JoeWallack

JW:
The primary Christian Assertian now for historical evidence supporting Christianity is [supposed]supposed historical witness to the supposed resurrection[/supposed]. As a background Christian Bible scholarship has improved to the point that it generally accepts that the Infancy Narratives contradict each other and therefore one or both are largely fiction. In our time you can see that this scholarship is dragging up Christian lay beliefs with it as the Infancy Narratives associated with the holiday season are increasingly seen as secular and not religious. The great grand-daddy of all genealogical errors in the Christian Bible, Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006) which clearly demonstrates that the most objective piece of information in the narratives, the dates, are at least 10 years apart, is so well accepted now, that Christian bible scholarship (C BS) has largely thrown in the swaddling cloth trying to reconcile. C BS has now retreated to a position that all that is important is that there is historical witness for the resurrection.

In the real world (any discipline other than religion) resurrections are Impossible so historical witness to an Impossible event is Impossible and we can be absolutely certain that there was no resurrection. No need to discuss any supposed evidence. For someone though who starts with the conclusion that there was a resurrection and than looks for evidence to support that conclusion, the commonly cited evidence are the post-resurrection reunion (so to speak) narratives of the Gospels. If we look closer though at the potential relationship of these narratives their cumulative value as historical witness in the words of that famous philosopher mobster in Scarface, "Don't look too good."

"Mark" looks like the original Gospel narrative and C BS relatively recently has retreated to a position that the original ending is 16:8 and there was no post-resurrection reunion story. It also looks like "Matthew" and "Luke", commonly thought to be the next two Gospels (I suspect though that the Gospel of Peter was in between as it parallels better with "Matthew" and explains why "Mark" was not named "Peter"), are largely dependent on "Mark's" Passion narrative. Considering that "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting historical witness (actually the main theme I think) and "Matthew" and "Luke" have a primary theme of crediting historical witness, for M & L to use "Mark" as a base, even for the Empty Tomb story for Christ's sake, suggests (strongly) that they had no access to historical witness for a post-resurrection reunion story (exactly what we already know back here in the real world, but again, this is for those who have the evidence/conclusion relationship Bauckwards).

What this means for the evolution of Christian evidence for the supposed resurrection is:

1) Paul has a Revelation that he witnessed a resurrected Jesus.

1 & 1/2) [Disputed] Paul says that other people he knew witnessed a resurrected Jesus [/disputed]


2) "Mark", the original Gospel narrative, claims that an ubiquitous anonymous messenger (a staple of Greek Tragedy) believed that Jesus was resurrected but none of the disciples did.

3) Subsequent Gospels claim named historical witness but appear to be based primarily on interpreting/finishing/contradicting "Mark". M & L even have the Disciples post-resurrection reunion stories go in different directions so to speak. Just like the Infancy Narratives and the sheriff in Rock (Ridge). With no "Mark" to follow, they are on their own.

To summarize 1-3) than for the best potential evidence for the/a post-resurrection reunion story, we have to go all the Way back to Paul. Paul had a vision of the resurrected Jesus and maybe he said that other people saw a resurrected Jesus too and maybe he didn't. Yet again, for an Impossible event, a Revelation is exactly what we would expect for a start.

The objective student should observe by now that the big problem for someone who starts with the conclusion of resurrection and than looks for evidence to support it, is Markan Priority, which not only reduces/eliminates as evidence the post-resurrection reunion stories of the other Gospels but evidences that the others had no access to historical witness here and impeach their Markan source by contradicting such important themes of "Mark".

In a last ditch effort at a counter-offensive, we now see a C BS battle of the Bi-ulange, with theories of an original Semitic Gospel that tries to bypass Greek dependence on "Mark" and more complicated than the Internal Revenue Code. The purpose of this Thread will be to demonstrate "Markan Priority". I have faith that it is this issue which creates the most doubt for the intellectual Christians who post here or used to post here such as Benjamin. I ask the Mod Squad to scrupulously moderate this Thread and excommunicate all posts lacking a priority of the issue of Markan Priority.

For a beginning home work assignment I advise all students to peruse Daniel Wallace's excellent related online article:

The Synoptic Problem

Start with:

JW:
In the words of that great 21st century philosopher Larry David, "Pretty good" evidence for Markan priority. Some of Wallace's stuff is so good it's hard to believe that he still believes that god sacrificed himself to himself thereby conquering death by dying to end his own eternal Law. Actually Hawkins demonstrated Markan priority long ago with mainly a language analysis and no one has ever refuted him. But let this Thread be a reference tool for the brave and truthful Skeptic to inventory all of the evidence for Markan priority.

As a final note, detractors of Markan priority will champion that the Patristic witness is unanimously against Markan priority. Not true as Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") confess to us that some Christians only used "Mark" so it's a safe assumption that they thought "Mark" original. Anyways, we can also demonstrate that the evidence Patristics gives for thinking "Mark" secondary is wrong, so what good is the Patristic testimony here.


Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller

A 'vision' isn't necessarily something wholly imaginary. One the Hebrew trems for vision is haza but it means literally 'see with the eyes' and is the root of the related Syriac term 'seer' (i.e. visionary). When Israel 'sees' God in Ex 24.11 this term is used:

and they saw God, and they ate and they drank (Exodus 24:7 - 11)

And the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. (Exodus 24:17)

It was a vision for sure but one that was actually seen using the eyes. It wasn't something that happened in the 'mind's eye.' It was something 'real' in the world that was apprehended by the senses of the people.

I think Mark was understood to have had the same experience for he is called to this day Theorimos by the Alexandrians (the Copts). It means 'the beholder of God.' It is most frequent title, even though - in the current environment which subordinates Mark - it makes little sense. It is the vestage of something very old and very Alexandrian (and thus 'heretical').

Juststeve

What do we make of the fact that Paul's companions didn't see Jesus or hear what he purportedly said? Seems that Paul's experience bears the telltale since of a mental experience, not an experience with a physical reality.

Steve

avi

Umm, well, for what it is worth, (probably about, or maybe a little less, than what you paid for it...) I dispute the notion that to be an "Alexandrian" meant that one was by default, an Heretic.

Of course, the biggest heretic of them all, Arius of Alexandria, may have given such an idea to a few folks, but, on the other hand, think of Athanasius, whose influence on modern Christianity is surpassed by few, if any, others.

No, I don't agree that to be an Alexandrian, meant that one was suspect, and held up to public ridicule, as a person not to be trusted on matters relating to Christianity.

Personally, I think of Alexandria as the Jewel in the Crown of Christianity.

avi

avi

Agree, without reservation.

avi

stephan huller

All of this is according to Acts so who cares.

The claim that Paul only had a mental delusion is anti-Marcionite propaganda. There are intimations in the Dialogues of Adamantius that the Marcionites thought Paul was there at the crucifixion. The Marcionite is not allowed to answer the question put to him (or it was cut out of the existing dialogue)

Toto

Be careful what you call a "fact." There are three differing versions of the spiritual Jesus appearing to Saul or Paul in Acts, with only a brief mention of a simple "appearance" in Paul's epistle 1 Corinthians 15 (the originality of which is debatable.)

In Acts 9, "The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone."

But in Acts 22, Saul (now known as Paul) says "My companions saw the light, but they did not hear [sometimes translated 'understand'] the voice of him who was speaking to me."

In Acts 26, Paul claims that he and all of his companions fell to the ground due to the bright light.

The likelihood of Acts containing any actual history of this story is quite small. But if it is historical, Act does not describe a private mental experience.

But it is silly to think that this is historical, when it is a retelling of some prior stories well known at the time from the Septuagint and the Greek theater.

Robert M Price notes: (read more there)

stephan huller

Mohammed was similarly called 'the madman' owing to his visionary experience but I don't think Muslims would agree that it was wholly imaginary

So too Mani (owing to a play on the Greek word maneis "mad," or mania, "madness." He too had a 'visionary' experience but not one that necessarily solely happened in his own head.

bacht

LXX -> Philo -> Mark = Jewish/Hellenistic syncretism

the rest is details

Kapyong

Gday,

That's not a "fact".

It's ONE variant version of a supernatural story from a religious book.


K.