for us, with that data, to deny this connection that anyone with open eyes can see.

JW:
First of all, my opponent's vision of Justin using a "Synoptics-Harmony" is a fantasy. We can see from Neal Godfree's sight that Justin appears to refer to the Synoptics, "John", Proto-evangelium of James and "Peter". Justin also refers to unknown sources. It's possible Justin used a harmony as many of his references are conflated and his student Tatian created a famous one. It's doubtful though as this harmony would otherwise be unknown and would apparently have been made before the Gospels were attributed names.

Regardless of whether Justin used a harmony the criteria is the same:

1) What are Justin's parallels to the LE in an absolute sense?

The only parallel so far is "went forth everywhere preaching”.

Next:

2) Rate the parallels as to quantity (scope) and quality (language):

1 - Quantity = 3 connected words out of 12 verses = low

2 - Quality = Words with average usage. Not common or distinct. The meaning of the phrase would be explicit or implied for all Gospel endings = low.

Thus the data supporting Justin as clear witness to the LE fails on an absolute basis.

2) What are Justin's parallels to the LE in a relative sense?

1 - To what extent does Justin refer to post resurrection stories?

"Matthew's" post resurrection story has a significant unique theme of defense against the charge that the disciples stole the body. Referred to by Justin.

We saw in my previous post that Justin refers to unique related material in "Luke" numerous times:

1 - 12 are sent out by Jesus from Jerusalem

2 - Jesus persuading with claimed prophecy fulfillment

3 - Eating and drinking with the disciples.

4 - He stood in the midst of his brethren

2 - To what extent does the LE have unique material that Justin could have referred to but did not?:

1 - Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

2 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

3 - And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;

4 - they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

5 - sat down at the right hand of God.

6 - the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed.

A lot. Thus while Justin fails the absolute test to be a quality witness for the LE, he passes the relative test as a witness against LE.

Quote:

My opponent proposed that Justin’s use of exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan (“went forth everywhere preaching”) in First Apology 45 is based entirely on Luke 24. Luke 24 does not contain those words, but my opponent tried to get around that via the following three steps. First, regarding εξελθοντες, he says that this word is implied in Luke. When Luke 24 concludes, the disciples have not gone forth from Jerusalem, but, he says, Justin got the idea from Luke 24 anyway. Second, regarding εκηρυξαν, Luke 24:47 has khrucqhnai – close enough, right? Third, regarding πανταχου, he states that this word is implied in Luke by the phrase “among all nations.” Therefore, he proposes, Luke 24 should be regarded as Justin’s source, because Luke 24 sort of conveys the idea that the disciples went forth preaching everywhere. As Justin alluded to what is predicted in Luke 24:47, by an amazing coincidence he happened to use exactly the same words that are in Mark 16:20.

That shaky case for an amazing coincidence collapses when we recall that Justin elsewhere used Luke 24:47. His use of Luke 24:47 does not look like the phrase in ch. 45. I refer to what Justin wrote in ch. 42: “Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned. And by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him.”

It is obviously improbable that Justin was inspired by Luke 24 to use the three-word phrase under examination, inasmuch as Luke 24 does not contain a single exact parallel to any of the three words in the phrase. Furthermore, when Justin actually does use verbiage from Luke 24:47, it looks nothing like Mk. 16:20; it looks like Luke 24:47. My opponent’s theory is cornered by the evidence. With all objections answered, I hope he will finally agree that there is no escape from the fact that Justin’s verbiage in First Apology 45 is completely accounted for by his use of a Synoptics-Harmony which included Mark 16:20 blended with Luke 24:52-53.

JW:
It's unclear what Justin's source for the 3 offending words was. The choices are not limited to the LE and "Luke". If you are only looking at the 3 words (like my opponent) than the LE is the more likely source. If you are looking at everything (like me) than "Luke" or something else is more likely than the LE.

Joseph

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

JoeWallack · 11-05-2009, 06:16 AM

JW:
Regarding The Epistula Apostolorum my opponent writes:

Quote:

Now about the Epistula Apostolorum. My opponent claimed that Ep.Apost. follows the narrative of Mk. 16:1-8, but Ep.Apost. does not mention any angel at the tomb. Instead, in paragraphs #9-10, the author moves directly to the meeting between Jesus and the women led by Mary Magdalene. The meeting between Jesus and Mary is paralleled by Mark 16:9, not by anything in 16:1-8. Then one of the women goes to the disciples and tells them what Jesus told her to say. This certainly does not match Mark 16:1-8, considering 16:8’s statement that the women did not tell anything to anyone!

Before proceeding, I should address my opponent’s claim that “In the LE this [woman reporting to the disciples] is Mary M. and in the EPA [Epistula Apostolorum] it’s not.” The Coptic text says that the first woman to report to the disciples was Martha, and the Ethiopic text says it was Mary. The Coptic text says that the second woman to report to the disciples was Mary, and the Ethiopic text says it was Sarrha. Either way, Mary reports to the disciples.

What happens next? In the Ethiopic text, “And Mary came and told us. And we said to her, ‘What have we to do with you, O woman? He that is dead and buried, can he then live?’ And we did not believe her, that our Savior had risen from the dead.”

So we observe a sequence of three events: (1) Mary (with other women) encounters Jesus, (2) she tells the disciples that He is risen, and (3) the disciples do not believe her. From what source can such a sequence have been derived? Is it from Matthew? No; in Mt. 28 it appears that the disciples believe the message. Is it from Luke? No; Luke records no encounter between Jesus and the women at the tomb. Is it from John? No; Jn. 20 gives no indication that the main group of disciples did not believe the report. But in Mark 16:9-11 we see this sequence of events.

What happens in paragraphs #11-12? Jesus and the women go to the disciples, who remain reluctant to believe until Jesus affirms His identity and invites Peter and Thomas to touch Him, and He invites Andrew to examine His footprint. Then, the text says, “We fell on our faces before Him, and entreated Him because we had not believed Him.” Obviously the author has adapted Jn. 20:24-29 here, but the similarity to Mk. 16:14 – “He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen” – is no less obvious, inasmuch as Ep.Apost. describes the entire group, rather than Thomas only, as being chastened and admitting unbelief.

Further along in the text, in paragraphs 28-29, Jesus tells the disciples, “All that have believed on Me and that believe in Him that sent Me will I take up into the heaven . . . But all they that have offended against my commandments and have taught other doctrine . . . shall receive everlasting punishment.” (The sentence is verbose; the full text, in English, is accessible online.) This appears to be modeled upon Mark 16:16. A reminiscent phrase referring to “they that believe and they that believe not” pops up in paragraph #34.

Before leaving Ep.Apost., let’s look at paragraph #30: “He said unto us: Go ye and preach unto the twelve tribes, and preach also unto the heathen, and to all the land of Israel from the east to the west and from the south unto the north.” And a little later: “Go ye and preach the mercifulness of my Father, and that which He has done through me will I myself do through you.” Filter out the influence of John 14:11-12 and Matthew 28:19-20, and what do we find? The influence of Mark 16:15, in the repeated phrase, “Go ye and preach.”

JW:
I've already demonstrated that generally The Epistula Apostolorum parallels "Mark" 16:1-8 http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=169 and does not parallel the LE http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=170

By an act of Providence my opponent has adopted some sonny criteria to consider if specific evidence can save TEA (The Epistula Apostolorum) as a witness to LE. Bring it on:

Quote:

Let’s make a fresh criteria-list, answering some questions:

(1) Does Ep.Apost. contain language, and involve subjects, found in Mark 16:9-20 but not in other source-materials? Yes: Mk. 16:10’s statement that the disciples mourned and wept, Mk. 16:11’s statement that the disciples did not believe Mary’s report, Mk. 16:14’s statement that Jesus rebuked the disciples because they did not believe, 16:15’s phrase “Go ye and preach,” and 16:16’s doublet about believers’ salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation.

JW:
My first criteria was:

1. Similarity in language.

Here my opponent has not demonstrated anything yet in the language (Greek).

Quote:

(2) Does the author say that he is quoting from the Gospel of Mark? No, but since he credits the entire composition to the apostles, it would be ludicrous to expect him to do so.

My second criteria was:

2. Applicability.

but I think now that a better description is Attribution. As my opponent confesses TEA indicates the source is the apostles. So there is no explicit or implicit claim that the source is ""Mark". Generally, "Mark" is not considered a Disciple and direct source for Jesus. There is a hushed up Tradition that "Mark" was one of the seventy disciples who fell away and was brought to grace by Paul. Not liking a criteria is not a reason to reject it.

Quote:

(3) Is the context of the proposed parallels in Ep.Apost. the same context that we find in Mark 16? Yes; the parallels occur in the course of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

My opponent said that because the Ep.Apost. contains a lot more material that is not paralleled by Mk. 16:9-20, “this claimed parallel is minor/insignificant in comparison.” That’s incorrect. The significance of the parallels to Mk. 16:10, 16:11, 16:14, and 16:15-16 is not reduced at all by the fact that the author turns to other source-materials and other subjects.

JW:
My third criteria was:

3. Scope.

Since my opponent does not have any language similarities yet there is no scope to measure.

My fourth criteria was:

4. Similarity in context.

Here's my opponent's effort:

Quote:

(1) Does Ep.Apost. contain language, and involve subjects, found in Mark 16:9-20 but not in other source-materials? Yes: Mk. 16:10’s statement that the disciples mourned and wept, Mk. 16:11’s statement that the disciples did not believe Mary’s report, Mk. 16:14’s statement that Jesus rebuked the disciples because they did not believe, 16:15’s phrase “Go ye and preach,” and 16:16’s doublet about believers’ salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation.

Quote:

And thither went three women, Mary, she that was kin to Martha, and Mary Magdalene (Sarrha, Martha, and Mary, Eth.), and took ointments to pour upon the body, weeping and mourning over that which was come to pass. And when they drew near to the sepulchre, they looked in and found not the body (Eth. they found the stone rolled away and opened the entrance).

10 And as they mourned and wept, the Lord showed himself unto them and said to them: For whom weep ye?

Verses:

Quote:

Mark 16:10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

Who = Different

What = Same

Where = Different

When = Different

Why = Same

So the context is different. Plus the mourning and weeping is not distinct and would be implied in all Gospels. Here's a better parallel:

The Gospel of Peter

Quote:

[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. [53] But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? [54] For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes.'

and

Quote:

John 20:11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;

Regarding "Mk. 16:11’s statement that the disciples did not believe Mary’s report" being only paralleled in TEA:

Quote:

Luke 24:9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest.

Luke 24:10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the [mother] of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles.

Luke 24:11 And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.

Regarding "Mk. 16:14’s statement that Jesus rebuked the disciples because they did not believe" being only paralleled in TEA:

Quote:

Luke 24:25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Plus Jesus scolding the disciples would be implied in all Gospels. Regarding language here, telling is that the underlying Greek word for "rebuked" is not a word that "Mark" otherwise uses even though he uses the same synonym constantly.

Regarding "Mark's" 16:15’s “Go ye into all the world, and preach” being only paralleled in TEA:

SE = "And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

"Matthew" = "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations"

"Luke" = "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations"

Regarding "Mark's" 16:16’s “doublet about believers’ salvation and unbelievers’ condemnation.” being only paralleled in TEA:

Let's bring in the source for "Mark", Paul:

"1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope.

1 Thessalonians 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him."

Yet another thought that would be implied in all the Gospels.

In summary than we see that the TEA has parallels in context to LE but the parallels are not distinctive or unique to LE. The value of any parallels is diluted here because TEA consists primarily of post resurrection narrative so any parallel has relatively less weight.

And the fifth criteria:

5. Consistency. Coordination with other evidence.

ECW gives a mid-range date for TEA of c. 145. Since Tatian, c. 168, is probably the first known clear reference to LE and Justin, more contemporary to TEA, appears not to know the LE, TEA not a witness to LE is consistent with the other evidence.

The criteria ratings:

1. Similarity in language. = Low

2. Atrribution = Low

3. Scope. = Low

4. Similarity in context. = Medium

5. Consistency. Coordination with other evidence. = Low

Conclusion = TEA is probably not a witness to LE

Joseph

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

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.