Amaleq13

At the very least, he recognized that Mark implied the location of the initial appearances to be Galilee.

Layman

We do not know for sure where it "broke" if it was broke.

In any event, there are a hundred different theories about why Mark ended there. It is hardly obvious and many have searched through various, some rather far fetched, theories as to why. Most are quite obviously ad hoc justifications. If it is so clear that it ends there, I would have expected a much more clear scholarly consensus.

To you, perhaps. But arguing that those who believe there was a longer ending do not know how the original was lost is hardly a way of making that evident.



All I can do is show you why it certainly seems you were claiming this was some argument of mine:

The point the article (I have since read it) misses is that the fear of the women to tell anyone doesn't prevent the appearances from taking place.

This came after I noted you had not read my article. You then said you had read it and I missed the point about the women. This certainly does not seem like you agreeing with me.

Acts makes clear that Luke does not contain anything close to all of the resurrection appearances. And both Matthew and Luke have the first appearance in Jerusalem, even though Matthew otherwise places other appearances in Galilee and has instructions about going to Galilee.

All you can say is that the first appearances reported by Matthew and Luke are in Jerusalem. And that Luke only reports appearances in Jerusalem. Labeling something the "initial appearance" is no substsitute for looking at the appearance narratives themselves. Simply stated, the Emmaus narrative is not simply a transfer of the same appearances in Galilee in Matthew. They involve a different place, a different time, even different people, Jesus says different things. They are nothing alike.


They all agree the "initial" appearance is to the women. You seem intent on arguing that Luke simply transferred the same appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem. That is hardly the case as I explained above.

Furthermore, given the interesting congruence on Luke and John regarding resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, it seems more likely that Luke has his own source material for those apperances--not that he simply transposed Galilee appearances to Jerusalem appearances. Especially given that you and I agree that Luke had no access to a version of Mark that narrated any appearances or to Mattew.


Are you going to explain yourself or not? What makes Gundry's observation of fulfilled narratives some sort of outside pressure? That's what I do not understand about your argument.

You are not even bothering to respond to Gundry. His explanation is much more plausible and much easier to track. Everytime Jesus makes a prediction and it is fulfilled, the fullfilment is narrated. Every time. Crosson on the other hands claims to know just HOW much good Mark can attribute to the disciples? And implying a resurrection appearance is enough but actually narrating them is too much? Did he check this on his positive-light-o-meter? His explanation is about as ad hoc as it gets. Indeed, it is not even clear why Jesus appearing to the disciples would put them in a great, positive light. Certainly the focus is on Jesus and adding proof to his resurrection rather than on honoring the disciples.

Bernard Muller

My question to Layman:
How do you "schedule" the differents apparitions in GLuke and GMatthew? What is the first one, the next, etc. and when each one occur (in day(s) or week(s)).

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

I have not scheduled them, though I've reviewed a few attempts at comprehensive reconciliations.

Amaleq13

As I have explained twice already, you were mistaken. Your article argues against the notion that the author of Mark denies resurrection appearances. I agree that that notion is flawed but I pointed out that you missed a very fundamental flaw in that Mark clearly implies that the appearances will occur whether or not the women relate the message. Try to avoid getting bogged down in such irrelevant tangents.

This is totally irrelevant to the question of where the initial appearances to the disciples is depicted.

It should be obvious that I am referring to the initial appearances to the male disciples. Matthew depicts that appearance as taking place in Galilee while Luke depicts an initial appearance to two on the road outside Jerusalem followed by an initial appearance to the rest in the city, itself.

No, I can also say that the authors depict the initial appearances to the male disciples in totally different locations.

It is by considering the contents of narratives that one recognizes these are initial appearances being described.

I agree that the authors do not depict the same scene(s) when they claim to describe the initial appearance of Jesus to the male disciples.

They all (4) agree that the initial appearance is to Mary but they differ with regard to who was with her. This is not relevant to the subsequent depiction of the initial appearance to the male disciples.

I don't understand the source of your confusion since I have already explained this twice. As I already stated, there is no "transfer", there is a change. There are entirely different depictions of the same alleged events (i.e. the initial appearance to the male disciples).

I already have. You would probably be less confused if you actually read my replies. I did not claim that Gundry's observation was "some sort of outside pressure". You introduced the concept of Mark's author "slavishly" following a narrative pattern after I quoted Crossan. I denied that adjective was appropriate and indicated Mark's author was creating the pattern Crossan describes on his own.

Layman

Why is this an irrelevant tangent? It's funny how often you label your mistakes or erroneous charges "irrelevant tangents."

I ask again. Where does my article claim that the "fear of the women" prevents the appearances from taking place? You levelled this charge. Either back it up or withdraw it. If you thought it a charge worth making, I do not understand why it is an "irrelevant tangent" when you can't back it up?

It tell us we do not know all of the resurrection appearances occurred.

Ah, further clarifications. It was not obvious and you seemed obsessed about where the "first" appearances occurred. Matthew and Luke agree they occurred in Jerusalem.

You can say whatever you want. But you are reading the gospels somewhat anachronistically by doing so. And Matthew's account is far to brief to read too much into it's reference to them worshipping Jesus in Galilee.


Not really. Matthew's account is so brief and collapsed into one episode it's reading too much into it. And Luke basically tells us he only referred to a few resurrection appearances.


They do not even have the same disciples involved.

They agree there was a group of women, Mary being the most prominent among them.

You can't call them the same alleged event by playing with the terms. They are obviously different events involving a different time, location, persons, and conversations.



You should not be so quick to blame others for misunderstanding some point you made. You preferred Crossan to Gundery and stated "The author of Mark is creating patterns in his narrative not "slavishly" following a pattern forced upon him." I took this to be some sort of criticism of Gundry, because you have utterly failed to respond to Gundry's point. And you have also failed to respond to my criticisms of preferring Crossan (and his positive-light-o-meter) to Gundery (and the practice of always narrating fufilled predictions).


And since you ignored my point about Luke's agreement with the Gospel of John, I request further clarification of just what significance you find ini Luke's placing the resurrectiontion appearance in Jerusalem and Matthew in Galilee? At first you seemed to be arguing that Luke simply changed Mark to suit his purposes. But Mark contains no resurrection appearances. Furthermore, whatever he may "imply," he does not foreclose appearances in Jerusalem. Indeed, Matthew also has the Galilee statement but narrates a Jerusalem appearance anyway. And since Luke and John seem to know about sources for appearances in Jerusalem, it seems clear he was not simply moving the appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem. And you have also conceded that they are describing different appearances and Luke did not simply transpose the Galilean appearance to Jerusalem. It appears that all you are arguing is that Luke and Matthew leave their readers with different impressions about where some of the disciples first saw Jesus resurrected.

Amaleq13

Because it is based on your misunderstanding of my statement and on a subsequent continued misunderstanding of the explanations.

It isn't my mistake. It is your misunderstanding. I really don't see how you can continue to be so confused after my repeated explanations. The only "charge" I made was to point out that you missed the fact that Mark clearly implies the appearances would take place whether or not the message was given by the women.

We don't need to know about "all" the resurrection appearances in order to recognize that the authors of Mt and Lk depict the initial appearance to the male disciples as taking place in entirely different locations. Whatever happened after that is irrelevant to this basic fact.

Amaleq13:No, I can also say that the authors depict the initial appearances to the male disciples in totally different locations.

No, I am limited by the texts but they clearly support my contention.

I am reading the gospels as they are written. There is no basis to your suggestion above.

Matthew's account is sufficiently lengthy to establish that he depicts the initial appearance to the male disciples as taking place in Galilee.

Regardless of your speculations about unmentioned appearances, the author of Matthew clearly depicts the initial appearance to the male disciples as taking place on a mountain in Galilee.

This is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Luke depicts the initial appearances of Jesus to the male disciples as taking place in and around Jerusalem rather than on a mountain in Galilee.

John depicts Mary alone.

I agree. I can only call them the same alleged event by reading the texts.

On the contrary, they are obviously describing the same event (i.e. initial appearance to the male disciples) but in completely different locations and situations.

I don't consider two attempts to disabuse you of a misconception "quick". Especially when the misconception appears based on either a too sloppy or too quick reading of the relevant posts.

That is where you made the mistake. I don't understand how you did it given that I was clearly directly responding to your comment on Crossan and was clearly using a term you used on that response.

We can only speculate about Luke's motivations. In fact, I believe my initial post on the subject contained the phrase "for whatever reason" in referring to Luke's apparent decision to ignore Mark's implied initial appearance to the male disciples as taking place in Galilee. At the very least, it suggests that there was no known historical tradition about exactly where Jesus first appeared to his male disciples. Mark apparently believed they had taken place in Galilee and Matthew apparently shared that belief. Luke clearly did not.

And you persisted in this misconception despite my attempt to immediately correct it.

No, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, he does clearly imply that the initial appearance to the male disciples will take place in Galilee.

The message that Jesus gives to the women does not appear to leave any room for earlier appearances to the male disciples. The statement clearly indicates that Galilee will be the first time they will see the Risen Jesus.

Not to the male disciples and that is the point.

The authors clearly depict those initial appearances to the male disciples as taking place in entirely different locations. This is not an argument but a description of the contents of the narratives.

Bernard Muller

Mt26:32 "But after I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee."
Mt28:7 "And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him . ..."
Mt28:10 "Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me ."

But then in GLuke, the resurrected Jesus in on the road to Emmaus, and later in the evening appears to the disciples and other Galileans in Jerusalem, all of that on the same day of his alleged resurrection.

How can that be reconciled?

Best regards, Bernard

Mageth

Read John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, where he addresses that very issue (not really by "reconciling" it, but by providing a plausible explanation as to how the discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of the Easter Story may have come about).

Bernard Muller

Mageth:
Can you relate Spong's explanation in a few words?

My theory is as follows:
"Luke" and his community heard about a story involving Cleopas & one companion meeting a stranger (days, weeks, months, years after the crucifixion), whom later Cleopas claimed to be Jesus in some angel body.
Because it was believed by some in her community, "Luke" used that to introduce the idea of bodily resurrection, and placed the incident right after the resurrection. The problem: that makes the resurrected Jesus appearing close to Jerusalem, and to some previously unknown disciples, not even members of the twelve. To fix that and to follow up on it, the bodily Jesus appears soon after to the 12 and other Galileans while they are still in Jerusalem. Here, it is mostly to dispel Jesus reappearing as just a ghost (as believed by some or heard through others in the community).

Best regards, Bernard