The Grafted Story of the Empty Tomb
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:49 am
Bernard Muller, http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3.html#emptyt
Atwill, Caesar's Messiah, ISBN 978-1461096405
Raskin, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, ISBN 978-1413497915
Turton, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html
Wilson, New Testament Origins, ISBN 978-1491228388
Simply put: The Empty Tomb Story has been added to the Gospels.
Our Poster Bernard has reasoned to a Magnificent Conclusion and it is important for the understanding of the physical production of the NT and how it came to us as it has.
B Muller states: "If the disciples did not learn about the "rising" of Jesus and were not reminded about some future "vision" of him, they would never interpret something (like dreams) or someone (as in Lk24:15-16) as being an emanation of the resurrected Christ! And that would explain why Peter and the other disciples never said anything about the empty tomb and, above all, the "rising", because they (or anyone else) had not been told!
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..." [[Emph. added]]
There are others who support this idea, although from different perspectives. Atwill covers the "Puzzle of the Empty Tomb" by noting that the rising sun is an Objective Marker in which the Tableau may be set. People come and people go as the sun rises and there is no explicit contradiction in the appearances at the Tomb. It is, to Atwill, another Comedy, another Flavian Joke at believers expense. As he has often stated, "If you don't get the Joke, your reward is a belief in a false god...". The Story, then, is a story that has been split into four parts and grafted onto the ends of the Gospels. All four parts may be reconstructed into a Unified Whole.
Raskin takes the Spices and the Stone as evidence that Mark and John were originally One Story. One has the Spices and not the Stone, the other has the Stone and not the Spices, It makes sense that the Original was split and rewritten as single stories.
My view is that, if this thesis is True, our understanding of the production of the Gospels must be radically changed. Consider: We have no Gospel without one of the Tomb Passages. This would imply that ALL FOUR GOSPELS were tightly held at one time. Mark has a "fragmented ending". At one point, there was no other copy of Mark extant. This last page was ripped or lost while the Gospels were held together (See Turton and Chiasms - http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark16.html - Possible Realistic Ending: "It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)" An end such as this would be unacceptable for a New Religion based on a "Resurrection".).
I'm, as usual, a bit far afield here, looking at the "Holy Spirit" as a cipher for disembodied, Damantio'd Domitian. Further, there is a passage for an Emperor dying with an "Empty Tomb" in a manner of Atwill's Jokes: The Death of Otho from Plutarch and the Search for Verginius Rufus to proclaim him Caesar and VR takin' a hike out the back door. I don't expect anyone to accept this - yet - but it does provide a plausible absolute earliest date for the Construction of the Gospels: No earlier than 97 with a more probable construction towards 110. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger speak at VRs funeral and Tacitus is all over Acts. Both Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are given as witnesses to early Christianity and that (very) indirectly implies some tampering with the Authors of the Empty tomb and Acts.
The important point to take away in all of this is that the separate, "Oral Tradition" Type of History of the NT is untenable. The Gospels were tightly held and organized by people who had a Directed Goal and knew how to get to that Goal. I agree with Raskin on The Split and the identity of Atwill's Titus as AN original focus. Domitian puts all of the material together to make HIM appear as the Last from God, replacing the Baptism of John with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then...
Bernard Muller is correct and he has support. The Empty Tomb was added and added very late.
A small Group held the pen last. The end of the material was the Empty Tomb Story, perhaps provided by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. The Tomb Story was split into the four small stories and sewn into the four ends of what we now have.
CW
Atwill, Caesar's Messiah, ISBN 978-1461096405
Raskin, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities, ISBN 978-1413497915
Turton, http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html
Wilson, New Testament Origins, ISBN 978-1491228388
Simply put: The Empty Tomb Story has been added to the Gospels.
Our Poster Bernard has reasoned to a Magnificent Conclusion and it is important for the understanding of the physical production of the NT and how it came to us as it has.
B Muller states: "If the disciples did not learn about the "rising" of Jesus and were not reminded about some future "vision" of him, they would never interpret something (like dreams) or someone (as in Lk24:15-16) as being an emanation of the resurrected Christ! And that would explain why Peter and the other disciples never said anything about the empty tomb and, above all, the "rising", because they (or anyone else) had not been told!
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..." [[Emph. added]]
There are others who support this idea, although from different perspectives. Atwill covers the "Puzzle of the Empty Tomb" by noting that the rising sun is an Objective Marker in which the Tableau may be set. People come and people go as the sun rises and there is no explicit contradiction in the appearances at the Tomb. It is, to Atwill, another Comedy, another Flavian Joke at believers expense. As he has often stated, "If you don't get the Joke, your reward is a belief in a false god...". The Story, then, is a story that has been split into four parts and grafted onto the ends of the Gospels. All four parts may be reconstructed into a Unified Whole.
Raskin takes the Spices and the Stone as evidence that Mark and John were originally One Story. One has the Spices and not the Stone, the other has the Stone and not the Spices, It makes sense that the Original was split and rewritten as single stories.
My view is that, if this thesis is True, our understanding of the production of the Gospels must be radically changed. Consider: We have no Gospel without one of the Tomb Passages. This would imply that ALL FOUR GOSPELS were tightly held at one time. Mark has a "fragmented ending". At one point, there was no other copy of Mark extant. This last page was ripped or lost while the Gospels were held together (See Turton and Chiasms - http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark16.html - Possible Realistic Ending: "It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)" An end such as this would be unacceptable for a New Religion based on a "Resurrection".).
I'm, as usual, a bit far afield here, looking at the "Holy Spirit" as a cipher for disembodied, Damantio'd Domitian. Further, there is a passage for an Emperor dying with an "Empty Tomb" in a manner of Atwill's Jokes: The Death of Otho from Plutarch and the Search for Verginius Rufus to proclaim him Caesar and VR takin' a hike out the back door. I don't expect anyone to accept this - yet - but it does provide a plausible absolute earliest date for the Construction of the Gospels: No earlier than 97 with a more probable construction towards 110. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger speak at VRs funeral and Tacitus is all over Acts. Both Tacitus and Pliny the Younger are given as witnesses to early Christianity and that (very) indirectly implies some tampering with the Authors of the Empty tomb and Acts.
The important point to take away in all of this is that the separate, "Oral Tradition" Type of History of the NT is untenable. The Gospels were tightly held and organized by people who had a Directed Goal and knew how to get to that Goal. I agree with Raskin on The Split and the identity of Atwill's Titus as AN original focus. Domitian puts all of the material together to make HIM appear as the Last from God, replacing the Baptism of John with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then...
Bernard Muller is correct and he has support. The Empty Tomb was added and added very late.
A small Group held the pen last. The end of the material was the Empty Tomb Story, perhaps provided by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. The Tomb Story was split into the four small stories and sewn into the four ends of what we now have.
CW