ApostateAbe

Yes, you are right. Paul's account relates the myth of who saw Jesus after his resurrection. The gospel account of the women is about the discovery of the empty tomb, and the accounts of Jesus reappearing to people, as in Paul, come in later gospel accounts. I figure that Mark writes that the women did not tell anyone simply because to write such a thing would seem ridiculous--in order to persuade anyone of a resurrection story, your witnesses should be better than women. Of course, that begs the question of where the knowledge of Mark's account about the women and the empty tomb comes from, if they never told anyone. Mark is in a bind, and it seems to be little more than a messy way to take the womens' account seriously without explicitly stating that he relies on their witness for the story.

Toto

It came from Mark's imagination (or some other part of his anatomy.) Just like the 500 brothers who saw Jesus before James.

It's a story. It's not history. There's no reason to treat this like a newpaper report.

ApostateAbe

I think that is a plausible claim--maybe Mark made up that whole part of the story merely from his imagination, with no basis in reality at all. It has at least plausibility in this case. I don't think it matches the other criteria so well, like explanatory power. Not much in the accounts are what we directly expect if the story was made up without any grounding in reality. The part about the women running off without telling anyone, and that is where the whole story ends, strikes me as uninteresting coming from any storyteller, and it is in need of an explanation with detail beyond "Mark just made it up." Christian Biblicists have the opposite problem. Their explanations have explanatory power, explanatory scope, consistency, but they are severely failing in plausibility and least ad hoc.

Toto

The explanatory power is great, once you realize that Mark is essentially a Greek tragedy and is meant to explain the failure of the real Christian message. Try reading some other threads here.

It just doesn't explain your preconceived notions of Christianity.

show_no_mercy

We, at least I, am dealing with Mark. Not gospels. When you speak of gospels you are more or less speaking about "the doctrines of the church". As though there was one, unified church at the time of Mark. Was Mark embarrassed by Jesus' baptism? Did Jesus' baptism by John not serve some sort of Markan theological purpose? If so, he would have left it out like John did.

Jesus is an absolute nobody until he is baptized by John. The entire ministry starts when he is baptized since the spirit descends into him and drives him out into the wilderness. No one hears the voice from heaven except Jesus. The narrative basically ends when the spirit leaves Jesus on the cross. Jesus being baptized for the remission of sins? No problem - no one is good except for god alone (Mk 10.18) as I recounted above.

Matt was embarrassed by all of these factors and changed their wording slightly. No longer is Jesus possessed by the spirit (εις in Mark), but the spirit is just "on" him (επι in Matt). No longer is the voice only speaking to Jesus (i.e. "you are my son...") but everyone hears it (i.e. "this is my son...").

Of course "they" were embarrassed. You're still thinking through the lense of [C]atholicism (whole, universal), and not Mark.

Mark 10.18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone"

1 Cor 12.3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed"

Why would Paul even bring this up unless it was an issue? Unless there were some Christians who said "Jesus be cursed"? Some eminent Christians preaching some other gospel (2 Cor 11.4-5)?

Like I keep saying, this whole embarrassment criterion assumes one unified church when this is just not the case. And every time someone replies trying to justify this criterion, they always have this assumption embedded in their response. In order to justify the use of this criterion, you're going to have to evidence some sort of unified church that has one consistent belief across the board (did you even click on the link in the previous post?).

ApostateAbe

Cool, thanks, I'll do that.

aa5874

Please state where the UNKNOWN author of gMark claimed he was writing history? The resurrection of Jesus was MOST likely fiction.

In the short-ending of gMark the story ENDS exactly where the women FLED from the tomb and trembling with fear. There is nothing else.

Mark 16.6-8
That is the end of the short-ending of gMark, verse 8. You simply cannot ASSUME gMark is history to PROVE gMark is history.

That is your EMBARRASSING problem. You have ASSUMED that gMark is history when there are events in gMark you know are most likely fiction.

GakuseiDon

That's not how the criterion of embarrassment works. The criterion is used to analyse changes between evolving texts.

The criterion is reasonable and one that we all use instinctively, since we all understand the logic that stories will evolve over time to suit the needs of later audiences.

Anyone who has spent five minutes on historical methods will recognise that your example is a strawman version of the criterion. I don't know why this strawman version keeps popping up here.

aa5874

This is the COE ( the criterion of embarrassment).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment is a wothless tool. One MUST FIRST ASSUME that there is history in the text and then use the very ASSUMPTION of history as proof of history.

For example, in gMark, John Baptizes Jesus but it is NOT known if the story is true. In gMatthew, John Baptizes Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, but the author makes changes.

The criterion of embarrassment when applied would make the Baptism of the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost of God in gMatthew most likely historical.

The COE is most ABSURD. The COE is utter rubbish.

Toto

You have stated this many times here, but I have been unable to find anyone else who thinks that the criterion is used for textual analysis. The HJ scholars who use it claim that it is used to separate out elements of the story that are most likely true, or represent the actual words of Jesus.