PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[metacrock]

If you would bother to read the material in the OP you would see it's not just proved its the consensus now. No scholar will ev er try to say[this sentence is from here sand this is from there" none copies stuff that way, I list eight major scholars who think that all five gospels (canonicals and /GPeter) use the PMPN in their accounts. That is not just the passion itself but includes a lot more. They call oit p[passion narrative but it's a lot more. God back amd read the fist

[metacrock]

Not bodiless, Paul is clear about that:

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies

But a new heavenly body that presumably has no interest in sex.

ok

[metacrock]

Wrong question. You're assuming the best representation of the Passion Narrative is in Mark or the Synoptics, and in Greek. My research shows it was originally in Aramaic and can best now be found in the Gospel of John:
The foundation source from John Mark is the following:
(include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.}
John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life, best called the Passion Diary. (The Roman numerals indicate my rough count of how many eyewitness touches seem evident in the verse(s).)
http://www.christianforums.com/threa...7910997/page-2

interesting. that may be further down the road from ACG (Koester) although he does talk about affinity between Mark and John

[metacrock]

And which scholars adhere to this radical thesis?

this is not radical but My question to Adam did you get the eye witness thing from Buckingham?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If you would bother to read the material in the OP you would see it's not just proved its the consensus now. No scholar will ev er try to say[this sentence is from here sand this is from there" none copies stuff that way, I list eight major scholars who think that all five gospels (canonicals and /GPeter) use the PMPN in their accounts. That is not just the passion itself but includes a lot more. They call oit p[passion narrative but it's a lot more. God back amd read the fist

Well, let's see it! Where's the separation of the Markan material from the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative? And what methods do these scholars use to come to such a conclusion? I'm assuming they must have some very sophisticated critical literary redaction techniques that would be interesting to see. Without a demonstration of this then there's very good reason to doubt it considering most scholars put the composition of Mark 65-75CE. If no "source" can be demonstrated then all this amounts to speculation.

[Adam]

this is not radical but My question to Adam did you get the eye witness thing from Buckingham?

I don't even know of Buckingham. The Passion Narrative as underlying the Gospel of John I got from Howard M. Teeple's 1974 The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Other scholars who see such an underlying source independent of the Synoptics include Robert Fortna, Sydney Temple (who named Nicodemus as eyewitness), and Rudolf Bultmann. That such a source under John is from John Mark as an eyewitness is mine of recent vintage. (I used to think the eyewitness was Peter.)

[metacrock]

I don't even know of Buckingham. The Passion Narrative as underlying the Gospel of John I got from Howard M. Teeple's 1974 The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John. Other scholars who see such an underlying source independent of the Synoptics include Robert Fortna, Sydney Temple (who named Nicodemus as eyewitness), and Rudolf Bultmann. That such a source under John is from John Mark as an eyewitness is mine of recent vintage. (I used to think the eyewitness was Peter.)

That's great much more recent and compelling work has been done by Jurgen Danker on the Diatesseron; several other textual critics back him up. They have the textual criticism to prove it. A real good discussion of that in Helmutt Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels (1992). Also Crossson backs up koester.

Buckingham Jesus and the eye witnesses (2007). great argument to prove the eye witnesses in John.

[metacrock]

Well, let's see it! Where's the separation of the Markan material from the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative? And what methods do these scholars use to come to such a conclusion? I'm assuming they must have some very sophisticated critical literary redaction techniques that would be interesting to see. Without a demonstration of this then there's very good reason to doubt it considering most scholars put the composition of Mark 65-75CE. If no "source" can be demonstrated then all this amounts to speculation.

the don't to reconstruct the whole document to see certain readings in certain ms are old. read this essay, especially the stuff about koester

[metacrock]

...[snip]Yes. So it was made up after Paul, but before or by Mark.

the idea of it being made up by Mark is wrong. That is disproved by GPete and John.The scholars date it to around 50. That is about when Paul started preaching and writing.

Yes it does. It is not in the text. It is therefore excluded from the text.

fallacious reasoning you were a myther so you never got over argument from silence. Argument from silence does not prove it was excluded.

A creedal formula that excludes the empty tomb.

exclude means they said"O let's keep this empty tomb stuff out." just mot writing about doesn't mean it's excluded. There is no reason to think it would not be part of the oral tradition. It was in the earliest writing so it was probably in the oral tradition. They didn't need to talk about the empty tomb every time. Especially if its already been accepted. It probably was because there no versins of the story that contradict it. myth always proliforatesl

Many Christians think the empty tomb is vital to their faith - just look at you on this thread. And yet this vital event is absent from the early creed. We do not know why, but the most likely reason is that it had not been invented.

the res is vital to the faith and the empty ]tomb is a good symbol for it and good argument for it. It doesn't have to be apologetics.

Okay. Now answer the question: Where do you think the idea that Jesus was resurrected on the third day comes from?

from the resurrection

nothing about that disproves the empty tomb. It doesn't disprove Mary seeing Jesus and it doesn't disprove angels talking to the women.

I accept that. By the time Mark was written, the empty tomb, discovered by the women, was in the narrative. However, we were discussing what Jesus did after being resurrected. In Mark the disciple scattered, and Jesus went to Galilee to meet them; he was not seen in Jerusalem.

you do realize your statement precludes Mark making it up? as I said there is no Gospel that says Jesus hung around in Jerusalem. The scene in Bethany could have been at the end after they were in Galilee Or Koestger could be right and all those sightings are from different sources. Koester believes the PMPN included the empty tomb so that can't disprove it.

Sure, I understand that. But that does not mean I have to accept it as fact.


Koester and Crosson say it aw not latter don't you understand that? I'e said it about ten times.

Koester and Crossan say the empty tomb was made up, and I have said that to you about ten times. Do you understand that? Do you accept it as fact? Can you see the difference?

they don't base that on the evidence of the Passion narrative I don't agree that Crosson says it.He says the women were made up. Their advocacy for that idea is ideological. they want their union cards in the brotherhood of academia to be in good standing.

Cool. Should be easy for you to find a quote by each to support your claim that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN then.

It's implied clearly enough in what I've quoted. I've already proved that Peter had an independent source.

Of course they used other sources, I do not dispute that. What we are discussing is whether the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN

.


of course they did what would e the big reason to point out that they all use if by that one only means Mat copied mark and Luke copied Mata?

So what is the evidence that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN?

what did I just say?

You are aware that "dependant" is not the same as having direct access, right?

Du

The quote by Koester is consistent with Mark using the PMPN, and then the other authors using Mark. All then depend on the PMPN, but only one of the actually saw it.

hardy. there would be no reason to say "they all used it" ifr by that you must mean via Mark. You are twisting that out of the evidence to hold up a dead horse and that's why they don't say it more clearly. they are not in need of defending your idea.

Or the author of Matthew made it up and the author of Peter copied Matthew (remembering that Peter has been dated t as late as 160 AD). Or the author of Matthew made it up and a later redactor of Peter inserted it after reading Matthew, which allows for an early authorship of Peter too.

Ray Brown already excluded Peter copying Matthew. that's where he says no one copies that way. that work made Brown's rep so it has been accepted for a long time as major.

This is why the dating of Peter is important.

it is not important at all. The finished work is must latter than the canonicals the point is preservation of earlier readings. I already covered that. I thought you got that?

[metacrock]

Ordinarily I would not use William Lane Craig but he was the first pick on google and he says it.

Mark's Passion source didn't end with Jesus' burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial account verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John rely on independent sources about the empty tomb. Jesus' empty tomb is also mentioned in the early sermons independently preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36), and it's implied by the very old tradition handed on by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have multiple, early attestation of the fact of the empty tomb in at least four independent sources....First and foremost is the Passion source which Mark used in writing his Gospel. Whereas most of Mark's Gospel consists of short anecdotal stories strung like pearls on a string, when we get to the final week of Jesus' life we encounter a continuous narrative of events from the Jewish plot during the Feast of Unleavened Bread through Jesus' burial and empty tomb. ...The dominant view among NT scholars is therefore that the Passion narratives are early and based on eyewitness testimony (Mark Allen Powell, JAAR 68 [2000]: 171). Indeed, according to Richard Bauckham, many scholars date Mark's Passion narrative no later than the 40s (recall that Jesus died in A.D. 30) (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2006, p. 243). So we're dealing here with an extraordinarily early source.

Now Matthew and Luke probably knew Mark's Gospel, as you note, and used it as one of their sources. But the differences between Mark and the other Synoptics point to other independent sources behind Matthew and Luke. These differences are not plausibly explained as due to editorial changes introduced by Matthew and Luke because of (i) their sporadic and uneven nature (e.g., Mark: "tomb which had been hewn out of rock"; Matthew: "tomb which he hewed in the rock"; (ii) the inexplicable omission of events like Pilate's interrogating the centurion; and (iii) Matthew and Luke's agreeing in their wording in contrast to Mark (e.g., Matt. 27.58 = Lk. 23.52 "This man went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus." Also the phrase translated "wrapped it in linen" is identical in Matthew and Luke. How could Matthew and Luke have independently chosen exactly the same wording in contrast to Mark? They both probably had another source. Indeed, as we'll see when we get to the empty tomb account, differences between Matthew and Luke emerge that suggest multiple sources


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/indep...#ixzz46tvrRhps


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/indep...#ixzz46tvOJYPf


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/indep...#ixzz46tusIZ7r

Koester ACG

"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).

[Adam]

Well, let's see it! Where's the separation of the Markan material from the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative? And what methods do these scholars use to come to such a conclusion? I'm assuming they must have some very sophisticated critical literary redaction techniques that would be interesting to see. Without a demonstration of this then there's very good reason to doubt it considering most scholars put the composition of Mark 65-75CE. If no "source" can be demonstrated then all this amounts to speculation.

My Post #103 is mostly based on Howard M. Teeple, pp. 232-248 in his the Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, 1974, all the better in that he didn't realize what he was doing.

[The Pixie]

...[snip]Yes. So it was made up after Paul, but before or by Mark.

the idea of it being made up by Mark is wrong. That is disproved by GPete and John.The scholars date it to around 50. That is about when Paul started preaching and writing.

Well I did say before Mark, so I guess you are agreeing with me.

Yes it does. It is not in the text. It is therefore excluded from the text.

fallacious reasoning you were a myther so you never got over argument from silence. Argument from silence does not prove it was excluded.

Not seeing an apple in a box when you look in the box is good evidence there is no apple in the box. Not seeing the empty tomb in the text is good evidence it is not in the text.

And I have never been a myther.

exclude means they said"O let's keep this empty tomb stuff out." just mot writing about doesn't mean it's excluded.

It means it is excluded from the text.

There is no reason to think it would not be part of the oral tradition.

But also no reason to think it was.

You see the empty tomb as vital to the narrative, to judge by this thread. Why do you think Pal excluded it from the text?

the res is vital to the faith and the empty ]tomb is a good symbol for it and good argument for it. It doesn't have to be apologetics.

So why mention the burial? Was the burial vital to the faith, but not the empty tomb? Which would you say was the greater symbol in modern Christianity; the burial or the empty tomb? The empty tomb of course! And yet Paul chooses to mention the burial, and to exclude the empty tomb. Why? The most likely reason is that there was no empty tomb.

you do realize your statement precludes Mark making it up?

The empty tomb? Please explain why.

as I said there is no Gospel that says Jesus hung around in Jerusalem. The scene in Bethany could have been at the end after they were in Galilee Or Koestger could be right and all those sightings are from different sources. Koester believes the PMPN included the empty tomb so that can't disprove it.

Actually Matthew claims that Jesus appeared before they went to Galilee:

8 And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them [b]

Luke has Jesus appear seven miles from Jerusalem the day the empty tomb was found:

13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was [d]about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 And they were talking with each other about all these things which had taken place. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them.

And John too has Jesus appear in Jerusalem on that day.
[b]

So in fact all the later gospels claim Jesus appeared to the disciples the day the empty tomb was found, before they went to Galilee, while the original has Jesus going directly to Galilee to meet them - and has Jesus prophesying that the disciples would scatter when he was crucified, rather than remain in Jerusalem.

they don't base that on the evidence of the Passion narrative I don't agree that Crosson says it.He says the women were made up. Their advocacy for that idea is ideological. they want their union cards in the brotherhood of academia to be in good standing.

Crossan's position is that Jesus' body was "probably eaten by wild dogs." That would mean there was no empty tomb, and therefore he must believe it was made up.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-crossan-vs-jesus.htm

Cool. Should be easy for you to find a quote by each to support your claim that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN then.

It's implied clearly enough in what I've quoted. I've already proved that Peter had an independent source.

No you have not proved that Peter had an independent source. You have given good reason to think he had another source, but it is hardly proved. And that in any case in no way addresses the issue here.

All you have is scholars saying that Matthew, Luke and John depend on the PMPN. That does not mean they had direct access to it.

of course they did what would e the big reason to point out that they all use if by that one only means Mat copied mark and Luke copied Mata?

The big reason to point out that all the gospels depend on the PMPN is to show that there is only one original source for that narrative. I think it is pretty much established that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark (as well as other sources), and that Mark in turn drew from the PMPN. It seems to me to be significant that all three ultimately get the passion narrative from a single source - that is the "big reason". That makes the PMPN of the utmost importance. However, that does not suggest Luke or Matthew had direct access to the PMPN.

So what is the evidence that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN?

what did I just say?

Nothing at all that supported your claim that Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN. A scholar saying they "depend" on the PMPN does not indicate they had direct access to it.

hardy. there would be no reason to say "they all used it" ifr by that you must mean via Mark. You are twisting that out of the evidence to hold up a dead horse and that's why they don't say it more clearly. they are not in need of defending your idea.

The scholar you quoted said "Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account". It is yourself who is claiming "they all used it".

If you can quote Koester or Crossan saying they all used it, you might have a case. When you quote them saying the other gospels depend on the PMPN, and you then declare "they all used it" you have merely your opinion.

Ray Brown already excluded Peter copying Matthew. that's where he says no one copies that way. that work made Brown's rep so it has been accepted for a long time as major.

Your argument here is that Brown has shown Peter uses another source. That does not preclude him using Matthew as well. we have been through this.

it is not important at all. The finished work is must latter than the canonicals the point is preservation of earlier readings. I already covered that. I thought you got that?

Unless you can tell us what was in the earlier reading, Peter does not help your argument. Were the guards in the earlier reading? Was the empty tomb?

Can you offer anything that tells us one way or the other? If not, I can say that these could easily be later additions that were copied from Matthew.

[The Pixie]

Koester ACG

"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).

Okay, that that is a better quote, thanks.

So from a exegetical tradition... Not eye witness accounts, then, but drawing on scripture, i.e., the Old Testament.

[metacrock]

Okay, that that is a better quote, thanks.

So from a exegetical tradition... Not eye witness accounts, then, but drawing on scripture, i.e., the Old Testament.

that's the way Jews wrote, that does not cancel out the eye witness testimony. that's a real novice mistake. you know better.

[metacrock]

Well I did say before Mark, so I guess you are agreeing with me.

Not seeing an apple in a box when you look in the box is good evidence there is no apple in the box. Not seeing the empty tomb in the text is good evidence it is not in the text.

you also said "or made up by"

And I have never been a myther.

can't tell the CAM atheists without a program.

It means it is excluded from the text.

no it doesn't. you are seriously arguing that not there means purposely not allowed to be there, you don't see what's wrong with that? American money does not say "In bugs bunny we trust" that must mean the purposely had a conference and agreed not to say that, right?"


There is no reason to think it would not be part of the oral tradition.

But also no reason to think it was.

o yea I gave you a couple in that last go round and you ignored them. o\ne is the independent tradition in Peter, the other is because it was broad based enough to show up in all five gospels.

You see the empty tomb as vital to the narrative, to judge by this thread. Why do you think Pal excluded it from the text?

He didn't exclude lt. he had no reason to mention It

(1) he was not there. He had his own experiences.

(2) the tomb was so long accepted and so firmly ensconced it's too basic. no need to go into it. for the same reason he didn't need to explain to the Greeks that they lived on the Mediterranean.

(3) tomb had ceased to be a point of contention since the Romans could not produce the body so they weren't pushing the issue.

So why mention the burial? Was the burial vital to the faith, but not the empty tomb? Which would you say was the greater symbol in modern Christianity; the burial or the empty tomb? The empty tomb of course! And yet Paul chooses to mention the burial, and to exclude the empty tomb. Why? The most likely reason is that there was no empty tomb.

natural to mention it. burials implies tomb. being dumped in mass grave is not proper burial. saying he was hanged means crucified burial means tomb.

skipping a bunch, you can bring stuff back up but too long, to much to do.

the chase:

The big reason to point out that all the gospels depend on the PMPN is to show that there is only one original source for that narrative. I think it is pretty much established that the authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark (as well as other sources), and that Mark in turn drew from the PMPN. It seems to me to be significant that all three ultimately get the passion narrative from a single source - that is the "big reason". That makes the PMPN of the utmost importance. However, that does not suggest Luke or Matthew had direct access to the PMPN.

my quote below dispelled that. crosson makes the point that there was only one source they all use but Mark was not it. The PMPN was it. But I'm not even sure that's true. It's not certain that Q was the PMPN. I guess for the empty tomb itself that might be true. but it's not mark.