Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to Ben,

It sounds like you are saying that Jesus really rose after 40 hours, or at least that his tomb was found empty after 40 hours. But I know you consider the empty tomb story to be a fiction. So where did the idea come from that Jesus rose after about 40 hours?

I tentatively explained that from the point of view of the interpolator at the beginning of http://historical-jesus.info/79.html.
That interpolator did not care about the fact "Mark" had Jesus predicting after 3 days (three times). More, that interpolator did not bother to indicate when Jesus resurrected: nothing in the narration of the empty tomb shows the resurrection happened right before the women arrived at the tomb.
The interpolator had his narration look to be a matter of fact account of a past true event, with nothing extraordinary (the young man looks to be an angel, but is not declared as such). He explained that Jesus was certified dead even if he had been on the cross for a relatively short time. He showed the women having concern about opening the tomb. He explained why the women would go to the tomb. and one step further, why they had to wait about 40 hours in order to do so.
The later fits well with the interpolator trying to be realistic throughout his story.

Cordially, Bernard

Of possible relevance to Hosea 6.2 is 2 Kings 20.4-5:


The Descent of Inana has "after three days and three nights", apparently:

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

It sounds like you are saying that Jesus really rose after 40 hours, or at least that his tomb was found empty after 40 hours. But I know you consider the empty tomb story to be a fiction. So where did the idea come from that Jesus rose after about 40 hours?

I tentatively explained that from the point of view of the interpolator at the beginning of http://historical-jesus.info/79.html.
That interpolator did not care about the fact "Mark" had Jesus predicting after 3 days (three times). More, that interpolator did not bother to indicate when Jesus resurrected: nothing in the narration of the empty tomb shows the resurrection happened right before the women arrived at the tomb.
The interpolator had his narration look to be a matter of fact account of a past true event, with nothing extraordinary (the young man looks to be an angel, but is not declared as such). He explained that Jesus was certified dead even if he had been on the cross for a relatively short time. He showed the women having concern about opening the tomb. He explained why the women would go to the tomb. and one step further, why they had to wait about 40 hours in order to do so.
The later fits well with the interpolator trying to be realistic throughout his story.

Okay, fair enough. You have explained yourself. You have "after three days" deriving from ancient thought about how long a time in the grave means "really, really dead," and I tend to agree with you on that (as we found out before in one of our conversations). You have "on the third day" deriving from a reading of Mark that came about simply because the interpolator of the tomb story was trying to make things work out realistically. I will stipulate that such a scenario is possible.

It is not, however, my preferred scenario. And I think your hypothesis involving the interpolator's motives, which you yourself characterize as tentative, is a bit weak.

I think that, among early Christians (not just Mark), "after three days" derives from ancient thought about being dead (as you do); and I think that, among early Christians (not just people reading Mark's interpolated gospel), "on the third day" was a reflection of Hosea 6.2, which uses a word for standing up that is frequently used of resurrection, and which specifically says that the collective is being raised up in order to live (before God). That sounds like a resurrection, and it is certainly close enough to inspire some of the convoluted speculations in which the early Christians engaged.

It is not just any old error that leads a collective "we" to be read as pertaining to the Messiah. The "we" happens to be Israel, and the Messiah embodies and represents Israel. Just as the Suffering Servant is Israel, but was interpreted as the Messiah, so this "we" is Israel, and is being interpreted as the Messiah. The early Christians were not after only prooftexts; they were after patterns. And the Messiah fulfilling and representing Israel and all that Israel means is one of the most commonly exploited patterns.

I suspect that most of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is an interpolation. But I think that the original text contained the third day but lacked the scriptures: "I have delivered unto you before all things that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day." This is our best stab at the Marcionite text. And all the appearances are probably absent, just as you think, Bernard. You would remove everything including the burial and the third day here, but I would leave this bit in because I have a textual basis for it. (That Marcion did not freely compose both the gospel and the epistles is evidenced, incidentally, by the fact that this epistle has "on the third day" whereas the gospel has, according to Epiphanius, "after three days" in Luke 9.22.)

So Paul has "the third day", in my judgment, and I think he has it from Hosea 6.2 or the like. Later Christians recognized this and specified that the third day was announced in the scriptures. Other Christians had "after three days". The two were bound to collide, and we see the rubble all over the gospels. (Matthew, for example, has both "three days and three nights" in the saying about Jonah and "the third day" elsewhere.)

I am happier with that reconstruction than I am with yours. But I doubt I am finished with it yet, and who knows? It may not be correct at all and have to be thrown away at some point. But it looks decent enough for now, at any rate.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:Okay, fair enough. You have explained yourself. You have "after three days" deriving from ancient thought about how long a time in the grave means "really, really dead," and I tend to agree with you on that (as we found out before in one of our conversations). You have "on the third day" deriving from a reading of Mark that came about simply because the interpolator of the tomb story was trying to make things work out realistically. I will stipulate that such a scenario is possible.
---
I suspect that most of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is an interpolation. But I think that the original text contained the third day

Incipit Mark. The scriptures said "after three days", Paul said "on the third day". What should Mark do if he wished to follow both? Maybe operating with two verbs and the need that the father must wake up his son a bit earlier because of the women?

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:Okay, fair enough. You have explained yourself. You have "after three days" deriving from ancient thought about how long a time in the grave means "really, really dead," and I tend to agree with you on that (as we found out before in one of our conversations). You have "on the third day" deriving from a reading of Mark that came about simply because the interpolator of the tomb story was trying to make things work out realistically. I will stipulate that such a scenario is possible.
---
I suspect that most of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is an interpolation. But I think that the original text contained the third day

Incipit Mark. The scriptures said "after three days", Paul said "on the third day". What should Mark do if he wished to follow both? Maybe operating with two verbs and the need that the father must wake up his son a bit earlier because of the women?

Which scriptures do you have in mind which had "after three days"?

Let's not forget Niger of Perera mentioned by Josephus, who is also discovered alive in a cave "on the third day" after being thought incinerated, his survival being seen by many as a sign of his vindication from Yahweh. Seems the "on the third day" was a common story-telling trope.

toejam wrote:Let's not forget Niger of Perera mentioned by Josephus, who is also discovered alive in a cave "on the third day" after being thought incinerated, his survival being seen by many as a sign of his vindication from Yahweh. Seems the "on the third day" was a common story-telling trope.

Nice point. Josephus, Jewish War 2.3.2 §22-27:

to Ben,
I think your reconstruction contains a lot of ill-evidenced assumptions, some stacked on each other:
1) the "we" in Hosea 6:2 can stand for Israel.
2) the Messiah embodies Israel.
3) therefore Christ can be "we".

Then you look at the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. But where does it say he is a Messiah and Israel?
And you treat gMarcion as a reference. Highly debatable.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
I think your reconstruction contains a lot of ill-evidenced assumptions, some stacked on each other:
1) the "we" in Hosea 6:2 can stand for Israel.

I would say that the "we" is more a "faithful remnant" of Israel than just "Israel", plain and simple, but the same idea applies. To whom does the "we" in Hosea 6.2 refer if not to (the faithful remnant of) Israel? Read 6.1-2:


Then compare 7.1:

2) the Messiah embodies Israel.
3) therefore Christ can be "we".

Then you look at the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53. But where does it say he is a Messiah and Israel?

Christians said he was the Messiah. Isaiah seemed to say that he was the faithful remnant of Israel whose suffering would redeem the whole of the nation. Isaiah 48.20; 49.3:


Compare Isaiah 53.11...:


...with its interpretation in Daniel 12.3:


These are the faithful remnant, the martyrs slain during the distress of Daniel 12.1, the ones also described in 11.33.

This collective interpretation of the Servant who will "justify many" continued. Origen, Against Celsus 55 (right after the quotation of Isaiah 53 in Against Celsus 54):

And you treat gMarcion as a reference. Highly debatable.

And you ignore Marcion as a reference. Highly debatable.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
I think your reconstruction contains a lot of ill-evidenced assumptions, some stacked on each other:
1) the "we" in Hosea 6:2 can stand for Israel.

To whom does the "we" in Hosea 6.2 refer if not to Israel? Read 6.1-2:

1 Come, let us return to the Lord.
For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
2 “He will revive us after two days;
He will raise us up on the third day,
That we may live before Him.

Hosea 4 & Hosea 5 are titled, according to BibleGate's ESV, 'The Lord Accuses Israel' and 'Punishment Coming for Israel and Judah', respectively.