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

[Sparko]

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.

sure you do.

[Gary]

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.

You are living in sheer Fantasyland, my friend.

Experts tells us that the overwhelming majority of the population of first century Palestine was illiterate. How in the world do "we know" that the fishermen John and Peter could write? Experts tell us that the reason the Synoptics are so similar is because the authors of Matthew and Luke plagiarized, sometimes word for word, large sections of the Gospel of Mark. Although such is not the case for the Gospel of John, who seems to tell the story of a very different Jesus, the core of his story could still have come from Mark, as Mark was written several decades prior to the writing of John.

[Sparko]

You are living in sheer Fantasyland, my friend.

Experts tells us that the overwhelming majority of the population of first century Palestine was illiterate. How in the world do "we know" that the fishermen John and Peter could write? Experts tell us that the reason the Synoptics are so similar is because the authors of Matthew and Luke plagiarized, sometimes word for word, large sections of the Gospel of Mark. Although such is not the case for the Gospel of John, who seems to tell the story of a very different Jesus, the core of his story could still have come from Mark, as Mark was written several decades prior to the writing of John.

well Peter wrote an epistle, and was the leader of the church. John also wrote a gospel and two epistles. There is no doubt he wrote them.


What experts tell you that the Jews of first century Jerusalem were overwhelmingly illiterate? Provide some cites.

Businessmen like Peter who owned a fishing business and would be keeping records and payrolls for his employees would most likely be able to read and write. He was not a low class homeless guy who fished off the pier. And Matthew was a tax collector, so he had to know how to read and write. We don't even know much about the occupations or education of the other apostles. All it would take would be a couple of them taking notes. Not all of them.

And the Q theory is the theory that a second source, not found in Mark, was the source of some common bits between Matthew and Luke's gospels. This Q source is thought to be a collection of saying from Jesus. Kinda like maybe notes that were taken earlier. dun-dun-dun!!!

[Gary]

well Peter wrote an epistle, and was the leader of the church. John also wrote a gospel and two epistles. There is no doubt he wrote them.


What experts tell you that the Jews of first century Jerusalem were overwhelmingly illiterate? Provide some cites.

Businessmen like Peter who owned a fishing business and would be keeping records and payrolls for his employees would most likely be able to read and write. He was not a low class homeless guy who fished off the pier. And Matthew was a tax collector, so he had to know how to read and write. We don't even know much about the occupations or education of the other apostles. All it would take would be a couple of them taking notes. Not all of them.

And the Q theory is the theory that a second source, not found in Mark, was the source of some common bits between Matthew and Luke's gospels. This Q source is thought to be a collection of saying from Jesus. Kinda like maybe notes that were taken earlier. dun-dun-dun!!!

"well Peter wrote an epistle, and was the leader of the church. John also wrote a gospel and two epistles. There is no doubt he wrote them."

There may be no doubt in YOUR mind but most scholars do not believe that either Peter or John wrote any of the books in the NT.

The rest of your claims are nothing but personal speculation. Anything is possible, Sparko. But let's stick to what the experts (a majority or a respectable minority) think.

[Sparko]

"well Peter wrote an epistle, and was the leader of the church. John also wrote a gospel and two epistles. There is no doubt he wrote them."

There may be no doubt in YOUR mind but most scholars do not believe that either Peter or John wrote any of the books in the NT.

The rest of your claims are nothing but personal speculation. Anything is possible, Sparko. But let's stick to what the experts (a majority or a respectable minority) think.

ah funny how when I give you a "plausible" theory, you want to dismiss it and stick to what the experts think, but you want us to accept your hair-brained personal speculation as "plausible" just because you find it hard to believe that a rich friend would offer Jesus a stone tomb.

an the Q theory is a valid theory held by many NT scholars. You should look it up sometime instead of calling it personal speculation. Funny how you don't have a problem with a tentmaker knowing how to read and write, yet you don't believe a fisherman could. Or even have used a scribe.

Gary, your motivations and tactics are so transparently selfish and dishonest that not one person except Rhinestone, who is similarly dishonest in his motivations, takes you the least bit seriously. You have no more credibility than someone who comes here claiming that Jesus was a robot from the future who was revived when his battery recharged.

[rogue06]

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.

While literacy rates are not as high as we see in First and Second World countries today, contemporary sources and modern research agree that the Jews of antiquity were a remarkably literate people.

[Sparko]

While literacy rates are not as high as we see in First and Second World countries today, contemporary sources and modern research agree that the Jews of antiquity were a remarkably literate people.

you would think so, since their entire society revolved around the Law, and they were instructed to write the law and wear it and keep it close to their hearts and they took that literally (no pun intended) as phylacteries. Also the Romans were a pretty literate society too and they would write and post letters and signs with their edicts on them and expect the people to read and obey.

[One Bad Pig]

Wrong.

If I just wanted to be a Jesus-hater, I would be a mythicist.

There is nothing incompatible between hating Jesus and accepting that he existed. It would actually be more rational than hating someone you didn't think ever existed.

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.

No, you accept whatever position you agree with. You haven't read other scholarly positions and found them wanting; you merely dismiss every scholarly position with which you disagree, because you disagree with it.

[Adrift]

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.

Meh, Darrell Bock's paper, The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive, or Memorex, argues it was quite a bit more detailed than you're giving it credit. It certainly wasn't word for word, but it was astonishingly accurate.

[Adrift]

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

It would be vaguely interesting if there weren't such a transparent agenda behind it all. Gary's on a one man crusade to get someone, anyone, to doubt that the Resurrection happened. He believes that if people stop believing in the Resurrection then they will stop being Christians, and if they stop being Christians then religious and political views he finds distasteful will come to an end.

For some reason, Gary thinks the Resurrection narrative's weakest point is the empty tomb tradition, so he's attempted to attack it from a number of angles in different threads. Each time he does, he's rebuffed, runs away for awhile with his tail between his legs, licks his wounds, and then comes back and tries it again from another angle.

Notice his main argument in this thread is "most people of the lower classes in the first century were buried in dirt trenches", and therefore, presumably, Jesus should have been as well. Notice though that he hasn't argued that most people in the lower classes were not crucified to begin with, or that they quit their day jobs to become itinerant sages with a large entourage. He's not going to attack these points because he knows there's no finger purchase. Worse still is that he thinks that he has some people fooled into thinking he's been objective this whole time because he uses words like "possible" and "plausible" and the like. No one's buying it of course (no one who's read more than a handful of his posts that is), so I have no idea who he thinks he's fooling, or why he keeps up the charade. Thankfully he shoots his own foot enough that it doesn't take much to expose his chicanery.

[Gary]

ah funny how when I give you a "plausible" theory, you want to dismiss it and stick to what the experts think, but you want us to accept your hair-brained personal speculation as "plausible" just because you find it hard to believe that a rich friend would offer Jesus a stone tomb.

an the Q theory is a valid theory held by many NT scholars. You should look it up sometime instead of calling it personal speculation. Funny how you don't have a problem with a tentmaker knowing how to read and write, yet you don't believe a fisherman could. Or even have used a scribe.

Gary, your motivations and tactics are so transparently selfish and dishonest that not one person except Rhinestone, who is similarly dishonest in his motivations, takes you the least bit seriously. You have no more credibility than someone who comes here claiming that Jesus was a robot from the future who was revived when his battery recharged.

Personal speculation and ad hominems.

Let's stick to scholarship, either majority opinion or that of a respectable minority, not speculation and fringe theories.

[Cow Poke]

Personal speculation and ad hominems.

Let's stick to scholarship, either majority opinion or that of a respectable minority, not speculation and fringe theories.

A 'respectable minority' - those would be the minority scholars you choose to respect?

[Gary]

While literacy rates are not as high as we see in First and Second World countries today, contemporary sources and modern research agree that the Jews of antiquity were a remarkably literate people.

Would you kindly give a source for your claim. Here is an excerpt that has two experts who say you are most definitely wrong:

"Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harrisprofessor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites."

Source: Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

[Sparko]

There is nothing incompatible between hating Jesus and accepting that he existed. It would actually be more rational than hating someone you didn't think ever existed.

No, you accept whatever position you agree with. You haven't read other scholarly positions and found them wanting; you merely dismiss every scholarly position with which you disagree, because you disagree with it.

eggzactly. Basically argument via google. Google until he finds an opinion that matches what he believes, then claim it is authoritative. Ignore the actual context, and dismiss any experts that do not agree.

[Gary]

you would think so, since their entire society revolved around the Law, and they were instructed to write the law and wear it and keep it close to their hearts and they took that literally (no pun intended) as phylacteries. Also the Romans were a pretty literate society too and they would write and post letters and signs with their edicts on them and expect the people to read and obey.

You are again going off into wild personal speculation (Fantasyland). Unless you can stick with scholarship (majority or respectable minority), I will not be able to continue dialoging with you.