The Grafted Story of the Empty Tomb

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you, PK. Mebbe more to say to you t'mrrw. Tired, but obligated. Runnin' on empty.

Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, p 149 (After a lengthy Analysis):

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does not have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it.

"We may contrast Mark's procedure with Eusebius. To my knowledge, none of the original texts that Eusebius altered have been found in their original state. This would suggest that Eusebius gathered and destroyed all the original works after he had made copies with alterations in them. On the other hand, Mark preserved the original manuscript to the point that others could come along years later and make the Gospel of John out of it. This means that we are getting some of the earlier manuscript from the text of Mark and earlier manuscript preserved in John. This earlier manuscript which we may be able to reconstruct, at least in part, we may call the Preparation Day Gospel, as Jesus dies on the day before Passover in this, whereas Mark has Jesus dying on Passover. We may suppose that the same community that edited the Gospel of Mark, later edited the Gospel of John. This probably explains why our version of John is so different from the Synoptic Gospels and yet was included in them. For the most part, our present Gospel of John contains the material Mark chose not to use..."

One more quick point, which is the One-Point-too-Many tonight: I have stated that from the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from a different Source, it does not follow that the Different Source was about Jesus. How can there be no Contradiction in "Jesus" being crucified both on Passover and on the day before Passover? There might not be a Contradiction if there were 2 Stories, one about The Temple Slaughter with "Immer" - the wordplay on "Lamb" - and another about a Priest of Immer who survived and was crucified 12 years later.

Jay is exceptionally good here. People talk about the Synoptics and "Who's on First". There may another Path to understanding all of this. Jay's work tells us there is "Mark and John". There is much more here than meets the eye.
G'Night.

PS Edit: See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=860&p=18452&hilit=atwill#p18452

[Charles Wilson]

For Atwill:

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-C ... 1461096405

Look esp. at p 205. You can go to Amazon and find his book. Use the Look Inside feature and in the search field, put "Empty Tomb". Sometimes Amazon switches the pages allowed for viewing but there are plenty of examination pages to peruse.

Better yet, Buy the book. Highlighter not included but highly recommended. Even where Atwill infuriates, he makes a point worth considering. Ignore what you want but look at what he states!

CW

PS: p. 203:

"It is thus possible to create a combined story out of the four different versions of the first visit to Jesus' tomb that has a different meaning than the individual versions and is without contradiction. None of the statements of fact that make up its storyline contradict any other within the combined story. The combined story is logical, whereas the different versions are contradictory. The authors' ingeniousness deserves note. The puzzle is constructed so that readers who are illogical will believe that the passages indicate that Jesus rose from the dead while those who are logical will see the passages as a comedy of errors..."

[Charles Wilson]

Howz'zis? Atwill's Summary of the Empty Tomb, seen as a Single Story.

http://s1353.photobucket.com/user/Charl ... c.jpg.html
http://s1353.photobucket.com/user/Charl ... 5.jpg.html

[Charles Wilson]

Concerning the Death of Otho:
I have asserted that the Death of Otho may be seen as the Backdrop for the Empty Tomb Story, possibly written by Pliny the Younger and/or Tacitus, with other characters sprinkled into the mix, particulary Verginius Rufus.

Plutarch, Life of Otho:

"Just before dawn he called a freedman with whom he had arranged for the departure of the senators, and bade him learn how they fared. And when he was told that all of them had what was needful for their journey, "Go thou, then," he said to the freedman, "and show thyself to the soldiers, unless thou wishest them to put thee to a miserable death for helping me to die." Then, when the man had gone out, with both hands he held his sword upright beneath him, and fell upon it, giving but a single groan as he felt the pang..."

John 19: 34 (RSV):

[34] But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

The blood part: OK. The end of Otho at the Battle of Bedriacum. The water: the battle occurs near the Po River.

Now for today's New Factoid: Otho dies on April 16, 69. What day is that? Sunday. In fact, it's Sunday Morning, just before dawn.
http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=69

[Bernard Muller]

From my understanding of Bernard’s view he sees 16:1-8 as an addition to Mark. I am not aware that he believes that this ending was missing from Mark when Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.

I agree.

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

From my understanding of Bernard’s view he sees 16:1-8 as an addition to Mark. I am not aware that he believes that this ending was missing from Mark when Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.

I agree.
Cordially, Bernard

1. Thank you, Bernard. I almost PM'd you on this point. Your text speaks for itself in regards to Mark. I thought that the larger point of the thread placed your work on Mark in Context. Prolly shoulda' PM'd.

2. That said, the point of the Thread is still there. Does it matter whether "...this ending..." was there in Mark or not? The question appears again: "If Matthew had Mark in front of him when writing the Book of Matthew, WHY ISN'T IT THE SAME?" The Luke supposition on, for example "Jerusalem surrounded by armies..." is interesting but not to the point in regards to the Empty Tomb.

3. So, please, I ask you to consider the Thread Topic. There are four stories of the Empty Tomb that are mutually Contradictory if thought of as describing the SAME SCENE.
Atwill: The four stories may be written as a Single Story with NO CONTRADICTIONS using the sun as an "Objective Marker".
Raskin: Going in one direction, the story appears to have been split, giving us versions of Mark and John. One story has the spices and not the stone, the other has the stone but not the spices.
Turton: Going in the other direction, the Chiasms of Mark have been edited by people who appear to have had no familarity with the fact that there were Markan Chiasms.

4. Now look at Bernard's Work and his view of MARK. If the Empty Tomb was "prepared" for Mark:

"But how could someone know about the empty tomb and the women's experience? And be so sure that anyone of those, at any time, did not divulge the 'empty tomb' event?
The only solution appears to be that the 'empty tomb' story was not known before, and therefore generated for the gospel."

5. If the Empty Tomb Story was "generated for the gospel", then what about the other 3 "Versions"?!?? Were they "Generated" as well? Matthew may have seen Mark in front of him and the "Generated Empty Tomb" of Mark.
WHY,THEN, ARE THE OTHER VERSIONS DIFFERENT AT ALL?

6. It is therefore a Significant Question: If there is a version of the Empty Tomb Story that is free from Contradiction in comparison with four Versions that have plenty of Contradictions when compared with each other AND there is evidence that there was a "Splitting" of the Stories - however tenuous the evidence appears at first reading - then why not examine the idea that the Gospels were closely contolled and that the Story was divided between the four Gospels?

Why not even consider the Thread Question?

CW

[Michael BG]

What I want to focus on here is that *IF* the Empty Tomb is a story that has been split into 4 parts and written into the Gospels, then the Gospels become a Controlled Production and that has meaning for the dissemination of the NT.

And I am saying provide an argument for your “what if” and make the case it is the best “what if”.

Matthew has “he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him” which is identical to the words in Mk 16:7. Therefore if Mark added these words to the pre-Marcan story then their being in Matthew is evidence that Matthew is copying Mark.

I don't disagree necessarily with your point! The focus, however, is on the Empty Tomb and its production.

But I am referring to how Matthew’s production included this story.

Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities

Linkage of Mark and John

Jay Raskin's excellent book has an extremely important point to make in discussing both Mark and John. Dr. Raskin finds that there is material that does not make sense in isolation but does make sense if the authors of Mark and John had a common source from which they both cut and pasted material.

This is not a new theory and there are variations on it.

This means that we are getting some of the earlier manuscript from the text of Mark and earlier manuscript preserved in John. This earlier manuscript which we may be able to reconstruct, at least in part, we may call the Preparation Day Gospel, as Jesus dies on the day before Passover in this, whereas Mark has Jesus dying on Passover.

I don’t have a problem agreeing with Raskin – in the pre-Marcan story the burial takes place on the “preparation day” of the Passover and not of the Sabbath as in Mark.

This means that Raskin sees his common source not only behind 16:1-8, but back to Mk 15:42 “... since it was the day of Preparation ...”

Some scholars make the case that John has his own tradition and I have read CH Dodd’s book Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, but it didn’t convince me.

The Johannine version of this story is based on all three synoptic versions.

21:1 ‘Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.’

Darkness is a favourite Johannine theme. The women are no longer the witnesses as in the original story, but Peter and the beloved disciple are.

In verse 2 she says "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him."

This is based on Matthew’s story of the removal of the body from tomb in Mt 28:13-15 and the “we” is a reference back to a group of people as in Mark not Mary Mag'dalene on her own as in John.

In verse 12 John has Luke’s two angels (or if you prefer “two” from Luke and “angel” from Matthew).

The Johannine story has been reworked and added to from the three versions the author knew.

For Atwill:

PS: p. 203:

"It is thus possible to create a combined story out of the four different versions of the first visit to Jesus' tomb that has a different meaning than the individual versions and is without contradiction. None of the statements of fact that make up its storyline contradict any other within the combined story. The combined story is logical ..."

Christian apologists sometimes use a similar argument – not all the story is M_ gospel part of it is in L_ gospel or J_ gospel, but if you read them altogether we have the whole story. In fact Atwill like Christian apologists ignores or removes the contradictions.

2. That said, the point of the Thread is still there. Does it matter whether "...this ending..." was there in Mark or not? The question appears again: "If Matthew had Mark in front of him when writing the Book of Matthew, WHY ISN'T IT THE SAME?"

The short answer is because Matthew redacts the story and scholars have come up with reasons for his chances.

4. Now look at Bernard's Work and his view of MARK. If the Empty Tomb was "prepared" for Mark:

"But how could someone know about the empty tomb and the women's experience? And be so sure that anyone of those, at any time, did not divulge the 'empty tomb' event?
The only solution appears to be that the 'empty tomb' story was not known before, and therefore generated for the gospel."

It is still possible that the story was in what Raskin calls the Preparation Day Gospel and I call the pre-Marcan story. It is possible that it was created after the resurrection appearances of Jesus and before Mark sat down to write his gospel and it is possible it was created in a Roman environment away from Palestine.

5. ...
WHY,THEN, ARE THE OTHER VERSIONS DIFFERENT AT ALL?

Because Luke likes two over one and wanted to keep the disciples in Jerusalem for his Acts story of Christianity spreading out in a controlled manner from Jerusalem.
Because John has all three versions and takes bits from all three and adds his own take. John is clearly not interested in writing factual accounts of what happened (neither are the other three for that matter).

6. It is therefore a Significant Question: If there is a version of the Empty Tomb Story that is free from Contradiction in comparison with four Versions that have plenty of Contradictions when compared with each other AND there is evidence that there was a "Splitting" of the Stories - however tenuous the evidence appears at first reading - then why not examine the idea that the Gospels were closely contolled and that the Story was divided between the four Gospels?

Why not even consider the Thread Question?

CW

I have provided a version without contradictions lacking the known interests of the four gospel writers. Why don’t you present the case for your alternative pre-gospel text? Then we can discuss why some of what you see as part of the original should really be seen as the redaction the gospel writers.

[Adam]

THE TEXT BELOW IS FROM Noesis JUNE 2006 PAGES 18-21"RESURRECTION SOURCES". IN IT I ARGUE THE PRESENT TEXTS COME FROM COMBINING THE STRAY BITS FROM TWO TEXTS, OPPOSITE TO THESIS OF THIS THREAD.
Some apologia is necessary to explain how the texts reached their present status.
The earliest extant manuscripts of Mark break off before completing the resurrection
story, true. A fairer assessment would be that the earliest manuscripts did have a
complete resurrection story, we just lack proof of what they were. Most scholars accept
Ur-Marcus and Q as very early texts, to which I and some others would add the Twelve-
Source (unless the Twelve-Source is simply the narrative portions of Q, as I believe it is).
The text of Mark 16:1-8 is so similar to Matthew 28: 1-8 that we can see it is
probable that the remainder of Matthew continues it, particularly 28:9-10, 16-20.
Compare 16:16-7, “. . . he has risen, he is not here. . . . Go and tell his disciples and
Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee . . .”, with Matthew 28:16, “Meanwhile the
eleven disciples set out for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet
them.” It continues with a resurrection story, so there is one at least. But is it the
earliest?
The prime source underlying the Synoptic gospels is the Twelve-Source. It is
identified by what is common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but is not in John. Applying
this to the resurrection accounts, the following is extracted as the Twelve-Source:
Twelve-Source
Mk 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James,
and Salome
Mt 28:1 went to visit the sepulchre
Lk 24:1 with the spices they had prepared, at the first sight of dawn.
Mk 16:3 They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us
from the entrance of the tomb?” 16:4 But when they looked they saw that the stone—
which was very big—had already been rolled back.
Lk 24:3 But on entering they could not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
Lk 24:4 As they stood there puzzled about this
Mk 16:5 They saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right hand side and they
were struck with amazement.
Mk 16:6ab But he said to them, "There is no need to be so amazed. You are looking for
Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified.
Lk 24:6 He is not here, he has risen.
Mt 28:6 Come and see the place where he lay.”
[To this point this Twelve-Source text has no conflicts with the extant texts of Matthew
and Mark, but I will attempt to reconstruct the underlying Twelve-Source that explains
how Luke diverged from the other two at this point. I will bracket my interpolations.]
Lk 24:7 . . . He told you . . . in Galilee that the Son of Man was destined to be handed
over into the hands of sinful men and be crucified. [In Galilee he told you he will] rise
again on the third day.
[Observe! If Galilee existed a second time in the original text, a simple scribal elide from
the first occurrence to the second would read:]
In Galilee he told you he will rise again on the third day.
[Then assume translation from Aramaic to Greek:]
Galilee [is where] he told you he will rise again...
[Leading right to present extant texts:]
Mt 28:7c=Mk16:7b He is going ahead of you to Galilee: that is where you will see him.
[Resuming the Twelve-Source, following Lk 24:7:]
Mk 16:8 And the women came out and ran away from the tomb because they were
frightened out of their wits.
[Perhaps also this verse:]
Mt 28:9-10 Suddenly, coming to meet them, was Jesus. “Greetings”, he said. And the
women came up to him and, clasping his feet, they did him homage.
Lk 24:10 The women were Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James.
[The source that underlies all four gospels I call Petrine Ur-Marcus. Like the Twelve-
Source, it is a very simple, detailed narrative regarding the resurrection, but with
apparently very little overlap with the Twelve-Source. My analysis seeks to separate
them from each other.]
Petrine Ur-Marcus
Mk 16:2 And very early in the morning on the first day of the week, they went to the
tomb. . . .
Lk 24:2 They found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb,
Lk 24:3 but on entering they could not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
Lk 24:9 And they returned from the tomb and told all this to [us] the Eleven and to all
the others.
Jn 20:2bc “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we do not know where they laid
him.”
Lk 24:11b But this story of theirs seemed pure nonsense, and they did not believe them.
Jn 20:3 Then [we] Peter went forth and came running to the tomb.
Jn 20:4 And the two were running together. And the other disciple ran faster than
Peter and came first to the tomb.
Jn 20:5 And having stooped down, he sees lying there the linen shroud, nevertheless
he did not go in.
Lk 24:12b Peter bent down and looked in and saw the linen cloths.
Jn 20:7 and the napkin which was on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled
up in a place by itself.
Jn 20:8 Then the other disciple went in and saw and believed.
Lk 24:12c [We] He then went back home, amazed at what had happened.
Jn 20:11b Then when Mary was weeping, she peered into the tomb.
Jn 20:12 And she sees two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet,
where the body of Jesus had lain.
Jn 20:13 And those say to her, “Why do you weep?” She says to them, “Because they
have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
Jn 20:14 Having said these things, she turned back and sees Jesus standing.
Jn 20:16-17 Jesus says to her, “Mary”. Having turned, that one says to him,
“Rabbouni”, which means “Teacher”. Jesus says to her, “Touch me not, for not yet have
I ascended to the Father, but go to my brethren and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my
Father and your Father.’”
Jn 20:19a Then when it was it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and
when the doors had been closed on account of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in
their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.”
Jn 20:20 And having said this, he showed hands and side to them. Then the disciples
rejoiced at seeing the Lord.
Lk 24:42-43 “Have you anything here to eat?” And they offered him a piece of grilled
fish, which he took and ate before their eyes.
Jn 20:21c “Even as the Father sent me, I also send you.”
Jn 20:22 And having said this, he breathed on them and says to them, “Receive the
Holy Spirit.
Jn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if you retain the sins
of any, they have been retained.”
Jn 20:26 And after eight days his disciples were inside, and Jesus came when the doors
had been closed and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be to you.”
Jn 20:27 Next he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your
hand here . . .”
Lk 24:44 Then he told them, “This is what I meant when I said, while I was still with
you, that everything written about me, in the law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the
Psalms, was destined to be fulfilled.”
[To this point I have largely followed Howard Teeple in The Literary Origin of the
Gospel of John for my derivation of Ur-Marcus from John chapter 20.]
Jn 21:1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples
Mt 28:16 at the mountain arranged.
Mt 28:18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[Or]
Acts 1:7 It is not for you to know times or dates that the Father has decided by his own
authority.
Mt 28:19a Go therefore, make disciples of all nations.
Acts 1:8b Then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and
indeed to earth’s remotest end.
[Except for the last few verses of each of the above reconstructed sources, the flow and
unity of each helps establish that each once existed in about that form. Both sources are
very detailed, as would be expected from eye-witnesses. The Twelve-Source is very
banal about introductory events, barely getting to an encounter with Jesus. Jesus appears
only to the women on Easter day. Petrine Ur-Marcus gives us more sayings, but focusing
on banalities before getting on to important teachings. In the above reconstructions I
have restored the details from whichever of the extant texts they still appear. For the
important teachings, they tend to survive, but loosely, leaving it difficult to tell which of
the four gospels best preserves the source. Matthew especially abbreviates, but it does
tend to retain important sayings.
[Both above sources are texts that precede Mark as we now have that gospel.]
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.pdf

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thank you, KK!

I agree with Charles.

Thanks

3. So, please, I ask you to consider the Thread Topic. There are four stories of the Empty Tomb that are mutually Contradictory if thought of as describing the SAME SCENE.
Atwill: ...
Raskin: Going in one direction, the story appears to have been split, giving us versions of Mark and John. One story has the spices and not the stone, the other has the stone but not the spices.

I don't fully understand what our own Jay means. Can you explain a bit more? So far I know Mark has spices and the stone (Mark 16:1-4), but John only the stone (John 20:1). Does he mean the Burial of Jesus?

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you all. I asked for it and I got it. I'll start with Michael BG. THE RESPONSE IS NECESSARILY INCOMPLETE. THERE IS A LOT HERE!

What I want to focus on here is that *IF* the Empty Tomb is a story that has been split into 4 parts and written into the Gospels, then the Gospels become a Controlled Production and that has meaning for the dissemination of the NT.

And I am saying provide an argument for your “what if” and make the case it is the best “what if”.

Matthew has “he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him” which is identical to the words in Mk 16:7. Therefore if Mark added these words to the pre-Marcan story then their being in Matthew is evidence that Matthew is copying Mark.

I don't disagree necessarily with your point! The focus, however, is on the Empty Tomb and its production.

But I am referring to how Matthew’s production included this story.

Yes, I know. 'N lurking behind the Production of Mark => Matthew => Luke is the question of WHO would produce intentional differences in the texts and when - and why. The tension in this argues for a tighter control of what became the NT. Disagree if you want. That's OK. The tension argues against the idea that these texts were floating around the countryside waiting to be written down

Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities

Linkage of Mark and John

Jay Raskin's excellent book has an extremely important point to make in discussing both Mark and John. Dr. Raskin finds that there is material that does not make sense in isolation but does make sense if the authors of Mark and John had a common source from which they both cut and pasted material.

This is not a new theory and there are variations on it.

There are obviously some highly intelligent people walking around on this planet...

This means that we are getting some of the earlier manuscript from the text of Mark and earlier manuscript preserved in John. This earlier manuscript which we may be able to reconstruct, at least in part, we may call the Preparation Day Gospel, as Jesus dies on the day before Passover in this, whereas Mark has Jesus dying on Passover.

I don’t have a problem agreeing with Raskin – in the pre-Marcan story the burial takes place on the “preparation day” of the Passover and not of the Sabbath as in Mark.
This means that Raskin sees his common source not only behind 16:1-8, but back to Mk 15:42 “... since it was the day of Preparation ...”

Here is where we ask, "How many Source Stories were there?" (See response to Adam, below). Jay notes an Editorial Fatigue in Mark where Mark cannot get the Story Consistent here. Jay may have to unpack it. The greater Point is very Deep: There is no Contradiction between the Stories of "Preparation Day" and "On the Passover Day". How? As the Death of Judas is not Contradictory (As one Death is the destruction of Cestius' 12th Legion, the other - the hanging - is Cestius' Self Inflicted Wound by his command tactics at Beth Horon , near Lydda), so are the TWO STORIES of the Passover Slaughter of Immer, and the crucifixion 12 years later of the Priest who was saved by Peter.

Some scholars make the case that John has his own tradition and I have read CH Dodd’s book Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, but it didn’t convince me.
The Johannine version of this story is based on all three synoptic versions.

Here's where Raskin and Atwill should be taken very seriously - even if you have to redact them GJohn and Mark write from the same Source(s). All that is needed is to show this is the realization that the character John in GJohn is of "Bilgah" and the "Jesus" character (or what became "Jesus") is from "Immer". Done. The Logical Possibilities then Map themselves out in a Consistent manner.

21:1 ‘Now on the first day of the week Mary Mag'dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.’

Darkness is a favourite Johannine theme. The women are no longer the witnesses as in the original story, but Peter and the beloved disciple are.

"Darkness" may or may not be important to this, whether as a Theme in John or not. I dunno. I yield to your closer inspection here.
HOWEVER, I ask that you be very careful as to the identity of the "Beloved Disciple"! You think this refers to a person. I make a different assignment (The 10th Legion identified in Acts...). Tight Roman Control of the Documents verses free roaming Literary Tradition.

The Johannine story has been reworked and added to from the three versions the author knew.

This is the entire argument and the cause of disagreements between us. The entirety of the Gospels consist of reworked documents! The Origin Story of the Priesthood has been shredded and rewritten! The Baptism of John is replaced by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - "We haven't even heard of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit...".
Who Could have written that?

2. That said, the point of the Thread is still there. Does it matter whether "...this ending..." was there in Mark or not? The question appears again: "If Matthew had Mark in front of him when writing the Book of Matthew, WHY ISN'T IT THE SAME?"

The short answer is because Matthew redacts the story and scholars have come up with reasons for his chances.

The question again (and again...). Four different versions. ...Of the Same Scene? Why, oh, why? Step back and look at another alternative. The problem for "Some Scholars" is that, as I have stated, there are atheists who believe that "Jesus was the Son of God (Who doesn't exist)". I AM NOT TARRING YOU WITH THIS BRUSH. I am asserting that given that all of Positing of Conditionals, there is still a Problem left, the possibility that the Production of the Gospels relied on an Empty Tomb story that appears to have been grafted onto the Gospels, with all of the Controls on the Documents that such an assertion would imply.

4. Now look at Bernard's Work and his view of MARK. If the Empty Tomb was "prepared" for Mark:

"But how could someone know about the empty tomb and the women's experience? And be so sure that anyone of those, at any time, did not divulge the 'empty tomb' event?
The only solution appears to be that the 'empty tomb' story was not known before, and therefore generated for the gospel."

It is still possible that the story was in what Raskin calls the Preparation Day Gospel and I call the pre-Marcan story. It is possible that it was created after the resurrection appearances of Jesus and before Mark sat down to write his gospel and it is possible it was created in a Roman environment away from Palestine.

You had me up to the point where you stated, "...it was created after the resurrection appearances of Jesus". If there was a Good Thing about John, it was that his version of the Resurrection leaves the Roman Fingerprints visible to all. "Galba-Otho". Vitellius. The Rise of the Flavians. I doubt we'll make much progress on these points. You evidently do not see the Roman Handiwork to the extent I do. So it goes...

5. ...
WHY,THEN, ARE THE OTHER VERSIONS DIFFERENT AT ALL?

Because Luke likes two over one and wanted to keep the disciples in Jerusalem for his Acts story of Christianity spreading out in a controlled manner from Jerusalem.
Because John has all three versions and takes bits from all three and adds his own take. John is clearly not interested in writing factual accounts of what happened (neither are the other three for that matter).

'N there it is (In Bold).

I have provided a version without contradictions lacking the known interests of the four gospel writers. Why don’t you present the case for your alternative pre-gospel text? Then we can discuss why some of what you see as part of the original should really be seen as the redaction the gospel writers.

I have been doing this for over ten years now: "The Romans did it. They took a Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood, shredded it and rewrote it to the Benefit of the Flavians. A small group of Court Writers held the pen last and finished the job Domitian had evidently given them, turning the Glory of the Davidic Priesthood (esp. the Hasmoneans) into a Vehicle which "Proved" that God had given the Power over to Rome."

I truly thank you for your Work in providing your comments.
Thanx,

CW

PS: Before I hit "Preview", I fear that this will be a Way-Too-Long Post. Mebbe, if the dialogue continues, we might break it up into smaller parts.