dongiovanni1976x

Do we have any examples of Jews taking this much care of someone who they believe had broken God's commandments like they did Jesus? I ask because the Jews mentioned here were seen as patriots of the war against Rome defending the Temple of God, not blasphemers.

Zeichman

Lest also we forget Crossan's response:

jjramsey

Given the limitations of how we know what is in Q, the better assumption is simply agnosticism, for reasons I'll discusss below.

I would not assume Meier hasn't looked at that scholarship. Really though, it comes down to the answers to these questions:

1. What tools do we use to find out what is in Q?
2. What are the limitations of those tools?

We know the answer to the first question: We look at what Matthew and Luke have in common that isn't in Mark. The second question is trickier but includes the following answers:

1. The content of Q is filtered through Matthew and Luke, so we cannot always know the exact wording.
2. If only Matthew or Luke uses Q material, it won't be recognized as Q material.
3. If neither Matthew or Luke use Q material, we'll never see it.

The last two items I mentioned make it problematic to say that something is not in Q.

I think Crossan is misapplying the idea of testing hypotheses. To test the hypothesis of Q, one checks to see how well it explains the contents of the Synoptic gospels versus other theories. To do something like attempting to find layers in Q is not a test of the Q hypothesis, but instead is treating the Q hypothesis as a given.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is still no reason to assume any of this and the null hypothesis is still that Q did not contain a passion of any sort, much less an Empty tomb narrative. Given the fact that such a narrative would break the genre and format of the rest of Q (which is a sayings Gospel and does not contain extended narratives) I think the possibility of a Passion is unlikely. Reggardless, my larger point still stands that there is no evidence that the Empty Tomb story existed before Mark. The inherent implausibility of the Romans relinquishing the body of an insurgent for burial (and I think all the talk about specifically Jewish tradition is a bit of a red herring since Jewish authorities would have had no say in the dispensation of the body in any case), the lack of any pre-Markan evidence for the tomb (including in Paul), the lack of any veneration site and the demonstrably fictional nature of virtually all of Mark's Passion make the historicity of the tomb dubious at best.
Allison's entire argument rests on the presence of women at Mark's tomb? That innovation (which contradicts Paul, by the way) is easily explained by the fact that Mark was writing an anti-apostolic polemic. He needed a device to convey the idea of a "risen" Christ which avoided giving the apostles any witness or authority. The presence of the women at the tomb (for reasons with no historical plausibility, it should be said) serve to humiliate the disciples (lowly women had more courage than they did) as well as to tell Mark's audience that Christ had risen but the Apostles never knew it.

jjramsey

Yes and no. The appropriate null hypothesis here is, "When you don't know, you don't know." It would be inappropriate to say that Q had a passion narrative. However, it would also be inappropriate to say with confidence that Q did not have one.

From Mark Goodacre (a critic of Q):

That and "Visions of Jesus, without belief in the empty tomb, would probably have led to faith in Jesus' vindication and assumption to heaven, not to belief in his resurrection from the dead." I think you can see why he does not state his conclusion with much confidence.

Interesting. You may want to suggest that to him, though I think you are overstating the polemical aspect. Another problem is that the women don't come off looking that good, especially if Mark really did end at 16:8 (instead of having the ending in the autograph torn off accidental, as is often supposed). Anyway, he has an e-mail address on his web page. BTW, he does deal with it contradicting Paul, basically saying that it is more likely that the tradition of the women would be later mostly ignored, hence Paul's omission, than added on later.

jeffevnz

Forgive me if I'm in over my head...

Doesn't the Gospel of Thomas lend weight to the argument that Q existed? Furthermore, doesn't Thomas help us to determine what was and wasn't in Q?

As I understand it, Thomas includes much (all?) of the material that was previously hypothesized to be in Q, and is considered to be either Q itself, or an early offshoot of the document.

It seems to me that if this is so, then whether or not Thomas has a passion narrative or empty tomb is a strong indicator of whether or not they were in Q.

Feel free to straighten me out, if necessary.

Zeichman

I don't want to derail this thread, but in the same way, as far as I know, the idea of the stratified Q has not been conclusively refuted.

In regards to the your comments about the alleged silences in Q, it is reasonable to conclude that it is unlikely that references to such significant things as the resurrection or the passion would have been ommitted by one of the two evangelists. As far as I know, there isn't anything explicitly about the resurrection and empty tomb from Mark which either evangelist omits, and likewise with events from the passion which have obvious conflicts with the evangelist's interests (the mocking in re: Luke is the only entire pericope from the passion in Mark absent in either Luke or Matt's account). Likewise, one would expect more evidence from the minimal Q content to attest to the significance of these events. Instead, one only finds the minimal Q content to contain a few references which do little more than associate Jesus' death with the tendency to kill prophets, or the ambiguous saying about bearing one's cross. Or the total lack of the community's realization of Jesus' messiahship (in the literal sense, not Son of Man), for that matter.

I certainly agree that it would be premature to say something to the effect of, "Q never connects idea-x-present-in-Q to idead-y-present-in-Q," given that either Matt or Luke could have omitted a single saying which does so, given a lack of centrality to the evangelist's theology. However, such deafening silences like one finds about the tomb, resurrection, passion, and Christ-hood are of another category. To make appeals like Meier's to the unknown are unconvincing and sound like apologetics.

jjramsey

As far as I can tell, Meier, who accepts Q, is simply pointing out the inherent uncertainties in dealing with a non-extant text whose contents can only be known by reconstruction.

The Bishop

This is amongst the reasons I'm not a Christian. You have something called the Christian Research Institute, and as was pointed out publish this completely baseless piece of fairly worthless opinion, claiming "more evidence with every spade's turn" but without even footnoted references to archaeological finds. Then he rounds up with this:So the Christian Research Institute's perspective is to do no research whatsoever, and simply have Mr Hanegraaff issue opinions ex cathedra. *sigh*

Chunk

Just a small point, but its been said here that Paul makes no reference to a tomb. He does however say:

1 Cor 15:3-4

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures


Paul isnt mentioning a tomb, but he is making reference to a burial.

Is this not at least some evidence against the idea that Jesus was thrown to the dogs or chucked in a pit somewhere?

To a lesser degree, (although it can be taken as metaphor), you can look at:

Romans 6:3-4

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:11-12

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.