Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:29 am

Disclaimer = I highly recommend that Secret Agent Man check his blood pressure before reading further.

JW:

The Conspiracy Theology =

We've seen that Eusebius provides evidence that GMark ended at 16:8 by testifying that quality and quantity of Manuscripts supported that. Apologists like James O Snapp make the ridiculous argument that Eusebius was limited to only presenting a hypothetical argument that a Believer could make and not Eusebius' own opinion. In response to a later question though Eusebius makes clear that he thought GMark ended at 16:8:

GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[123]
Mark and Luke did not even mention the incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the
Saviour
—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while themselves telling the secondary incidents, and
filling in what the others had passed over in silence.27
As I've mentioned here and as generally confessed by CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) Eusebius thought GMark originally ended at 16:8. The above likewise indicates that Eusebius thought original GLuke had no resurrection sightings. This would be the definition of a Difficult Reading. Certainly the Critical Apparatus should mention regarding the ending of GLuke. The repression inherent in the Christian System:
  • 1. As far as I know I Am the only one in the history of Bible commentary who has ever mentioned the above.

    2. Earlier in history Eusebius' related work would have been much more widely available and complete.

    3. The above was not translated into English until an amateur (Pearse) did so in 2015.

    4. As I've mentioned here Coombs wrote a book on Eusebius' book but fails to mention the above. When I mentioned it to James O Snapp, the foremost defender of the LE the world has ever known (since Burgon started spinning apologies in his grave), he acted like he had never heard of it.
You have a good reason from the start to think Eusebius is right that GLuke originally had no resurrection sightings since the base for GLuke was GMark and GMark originally had no resurrection sightings. Likewise, it's also commonly thought possible that GLuke originally had no Infancy Narrative. So what is the good evidence to contradict Eusebius here? Manuscripts? Again, just like for GMark, the time of Eusebius/Jerome, 4th century, seems to be something of a cutoff for Manuscripts preserved by Christianity in general. So what good Manuscript evidence is there to contradict Eusebius here?

Bonus material for Solo = It could be a trap. So mind your Ps and Qs.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Ken Olson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:57 am

Hi Joe,

Here's the passage in full:
How is it that in Matthew Mary of Magdala, with the other Mary, has seen
the one angel outside the tomb, sitting on the stone of the tomb, and how,
according to John, does Mary of Magdala see two angels, sitting inside the
tomb; but according to Luke it was two men who appeared to the women,
and according to Mark it was a young man that was seen by them—Mary
of Magdala, James’ Mary, and Salome—sitting to the right of the tomb?

The incident in Matthew comes first, in which the two Marys saw
the angel who had recently appeared and rolled back the stone. The incident
in John takes place later on, with the two angels seen inside the tomb,
not the same as the one who was seen outside, sitting on the stone, as Matthew says.
What it says in Luke, that there were two men seen in dazzling
clothes, and also the young man in Mark wearing a white robe, seen on
the right-hand side as opposed to the left , and giving the women the
bright, propitious good news, would also be all different from each other
and from those spoken of in the first evangelists; that is why these writers
do not call them angels, either. Mark and Luke did not even mention the
incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the
Saviour—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while
themselves telling the secondary incidents, and filling in what the others
had passed over in silence.
I think there is good evidence that Luke, in contrast to Matthew and John, does not contain an appearance of the resurrected Jesus at the tomb.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:58 am

Luke 23: 56 (RSV):

[56] then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments.
On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

The End.

Absolutely makes sense. Three days and three nights after the beginning of Passover (Luke's Criterion!) and after the Sabbath - not the High Sabbath of the first day of the Feast - the women return.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2207&hilit=grafted+story

Luke knows but the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection haven't been written yet or if the ET has been written (Pliny the Y and Tacitus), it hasn't been added to the Story at the time of the completion of Luke.

Nice work, Joseph!

Ken Olson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:47 am

In his Onomasticon, which is a sort of directory of place names from the bible, Eusebius writes:
Emmaus. Home of Cleopas who is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. It is now Nicopolis, a famous city of Palestine.
The only place Cleopas is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, or any of the canonical gospels, is at Luke 24.18, in the Road to Emmaus story (Luke 24.13-35), in which the risen Jesus appears to two of the disciples.

I think we would have to assume that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius did not contain any appearances of Jesus at the tomb, but did contain at least some version of the Road to Emmaus story.

Stuart
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Stuart » Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:46 am

It's possible the Marcionite form was similar to Mark. The passages quoted in Tertullian may have been to support a physical resurrection ("a Spirit has no bones"), and thus Catholic not Marcionite. They may have snuck in sometime before Luke was actually formed, in later Marcionite based texts which Tertullian saw.

Interesting thought.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Ken Olson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:03 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:47 am
I think we would have to assume that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius did not contain any appearances of Jesus at the tomb, but did contain at least some version of the Road to Emmaus story.
To put that another way, I don't think there's any evidence that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius was any different from canonical Luke.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1814
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by andrewcriddle » Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:41 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:03 am
Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:47 am
I think we would have to assume that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius did not contain any appearances of Jesus at the tomb, but did contain at least some version of the Road to Emmaus story.
To put that another way, I don't think there's any evidence that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius was any different from canonical Luke.
There are important differences between Luke 24 in codex Bezae and the text of most other Greek manuscripts. Do we know which text type Eusebius used in Luke 24 ?

Andrew Criddle

Ken Olson
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:53 am

Andrew Criddle asked:
Do we know which text type Eusebius used in Luke 24 ?
I do not.

I was making the point that when Eusebius said Luke did not even mention the appearances of the Saviour, we should understand the statement within the context in which it was made, which was his discussion of the four tomb stories, and not as an absolute claim. Like when I look in the refrigerator and tell my girlfriend "There's no beer." The statement should be taken as applying to the refrigerator and not as a claim that beer does not exist.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

I Read it Somewhere (Yeah, I Wrote It Down And Then I Read It)

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:38 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqISX2o0a4A
Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:53 am
Andrew Criddle asked:
Do we know which text type Eusebius used in Luke 24 ?
I do not.

I was making the point that when Eusebius said Luke did not even mention the appearances of the Saviour, we should understand the statement within the context in which it was made, which was his discussion of the four tomb stories, and not as an absolute claim. Like when I look in the refrigerator and tell my girlfriend "There's no beer." The statement should be taken as applying to the refrigerator and not as a claim that beer does not exist.
JW:
Well that would explain why no one ever said what I said (even better evidence than Onomasticon is the Eusebian Canon which included the orthodox ending of GLuke). Before I add even more context (I got a fever and the only cure is more context) I find the following relationship interesting/not surprising =

Gospel GMark GLuke GMatthew GJohn Commentary
Verse - 24
13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem.
14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
28
8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.
20
11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;
12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
-
Distance from the Tomb to named resurrection sighting Infinity On the road to Emmaus On the way back from the Tomb At the Tomb 1. Note that subsequent orthodox Christian authors want to improve the supposed evidence/Fake News that Jesus was resurrected.
2. One way to do so is to shorten the distance between seeing Jesus go in and out of the Tomb.
3. The Table above shows the gradually shortening distance.
4. Interestingly, the table by itself suggests the Lukan ending as it stands was written earlier than the Matthean ending. Marcion?
5. Note the resistance in total in the Lukan ending to disciple belief in Jesus' resurrection thus staying much closer to the theme in everyone's source, GMark.
6. Did the author of Acts write/significantly edit Luke 24?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

davidmartin
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by davidmartin » Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:31 am

Playing along - A Marcionite or docetic Luke would be more comfortable with the road to Emmaus appearance where he appears in another form, suggesting that to be original
Let's suppose Marcion wasn't keen on the role of the women disciples, did he ever mention them? If he was a real Paul only guy, you could guess this as Paul never did either and he only names Peter, etc.
Thus, Luke 23:49 (minus the women addition) to 24:12 was added later, but even here the women's role is reduced:
Their words are called nonsense, Peter is required to check himself to rubber stamp it
24:22 - 24 also would be an addition, perfectly summarising what was added previously
What does this mean? Just that some early version of Luke was popular among a certain crowd and needed a little work to fit once it became clear Matthew on it's own was never going to work, and once gospel harmonies failed. Endearing is how i see it, it's cute and cuddly

Post Reply