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

[tabibito]

Have you figured out who Jesus first appeared to?

According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary: According to Mark, Mary Magdalene - nothing demonstrates a necessity that she have been alone: According to Luke, a couple of disciples were met whilst travelling to Emaus. However, it does not say that these were the first to whom Jesus appeared - appearing to others before the stated event is not precluded: According to John, Mary Magdalene is the first stated to have met with the risen Christ, but again, another possibility is not precluded.

What this does to your story about a developing narrative is reveal it for the house of cards that it is. According to your narrative - Luke should have a more fleshed out account of the events of the day, but for the events at the tomb, he is all but silent.

There are discrepancies between the accounts, but nothing that can't be put down to conflicting memories of witnesses who would have been somewhat in turmoil as a result of the circumstances with which they were faced.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

According to Matthew, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary: According to Mark, Mary Magdalene - nothing demonstrates a necessity that she have been alone: According to Luke, a couple of disciples were met whilst travelling to Emaus. However, it does not say that these were the first to whom Jesus appeared - appearing to others before the stated event is not precluded: According to John, Mary Magdalene is the first stated to have met with the risen Christ, but again, another possibility is not precluded.

What this does to your story about a developing narrative is reveal it for the house of cards that it is. According to your narrative - Luke should have a more fleshed out account of the events of the day, but for the events at the tomb, he is all but silent.

There are discrepancies between the accounts, but nothing that can't be put down to conflicting memories of witnesses who would have been somewhat in turmoil as a result of the circumstances with which they were faced.

According to Paul, who is presenting a chronological order of events, Jesus appears to Peter first. The original Mark ends at 16:8 without an appearance report. However, Mark 16:9 explicitly states that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first. Luke, after closely following the sequence of events of what the women experienced, seems to imply that up to that point no one had seen Jesus yet - Luke:24:22-24, which would exclude any appearance to the women. He then proceeds to narrate first the appearance on the Emmaus Road. We know Luke had access to Mark and directly copies from it yet he deliberately alters what the angels say at the tomb in order to exclude any appearances in Galilee - Mark 16:7, Luke 24:6. So I would say due to Luke's obvious rewriting tendencies that we can't trust any of Luke's depictions. Now, I know there are clever ways to get around these seemingly contradictory episodes but the accounts at face value are inconsistent with one another and none of the gospel appearance reports even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

[psstein]

Except in the Targums that is. But those accounts attribute the miracles to sorcery having been learnt in Egypt.

As for the developing and evolving narrative claim - it's pretty hard to support given the Jonah motif that was certainly in place before the sacking of the temple.

Targumim are paraphrases and explanations of the OT in Aramaic. The Toledot Yeshu certainly believes that Jesus is a sorcerer of some type. as do references in the Talmud.

To basically everyone in the field, it's clear that Jesus had a following as an exorcist and healer, the evidence for which comes from the earliest phases of the tradition, if you agree with Robinson/Kloppenborg about a stratified Q.

[Tassman]

According to Paul, who is presenting a chronological order of events, Jesus appears to Peter first. The original Mark ends at 16:8 without an appearance report. However, Mark 16:9 explicitly states that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first. Luke, after closely following the sequence of events of what the women experienced, seems to imply that up to that point no one had seen Jesus yet - Luke:24:22-24, which would exclude any appearance to the women. He then proceeds to narrate first the appearance on the Emmaus Road. We know Luke had access to Mark and directly copies from it yet he deliberately alters what the angels say at the tomb in order to exclude any appearances in Galilee - Mark 16:7, Luke 24:6. So I would say due to Luke's obvious rewriting tendencies that we can't trust any of Luke's depictions. Now, I know there are clever ways to get around these seemingly contradictory episodes but the accounts at face value are inconsistent with one another and none of the gospel appearance reports even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

Exactly, none of the gospel appearance reports match the earliest account...namely Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This lends itself to the explanation that the decades later, non-eyewitness gospel accounts are the result of embellished, contradictory hearsay.

[tabibito]

Exactly, none of the gospel appearance reports match the earliest account...namely Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8. This lends itself to the explanation that the decades later, non-eyewitness gospel accounts are the result of embellished, contradictory hearsay.

Paul doesn't say that Peter was the first one to see Christ on the day of resurrection.

Source: 1 Cor 15

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

© Copyright Original Source

Altering the text, slapping the additional word in to suit your agenda ...

[Tassman]

Paul doesn't say that Peter was the first one to see Christ on the day of resurrection.

Source: 1 Cor 15

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

© Copyright Original Source

Altering the text, slapping the additional word in to suit your agenda ...

Dictionaries - Smith's Bible Dictionary - Cephas

Cephas. [N] [E] [H]

[PETER]

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/cephas/

[tabibito]

The added word is "first" - I'm fully aware that Paul most commonly referred to Peter by the actual name that Christ bestowed on him, rather than the translation thereof.

[Tassman]

The added word is "first" - I'm fully aware that Paul most commonly referred to Peter by the actual name that Christ bestowed on him, rather than the translation thereof.

[tabibito]

Well yes, but "day of resurrection" is part of RC's argument. In pointing out that Paul doesn't mention the day of resurrection, you have very kindly scotched it on a second point.

Nor does he mention that there was a body as described in the much later gospels, which is the point of the discussion, i.e. the nature of the postmortem body of Jesus.

Just to recap, 1 Cor 15:4 - he rose again, 1 Cor 15:5 ... "οφθη - aorist passive - from οπτανομαι" ... he was seen (no mention of "he appeared" to be found). Scattered through Paul's writings "he rose again", "he lives", "he recovered": no mention of anything that shows a change to the ordinarily expected meanings of those words. That conversation is done and dusted, surely.

[Tassman]

Well yes, but "day of resurrection" is part of RC's argument. In pointing out that Paul doesn't mention the day of resurrection, you have very kindly scotched it on a second point.

Paul refers to the resurrection, NOT the alleged events of the "day of Jesus' resurrection", which was your point. We only find that in the embellishment of the later gospels.

Just to recap, 1 Cor 15:4 - he rose again, 1 Cor 15:5 ... "οφθη - aorist passive - from οπτανομαι" ... he was seen (no mention of "he appeared" to be found). Scattered through Paul's writings "he rose again", "he lives", "he recovered": no mention of anything that shows a change to the ordinarily expected meanings of those words. That conversation is done and dusted, surely.

Yeah, yeah! We've been through all this.

[tabibito]

There is no evidence of embellishment, neither is there any particularly credible evidence that the original manuscripts of the gospels would have been of late date.

And the latter is without reference to the Jonah motif, which was well established prior to the sacking of the temple.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

No evidence of embellishment? I beg to differ. Just combine the discrepancies in the appearance chronology with the evolution in the story as to how the Risen Jesus was experienced.

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations. He equates his "vision" with the other Resurrection "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Paul had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Is the only firsthand source.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

Gosh, for "eyewitness testimony" these authors sure have a unique take on things!

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we should conclude that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and not the ever changing stories in the gospels.

[Doug Shaver]

Paul doesn't say that Peter was the first one to see Christ on the day of resurrection.

Am I being unreasonable if I think that if Paul thought anyone besides Peter had seen him first, he would have said so?

[tabibito]

Am I being unreasonable if I think that if Paul thought anyone besides Peter had seen him first, he would have said so?

That is a reasonable question. Unfortunately, there are too many unknowns in play: I can't give a definitive answer.
Points for consideration though:
Would the women have been of any significance to the context of 1 Cor 15? Likewise the two disciples on the road to Emmaus?
Would he include the names of people who had since died in his list?
The women are not major players after the day of resurrection - are they even still alive at the time of his writing?
Is Paul even referencing a period prior to Pentecost?

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also.

Who are the 500? It would not seem to be the group who were present at Pentecost.
Who are all the apostles? Seemingly, they would not include Barnabas, Silas, nor Timothy - all of whom were apostles.

[tabibito]

No evidence of embellishment? I beg to differ. Just combine the discrepancies in the appearance chronology with the evolution in the story as to how the Risen Jesus was experienced.

Paul c. 50 CE says the Risen Jesus was experienced through visions and revelations.

Paul makes no such claim. The meanings that you try to impose on the words don't exist for those words.

He equates his "vision" with the other Resurrection "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8.

Paul draws no such parallel. He equates seeing Christ as of equal significance.

Paul had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.

Paul was not writing for posterity. He was writing to people who already knew the relevant details - a fact of which he reminds them.

Mark c. 70 CE introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.

The original ends with γαρ. It is the only sentence in the New Testament (so I am told) that ends with a conjunction. The women leave, saying nothing to anyone ... and that means they said nothing to anyone after they left?

Matthew c. 80 CE has the women tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending, then has an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other source from the time period.

I'll allow that Matthew does seem to get carried away a bit.

Luke 85-95 CE has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Jesus appears in Jerusalem, not Galilee, contradicting Matthew. This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while they all watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports.

So where's your developing story here? If Luke's story contradicts the prior work, it isn't drawing on that prior work.

John 90-110 CE Jesus can now walk through walls and has the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus gets poked. Jesus is also basically God in this gospel which represents another astonishing development.

Gosh, for "eyewitness testimony" these authors sure have a unique take on things!

I make no claim that these are eye witness reports - the scant available BIBLICAL evidence suggests that the records would have been written by second generation. And even if they had been eyewitness accounts, people don't necessarily remember every precise detail, and DO tend to fill in gaps after even just a couple of hours.

As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as a legend that grew in the telling rather than actual history. None of the resurrection reports in the Gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are nowhere even hinted at in the earliest ones. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! So upon critically examining the evidence we should conclude that Christianity started with spiritual visionary experiences and not the ever changing stories in the gospels.

They could be records of people who weren't privy to all the details of every part of every associated event that occurred.

For my part, this is an ongoing and far from complete enquiry: at this point it seems probable that peripheral details will not all be reconcilable, and the precise nature of the peripheral details might never be satisfactorily be determined.
However - all the gospels, and Paul's writings, declare that Christ was resurrected. In that much, even the shorter version of Mark is agreed. Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
Even Mark declares the tomb to be empty.