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

[Juice]

Paul doesn't mention any "women" and the accounts of who and how many they were conflict with each other. The original point still stands. Mark implicitly reveals that there was no source prior to his revealing of the gospel which most scholars accordingly date c. 70 CE.

other than

Ok, where does Paul mention an empty tomb again?

I'm pretty sure I showed you that "raised from the dead" was a non-sequitur when it comes to physical resurrection. You seemed to have taken a month long hiatus after my last post that demonstrated this.

Are you referring to this cut and paste monstrosity of a post where despite all the words the onephysical raising from the dead of a corpse?

Sirach 48:5read these sources first? Or are you just uncritically cutting and pasting them from Carrier?

The only thing that I infer is that it's implausible that Jesus received the type of burial depicted in the gospels.

And that inference has fallen flat on its face. But like usual you are missing the point here. You infer things when you need to such as, You have to infer that because none of the sources explicitly say what you want them to say. Then you turn around and demand people like Paul explicitly mention an empty tomb to counter the valid and supported inference against you.

Paul mentions no "tomb" at all or any of the burial details found in the empty tomb story.

His mention of "burial" is entirely consistent with a dishonorable burial in a mass grave or other type of ground burial.

Is it now. How would know that? I thought Paul gives no details.

Paul cites no firsthand eyewitness testimony for this burial but says his understanding is "according to the scriptures." A mention of the empty tomb would have greatly helped his argument in 1 Cor 15. See how easy that was?

ice hockey player. I can just say hockey player because the context presupposes it is ice hockey.

Correct Jesus would have been considered worse than a robber in the eyes of the Romans. Sedition/treason was at the top of the list.

It still is consistent with and corroborated by the other texts regarding Roman crucifixion practice. Judea was under Roman rule.

belief concerning what happens to traitors in Athens

Roman citizens typically weren't executed by crucifixion but the point is that we have no reason to assume Jesus the "non-Roman King of the Jews" would have received preferential treatment in being allowed burial. If they refused burial to their own citizens then we shouldn't expect anything different for Galilean peasants.

The gospel accounts attempt to whitewash Pilate's role in Jesus' execution. There is an increasing anti-Jewish theme that becomes more apparent over time.

No, these are entirely different claims with different evidence. A priori, the conflicts of Caesar's assassination do not rule out that an assassination actually happened. The same with the burial of Jesus. But it's the background knowledge of what we know about Roman crucifixion practice, Jewish criminal burial, Joseph blatantly violating Jewish law, going out of his way on Passover to bury a criminal messianic pretender that he just condemned to death, the dependence of the passion narrative on the psalms: https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false the contradictions/inconsistencies and apparent legendary growth in the resurrection reports, etc, that point to this account being fiction as opposed to actual history. So I'm afraid your "comparison" is not analogous when all that data is taken into account.

False dichotomy. There are other options. Talk about fallacious reasoning.

Other options such as? You still have only two options as far as I can see. Either accept your reasoning is horrid or accept that Caesar was never assassinated.

Yeah, but in what way will Jesus "appear"? How do we know Mark didn't think that Jesus was taken straight to heaven first then "appeared" in visions to them in Galilee? How do we know Mark didn't intend to depict Jesus as the Son of Man returning in all his glory on the clouds in Galilee? There are many different possibilities! The point remains that the other evangelists were unsatisfied with Mark's report and rewrote/added to it and contradict it. This is consistent with legendary growth in chronological order.

Oh, so it makes more sense that the Mishnah traditions were just made up on the spot? They just popped out of thin air? Or do you think it's reasonable that the codifications were based on earlier traditions, teachings, precedents/proceedings?

Every time you argue oral traditions can be reliably transmitted for hundreds of years I just chuckle to myself. You do realize that you are arguing for

I certainly see no reason here from you to doubt that the Mishnah does reflect earlier tradition. In fact, most scholars that are familiar with the material would argue exactly that! You should try reading them.

I quoted the source you

Philo of Alexandria, Moses II - 208, "After this, can we still think worthy of pardon those, who, with a reckless tongue, make unseasonable use of the most holy name of the Deity and treat it as a mere expletive?"

This whole episode here from Philo is his rehashing of the story of Moses and the mixed race blasphemer

Do you have another source that explains the grounds for blasphemy?

How about Philo since you appealed to him? Earlier in the very same book Philo tells us that dancing can be blasphemous.

blasphemous dances (Life of Moses II, 162).

Or how about the Old Testament?

and seat two worthless men before him, and let them testify against him, saying, 'You cursed God and the king.' Then take him out and stone him to death."Isaiah said to them, "Thus you shall say to your master, 'Thus says the LORD, "Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me."Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed Me by acting treacherously against Me.But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together," says the LORD. "Because they have burned incense on the mountains And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom."only

Passover started at night. Jewish "days" went from evening to evening. Didn't you pastor teach you that?

The initial trial with the Jewish leaders takes place (Mark 14:53-65). Then Peter denies Jesus. Then Mark says immediately the next morning they went to Pilate (15:1). Jesus dies that day. Then the account of Josephus (Mark 15:42ff) where Mark is careful to say all this took place the day before the Sabbath.

Are you denying that it does? Mishnah Sanhedrin 7.5 says to "rend garments" as a result of a guilty verdict in response to blasphemy. That's precisely what Mark has the high priest do.

are dense.

Who's laughing now?

The arguments have not been shown less plausible than their negations. Care to try again?

No, I don't. Try using a valid comparison next time.

Exactly. If there were only 10 senators involved in an earlier account and 80 in another then you would probably be skeptical of the account and the circumstances involving 80 senators.

Now, when you have the earliest accounts about Jesus' resurrection speak only about visions and revelations which evolve into physically touching a resurrected corpse that leaves an empty tomb and floats to heaven 40 days later, you're no longer skeptical. Why is that?

Your fallacious comparison fails. We have good reason to conclude that Caesar was assassinated despite the discrepancies whereas we don't have good reasons to conclude that Jesus was buried in a tomb, then resurrected and physically floated to heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

Owned. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330164
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post330169

A little like how you said way back in May on page 54: That's right Darth, I was scared off because I underestimated the, er, force of your arguments.

RC, always good for a laugh.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

other than

That's possible but I tend to go with the critical scholars who argue this was a creative way to introduce the empty tomb story. It explains to Mark's readers why they hadn't heard the story before - "the women told no one."

I am. I'm just offering a different point of view.

No, that's a non-sequitur. I've already demonstrated ad-nauseam here the diversity of Jewish resurrection/afterlife belief and that being "raised" had no necessary connection with an empty tomb or physical corpse revivification. It's time that you be honest and acknowledge the sources.

You can reach that conclusion only if you just read that in prematurely based on your knowledge of the empty tomb story from the later gospels. 1 Cor 15:3-5 provides a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

(a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
(b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 458-459 https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

No one has provided any evidence for physical corpse revivification in Paul's letters. Paul only speaks of visions and revelations and equates the appearance to him with that of the others. You have no right or reason to claim the "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were physical.

Are you referring to this cut and paste monstrosity of a post where despite all the words the onephysical raising from the dead of a corpse?

Where does Paul say that Jesus' corpse was raised again? Have you found the source where Paul says Jesus was experienced in a way other than a vision or a revelation?

Sirach 48:5

Sirach 48:5 actually says "from Hades/Sheol." Finney's point was that the common term for the soul ψνχή in Sheol is νεκρός "the dead." Therefore, it's said that the ψνχή or νεκρός "rise" or are "raised" out of Sheol/Hades.

- Finney, Resurrection, pg. 48.

The language is similar to that of Jesus in Romans 6:4, 9 and there's no evidence in the earliest Christian kerygma or Paul's letters that Jesus' resurrection involved his corpse. Again, you keep ignoring that the sources regarding resurrection show no necessary connection to a person's tomb being empty.

"Statements on an immortality of the soul which excludes the resurrection of the body are almost as common as those which explicitly state the resurrection of the body..." - H.C.C. Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Cor 15, Part 1, An Enquiry into the Jewish Background (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), pg. 200. https://books.google.com/books?id=XT...page&q&f=false

It must get frustrating having someone constantly point out how you routinely quote sources that argue against you. I wonder, do you actually bother to read these sources first? Or are you just uncritically cutting and pasting them from Carrier?

- C.M. Tuckett, Corinthian Correspondence, pg. 255) https://books.google.com/books?id=hd...page&q&f=false

This guy teaches at Oxford. What say you now?

And that inference has fallen flat on its face. But like usual you are missing the point here. You infer things when you need to such as, You have to infer that because none of the sources explicitly say what you want them to say.

Exactly what do you infer from reading those sources? That the bodies were not picked apart by scavengers but were given over upon request and then properly buried? Are we reading the same sources? My inference seems perfectly valid and well supported and you have yet to show otherwise.

Then you turn around and demand people like Paul explicitly mention an empty tomb to counter the valid and supported inference against you.

You're making my whole cumulative case seem like it's just "Paul doesn't mention an empty tomb, therefore there wasn't one." Obviously, that's not what I'm arguing! I've given multiples lines of evidence and many arguments for my conclusion. You have a tendency to bring up these petty straw man arguments when the debate isn't going your way. Can't say I'm surprised though. It's typical with apologists.

Argument from silence.

Since Paul was in prime position to know and would have good reason to mention it, the argument from silence in valid. That's proper historical methodology. Whether or not you find it convincing is another matter. Obviously, I have a whole cumulative case and don't just base my judgment on one mere argument from silence.

Paul doesn't mention a lot of things like his experience on the road to Damascus was a vision.

So Paul's vision wasn't a vision eh?

So it's safe to infer they were given proper burials with a brand new purchased linen cloths in a brand new rock hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid just like Jesus?

Is it now. How would know that? I thought Paul gives no details.

Because he just uses the word "burial." You don't get to extrapolate that into "See! Jesus must have been buried in a tomb then!" No sir, that doesn't necessarily follow. You're just reading your beliefs into the text.

ice hockey player. I can just say hockey player because the context presupposes it is ice hockey.

Jesus was executed by the Romans so they ultimately had the say in what happened to the body. He was also condemned to death by the Sanhedrin for being a criminal blasphemer. Well, according to the Mishnah, Jewish criminals could not be buried in family tombs. They had designated burial plots which, according to Magness were not rock-hewn tombs but were trench graves or pits.

Josephus comments on a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). He also says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

So it seems you have two improbabilities to overcome here.

1. Jesus actually being granted burial by the Romans.

and

2. Joseph burying a criminal in his own family tomb.

Um, those guys were not crucified by the Romans and were not condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. Did you really think that was a good argument?

It's still relevant in that it shows the cultural attitude towards criminals. If mere "temple robbers" were refused burial then what would become of an enemy of the state like Jesus?

belief concerning what happens to traitors in Athens

Luckily, the author's belief can be read against and corroborated by several other sources describing Roman crucifixion and treatment of criminals. Who's stretching it here again?

Just read the accounts:

Mark 15:12-14


------------------------

Matthew 27:19


Matthew 27:24


------------------------

Luke 23:4


Luke 23:6-7


Luke 23:13-16


Luke 23:20-22


Do you see the obvious whitewashing of Pilate yet? Read John's account too. Am I crazy?

Well, it sure is funny how most scholars actually do think Jesus was convicted of some sort of sedition/treason. Are you saying they're all wrong? If so, what other hypothesis do you offer?

None of that gibberish makes an "assassination" implausible per se but rather it's the exact details that are in dispute. Whereas, in Jesus' case we have good reason to doubt that he was actually buried at all let alone in a tomb and that Mark was just creating literary fiction instead of recording actual history. Unfortunately, your semi-delightful caricature does nothing to turn around the extreme improbability of the events portrayed by Mark that were subsequently copied by the other evangelists. We can only go by probability here. I think I've shown that the events are improbable considering all the evidence. So far you have failed to even present a positive case but instead rely on mischaracterizing my arguments and creating false analogies.

Other options such as? You still have only two options as far as I can see. Either accept your reasoning is horrid or accept that Caesar was never assassinated.

That my reasoning is sound, that I'm right on some things but wrong on others, that Caesar's assassination and my case against the Jesus stories are not analogous, that you're the one that's wrong, etc.

I do not doubt that Mark believed in a more "physical" resurrection than Paul did but this just works in my favor since it demonstrates legendary growth over time through the sources. The fact remains that there's no discernible appearance report until Matthew which most scholars date c. 80 CE. Therefore, for the first 50 years or so the only words we know of that the early Christians used to announce Jesus' appearances were "appeared" ophthe, vision - optasia, revelation - apokalupsis. Those words in no way provide support for the physical Lukan and Johannine appearances that come later.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Every time you argue oral traditions can be reliably transmitted for hundreds of years I just chuckle to myself.

I noticed you couldn't answer my question. So since you reject the Mishnah are you saying Jewish oral tradition is not entirely reliable?

You do realize that you are arguing for

The fact that we may or may not have Jewish law traditions that have been passed down accurately has no effect whatsoever on if the stories in the gospels are true or not. That's a fallacy.

I quoted the source you

And I quoted Paula Fredriksen who cites D.R Catchpole and Paul Winter in her research. They all find historical problems with the trial. While we can't be certain about everything, I've provided arguments in support of why the inconsistencies in the Mishnah are valid and we should conclude the trial is probably not historical.

Actually, I can think of a few.

1. According to Mark, all the disciples fled so there were none at the trial. Who exactly did he get his information from? And what prevents him from making up something he thought suitable?
2. The Mishnah - codifications of Jewish law tradition vs Mark - a biased theological account written with the intent of conversion. This "history" recorded in Mark is dubious at best.
3. The Mishnah has strictly Jewish origins obviously but most scholars think Mark was written by a non-eyewitness in Rome removed from the events c. 70 CE who was barely familiar with Jewish customs. He gets the geography wrong in numerous places and shows either disinterest or a complete lack of knowledge of Jewish law. Obviously, Mark isn't the best source.

No, precisely the opposite. The fact that he depicts the high priest rending his garments shows only that he intends to depict a formal trial. It does not follow that this trial actually happened. Again, where did Mark get his information from about what was said during the trial? A plausible answer is that he made it up.

This whole episode here from Philo is his rehashing of the story of Moses and the mixed race blasphemer

That's fair but Lev. 24:16 does say "One who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death."

How about Philo since you appealed to him? Earlier in the very same book Philo tells us that dancing can be blasphemous.

blasphemous dances (Life of Moses II, 162).

Or how about the Old Testament?

and seat two worthless men before him, and let them testify against him, saying, 'You cursed God and the king.' Then take him out and stone him to death."Isaiah said to them, "Thus you shall say to your master, 'Thus says the LORD, "Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me."Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed Me by acting treacherously against Me.But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together," says the LORD. "Because they have burned incense on the mountains And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom."

That's good but where do any of those say that claiming to be the Christ is blasphemy like Jesus does?

only an utterance of the divine name.

Perhaps but there certainly is a tendency in the literature to paint that picture.

Mishnah 7:6
"A blasphemer is not guilty, unless he mentioned the proper name of God."

Wisdom of Solomon 14:21:

"And this became a hidden trap for mankind, because men, in bondage to misfortune or to royal authority, bestowed on objects of stone or wood the name that ought not to be shared."

Qumran Community Rule col. 6 and 7:

"Whoever has uttered the Name of the [Most] Venerable Being [...]. But if he has blasphemed when frightened by affliction or for any other reason whatever, while reading the Book or praying, he shall be set apart and shall return to the Council of the Community no more."

Ben Sira 23:10:

"for as a servant who is continually examined under torture will not lack bruises, so also the man who always swears and utters the Name will not be cleansed from sin."

Josephus Antiquities 2.12.4:

"Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more."

Can you point to any source other than Mark where making a messianic claim is called blasphemy?

The initial trial with the Jewish leaders takes place (Mark 14:53-65).

Which is at night, the beginning of Passover.

Mark 14:12 marks Thursday during the daytime.

On the first day of Unleavened Bread

Mark 14:17-18
"When it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And when they had taken their places and were eating..."

"When it was evening" means Passover had begun. The trial happens that same night. So are we to believe all the chief priests, the elders, the teachers of the law, and the whole Sanhedrin just got up and left their families on Passover?

Then Peter denies Jesus. Then Mark says immediately the next morning they went to Pilate (15:1). Jesus dies that day. Then the account of Josephus (Mark 15:42ff) where Mark is careful to say all this took place the day before the Sabbath.

Yes, which is all still Passover. Buying/selling linen (Mk. 15:46) on Passover was illegal as there was no work to be done on that day. Moreover, it's quite hard to believe that Joseph took care of all these tasks before the Sabbath. According to Mark 15:34, Jesus dies at 3pm then in Mark 15:42 the translations read "When evening had come" or "as evening approached." Therefore, Joseph had to go visit Pilate and get his permission, go and buy a linen cloth, then get the body down from the cross and bury it. He probably had to take the body quite a ways away from the site of crucifixion because it's unlikely his "own" tomb would be near such a place. All of that was accomplished before the Sabbath? Remember, the Sabbath started at night. It seems Mark was unaware or didn't care to present accurately these Jewish customs as the text may imply that Joseph was carrying out these actions at night (Sabbath) which would have been illegal as well.

The chronology of events Mark has created is not believable as actual history.

are dense.

You were saying that we have no reason to believe the Mishnah reflects laws that were followed around the time of Jesus. I just proved that we do have a reason. Joke's on you buddy.

It is valid. You should reject the bios of Caesar because they are late and wildly inconsistent. The same reasons you said you reject the Gospels.

You should accept the apotheosis of Caesar as recorded by Ovid in Metamorphoses since you accept the gospels. You should also accept the miracles of Vespasian as recorded by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio. Oh no? Why not?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Try focusing on one or two points at a time. These posts are getting too long. Thanks

[Abigail]

That's possible but I tend to go with the critical scholars who argue this was a creative way to introduce the empty tomb story. It explains to Mark's readers why they hadn't heard the story before - [I]"the women told no one."

And if the "no one" includes Peter and the disciples then one needs to ask why the women would be afraid of them. Sorry but Juice is right here and it is meant to be understood that they didn't tell others outside their group, various numbers of whom they had reason to be afraid of.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

And if the "no one" includes Peter and the disciples then one needs to ask why the women would be afraid of them. Sorry but Juice is right here and it is meant to be understood that they didn't tell others outside their group, various numbers of whom they had reason to be afraid of.

Does it say afraid "of them"? That's not actually in the text. Matthew and Luke saw Mark's ending unfit so they rewrote it, contradicting Mark. Again, you can't have them simultaneously leave "and tell no one" and also have them leave and "immediately tell the disciples." While this doesn't prove the story is not historical on its own, it's still a contradiction.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

More on the phrase "raised from the dead."

It seems Juice and others here are taking the phrase "raised from the dead" as used in the NT as evidence for the claims in the NT. This is entirely circular but even within the NT there is some confusion over the meaning of the phrase.

Ephesians 5:14
Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead
It's definitely not used to denote physical resurrection here!

According to our earliest Gospel of Mark, the disciples don't even know what "rising from the dead" could mean - Mark 9:9-10.

Also, in Mk 6:14-29 it is claimed that some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" and even that Jesus was the risen John in Mk. 8:27-28. Does this mean John was physically resurrected? Were they looking for his empty tomb too? It seems to be used here as a form of metempsychosis or reincarnation.

The only thing Jesus ever says about resurrection is in Mk. 12:25 - "when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" which implies we will be some sort of genderless angelic entity in heaven.

"In the kerygmatic formulas, the preferred expression is that Christ "was raised" (from the dead). The slightly narrative, reportorial nature of these expressions corresponds exactly to the way in which Christ's death or crucifixion was imagined. The function of the motif is the same as the affirmations of vindication in the martyrologies. To be raised means to have overcome, been vindicated, granted divine reward, status and destiny in spite of death......Because the notion was mythic, "raised from the dead" meant the same thing as "vindicated," "exalted," "ascended," "enthroned," and could be elaborated by calling upon other myths of cosmic destiny (Wisdom, Son of God) or cultic sovereignty and presence (Lord)." - Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, pgs. 112-113. https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

So I shouldn't have to argue this any further. "Raised from the dead" did not necessarily mean physical corpse revivification.

[psstein]

Paul didn't write Ephesians.

[One Bad Pig]

Paul didn't write Ephesians.

It is quite possible that Paul did indeed write Ephesians.

[Cow Poke]

It is quite possible that Paul did indeed write Ephesians.

Yes, a more correct statement would have been "It's possible that Paul didn't write Ephesians".

[One Bad Pig]

More on the phrase "raised from the dead."

It seems Juice and others here are taking the phrase "raised from the dead" as used in the NT as evidence for the claims in the NT. This is entirely circular but even within the NT there is some confusion over the meaning of the phrase.

Ephesians 5:14
Sleeper, awake! Rise from the dead
It's definitely not used to denote physical resurrection here!

"Sleep" is a euphemism for death.

Also, in Mk 6:14-29 it is claimed that some were saying John the Baptist had been "raised from the dead" and even that Jesus was the risen John in Mk. 8:27-28. Does this mean John was physically resurrected? Were they looking for his empty tomb too? It seems to be used here as a form of metempsychosis or reincarnation.

Herod is suddenly an authoritative source now?

The only thing Jesus ever says about resurrection is in Mk. 12:25 - "when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" which implies we will be some sort of genderless angelic entity in heaven.

Er, no. It's an anology, you dolt. They're not supposed to be taken strictly literally.

"In the kerygmatic formulas, the preferred expression is that Christ "was raised" (from the dead). The slightly narrative, reportorial nature of these expressions corresponds exactly to the way in which Christ's death or crucifixion was imagined. The function of the motif is the same as the affirmations of vindication in the martyrologies. To be raised means to have overcome, been vindicated, granted divine reward, status and destiny in spite of death......Because the notion was mythic, "raised from the dead" meant the same thing as "vindicated," "exalted," "ascended," "enthroned," and could be elaborated by calling upon other myths of cosmic destiny (Wisdom, Son of God) or cultic sovereignty and presence (Lord)." - Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins, pgs. 112-113. https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

So I shouldn't have to argue this any further. "Raised from the dead" did not necessarily mean physical corpse revivification.

...and you end with quoting Burton Mack.

[psstein]

It is quite possible that Paul did indeed write Ephesians.

Yes, I'm familiar with the arguments that Ephesians is actually Pauline. Unfortunately, they're not that convincing.

Colossians is probably Pauline, as is 2 Thessalonians. Ephesians probably isn't.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, I'm familiar with the arguments that Ephesians is actually Pauline. Unfortunately, they're not that convincing.

Colossians is probably Pauline, as is 2 Thessalonians. Ephesians probably isn't.

It's the arguments that Ephesians is NOT Pauline which I find unconvincing.

[Sparko]

It's the arguments that Ephesians is NOT Pauline which I find unconvincing.

same here.

[Cow Poke]

same here.

Me three.