PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[The Pixie]

I don't believe koester thinks that. The book you quoted from says things that contradict ACG so there's a problem I don't accept your source. There is absolutely no question that Koester says empty tomb was in PMPN. he says it point blank and I quoted him.


Crosson does not say they made up the empty tomb. I' e read two books on it by him and he says the women where made up. He argues against Doherty based upon the testimony of the community so he values that.

Even if it was true it wouldn't matter. I would say they are not consistent with their own view but they do get the tomb into the early lit.
Koester and Crosson did not think up the PMPN. They get that from Danker who did tye real work. Brown also. Koester names eight scholars.

Answer this:

Does Koester believe there really was an empty tomb?

Does Crossan believe there really was an empty tomb?

[metacrock]

Answer this:

Does Koester believe there really was an empty tomb?

Does Crossan believe there really was an empty tomb?

this is what I've told you

Koester says things that would lead one to believe so, weather he does not is unimportant.

I think Crosson does not. his reasons are not well thought-out and have been attacked by other scholars. craig gives a list:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/groun...#ixzz46MDqyRqR

his reasons for seeing empty tombs as part of PMPN are scholarly and his reasons for not believing in empty tomb are ideological.

[metacrock]

to be acceptable to secular academia one is expected to take the secular stance on issues involving any kind of miracle. Many scholars are into being accepted in the academy.

[The Pixie]

this is what I've told you

Koester says things that would lead one to believe so, weather he does not is unimportant.

I agree it is not unimportant, hence I asked the question.

Can you actually quote Koester stating that the empty tomb was real?

I have already presented this, and I appreciate it is not Koester talking, but it seems to trump anything you have presented so far with respect to Koester's position on whether the empty tomb was real or not:

"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=...ing%22&f=false

I think Crosson does not. his reasons are not well thought-out and have been attacked by other scholars. craig gives a list:

his reasons for seeing empty tombs as part of PMPN are scholarly and his reasons for not believing in empty tomb are ideological.

Like your reasons for believing it are ideological. A useful rationale for ignoring all who disagree with our cherished ideas, whether they are right or wrong.

Seems to me you are citing Crossan as an authority when he agrees with you, and at the same time saying he is unreliable when he does not. Cherry-picking is, I think, the term.

[The Pixie]

Here is what I suggest could have happened.

• Jesus gets arrested and crucified, the disciples flee (we can see remnents of this in Mark 14:27). Jesus body is discarded like any other criminal at that time (as per Crossan).
• Weeks or months later Peter sees a vision that he interprets as Jesus in Galilee (1 Cor 15 indicates Peter had the vision first). He contacts the other disciples, and they too see something.
• The new religion gets going, and after a while a passion narrative appears, recounting Jesus arrest. It stops at that point because that was all the disciples were there for.
• At some point the trial and crucifixion are added. The trial is made up; there were no disciples present. The crucifixion is likewise made up, but based on Roman practices, all too common at the time.
• At some later point the empty tomb is added to the narrative
• The author of Mark writes his gospel, incorporating the passion narrative. He alludes to the disciples seeing Jesus in Galilee; he is unaware of any accounts of Jesus seen in Jerusalem simply because no one has made them up yet (and that is because people are still alive who remember being in Jerusalem at the time).

What I want to emphasise here is the passion narrative changed, it evolved, it got embellished. The empty tomb was in the passion narrative, but not from the start. This is consistent with what Crossan and Koester argue.

[metacrock]

I agree it is not unimportant, hence I asked the question.

Can you actually quote Koester stating that the empty tomb was real?

I don't have that book available now

I have already presented this, and I appreciate it is not Koester talking, but it seems to trump anything you have presented so far with respect to Koester's position on whether the empty tomb was real or not:

except the fact that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to base my view on such a basic issue one what one guy thinks.
The matter of the tomb being mentioned in PMPN is different.

"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=...ing%22&f=false

Like your reasons for believing it are ideological. A useful rationale for ignoring all who disagree with our cherished ideas, whether they are right or wrong.

Seems to me you are citing Crossan as an authority when he agrees with you, and at the same time saying he is unreliable when he does not. Cherry-picking is, I think, the term.[/QUOTE]


I will have o look into it but as I said it wouldn't surprise me because I know he's liberal .It wouldn't change my belief because that's a different matter than the bit about fating the story.

one reason I d=find it hared to believe is because it['s a stupid assumption: "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)" why couldn't they just explain it by saying they all got killed by the Romans? that would be honorable. Moreover. that argument is criteria of embarrassment which atheists usually abhor since it justifies an idea based upon dying for something they know is a lie and son on.

[metacrock]

[QUOTE=The Pixie;310254]Here is what I suggest could have happened.

• Jesus gets arrested and crucified, the disciples flee (we can see remnents of this in Mark 14:27). Jesus body is discarded like any other criminal at that time (as per Crossan).
• Weeks or months later Peter sees a vision that he interprets as Jesus in Galilee (1 Cor 15 indicates Peter had the vision first). He contacts the other disciples, and they too see something.

• There is no reason to assume they could get it going after months or even weeks. Everyone would be totally disillusioned and moved on by them. psychological theories like cognitive dissonance require immediate reaction not time to think about it. There is every indication that the reaction was immediate.
  
  

• The new religion gets going, and after a while a passion narrative appears, recounting Jesus arrest. It stops at that point because that was all the disciples were there for.