Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,
Can you give me the passage you translated, in its original French?
If you have the book digitalized on your computer, can you provide me a copy?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

to Giuseppe,
Can you give me the passage you translated, in its original French?

ok.

[davidmartin]

One of the main conclusion of my research was to find out the like of Peter and James never believed Jesus was Christ, was resurrected, etc. Also even Paul did not call the members of the Church of Jerusalem, "in Christ", "in the Lord" or even simply "brothers".
For seeing all my arguments and supporting clues: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
In case you wonder how Christianity started and became a religion after the crucifixion, despite the eyewitnesses being not Christians, see http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

So far, I did not find any NT/early_Christianity critical author who would agree with me on that matter. I don't take any pride being on my own of this. Rather, I would prefer to find other(s) supporting my views.

Can members of this forum be able to help me here?

Cordially, Bernard

I'm assuming your separating Pauline style Christianity from an earlier Jerusalem Nazarene phase?

your problem is going to be Mary M here
her testimony provides that Pauline link
if you discount it you have another problem - why manufacture eyewitness accounts with only women's testimony?

[Ben C. Smith]

why manufacture eyewitness accounts with only women's testimony?

One reason would be to explain why the reader has never heard the empty tomb story before. Nobody knew about it except hysterical women (their possible value judgment, not mine), who did not tell anybody (at least for a very long time).

It is similar to how in Daniel 12.4 the angel instructs Daniel to keep the contents of the scroll sealed until "the end," thus explaining why nobody had ever heard of this text written by Daniel until now.

(Credit Ken Olson for the parallel with Daniel.)

[davidmartin]

why manufacture eyewitness accounts with only women's testimony?

One reason would be to explain why the reader has never heard the empty tomb story before. Nobody knew about it except hysterical women (their possible value judgment, not mine), who did not tell anybody (at least for a very long time).

It is similar to how in Daniel 12.4 the angel instructs Daniel to keep the contents of the scroll sealed until "the end," thus explaining why nobody had ever heard of this text written by Daniel until now.

(Credit Ken Olson for the parallel with Daniel.)

that's what Celsus thought i guessed you were hinting in that direction when you mentioned hysterical women!
i think it's pretty solid ground to say the testimony of a woman or women would be difficult to present to the world in that era, especially in the miraculous circumstances
if so then it's a big old question to ask, why?
There is differences between the gospels and difficulty around how Mark ends in this area
There's Paul's account too that if original is a problem (why do later gospels not say Peter was the initial witness) and it's still a problem if the reference in Paul is a latter addition (then it contradicts the earlier gospels)

The most logical thing i can think of is that there was an early tradition of women doing stuff and playing key roles
what we see then, is the end result of this being toned down and put in other contexts, for example Mary simply passes a message on whereas before she may have been an evangelist (a bit like Thekla)
it's less surprising if women are reduced from greater to less, than for unexpected roles to be introduced later on in the tradition
i'm not saying this lends any greater historical value to the resurrection accounts as such but it does introduce a potential historical tradition that is prior to Acts and support a historical Jesus and Jewish origins maybe
ps i wouldn't be surprised if Roman society had greater problems with women than Jewish society, the portrayal of women i've read in Roman writings has been very strange and bizarre, way less respectful is what it looks like anyway. i doubt this is going to be very helpful observation

[Bernard Muller]

to davidmartin,

I'm assuming your separating Pauline style Christianity from an earlier Jerusalem Nazarene phase?

your problem is going to be Mary M here
her testimony provides that Pauline link
if you discount it you have another problem - why manufacture eyewitness accounts with only women's testimony?

I don't think Mary M (if she ever existed) provided Paul with information. She was, according to gMark, among the women who never divulged the empty tomb.
As for your question, first I have good reasons to think the women at the empty tomb passage was not written by "Mark", but soon after the gospel was completed (at 15:39) by another writer.
What are my reasons: Look at http://historical-jesus.info/79.html
My overall conclusion is that the empty tomb (15:40 to 16:8) is total fiction.

What you are assuming is true, except that the church of Jerusalem Galilean leaders were never Christians, but before the Greek dispersion (Acts 8:1), that church was led by Jewish proto-Christians, as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

The most logical thing i can think of is that there was an early tradition of women doing stuff and playing key roles
what we see then, is the end result of this being toned down and put in other contexts, for example Mary simply passes a message on whereas before she may have been an evangelist (a bit like Thekla)

In the abstract, as a possible reconstruction, that makes perfect sense, and I think something similar to this happened, for instance, in Pauline churches. Women had some power in the early charismatic context and were later put (back) in their place.

In the concrete, however, I have found it not to be very likely in the case of the empty tomb. Saying nothing to anyone is not playing a role: it is refusing to play a role, and the cover story explanation makes perfect sense of that refusal. So, in other words, while I have zero difficulty imagining that at least some of the women named in the Marcan burial and resurrection account were actually early and influential leaders in the movement, the Marcan burial and resurrection account itself is not evidence of that; the women come off, rather, as the reason why the story was new to its readers.

[Giuseppe]

Note that the women at the empty tomb are a midrash from this source.

[Giuseppe]

Bernard, can you send via mp an email where I will send the digitalized copy of the book ?

[Giuseppe]

It's a historicist who is talking:

En ce qui concerne le crucifiement, le récit de Marc en raison des obscurités, des anomalies, des contradictions et des impossibilités qu'il recèle, présente le caractère classique d'une affabulation privée de toute trace d'historicité. S'il ne s'agissait pas de l'un des ouvrages ayant servi de base à toute une civilisation, il ne se trouverait personne pour lui attribuer une créance supérieure à celle que l'on peut accorder à des textes tels que Lancelot du Lac ou Huon de Bordeaux.

Du point de vue purement historique, rien ne permet d'affirmer avec sécurité que Jésus a été crucifié.

(ibid., p. 141)