Vorkosigan

spin, I didn't sat 14:28 was the only mention. I said it was the only time JESUS mentions Galilee. 14:28 is a supernatural prophecy and thus a creation of the author of Mk or a later redactor. All other instances occur in Markan redaction.

Just to clarify.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

cave, I've dropped out so you don't have too many people to reply to.

spin

Guess it's my bad.

But why couldn't our writer have received that with other material?


spin

the_cave

Alright, fair enough. I'll try not to say anything too controversial in my final comments.

If that's the way you feel, fine, I accept that.

Don't disagree here.

It would give us a small window onto that era.

Means just what it means; tells us something, doesn't tell us everything.

I agree.

I really don't think so. I'm sorry if you see one.

I guess at this point I simply don't understand what you think the mechanics of discussion are. I'm sorry if we're at odds on this.

Yes, I was. I was assuming that all my posts were being read by everyone.

No, I am trying to go beyond it based, for one thing, on Mark 16:7. This will be continued in my discussion with Amaleq.

But apparently not the ones that weren't direct responses to you, I guess. This appears to have been a misunderstanding, on my part, at least.

No, it has to do with the "brothers" mentioned in Mk 6:3

Well, at least we've established that!

I'll cover this when I respond to Amaleq.

I'll give a brief response to it anyway, for those who are still reading, but at this point I think we merely agree to disagree.

The missing ending of Mark makes sense if there had been Galilean appearances that the reader would know about.

the_cave

Or maybe they don't know this. Maybe there was some confusion on this. Maybe they've never read Mark.

This argument also works against you--if the original claimants to a resurrection experience had not had those experiences in Galilee, why wouldn't the redactor who supposedly added the reference be concerend that his readers would know that?

In the case of Luke, I agree. In the case of Mark, I don't.

Why? Are you saying the Q prophets had resurrection experiences? If they didn't, what point would the reference serve?

Exactly--sort of (I don't think it has much to do with Paul, but perhaps instead with a tradition of a Jerusalem event--the parousia, for example.)

I agree. In fact I'm arguing for both--from Galilee, and eventually with an important association with Jerusalem. I understand if you don't want to make any claims either way.

Amaleq13

And maybe Mark created it. There is no conclusive evidence but I tend to consider the author's reliance upon the OT (as Vorkosigan has so ably demonstrated) as well as the treatment his story obtains from subsequent rewriting authors to be persuasive evidence.

My argument was based on the assumption you were making (ie that the Galilee tradition has some historical basis). Removing the assumption, as you do above, removes the argument. If it was known that the initial experiences were not in Galilee, it makes no sense for the author to create such a scene. That doesn't argue against me but serves to support the conclusion, suggested by Luke's treatment, that no such knowledge existed. With regard to the location of the initial resurrection experiences, Paul makes no claims and the Gospels disagree. The only reasonable explanation, IMO, of this evidence is that the actual location was not known.

IMO, the location of a ministry in Galilee, however, ultimately depends on Q. If that hypothetical text originally began as a simple collection of Cynic-style sayings to which other information was later added (including a connection to Jesus), we can hardly consider this a reliable basis for assuming historicity.

Also, are you suggesting that Mk16:7 is a later addition? I'm not sure it matters but I tend to assume it was part of the original text.

I understand that this is your assumption/hypothesis but, IMO, you have offered nothing substantive enough to support that conclusion in opposition to the evidence of literary creativity (ie OT reliance and subsequent treatment by other authors).

There is no evidence of resurrection beliefs in Q but their activities do appear to have been centered in Galilee so it would only make sense to depict the fundamental experience that supposedly resulted in the continuation of that activity as taking place in the same location.

But you have no evidence for both. You have separate lines of evidence for one or the other. If you understand that, then you truly do understand why I don't think one can argue for the historicity of either.

the_cave

Alright, you're entitled to do so, but I still don't see why the young man would send the apostles back to Galilee, unless there was already a tradition of Galilean appearances. The OT reference has already been fulfilled in the narrative by the Galilean ministry.

This makes no sense, as I will note below:

So why would the hypothetical redactor who added it to Mark (and Matthew, I guess!) create such a scene?

But only the gospel of Luke--the latest, the most narrative-driven, and therefore the most suspect.

I agree.

Why? If it was known that this fundamental experience happened in Jerusalem, and only Jerusalem, why place it anywhere else?

I have evidence from Matthew and Mark (and John, but as Vork noted the story set by the Sea of Galilee may have originally been a part of Mark) that there were initial appearances in Galilee. I have evidence from Luke and John that there were appearances in Jerusalem. This seems to me to reflect two traditions of appearances. I see nothing wrong with this in principle.

Amaleq13

This is basically an argument from personal ignorance and, as such, is not terribly persuasive to anyone else. There is no evidence of such a tradition prior to Mark's story and it is clearly not necessary as a motivation for the author as we have seen from the alternatives suggested in the thread. As I said from the beginning, any suggestion will necessarily be speculative. That you prefer one particular speculation does not make it more likely nor more supported by evidence. In addition, we have already seen that Luke's elimination of the Galilean appearances argues against any such tradition.

Again, we can only speculate about "why" but you seem to have missed the point. The fact that the author of Mark and the author of Matthew rewriting Mark both feel free to depict an initial appearance in Galilee suggests that there was no tradition to the contrary. It does not require an existing consistent tradition but it does appear to deny an existing inconsistent tradition. Likewise, the fact that Luke and John feel free to eliminate the Galilean appearance location and move it to Jerusalem suggests that there was no tradition to the contrary. And by "tradition", I mean "known or assumed to be the ways things actually happened. If we assume that either Mark or Matthew's version was widely known (more likely for the latter), that would appear to include their story.

We have no good reason to assume that there existed any "oral tradition", passed down from eyewitnesses, of any specific location for the initial appearances of the resurrected Christ. Based on Paul, it seems reasonable to conclude that this absence of a reliable tradition results from the unimportance of the location relative to the belief that such appearances had taken place.

Mark's author, having no tradition to rely upon, suggested that the appearances took place in Galilee but did not describe them. Matthew accepts this part of Mark's story but adds some description as does a later editor of Mark. Luke and John, for whatever reason(s), prefer to depict those appearances as taking place near and in Jerusalem.

John does not explicitly describe the location of the initial appearances but it is difficult to read a single day's trip by Mary all the way to Galilee to talk to the disciples after meeting the risen Christ at the tomb. Whether Luke can be objectively shown to be "the most narrative-driven" or not, all the stories are suspect.

Given that it is placed elsewhere, we can only conclude that it was not "known" to have taken place in Jerusalem.

You have evidence from Mark that Matthew repeats. That doesn't double the evidence.

No, the intial appearance to the disciples seems to take place near Jerusalem. Mary has gone from the tomb to the disciples to inform them and "that same evening"(20:19) Jesus appears to them.

Yes, two separate and mutually exclusive versions of the story but no "tradition" supporting either as historical nor any reason suggesting that either must be or even likely to be.

Vorkosigan

He could have! But it isn't necessary. What about "Galilee" cannot be accounted for by Isa 9:1 and the S.O.P. of the writer of Mark? I mean, historically speaking, what compels us to see that as coming from a source? Paul knows nothing of Galilee, the center of the cult is Jerusalem.

There might be something. I was reading Downing's book on Paul and the Cynics last night, quite enjoyable, his work is. Galilee was quite the Cynic center.....and that may be why it appears in the tradition. But then popular thought was so shot through with Cynic thought, that it may not need a particular locale for its origin.

Vorkosigan

Chili

Paul should not recognize Galilee if they later condemned Galileans as heretics. Luke also knew better because there is a difference between "below" and "above" and I think that that distinction is made here.