Metacrock

No, that's not what I do. I weigh them in relation to the bottom line assumptions I make. I think my basic assumption has been to accept a degree of probablity for the basic set up of the Jesus world, the world of first century Jesus-narrative, giving it the bentifit of a doubt as probablity; mainly because it's attested to by all those different quarters I named.


but it's still just a probablity. I am willing to admit you could be right. Mabye there was no 12. I can't prove beyond the shadlow of a dobut that there were. But I really dont see why just Mark saying so would set it in stone. Mark wasn't thought to be authoritative when it first began to circulate. And there were at least 34 goepels and they all have that same outlook.







why so hung up on Paul? there's nothing in Paul that contradicts it. It's all neutral on the Paul front.








Well that's part of it.




Sure, I got that from McDowell when I was in highschool many many many decades ago. But so what? that doesn't make it wrong. You have nothing with which to dislodge it except that your new age, Jesus myther, skeptical types wish it wasn't that way.



That is possible but it is disingenuous to suggest this has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.



In terms of subjective judgment, yes. In terms of factual reliability, no.



That isn't what I said. I said the certainty of your conclusion is unwarranted given that it is based on speculation.



What speculations?



That doesn't change their ultimately speculative nature. Major scholars offer speculations that turn out to be incorrect all the time.





Need for circulation time and travel time is real. 10 years is a good figure












ahahahahah, you are the one with no substance. Your only evidence is silence, your only motivation is hating the Bible, the only thing that backs your theory is the perverse desire to thruogh the idea of historical probablity, and really your whole is contrary to modern historiography. Because in other fiield do historians say "O all the primary documents for our knowledge on this have to be wrong because they are religous and we hate religion."




I told you:

(1) elements in Paul

(2) four canonical gospels

(3) PMR

(4) now add 34 lost Gosples

(5) apoltolic father accounts from eye witnesses such papias and Clement.

(6) archeaological confirmation





are you just an idiot? Do you not know that historians havd done it this way for houndereds of years?

that's the way historians. work. let me tell you something my little friend, I am a profession. Yes I am. I will prove it if you want me to .

we historians do no say "O the documents must be wrong because we don't l like waht they say" we can challenge them and find their content to be wrong, but we don't just throw them out merely because we dont' like their belief system. Most of what we know from the frsit century comes to us from religous or polemical sources. We cannot just throw out the Gosples just because they are the Gosples. we would have to lsoe about 90% of history that way. When you consider verifiability of external sources (Archeology, other witnesses such Clement and Papias) there's a good probablity that the Gosples are gernally reliable.




Of course you are not willing to consider the probilities of it either. Acts says they formed comminities and lived together for the purpsoe of keeping the testimony going, is it really such a big streach to imagine that they had controls and eye witnesses? Especially we have a model for oral socieites. we know how other oral socieites pass on information. It's not just a shot in the dark.

History is probalbity, Why doesn't probablity exist in your world?

Metacrock

You are confussing that with your timerity in asserting everything someone says and uncritically accepting all their opinoins. I feel that I can weigh the views of scholars I admire and agree when I think they are right, and disagree when I think they are wrong. The fact that Koester says somethign does give me pause to reconsider it, but it doesnt' mean that I just automatically accept it.





why should there be? Everyone knew who he was. Did the early chruch say that the Risen Christ appeared to Peter first just because he was some unknown guy that had nothing to do with anything? Why would Jesus appear to him first? Because he was the sidekick, the next in line of leadership. Because of the "feed my sheep" bit. "thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my chruch"





Yea it does! Without that there's no reason why they wouldn't have other versiosn. And we just happen to know that mark was not well recieved, it was hardly every quoted and wasn't treated like a big deal. Koester says that too. Look at what he says about Mark.









O I know that. He doesn't have to. That's why I said he alludes to them. But yea Ok I mean he's alluding to materials that would invovle them. He's not actually alluding to those very points.

Regarding the Koester quote on Luke's authorship, you wrote:



Ok ok skip the posturing. I would have to look in the Koester book to see what else he says about Luke/Acts as Pauline circle. I try to do that tonight. I also will look at Luke Timonthy Johnson, who i think supprots it.





Why would you say that? What can you point to in his work that would show that?








It's your argument from silence. Where would Paul put the crucifixition?






To what does "it" refur in this sentence?






Posturing





But the details can very widely. On my site where I make the orignal argumetn I document the evolution of Mythra from India to Rome and he's got about six incornations and goes through several versions of himself. Or Herclues has two different ways of dying. The story of Ianana and Tamuz has about 15 versions, in some they become other people.



I linked to the page where I do that, why didn't you go read it?

Metacrock

Cut and paste from here:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...ergospels.html

This is from a priate website using this source
Bible Review, June 2002: 20-31; 46-47


The 34 Gospels

Diversity and Division Among the Earliest Christians

CHARLES W. HEDRICK


I.Traces of the Historical Jesus In Lost Gosples


NOt all of these are really "lost," some are actually found, and some are canonical readings. But, among a wide diversity of Gospels, both canoincal and otherwise, we find surviving forms of readings which indiate ealier readings. In other words, they are traces of previous Gspels, sometimes they are actualy fragments of them. These readings push the existence of the Jesus story in writteen form as far back as AD50.


Charles W. Hendrick, professor who discovered the lost Gospel of the Savior tells us



Mirecki and I are not the first scholars to find a new ancient gospel. In fact scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other andent writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [aboutJesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians


These Gospels demonstrate a great diversity among the early chruch, the diminish the claims of an orthodox purity. On the other hand, they tell us more about the historical Jesus as well. One thing they all have in common is to that they show Jesus as a historical figure, working in public and conducting his teachings before people, not as a spirit being devoid of human life.Hendrick says,"Gospels-whether canonical or not- are collections of anecdotes from Jesus' public career."

Many of these lost Gospels pre date the canonical gospels, which puts them prior to AD 60 for Mark:
Hendrick:


The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely oil earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.

In sum, in addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period.



B. Traces of the Jesus Story Prior to the Writing of Mark


1) Diatessaron



The Diatessaron ..of Titian is the oldest known attempted harmony of the Gospels. It probably dates to about 172 AD and contains almost the entire text of the four canonicals plus other material, probably from other Gospels and perhaps oral traditions. It is attested to in many works and is probably the first presentation of the Gospel in syriac.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:


"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possible the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)


While textual critics find it more significant that the early implications are for Jewish Christianity, I find it significant that the pre-Markan material in the Diatesseran includes a miracle story. Those miracles just never really fall out of the story. They are in there from the beginning. But for our purposes the most important point to make is that here we have traces of pre-Markan material. That is, Mark as we know Mark was not the earliest Christian Gospel written, it is merely the earliest of which we have a full copy. The date assigned to the composition of Mark is not the date assigned to the sources used to redact that composition. This pushes the written record of the Jesus story before A.D. 60 and makes it at least contemporaneous with Paul's writings. In other words it is clear that written Gospels with Jesus in an historical setting, and with Mary and Joseph the Cross and the empty tomb existed and circulated before the version of Mark that we know, and at the same time or before Paul was writing his first epistle (150'sAD).


2) Gospel of Thomas

The saying source of Thomas is clearly set within a Gnostic framework. It is widely attested and circulated in the second century. Not all of the sayings are authentic, in fact most are clearly latter additions that come with the Gnostic frame. Only a few sayings are viewed by Scholars as authentic sayings of Jesus. It is arguable even that these really predate the canonicals. There are is a large group of scholars which value it as an authentic source of original Jesus sayings (Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha1.99, 105). Nevertheless it is important to note that the source itself, Gospel of Thomas, assumes that Jesus was a flesh and blood man who really lived on the Earth and who really taught the things recorded. While the Thomas Jesus never speaks of the Cross or dying for sins or raising from he dead, he does claim to be divine. 28 Jesus said:


"I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."


This saying is remarkable for many reasons. As a Gnostic addition to the original saying source it is most curious because it does not say "I appeared as flesh" but "I took my stand in the midst of the world and in flesh I appeared to them...." At the very least this indicates an assumption that Jesus was a real person set in a real historical context. Since the notion of a flesh and blood Christ was abhorrent to the Gnostics, this is probably an authentic saying. IF it predates the canonicals it is very good indication that Jesus was viewed as a flesh and blood human before he was seen as anything else. If it does not predate it is passing strange that even the Gnostics would have less of a Gnostic redeemer than Paul! One who appeared in the flesh! And the fact that the Gnostics never argued that Jesus didn't have an historical setting speaks volumes, since their whole point was to abhor the flesh and to construct an ethereal Christ.




3) The unknown Gospel of Papyrus Egarton 2



The unknown Gospel of Egarton 2 was discovered in Egypt in 1935 exiting in two different manuscripts. The original editors found that the handwriting was that of a type from the late first early second century. In 1946 Goro Mayeda published a dissertation which argues for the independence of the readings from the canonical tradition. This has been debated since then and continues to be debated. Recently John B. Daniels in his Clairmont Dissertation argued for the independence of the readings from canonical sources. (John B. Daniels, The Egatron Gospel: It's place in Early Christianity, Dissertation Clairmont: CA 1990). Daniels states "Egarton's Account of Jesus healing the leaper Plausibly represents a separate tradition which did not undergo Markan redaction...Compositional choices suggest that...[the author] did not make use of the Gospel of John in canonical form." (Daniels, abstract). The unknown Gospel of Egarton two is remarkable still further in that it mixes Johannie language with Synoptic contexts and vice versa. which, "permits the conjecture that the author knew all and everyone of the canonical Gospels." (Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, "An Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements" in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96). The Unknown Gospel preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:


Egatron 2: "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.
Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.
Egatron 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"? Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12



Koster:



"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egatron 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egatron 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egarton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)



2) Gospel of Peter
Fragments of the Gospel of Peter were found in 1886 /87 in Akhimim, upper Egypt. These framents were from the 8th or 9th century. No other fragment was found for a long time until one turned up at Oxyrahynchus, which were written in 200 AD. Bishop Serapion of Antioch made the statement prior to 200 that a Gospel had been put forward in the name of Peter. This statement is preserved by Eusebius who places Serapion around 180. But the Akhimim fragment contains three periciopes. The Resurrection, to which the guards at the tomb are witnesses, the empty tomb, or which the women are witnesses, and an epiphany of Jesus appearing to Peter and the 12, which end the book abruptly.


Many features of the Gospel of Peter are clearly from secondary sources, that is reworked versions of the canonical story. These mainly consist of 1) exaggerated miracles; 2) anti-Jewish polemic.The cross follows Jesus out of the tomb, a voice from heaven says "did you preach the gospel to all?" The cross says "Yea." And Pilate is totally exonerated, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion. (Koester, p.218). However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus. (Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. (In Koester p.218) Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!


Corosson's Cross Gospel is this material in the Gospel of Peter through which, with the canonicals and other non-canonical Gospels Crosson constructs a whole text. According to the theory, the earliest of all written passion narratives is given in this material, is used by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and by John, and also Peter. Peter becomes a very important 5th witness. Koester may not be as famous as Crosson but he is just as expert and just as liberal. He takes issue with Crosson on three counts:



1) no extant text,its all coming form a late copy of Peter,


2) it assumes the literary composition of latter Gospels can be understood to relate to the compositions of earlier ones;


3) Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.

Koester:


"A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except fro the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)


So Koester differs from Crosson mainly in that he divides the epiphanies up into different sources. Another major distinction between the two is that Crosson finds the story of Jesus burial to be an interpolation from Mark to John. Koester argues that there is no evidence to understand this story as dependent upon Mark. (Ibid). Unfortunately we don't' have space to go through all of the fascinating analysis which leads Koester to his conclusions. Essentially he is comparing the placement of the pericopes and the dependence of one source upon another. What he finds is mutual use made by the canonicals and Peter of a an older source that all of the barrow from, but Peter does not come by that material through the canonicals, it is independent of them.



"The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).


What all of this means is, that there were independent traditions of the same stories, the same documents, used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were still alive and circulating even when these canonical gospels were written. They represent much older sources and the basic work which all of these others use, goes back to the middle of the first century. It definitely posited Jesus as a flesh and blood man, living in historical context with other humans, and dying on the cross in historical context with other humans, and raising from the dead in historical context, not in some ethereal realm or in outer space. He was not the airy fairy Gnostic redeemer of Doherty, but the living flesh and blood "Son of Man."



Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence. Note: all these "other Gospels" are not merely oriented around the same stories, events, or ideas, but basically they are oriented around the same sentences. There is very little actual new material in any of them, and no new stories. They all essentially assume the same sayings. There is some new material in Thomas, and others, but essentially they are all about the same things. Even the Gospel of Mary which creates a new setting, Mary discussing with the Apostles after Jesus has returned to heaven, but the words are basically patterned after the canonicals. It is as though there is an original repository of the words and events and all other versions follow that repository. This repository is most logically explained as the original events! Jesus actual teachings!

Clutch

Setting aside Metacrock's Argument From I'm Just Gonna Keep Saying This, does anyone know of any principled attempt to come up with a generalization about this kind of thing?

I mean, poets and playwrights became famous in their own lifetimes in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, didn't they? Trade and other kinds of travel were common, weren't they? And there must have been at least some market for new writings and new ideas. Metacrock's idea seems to be that people bumped around randomly as if by Brownian motion, rather than there being literate and well-travelled people who spread writings quite deliberately, and even stationary populations who went out of their way to talk about whatever idea was making the rounds.

In short, I can see exactly zero reason to think that either writings or oral traditions would take significant time to circulate widely within contiguous portions of the Empire. Does anyone know of such reasons?

Metacrock

<insult deleted> I can show the quote in the Koester book where he says this is the standard assumption made by all textual Critics. It's axiomitic in the field, just all all physicists assume that a really tight statistical correlation is indicative of cause and effect. This is a procedure that is practiced by the discipline as a whole.

Your concept of what I'm saying is ill thoughtout. I'm not saying just bump around at random. But your attempt to remake the first century like a lesser version of the 20th wont wash.

First, the inrestest in new ideas and writtings was pretty much limitted to upper class Romans.

Secondly, No one would care about this Palestinian Jew and his littel sect of followers.Only other groups of Jesus followers would care. they would be the audience.

Sholars almost universally assume that the Gospels were produced by communities, not by individuals. So the transmittion of a Gospel like mark would be dependent upon the spread of the community that produced it.

The would have to travel to a place, get set up, make a living, be there long enough for someone to go get the copy and then copy it.

they didn't have book stalls for the masses. No NYT book reviews. no bookbeat or Charlie Rose on PBS. So pretty much an obscure religious cult of no interstest at all to a Roman audience would have to rely upon its own to spread its word.

Amaleq13

It is a possibility that requires evidence to be accepted as probably true. You haven't provided any evidence. You've only provided speculation, circular reasoning, and examples of retrojecting Gospel information into Paul.

That isn't a claim I have made. The evidence from Paul seems to suggest that there existed a group called "the twelve" who were early witnesses to the risen Christ. Who comprised the group cannot be determined from his letters but Cephas seems to have not been included. I've read the standard apologetic attempts to read Paul as though Cephas "could" be included but that doesn't appear to be the most natural reading.

How could you possibly know how Mark was regarded when if first began to circulate? It was clearly regarded highly enough that several subsequent authors used it as a template for their revised versions.

Paul's letters are actual evidence, as opposed to hypothetical source texts, from within 20 years of the actual events.

That is debatable but the point I have been arguing is that there is nothing in Paul to support your claim.

I don't need anything to dislodge it nor do I need to wish it wasn't that way because it quite obviously isn't. Quit trying to shift the burden. I don't have to put forth an argument against wishful thinking. I just have to observe there is no evidence to support it.

Now it is 10 years? What happend to the other 10? Does this mean there is no factual basis for the alleged "rule of thumb"?

Quite trying to shift the burden and quit making inaccurate, unsubstiated assumptions about my motivations. Your claim has, so far, no substance to suport it. Back up your claim with something substantive or quite wasting everyone's time. To remind you of the claim, please defend your assertion that the earliest "gospel story" should be assumed historically reliable.

Paul provides evidence of belief in a crucifixion and in a resurrection. Are you reducing your story to these two beliefs? I do not dispute the historicity of these beliefs.

How do these revised versions of what you contend is the original story establish that story's historical reliability?

How does the hypothetical original story establish its own historical reliability?

Same question as for the canonical revisions of the alleged original.

Neither Papias nor Clement are eyewitnesses to the alleged events. How does their testimony establish the historical reliability of the original story?

What archaeological confirmation exists to support the historical reliability of the original story?

I thought you were going to avoid insults and try to participate in a more rational manner. I deny your claim that professional historians rely on circular reasoning in reaching their conclusions. Please provide an example of a text that is concluded to be historically reliable by assuming it is historically reliable.

This is a strawman position that bears no resemblance to what I've actually stated. To my knowledge, historians look for confirmation of a text's claims from outside the text rather than circularly assuming the text is true in order to conclude it is reliable. Noting that this is exactly what you are doing with regard to the Gospels does not require that we "throw out the Gospels". It means your method is logically flawed and, therefore, unreliable. You are assuming the conclusion you are trying to prove. That is a great way to retain your conclusion but it is not rationally defensible.

What can be imagined has no limits. I'm only interested in what can be supported by reliable evidence and rational arguments. You seem heavy on the former and light on the latter but I continue to hold out hope that you will eventually provide something of substance.

Please specify what passages in Acts make the claims you indicate.

What is this model?

According to you, this was part of the original core story. It only makes sense to look for it in our earliest evidence. That we do not find it requires some explanation on your part.

That is a claim that only Paul makes and he doesn't explain why. The Gospel stories don't repeat this claim.

I've already offered one alternate reason and you've offered nothing to reject it.

I don't see where he says it was not well received. This is his explanation for the relative lack of reference:

"That the Gospel of Mark was not quoted, referred to, or copied more frequently may be due to the fact that it was overshadowed by the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke, who had incorporated most of the Markan materials into their own more comprehensive compositions." (Ancient Christian Gospels, p.275)

Contrary to your assertion, the story, whether Mark's version or subsequent revisions, clearly was embraced long before it was canonized. Popularity of the core story is clearly sufficient to result in retention of that core regardless of the historical reliability.

The point is that he does not place it in Jerusalem so it is disingenuous to claim that he does.

This is what I'm complaining about when I lament the apparent fact that you don't actually read the posts to which you are replying. The "it" is clearly identified in the passages quoted just before the question. I'll reprint them here:

"It" clearly refers to your immediately preceding comment. Crossan clearly does not consider the empty tomb to be a historically reliable claim yet it is, according to you, part of the core story you assert is historically reliable.

"Can" isn't good enough. Your assertion requires that they always vary widely. You are claiming that the absence of subsequent varation on 11 core points requires that those points be considered historical.

Are you claiming that a collection of invariant core points cannot be identified in these stories?

Metacrock

(1) show me any circular reasoning I've done.

(2) you say I have not provided any evdience:

(a) why is Papias and Clement not evidence? It looks like that would be almost firs thand. They both say "I knew this guy, he was there, he saw it, he heard it."

(b) why is PMR not evidence? You accept the synpotic problem don't you? Do you deny Q? Isnt' Q a good theory? The very same methods that yeild up Q yeild up the PMR. So what's the probelm?

The readings exist. You an't can't dney them. the fragments of Egerton2 exist, they are not hypothetical. It's just a simple matter of dating Egerton and it dates to before Mark. Waht's the problem?

(c) 19 lost Gospels in frament form are not hyptoethical and most of them date to beofore Mark or contemporary with him.

(d) since Gpete is 100 years after Mark it's nto exactly contemporary, but it is proven to be independent of the Canonical Gosples. So that represents a whole textual tradition not part of the Canonicals that shows all 11 points.So that is certianly evidence!







Well that's just your opinion. that's not anything like evidence. It is most cetainly not anything like another version of the story!




Read the evdience!

(1) Koester says it--based upon its use in quotations from Chruch fathers (of cousre, how else?) and from references to it.

(2) it's mentioned in the quote about the lost Gospels, most of them pre date it--it was canonized until the fourth century. What would make it speicial? It wasnt' even by an Apostle.





Evidence which does not contradict my argument. He doesn't say one thing to contradict (except maybe the Cephus first quote and that's one point, that's not an alternate story). So that's nuetral at best.







But there doesnt' have to be! There's to negate it either!!!!!!!!!!






You don't really understand how historicism works or historiography. You really need some basic education on this stuff. you don't get presumption just because are a skeptics or want to tear something down. I met my pF burden with 5 seperate vectors of evidnece. you haven't any! You have no prestend one single altnerate version. The very best you can do is present one point out of the 11 which might be called into question. But that's not an alternate.

Paul doesnt' present a story of any kind. To call the few allusions he makes an altenrate story is wishful thinking big time.





Like all rules of thumb, give or take. I dont' how it got conflated. I said 10 for comp and 10 for travel. So I dont' know. Even if you want to say 60 that's still pretty early.




you are wasting my time, in forcing me to defend basic things that anyone with introductory knowledge to the subject should know you are just trying my patenence. I have things to do. I have atrticles to write. You are making this really drawn out because you just can't accep the fac that your whoel view is based upon nothing more than wishful thinking and a desrie for tabula Rasa with no good reason to support it but the fallacy of argument form silence.

what gets me your whole ediface rests on a fallacy and you have' convenced yoursel that it's been parled into a reall strong argument. Its' a bleeding fallacy! Argument silence is a bleeding fallacy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Metacrock

why would I do that? You seem to be under some kind of missaprehension about the relationship of Paul to my views. I dont' imagine that my view point is just founded solely upon Paul.




they contian verious of the 11 points, and not of them contradict the 11 points.





why were there no alternate versions?



same answer

You have a tradition and that tradition recognzies certian facts. there are no disagreements, even from those outside the tradition, wheather they be the marginalized "outs" of the tradition itself, or those who truely outside it. There are no other versions and on one every disputes it in its basic form.



Clement knew Peter. It's pretty obvious that he's saying that, but even if you want to reduce to "he knew people who knew Peter" that's still a link to Peter. He never disputes that Peter was among the 12 or that was a 12. He speaks of the V bith, of Mary, or all the 11 points. 1 Clement is contempory with John.




see my argument "the Web of historicity"



http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...HistJesus8.htm




That's not what I said. you are the one being insutling by refussing to listen. I didn't say they assume it by assuming it. I said when you have a document that has a good reason on its face to be taken seriously, you dont' doubt it as a matter of course, you assume it until you have a reason not to.

For example the dooms day chonrnical. Most histoirans of brit history assume that it's real. They do go "Ok this is ficiton, it's just made up to help some knig and someone has to prove it all point by point." No it's never proven point by point but no one assumes it's wrong just because of that.




what do you think the point of multiple source is? I say I have evidence from x,y,z becasue that's multiple soruce, it give credence. It's all backing each other up. That's a valid reason, confirmation..






No bullshit. I'm willing to accept the ahistorical nature of a lot of things in the Gospels--from the earthquake at the crucifiction and darkness at noon, to the infant narratives, to the miracles, a lot of things i am willing to see as embellishment. But I am not willing to just scuttle the whole narratival framework just becuase it could, maybe, possiblity, might if we streach it not have been exactly that way.

I mean like why assume there weren't a "12?" Just because we don't have concrete proof in pre markan form? There's every likelyhood that there were 12 guys simpley because everyone always excepted it.

If Jesus had some different group, if there were really seven, or none or what ever some of them would have calimed supremecy, or a faction would have risen around their guys. In fact shcholars have propossed other communties with other leaders, such as the Johanine communtiy led by the BD who was not necessarily of the 12. So in that case where did they go? Why dont' we hear of Gosples where Jesus desiplie Lester is claming to be the head of the chruch? Why did everyone focuss around those 12 guys and by as early as AD 100 they were set in stone?


A lot of things I'm willing to see as embellisment, fabrication, propaganda, or just out and out mistakes. The prophecy about Is 7 and the virigin brith, or the shepards keeping watch of the flocks by night, or all kinds of things. It's all up for grabs, but what is not up for grabs is the basic famrework that makes it all make sense, because no ever disputes it!.





well you are being petulant to dismiss the PMR as not real evidence. It basically comes to having several framgments of other Gospels that pre date Mark. We know Egerton 2 pre dates mark, so what's the big deal about a PMR?







I dont' even remember what calims you have in mind now.



????

Metacrock

Quote:
Especially we have a model for oral socieites.



Oral traditions are handed down carefully through memorization from designated teachers, they are not just chaotic random gossip.




Quote:


He is certinatly a leading disciple in paul's world. and certianly he has a major palce as leader of he chruch.




Quote:
why should there be?





But its unrealistic to expect to find Paul confirming things in such a rudementory way. why should he re tell the story and point out who Peter is, when everyone knows it? He didn't need to say "Peter was the leader of the 12, the guys Jesus chose to learn his stuff." Becasue everyone knew who Peter was. Just like he didnt' need to speicify that it was a physical resurrection because no one claimed otherwise. Or the didnt' ned to say "let's rmember now, Jesus was a real flesh and blood guy" beause no one doubted it.





Quote:
Why would Jesus appear to him first?





but do you really think it's reasonable to assume that he was so used because he was unknown and unimportant? Obviously he was listed frist to be appeared to becasue he was the leader.


.


to be exclusive! It could be embrace,but also challenged there would be other versions if the public didnt' know better.




Quote:
Yea it does! Without that there's no reason why they wouldn't have other versiosn.






made no sense. You are assuming Mark's Gospel would have been universeally accepted, there's no reaosn to assume that. You have no evidence of it, so all the nasty you said about my not having evidence now come back on you. Except do have evidence and you don't.






Quote:
And we just happen to know that mark was not well recieved, it was hardly every quoted and wasn't treated like a big deal. Koester says that too. Look at what he says about Mark.




No of course it isn't! Since myth proliforates, and I quote on Doxa that's univrsal world wide. all myth proliforates. So if it didnt' prolif it must not be myth. But Koester quote does indicate that Mark was not authoritative and universal. Mabye I overstated my case by saying not well recieved but certoanly not universally authoritative.

Quote:
Where would Paul put the crucifixition?





Well, first of all, i think he does. Because he knows the pillars of the chruch are there. He knows cephas wuold be there. Where's he talking about when he speaks of Cephus appearances to him and the 500? He must knows where they were?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
What does it say about the historical reliability of the account, Metacrock?




Quote:
To what does "it" refur in this sentence?




why are you so snotty? I've already said when you get over 40 you lose your critical edge in terms of memory. I have a lot to put mind on here, and so it's only nature that I would lose track. This not the only debate I"m having you know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
As an ultimately irrelevant aside, Crossan does not consider the empty tomb to be historical. He argues that Jesus' body was most likely thrown in the same pit as every other crucifixion victim.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
That's what everybody says, but it doesn't change the fact that he accepts the PMR at AD50 including the empty tomb.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13



It says one guy doesnt' accpet it. Wh is that so imporant to you? You think schoarlship is just name dropping?





I said he accepts a PMR about it existing in AD 50. I don't care weather he believes in it or not. He acceptst he PMR and that's my argument. that argues for the historical natrue of the tomb. If Crosson can't see that that's his problem. I can find plenty of schoalrs who do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:
But the details can very widely.




along the lines of a probable nature. History is probablity. We can't verify it at all. We can't get in the Tardis with Dr. Who and go back and make sure we are right. So we have to deal in probablities.


Quote:
On my site where I make the orignal argumetn I document the evolution of Mythra from India to Rome and he's got about six incornations and goes through several versions of himself. Or Herclues has two different ways of dying. The story of Ianana and Tamuz has about 15 versions, in some they become other people.





as a matter of fact it really can't. In India as an Ashvin. IN the mahabarata. But by the time he's in Rome has nothing to do with the Ashvins.

Vorkosigan

That is the account in Mark. There is no account known from before that time. The idea that the Passion Narrative is based on a source is wrong. The writer of Mark most likely invented it based on what he had read in Paul, as it shares features in common with other Markan passages. The Crucifixion especially is a Markan invention, see this thread on Examining Markan Priority. The agony and arrest in the garden are built out of the OT, as Ted Weeden and other scholars have shown. There is no pre-existing source for them; they are all fictions from the hand of Mark.

They are all, without exception, inventions of the writer of Mark based on the OT. Can you identify one which you believe predates Mark?

No, it is the earliest gospel written. The idea that there are pre-Markan sources is an assumption of the various forms of redaction criticism. All of what is present in the tradition can be traced back to the creativity of the writer of Mark.

The Tomb story is an invention of the writer of Mark based on Daniel 6, as Randel Helms (1988) has pointed out. The Tomb story itself is comprised almost entirely of Markan vocabulary (see Taylor 1966) and despite hopeful apologetics, does not appear to be based on a source.

Egerton cannot possibly predate Mark because as Brodie (1999), the healing of the leper is taken from the Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings (2 Kings 5). As Fletcher-Louis (2003) points out, the frame of the story is midrash based on Numbers 5:1-2:

1: The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has an infectious skin disease or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body.

Note how in Mark 1 Jesus heals a "leper" (skin disease) and then in Mk 5:21-43 Jesus heals a woman with a discharge, followed by the raising of a dead girl (ceremonially unclean due to contact with a dead body). All of these are contagious impurities (Fletcher-Louis 2003) that affect others who touch them.

The pericope is an invention of the writer of Mark, and predates Egerton 2.

Koester never shows this. He just asserts it.

Thomas and Peter both depend on Mark. In the case of Peter, the thieves crucified on the left and right are a Markan hack on the disciples (see Tolbert 1989). Peter still preserves traces of Mark's time schedule, in that darkness occurs at noon and death at the ninth hour, just as in Mark, which reflects the schedule that Mark erected back in the parable of the Watcher in Mark 13. Peter's Christology is "higher" than Mark's and looks more like Luke's for the thieves identify Jesus as the savior, something Mark does not do. Peter is a text that clearly depends on Mark.

Thomas is rather a more complex case. The argument is long and you can find it on my website's discussion of the issue. Or we can debate this here. Would like to stage a formal debate in BCH on whether the Gospel of Thomas predates or post-dates the Gospel of Mark?

There were no eyewitnesses because the entire story of Jesus' crucifixion is fiction based on the OT and Josephus and most probably Paul.

As Raymond Brown (1994) writes of the Passion Narrative:

• "The contents of the Marcan narrative are to a great extent determined, both materially and verbally, by a desire to show fulfillment."(p901)

Almost every feature of Mark's gospel is "made up" and can be traced to some Old Testament or similar extant text/belief.

No, good historical methodology holds that silence in an earlier tradition automatically calls into question the conclusions of later traditions. For example, when Richard Frank argues that Prime Minister Suzuki was never one of the Peace Faction in the Japanese cabinet during the closing days of WWII, one of the points he uses is that there exists no testimony recorded at the time to support that fact; it is all postwar claims made after Suzuki died. See Downfallpp91-92. Similarly, when reviewing the case for whether Drake's ship on his circumnavigation was rechristened Golden Hind (from Pelican) Kelsey (Sir Francis Drake, p113) notes as a strong point of evidence that this information only appears long after the alleged event, and the ship's own records are silent on it. That's essentially what we are looking at in the Empty Tomb story and the other inventions of the writer of Mark.

Doherty is neither ignorant nor a fool. And he certainly would not write such a remark about you.

No, the writer of Mark got that from Paul.

Other versions were destroyed and found only by luck a few decades ago. Greek and other myths were not controlled by a centralized organization bent on enforcing one position.

Because, Meta, as numerous exegetes have observed, it conflicts with the Pauline letters.

Vorkosigan