Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

    PMPN = Pre Mark Passion Narrative. This theoretical source contains the empty tomb and daters to AD 50 or so.


    Many of these lost Gospels pre date the canonical gospels, which puts them prior to AD 60 for Mark:

    Hendrick:


    The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely on earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.


    The unknown Gospel of Papyrus Egerton 2
    The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 was discovered in Egypt in 1935 exiting in two different manuscripts. The original editors found that the handwriting was that of a type from the late first early second century. In 1946 Goro Mayeda published a dissertation which argues for the independence of the readings from the canonical tradition. This has been debated since then and continues to be debated. Recently John B. Daniels in his Clairmont Dissertation argued for the independence of the readings from canonical sources. (John B. Daniels, The Egerton Gospel: It's place in Early Christianity, Dissertation Clairmont: CA 1990). Daniels states "Egerton's Account of Jesus healing the leaper Plausibly represents a separate tradition which did not undergo Markan redaction...Compositional choices suggest that...[the author] did not make use of the Gospel of John in canonical form." (Daniels, abstract). The unknown Gospel of Egerton 2 is remarkable still further in that it mixes Johannie language with Synoptic contexts and vice versa. which, "permits the conjecture that the author knew all and everyone of the canonical Gospels." (Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, "An Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements" in Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96). The Unknown Gospel preserves a tradition of Jesus healing the leper in Mark 1:40-44. (Note: The independent tradition in the Diatessaran was also of the healing of the leper). There is also a version of the statement about rendering unto Caesar. Space does not permit a detailed examination of the passages to really prove Koster's point here. But just to get a taste of the differences we are talking about:






    Egerton 2: "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him. Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.
    Egerton 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"? Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"



    Koster:


    "There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)

    Gospel of Peter

    Fragments of the Gospel of Peter were found in 1886 /87 in Akhimim, upper Egypt. These framents were from the 8th or 9th century. No other fragment was found for a long time until one turned up at Oxyrahynchus, which were written in 200 AD. Bishop Serapion of Antioch made the statement prior to 200 that a Gospel had been put forward in the name of Peter. This statement is preserved by Eusebius who places Serapion around 180. But the Akhimim fragment contains three periciopes. The Resurrection, to which the guards at the tomb are witnesses, the empty tomb, or which the women are witnesses, and an epiphany of Jesus appearing to Peter and the 12, which end the book abruptly.

    Many features of the Gospel of Peter are clearly from secondary sources, that is reworked versions of the canonical story. These mainly consist of 1) exaggerated miracles; 2) anti-Jewish polemic.The cross follows Jesus out of the tomb, a voice from heaven says "did you preach the gospel to all?" The cross says "Yea." And Pilate is totally exonerated, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion. (Koester, p.218). However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus. (Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. (In Koester p.218) Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!

    Corosson's Cross Gospel is this material in the Gospel of Peter through which, with the canonicals and other non-canonical Gospels Crosson constructs a whole text. According to the theory, the earliest of all written passion narratives is given in this material, is used by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and by John, and also Peter. Peter becomes a very important 5th witness. Koester may not be as famous as Crosson but he is just as expert and just as liberal. He takes issue with Crosson on three counts:





    1) no extant text,its all coming form a late copy of Peter,

    2) it assumes the literary composition of latter Gospels can be understood to relate to the compositions of earlier ones;

    3) Koester believes that the account ends with the empty tomb and has independent sources for the epihanal material.

    Koester:


    "A third problem regarding Crossan's hypotheses is related specifically to the formation of reports about Jesus' trial, suffering death, burial, and resurrection. The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite eary because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently Matthew and Luke) and John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter. However except for the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection in the various gospels cannot derive from a single source, they are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not form a common source." (Koester, p. 220)

    "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)

    So Koester differs from Crosson mainly in that he divides the epiphanies up into different sources. Another major distinction between the two is that Crosson finds the story of Jesus burial to be an interpolation from Mark to John. Koester argues that there is no evidence to understand this story as dependent upon Mark. (Ibid). Unfortunately we don't' have space to go through all of the fascinating analysis which leads Koester to his conclusions. Essentially he is comparing the placement of the pericopes and the dependence of one source upon another. What he finds is mutual use made by the canonical and Peter of a an older source that all of the barrow from, but Peter does not come by that material through the canonical, it is independent of them.



    "The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospel of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. All five gospels under consideration, Mark, John, and Peter, as well as Matthew and Luke, concluded their gospels with narratives of the appearances of Jesus on the basis of different epiphany stories that were told in different contexts. However, fragments of the epiphany story of Jesus being raised form the tomb, which the Gospel of Peter has preserved in its entirety, were employed in different literary contexts in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew." (Ibid, p. 240).

    Also see my essay Have Gaurds, Will Aruge in which Jurgen Denker and Raymond Brown also agree about the indpeendent nature of GPete. Brown made his reputation proving the case, and pubulshes a huge chart in Death of the Messiah which shows the idendepnt nature and traces it line for line. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the chart.

    What all of this means is, that there were independent traditions of the same stories, the same documents, used by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were still alive and circulating even when these canonical gospels were written. They represent much older sources and the basic work which all of these others use, goes back to the middle of the first century. It definitely posited Jesus as a flesh and blood man, living in historical context with other humans, and dying on the cross in historical context with other humans, and raising from the dead in historical context, not in some ethereal realm or in outer space. He was not the airy fairy Gnostic redeemer of Doherty, but the living flesh and blood "Son of Man."


    Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence. Note: all these "other Gospels" are not merely oriented around the same stories, events, or ideas, but basically they are oriented around the same sentences. There is very little actual new material in any of them, and no new stories. They all essentially assume the same sayings. There is some new material in Thomas, and others, but essentially they are all about the same things. Even the Gospel of Mary which creates a new setting, Mary discussing with the Apostles after Jesus has returned to heaven, but the words are basically patterned after the canonical. It is as though there is an original repository of the words and events and all other versions follow that repository. This repository is most logically explained as the original events! Jesus actual teachings!






    Canonical Gospels




    The Diatessaon is an attempt at a Harmony of the four canonical Gospels. It was complied by Titian in about AD172, but it contains readings whihc imply that he used versions of the canonical gospels some of which contain pre markan elements.

    In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:

    "Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)



    The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature



    Paul's allusions to the narrative relates to many points in the Gospels:













    He was flesh and blood (Phil 2:6, 1 Tim 3:16)
    Born from the lineage of David (Rom 1:3-4, 2 Tim 2:8)
    Jesus' baptism is implied (Rom 10:9)
    The last supper (1 Cor 11:23ff)
    Confessed his Messiahship before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13)
    Died for peoples' sins (Rom 4:25, 1 Tim 2:6)
    He was killed (1 Cor 15:3, Phil 2:8)
    Buried (1 Cor 15:4)
    Empty tomb is implied (1 Cor 15:4)
    Jesus was raised from the dead (2 Tim 2:8)














    Resurrected Jesus appeared to people (1 Cor 15:4ff)
    James, a former skeptics, witnessed this (1 Cor 15:7)
    as did Paul (1 Cor 15:8-9)
    This was reported at an early date (1 Cor 15:4-8)
    He asceded to heaven, glorified and exalted (1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:6f)
    Disciples were transformed by this (1 Tim 3:16)
    Disciples made the Gospel center of preaching (1 Cor 15:1-4)
    Resurrection was chief validation of message (Rom 1:3-4, Rom 10:9-10)
    Called Son of God (Rom 1:3-4)
    Called Lord (Rom 1:4, Rom 10:9, Phil 2:11)
    Called God (Phil 2:6)
    Called Christ or Messiah (Rom 1:4, Phil 2:11






    Summary and Conclusion

    Koster and Crosson both agree that the PMR was circulating in written form with empty tomb and passion narrative, as early as 50AD

    From this notion as a base line for the beging of the process of redaction, and using the traditional dates given the final product of canonical gospels as the base line for the end of the process, we can see that it is quite probable that the canonical gospels were formed between 50 and 95 AD. It appears most likely that the early phase, from the events themselves that form the Gospel, to the circulation of a written narrative, there was a controlled oral tradition that had its hay day in the 30's-40's but probably overlapped into the 60's or 70's. The say sources began to be produced, probably in the 40's, as the first written attempt to remember Jesus' teachings. The production of a written narrative in 50, or there abouts, probably sparked interest among the communities of the faithful in producing their own narrative accounts; after all, they too had eye witnesses.

    Between 50-70's those who gravitated toward Gnosticism began emphasizing those saying sources and narrative pericopes that interested them for their seeming Gonostic elements, while the Orthodox honed their own orthodox sources that are reflected in Paul's choices of material,and latter in the canonical gospels themselves. So a great "drying up" process began where by what would become Gnostic lore got it's start, and for that reason was weeded out of the orthodox pile of sayings and doings. By that I mean sayings Like "if you are near to the fire you are near to life" (Gospel of the Savior) or "cleave the stone and I am there" (Thomas) "If Heaven is in the could the birds of the air will get there before you" (Thomas) have a seeming gnostic flavor but could be construed as orthodox. These were used by the Gnsotically inclined and left by the orthodox. That makes sense as we see the earliest battles with gnosticism beginning to heat up in the Pauline literature.

    My own theory is that Mark was produced in several forms between 60-70, before finally coming to rest in the form we know it today in 70. During that time Matthew and Luke each copied from different versions of it. John bears some commonality with Mark, according to Koester, becasue both draw upon the PMR. Thus the early formation of John began in 50-s or 60s, the great schism of the group probably happened in the 70's or 80s, with the gnostic bunching leaving for Egypt and producing their own Gnostic redaction of the gospel of John, the orthodox group then producing the final form by adding the pro-luge which in effect, is the ultimate censor to those who left the group.

    The Gospel material was circularizing throughout Church hsitory, form the infancy of the Church to the final production of Canonical Gospels. Thus the skeptical retort that "they weren't written until decades latter" is totally irrelevant. It is not the case,they were being written all along, and they were the focus of the communities from which they sprang, the communities which originally witnessed the events and the ministry of Jesus Christ.
    Last edited by metacrock; 04-17-2016, 02:04 AM.
    Metacrock's Blog


    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

  • #2
    The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel

    Early Christian Writing dates this to 120-180 AD.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html

    At least some scholars believe it depends on both Matthew and John.
    "As presented in the introduction and the annotations, there is extensive literary contact between the Gospel of the Savior and the Gospel of John as well as between the Gospel of the Savior and the Gospel of Matthew. Literary dependence seems assured in these two cases. No judgment can be made regarding the Gospels of Mark and Luke, due to the fragmentary nature of the text, but there are two hints of similarity to the unique parts of Mark."
    http://peterkirby.com/upon-reading-t....iciFablR.dpuf

    I found nothing to indicate the fragments we have mention an empty tomb at all.


    Papyrus Egerton 2

    This is dated to 70-120 AD.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/egerton.html

    The entire text can be read here; there is no mention of anempty tomb (it might refer to Jesus being in a tomb, but the text is to fragmentary to be able to know what it refers to).
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-english.html

    So while you cite Koester as stating Papyrus Egerton 2 is early and independant, it does not establish an empty tomb.


    Gospel of Peter

    This is dated to 70-160 A.D.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

    A post Jewish revolt date is a certainty given the way the text talks about the Jews, which is very much like the Gospel of John (regarding them as very much apart from the early Christians, despite them being Jews too):
    "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html

    What I find interesting about the Gospel of Peter is that Jesus is not seen in Jerusalem after being crucified. As in the original ending of Mark, the tomb is found empty, and reference is made to Jesus appearing elsewhere. Simon Peter returns home, and starts fishing again. Both are consistent with Jesus being sighted only in Galilee, which is pretty good evidence that the sightings in and around Jerusalem were later additions.


    The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature

    Paul says nothing about an empty tomb.


    PMPN
    "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)
    Okay, but when was that passion narrative written - or rather, when was the empty tomb added to it.

    "In the first half of the third programme in the series Jesus: The Evidence, Professor H. Koester of Harvard University put forwards a view which must have been surprising, even astonishing, to many, not excluding many New Testament scholars. His argument was (1) that the first Christians must have followed the normal practice of worshipping at the tomb of Jesus; (2) that the Christians who had abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in AD 66 decided to explain the lack of worship at the tomb by saying the tomb was empty; and (3) that as the Gospels were written down years later, the story quickly began to be used to suggest that the tomb had always been empty."
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20tomb&f=false
    Moreover, since the breakdown of Ur gospel and epiphany sources (independent of each other) demands the logical necessity of still other sources, and since the other material described above amounts to the same thing, we can push the envelope even further and say that at the very latest there were independent gospel source circulating in the 40s, well within the life span of eye witnesses, which were based upon the assumption that Jesus was a flesh and blood man, that he had an historical existence.
    I accept this is good evidence Jesus existed, but of an empty tomb? No really. We do not know what was in the early sources; to hypothesise that they could have included the empty tomb is just made up evidence. Especially when your primary scholar seems to think the empty tomb was a later addition.
    My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
      The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel

      Early Christian Writing dates this to 120-180 AD.
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html

      At least some scholars believe it depends on both Matthew and John.
      No they don't. The site you are quoting (Pete kirby) says PMPN is consensus, Ray Brown proved there's an independent tradition not related to Matthew found in GPete.

      "As presented in the introduction and the annotations, there is extensive literary contact between the Gospel of the Savior and the Gospel of John as well as between the Gospel of the Savior and the Gospel of Matthew. Literary dependence seems assured in these two cases. No judgment can be made regarding the Gospels of Mark and Luke, due to the fragmentary nature of the text, but there are two hints of similarity to the unique parts of Mark."
      http://peterkirby.com/upon-reading-t....iciFablR.dpuf

      None of that disproves my hypothesis. All that says is the Gospel of savior is dependent upon Matthew not that the PMAPN is. Gospel of the savior is not PMPN


      I found nothing to indicate the fragments we have mention an empty tomb at all.
      that's because you don't understand the process. These ideas like PMPN are discovered like Q is, not by finding a physical fragment from a certain year but by showing the early form of a reading found in latter manuscripts. Those would be the Diatesseron and Edgerton 2.




      Papyrus Egerton 2

      This is dated to 70-120 AD.
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/egerton.html

      Not necessarily that's one scholar's understanding But more importantly it's not the year of the physical fragment but the differences in the form the reading takes.


      The entire text can be read here; there is no mention of anempty tomb (it might refer to Jesus being in a tomb, but the text is to fragmentary to be able to know what it refers to).
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-english.html

      the from of the readings in Diatesseron indicate that they are being preserved from an earlier reading,and that has empty tomb. Also in G Pete has an empty tomb

      So while you cite Koester as stating Papyrus Egerton 2 is early and independant, it does not establish an empty tomb.
      that's not the only source

      Gospel of Peter

      This is dated to 70-160 A.D.
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html
      it's the from of the readings not the age of the particular fragment or manuscript.



      A post Jewish revolt date is a certainty given the way the text talks about the Jews, which is very much like the Gospel of John (regarding them as very much apart from the early Christians, despite them being Jews too):


      "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html

      you are making that Mark was the first mention of a tomb and Mtt the first detailed description and so you dating it from those. There's a lot wrong there like for example Mark was based upon au Mark which much older. Those were not the first sources to talk about the resurrection.


      What I find interesting about the Gospel of Peter is that Jesus is not seen in Jerusalem after being crucified. As in the original ending of Mark, the tomb is found empty, and reference is made to Jesus appearing elsewhere. Simon Peter returns home, and starts fishing again. Both are consistent with Jesus being sighted only in Galilee, which is pretty good evidence that the sightings in and around Jerusalem were later additions.
      that's because it's an independent tradition. It doesn't just follow the synoptic.

      The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature

      Paul says nothing about an empty tomb.
      wrong there's is a passage that implies it. good at the fist post.

      PMPN

      Okay, but when was that passion narrative written - or rather, when was the empty tomb added to it.
      the stuff I quoted from Koester and Crosson says the PMPN is dated to mid first century.
      Metacrock's Blog


      The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

      The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

      Comment


      • #4
        pixie"In the first half of the third programme in the series Jesus: The Evidence, Professor H. Koester of Harvard University put forwards a view which must have been surprising, even astonishing, to many, not excluding many New Testament scholars. His argument was (1) that the first Christians must have followed the normal practice of worshipping at the tomb of Jesus; (2) that the Christians who had abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in AD 66 decided to explain the lack of worship at the tomb by saying the tomb was empty; and (3) that as the Gospels were written down years later, the story quickly began to be used to suggest that the tomb had always been empty."
        https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20tomb&f=false

        I accept this is good evidence Jesus existed, but of an empty tomb? No really. We do not know what was in the early sources; to hypothesise that they could have included the empty tomb is just made up evidence. Especially when your primary scholar seems to think the empty tomb was a later addition.[/QUOTE]

        the community was the source. that's not mystery. You are just cherry picking what you want to be true, No way it could prove he existed but not prove empty tomb.


        I don't find that quote in your link I don't he sys anything like that in ancient Christian Gospels. I don't see how he could have sid that when it contradict what he says in Ancient Christian Gospels. he clearly says the story of empty tomb was in writing by mid century so that's nonsense to say ti was invented after 66.

        that source seems not to understand much of what Koester says.
        Last edited by metacrock; 04-17-2016, 09:15 AM.
        Metacrock's Blog


        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

        Comment


        • #5
          here's what I mean by the from of the reading shows an older reading. to illustrate I compared E2 with Mark and this was in the op.

          Egerton 2:
          "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.

          Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.


          Egerton 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"?


          Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"

          words in blue highlight difference. The blur readings are older forms, judged so by the scholars. one of their main criteria is their Jewishness. we don't necessarily see that here.
          Metacrock's Blog


          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

          Comment


          • #6
            The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel
            Originally posted by metacrock View Post
            Early Christian Writing dates this to 120-180 AD.
            http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelsavior.html

            At least some scholars believe it depends on both Matthew and John.
            No they don't. The site you are quoting (Pete kirby) says PMPN is consensus, Ray Brown proved there's an independent tradition not related to Matthew found in GPete.
            Whether the site says PMPN consensus is irrelevant to what I was saying (and I am not arguing that there was a PMPN, I accept there was).

            Exactly how does someone prove an independent tradition for a text nearly two thousand years old?
            None of that disproves my hypothesis. All that says is the Gospel of savior is dependent upon Matthew not that the PMAPN is. Gospel of the savior is not PMPN
            I agree it does not disprove it.

            However, you were attempting to use the Gospel of the Saviour as evidence for your hypothesis and I have shown that that evidence is considerably weaker than you presented.
            that's because you don't understand the process. These ideas like PMPN are discovered like Q is, not by finding a physical fragment from a certain year but by showing the early form of a reading found in latter manuscripts. Those would be the Diatesseron and Edgerton 2.
            Then do please explain how Gospel of the Saviour, which does not mention the empty tomb, is evidence for an empty tomb. As you say, I do not understand the process, and right now I doubt there is one.


            Papyrus Egerton 2
            Not necessarily that's one scholar's understanding But more importantly it's not the year of the physical fragment but the differences in the form the reading takes.
            It is enough to show that your evidence, which relies on an earlier date, is pretty weak.
            the from of the readings in Diatesseron indicate that they are being preserved from an earlier reading,and that has empty tomb.
            Please explain how.

            Do remember to show how we know exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account.
            that's not the only source
            Sure. But again I have shown that your evidence here is pretty weak.


            Gospel of Peter
            it's the from of the readings not the age of the particular fragment or manuscript.
            I was not talking about the age of the particular fragment or manuscript. Authorship is dated to 70 AD or later. You date Mark to 60 AD, so it is quite possible Peter depends on Mark.
            A post Jewish revolt date is a certainty given the way the text talks about the Jews, which is very much like the Gospel of John (regarding them as very much apart from the early Christians, despite them being Jews too):

            "[50] Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), [51] having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed. [52] And they were afraid lest the Jews should see them and were saying, 'If indeed on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and beat ourselves, yet now at his tomb we may do these things."
            http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html
            you are making that Mark was the first mention of a tomb and Mtt the first detailed description and so you dating it from those. There's a lot wrong there like for example Mark was based upon au Mark which much older. Those were not the first sources to talk about the resurrection.
            You have entirely failed to address the point I was making. Your evidence relies on an early dating for Peter. The anti-semitism however indicates a relatively late date; likely to be second century.
            that's because it's an independent tradition. It doesn't just follow the synoptic.
            It follows the PMPN, which had no sightings in Jerusalem, because they had not been invented at that time (probably because people were still alive who could remember).


            The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature
            wrong there's is a passage that implies it. good at the fist post.
            Here is the verse fpor reference:

            1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

            Buried? Yes. Resurrectred? Yes. Empty tomb? No.

            How could he be resurrected if his body was still in the tomb? you ask. Read the rest of the chapter, which makes clear Jesus was raised in a new heavenly body.

            Again, what you present has been shown to be very poor evidence for your hypothesis.


            PMPN
            Okay, but when was that passion narrative written - or rather, when was the empty tomb added to it.
            the stuff I quoted from Koester and Crosson says the PMPN is dated to mid first century.
            And the stuff I quoted from Koester made it clear he believed the empty tomb was a later addition to the developing PMPN.

            You are viewing the PMPN as an immutable text. Can you support that view?
            the community was the source. that's not mystery. You are just cherry picking what you want to be true, No way it could prove he existed but not prove empty tomb.
            Okay, I withdraw the statement that it was good evidence Jesus existed.
            I don't find that quote in your link I don't he sys anything like that in ancient Christian Gospels. I don't see how he could have sid that when it contradict what he says in Ancient Christian Gospels. he clearly says the story of empty tomb was in writing by mid century so that's nonsense to say ti was invented after 66.

            that source seems not to understand much of what Koester says.
            The quote was from the top of page 77. Google books does do some funny stuff abpout selecting what it will display and what it will not, but when I tried the link just now it took me directly to the page.

            I understand Koester's position to be that the empty tomb was a later addition, but it was still part of the PMPN. That is, the PMPN was a developing story, and it only got set in stone, as it were, when Mark wrote it down.

            I note you say "the story of empty tomb was in writing by mid century". Are you saying the PMPN was in writing? What is the evidence for that?
            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
              The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel

              Whether the site says PMPN consensus is irrelevant to what I was saying (and I am not arguing that there was a PMPN, I accept there was).
              then you are agreeing with me?

              Exactly how does someone prove an independent tradition for a text nearly two thousand years old?
              easy, what are we saying when we say "independent?" We are saying that it doesn't follow Matthew that it is derived from a separate source. So to prove hat show the writings different, I already did this when said it follows the psalms. GPete follows the organization of the psalms as they relate to Messianic prophesy and Matthew does not, Therefore/GPete is not derived from Mat but is independent,



              I agree it does not disprove it.
              ok



              However, you were attempting to use the Gospel of the Saviour as evidence for your hypothesis and I have shown that that evidence is considerably weaker than you presented.
              I don't think so. If I mentioned it it's an example of the kind non canonical sources in which one finds these older readings. I'm not sure if Koester or Danker or any of them use that one or not. the only thing I say about it is a quote by Hendric saying it's the same patterns as other gospels that pre dater Mark. Doesn't say it has the empty tomb.


              Then do please explain how Gospel of the Saviour, which does not mention the empty tomb, is evidence for an empty tomb. As you say, I do not understand the process, and right now I doubt there is one.
              don't think I said it was. my main examples are Egertom 2, GPete sandvDiatesseron

              Papyrus Egerton 2

              It is enough to show that your evidence, which relies on an earlier date, is pretty weak.
              BS. you don't even understand process by which the argument is made. It's not my evidence it's Danker's and Kopester;s and Crosson's


              Please explain how.

              Gsavior might have readings from the PMPN just because it may not have empty tom doesn't mean it's not part of the body of evidence. you picked out that because it's one you knew about, you are not picking on GPete or the major one's I really talk about.


              Do remember to show how we know exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account.
              that is in the material I presented in the OP. essentially it's because we have readings from latter Ms that are in earlier from that means they were coped from sources that existed before Mark. I think Koester sets a date for Mark then allows standard rule of thumb periods for travel and copy time and by that gives 20 years earlier. I sketched out the process pretty well in the aeritcle in holdimng's boo but I don't have that with me here.


              Paul Material

              the op is part of a larger argument that shows the mat4erial used in the canonical gospels was circulating before mark. that does not mean I argued that Paul proves empty tomb.
              Last edited by metacrock; 04-17-2016, 03:25 PM.
              Metacrock's Blog


              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

              Comment


              • #8
                Here's a thing I wrote for y blog this might be more clear and help in understanding the argument, It's the article I contributed to Holdings book Defending resurrection
                Metacrock's Blog


                The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                  then you are agreeing with me?
                  I agree with you that they was a PMPN, certainly. As to what that consisted of at various times (and perhaps whether it was written down), no.


                  The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel
                  easy, what are we saying when we say "independent?" We are saying that it doesn't follow Matthew that it is derived from a separate source. So to prove hat show the writings different, I already did this when said it follows the psalms. GPete follows the organization of the psalms as they relate to Messianic prophesy and Matthew does not, Therefore/GPete is not derived from Mat but is independent,
                  Independent in this context means the author was not at all influenced by the other work. It does not have to follow a separate source, as it could be original. More importantly in this context, it could be dependent on two or more texts, so showing that a work is dependent on one text does not prove it is not also dependent on another.

                  But let us take a step back here. What exactly are you claiming when you said:

                  "Ray Brown proved there's an independent tradition not related to Matthew found in GPete"

                  Are you saying the author of Peter was in no way influenced by Matthew or by the texts and traditions that the author of Matthew drew on (perhaps had not even read or heard them)? Or are you merely saying the Gospel of Peter was not based on the Gospel of Matthew, in the way Matthew is based on Mark? If the latter, then I agree. But so what?

                  I guess you are claiming the former; that there was no influence at all. So again, I ask you to show how this can be "proved".
                  I don't think so. If I mentioned it it's an example of the kind non canonical sources in which one finds these older readings. I'm not sure if Koester or Danker or any of them use that one or not. the only thing I say about it is a quote by Hendric saying it's the same patterns as other gospels that pre dater Mark. Doesn't say it has the empty tomb.
                  So you are trying to support the empty tomb using a text that does not mention an empty tomb?

                  See, this is what I mean about weak evidence.
                  don't think I said it was. my main examples are Egertom 2, GPete sandvDiatesseron
                  So can we agree that the Gospel of the Saviour does not support your claim about an empty tomb?
                  Gsavior might have readings from the PMPN just because it may not have empty tom doesn't mean it's not part of the body of evidence. you picked out that because it's one you knew about, you are not picking on GPete or the major one's I really talk about.
                  Are you claiming there was a PMPN or that there was an empty tomb?

                  The Gospel of the Saviour is evidence for PMPN, but I already said I accept that that existed.

                  The Gospel of the Saviour is not evidence for the empty tomb.

                  And I picked it out because it is the first one mentioned in your OP.


                  Papyrus Egerton 2
                  BS. you don't even understand process by which the argument is made. It's not my evidence it's Danker's and Kopester;s and Crosson's
                  It is evidence you are citing to support your claim. It is therefore your evidence (even if it is their evidence too).

                  So talk us through it.
                  Do remember to show how we know exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account.
                  that is in the material I presented in the OP. essentially it's because we have readings from latter Ms that are in earlier from that means they were coped from sources that existed before Mark. I think Koester sets a date for Mark then allows standard rule of thumb periods for travel and copy time and by that gives 20 years earlier. I sketched out the process pretty well in the aeritcle in holdimng's boo but I don't have that with me here.
                  Now answer the question. Show exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account. A reply that does not mention the empty tomb is not going to cut it, I am afraid.


                  Gospel of Peter
                  Gsavior might have readings from the PMPN just because it may not have empty tom doesn't mean it's not part of the body of evidence. you picked out that because it's one you knew about, you are not picking on GPete or the major one's I really talk about.
                  Funny you say that I am not picking on Peter, given that you just ignored all my comments in my last post on that gospel. If you want to focus to Peter, why not address Peter? My last post, I had a heading, "Gospel of Peter". In your reply, you skip over that one. And then objected that I was not addressing it!

                  I will repeat my comments here, just to help you out.

                  I was not talking about the age of the particular fragment or manuscript. Authorship is dated to 70 AD or later. You date Mark to 60 AD, so it is quite possible Peter depends on Mark.

                  You have entirely failed to address the point I was making. Your evidence relies on an early dating for Peter. The anti-semitism however indicates a relatively late date; likely to be second century.

                  It follows the PMPN, which had no sightings in Jerusalem, because they had not been invented at that time (probably because people were still alive who could remember).



                  Pauline Material
                  the op is part of a larger argument that shows the mat4erial used in the canonical gospels was circulating before mark. that does not mean I argued that Paul proves empty tomb.
                  Of course it does not prove it. But are you saying Paul provides evidence for the empty tomb or not? Do you consider it good evidence, or weak evidence? Please be clear.
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                    I agree with you that they was a PMPN, certainly. As to what that consisted of at various times (and perhaps whether it was written down), no.


                    The Gospel of the Saviour/Berlin Gospel

                    Independent in this context means the author was not at all influenced by the other work. It does not have to follow a separate source, as it could be original. More importantly in this context, it could be dependent on two or more texts, so showing that a work is dependent on one text does not prove it is not also dependent on another.

                    The fact that it do3s follow another source is how we know it doesn't follow Matt. it is a fact and Ray Brown proved it. That's what made his rep.

                    But let us take a step back here. What exactly are you claiming when you said:

                    "Ray Brown proved there's an independent tradition not related to Matthew found in GPete"

                    Are you saying the author of Peter was in no way influenced by Matthew or by the texts and traditions that the author of Matthew drew on (perhaps had not even read or heard them)? Or are you merely saying the Gospel of Peter was not based on the Gospel of Matthew, in the way Matthew is based on Mark? If the latter, then I agree. But so what?
                    that's a non issue. there are clearly commonalities but GPete doesn't follow Matt in the literary allusions or the lay out for the trial and other parts. It also has a long first person section which is nothing like the Gospels we know.




                    So you are trying to support the empty tomb using a text that does not mention an empty tomb?

                    See, this is what I mean about weak evidence.
                    Did you read what I siad? you are not even follow what I wrote. your crass mistaken in not understanding that I quoted Hendric in saying GSaviour was like certain other Gospels is just ridiculous because it's the only mention I make of it I was quoting someone. GPeter sure as hell does talk about the empty tomb., what's the other that does? I mentioned it numerous times? The Diatesseron!!!

                    So can we agree that the Gospel of the Saviour does not support your claim about an empty tomb?
                    when are you going to start reading the words? what did I just say?


                    Are you claiming there was a PMPN or that there was an empty tomb?
                    well obviously both

                    The Gospel of the Saviour is evidence for PMPN, but I already said I accept that that existed.
                    you are making a fool of yourself, is this because you can't pull any other issues?


                    The Gospel of the Saviour is not evidence for the empty tomb.

                    And I picked it out because it is the first one mentioned in your OP.

                    you picked it out because you did not read most of the argument and you can't win any other points.

                    Papyrus Egerton 2

                    It is evidence you are citing to support your claim. It is therefore your evidence (even if it is their evidence too).

                    So talk us through it.

                    Up above I just said what supports the empty tomb now what was it? two sources.


                    Now answer the question. Show exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account. A reply that does not mention the empty tomb is not going to cut it, I am afraid.

                    what's the point? if you refuse to read what I write it doesn't matter what I answer.

                    this is pathetic. you have nothing.


                    Gospel of Peter

                    Funny you say that I am not picking on Peter, given that you just ignored all my comments in my last post on that gospel. If you want to focus to Peter, why not address Peter? My last post, I had a heading, "Gospel of Peter". In your reply, you skip over that one. And then objected that I was not addressing it!
                    the only relevant issue about Peter is that it establishes an independent tradition that is pre Mark. you don't argue you have nothing to sway you are trying to makes issues where there are none because you can't win the real issues.


                    I will repeat my comments here, just to help you out.

                    I was not talking about the age of the particular fragment or manuscript. Authorship is dated to 70 AD or later. You date Mark to 60 AD, so it is quite possible Peter depends on Mark.


                    doesn't matter if I date mark to 60 or not but I showed that that is the mew trend. Even so that's only 20 years.

                    You have entirely failed to address the point I was making. Your evidence relies on an early dating for Peter. The anti-semitism however indicates a relatively late date; likely to be second century.
                    the point you were making is BS. most of the things you argue are diversions. YOU TOTALLY MIOSSED THE DATING PETER I SPEOICALLY DENIED THAT THAT IS THE ISSUE YOU STILLDON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THIE ARGUMENT!!

                    get it through your head now. the issue is not when [B]Peter was written but the older forms of reading that pre date Mark preserved in Peter. Whoever wrote Peter Used sources that prefaced Mark even though e may have written much latter than Mark.[/B if you still don't get it let me know.



                    It follows the PMPN, which had no sightings in Jerusalem, because they had not been invented at that time (probably because people were still alive who could remember).

                    no sightings in Jerusalem what does that mean? you mean no post res sightings of Jesus set in Jerusalem: since we don[t have the source in it's entirety we don't know that. also since the canonical gospels use the PMPN it may well have all the stuff the canonicals have.
                    Metacrock's Blog


                    The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                      Did you read what I siad? you are not even follow what I wrote. your crass mistaken in not understanding that I quoted Hendric in saying GSaviour was like certain other Gospels is just ridiculous because it's the only mention I make of it I was quoting someone. GPeter sure as hell does talk about the empty tomb., what's the other that does? I mentioned it numerous times? The Diatesseron!!!
                      Great, so we can drop the Gospel of the Saviour.
                      when are you going to start reading the words? what did I just say?
                      Obviously I read the words after you post them. You seem to expect me to read them before you posted them, given you are so upset that in my last post I did not anticipate your response to it.
                      Up above I just said what supports the empty tomb now what was it? two sources.
                      So we can drop Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Pauline material?

                      I ask, because they seemed to feature in the OP like maybe they supported your argument.

                      Okay, so now we are down to just two pieces of evidence, Peter and the Diatessaron.


                      The Gospel of Peter
                      the only relevant issue about Peter is that it establishes an independent tradition that is pre Mark. you don't argue you have nothing to sway you are trying to makes issues where there are none because you can't win the real issues.
                      But we agree there was a pre-Mark tradition. The question is whether it included the empty tomb.
                      Originally posted by metacrock View Post
                      The fact that it do3s follow another source is how we know it doesn't follow Matt. it is a fact and Ray Brown proved it. That's what made his rep.
                      Seriously?

                      Are you aware that many scholars believe Matthew follows both Mark and the hypothesised Q document? According to your reasoning, if Matthew follows Q, then it must not also follow Mark, and all those real scholars have got it wrong.

                      What you seem to be saying is that we know for certain that Peter is not at all influenced by Matthew because Brown showed it follows another text. That is just bad reasoning because it excludes the very real possibility that a text can follow another text, and still be influenced by a third.
                      that's a non issue. there are clearly commonalities but GPete doesn't follow Matt in the literary allusions or the lay out for the trial and other parts. It also has a long first person section which is nothing like the Gospels we know.
                      The issue here is the dating of Peter. If Peter is at all influenced by Matthew, then Peter is necessarily older than Matthew.

                      I think you know that, and you are trying to muddy the waters here. Sure, Peter does not "follow" Matthew, but that does not prove it was not influenced by Matthew.

                      If Peter was at all influenced by Matthew, then Peter was relatively late, and does not support your claim that the empty tomb pre-dates Mark.
                      I was not talking about the age of the particular fragment or manuscript. Authorship is dated to 70 AD or later. You date Mark to 60 AD, so it is quite possible Peter depends on Mark.
                      doesn't matter if I date mark to 60 or not but I showed that that is the mew trend. Even so that's only 20 years.
                      The issue here is whether Peter depends on (is influenced by) Mark. I see you dodged that issue too.

                      the point you were making is BS. most of the things you argue are diversions. YOU TOTALLY MIOSSED THE DATING PETER I SPEOICALLY DENIED THAT THAT IS THE ISSUE YOU STILLDON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THIE ARGUMENT!!
                      Yes, thanks for clarifying so I do understand it.

                      Oh, wait, you didn't. You just shout about me not understanding it, rather than trying to make it clear.

                      Kind of like you do not want me to understand it. Or you want to give others the impression I do not understand it.
                      get it through your head now. the issue is not when [B]Peter was written but the older forms of reading that pre date Mark preserved in Peter. Whoever wrote Peter Used sources that prefaced Mark even though e may have written much latter than Mark.[/B if you still don't get it let me know.
                      Then prove Peter does not depend on (was not at all influenced by) Mark. Sure, Peter does not slavish follow Mark, but it is still possible that the author read Mark, and was influenced by that work, and more specifically, got the empty tomb from there.

                      Or at least, it is possible until you give evidence otherwise. Let us see what you said in the OP:

                      "Many features of the Gospel of Peter are clearly from secondary sources, that is reworked versions of the canonical story. These mainly consist of 1) exaggerated miracles; 2) anti-Jewish polemic.The cross follows Jesus out of the tomb, a voice from heaven says "did you preach the gospel to all?" The cross says "Yea." And Pilate is totally exonerated, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion. (Koester, p.218). However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus. (Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. (In Koester p.218) Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century! "

                      The first point is that you acknowledge a text can have more than one source; "secondary sources" in the plural! How curious! And yet previously you indicated that a work that follows one text cannot possibly follow another. What was it you said? Oh, yes: "The fact that it do3s follow another source is how we know it doesn't follow Matt." Odd that.

                      The more important point here is that what you quoted gives no support to your claim. It at no point indicates the "old and independent tradition" included the empty tomb.
                      no sightings in Jerusalem what does that mean? you mean no post res sightings of Jesus set in Jerusalem:
                      Well duh!

                      I made this clear when I first said it ("What I find interesting about the Gospel of Peter is that Jesus is not seen in Jerusalem after being crucified. "). I kind of imagined you would get that in later posts.
                      since we don[t have the source in it's entirety we don't know that. also since the canonical gospels use the PMPN it may well have all the stuff the canonicals have.
                      So your position is that the author of Mark has the guy in the tomb saying Jesus would meet the the disciples in Galilee, despite him knowing that Jesus would be meeting the disciples several times in Jerusalem first. And the later gospel authors, they each selected the sightings they wanted from the PMPN, and ignored the others, and they all happened to pick different ones. So Matthew, for example, after carefully including pretty much all Mark, chose to only include a fraction of the material from the original, because after all the ascension and the discussion with Thomas were not worthy of inclusion. Is that right?


                      The Diatessaron

                      This did not seem worth bothering with originally, but okay... From your quote in the OP, talking about Matthew:

                      "We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron."

                      So it is possible that what we have is a later revision of the original Matthew. That does not mean the original was written any earlier, just that at some point in the gospel's history it got a significant editing.

                      Do please how that supports your position of the empty tomb in the PMPN.


                      PMPN
                      Now answer the question. Show exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account. A reply that does not mention the empty tomb is not going to cut it, I am afraid.
                      what's the point? if you refuse to read what I write it doesn't matter what I answer.
                      Okay, duck the question if you want.

                      Seems to me this is fundamental to your position. But if you want to go on record saying there is no point trying to support your claim, that is fine by me.

                      My position is your have only the weakest of evidence to support your claim of an empty tomb, and your action here serves to bolster that position.
                      My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The first point is that you acknowledge a text can have more than one source; "secondary sources" in the plural! How curious! And yet previously you indicated that a work that follows one text cannot possibly follow another. What was it you said? Oh, yes: "The fact that it do3s follow another source is how we know it doesn't follow Matt." Odd that.
                        wrong. that is exactly what Koesterr says ,he says that point blank and I quoted him .read the material. look what you failed to understand, you did not get that the Gospel of the savior was apart of quote by someone else and ZI ne er claimed it as resurrection material. you have faioed to understand everything I;e said . go back and read the OP here is thye quote and look hard now because lso dates it:



                        However, "there are other traces in the Gospel of Peter which demonstrate an old and independent tradition." The way the suffering of Jesus is described by the use of passages from the old Testament without quotation formulae is, in terms of the tradition, older than the explicit scriptural proof; it represents the oldest form of the passion of Jesus. (Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646] Jurgen Denker argues that the Gospel of Peter shares this tradition of OT quotation with the Canonicals but is not dependent upon them. (In Koester p.218) Koester writes, "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century!

                        Corosson's Cross Gospel is this material in the Gospel of Peter through which, with the canonicals and other non-canonical Gospels Crosson constructs a whole text. According to the theory, the earliest of all written passion narratives is given in this material, is used by Mark, Luke, Matthew, and by John, and also Peter. Peter becomes a very important 5th witness. Koester may not be as famous as Crosson but he is just as expert and just as liberal. He takes issue with Crosson on three counts:
                        there are numerous quotes throughout the book I can't quote the whole book the stuff I did quote is enough to see it. Heclearly says it includes the empty tomb.


                        [B]Ancient Chrisitan Gospels 220[/B]


                        "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus . But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)
                        Last edited by metacrock; 04-18-2016, 08:33 AM.
                        Metacrock's Blog


                        The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                        The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So your position is that the author of Mark has the guy in the tomb saying Jesus would meet the the disciples in Galilee, despite him knowing that Jesus would be meeting the disciples several times in Jerusalem first. And the later gospel authors, they each selected the sightings they wanted from the PMPN, and ignored the others,

                          what "others?" that doesn't mean there was more than one in the PMPN. the other sources that sprang up over the decades to the redaction of the final cut of GPete are not my concern.

                          and they all happened to pick different ones. So Matthew, for example, after carefully including pretty much all Mark, chose to only include a fraction of the material from the original, because after all the ascension and the discussion with Thomas were not worthy of inclusion. Is that right?

                          you have no reason to assume there was more than one source at the original point of redaction within the PMPN or at the composition of the canonical Gospels. If you mean other independent sources for course they had to choose between them.so they did. Q.M,L, PM that;s not a problem.

                          The Diatessaron

                          This did not seem worth bothering with originally, but okay... From your quote in the OP, talking about Matthew:

                          "We must hold open the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron."
                          the Diatesseron is the point, that's the major source Danker used.

                          So it is possible that what we have is a later revision of the original Matthew. That does not mean the original was written any earlier, just that at some point in the gospel's history it got a significant editing.
                          so what? that theory applied to Mark has been around for decades, The fact is Koster shows two different Lukes. That doesn't mean they are radically different from each other, we are talking small differences.

                          Do please how that supports your position of the empty tomb in the PMPN.
                          I Just quoted Koester saying it ends with gthe empty tomb

                          PMPN








                          Now answer the question. Show exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account. A reply that does not mention the empty tomb is not going to cut it, I am afraid. what's the point? if you refuse to read what I write it doesn't matter what I answer. Okay, duck the question if you want.

                          Koester is including it in the early independent tradition used by GPete


                          Seems to me this is fundamental to your position. But if you want to go on record saying there is no point trying to support your claim, that is fine by me.

                          My position is your have only the weakest of evidence to support your claim of an empty tomb, and your action here serves to bolster that position.
                          read the material it says it all. ask yourself who Danker? He is the textual critic who made the discovery and Crosson and Koester are using his work. Brown aloso backed it up.
                          Metacrock's Blog


                          The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                          The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [Post deleted. Metacrock changed one post and added another, I will respond to those and post again.]
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              you posted before I had a chance to answer. give me a chance to get stuff up
                              Metacrock's Blog


                              The Religious a priori: apologetics for 21st ccentury

                              The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              39 responses
                              162 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              130 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              426 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X