The Silence of Mark [Archive I]

Layman

March 20, 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Amaleq13
How would something like that happen?

If we assume there was originally more to Mark's story, isn't it more likely to have been intentionally deleted and replaced than "lost"?

I see you can't be troubled by reading the article in question.

III. What Happened to the Original Ending?

If Mark did not end at verse 8 and the modern version is not original to the text, what happened to the original ending? Whatever it was--and we will likely never know--it probably happened fairly early in the textual tradition. Nevertheless, the most likely explanation is that the manuscript was damaged.

This is not an unlikely event. As B.H. Streeter points, the ending of a gospel written on a scroll would be a particularly vulnerable part of the manuscript. If such a manuscript was damaged, the ending (or the beginning) would be the most likely part to suffer. "There is no difficulty in supposing that the original copy of Mark, especially if the Gospel was written for the Church of Rome about A.D. 65, almost immediately lost its conclusion. The two ends of a roll would always be the most exposed to damage; the beginning ran the greater risk, but, in a book rolled from both ends, the conclusion was not safe." B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins, at 333. N.T. Wright provides confirmation, and an interesting example, of this proposition. "[T]he beginning and ending of a scroll were always vulnerable. A glance at any edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in particular at facsimile photographs, will reveal that even the scrolls which are preserved almost in their entirety are in many cases damaged at both ends." The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 619. Gundry adds further support for this point. "At first thought it may seem difficult to imagine that a break occurred at all; for the last segment of a scroll, by being the innermost when the scroll is rolled up, is the most protected. But on second thought, when a scroll is not rolled up at the time of a break, the last segment has been subjected to the most stress by being rolled up the most tightly, and deteriorative dampness may have been trapped in it when the scroll was rolled up." Gundry, at 1017.

Streeter adds these additional thoughts:

How in the case of Mark the damage occurred it is useless to speculate. At Rome in Nero's day a variety of "accidents" were by way of occurring to Christians and their possessions. The author of Hebrews, writing to the Roman Church, alludes to the patient endurance of "spoiling of their goods." That the little library of the Church, kept in the house of some prominent adherent, should have suffered in some 'pogram' is highly credible. Curiously enough, there is evidence that copies of Romans were in circulation which lacked the last two chapters, which looks as if one of the earliest copies of that Epistle, the one other documents of which we can be quite sure that the Roman Church had a copy of at this time, was similarly mutilated.
Streeter, at 333.

Accordingly, there is nothing extraordinary about postulating that an early manuscript of Mark was damaged. Especially if--as Mark's many latinisms suggest--it was written in Rome, the site of the great fires and early persecution of Christians by Nero.

In any event, if there was a longer ending, you are ignoring the very reason we would think that it existed. As the article explains, the text of Mark foretells resurrection appearances in Galilee. While Luke may have little interest in them, Matthew sure would.

I see little reason to conclude that the original ending was suppressed by other Christians. Why preserve the Gospel at all if it was so disturbing and there were alternatives? No, if there was an extended ending it was lost through accident, weathering, or destruction by pagans. Or perhaps a combination of the above.

Steven Carr

March 20, 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Layman

Streeter adds these additional thoughts:

How in the case of Mark the damage occurred it is useless to speculate. At Rome in Nero's day a variety of "accidents" were by way of occurring to Christians and their possessions. The author of Hebrews, writing to the Roman Church, alludes to the patient endurance of "spoiling of their goods." That the little library of the Church, kept in the house of some prominent adherent, should have suffered in some 'pogram' is highly credible. Curiously enough, there is evidence that copies of Romans were in circulation which lacked the last two chapters, which looks as if one of the earliest copies of that Epistle, the one other documents of which we can be quite sure that the Roman Church had a copy of at this time, was similarly mutilated.
Streeter, at 333.

Do we know that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church?

It is also hard to see people in a pogram just removing the last part of a scroll.

Layman

March 20, 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Do we know that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church?

It is also hard to see people in a pogram just removing the last part of a scroll.

What does the Letter of Hebrews have to do with it?

If you mean Mark, we do not know that it was written in Rome. But that seems a likely place of origin given the latinisms and the tradition. Of course, the vulnerability of the end of the scroll is not dependent on the Gospel being written in Rome.

graymouser

March 20, 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Amos
Because Mark is the pagan persective and they would have no knowledge of inspired things such as Immaculate Conception and paradise regained.

They just report what the casual observer would see without any theology or spiritual insights. Immaculate Conception is a pagan concept, Amos, and not at all a Jewish one. (The author of Matthew gives one of the worst scriptural citations in history to try and make it wash with his audience.) It is precisely pagans who would've been impressed by a virgin birth, a plentiful model in Mediterranean mythology.

Please at least try not to make claims that are entirely counterfactual.

-Wayne

Layman

March 20, 2004, 01:19 PM

graymouser

March 20, 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Layman
Which virgin births in Mediterranean mythology? I was under the impression that most such births followed sexual intercourse between the divinity in human form and the "virgin." Well, that's part of the general form in classical mythology.

The odd births of Dionysus (with virgin elements) aside, Mithras springs to mind as an extremely strong example.

-Wayne

Mageth

March 20, 2004, 01:41 PM

Guys: The Immaculate Conception is a belief about the sinless conception and birth of Mary (resulting from otherwise natural sexual intercourse between her mother and father), not about the birth narrative of Jesus.

Layman

March 20, 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by graymouser
Well, that's part of the general form in classical mythology.

The odd births of Dionysus (with virgin elements) aside, Mithras springs to mind as an extremely strong example.

-Wayne

Mithra springing from a rock is a virgin birth?

And I'm not sure classifying a birth as "odd" proves some sort of correlation.

So what examples of virgin births do you have?

Mageth

March 20, 2004, 02:10 PM

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6868/sh02003.html

About two thousand years before the Christian era Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, was said to have given birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept (or Amenophis) III, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented:-

1. The Annunciation: the god Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother.

2. The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the Holy Spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth.

3. The Birth of the Man-god.

4. The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi ?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol.

There are more examples on that page.

Steven Carr

March 20, 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Layman
What does the Letter of Hebrews have to do with it?

Probably nothing, but your article mentioned it, almost as though you considered it appropriate to mention it.

I stand corrected though.

Attonitus

March 20, 2004, 04:02 PM

Some scholar it sustains that the Mark account finishes abruptly for papyrus lack, the papyrus then was very expensive :D

Layman

March 20, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Probably nothing, but your article mentioned it, almost as though you considered it appropriate to mention it.

I stand corrected though.

Ah, you mean the reference to Christian goods being spoiled. I think you are oversimplifying, very conveniently of course, the way in which a book could be damaged during such an event.

Perhaps if you tried to explain yourself more instead of leaving us with glib comments we could avoid such confusion.

Steven Carr

March 20, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Layman
Ah, you mean the reference to Christian goods being spoiled. I think you are oversimplifying, very conveniently of course, the way in which a book could be damaged during such an event.

Perhaps if you tried to explain yourself more instead of leaving us with glib comments we could avoid such confusion.

What glib comments?

And why do you say 'you mean the reference to Christian goods being spoiled.' , when I had written 'Do we know that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church?' I made no reference at all to that part of your post. Not any at all, because I doubted that even a Layman would try to claim that the Hebrew reference to 'Christian goods being spoiled' was a reference to Mark's Gospel. But Layman simply cannot bring himself to treat me with any kind of fairness....

You quoted somebody as saying that Hebrews was written to the Roman Church.

I asked if there was good evidence for this.

You responded that Hebrews has got nothing to do with it.

Accordingly, I retracted my comments, realising the mistake that I had made, and get rewarded by your saying that I made 'glib comments'.

Sheesh........ I can't even retract my mistakes without Layman insulting me.

And I still feel that a 'pogram' (the word you quoted) would do more damage to a scroll than removing the last bit.

Still, if you have the faintest piece of evidence that any scroll of Mark's Gospel was attacked in a 'pogrom', I'm sure you will crow about it for years to come.

If you have no evidence, you will keep quiet about the the fact that you have not the slightest piece of evidence that the ending of Mark's Gospel was removed in a 'pogrom'.

As it happens, I think Layman's article is good,a nd have said so on an another thread. I was just puzzled by his quote of somebody claiming Hebrews was written to the Roman Church, and asked for clarification. But asking Layman a civil question is a waste of time, I've found.

Amaleq13

March 20, 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Layman
I see you can't be troubled by reading the article in question.

Not at the time, no. I was hoping for something more credible than suggesting the original ending somehow disintegrated before anyone had a chance to make complete copies. They didn't notice it becoming damaged and become concerned enough to copy it? No wonder Streeter doesn't want to speculate about the specifics. :rolleyes:

In any event, if there was a longer ending, you are ignoring the very reason we would think that it existed. As the article explains, the text of Mark foretells resurrection appearances in Galilee.

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. All the women would have done is prepare the disciples for what was going to happen when they got to Galilee. Jesus doesn't tell the disciples to go to Galilee, he assumes/knows that is where they are headed. The failure of the women simply means they were not warned ahead of time.

While Luke may have little interest in them...

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.

...Matthew sure would.

This author apparently has no problem with Mark's implied first appearance taking place in Galilee so he doesn't change Mark except to offer an explicit, though extremely limited in detail, depiction of it. Oh, he also changes Mark's ending so that the women do tell the disciples.

I don't find the article's argument for a longer original to be more credible than Crossan's explanation (The Birth of Christianity, p.557f) that the extant ending "fits exactly as a conclusion to Mark's gospel". He points out that the text is self-contradictory if we don't assume they told someone anyway. Otherwise, how would the author know about the scene? Crossan also notes that Mark's "relentlessly critical" depiction of the disciples (especially the Big Three and more so Peter) essentially makes it impossible for him to end with actual appearances to them. He goes on to argue that it completes a pattern of failure/success, crucifixion/resurrection, named/unnamed, male/female.

failure/crucifixion/named/male = Mk 10:32-42

success/resurrection/unnamed/female = 14:3-9

success/crucifixion/unnamed/male = 15:39

failure/resurrection/named/female = 16:1-8

Bernard Muller

March 20, 2004, 07:13 PM

Here is what I concluded for Mark's ending at 16:8:
It is the original ending.
Because the disciples never said Jesus resurrected, "Mark" had the women scared into silence (forever) after witnessing the empty tomb (highly unrealistic human behavior). And that was explaining why the disciples, who never believed in resurrections anyway, do not know about the empty tomb, nor were they "interpreting", back in Galilee, dreams or appearance of stranger or anything else as an emanation of the resurrected Christ.
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?

The two resurrection appearances in GMatthew were added later, by two different interpolators, at different times. Also there are textual signs about that.
Because "Matthew" had no bodily resurrection story (as he was copying GMark), he added the tomb being sealed and guarded to prove the body had not been stolen (and consequently resurrected). It is obvious that Jews, in Matthew's community, knew about GMark's ending and were spreading the rumor that the disciples got the body (Mt28:12-15).

The bodily resurrection came with GLuke, probably helped by a story involving a certain Cleopas (24:18). Later in 'Acts', the same gospeler got bolder and had the bodily resurrected Jesus hanging around for 40 days, when in the gospel the reappearance looks very short and tentative, seemingly to dispel the idea that Jesus showed up as just a ghost.

"John" followed GMark first and his original gospel ended at 20:10a. Then when Gluke got known, "John" went back to work, and among other additions/insertions extended the ending up to 20:23. Then when after 'Acts' got known, the gospel got added on up to 20:31. Finally Ch.21 got "appendixed" after presbyter John, the last alleged disciple of Jesus, died.

If anyone is interested, everything I postulated is explained on my web site. I can give more details where to find it if requested. I recall HJ-3a, 'parables part 2' and my mini web site of GJohn, from original to canonical, explain all of that.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

March 20, 2004, 09:34 PM

Not at the time, no. I was hoping for something more credible than suggesting the original ending somehow disintegrated before anyone had a chance to make complete copies. They didn't notice it becoming damaged and become concerned enough to copy it? No wonder Streeter doesn't want to speculate about the specifics.

No one suggested the original ending just somehow disintegrated, they note that the end of any scroll is vulnerable to damage. Nor does anyone claim that no other copies were made. What they postulate is that the textual tradition that has survived was based on a damaged original. Were other copies destroyed in the fires of Rome? Lost to persecution? Simply not copied because the Gospel of Matthew had risen to prominence? We cannot discover the actual causes. All we can do is recognize the plausibility of a lost ending.

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. All the women would have done is prepare the disciples for what was going to happen when they got to Galilee. Jesus doesn't tell the disciples to go to Galilee, he assumes/knows that is where they are headed. The failure of the women simply means they were not warned ahead of time

Where did I say that the fear of the women prevented any resurrection appearances? Are you sure you read it?

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.

This is rather simplistic. Matthew does have some resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. But Luke only describes the ones in Jerusalem. He has no interest in Galilee, whereas Matthew does.

How you detremined that the Emmaus road appearance are translated from Galilee resurrection appearances is hard to figure. Indeed, since you are confinced that Mark ended with no appearances whatsoever it is also difficult to understand how you concluded that Luke changed his sources.

While I do not find surprising your preference for Crossan, it seems unlikely that Mark slavishly followed some sort of pattern ending with female to the detriment of his pattern of narrating the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies.

Attonitus

March 20, 2004, 09:42 PM

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).

Interesting, but the Jewish antichristian polemic it was never doubted of the empty tomb,it was only interpreted otherwise: hypothesis of the body robbery, movement for the gardener, apparent death.

Amos

March 20, 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by graymouser
Immaculate Conception is a pagan concept, Amos, and not at all a Jewish one. (The author of Matthew gives one of the worst scriptural citations in history to try and make it wash with his audience.) It is precisely pagans who would've been impressed by a virgin birth, a plentiful model in Mediterranean mythology.

Please at least try not to make claims that are entirely counterfactual.

-Wayne

Well if you are stuck on the definition of Immaculate Conception lets just call it the "divine conception" as well as the "post-resurrection appearances of Jesus" that are not known to pagans without an inspired perspective . . . nor to Jews with their eyes still closed who therefore did not recognize Jesus as Christ or they would have never convicted Jesus to be crucified. That's pagan enough for me to account for the omission of the virgin birth and post resurrection appearance in Mark.

Let me add here that even the most educated Christians today would never recognize Christ if he did return.

Vinnie

March 20, 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Here is what I concluded for Mark's ending at 16:8:
It is the original ending.

I agree. On a literary and theological level, ending at 16:8 works just too well to be coincidental IMO.

Because the disciples never said Jesus resurrected, "Mark" had the women scared into silence (forever) after witnessing the empty tomb (highly unrealistic human behavior). And that was explaining why the disciples, who never believed in resurrections anyway, do not know about the empty tomb, nor were they "interpreting", back in Galilee, dreams or appearance of stranger or anything else as an emanation of the resurrected Christ.

This is very interesting as Mark is proven to do a few things:

Seems to try and undercut a "traditionally Jewish Jesus". The controversy traditions are largely polemic. The most glaring example is the food laws. Mark has Jesus declare the food laws void in chapter 7 and then calls the apostles "dull" for not understanding it.

It is just as certain as any other HJ fact that he did not nullify the food laws--possibly more so than any other. Jesus' followers also knew he didn't. Mark decides to have them "be idiots" and "misinterpret" Jesus all along.

The food laws are the clearest example of where Mark attempts to do what you claim he did here with the empty tomb.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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. :o

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

As I accept the burial story is largely fiction and Jesus peeps did not know what happened to Jesus body no one ever pointed to an empty tomb. But now Mark (or someone slightly before him) is doing this. He has to explain why the disciples and co never appealed to the empty tomb or why no one ever mentioned it or knew about it. Maybe the woman never told anyone is the apologetic?

See Mark never says the disciples (Male Ones!) know where Jesus was laid by Joseph. The end of ch. 15 says: "Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. 47Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid."

The disciples may not even know about J of A taking Jesus' body. it is these woman who never tell anyone. The tomb story may have went with them. Mark may just be "omnisciently narrating" as ancient authors often supplemented their narratives with material having no possible or plausible line of transmission. Josephus did it and so did the evangelists.

Mark having the woman tell no one is his defense for why no one mentioned the empty tomb before him.

Now of course this is good and dandy and makes sense of Mark here but we ALSO must accompany this with solid evidence against the historicity of the tomb story (which I think we can).

So I think your theory is partially correct. Mark is not undercutting Rez belief. I think its a certainty Jesus followers accepted this in some form (Paul is weighty here!) and Mark makes it clear Jesus will appear to them in Galilee after he rises.

But yes Mark constantlky thrashing them for not understanding about Jesus' fate does raise some questions aout the specifics of their belief. But there are other explanations for the thrashing in Mark Literary purposes (narrative heightening of the hero through contrast, pastoral purposes (most thnk Mark went to a persecuted community) and so on.

So I would say this is Mark apologetic for the tomb story just as the dicsiples being dumb and misinterpreting Jesus was the explanation for the food laws.

But if it can be shown Jesus followers believed in a spiritual rez then the story changes. Mark is dennigrating them for this (not acceptinmg bodily) all along. But Mark has an appearance to them and so does Paul. It Makes it hard to deny the apostles did not accept a Rez in some form.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

March 21, 2004, 12:03 AM

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

March 21, 2004, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Vinnie
I agree. On a literary and theological level, ending at 16:8 works just too well to be coincidental IMO.

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

March 21, 2004, 11:29 AM

Attonitus wrote:
Interesting, but the Jewish antichristian polemic it was never doubted of the empty tomb,it was only interpreted otherwise: hypothesis of the body robbery, movement for the gardener, apparent death.

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

March 21, 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Layman
What they postulate is that the textual tradition that has survived was based on a damaged original.

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. :rolleyes:

All we can do is recognize the plausibility of a lost ending.

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

Where did I say that the fear of the women prevented any resurrection appearances? Are you sure you read it?

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.

This is rather simplistic.

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

Matthew does have some resurrection appearances in Jerusalem. But Luke only describes the ones in Jerusalem.

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.

How you detremined that the Emmaus road appearance are translated from Galilee resurrection appearances is hard to figure.

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.

Indeed, since you are confinced that Mark ended with no appearances whatsoever it is also difficult to understand how you concluded that Luke changed his sources.

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?

While I do not find surprising your preference for Crossan, it seems unlikely that Mark slavishly followed some sort of pattern ending with female to the detriment of his pattern of narrating the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies.

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

March 21, 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Amos

Let me add here that even the most educated Christians today would never recognize Christ if he did return.

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

March 22, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by 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."

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

March 22, 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Exactly but "they" (i.e. Streeter)

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

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. :rolleyes:

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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:

Mark has repeatedly and in detail narrated the fulfillments of Jesus' to other predictions so far as those fulfillments, occurred during Jesus' time on earth.... They include the seeing of God's kingdom as having come with power at the Transfiguration, the finding of a colt, some disciples' being met by a man carrying a jar of water, the showing of the Upper Room, the betrayal of Jesus by one of the Twelve, the scattering of the rest of the Twelve, the scattering of the rest of the Twelve, the denials of Jesus by Peter, and of course the Passion (including numerous details predicted by Jesus) and the Resurrection. Though Mark has quoted Jesus as predicting events to take place later, particularly just before the future coming of the Son of man and that coming itself, there remains one prediction whose fulfillment is to take place while Jesus is still on earth, the prediction in 14:28 that after his resurrection he will go ahead of the disciples into Galilee. At 16:7 the young man in the empty tomb recalled this prediction and added it to both the enhancement, 'and there you will see him,' and an allusion to the reliability of Jesus' word: 'according as he told you.' It seems highly unlikely that Mark has included not only that prediction in its original setting but also a recollection of the prediction and two additions to it, the first one enhancing it, the second calling attention to its reliability (cf. the repetitions and elaborations of the passion-and-resurrection predictions in 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:32-34) only to omit a narrative of its fulfillment even though this fulfilment, like the others that he has narrated, took place during Jesus' time on earth.

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

Steven Carr

March 22, 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Layman

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.

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

March 22, 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by 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)?

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

March 22, 2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Layman
What do you mean by false ending?

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Saying he changed the location makes it sound like he is narratingt he same appearance in a different location.

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.

The appearance on the road to Emmaus is very different than the appearance in Matthew.

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

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

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.

Why you conclude that this is "slavishly" following a pattern "forced" on him is beyond me.

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.

Amaleq13

March 22, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Indeed, he does try to airbrush any such appearances out of history, (assuming he knew of them).

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

Layman

March 23, 2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

March 23, 2004, 02:20 AM

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

March 23, 2004, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by 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

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

Amaleq13

March 23, 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Layman
All I can do is show you why it certainly seems you were claiming this was some argument of mine...

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.

Acts makes clear that Luke does not contain anything close to all of the resurrection appearances.

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

And both Matthew and Luke have the first appearance in Jerusalem...

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.

All you can say is that the first appearances reported by Matthew and Luke are in Jerusalem.

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

Labeling something the "initial appearance" is no substsitute for looking at the appearance narratives themselves.

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

Simply stated, the Emmaus narrative is not simply a transfer of the same appearances in Galilee in Matthew.

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 agree the "initial" appearance is to the women.

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.

You seem intent on arguing that Luke simply transferred the same appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem.

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).

Are you going to explain yourself or not? What makes Gundry's observation of fulfilled narratives some sort of outside pressure?

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

March 23, 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by 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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 do not even have the same disciples involved.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

March 23, 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Layman
Why is this an irrelevant tangent?

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

It's funny how often you label your mistakes or erroneous charges "irrelevant tangents."

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.

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

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.

You can say whatever you want.

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

But you are reading the gospels somewhat anachronistically by doing so.

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

And Matthew's account is far to brief to read too much into it's reference to them worshipping Jesus in Galilee.

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

Matthew's account is so brief and collapsed into one episode it's reading too much into it.

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.

And Luke basically tells us he only referred to a few resurrection appearances.

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.

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

John depicts Mary alone.

You can't call them the same alleged event by playing with the terms.

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

They are obviously different events involving a different time, location, persons, and conversations.

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.

You should not be so quick to blame others for misunderstanding some point you made.

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.

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....

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.

...I request further clarification of just what significance you find ini Luke's placing the resurrectiontion appearance in Jerusalem and Matthew in Galilee?

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.

At first you seemed to be arguing that Luke simply changed Mark to suit his purposes.

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

But Mark contains no resurrection appearances.

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.

Furthermore, whatever he may "imply," he does not foreclose appearances in Jerusalem.

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.

Indeed, Matthew also has the Galilee statement but narrates a Jerusalem appearance anyway.

Not to the male disciples and that is the point.

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.

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

March 23, 2004, 12:18 PM

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

March 23, 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by 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

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

March 23, 2004, 01:27 PM

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).

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

Mageth

March 23, 2004, 02:30 PM

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

Me, a few words? ;) I'll give you a short and a long version. Enjoy.

Spong has some different explanations for different ones of the discrepancies, IIRC. In general, Spong believes that the Gospels are not to be taken as literal, linear historical accounts, but must be recognized for the midrashed "traditions" or faith documents that they are.

But, IIRC, a general, rough outline of his hypothesis goes something along the lines of:

Summary: the Gospels are traditions that were recorded, and the Gospel writers used midrash to various degrees to convey their interpretation of Jesus as the Messiah in understandable ways and to tie Jesus and the events (real or imagined) of his life into Jewish tradition. As the various Gospels were written, the authors added, modified, or deleted elements to support particular beliefs about Jesus or even to support or denigrate particular ones of his followers.

(I get this last bit as much from Crossan in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (another good read relevant to the subject) than from Spong, but I think he'd agree with that).

After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, events conspired to Hellenize Christianity, and the midrashed "traditions" or legends began to be interpreted as literal, linear histories.

The long version:

1) Jesus gained followers over a period, mostly in Galilee, teaching and performing "miracles" (not uncommon at all for someone in that time).

2) Jesus was crucified when he went to Jerusalem, probably at passover. His followers abandoned him and dispersed back to their homes to try to pick up their lives.

3) Some time later, probably about six months, Peter had some sort of epiphany or dream experience of Jesus. This, perhaps, occurred on the shore of Galilee, and may be related to some of the many events portrayed in the Gospels that happened there, e.g. those that have Jesus "appearing" mysteriously, directing the fisherman on where to catch fish, etc.

4) Perhaps some others (Andrew, John, etc) then had similar experiences upon hearing of Peter's experience.

5) Peter and others then returned to Jerusalem, probably during the Festival of Booths in the Fall to proclaim the "risen" (but not bodily resurrected) Jesus - that Jesus had been taken up into Heaven by God. Thus, six months after the crucifixion was when the "risen Jesus" was realized and proclaimed (in its nascent form - the idea of Jesus being physically resurrected had still not developed). Jesus was a Messiah, a Christ, but not seen as divine yet.

This, BTW, explains some of the imagery in the later-developed accounts of the week leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, e.g. the palm leaves at Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem (the triumphal entry being a metaphor for Peter et al bringing the news of the "risen Jesus" to Jerusalem). Palm leaves were used during the Festival of Booths. Spong describes several other links between the Festival of Booths and the eight or so critical days portrayed at the end of the Gospels.

6) In the earliest NT writings, Paul etc. first proclaimed a "risen" Jesus and not a physically resurrected Jesus, consistent with the "epiphany" explanation. Jesus, at the time, was not seen as "divine", but as a man, a messiah, exalted by God into heavenly glory (a concept not foreign to Jewish tradition, of course).

7) The Gospel writers, writing after Paul, used Midrash to embellish the Jesus tradition they received, tying Jesus tradition into Jewish tradition, and adding in many of the "miraculous" accounts in Jesus' life (which, along with the details of the crucifixion/resurrection, are strangely absent from the earlier writings).

8) In doing so, they introduced the physical resurrection of Jesus and the details surrounding it (as well as pre-crucifixion details) to convey the "crucified and risen Jesus" in a way that could be understood. In addition, many other events (e.g. the birth narratives) were introduced through midrash or just pure invention to convey in understandable ways the "meaning" of Jesus, and to tie Jesus the Messiah into Jewish tradition and holy texts.

They also, and this is an important point in Spong's book, conflated the crucifixion event at passover with the "resurrection" event at the Festival of Booths.

9) Earlier Gospel writers have Jesus directing his followers to return to Galilee and wait for him, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the "risen Jesus" was first realized in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

10) Later Gospel writers move the "Easter" events totally into Jerusalem, as the Church was asserting its authority there (a political move more than a theological move, IMO).

11) Many stories in the Gospels placed before the Crucifixion should really be read as having happened after the "resurrection", which really happened six months after the Crucifixion. ;) (As if things weren't confusing enough). You can see evidence of this in some of the "Jesus and the Fishermen" stories, which have parallels both before and after the Resurrection in the Gospels. IOW, the Gospels should not be taken as linear accounts of the "non-literal" life of Jesus as portrayed in therein. The Gospels are not intended to be literal, linear histories.

12) As each Gospel was written and based on earlier traditions or Gospels, various elements were modified to match the changing views of the Jesus tradition that was growing and morphing (related to 10).

13) The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE caused a sea change in the nascent church, as the Christians were more or less forced into going to the Gentiles and thus hellenizing their beliefs (though this process had started prior to 70, though with some resistance, as indicated by Paul's writings). Prior to that event, most Jews accepted Christianity as another valid sect of Judaism. After that event, Jews retreated into a more "fundamental" Judaism that rejected such sects.

One result of the "Hellenization" was the literalization of the resurrection and other accounts (e.g. the birth narratives) that were "midrashed" into the Gospels by the writers. The Church, after the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion into the Hellenistic, Gentile world, quickly lost its understanding of the process that developed the traditions as Jewish faith documents in the first place, and quite rapidly started taking the accounts (e.g., the resurrection) literally.

------------------------------------

I think that is a more or less correct summary of Spong's hypothesis in Resurrection, but I possibly left out one or two important points or may even have slightly misrepresented one or two of his points due to my own misinterpretation of what he is saying. It's also possible that a bit more of Crossan may have crossed over ( ;) ) as I read the two books back-to-back.

-------------------------------------

I mentioned above Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. A very short summary of one of his key hypotheses, if not his key point: The resurrection accounts in the various gospels, and many of the other stories, are as much if not more so "political" as they are theological; they represent attempts to establish apostolic authority for some individuals or groups (e.g., Peter, or the Twelve) or to denigrate apostolic authority of others (e.g., Thomas, in John).