Bernard Muller

Vinnie wrote:

So I am interested in the disciples not beleving in a bodily rez.

Several Qs: What evidence do you cite for the beliefs of Peter and co?

Bernard: Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie. When are you going to read my website?
I addressed the issue in my page HJ-2b, called "Jesus' message".
HJ-2b: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html
See also that one:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/t58.html


Do you accept a Pre-Marcan Passion narrative? What elements were or weren't in it if you do?

Bernard: No I don't. What's veridic is the "royal" welcome, the disturbance in the temple (next day), the arrest by chief priests' servants (the same day of the disturbance) and the crucifixion next day by the Romans. I cover that on my page HJ-3a "Jesus' last days" (and also lot about the empty tomb). All the rest are Markan fabrications, including many details about the four aforementioned events.
HJ-3a: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes3.html

Did Pharisees adhere to bodily resurrection in Paul's day? Paul doesn't say spirit or body, but instead opts for "spirit body". I have difficulty not seening Paul as believing in some form of bodily rez.

Bernard: No according to Josephus. Philo was writing strictly about spiritual resurrections. I went into a debate with Layman on the subject of Paul's belief on the matter. Paul was certainly leaning for spiritual (ethereal) entities in heaven, but honestly, he did not close the door to a heavenly body with some physicality.
Once again, I covered the subject in details on my HJ-2b page.

Paul, also mentions lots of appearances (e.g. to Peter, James and the disciples and so forth). On what grounds do you make the claim that they did not have any resurrection beliefs? What about this crucified messiah compelled their faith?

Bernard: You refer to a passage in 1Cor15. I am sure that passage is a Christian interpolation. I explained the many reasons for that conclusion on a page dedicated to a part of that epistle:
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/co1c.html


Also, Mark presupposed the risen Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee despite ending at 16:8. We can scarcely think Mark did not intend for his readers to connect these dots which were uttered by Jesus himsels IIRC. Ergo, how can he be trying to apologize for them never believing in resurrection when he has Jesus appear to them in Galilee afterward?

Bernard: I suppose "Mark" wanted his readers to think that Christ tried to appear in Galilee to them, in a form like dreams or a stranger. But after the crucifixion, and with the disciples not believing in resurrection generally, it would be understood they "missed" this kind of appearance because their minds were "closed" (as they are blamed often in the gospel)! "Mark" had to take in account the like of Peter never told Jesus resurrected (and that was known by all in his community).
That's more understandable if you consider the empty tomb as an afterthought, that is with no dead body involved (laid and then disappeared). Even with the body gone, "Mark" may have not intended Jesus' body went to heaven: in Philo, the unfound tomb of Moses is considered a sign of the spiritual rez of Moses, but not evidence his body went up there.
In the time of Mark, they was no belief of a bodily resurrection of Jesus, only a spiritual one. But then of course, Christians were asking for reassurance. "Mark" involved the body disappearance and the young man/angel explanation. That was a start. Then "Luke" went one step further.

Plus in Mark a woman annoints Jesus before he dies knowing he will rise. She understood Jesus would raise.

Bernard: First, there is so many problems with that passage I think it has nothing authentic. Second, read the passage yourself, there is nothing about that woman knowing Jesus will rise.

This is where I see your theory as flawed but I think you may be dead on re: the tomb and the silence


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The empty tomb is bogus and there are signs "Mark" wrote it as an afterthought when he was finishing his gospel (obviously he felt Jesus allegedly predicting his resurrection was not enough). And how could "Mark" know these women told no one anytime?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Massively edited out comments as I misunderstood you.

What Mark may be doing is explaining why NO ONE ever pointed to the empty tomb proving a risen Jesus.

Bernard: Yes, for sure.

Best regards, Bernard

Steven Carr

Random damage and disintegration would probably have led to an even more abrupt, meaningless ending than we have now. If we assume that the ending of something just

Bernard Muller

Attonitus wrote:
Ya, but that polemic is first known to us through GMatthew. So that could have started from the time GMark appeared in Matthew's community and that gospel was accepted there. GMark was then a sitting duck which could be used against its defenders. And the tomb found empty and opened was an easy target. Later other hypotheses surfaced to "explain" the empty tomb. But by that time, the empty tomb was well accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Exactly but "they" (i.e. Streeter) are(is) reluctant to offer any specifics because that is when the implausibility of any such scenario becomes evident. It is a cherished text yet it is allowed to become damaged without making copies. And all non-damaged copies were unfortunately destroyed. And the original author was no longer available to provide the original ending. And the damage leaves a false ending that manages to convince most scholars it is the original.

All we can do is recognize the implausibility of the set of coincidences necessary to produce the observed results.

It sure looks that way since I'm agreeing with you against those who claim the ending denies the appearances. Surely you aren't so eager to disagree with me that you fail to recognize your own side of the argument?

Amaleq13:Luke replaces the implied appearances in Galilee with actual depictions but has them taking place on the road to Emmaus and in Jerusalem. He changes the command Jesus gives and only includes Galilee as a reference:

"He is not here, but He has risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee..."

For some reason, this author prefers the first appearances to take place near and in Jerusalem rather than Galilee.

There is no reason to make the plain meaning of the text complicated unless you intend to obscure that plain meaning.

The authors are specifically describing the initial appearances to the disciples but they clearly tell conflicting stories. Matthew has the initial appearances taking place in Galilee while Luke has the initial appearances taking place just outside and, shortly thereafter, within Jerusalem.

Both authors are describing the initial appearance of Jesus to his disciples. Matthew depicts this taking place on a mountain in Galilee. Luke depicts this taking place on the road to Emmaus with an initial appearance to the rest of the disciples shortly afterward in Jerusalem. I did not say that Luke "translated" the promised appearances in Galilee, I said he changed the location.

If you actually read my post, you will see that I clearly indicate Mark's text implies initial appearances in Galilee. Luke depicts the initial appearances elsewhere. How is that not a change?

You would clearly benefit from reading Crossan as you appear to be ignorant of the narrative patterns the author is understood to have incorporated into his book.The author of Mark is creating patterns in his narrative not "slavishly" following a pattern forced upon him.

Amos

And now let me add that they must not recognize him or he would never be crucified again. The second coming will be the same as the first and will require the same treatment as the first except here we, the person each one of us is, must be the identity to be crucified . . . or it would be foolish to "follow Jesus" and "drink of the cup he drank."

Amos

Don't you find this an interesting comment? It's fact of life and just as a snake must work against resistence to shed its own skin so must the "Christ in us" be set free through 'rubbing' our modern day pharisees the wrong way! lol! They are the temple to be upset so they will crucify our ego.

Layman

And Gundry and Witherington and many others. Streeter is hardly alone.

No one assumes there were no copies made.

No one assumes that all non-damaged copies were destroyed, if by that you mean intentionally so.

Nor do we have to suppose that the original author was faced with the knowledge that his gospel would not survive into posterity perfectly intact. But yes, it is possible that even if he would have known, that he might not have been in a position to rewrite his gospel. He could have died or been imprisoned.

What do you mean by false ending?

If you established such an impluasibility, I agree you would add weight against the argument. You have not done so.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. I asked you a question:

Where did I say that the fear of the women prevented any resurrection appearances?

You did not answer it.

I am rather clear that it is because Mark is so unamibiguous that there will be resurrection appearances, combined with his regular practice of narrating fulfilled predictions, that suggests that there was more to the narration.

I agree that Luke did not tell us anything about resurrection appearances in Galilee. Chronologies and sequences of events can be flexible in the hands of ancient writers. Luke does not want the Galileean appearances to be a part of his story so he leaves them out.

Saying he changed the location makes it sound like he is narratingt he same appearance in a different location. That is obviously not the case. The appearance on the road to Emmaus is very different than the appearance in Matthew.

I'm not sure what your point is. Whatever Mark may "imply," we do not have any narrated resurrection appearances.

And you would plainly benefit from reading Gundry. I've read several NT scholars who stretch and grasp to find some literary reason explaining Mark's ending. I actually went both ways on the issue until Gundry's argument about Mark's self imposed tendency to narrate fulfilled predictions. Why you conclude that this is "slavishly" following a pattern "forced" on him is beyond me. For whatever reason or whatever it's source, this is what the author of Mark chose to do:

Robert H. Gundry, Mark, A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, at 1009-10.

Steven Carr

Indeed, he does try to airbrush any such appearances out of history, (assuming he knew of them).

He has his Jesus command the disciples not to leave Jerusalem.

Can we really take Lukes final chapter as history when we know he will simply edit out anything which does not suit him, and put in anything which he wants his readers to believe happened (such as Jesus's command not to leave Jerusalem)?

Layman

Jesus commands the disciples not to leave Jerusalem at the end of his resurrection appearances, which Luke's second volume of Acts makes clear happened over an extended period of time.

If I remember correctly, collapsing a number of events into some representative events that best suit the author's point is called telescoping. It was not an uncommon literary device and certainly is not an indication of fictitious writing. Of course, when reading such accounts, we should not assume they are comprehensive narrations.

Amaleq13

Mark 16:8, obviously. If there was a longer original ending, one of the coincidences we must accept is that it "broke" at a point that happened to fool many scholars into thinking it was the original ending.

I haven't had to do a thing. The implausibility of the concept is evident.

I certainly did. I indicated that I wasn't claiming this was something you contended but a notion against which you argued. I'm agreeing with you that the text of Mark cannot be legitimately interpreted to exclude resurrection appearances. The author clearly believes that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Galilee despite the fear of the women and their apparent failure to deliver the message.

Again you are ignoring the important aspect that these are the initial appearances being described. Luke clearly denies that those intial appearances took place in Galilee contrary to Mark's implied location and Matthew's explicit depiction.

That is precisely what the author of Luke is doing. He is depicting the initial appearances of Jesus to the disciples in an entirely different location from Mark and Matthew.

In location, yes. In timing, no. Both stories claim to describe Jesus' initial appearance to the disciples.

My point is the Mark implies the initial appearance will take place in Galilee and Matthew explicitly agrees by actually depicting that appearance though with a bare minimum of description. Luke, on the other hand, depicts the initial appearances taking place on the road outside Jerusalem and, shortly after, in Jerusalem to the rest of the disciples.

You introduced the word "slavishly" in reference to the observed narrative pattern Crossan describes. Do try to keep track of your own arguments.

Regarding Gundry, it has already been noted that Mark's consistently negative depiction of the disciples hardly allows him to actually depict resurrection appearances to them. He has to settle for implying they will occur as he completes the narrative pattern already described in the previous post.