Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Post by Adam »

My first two responses to Joe Wallack were limited to answering his question, but I should add that the three differing accounts for the discovery of the empty tomb came from three women who did not write the extant gospels nor the sources underlying them. Thus they don't undermine the larger part of the gospels that I do hold were written by eyewitnesses. Most of John 20 and 21 could have been written by eyewitnesses (John Mark, Peter, or the other John) as well as most of Luke (by my theory Simon the son of Cleopas).

Not that everything an eyewitness says is automatically "gospel". I hold that Nicodemus wrote most of John, but he initially wrote it up as charges against Jesus.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Post by JoeWallack »

JoeWallack wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Let's take a look at the original Empty Tomb story:

ErrancyWiki
16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.

5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
JW:
So according to "Mark" (note intentional irony of afraid quotes) who/what was the source of 16:1-8?


Joseph
Adam:
Mary Magdalene is featured in John 20 in a significantly different Resurrection story. All the Synoptics mention the other Mary as there, so the common features of the Synoptics (particularly Matthew 28:1-10 and Mark 16:1-8) likely trace back to her. (The "Joanna" mentioned at Luke 24:10 and 8:3 presumably was the source of the slightly different account in Luke 24.)

JW:
Well that's 1. Seeing as this is about "Mark" I'll give you 3. Can't think of any way to make the question clearer, so I'll just repeat it:
So according to "Mark" (note intentional irony of afraid quotes) who/what was the source of 16:1-8?
I have Faith that you do not like the answer and that is why you did not directly answer (and according to "spin" that's naughty).

To the objective student, note that "Mark" uses a double negative at 16:8 ("to none, nothing") to make clear that the only supposed witnesses to The Empty Tomb did not tell anyone what they did not see. Consistent with the narrative style, "Mark" has made clear that the potential likely source for the Disciples to know of The Empty Tomb, did not tell them of The Empty Tomb. I'm not sure how the author could have made this point clearer and still be consistent with the narrative style at that point. Thus we can use this as explicit from the author that the Disciples were unaware of The Empty Tomb. The body of "Mark" confirms this as it has a primary theme of the Disciples failing Jesus as to this point (so to speak). [understatement]Doesn't leave much in "Mark" as possibly supporting a known historical source for The Empty Tomb story [/understatement].
Adam:
I could have been more specific and said not Mary the mother of Jesus, but Mary the mother of James and Jude (Mark 15:40).
JW:
ErrancyWiki
And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; (ASV)
JW:
Oh what a tangled Web we weave... So in summary, my question to you is what is "Mark's" source to you for 16:1-8. Your answer is "Mark" 15:40. So by this logic I can make a statement (any statement) and say it is supported by some other statement I made. As Yeshu Barra said, "Sounds like Deja Jew all over again.". Specifically, you claim that "Mary the mother of James and Joses" is the source for "Mark" for 16:1-8. But "Mark" explicitly says that this Mary did not tell anyone about the Empty Tomb. So you are directly contradicted by your only relevant source. And than what is your source that Mary the mother of James and Joses told "Mark" about the Empty Tomb? Perhaps a statement from "Mark" that she did not tell him about the Empty Tomb?

Again Peter, when someone writes a treatise based on a verse which is explicitly contradicted by the text, I suggest you put in a related word limit on the subject like, I don't know, one million words.

Mark 16:1-8 also tests higher than Jesus went for evidence of fiction. The whole pericope is contaminated by the claim of Impossible. What's left is implausible. And don't get me started on contrived. "Mary mother of James and Joses"? Funny, that would also have been the title of Jesus' mother who thought Jesus was possessed by Satan. Family replacement anyone? "James the less", that is choice. A dig at the historical brother. And "Salome" again. "Mark" couldn't resist changing the historical Salome referred to in the Baptist story to "Herodias".

By now Adam, you may have deduced that the purpose of my responses is not for your benefit but for the benefit of Skeptics in dealing with Apologists. An Apologist technique is to try and present a broad assertion so that it is easier to defend against. Here the broad assertion is that "Mark" had historical sources. The Skeptic should respond by narrowing the scope so that everything is more specific rather than general and therefore harder for the Apologist to defend. Here, I narrow the scope to a specific pericope and deliberately choose one that directly contradicts the Apologist's general argument. Choose the specific that is the hardest for the Apologist to defend. Rather than concede the specific point they will normally try to defend the indefensible and not only lose the specific point but their credibility as well (as Adam has done here). The battle is won.

By the Way Adam, that's 2.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Post by Adam »

Yes, Joe,
There are a few scholars who think Mk 16:1-8 was intentionally written ending in mid-sentence ("they were afraid..."), but in the preceding verse they had been ordered to go and tell the disciples. Maybe they were just following orders NOT to tell anyone ELSE until they had done so.
Anyway, I'm not a Fundamentalist (inerrantist), so more to the point is that in the corresponding Mt. 28:1-10 Jesus himself appears and reiterates the command and acknowledges that he realizes that they are afraid.

You seem to insist on missing my point. The empty tomb was discovered by four or more women, none of whom wrote down anything about it. They told lots of people about it. The written accounts would wind up being a mixture of what these others had heard, hopefully as complemented by direct interview with one or more of the eyewitnesses. John 20:1-2, 11-18 seems to be from Mary Magdalene, hopefully directly. The first ten, eight, or eleven verses (respectively) of the Synoptics seem to trace to Mary the mother of James and Joses. The specific Lucan differences could come from the woman mentioned only in Luke, namely Joanna.

The rest of the Resurrection accounts in Luke and John could have been written by eyewitnesses and seem to agree. See my Gospel Eyewitnesses as helpfully gathered together here on ECW by Peter Kirby.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14#p495
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Post by JoeWallack »

Adam wrote:Yes, Joe,
There are a few scholars who think Mk 16:1-8 was intentionally written ending in mid-sentence ("they were afraid..."),
JW:
The consensus of CBS (Christian Bible scholarship) is that 16:8 is the original ending and does not end mid-sentence.
but in the preceding verse they had been ordered to go and tell the disciples. Maybe they were just following orders NOT to tell anyone ELSE until they had done so.
JW:
So "Mark" does not mean what he/she/them/it wrote but means what he did not write.
Anyway, I'm not a Fundamentalist (inerrantist), so more to the point is that in the corresponding Mt. 28:1-10 Jesus himself appears and reiterates the command and acknowledges that he realizes that they are afraid.
JW:
"Mark" is not merely the primary source for "Matthew's" Empty Tomb story but the base. This indicates that "Mark" was the only significant source here for him/her/them/it ("Matthew"). We would all agree that "Matthew" wants historical witness to Jesus. Since "Matthew" uses a story ("Mark") as a base that has a primary theme of discrediting supposed historical witness to Jesus this indicates that "Matthew" had no historical witness to Jesus and therefore no historical sources outside of possibly "Mark". You keep ignoring these types of explicit and implicit evidence that is exponentially better than your implications because they go against your conclusion - here, that "Mark" had sources of historical witness to Jesus. Evidence that you are starting with your conclusion.
You seem to insist on missing my point. The empty tomb was discovered by four or more women, none of whom wrote down anything about it. They told lots of people about it. The written accounts would wind up being a mixture of what these others had heard, hopefully as complemented by direct interview with one or more of the eyewitnesses. John 20:1-2, 11-18 seems to be from Mary Magdalene, hopefully directly. The first ten, eight, or eleven verses (respectively) of the Synoptics seem to trace to Mary the mother of James and Joses. The specific Lucan differences could come from the woman mentioned only in Luke, namely Joanna.
JW:
You either unintentionally or intentionally don't understand the meaning of "source". That's a bad combination with explaining to us "Mark's" source for The Empty Tomb story.
The rest of the Resurrection accounts in Luke and John could have been written by eyewitnesses and seem to agree. See my Gospel Eyewitnesses as helpfully gathered together here on ECW by Peter Kirby.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14#p495
JW:
You have no Source Criticism for any of this because all the related writings are anonymous. Just what we would expect since it would be impossible to have an historical witness to the Impossible. Moving down to Literary Criticism, the strong parallels and deliberate editing evidence that "Mark" is the original narrative and base for all others. Editing is done for theological reasons. Again, you ignore evidence that is exponentially better than what you cite.

That's 3. Foe it is.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Feasible Synoptic Solutions

Post by Adam »

That really hurts, Joe,
Claiming that I don’t know what sources are, that I don’t know source criticism. I’ll assume at least that you’re not serious about suggesting that a source cannot be anonymous.
You’re with the Consensus taking it for granted that Mark is primary and had no sources, but I never took that for granted. The great atheist scholar Howard M. Teeple found a source within the Gospel of John that for the Passion Narrative seems to underlie the Synoptics. It’s particularly similar to Luke. It gets complicated when reaching the Resurrection, and Teeple stops labelling his usual “S” for Source and uses “p” instead. Based on style he extracts as follows (his punctuation):
p1: John 20:1 And on the first (day) of the week Mary [an. Def.] the Magdalene comes to [eis] the tomb early, it being still dark, and she sees [blepo] the stone having been taken away from the tomb….
John 20:3 Then Peter went forth and another disciple [comp. sub., s. verb], and they were coming to [eis] the tomb. 4 And the two were running together. And the other disciple ran faster than Peter [arth.] and came first to [eis] the tomb. 5 And having stooped (down), he sees [blepo] lying (there) the linen cloths;….
8 Then [tote oun] went in…the other disciple…and he saw [horao] and believed….
p2: John 20:11: Then when she was WEEPING, she peered into the tomb, 12 and she sees [theoreo] two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus [arth.] had lain. 13 and those say to her, “WOMAN, WHY DO YOU WEEP?” She says to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they laid him.” 14 Having said these things, she turned back and sees [theoreo] Jesus [arth.] standing…..16 Jesus [arth. In S; lac. In P66, P75] says to her, “Mary [an. Voc.].” “Rabbouni [Aramaic, not Hebrew], “which says [i. e. means] “”Teacher.” 17 Jesus [arth. In S; lac. In P66, P75] says to her, “Touch me not, for not yet have I ascended to [pros] the Father; but go [poreuomai] to [pros] my brethren and tell them, “I am ascending to [pros] my Father and your Father…”…
p1: John 20:19 Then when it was evening on that day, the first (day) of the week,…
Jesus [arth.] came and stood in (their) midst and says to them, “Peace to you.”
20:Then the disciples rejoiced (at) seeing [horao] the Lord….
22…he breathed on them and says to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if you retain (the sins) of any, they have been retained.”….
26 And after eight days …his disciples were inside, and Jesus [arth.] comes when the doors had been closed and stood in (their) midst and said, “Peace to you.” 27 Next he says to Thomas [arth.], “Put your finger here and see [horao] my hands, and put [phero] your finger here and see [horao] my hands, and put [phero] your hand (here)….and be not unbelieving, but BELIEVING.”
The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, 1974, p. 242-245.
The similarity to Luke 24 helps my case that this represents the original stratum, what I call John Mark’s Passion Diary (as I do in the link, which you imply you looked at--in any case, it's right there at the start, the first eyewitness), with the verses preceding John 20:19 stemming from Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28 and Mark 16 represent a blending of the above with a later, less well-remembered story from someone else, who I say would have been the other Mary. The blend in Luke 24 also brings in another empty tomb source, probably Joanna.
I try to be as rigorous in source-criticism as Teeple, even though I am not (nor is anyone) as skilled at it.
Reviewing my write-up of Teeple's source, it can look as if the "other disciple" is not a "he" necessarily but instead the "she" of John 20:11, Mary Magdalene. Any comment on whether that's possible? (Nah, couldn't be--she could not have run to the tomb faster than a man, right?)
Post Reply