PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[metacrock]

[Post deleted. Metacrock changed one post and added another, I will respond to those and post again.]

did not

[One Bad Pig]

did not

If The Pixie saw your 8:28 post at 8:30 and began a response which he finished at 8:48, then his statement is entirely accurate.

[One Bad Pig]

The Jesus Narrative In Pauline Literature

Paul says nothing about an empty tomb.

On the other hand, the Resurrection is foundational to Paul's message. Unless you want to throw out the burial accounts entirely, Paul requires an empty tomb.

[metacrock]

If The Pixie saw your 8:28 post at 8:30 and began a response which he finished at 8:48, then his statement is entirely accurate.

I'm not able to respond until almost lunch or after lunch, os he has time to post again, Just look at the stuff I answered above. I've disproves all of his attacks. should answer the concerns.

[The Pixie]

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:

You are responding to something I said about whether a text can have more than one source. I see nothing related to that here. What are you claiming I have got "wrong"? I have literally no idea.

Do you think a text can have more than one source or not?

It is like you wanted to have a rant, so quoted a random paragraph from my post.

"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)

Ah, and now, after editing, you have a quote that mentions the empty tomb.

And which contradicts this claim from your previous post:

"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."

Have you now abandoned that position? It was untenable.

So you have a quote that says all the gospels are based on the same account. A single witness, it would seem, to the resurrection. The question then is, when was that passion narrative written - or rather, when was the empty tomb added to it? Which I also asked in my first post on this thread.

And that led us into a discussion as to whether the PMPN was a developing story, to which the empty tomb might have been added later on (but before Mark). If you recall, I quoted something indicating Koester believed the empty tomb was a later addition to the developing PMPN.

You may also recall this exchange:

The Pixie: Do remember to show how we know exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account.

Metacrock: 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.

The Pixie: 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.

Metacrock: 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.

Establishing exactly when the empty tomb was added to the PMPN is fundamental here, and yet you chose to duck the issue altogether. You have clearly spent some effort making subsequent posts, and yet on this one point, you ask what is the point? Makes me wonder if that is because you have nothing to support your claim.

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.

Great, you are no longer claiming:

"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."

As long as we know.

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.

I was not suggesting multiple sources. But as you have now abandoned your position that the PMPN "may well have all the stuff the canonicals have" the discussion is moot.

the Diatesseron is the point, that's the major source Danker used.

I suppose it was too complicated for you to understand, so you cannot tell us how Danker used the Diatessaron.

Or so I will assume, until you do tell us.

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.

So how does the Diatessaron support your position? Oh wait, you do not really know.

Do please how that [The Diatessaron] supports your position of the empty tomb in the PMPN.

I Just quoted Koester saying it ends with gthe empty tomb

But that had nothing to do with the Diatesseron, did it? Not to worry, we now know you have no idea Danker used the Diatessaron, so we can drop that discussion.

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

See, you cannot do it, can you? All you have is this single fact: Koester says it was in PMPN. But you have nothing to give when it comes to deciding when it appeared in the PMPN, and so again and again, you duck the question.

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.

You want me to find your evidence? No dice. You are claiming there is evidence to support your claim. You find it.

As far as I can see, Crossan takes the view that Jesus was buried in a common grave, and eaten by dogs (eg see here). Koester also seems to believe the empty tomb was made up. Are you sure you want to cite these two as authorities on the empty tomb? You know, given they agree with me that it was made up?

What is under discussion here is when the empty tomb was made up. Was it when Mark was written? Was it when the PMPN was first formed? Was it a subsequent addition to the PMPN, between its formation and Mark being written? Crossan and Koester say it was before Mark.

Somehow you want to take that discussion as evidence that it was not made up!

[The Pixie]

On the other hand, the Resurrection is foundational to Paul's message. Unless you want to throw out the burial accounts entirely, Paul requires an empty tomb.

No he does not. Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Paul does not care what happened to the old body; that got discarded.

[One Bad Pig]

No he does not. Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Paul does not care what happened to the old body; that got discarded.

No. If nothing else, the old body is a "seed" from which the new body "grows."

[metacrock]

No he does not. Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Paul does not care what happened to the old body; that got discarded.

that was not Jewish belief. the Jews did care. being a Rabbi meant caring about that as surely as it meant one God. Assuming that Paul's silence on tomb means he didn't believe in it is as foolish and unhistorical as saying he believed in multiple gods.

an essay with research to that effect.

[metacrock]

No. If nothing else, the old body is a "seed" from which the new body "grows."

The old body was " glorified "

[One Bad Pig]

The old body was " glorified "

Yes.

[metacrock]

don't change the issue. this thread is about the empty tomb and its presence early on jn the lit,. I still have big post by Pixie to answer

[metacrock]

You are responding to something I said about whether a text can have more than one source. I see nothing related to that here. What are you claiming I have got "wrong"? I have literally no idea.

Do you think a text can have more than one source or not?

of course. but I thought you were claiming that the PMPN had more than one source and there['s no basis for that.

It is like you wanted to have a rant, so quoted a random paragraph from my post.

More like you were saying something false.

Ah, and now, after editing, you have a quote that mentions the empty tomb.

And which contradicts this claim from your previous post:

"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."



that qu0ote is there on my site on the page from which I took the OP. Now I may have not copied it to begin with because it's a lomg page. I thought I did. I went back to that source my website and copied kit.

Have you now abandoned that position? It was untenable.

Not sure which position you mean, I conceive of the PMPN as one particular source that is not necessary to connect it with other documents Other sources existed independently of it such as Q. In fact it may have been Q for all we know. Doesn't makle that much difference.

So you have a quote that says all the gospels are based on the same account. A single witness, it would seem, to the resurrection. The question then is, when was that passion narrative written - or rather, when was the empty tomb added to it? Which I also asked in my first post on this thread.

I quoted Koester saying he and Crosson date it to mid first centaury. it says specifically the account ends with empty tomb.why don't pay attention? I put it in large front and bold and red,

And that led us into a discussion as to whether the PMPN was a developing story, to which the empty tomb might have been added later on (but before Mark). If you recall, I quoted something indicating Koester believed the empty tomb was a later addition to the developing PMPN.

again the scholars place the empty tomb as part of the original narrative.

You may also recall this exchange:

The Pixie: Do remember to show how we know exactly how early the empty tomb was in the account.

Metacrock: 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.

The Pixie: 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.

Metacrock: 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.

Establishing exactly when the empty tomb was added to the PMPN is fundamental here, and yet you chose to duck the issue altogether. You have clearly spent some effort making subsequent posts, and yet on this one point, you ask what is the point? Makes me wonder if that is because you have nothing to support your claim. Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.

I just answered that., you are not paying attention. I put it in big red letters and you missed it.

Great, you are no longer claiming:

"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."

I have not changed that view, if it turns out they have several other sources that wont hurt my argument

As long as we know.

what?

I was not suggesting multiple sources. But as you have now abandoned your position that the PMPN "may well have all the stuff the canonicals have" the discussion is moot.

why are you so apt to just assert come crap I never said them run with it? you don't listen you are not the least bit careful to get the other guy's arguments right. l typical CARM atheist.

[metacrock]

since you missed it the first time here it is again:

Ancient Chrisitan Gospels 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)

. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.
. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.

[The Pixie]

Note: I have combined posts by OBP and metacrock as they are more-or-less the same.

No. If nothing else, the old body is a "seed" from which the new body "grows."

Sure. But the new body does not have to drag around the old body with it.

1 Cor 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Jesus left his earthly body in the tomb, and was raised in a heavenly body. Remember how Paul saw Jesus:



Paul did not see an earthly body (or a heavenly body dragging around a corpse), he saw a heavenly body. Therefore it would seem reasonable that he would propose a resurrection where the earthly body was left behind like so much chaff.

that was not Jewish belief. the Jews did care. being a Rabbi meant caring about that as surely as it meant one God. Assuming that Paul's silence on tomb means he didn't believe in it is as foolish and unhistorical as saying he believed in multiple gods.

an essay with research to that effect.

I said Paul did not care, I meant it was not significant to his understanding of how Jesus was resurrected. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. Sure, the Jews cared what happened to corpses, but it is quite a leap to conclude they must therefore have believed in a bodily resurrection.

Your linked article makes the point:

"The argument is mainly an argument from silence. The real power of the assertion is found in the silence of Paul and his failure to mention the empty tomb. But of course it is an assertion and an interpretation based upon nothing more than silence and circular reasoning."

Fair comment; we cannot know Paul did not believe in an empty tomb. But that silence is still there - we equally cannot know Paul did believe in the empty tomb. The only reasonable conclusion is that we do not know what Paul believed about the empty tomb.

[The Pixie]

of course. but I thought you were claiming that the PMPN had more than one source and there['s no basis for that.

I was not claiming that.

More like you were saying something false.

If you thought it was false, why did you not address what I said?

For reference, here is what I said, followed by your response:

The Pixie: 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.

metacrock: 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:

I still have no idea how your response relates to what I said, and the fact that you have made no attempt to explain indicates you do not either.

And which contradicts this claim from your previous post:

"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."

Have you now abandoned that position? It was untenable.

Not sure which position you mean, I conceive of the PMPN as one particular source that is not necessary to connect it with other documents Other sources existed independently of it such as Q. In fact it may have been Q for all we know. Doesn't makle that much difference.

The position I referred to was the one I directly quoted. I am sorry, I do not know how much clearer I can be. I stated the quote was from a previous post of yours, and I put it in quotes.

Perhaps if you could try reading what I type in context (i.e., in reference to the previous and next paragraph), this might go more smoothly.

I quoted Koester saying he and Crosson date it to mid first centaury. it says specifically the account ends with empty tomb.why don't pay attention? I put it in large front and bold and red,

You need to pay attention to what I am saying.

Koester seems to believe the empty tomb was added to the PMPN. That means (if he is right) the original PMPN had no empty tomb, then the empty tomb was added, and later the Gospel of Mark was based on revised version.

That fits perfectly with what you are saying here, the PMPN appeared around 50 AD, and by the time the author of Mark was using it, it included the empty tomb.

You do know Koester and Crossan both believe the empty tomb was made up, right?

again the scholars place the empty tomb as part of the original narrative.

The scholars who believe the empty tomb was made up? Those scholars?

Sure, by the time the author of Mark was writing the gospel, the PMPN included the empty tomb, according to scholars who believe the empty tomb was made up.

But that does not necessarily imply the empty tomb was in the account from the start.

I just answered that., you are not paying attention. I put it in big red letters and you missed it.

No, you failed to answer it.

You are assuming the empty tomb was in the PMPN from the very start, and you are so blinkered in that belief that you cannot even read what I am typing when I say otherwise.

Great, you are no longer claiming:

"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."

I have not changed that view, if it turns out they have several other sources that wont hurt my argument

You are failing to understand your own words. Previously you said, very end of post #10:

"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. "

What you seemed to be claiming was that the PMPN contained all the sightings of Jesus after the crucifixion, and that each gospel author selected the ones he wanted. That claim is certainly not held by Koester and Crossan! Perhaps you could clarify what your position is on that.

I was not suggesting multiple sources. But as you have now abandoned your position that the PMPN "may well have all the stuff the canonicals have" the discussion is moot.

why are you so apt to just assert come crap I never said them run with it? you don't listen you are not the least bit careful to get the other guy's arguments right. l typical CARM atheist.

This is crap you did say, metacrock. Check the end of post #10, as I quoted above. Look, it was a ridiculous claim, and I understand you wanting to distance yourself from it. If you want to drop it altogether, that is fine with me. Just do not accuse me of making it up, when you clearly said it, when I can link to the post you said it in, and when I can quote what you said.