Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 03-05-2010, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAR_ON_ERROR

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I would have to agree with your sentiments here. As a former fundamentalist and former inerrantist looking for better answers (in a whole range of areas) I find it frustrating that too much rationalist material in this area is from those reacting against nutty religious ideas rather than coolly looking at the evidence.

While I'm not really sure why an inerrantist can't simply just disown the ending of Mark and call the rest of the Bible inerrant, one would have to be grossly unaware of the rest of Carrier's work to come to the conclusion you and others have come to. Carrier is obviously free to engage a range of audiences and he had just two projects to do for the errancywiki. The shallow end of the pool is just as persistent in our culture as the rest of it.

Ben

It's not just Carrier, there seems to be an epidemic of it (but that might just be in the places I frequent ;-) ). I have seen Carrier do this kind of thing before and once started a whole thread about the Quirnius problem.
Rightly or wrongly some believers had proposed some solutions which weren't easily swept aside.
But Carriers article on it had spent time refuting the most ludicrous ravings about ancient coins having microscopic writing on them, whilst ignoring, perhaps becasue he was unaware, the more tricky problems ans soloutions posed by apologists.
I dont see much tongue in cheek (to reply to dog-on), and I could be wrong, I think I see as seems to happen a bit here former fundamentalists who still aren't free, who are carrying around the old baggage.
And as one I can understand this and sympathise, but it can only detract from the professionalism IMHO.

Its not good enough to rant and rave using arguments from authority, as he does. Or to tell us the evidence is persuasive (whatever that is supposed to mean) even though he has just finished telling us there are "experts" who are not persuaded. And so he jumps from maybe this is true, or most experts think its true, to believing it must be true and then jumping to conclusion after conclusion based on that assumption.
Finally finishing with an emotional attack (probably...hopefully) against the religious nonsense he was fed growing up.

John Kesler · 03-05-2010, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

<edited for consistency> He sounds like he just discovered his atheism a week ago. Carrier needs to get a clue.

Here is Carrier's view on biblical contradictions in his own words:

Quote:

I generally have no taste for discussing biblical contradictions, since I find the matter so boring. Even more boring than bickering over contradictions in Homer. And that's being generous...as literature, in plain aesthetic terms, Homer is quite superior to the Bible, although that's just my opinion. I also find this task largely pointless, since the only people who actually think the bible is inerrant are also insanely dedicated to denying any evidence to the contrary with any baloney hoohah they can pull out of their ass. So what's the point?

hylidae · 03-05-2010, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAR_ON_ERROR

While I'm not really sure why an inerrantist can't simply just disown the ending of Mark and call the rest of the Bible inerrant, one would have to be grossly unaware of the rest of Carrier's work to come to the conclusion you and others have come to. Carrier is obviously free to engage a range of audiences and he had just two projects to do for the errancywiki. The shallow end of the pool is just as persistent in our culture as the rest of it.

Ben

It's not just Carrier, there seems to be an epidemic of it (but that might just be in the places I frequent ;-) ). I have seen Carrier do this kind of thing before and once started a whole thread about the Quirnius problem.
Rightly or wrongly some believers had proposed some solutions which weren't easily swept aside.
But Carriers article on it had spent time refuting the most ludicrous ravings about ancient coins having microscopic writing on them, whilst ignoring, perhaps becasue he was unaware, the more tricky problems ans soloutions posed by apologists.
I dont see much tongue in cheek (to reply to dog-on), and I could be wrong, I think I see as seems to happen a bit here former fundamentalists who still aren't free, who are carrying around the old baggage.
And as one I can understand this and sympathise, but it can only detract from the professionalism IMHO.

Its not good enough to rant and rave using arguments from authority, as he does. Or to tell us the evidence is persuasive (whatever that is supposed to mean) even though he has just finished telling us there are "experts" who are not persuaded. And so he jumps from maybe this is true, or most experts think its true, to believing it must be true and then jumping to conclusion after conclusion based on that assumption.
Finally finishing with an emotional attack (probably...hopefully) against the religious nonsense he was fed growing up.

Except that Richard Carrier was never a fundamentalist. He was raised a liberal Christian where church was nothing more than a social club and he was encouraged by his parents to make up his own mind from a child.

You may be right about some atheists, but what fundy apologists and other atheist haters fail to understand is that no matter how non-militant an atheist may be, if his interests lie in any topic even remotely related to religion, and if he dares to speak or write on the topic at all, he will be exposed to a steady stream of fundamentalist bullshit. This insane dedication Carrier speaks of is ubiquitous at least in the United States if not any place where there exists a good number of dogmatic religionists. There comes a point when you simply call this shit as you see it, as Carrier does.

But you may be right - writing off the same old tired crap from dogmatic religionists for what it is might not be any more mature than crafting an entire argument on insults about zits. :huh:

WAR_ON_ERROR · 03-05-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAR_ON_ERROR

While I'm not really sure why an inerrantist can't simply just disown the ending of Mark and call the rest of the Bible inerrant, one would have to be grossly unaware of the rest of Carrier's work to come to the conclusion you and others have come to. Carrier is obviously free to engage a range of audiences and he had just two projects to do for the errancywiki. The shallow end of the pool is just as persistent in our culture as the rest of it.

Ben

It's not just Carrier, there seems to be an epidemic of it (but that might just be in the places I frequent ;-) ). I have seen Carrier do this kind of thing before and once started a whole thread about the Quirnius problem.
Rightly or wrongly some believers had proposed some solutions which weren't easily swept aside.
But Carriers article on it had spent time refuting the most ludicrous ravings about ancient coins having microscopic writing on them, whilst ignoring, perhaps becasue he was unaware, the more tricky problems ans soloutions posed by apologists.
I dont see much tongue in cheek (to reply to dog-on), and I could be wrong, I think I see as seems to happen a bit here former fundamentalists who still aren't free, who are carrying around the old baggage.
And as one I can understand this and sympathise, but it can only detract from the professionalism IMHO.

Its not good enough to rant and rave using arguments from authority, as he does. Or to tell us the evidence is persuasive (whatever that is supposed to mean) even though he has just finished telling us there are "experts" who are not persuaded. And so he jumps from maybe this is true, or most experts think its true, to believing it must be true and then jumping to conclusion after conclusion based on that assumption.
Finally finishing with an emotional attack (probably...hopefully) against the religious nonsense he was fed growing up.

I can understand why Carrier here would set off your smoke detector. I know the folk you speak of and if this is all I had ever read from Carrier, I would probably agree (since I don't understand Carrier's argument here yet). Others have pointed how Carrier was never a fundamentalist and that he has an equally low opinion of duking it out over Bible contradictions in general. However, you've called him out on the only two times he's dove in. Both are specific projects he's been commissioned to do. Incidentally those are the two times I was referring to before as the exceptions to the rule. Hopefully you'll allow the three of us to reframe your perspective on Carrier a bit. Otherwise your points on the pathology of those obsessed with disproving fundamentalists are well taken. They almost go without saying. There are some crazy folks out there with irrational axes to grind.

Please note the other issues you refer to may well become meaningless once Carrier gets into his actual case. Is there a persuasive case and not just an argument from authority? Well gee, this is just the INTRO. I'm sure he will explain himself. I'm assuming he'll argue something to the effect that we'd never know of the bogus ending of Mark outside of critical scholarship and that otherwise, we'd be stuck with its inerrancy. I really don't know. As I've stated in my previous comment, his case is not yet persuasive. But I've read enough of his work to know better than to pre-judge.

I happen to be aware that he has a comprehensive list of posts from various Christian apologists concerning his Quirnius article that he has not gotten to, so I know that if there is any other serious evidence he has not considered, he will get on it. He's stated he's committed to being absolutely comprehensive. Is there anything in particular that you feel his article does not cover adequately? I'd be happy to make sure he finds out.

Ben

JoeWallack · 03-05-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

The interpolation of the Markan ending thus refutes Biblical inerrancy. As Wilbur Pickering put it:

Are we to say that God was unable to protect the text of Mark or that He just couldn’t be bothered? I see no other alternative—either He didn’t care or He was helpless. And either option is fatal to the claim that Mark's Gospel is ‘God-breathed’.[3]

Including the long ending of Mark refutes biblical inerrancy in another way, since this appendage--along with Luke 24 and John 20--assumes a Jerusalem-based Easter appearance, while Mark 16:1-8 (and Matthew 28 and John 21) are Galilee-based. Notice the incongruity:

Quote:

Mark 16:

5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. 6 But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

9 [[Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. 12 After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 13 And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

Verse 7 accords with Jesus' prediction in Mark 14:26-28 (see also Matthew 26:31-32 and 28:7-10,16), but is obviously contradictory to verse 14, which appears based on the Jerusalem appearances of Luke 24:36-49 and John 20:19-23:

JW:
One of the Internal clues that LE is not original is that it has parallels with other parts of the Christian Bible that were written after "Mark", especially Acts. As "Mark" stands with the LE, it has parallels to the endings of "Matthew", "Luke" and "John". Looking at the External evidence, the first use of the LE would be Tatian and his Diatesseron. Carrier points out that the subsequent editing of the Diatessaron and textual variation are good reasons to doubt that the LE was original to it (as does Willker). Carrier also argues that the first supposed clear reference to the LE, Irenaeus, is probably an interpolation/forgery.

There is often though, very little distance between no use and first use. Eusebius, c. 300, indicates that the LE is sufficiently old so that he is not sure of its origin. Looking back to Tatian, where he supposedly uses the LE is in the harmonistic Diatessaron. It's possible that the source for Tatian's use of most of the LE is his need to harmonize the endings of the Canonical Gospels and Acts and not an existing LE at the end of "Mark". Tatian than, would be the creator of the LE. Remember that there is no External evidence for LE before Tatian. This also explains how "Mark" ends up with an ending that does not flow from 16:8. "Mark's" ending is obtained through deduction, whatever ending parts are in the Diatessaron that are not from "Matthew", "Luke" or "John".

The standard explanation for how "Mark" acquired the LE is that the Western order had "Mark" last and it was thought that the end of the Canonical Gospels should not end at 16:8 with no resurrection appearance or sightings. All of the subsequent canonical resurrection stories are awkward and amateurish as the other Gospellers did not have "Mark's" literary skill and were stuck with his plot and base of no resurrection sightings. But the Diatessaron possibility above is a better explanation of why the LE was attached to something it didn't flow from. The attachers were afraid (to change what they already thought was the ending.)

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

judge · 03-05-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAR_ON_ERROR

I can understand why Carrier here would set off your smoke detector. I know the folk you speak of and if this is all I had ever read from Carrier, I would probably agree (since I don't understand Carrier's argument here yet). Others have pointed how Carrier was never a fundamentalist and that he has an equally low opinion of duking it out over Bible contradictions in general. However, you've called him out on the only two times he's dove in. Both are specific projects he's been commissioned to do. Incidentally those are the two times I was referring to before as the exceptions to the rule. Hopefully you'll allow the three of us to reframe your perspective on Carrier a bit.

I have actually really liked what I have seen of him, and once started a post discussing an article of his and had some discussion with him around that.
Maybe this intro is tongue in cheek though?

Quote:

Please note the other issues you refer to may well become meaningless once Carrier gets into his actual case. Is there a persuasive case and not just an argument from authority? Well gee, this is just the INTRO. I'm sure he will explain himself. I'm assuming he'll argue something to the effect that we'd never know of the bogus ending of Mark outside of critical scholarship and that otherwise, we'd be stuck with its inerrancy. I really don't know. As I've stated in my previous comment, his case is not yet persuasive. But I've read enough of his work to know better than to pre-judge.

Ok I have only read the intro, but unles he has found a way to definitivly conclude that this part of mark was forged or fabricated then he cant conclude someones faith is bankrupt because of that.
It ridiculus to argue someones faith is bankrupt because Mark 16 was added later when we dont know whether it was or not

Quote:

I happen to be aware that he has a comprehensive list of posts from various Christian apologists concerning his Quirnius article that he has not gotten to, so I know that if there is any other serious evidence he has not considered, he will get on it. He's stated he's committed to being absolutely comprehensive. Is there anything in particular that you feel his article does not cover adequately? I'd be happy to make sure he finds out.

Ben

Well the arguments I used to see time and time again from more reasonable apologists were to do with Ernest L Martins book "the star that astonished the world". I did at one time mention this to Richard Carrier but he was working on something else that had priority.
And lets it the guy does have life and it would take a lifetime to do everything in this field ;-)

judge · 03-05-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hylidae

But you may be right - writing off the same old tired crap from dogmatic religionists for what it is might not be any more mature than crafting an entire argument on insults about zits. :huh:

It's adirty job, but somebody's got to do it I guess :-)

JoeWallack · 03-06-2010, 08:21 AM

JW:
A few comments. This is Dr. Carrier's first draft so to me it is a collector's item as it is more likely to show the initial reactions and emotions of the author. Dr. Carrier has already written a second draft.

Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_%28essay%29 essay introductions should give the purpose and objectives of the essay and gain the reader's interest. I would break this down to the "what" and "why":

1) What is the issue of the article?

2) Why is the issue important?

Regarding the "what" I think Dr. Carrier's introduction should make clear that the article primarily deals with demonstrating that the LE is not original. There are too many conclusions in the introduction which should be in the conclusion.

Regarding the "why" Dr. Carrier indicates errancy is the why. I'm not sure though that the article demonstrates this. To make a general conclusion here on errancy you would have to define "Christian Bible" and than demonstrate that a majority of includable Bibles have the LE. You would also have to address the qualification of a Bible identifying textual variation.

I think the above is doable and an important "why" but I think another important "why", not addressed by Dr. Carrier, and quite applicable to his forthcoming HJ/MJ project, is the significance of the LE in the context of supposed historical witness to the supposed resurrection.

Here we have the original Gospel narrative with no resurrection appearance or sighting, explicitly stating that the only visitors to the empty tomb did not tell anyone that Jesus was resurrected. As to source, it agrees with the only other significant witness to Christian assertions, Paul, in that the source for knowledge of Jesus' resurrection is revelation and not historical witness. The addition of the LE converts the source here for "Mark" from revelation to historical witness. The subsequent Gospels "Matthew"/"Luke" use "Mark" as a base, including the empty tomb story, but than add their own versions of resurrection appearance and sightings indicating their only significant source here was "Mark" rather than historical witness.

The most important Christian assertion is that Jesus was resurrected and the best evidence for this is the Christian claim of supposed historical witness to it. Here though, we see that not only was there no original claim of historical witness to the supposed resurrection, but subsequent Christianity forged or fabricated to the original narrative that there was.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 03-06-2010, 08:41 AM

JW:
What follows is Part 2 of a preliminary draft of:

Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

written for ErrancyWiki

posted here for commentary. I'll gradually post the other portions of his draft here. Enjoy!:

Quote:

2. The Ending(s) of Mark

2.1. The OE, LE, and SE

Presently in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) the Gospel of Mark ends as follows (Mark
16:1-20, uncontested portion in bold):

[1] When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James,
and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. [2] Very early
on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. [3]
They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the
entrance of the tomb?” [4] Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled
away, although it was extremely large. [5] Entering the tomb, they saw a young
man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. [6] And he
said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has
been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they
laid Him. [7] But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to
Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” [8] They went out and fled
from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said
nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

[9b] Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared
to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. [10] She went and
reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. [11]
When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.
[12] After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking
along on their way to the country. [13] They went away and reported it to the others, but
they did not believe them either. [14] Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as
they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness
of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. [15]
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation: [16]
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved
shall be condemned. [17] These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My
name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; [18] they will pick
up serpents {in their hands}, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;
they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
[19] So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into
heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. [20] And they went out and preached
everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that
followed.

What is commonly called (and hypothesized to be) the ‘Original Ending’ of Mark (OE) is presented in bold above. The material not in bold is called the ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark (LE). There is another ending in some manuscripts, completely replacing or preceding the lengthy text above, which reads:

[9a] And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And
after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and
imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

This is called the ‘Shorter Ending’ of Mark (SE).[4] Some manuscripts contain only the SE (and one of them is among the oldest), many have neither SE nor LE, but most (a great many in each case) have either the LE alone or both the SE and the LE (always with the LE following the SE, not the other way around, unlike the order shown in the NASB).[4a] The SE and LE are logically and narratively
incompatible, however, and thus cannot have been composed by the same author.

2.2. The VLE

There is also a third ending found in one surviving manuscript (and already known to Jerome in the 4th century), which you generally never hear of, but which I shall call the ‘Very Long Ending’ (VLE), as it is an extension of the LE, replacing verse 15 with:

[15] And they defended themselves saying, “This world of lawlessness and unbelief is
under Satan, who does not allow the unclean things that are under the spirits to
comprehend God’s true power.[5] Because of this, reveal your righteousness now.” They
said these things to Christ, and Christ replied to them, “The term of years of the
authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other dreadful things are drawing near, even to
those for whose sake as sinners I was delivered up to death so they might return to the
truth and no longer sin, and might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of
righteousness which is in heaven. But go into all the world and preach the gospel to all
creation.”

Such are the various endings of Mark.[6] Most scholars reject the VLE (if they even know of it) and now regard verse 16:8 to have been the OE, even though it is an odd way to end a book (though it is not without precedent, and does make more literary sense than is usually supposed [6a]). Everyone now rejects the VLE. It is unmistakably a forgery, so it’s existence further proves that Christians felt free to
doctor manuscripts of the Gospels.

2.3. The BE

The same point is proven further by the fact that, in addition to the endings just surveyed, there is at least one known interpolation within the OE itself, extant in one ancient manuscript, which can be considered yet another ‘ending’ to Mark (making four altogether), the addition here given in bold:
[3] They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the
entrance of the tomb?” Then all of a sudden, at the third hour of the day, there was
darkness over the whole earth, and angels descended from heaven and [as he] rose
up in the splendor of the living God they ascended with him, and immediately it
was light. [4] Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large.

This is from Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation, which also deletes the last part of verse 8 before attaching the SE (thus eliminating the contradiction between them: see section 4.1.3). The manuscript itself physically dates from the 4th or 5th century, but contains a text dated no later than the 3rd century, and some evidence suggests it ultimately derives from a lost 2nd century manuscript.[7]
No one accepts this Bobbio Ending (BE) as having any chance of being authentic, yet it must be quite ancient. It was also manifestly forged.

2.4. Assessment

Some scholars theorize that Mark’s original ending did indeed extend beyond the OE but was lost (accidentally or deliberately) and then replaced by the SE and LE in different manuscripts (hereafter mss. (plural) and ms. (singular)), originating two separate traditions which were eventually loosely combined into a ‘Double Ending’ (DE) in later manuscripts (even though they don’t logically fit together), while in other mss. the LE was preferred or was expanded into the VLE, or the OE expanded
into the BE. Though many of the arguments for a ‘Lost Original Ending’ (LOE) are intriguing, none are conclusive, nor can any produce the actual text of such an ending even if it existed, nor can scholars agree which ending it should be (some scholars find the original ending redacted in Matthew’s Galilean mountain narrative, others in John’s Galilean seashore narrative, yet others in Luke’s Emmaus
narrative, and still others in the SE or LE itself, and so on). I will not discuss those debates, as they are too speculative and inconclusive. It is the sole task here to demonstrate that, regardless of how Mark originally ended his Gospel, it was not the ending we have now (whether SE or LE; the DE, BE and VLE are ruled out heretofore). Quite simply, the current ending of Mark was not written by Mark.

JW:
Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle · 03-06-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Some manuscripts contain only the SE (and one of them is among the oldest)

IIUC only a single manuscript, Codex Bobiensis, a pre-Vulgate Latin translation discussed later in the article, has the SE without the LE.

Andrew Criddle

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

03-06-2010, 08:21 AM	#18
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: A few comments. This is Dr. Carrier's first draft so to me it is a collector's item as it is more likely to show the initial reactions and emotions of the author. Dr. Carrier has already written a second draft. Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_%28essay%29 essay introductions should give the purpose and objectives of the essay and gain the reader's interest. I would break this down to the "what" and "why": 1) What is the issue of the article? 2) Why is the issue important? Regarding the "what" I think Dr. Carrier's introduction should make clear that the article primarily deals with demonstrating that the LE is not original. There are too many conclusions in the introduction which should be in the conclusion. Regarding the "why" Dr. Carrier indicates errancy is the why. I'm not sure though that the article demonstrates this. To make a general conclusion here on errancy you would have to define "Christian Bible" and than demonstrate that a majority of includable Bibles have the LE. You would also have to address the qualification of a Bible identifying textual variation. I think the above is doable and an important "why" but I think another important "why", not addressed by Dr. Carrier, and quite applicable to his forthcoming HJ/MJ project, is the significance of the LE in the context of supposed historical witness to the supposed resurrection. Here we have the original Gospel narrative with no resurrection appearance or sighting, explicitly stating that the only visitors to the empty tomb did not tell anyone that Jesus was resurrected. As to source, it agrees with the only other significant witness to Christian assertions, Paul, in that the source for knowledge of Jesus' resurrection is revelation and not historical witness. The addition of the LE converts the source here for "Mark" from revelation to historical witness. The subsequent Gospels "Matthew"/"Luke" use "Mark" as a base, including the empty tomb story, but than add their own versions of resurrection appearance and sightings indicating their only significant source here was "Mark" rather than historical witness. The most important Christian assertion is that Jesus was resurrected and the best evidence for this is the Christian claim of supposed historical witness to it. Here though, we see that not only was there no original claim of historical witness to the supposed resurrection, but subsequent Christianity forged or fabricated to the original narrative that there was. Joseph ErrancyWiki

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.