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

[Adrift]

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.

The NT scholars I've read generally argue that Paul only records the men because he's offering the list as evidence for the resurrection, and in the cultural context the testimony of women was considered suspect, so he drops them from the list since they don't further the point. The Gospels, on the other hand, have a different focus, which is more biographical in nature than what Paul is doing here.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Paul makes no such claim. The meanings that you try to impose on the words don't exist for those words.
Paul draws no such parallel. He equates seeing Christ as of equal significance.

He uses the same verb for his "vision" that he does for each other "appearance" in the same list. No distinction in nature is given. Every time he talks about "experiencing Christ" it is always in a spiritual way so can you find a passage where Paul says the Risen Jesus was experienced in a way that wasn't a vision? Because if not, you can't claim that the earliest Christian source (Paul) was speaking of any other type of experience.

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

This is just an assertion with no evidence. If they already knew the "relevant details" then they would have no reason to ask "with what type of body do they come?" in 1 Cor 15:35.

- Geoffrey Lampe, The Resurrection, pg. 43

Paul could have instantly squashed their doubts by mentioning the empty tomb, discarded grave clothes, people touching Jesus, the disciples eating with Jesus post-Resurrection or them watching his physical body fly to heaven. Considering any one of those details would have greatly helped his argument, it's strange that they get no mention at all. Instead he just uses images and metaphors talking about different "spiritual bodies" in heaven.

The original ends with γαρ. It is the only sentence in the New Testament (so I am told) that ends with a conjunction.

There are several instances in Greek literature where a sentence ends in γάρ.

Plotinus Ennead 5:5, 12th tractate of Musonius Rufus, Demetrius Formae Epistolicae nr. 21, Vita Aesopi 1:67, Polyaenus' Strategemata third book, Plato's Protagoras 328d.

Moreover, Genesis 18:15 parallels Mark 16:8 with regard to vocabulary. Sarah denies that she laughed because she was afraid. Genesis 45:3 ends with γάρ as well.

"common sense alone could argue that, if a sentence or a paragraph can end with γάρ, a book can too." - Van der Hoorst, "Can a Book End with GAR?"
https://books.google.com/books?id=MR...page&q&f=false

The women leave, saying nothing to anyone ... and that means they said nothing to anyone after they left?

If you didn't have knowledge of the other gospel endings then why would you conclude otherwise?

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

Fair.

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

He contradicts the original Markan ending by having the women run and immediately tell the disciples. The developing part of the story is obviously how Luke depicts the Risen Jesus being experienced - having his "flesh and bone" body inspected, eating fish, then floating up to heaven while the disciples watch! Do any of the earlier sources mention those amazing episodes? Also, Luke deliberately changes the venue of appearances to be Jerusalem instead of Galilee as Mark and Matthew would have it.

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.

Okay, that's fair. I was assuming you take the common apologetic view that the gospels represent eyewitness testimony. My mistake.

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

The problem is that the data is consistent with and better explained by legendary growth. You have the earliest and only firsthand source speaking of experiencing Christ is a spiritual way then you have the later secondhand or worse sources that are further removed from the events speaking of the Resurrected Jesus in ever changing inconsistent ways that grow more amazing in detail over time.

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.

I think the earliest view, or at least what we can gather from Paul, is that they thought Jesus was raised/resurrected/exalted in a simple one step process straight to heaven. You only get the "two step process" where Jesus is first raised to earth then only later raised to heaven in a gradual development in the gospels that ultimately culminates in Luke/Acts. That's why Paul says/implies that the "appearances" were "visions" like his as opposed to physical encounters with a revived corpse that left a tomb. Jesus was "raised" to heaven and "appeared" from there. Resurrection views were very diverse in Second Temple Judaism. There wasn't just one consensus view.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The NT scholars I've read generally argue that Paul only records the men because he's offering the list as evidence for the resurrection, and in the cultural context the testimony of women was considered suspect, so he drops them from the list since they don't further the point. The Gospels, on the other hand, have a different focus, which is more biographical in nature than what Paul is doing here.

The reliability of women's testimony is usually taken from the context of a Jewish law court. The New Testament records are not Jewish law documents so this standard doesn't really apply.

Another plausible reason Paul doesn't mention the women could be because the empty tomb story hadn't yet been invented.

[Adrift]

The reliability of women's testimony is usually taken from the context of a Jewish law court. The New Testament records are not Jewish law documents so this standard doesn't really apply.

It doesn't follow that because the New Testament is not a Jewish law document that it was not influenced by cultural sensitivities as regards testimony in Jewish law. Plenty of actual Biblical scholars like the Jewish historian Geza Vermes find the female testimony in the Gospels to be great evidence for the empty tomb for precisely this reason. And even Bart Ehrman doesn't rule this out for why Paul doesn't mention the women in his creed.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't follow that because the New Testament is not a Jewish law document that it was not influenced by cultural sensitivities as regards testimony in Jewish law. Plenty of actual Biblical scholars like the Jewish historian Geza Vermes find the female testimony in the Gospels to be great evidence for the empty tomb for precisely this reason. And even Bart Ehrman doesn't rule this out for why Paul doesn't mention the women in his creed.

1. There's evidence in the context of Jewish law courts that women's testimony wasn't permitted.
2. Therefore, in reports and stories written mainly for gentile audiences (the New Testament) women's testimony wasn't permitted?

What kind of logic is that?

[Adrift]

1. There's evidence in the context of Jewish law courts that women's testimony wasn't permitted.
2. Therefore, in reports and stories written for mainly gentile audiences (New Testament) women's testimony wasn't permitted?

What kind of logic is that?

It's not only among Jews that female testimony would have been considered suspect. As Bauckham notes in Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, in the ancient word in general female testimony would have been suspect. Jewish court law is simply reflecting the broader cultural view of women as Craig Evans goes into in his commentary on Matthew:

Source: Matthew by Craig A. Evans

The tradition of the women as the first to learn of the resurrection of Jesus serves an important apologetic purpose, though perhaps not from the perspective of late antiquity. Surely in no invented tradition would women play such an important role. Whether the early church liked it or not, women came to the tomb first. In the first century, both in Jewish and (especially) in Greco-Roman society, women were not viewed highly as witnesses or spokespersons. Josephus offers a pretty clear example of this bias in his elaboration of the law of witnesses in Deut 19:15 ("on the evidence of two or three witnesses"). He says: "From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex" (Ant. 4.219). For examples of rabbinic texts that take a dim view of women as witnesses, see m. Shebuot 4:1 ("'an oath of testimony' applies to men but not to women"); m. Rosh haShanah 1:8 ("evidence a woman is not eligible to bring"); b. Baba Qammay. Sota 3.19a ("Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman!"). For a pagan perspective, see Plutarch, Moralia 142CD, "Advice to Bride and Groom" 32, who opines that a "woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own." for additional negative opinions regarding women as witnesses or speakers, see Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes 230-32; Democritus, frags. 110-11, 274; Euripides, Heracles 474-77; Euripides, Phoenician Maidens 198-201; Euripides, Daughters of Troy 651-56; Sophocles, Ajax 292-93. In light of both Jewish and pagan views of women as witnesses and public speakers, why would early Christians invent an Easter narrative in which women are witnesses and . . . conveyors of the resurrection message to the male disciples?

Note: For more on this important point, see C. Osiek, "The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?" HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 53 (1997): 103-18. Although in many Jewish and pagan texts negative opinions are expressed about women as witnesses and spokespersons, it would be wrong to conclude that women were universally regarded as incompetent witnesses, as rightly noted in G. Luedemann, The Resurrection of jesus: History, Experience, Theology (London: SCM Press 1994), 158. The point is simply that in all probability men, not women, would be assigned the role of principal witnesses in a fictional story. An example of this is seen in the embellished narrative of the Gospel of Peter, in which a number of men - all hostile toward Jesus - witness his resurrection. On the importance of women in the Resurrection story, see G. O'Collins and D. Kendall, "Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection," TS 48 (1987): 631-46.

© Copyright Original Source

But I think an important point to remember about the 1st Corinthian creed is that, regardless of who Paul is talking to, he's reciting something he himself received, likely from the Jerusalem church, and tacking himself in at the end. As Raymond Brown points out in The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, this is not an exhaustive list, but simply a list of those who could testify publicly.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It's not only among Jews that female testimony would have been considered suspect. As Bauckham notes in Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, in the ancient word in general female testimony would have been suspect. Jewish court law is simply reflecting the broader cultural view of women as Craig Evans goes into in his commentary on Matthew:

Source: Matthew by Craig A. Evans

The tradition of the women as the first to learn of the resurrection of Jesus serves an important apologetic purpose, though perhaps not from the perspective of late antiquity. Surely in no invented tradition would women play such an important role. Whether the early church liked it or not, women came to the tomb first. In the first century, both in Jewish and (especially) in Greco-Roman society, women were not viewed highly as witnesses or spokespersons. Josephus offers a pretty clear example of this bias in his elaboration of the law of witnesses in Deut 19:15 ("on the evidence of two or three witnesses"). He says: "From women let no evidence be accepted, because of the levity and temerity of their sex" (Ant. 4.219). For examples of rabbinic texts that take a dim view of women as witnesses, see m. Shebuot 4:1 ("'an oath of testimony' applies to men but not to women"); m. Rosh haShanah 1:8 ("evidence a woman is not eligible to bring"); b. Baba Qammay. Sota 3.19a ("Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman!"). For a pagan perspective, see Plutarch, Moralia 142CD, "Advice to Bride and Groom" 32, who opines that a "woman ought to do her talking either to her husband or through her husband, and she should not feel aggrieved if, like the flute-player, she makes a more impressive sound through a tongue not her own." for additional negative opinions regarding women as witnesses or speakers, see Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes 230-32; Democritus, frags. 110-11, 274; Euripides, Heracles 474-77; Euripides, Phoenician Maidens 198-201; Euripides, Daughters of Troy 651-56; Sophocles, Ajax 292-93. In light of both Jewish and pagan views of women as witnesses and public speakers, why would early Christians invent an Easter narrative in which women are witnesses and . . . conveyors of the resurrection message to the male disciples?

Note: For more on this important point, see C. Osiek, "The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?" HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 53 (1997): 103-18. Although in many Jewish and pagan texts negative opinions are expressed about women as witnesses and spokespersons, it would be wrong to conclude that women were universally regarded as incompetent witnesses, as rightly noted in G. Luedemann, The Resurrection of jesus: History, Experience, Theology (London: SCM Press 1994), 158. The point is simply that in all probability men, not women, would be assigned the role of principal witnesses in a fictional story. An example of this is seen in the embellished narrative of the Gospel of Peter, in which a number of men - all hostile toward Jesus - witness his resurrection. On the importance of women in the Resurrection story, see G. O'Collins and D. Kendall, "Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection," TS 48 (1987): 631-46.

© Copyright Original Source

But I think an important point to remember about the 1st Corinthian creed is that, regardless of who Paul is talking to, he's reciting something he himself received, likely from the Jerusalem church, and tacking himself in at the end. As Raymond Brown points out in The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, this is not an exhaustive list, but simply a list of those who could testify publicly.

The whole thing assumes Mark intended to depict a "historical" event and was concerned about people being "convinced" of it as opposed to having other reasons such as composing a narrative for literary/symbolic purposes.

There are plenty of empty tomb and missing body stories in the ancient world. There is one quite similar to the Markan narrative in Chariton's novel Chaereas and Callirhoe. Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, goes missing from a tomb according to Plutarch. Antoninus Liberalis says Aspalis left a tomb behind. There's a story about an empty tomb in the Book of Marvels by Phlegon of Tralles. Caesar and Romulus' bodies go missing. In the Iliad 24 there are 3 women said to have anointed Hector's body. In the Testament of Job, the bodies of Job's children go missing and are assumed to have been removed to heaven.

So, given that this type of literary trope was common and given that even internally to Mark's narrative it says "all the men fled" - Mk. 14:50, it makes sense that he has the women discover the tomb in the story. Anointing bodies and such was women's work and obviously there was no one else left who could discover it.

Now, later on, some may have been uncomfortable with this which is why we see in Luke and John that Peter goes to verify the empty tomb for himself.

[Adrift]

Nice goal-shift.

[Doug Shaver]

It doesn't follow that because the New Testament is not a Jewish law document that it was not influenced by cultural sensitivities as regards testimony in Jewish law.

So, it's reasonable for us to assume that the first Christians accepted their society's judgment that the testimony of women was worthless?

[tabibito]

So, it's reasonable for us to assume that the first Christians accepted their society's judgment that the testimony of women was worthless?

I've heard the claim often enough - but I find it unconvincing. However, I don't have any evidence to show that it is false.

[Adrift]

So, it's reasonable for us to assume that the first Christians accepted their society's judgment that the testimony of women was worthless?

Assuming that the creed was originally formulated as evidence for the resurrection, seems reasonable to me that, at least initially, it was formulated for the sake of non-Christians. But sure, I think it's reasonable to assume that 1st century people, whether Christian or non-Christian, are going to accept many of their culturally ingrained views and attitudes. Christianity certainly made inroads concerning cultural views on women, slaves, Gentiles, and the like, but the New Testament was still rooted in a society that was heavily patriarchal, and that wasn't about to shift in a major way overnight. That's precisely why scholars in the Context Group focus their research in this area, and why they find it frustrating that so many people read the Bible without taking the social context into mind.

[Adrift]

I've heard the claim often enough - but I find it unconvincing. However, I don't have any evidence to show that it is false.

Are you just not a fan of NT scholarship in general, or do you only have a problem with the scholarship I've highlighted in this thread?

[tabibito]

There are conflicting reports, particularly when the Jewish accounts are considered. I'm not convinced that the interpretations are entirely accurate, but there isn't anything solid enough that can be used by way of rebuttal.

As for Biblical Scholarship - NT or otherwise - there are deficiencies enough to keep me skeptical about the standards thereof.

[Adrift]

As for Biblical Scholarship - NT or otherwise - there are deficiencies enough to keep me skeptical about the standards thereof.

Yeah, I figured that was your position.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nice goal-shift.

Sorry but just because you have a story abouthttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...775345,00.html
This attests that at least some women could reach a higher rank in Jewish society. There is no evidence that the attitude towards women changed from this time period to the 1st century.