Steven Avery

Again we run into a likely interconnection with Matthew,
the "also" here matching perfectly the "but" in verse 24.

John Gill
"the sense may be, that they told them, that though they could not find the dead body of their Lord, yet they had seen him alive, as they did by the way, as they were returning, (Matthew 28:9,10) and also that a vision of angels had appeared to them:"

Luke 24:23-24
And when they found not his body, they came, saying,
that they had also seen a vision of angels,
which said that he was alive.
And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre,
and found it even so as the women had said:
but him they saw not.

Not surprisingly, the modern versions often mess this up,
such as the NIV and Holman that omit 'also'.

Shalom,
Steven

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take a look at "Matthew's" PriMary source leading up to the Supposed resurrection, "Mark":

15: (NIV)
40 "Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there."

Compare to "Matthew":

27: (NIV)
55 "Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons."

The very similiar language and phrasing makes it Likely that for the most part, "Matthew" copied "Mark" here and made Editing changes. Therefore, any Changes by "Matthew" are not Evidence of harmonizing, there are Evidence of Contradiction. "Matthew's" "Mary the mother of James and Joses" is a Supposed witness of "Matthew's" resurrected Jesus. But let's go back to "Mark" to see Who this "Mary" might have been:

6: (NIV)
" Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

Footnotes:

1. Mark 6:3 Greek Joses, a variant of Joseph"

Note that the NIV footnote indicates that "Joses" is original as supported by The Metz:

"6.3 καὶ Ἰωσῆτος {B}
The combination of Alexandrian and Western witnesses, along with Θ f 13 33 565 700 al, provides considerable support for the reading Ἰωσῆτος. Codex Sinaiticus and several other witnesses have assimilated the name to Ἰωσήφ in Mt 13.55. According to Lagrange (commentary in loc.), the name Ἰωσῆ (A C W f 1 al) is a transcription of *יוסי‬, the Galilean form of *יוסף‬".

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
Compare "Mark's" Death Witness Mary to "Mark's" Life Witness Mary:

15:40...
"Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome."

6:3...(as adjusted for Lying)
"Mary's son and the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"

The similarity is ReMarkable. Judas and Simon were the other "Brothers". I love it! Presumably though, since "Mark" does not identify Mary15:40 as
Jesus' mother and by Narrative indicates that Jesus' mother was not a Follower of Jesus this is a...now what's The Word...Replacement for Mary6:3.

Per "Matthew" this Mary was one of the first two to see the Supposed resurrected Jesus:

28: (NIV)
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you.
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Now Compare to John: (NIV)

25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

Per "John" this "Mary" was Jesus' mother. Mary, Mary, quite contrary. Perhaps Schmuelman! would like to argue that Mary's' sister's name was "Mary" (Unlike the Supposed resurrection this would actually be Possible).

In the Big Picture I've indicated in the:

Mark's View Of The Disciples

Thread my take on The Development of The Christian Forgery of Supposed resurrection Evidence:

1) Jesus was not resurrected because that would be Impossible.

2) No Historical Witness witnessed an Impossible resurrection.

3) Potential Historical witnesses Died.

4) Christianity claims that Jesus was resurrected. This is the Closest Assertion to what was Historically Impossible - A General Assertion (no Specific witnesses).

5) Paul accepts that Jesus was resurrected. Paul is closer to the General assertion. His writings generally just make a General assertion rather than appeal to specific witness. If there was any claimed Specific witness available to him it was Completely unpersuasive to him before Conversion and even after Conversion was Secondary Evidence to Personal Revelation. The few claims in his writing of Specific Witness could be Forgeries and certainly Subsequent Christianity had Motive and Opportunity to Forge.

6) "Mark" writes the Original Gospel and likewise is Limited to a General Assertion that Jesus was resurrected. "Mark" provides No narrative of resurrection appearence and his Primary Theme of using The Disciples and especially Peter as Illustrative examples through Narrative of Textbook Failure outlined in Discourse makes it Unlikely he would so much as Imply that resurrection appearence to The Disciples was significant evidence for the Supposed resurrection.

7) "Matthew" and "Luke" recognize the problem of having the supposed Evidence Limited to a General claim of Supposed resurrection and therefore Forge Specific resurrection appearence. But because they don't have "Mark" to follow they are completely different ("Matthew" - Galilee vs. "Luke" -Jerusalem) and all the biases are covered.



Joseph

MAGDALENE, n.
An inhabitant of Magdala. Popularly, a woman found out. This definition of the word has the authority of ignorance, Mary of Magdala being another person than the penitent woman mentioned by St. Luke. It has also the official sanction of the governments of Great Britain and the United States. In England the word is pronounced Maudlin, whence maudlin, adjective, unpleasantly sentimental. With their Maudlin for Magdalene, and their Bedlam for Bethlehem, the English may justly boast themselves the greatest of revisers.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

Only faith can make that reading seem "likely". Rational thought says otherwise:

In addition to not finding his body they also saw a vision of angels.

Seeker2000

I would also think that a good explanation for the "also" would be that they had not found his body (but had found the tomb empty) and had also seen a vision of angels. Meaning in addition to the empty tomb.

But I have found another "also", in the New American Standard Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...24&version=49;):
I'm not completely sure how the "also" is to be understood here. Maybe at this place it's the other way round and it refers to the vision of the angels that the women had reported on. Or it could be meant that they (the apostles who went to the tomb) found the tomb empty and the women had said this as well (also).

Maybe one would have to look at the original Greek - perhaps this is a Greek expression that sounds better in the original language. Unfortunately I don't understand any Greek, but maybe someone else on this forum does and will comment on this. The Greek texts can be found here: Verse 23 & Verse 24.

About the "but Him they did not see" phrase: Maybe this could be understood as they went to the tomb and found it as the women had said (meaning the stone rolled away and inside only the linen wrappings), but indeed they didn't see Jesus there.

Steven Avery

I really don't spend a lot of time on incomprehensible argumentation (if there was a point in the post).

Shalom,
Steven

Seeker2000

Any more comments on my last posting that talked about possible explanations for the used phrasings in Luke?