Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

Ah. Yes, I missed that. Very good, then. Yes, put that way, it's a vaguely interesting possibility, even if unlikely.

A respectable minority of NT scholars say that it is possible that there was no Empty Tomb.

[Gary]

Funny how you use the majority view when it helps your theories but toss them when they don't

All my positions on the "Jesus Story" are either held by a majority, or a respectable minority, of NT scholars. None of my positions are fringe, unlike your view that the Gospel of Mark was written prior to 40 AD.

Fringe. Very fringe.

[Gary]

See? All of a sudden you go with a minority view when it suits you

LOL

It is considered perfectly reasonable to accept the majority position on most issues and the minority position on one or a couple of issues. You on the other hand hold FRINGE positions, something I do not.

[Gary]

Sure. Of course, she also believes that Jesus wasn't buried in one. You're so transparent, Gary.

Haaaaa!

Please gives us a quote from her article where she states that she does not believe that Jesus was buried in a dirt trench.

[Gary]

See? All of a sudden you go with a minority view when it suits you

LOL

Perfectly acceptable.

Take Nick Peters, for instance. He typically accepts majority opinion on biblical issues, but when it comes to the majority opinion regarding the historicity of the Exodus, he holds to a minority position.

[Gary]

It isn't something specific with Christians but rather with cultures that heavily rely on oral tradition.

Please provide a credible source which gives evidence that first century Jewish peasants maintained accurate oral stories for a period of four or more decades.

[Gary]

Yes, and it's actually a particularly faulty one. Under the model of oral tradition I think most likely (similar to Bauckham's, though not exactly the same), memorization was not word for word. Dunn's model doesn't hold to that idea either, nor (to my knowledge) does Byrskog's or Le Donne's. The tradition was controlled, though not nearly as strictly as some would want to think. Nor was it as uncontrolled as Bultmann and the form critics thought (NT scholarship is still heavily indebted to form criticism, which is deeply problematic, but I digress).

In an oral culture, the general outline of the story remains the same. Specific details will be altered, such as "how many women were at Jesus' tomb?," or "who carried Jesus' cross?" The somewhat fluid nature of oral tradition explains many of the so-called contradictions in the gospels. On a side note, I don't think contradictions is always the best way to describe the discrepancies... it implies that the gospels were designed to be Scripture from the outset, when they weren't.

Notice that the absence of an Empty Tomb doesn't really change the general outline of the Resurrection Story:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. At some point in time, his body was tossed into a dirt trench and covered over.
3. Three days after his death, one or several disciples had vivid dreams/visions of Jesus appearing to them.
4. The vivid dreams/visions were so real; so lifelike, that the disciples believed that Jesus had been bodily resurrected.
5. This belief transformed the timid disciples to bold preachers of the new Faith.

The Empty Tomb doesn't change the general outline. It was a theological embellishment to strengthen the Christian claim of a bodily resurrection against Jewish and pagan criticism. The Empty Tomb wasn't needed for Christians to believe; only to use against the "enemies" of the Faith.

[Sparko]

Yes, and it's actually a particularly faulty one. Under the model of oral tradition I think most likely (similar to Bauckham's, though not exactly the same), memorization was not word for word. Dunn's model doesn't hold to that idea either, nor (to my knowledge) does Byrskog's or Le Donne's. The tradition was controlled, though not nearly as strictly as some would want to think. Nor was it as uncontrolled as Bultmann and the form critics thought (NT scholarship is still heavily indebted to form criticism, which is deeply problematic, but I digress).

In an oral culture, the general outline of the story remains the same. Specific details will be altered, such as "how many women were at Jesus' tomb?," or "who carried Jesus' cross?" The somewhat fluid nature of oral tradition explains many of the so-called contradictions in the gospels. On a side note, I don't think contradictions is always the best way to describe the discrepancies... it implies that the gospels were designed to be Scripture from the outset, when they weren't.

What makes you think the apostles didn't keep notes or journals during the time they spent with Jesus, who was their friend and teacher? And then later write the gospels from those notes? That would make the most sense to me.

But as Christians, we also believe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the writing of the Gospels as well as other scripture.

[Sparko]

A respectable minority of NT scholars say that it is possible that there was no Empty Tomb.

can you list them for us and say why their opinion on this is respected and by whom?

[Sparko]

All my positions on the "Jesus Story" are either held by a majority, or a respectable minority, of NT scholars. None of my positions are fringe, unlike your view that the Gospel of Mark was written prior to 40 AD.

Fringe. Very fringe.

I never said when Mark was written.
But the strange thing about your positions is that you cherry pick who to believe on different things. Since you want the gospels to be written late, you go with the "majority" and ignore the "respected minority" that say they were written early. But when you want to show Jesus was buried in a trench, then you go with the "respected minority", whoever they are, and ignore the "majority"

You are not interested in the truth, just in whoever agrees with you. If you did science that way, only accepting results that agreed with your already formed conclusions, you would be kicked out as a fraud.

Oh wait, you already ARE a fraud when it comes to science and medicine. Never mind.

[Gary]

What makes you think the apostles didn't keep notes or journals during the time they spent with Jesus, who was their friend and teacher? And then later write the gospels from those notes? That would make the most sense to me.

But as Christians, we also believe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the writing of the Gospels as well as other scripture.

Most "unlearned" men do not keep a daily written diary, but anything is possible.

[Gary]

can you list them for us and say why their opinion on this is respected and by whom?

Stein already gave the list above.

[Gary]

I never said when Mark was written.
But the strange thing about your positions is that you cherry pick who to believe on different things. Since you want the gospels to be written late, you go with the "majority" and ignore the "respected minority" that say they were written early. But when you want to show Jesus was buried in a trench, then you go with the "respected minority", whoever they are, and ignore the "majority"

You are not interested in the truth, just in whoever agrees with you. If you did science that way, only accepting results that agreed with your already formed conclusions, you would be kicked out as a fraud.

Oh wait, you already ARE a fraud when it comes to science and medicine. Never mind.

Wrong.

If I just wanted to be a Jesus-hater, I would be a mythicist. I accept the majority position on almost all issues. The reason I reject the majority opinion regarding the Empty Tomb story is because I believe the majority's opinion is based more on theology than on historical evidence.

[Sparko]

Most "unlearned" men do not keep a daily written diary, but anything is possible.

Peter was a fisherman, but Matthew was a tax collector, most of the other apostles we do not know their occupations, but even with John and Peter we do know they could write. This was not an illiterate society by any means. And if they were students of Jesus and recognized his teachings as holy and good, they would want to remember them, and write them down, just like any student would. And they would also record special events like miracles, the death and resurrection of Jesus, etc.

In fact one of the theories of why the synoptics are so similar is that they were written from an earlier document that is lost now. It could be that they pooled their notes over the years and then they decided to each write down a complete narrative which became the gospels and referred to the notes for specifics.

[Sparko]

Stein already gave the list above.

humor me. and tell me why their opinion on this matter is respected or accepted.