'N what about Jairus' Daughter? Lazarus?

[Charles Wilson]

Romans 8: 29 (RSV):

[29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.

It's not only a matter of Paul finding out about a "Resurrection". What about Jarius' Daughter? Lazarus?
What are they? Props? Do they have to stand in the back of the line and be told, "Hey, you were raised from the dead but it didn't count. It only counts after Jesus has risen 'n he just got off the bus an hour ago. You'll have to wait a little while longer. It's just the way we do things around here..."

Over and over, the Time Line of "Jesus" in the 30s, "Paul" a few years later and then the Gospels (written by people who knew more than "Paul") is compromised.
"It could not have happened that way".

CW

[Bernard Muller]

The resurrections by Jesus were just inventions by the gospel authors. They were eager to "demonstrate" resurrection from the dead was very much possible (with Jesus proving it!). Also, for the same purpose, are Moses & Elijah appearing on the mountain and the "saints" who resurrect (before Jesus) in gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Ditto: what Bernard said.

Also, Lazarus and Jairus' daughter can in no way be said to have been resurrected with the kind of body that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is not (necessarily) saying that no one has ever been raised from the dead before; he is saying that no one had ever been raised to eternal life (an incorruptible body) before (= the "general resurrection").

[Charles Wilson]

I agree. We could discuss "Symbolic Constructs" all day long but the texts are interesting in their own ways.
"Lazarus" is unusual.

Hosea 6: 1 - 2 (RSV):

[1] "Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn, that he may heal us;
he has stricken, and he will bind us up.
[2] After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

On one interpretation of this, God may raise the dead up to the third day. Lazarus has been dead four days and "Jesus" can do something that god cannot do.
Even on a "Charitable Reading" of the "Miracle" with "Lazarus", was "Paul" actually unaware of this?

Thank you very much, Bernard.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Paul is not (necessarily) saying that no one has ever been raised from the dead before; he is saying that no one had ever been raised to eternal life (an incorruptible body) before (= the "general resurrection").

Ben-
Kinda' sounds like all of this was supposed to be Pre-Destinated, huh?
Then: What difference does it make if we have the Gospels or not? It becomes a "Just-So" Story.
The Cynics were correct. Judas was the Hero since was possessed by Satan and had no control over his actions - Jesus was the bad guy because he could have taken himself off the cross and did not.
Ritual Purity means (and meant) nothing.

It is simply and completely *Paul*. Nothing else matters. Maccoby was correct.

Best,

CW

[outhouse]

The resurrections by Jesus were just inventions by the gospel authors. They were eager to "demonstrate" resurrection from the dead was very much possible (with Jesus proving it!). Also, for the same purpose, are Moses & Elijah appearing on the mountain and the "saints" who resurrect (before Jesus) in gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

Not only that we see in Mark resurrection was not that big of a deal as it was barely even mentioned. It was not foundational at first.


I see a transition between a spiritual and a physical one.

[outhouse]

The Cynics were correct. Judas was the Hero

Everyone thought the gnostics stated that until a finer inspection proved otherwise in the late gospel of Judas.

But in the gospel traditions themselves, we see illusion in one book he was just doing the work that had to be done.

The differences show a possible core to the story before these later text were produced

[Charles Wilson]

Sidebar:

Mark 15: 39 (RSV):

[39] And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"
The End.

Outhouse: Y/N/M?

[outhouse]

Sidebar:

Mark 15: 39 (RSV):

[39] And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"
The End.

Outhouse: Y/N/M?

N


Fiction, but not the end.

Knowing it is a compilation makes It hard to rush into redaction or interpolation. On the surface it has a start and stop at that point, but not having the education to know the koine from the earliest traditions leaves me at a disadvantage to make the wisest decision.

[toejam]

For what it's worth:

While it's not the interpretation I think is most likely, one can certainly read Mark's version of the Jairus' daughter scene and walk away from it thinking that the girl wasn't dead. It comes down to how literally or cheekily one reads Jesus' comment, "the child is not dead but sleeping". Taken literally, Jesus is correcting those who think she has died. The changes that Matthew and Luke make to Mark are there to stress that (in their view) it really was a resurrection. Matthew and Luke don't want anyone interpreting it any other way. Consider the changes that they make:

* Luke adds that when Jairus' friends laugh at Jesus, they do so "because they knew she was dead"
* Luke adds that the girl's "spirit returned"

* Matthew has Jairus state straight up to Jesus that his daughter is dead and thus has no need for Jairus' friends to come an inform him later
* Matthew adds flute players to the crowd, implying that the commotion is the result of a funerary ritual, not just a group of concerned gatherers.
* Matthew also drops Mark's claim that Jesus told the family not to tell anyone and instead says the report spread throughout the district. This is because he doesn't want it to be thought of as some local schmocal rumor.