Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Nov 15, 2020 1:33 pm Yet, I cannot use him, a socialist career politician, on what look to be biased opinions

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pmThe 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.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pmThe 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.

that makes sense to me Ben and thankyou, it's almost a separate question on women's role and resurrection accounts as we got them
i'm working on a hypothesis that it was Paul's gospel that was the motivation behind the empty tomb narrative (and also the last supper communion).
Such gospels then become acceptable in churches based on Paul's theology. But the gospels were coming in from outside originally or at least the gospels themselves or their sources for the empty tomb came in from outside
This would introduce certain possibilities:
1. Some lessor differences in theology or facts (first witness Peter vs Mary) might sneak in even if different to Paul's gospel
2. Greater differences in theology could be hinted at by wrapping things up in allegory or some other pattern intentionally

The difference in Mary's role between Mark and John (where a thinly disguised Mary at the well goes off preaching) is early church politics maybe over something they thought was historical, and i struggle to see as purely a literary invention even if it was partially that.
This would lead to a basic historical reconstruction of original missionary activity associated with Mary, that later got embedded in the gospel story. If that were the case then this is different from the Acts account where the base is Peter instead, so Bernard thinks Peter was the original just like Acts yet the gospels say it was Mary if you go back far enough and had that original conviction the messiah had arrived

and Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he is laid.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 2:36 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:28 pm

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:13 pmThe 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.

that makes sense to me Ben and thankyou, it's almost a separate question on women's role and resurrection accounts as we got them
i'm working on a hypothesis that it was Paul's gospel that was the motivation behind the empty tomb narrative (and also the last supper communion).

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.

lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.

Might that be intended as a contrived means whereby to bring a budding movement with potential negative ramifications for Rome to a close? To "nip it in the bud" by "burying it", so to speak?

I.E., was Mark's intent in writing what eventually became a 'Gospel' to begin or to end a budding religious movement?

lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 6:26 am Either way, my suspicion is that the crucifixion once served as the end of the gospel story.

Might that be intended as a contrived means whereby to bring a budding movement with potential negative ramifications for Rome to a close? To "nip it in the bud" by "burying it", so to speak?

I.E., was Mark's intent in writing what eventually became a 'Gospel' to begin or to end a budding religious movement?