Who buried Jesus?

[Meh Gerbil]

I have to admit this is one of the oddest attacks on Christianity that I've ever read.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing this line of thought; it is just that given the contents of the N.T I should think the question of who buried Jesus would be one of the least contentious points. There would be nothing miraculous about any number of people being involved in the burial of Jesus, and given his celebrity, neither an anonymous grave or a rich man's tomb seems to be that spectacular of a resting place. Oh sure, one might be unusual or less probable but certainly not so out of the ordinary as to discredit the account. To supplant the details of a non-miraculous account with guessing seems so very bizarre to me.

In 1986, a teacher by the name of Christa McAuliffe died in the Challenger disaster.

Given the line of argumentation I've seen in this thread from people like RhinestoneCowboy, a thousand years from now, his illegitimate spawn will argue that Christa McAuliffe could not have died in a space ship disaster because the vast majority of teachers in the 1980s died from heart attacks many years after retirement. In fact, the little devils will argue, millions of teachers died from heart attacks during the circa 1900-2100 such that a teacher dying in a space shuttle disaster is so ridiculously improbable that we can be sure it didn't happen. The news accounts of the disaster will be declared as altered after the fact and RhinestoneCowboy's descendants will assure us that Christa McAuliffe died well into old age from a heart attack or maybe even pneumonia. <--- This is what this sort of argumentation looks like to me. There is nothing miraculous about the improbable so replacing it with a guess is just odd.

Oh, look here is the Aractus rejoinder:

1: People who flew on the shuttle were known as Astronauts. They were highly trained specialists.
2: Christa McAuliffe is clearly referred to as a Teacher and was not trained as an astronaut.
3: Therefore, she could not be on the shuttle because she wasn't an Astronaut.

[37818]

"And. when. they had fulfilled. all that was written of him, they took [him] down from the tree, and laid [him] in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead."
The Byzantine Majority Text shows either:
and in this way they fulfilled all that is (has been) written about him. They WHO took him down from the tree laid him in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead"
or alternatively:
"but when they fulfilled all that is (has been) written about him, they WHO took him down from the tree laid him in a sepulchre, but God raised him from the dead." (I'm fairly sure that ως can legitimately be translated as "when" on occasion)
The first alternative is the more strictly accurate.
Koine Greek uses participles as nouns regularly - English frequently adds "er" to the end of a verb to achieve the same result - drive ... the driver, swim ... the swimmer (etc.) The participle "lowering" here becomes "the lower-ers" or "the lowering ones" in strictly wooden translation, "They who lowered" for a more readable rendering. The critical error in the standard translation lies with replacing (row 34 in the pic) "lowering" with "they" - which results in a complete change in the identity of the people lowering him from the tree. "They" instead of "they who" produces the inescapable identification with the people previously mentioned.

ETA
It may be that some would say the change from "is/has_been written" to "was written" is insignificant - I would not be inclined to agree.

The two renderings of "they" are to provided in English grammar for the two Greek verbs being in the third person plural. And applies to the actors who did the action as described in the verbs. One word means "fulfilled" and the other means "took down." And does not identify them, the actors, in the context.

[Aractus]

I have to admit this is one of the oddest attacks on Christianity that I've ever read.

This thread isn't an attack on Christianity. If you think it is than maybe you're over-sensitive to the subject matter. What I'm doing here is what I've been doing for the past 4 or 5 years now, since I was still a Christian, and that is piecing together an accurate picture of what the early Christian church AFTER Jesus looked like. Everything I learn is very important and it leads to brand new ideas - like this one: When the disciples returned to find the body of Jesus they found it was gone. That's true. But not gone from the tomb, gone from the cross. I've never seen anyone anywhere articulate that the way I just did. I think we can say that with confidence, and whether or not they went to look for the tomb and were told where it is is a different matter.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing this line of thought; it is just that given the contents of the N.T I should think the question of who buried Jesus would be one of the least contentious points.

As long as we can agree that it was a Jew associated with Jewish authorities, and not a secret disciples then it's not. There's no corroborating detail that gives any credibility to the claim that it was a man named Joseph of Arimathea. None whatsoever. In fact, I would point out to you that he is compared to the scribe in Mark 12:28-34 who was also said to be "looking for the kingdom of God". Or there's the rich young man in Mark 10:17-27 also clearly looking for the kingdom. The gospel writers don't know their names. The disciples did not know who, when, or where Jesus was buried. All they knew is that the Jews went ahead and buried him, hence the wording in Acts 13:

Source: Acts 13:29-31 NRSV

When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses to the people.

© Copyright Original Source

That account does not mention a missing body yet Luke included it that way anyway. I believe that Jesus' Passion as described in Acts 13 has an earlier and more primitive source to it than Mark 15. Everyone else has assumed the empty tomb mythology started because the body was gone from the tomb - but I now believe that is unlikely, and that what actually happened was the disciples went and found his crucifixion cross empty. It might only have been one disciple that went back wrenched with guilt that he had abandoned Jesus before he was crucified. That would have caused great confusion because the Romans typically left bodies up on public display. And it's even plausible that it was one of the women, possibly Mary Magdalene. You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it, but I think it's a much more plausible narrative than the next best alternative which is that Jesus' body was moved from its tomb without the disciple's knowledge. If that were to be the case it would mean the family took the body, and as we know some of Jesus' brothers became disciples, most notably James who knew Paul and Peter and was an important early church leader, and is martyred for his beliefs. And that creates a problem, because the account in Acts and Mark's gospel I would think dates to well before 60AD, probably back to the 30's or 40's IMO as a layman. I don't mean the whole account of course, but I mean the details that he was buried in a tomb by the Jews and that he had risen.

The empty tomb as an embellishment could have happened any time as well, and is probably quite early. If it developed in the 50's then Paul couldn't have known about it before he wrote his epistles, and there would be arguments over it and it would be one of his topics to defend his position as he does on other theological matters. The fact that he doesn't shows I think that it was already a universally accepted belief in the church at that stage. And because of that it means that James didn't know where the body had been laid, which rules out the family being involved in moving it.

[tabibito]

I have to admit this is one of the oddest attacks on Christianity that I've ever read.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing this line of thought; it is just that given the contents of the N.T I should think the question of who buried Jesus would be one of the least contentious points. There would be nothing miraculous about any number of people being involved in the burial of Jesus, and given his celebrity, neither an anonymous grave or a rich man's tomb seems to be that spectacular of a resting place. Oh sure, one might be unusual or less probable but certainly not so out of the ordinary as to discredit the account. To supplant the details of a non-miraculous account with guessing seems so very bizarre to me.

In 1986, a teacher by the name of Christa McAuliffe died in the Challenger disaster.

Given the line of argumentation I've seen in this thread from people like RhinestoneCowboy, a thousand years from now, his illegitimate spawn will argue that Christa McAuliffe could not have died in a space ship disaster because the vast majority of teachers in the 1980s died from heart attacks many years after retirement. In fact, the little devils will argue, millions of teachers died from heart attacks during the circa 1900-2100 such that a teacher dying in a space shuttle disaster is so ridiculously improbable that we can be sure it didn't happen. The news accounts of the disaster will be declared as altered after the fact and RhinestoneCowboy's descendants will assure us that Christa McAuliffe died well into old age from a heart attack or maybe even pneumonia. <--- This is what this sort of argumentation looks like to me. There is nothing miraculous about the improbable so replacing it with a guess is just odd.

Oh, look here is the Aractus rejoinder:

1: People who flew on the shuttle were known as Astronauts. They were highly trained specialists.
2: Christa McAuliffe is clearly referred to as a Teacher and was not trained as an astronaut.
3: Therefore, she could not be on the shuttle because she wasn't an Astronaut.

It isn't an attack on Christianity except indirectly. It is an attempt to discredit the veracity of the Bible.

[tabibito]

The two renderings of "they" are to provided in English grammar for the two Greek verbs being in the third person plural. And applies to the actors who did the action as described in the verbs. One word means "fulfilled" and the other means "took down." And does not identify them, the actors, in the context.

You can't determine that in the English translation, "they" is a pronoun with an antecedent noun that it plays against, in this case: the ones who had him put to death.
You can't determine that there is no THEY taking him down from the cross in the Koine Greek texts. "Took down" is a participle in Koine Greek texts - it plays the part of a noun. It doesn't rely on an antecedent noun. It is nominative - that is, it performs the action ("placed") described .
You can't parse the words even when they are clearly posted in front of you, yet you deem yourself qualified to determine whether an error occurred in translation, and see fit to promote yourself as qualified to teach things that you have thoroughly demonstrated you don't even begin to understand.

[37818]

You can't determine that in the English translation, "they" is a pronoun with an antecedent noun that it plays against, in this case: the ones who had him put to death.
You can't determine that there is no THEY taking him down from the cross in the Koine Greek texts. "Took down" is a participle in Koine Greek texts - it plays the part of a noun. It doesn't rely on an antecedent noun. It is nominative - that is, it performs the action ("placed") described .
You can't parse the words even when they are clearly posted in front of you, yet you deem yourself qualified to determine whether an error occurred in translation, and see fit to promote yourself as qualified to teach things that you have thoroughly demonstrated you don't even begin to understand.

That pronoun "they" is provided by the translators translating those two Greek verbs which are in the plural. The nominative verb "took down," I had wrongly said was in the "third person," it was plural, and was translated "they." Look, do you have a better idea as how those two verbs one in the third person and both being plural would better be translated? Speak up.

[Teallaura]

What Jesus said would happen is that he would see the disciples again in Galilee (as did the man in the tomb in Mark). What the later gospels claim is that he saw them again in Jerusalem.

Er, what now? Oh, Luke.

Why the contradiction?

There isn't one as far as I can see. Matt 28 : the disciples see Jesus in Galilee. Luke 24 - the guys meet the Eleven in Jerusalem. It does read like the first meeting is there. Two possibilities: there is actually a change of venue and the guys are just still talking about it. Or Jesus sees them first in Jerusalem. This isn't contradictory - Jesus says in Mark: "28 It isn't a contradiction. It is a differing account - which is exactly what should be expected of multiple witnesses to the same event.

I suggest the best answer is that the Jerusalem appearances were later additions to the narrative. The evidence for that is that none of them appear in the earliest account, whilst the meeting in Galilee gets two mentions, and further more the Jerusalem appearances vary wildly between gospel, as though composed by different individuals in different times and places. We pretty much know the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark, so where did they get the Jerusalem appearance from, given they are absent from Mark? Most likely, they were just made up (not necessarily by the authors, but within the communities, and after Mark was written).

There's no contradiction so I see no need of an answer.

Also worth mentioning the Gospel of Peter, which Aractus brought up earlier. Many scholars hold this in some regard as it appears to derive from the earlier passion narrative, and this too has no Jerusalem appearances, but does indicate an appearance in Galilee.

And is non-canonical. Weren't you complaining that Luke, Matt and John are written later? GoP dates to what, 150 - 200 AD (with thanks to Wiki) - GoP sounds suspiciously Gnositic, given the time frame. If we allow that GoP is accurate then your arguments against the other three canonical Gospels go out the window.

This is what is called evidence, by the way, Tealaura.

Not in dispute - your selective use of evidence was disputed, however.

But in the same way, you do not get to assume bits are true just because you think they should be.

And you don't get to discard them because you don't think they are true - your bias is showing here.

At each step we need to consider why a section is there. Is it there because it was part of the earlier narrative, or is it a later addition? How much of the earlier narrative was true? This is how history is done.

Granted with caveat - later addition is not necessarily untrue so mere addition is not proof of inaccuracy.

History certainly does not assume the document must be true!

So what? If you are exploring an event, multiple accounts increase the likelihood that the event occurred in reality.

You still have nothing more than 'I don't think the later Gospels are accurate' - which is not evidence nor grounds for anyone else to accept your conclusions.

Again, you assume scripture is true!

Again I use ALL the evidence because you haven't given me cause to accept that it isn't valid evidence.

Your supposition is again noted - and snickered at. Quit worrying about my beliefs and start giving me cause to accept that your conclusions about the later Gospels are correct. The non-contradiction is not a good start - but it is at least a step in the right direction.

Matthew is almost certainly not the author of the gospel that bears his name. No reputable Biblical scholar outside of fundamental Christianity thinks he is. See here for example, or this thread. The gospel of John is complicated as it has been redacted several times (the last chapter is obviously an addition, for example), and at best is a product of a community set up by John. It is generally dated to later than Matthew and Luke (see here or [url=http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html[/url]).

Granted. Well, except for Matthew being dated later than Matthew... I presume you meant John. I doubt that Matthew was actually later than John but accept that the scholarship leans to a different author. Point withdrawn.
Edit: Oops, misread the quote - never mind!

So instead you assume they are true!

Beats your assumption that the later three must be false - and your faulty presumption here.

The problem with a highly verbal society of an event with a huge 'footprint' is that made-up stories will come to be accepted as true. Rumours and urban legends start to gain credibility over time, and become more and more likely to get incorporated into later versions as fact (consider how many people believed there were aliens at Roswell just decades after the incident).

Not necessarily - we are NOT a highly verbal society and haven't been in four hundred years. Your argument is badly supported here because you are using an invalid example.

But more damning is that the Gospels do not read at all like fable, rumor or myth - rumors, even with Google around to help, usually get facts wrong. Scripture's accounts check out in the particulars that can be substantiated - rumors almost certainly would not. Bob in Rome isn't familiar with Jerusalem and wouldn't know the names of fountains and the like. He also doesn't speak Hebrew and almost certainly would mispronounce various names, leading inevitably to a degradation of information. That is not present in Scripture.

of course we cannot assume that additions were made up... Not unless they contradict the earlier material. In this case the earlier material says the disciples met with Jesus again in Galilee, the later additions say instead that they met Jesus in Jerusalem.

Not a contradiction so point is invalid.

The problem is that your faith has committed you to read the gospels one way and one way only. You cannot even conceive that the Jerusalem appearances did not happen, so you have to twist the text to make it say something it does not.

Yeah, except that I was a strong atheist for ten years - the real problem is your assumptions about Christians cloud your perceptions and make you assume facts not in evidence.

The simple fact is that Mark, the earliest record we have, says in two places the disciples met Jesus again in Galilee.

What is doesn't say is that He wouldn't meet them anywhere else. Without that it's not a contradiction.

And yet I am the one who has cited Bible passages and linked to web sites.

It is your position that is unsupported, and is based on the dubious assumption that scripture must be true.

Supposition anyone? You argued that the later Gospels should basically be discarded, at least if I've understood you correctly. Thus far, you've offered 'Mark is earliest' and 'they contradict' as grounds. The former is an important point to bear in mind as we research but is not grounds for dismissing the remaining Gospels. The latter is incorrect.

And my theory is you do not assume the gospels must be true, just because that does support your pet theory.

Give me reason to doubt that they are true accounts (note the terminology before you start supposing again) and I'll consider your 'only Mark' POV.

I am not cherry-picking from the gospels, I have explained why some bits are more likely than others. Specifically, the older the narrative, the more likely it is to be accurate.

You have explained why those things satisfy you. I have explained why they do not satisfy me. Now you're arguing mere probability - this isn't invalid but needs some serious meat.

No, you are claiming far more than that. You are claiming it is necessarily true. Something you have utterly failed to support.

I don't have the burden - and you know it. The Gospels are accepted as documentary evidence - you proved that YOURSELF earlier in this post. You brought up the 'only Mark' theory - you have the burden to show why I should accept it.

And for the record, you brought up some valid points - I think you're misapplying them by over-reach. I'd be much easier to convince if youd'd stop telling me what I believe and tell me why I should accept your scholarship.

I thought you were arguing that Luke, Matthew and John were true, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem on the day the empty tmb was discovered.

Have you abandoned that position?

Not contradictory - although I concede I was thinking Matt and not Luke at the time. I could have been clearer.

Or have you realised you cannot support it, given it is based on the assumption that the gospels are necessarily true?

Nope - you keep calling a difference a contradiction. <Inigo Montoya voice> I don't think that word means what you think it means. </Inigo Montoya voice>

Not an argument from silence.

Mark states the disciples would see Jesus again in Galilee.

Technically, yes, it is - but I did have something different in mind so I withdraw the comment. The issue is not a contradiction so I do not cede the point, however.

Yes, really. See the web site I linked to to support the claim.

Already done - read the whole thing.

Another unsupported claim. It is pretty well established that Luke is based on Mark. Just look at how many people wanted to dispute the claim on this thread (hint: none at all). If you think you have a real argument here, why not go to that thread, and post it? I think we both know you will not do that, because this claim is untenable.

No issue - and no contradiction of what I said.

FYI: you still have the burden

But, as I said, eye witnesses were almost certain to be dead. Anyone who was 20 in AD 30 would be 70, which was a very old age at that time, and if you throw in the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple, this would have been late enough after the event that someone could make up dead saints coming to life and wondering around Jerusalem without fear of anyone saying he was there and never heard about it.

You just killed your own point - 70 might have been old for the time (highly disputable) but even granting that, it does not follow that 'eye witnesses were almost certain to be dead'. John is dated much later and there is good cause to accept John the disciple as the author (yes, I know it's the minority position but the documentary evidence of the three other Johninne letters is compelling). If he could still be alive - and he could have - then others could still have been living as well.

[Aractus]

It isn't an attack on Christianity except indirectly. It is an attempt to discredit the veracity of the Bible.

Look I come from a background where the church although not really "fundamentalist" in the sense that you might understand it believes in the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible. The first two might be infallible, but the third certainly isn't. Instead of admitting there are errors in the Bible they attempt to explain everything by "interpretation". I don't know how anyone can objectively arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is infallible, especially as it would mean you would have to completely disbelieve in key findings of textual criticism such as words transliterated from other languages because the author didn't know the correct Hebrew or Greek words to use.

This thread is not an attempt to "discredit the veracity of the Bible". I am building towards a complete picture of the church that was founded under Peter, Paul, James, and the other early apostles, by taking the writings for what they are - misremembered history enshrined with theology and mythology written down by people that didn't personally know Jesus.

[The Pixie]

Er, what now? Oh, Luke.

Yes, sorry, I should have stated Luke. And John too. I thought you were sufficient familiar that you realise immediately.

Luke and John have Jesus meeting the disciples on the day the empty tomb was found. Mark and Matthew (and the Gospel of Peter too) have Jesus going on ahead of the disciples to meet them in Galilee.

There isn't one as far as I can see.

Sure, because you start from the presupposition that the Bible is right, Christianity is true.
I do not doubt Christianity's ability to twist the text to make it appear to agree. The point here is that the Jerusalem sightings are more likely to be an embellishment rather than historical, given the texts in Mark, Matthew and Peter, especially when we consider Mark was written decades earlier, whilst Luke and John were likely written after all the eye witnesses were dead, allowing free rein for embellishment.

It isn't a contradiction. It is a differing account - which is exactly what should be expected of multiple witnesses to the same event.

It is certainly not multiple witnesses to the same event! It is almost certain that all the canonical texts, and the Gospel of Peter too, are based on a single passion narrative. And it is likely that was pieced together from Old Testament passages, rather than an eye witness account!

And is non-canonical. Weren't you complaining that Luke, Matt and John are written later? GoP dates to what, 150 - 200 AD (with thanks to Wiki) - GoP sounds suspiciously Gnositic, given the time frame. If we allow that GoP is accurate then your arguments against the other three canonical Gospels go out the window.

Peter gives supporting evidence, but is some way from being convincing for the reasons you give. However, it does seem to have developed independently from the passion narrative (i.e., it draws from a tradition that developed independently, and so gives an insight into what was in the original passion narrative.

The relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the parallel accounts of the canonical gospels cannot be explained as a random compilation of canonical passages. It is evident that the mocking scene in this gospel is a narrative version that is directly dependent upon the exegetical tradition which is visible in Barnabas. The narrative version of this tradition as it is preserved in the Gospel of Peter has not yet split the mocking account into several scenes. This is an argument for the thesis that this account is older than its various usages in the canonical gospels.

- Ancient Christian Gospels, Helmut Koester, p227

It is therefore evidence that the passion narrative had Jesus seeing the disciples in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem.

And you don't get to discard them because you don't think they are true - your bias is showing here.

I am discarding them because the evidence indicates they were absent from the original account, the passion narrative.

Granted with caveat - later addition is not necessarily untrue so mere addition is not proof of inaccuracy.

Agreed. However, it does make those additions considerably less reliable.

So what? If you are exploring an event, multiple accounts increase the likelihood that the event occurred in reality.

In this case, we do not have that. We have a single passion narrative - likely composed from scripture - and all your multiple accounts are derived from that.

You still have nothing more than 'I don't think the later Gospels are accurate' - which is not evidence nor grounds for anyone else to accept your conclusions.

As opposed to what?

All you have is blind faith that the later Gospels are accurate.

Again I use ALL the evidence because you haven't given me cause to accept that it isn't valid evidence.

No, you assume the gospel accounts are true. That is very different to using all the evidence. I am using all the evidence, but I do not assume the gospels are true.

Your supposition is again noted - and snickered at. Quit worrying about my beliefs and start giving me cause to accept that your conclusions about the later Gospels are correct. The non-contradiction is not a good start - but it is at least a step in the right direction.

We have two competing claims here.

I am saying the Jerusalem sightings are a later addition, an embellishment that never happened and were not know to Mark. You are saying they are not, that they really happened. How can we discuss that without considering your beliefs?

Is this because your beliefs are founded purely on faith, and you prefer not to consider the paucity of evidence for them?

Beats your assumption that the later three must be false - and your faulty presumption here.

An assumption based on the clear fact that the earliest record says it happened differently.

Not necessarily - we are NOT a highly verbal society and haven't been in four hundred years. Your argument is badly supported here because you are using an invalid example.

Not necessarily, I agree. But plausibly.

But more damning is that the Gospels do not read at all like fable, rumor or myth - rumors, even with Google around to help, usually get facts wrong. Scripture's accounts check out in the particulars that can be substantiated - rumors almost certainly would not. Bob in Rome isn't familiar with Jerusalem and wouldn't know the names of fountains and the like. He also doesn't speak Hebrew and almost certainly would mispronounce various names, leading inevitably to a degradation of information. That is not present in Scripture.

What fable, rumour or myth from that era are you comparing to?

To me, the embellishments like the Jerusalem sights, the dead saints coming to life, the tearing of the temple veil, the darkening of the sun, etc. all sound like a myth-making process. Nevertheless, they were written by people in the area (or from the area), so of course they got the geography right.

Yeah, except that I was a strong atheist for ten years - the real problem is your assumptions about Christians cloud your perceptions and make you assume facts not in evidence.

It is a perception of you based on your responses here. You have have offered no evidence at all for your own position, and you disregard the evidence I present for my position.

What is doesn't say is that He wouldn't meet them anywhere else. Without that it's not a contradiction.

But it is an indication of later embellishments.

Supposition anyone? You argued that the later Gospels should basically be discarded, at least if I've understood you correctly. Thus far, you've offered 'Mark is earliest' and 'they contradict' as grounds. The former is an important point to bear in mind as we research but is not grounds for dismissing the remaining Gospels. The latter is incorrect.

I am saying that if there is disagreement, the earlier gospel is likely to be more accurate.

And I have said this numerous times, and still I have to say it again. This is why I have this perception of you as someone blindly accepting the Bible; you just cannot take in what I am saying!

Give me reason to doubt that they are true accounts (note the terminology before you start supposing again) and I'll consider your 'only Mark' POV.

No, you won't.

I know that because I have already done so. You just ignore the evidence presented, and pretend all I have is unsupported assumptions.

You have explained why those things satisfy you. I have explained why they do not satisfy me.

But you have failed to say why you think the alternative is more likely. Why is that?

Who is it who is unable to support her claim?

Now you're arguing mere probability - this isn't invalid but needs some serious meat.

Of course I am arguing probability. This happened nearly 2000 years ago, we cannot hope to be certain about any of it.

Not unless we believe with blind faith, of course.

I don't have the burden - and you know it. The Gospels are accepted as documentary evidence - you proved that YOURSELF earlier in this post. You brought up the 'only Mark' theory - you have the burden to show why I should accept it.

Sure, the last thing you want to do is support your position, because we both know it is untenable. So here you go, ducking again.

If you want me to accept your theory, you need to support it. Otherwise, I will reject it.

Perhaps we should conclude that it is undecided either way, as clearly you cannot support your position, and I am happy to admit mine is not conclusive.

You just killed your own point - 70 might have been old for the time (highly disputable) but even granting that, it does not follow that 'eye witnesses were almost certain to be dead'. John is dated much later and there is good cause to accept John the disciple as the author (yes, I know it's the minority position but the documentary evidence of the three other Johninne letters is compelling). If he could still be alive - and he could have - then others could still have been living as well.

Sure it is possible, but unlikely. Given the Jewish revolt, any witnesses were likely scattered across the Middle East. And really, all it needs is no witnesses alive in the community in which it was written, and then a fairly slow transmission outside that community. John is thought to have been written in Ephesus, for example, so all it required was no eye witness in Ephesus to events in Jerusalem, about 1000 miles away by road.

And as you admit, John as the author of his gospel is a minority position. Even if the letters were written by the same author (which seems quite likely), that is a long way from establishing John as that author.

[37818]

. . . ως δε ετελεσαν παντα τα περι αυτου γεγραμμενα καθελοντες απο του ξυλου εθηκαν εις μνημειον . . . .

Acts 13;29,
. . . Now when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, men took [Him] down from the tree, they laid [Him] in a tomb. . . .

[Teallaura]

Yes, sorry, I should have stated Luke. And John too. I thought you were sufficient familiar that you realise immediately.

Nah, that was my own bad - brain cramp is my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Luke and John have Jesus meeting the disciples on the day the empty tomb was found. Mark and Matthew (and the Gospel of Peter too) have Jesus going on ahead of the disciples to meet them in Galilee.

Yep, I'm back up to speed now, thanks.

Sure, because you start from the presupposition that the Bible is right, Christianity is true.

You really like this supposition - but your still wrong. Besides, the reverse seems to be just as true, making it as much your problem as mine.

I do not doubt Christianity's ability to twist the text to make it appear to agree. The point here is that the Jerusalem sightings are more likely to be an embellishment rather than historical, given the texts in Mark, Matthew and Peter, especially when we consider Mark was written decades earlier, whilst Luke and John were likely written after all the eye witnesses were dead, allowing free rein for embellishment.

English works just fine. So, unless Greek is hiding something here, you're just being stubborn and you know it.

It is certainly not multiple witnesses to the same event! It is almost certain that all the canonical texts, and the Gospel of Peter too, are based on a single passion narrative. And it is likely that was pieced together from Old Testament passages, rather than an eye witness account!

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Crucifixion did not take place? Otherwise, this is silly - even if we allow that Mark forms the basis that doesn't begin to prove the idea that only the account in Mark is based solely on one eye witness account. The later epistles kick this one pretty quickly to the curb.

Peter gives supporting evidence, but is some way from being convincing for the reasons you give. However, it does seem to have developed independently from the passion narrative (i.e., it draws from a tradition that developed independently, and so gives an insight into what was in the original passion narrative.

Not really - it's way too late and only tells us they were familiar with Mark - which wasn't in question. It's impossible to know that they drew from the same 'narrative' - and even if so, proves only access, not accuracy.

It could be a backdoor to confirming accuracy of transmission so it's evidence, just not compelling for what your trying to do with it.

The relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the parallel accounts of the canonical gospels cannot be explained as a random compilation of canonical passages. It is evident that the mocking scene in this gospel is a narrative version that is directly dependent upon the exegetical tradition which is visible in Barnabas. The narrative version of this tradition as it is preserved in the Gospel of Peter has not yet split the mocking account into several scenes. This is an argument for the thesis that this account is older than its various usages in the canonical gospels.

- Ancient Christian Gospels, Helmut Koester, p227

So, Q, huh? And this proves the later Gospels incorrect - oh wait, it doesn't.

It is therefore evidence that the passion narrative had Jesus seeing the disciples in Galilee, and not in Jerusalem.

Er, no, not really. Mark is very 'newsy' - and not extremely detailed. Like most ancients, chronology isn't his focus as it would be for a modern - so it does show the meeting in Galilee, true, but doesn't rule out the meeting in Jerusalem.

Not a contradiction - a difference.

I am discarding them because the evidence indicates they were absent from the original account, the passion narrative.

Which is perfectly fair for your own satisfaction but has no obligation on me since you've not given me sufficient proof top accept the conclusion.

Agreed. However, it does make those additions considerably less reliable.

No, it doesn't. Only if the additions come from sources that are unreliable would that be necessarily true. It does give cause to consider reliability - that much is correct.

In this case, we do not have that. We have a single passion narrative - likely composed from scripture - and all your multiple accounts are derived from that.

That's your conclusion - it is not fact.

As opposed to what?

All you have is blind faith that the later Gospels are accurate.

No, you assume the gospel accounts are true. That is very different to using all the evidence. I am using all the evidence, but I do not assume the gospels are true.

No, you presume all later additions must be embellishment and not factual - in the time frame of the Gospels, this is NOT necessarily true. So no, I don't accept your conclusion even through I agree with some of the points made.

And your blind adherence to 'it must be false' prevents you from being open minded enough to consider the later Gospels - so you grab on to the Mark only theory and hang in there no matter that you haven't actually got proof that your theory is correct.

Who's being unreasonable here?

We have two competing claims here.

I am saying the Jerusalem sightings are a later addition, an embellishment that never happened and were not know to Mark. You are saying they are not, that they really happened. How can we discuss that without considering your beliefs?

Pretty danged easily - Mark either is or is not the only reliable source. So far, your only good point in its favor is that it is the earliest Gospel and the later ones probably do draw from it. But since Luke and Matt share a good bit in common as well, it's possible they draw from another, more obvious source - the actual events.

Is this because your beliefs are founded purely on faith, and you prefer not to consider the paucity of evidence for them?

No, it's because atheist stupidity REALLY annoys me - BECAUSE I was an atheist. It makes me wonder if I was also that big of a moron that I couldn't consider evidence without patronizing people.

Or being a jerk when called on it.

An assumption based on the clear fact that the earliest record says it happened differently.

Which it doesn't - it gives a different account that does not preclude both verisions being correct - hence not a contradiction and not a good basis.

Not necessarily, I agree. But plausibly.

Fair enough

What fable, rumour or myth from that era are you comparing to?

Greek and Roman - while they get big stuff correct, they leave a lot out and miss things that they shouldn't - if they were talking about real people. This, if I am guessing correctly, was probably what got Schlemann's attention with the Illiad.

To me, the embellishments like the Jerusalem sights, the dead saints coming to life, the tearing of the temple veil, the darkening of the sun, etc. all sound like a myth-making process. Nevertheless, they were written by people in the area (or from the area), so of course they got the geography right.

Cart before horse. Reliability in confirmable detail lends credibility tothat which cannot be confirmed. We accept Caesar's Gallic Wars for this reason.

It is a perception of you based on your responses here. You have have offered no evidence at all for your own position, and you disregard the evidence I present for my position.

You like burden shifting, don't you? The canonical Gospels are already established as documentary evidence - you yourself have been supplying the evidence. There's no reason I should prove that - but plenty of cause for you to prove the contradictory position that only Mark is documentary evidence of the events.

But it is an indication of later embellishments.

It opens the possibility - that's not necessarily an indication.

I am saying that if there is disagreement, the earlier gospel is likely to be more accurate.

I don't disagree - but you're assumption that difference equals contradiction is false.

And I have said this numerous times, and still I have to say it again. This is why I have this perception of you as someone blindly accepting the Bible; you just cannot take in what I am saying!

I GOT what you're saying - and don't agree. It appears to me that the reverse is more correct - you are so entrenched in the idea that the later Gospels must be false that you cannot accept that they aren't necessarily false merely because Mark is earliest.

No, you won't.

I know that because I have already done so. You just ignore the evidence presented, and pretend all I have is unsupported assumptions.

No, I granted when you began really supporting your argument - and you have done some of that. You haven't proved the case by a long shot - your conclusions are based strongly in your own supposition.

But you have failed to say why you think the alternative is more likely. Why is that?

Canonical Gospels are already accepted as evidence - yours is the outlying opinion here.

Who is it who is unable to support her claim?

You supported it for me, ironically enough.

Of course I am arguing probability. This happened nearly 2000 years ago, we cannot hope to be certain about any of it.

Not unless we believe with blind faith, of course.

Translation: no meat here. But I am pleased to see that you do see the limitations of probability.

Sure, the last thing you want to do is support your position, because we both know it is untenable. So here you go, ducking again.

If you want me to accept your theory, you need to support it. Otherwise, I will reject it.

I wasn't trying to get you to accept my theory (that the Gospels are evidence) - you were trying to convince me that only Mark is valid evidence. Burden shifting - fallacy and silly in one swoop.

Perhaps we should conclude that it is undecided either way, as clearly you cannot support your position, and I am happy to admit mine is not conclusive.

You supported mine - but nevertheless, it's nice to see you do understand that your position is not conclusive. Now, is it really so hard to believe that I might reject it on that basis, or are you really such a bigot that you cannot concede that a Christian can reason where Scripture is concerned?

Sure it is possible, but unlikely. Given the Jewish revolt, any witnesses were likely scattered across the Middle East. And really, all it needs is no witnesses alive in the community in which it was written, and then a fairly slow transmission outside that community. John is thought to have been written in Ephesus, for example, so all it required was no eye witness in Ephesus to events in Jerusalem, about 1000 miles away by road.

This isn't consistent with the history, however. Christianity begins to spread very quickly - quickly enough to be noted by historians and governments of the period.

And as you admit, John as the author of his gospel is a minority position. Even if the letters were written by the same author (which seems quite likely), that is a long way from establishing John as that author.

Granted - but I don't need it to be proven, merely plausible for my standing point.

I do accept John as author, but that's a different discussion and one I'm not prepared to defend at present.

You know, you're actually an interesting debater - you've even made me have to work here, which impresses me (I'm not God's gift to debating but not many people make me have to work at it). If you would get off the 'blind faith' dead horse, you'd be a lot better - and more effective. Take it for what it's worth - but I don't usually bother with providing such observations to anyone I think is wasting my time. That you certainly didn't do.

[psstein]

Peter gives supporting evidence, but is some way from being convincing for the reasons you give. However, it does seem to have developed independently from the passion narrative (i.e., it draws from a tradition that developed independently, and so gives an insight into what was in the original passion narrative.

The relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the parallel accounts of the canonical gospels cannot be explained as a random compilation of canonical passages. It is evident that the mocking scene in this gospel is a narrative version that is directly dependent upon the exegetical tradition which is visible in Barnabas. The narrative version of this tradition as it is preserved in the Gospel of Peter has not yet split the mocking account into several scenes. This is an argument for the thesis that this account is older than its various usages in the canonical gospels.

- Ancient Christian Gospels, Helmut Koester, p227

Outside of Koester and Crossan, nobody believes that the Gospel of Peter is independent from (at least) the Synoptic tradition. Crossan's "Cross Gospel" is demonstrably from the Matthean and Markan accounts.

[The Pixie]

Outside of Koester and Crossan, nobody believes that the Gospel of Peter is independent from (at least) the Synoptic tradition. Crossan's "Cross Gospel" is demonstrably from the Matthean and Markan accounts.

I think the claim is that it draws of a source that is independant of the canonical gospels, not that it is itself. The guard on the tomb seems very much to have been developed from Matthew, for example.

[tabibito]

. . . ως δε ετελεσαν παντα τα περι αυτου γεγραμμενα καθελοντες απο του ξυλου εθηκαν εις μνημειον . . . .

Acts 13;29,
. . . Now when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, men took [Him] down from the tree, they laid [Him] in a tomb. . . .

Your new version still shows that the people who fulfilled what is written about him took him down from the tree. However, "men" doesn't appear anywhere in the Greek. καθελοντες (as I have already posted) is a participle, playing the part of a noun. It is nominative - the "taking down (ones)" placed him in a tomb.
As for "ως" - it doesn't mean "when" ... though it can, on restricted occasions, if it is used as a conjunction (which in this case it isn't - the conjunction is δε)
γεγραμμενα doesn't mean "was written" it means "is" or "has_been" written ... it is present perfect, not past perfect. Byzantine Majority, Textus Receptus, and UBS5 all read the same.
Mickelson Strongs
G5613 ὡς hos (hōs) adv.
which how, i.e. in that manner (very variously used, ...).

[tabibito]

Pretty danged easily - Mark either is or is not the only reliable source. So far, your only good point in its favor is that it is the earliest Gospel and the later ones probably do draw from it. But since Luke and Matt share a good bit in common as well, it's possible they draw from another, more obvious source - the actual events.

And even at that, it would be necessary to disprove Luke's claim to have received his information from the founding disciples:
1 Given that many undertook to compose an orderly account of the (indicates that not much, if anything was in writing when Luke started his composition)
2 deeds fulfilled among us, just as the first eye-witnesses and ministers (indicates that Luke personally witnessed first generation action - no surprise there, he was a companion of Paul)
3 of the word conveyed them to us it seemed to me fitting to that I (that "to us" further indicates Luke is second generation)
also write an accurately ordered account (indicates that others were formulating accounts, and that prompted Luke to write to Theophilus)

All up - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the founding disciples seem not to have committed anything much to writing, but the second generation did. That would mean the gospels were written, at least in part, before Paul's death.

Counter to that, we have extant copies - no autographs - dating to a later time period. The idea that in the absence of autographs, the gospels can only have been written after the temple was destroyed doesn't have a lot to recommend it. Luke's claim to being a second generation disciple has not been shown false.