Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

There are those who accept that there is a Signs Gospel in John. I agree. I believe that there IS a Signs Gospel as well but it is for a different end. When applied and this different end is seen, the Signs Gospel takes on a new meaning that explains a great amount of material in the NT.

1. Jay Raskin, in his book, Christs and Christianities, sees a relationship between Mark and John and it is well worth exploring. I'll summarize it if necessary but take my word for it - It's straight forward and leads to the direction that Mark and John were cutting and pasting from the same Story. Where there was a gap in John, Mark fills in and where there is a gap in Mark, John fills in. Neat.

So, what is apparent IF this is true? Mark is written after the mid-90s since Mark refers to the "Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit is Domitian, the disembodied god who was damnatio-ed after his death. All signs, statues and mentions of "THAT person..." were forbidden or destroyed. By extension, Vespasian is the Father, Titus is the Son and the object of damnatio was the Holy Spirit - Domitian.

2. We have a fragment identified as from John circa 125 and that leaves the 2 early Gospels @ 25 - 30 years to be composed. There are sorta' Hold-Your-Nose ideas here if the Trinity is found AFTER Domitian is damned but Stalin was damnatio-ed by Khrushchev and there are people today who long for the stable days of Stalin so what do I know? In any event, there is some small group that is arranging something important and there are some important pieces to the puzzle that are missing. The Signs Gospel fills in part of the missing puzzle. IF...

3. IF the Signs Gospel fills in the blanks, the blanks filled in are concerned with another Subject and not a "Jesus". Here is where the bus stops for many. The Roman/Flavian Hypothesis is simply not convincing to many, especially here on this site. So, move on if need be. Provisionally, you might assume that there were Court Scribes who carried out a mission given to them. As I have pointed out, Scribes were much valued even through the Roman Period. Not everyone read, not everyone had access to manuscripts and fewer people wrote anything anyway. In ancient Sumer, Ebla was at war with Mari and the 2 city states still exchanged scribes.

4. The Signs Gospel, then, may have been for a different end. That end was initially the Glorification of the Flavians and most probably Titus. After the passing of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, the Glory passed on to others. There is much evidence to those who accept the Flavian Hypothesis that Domitian organized the material to his benefit. Within a few years of his death, the transformation was performed. There was a different Story that was spliced in to fill out the material and to hide the explicit glorification.

It was the Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood and a strange and very Noir Story of a Jewish Priest who survives by a miracle only to be crucified years later.

5. The Signs Gospel is anchored by reference to "Jesus" and his first "Sign". Please see Peter Kirby's http://www.earlychristianwritings.com and find the "Signs Gospel" material. It's plain and easy to follow. Where the skollers go wrong, however, is in assuming that the SG is about a "Jesus". They therefore mix the 2 Stories and cannot separate the Story of Titus from the Story of Peter and this leads them astray.

in http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/signs.html , we find a listing of SG verses. Here is where I would like you to separate the 2 Stories and see where Titus appears and where this hidden Story of Peter is mixed in:

John 1: 6, 19 - 23, 28 have been covered earlier in Posts I have given. This material is about someone who is John and he is of the Mishmarot Group "Bilgah". Bilgah committed an offense against the other Priestly Groups and, in a JOKE, is not worthy to untie the thong of "Jesus's" sandal. THIS "Jesus" is of the Service Group "Immer". The next section should be examined at another time except to note that "Bethsaida" => "Bezetha", right next to the Temple.

6. John 2: 1, 7 - 9, 11 is the first of the Titus Signs and it is marked in Josephus as when Titus obtained his "Onset". He kicks ass and takes names and the 6 bodies/jars of water mentioned in Josephus provide a backdrop for Titus turning the lake waters red with blood, making daddy Vespasian, as the "wine steward", most proud and providing a first step towards Diius Titus.

7. The Second Sign of Titus is in chapter 4. This also is found in Josephus. Titus is about to raze a city filled with seditionists. A group of people come to Titus and tell him that the seditionists have left and he does not have to destroy the city. Titus tells them that the city is spared.

8. The third Sign of Titus is in the odd chapter 21 and is the subject of much speculation. The explanation is simple. Titus is at Antonia and the last of the seditionists are in the Temple. He tells his troops to cast their net to the right and when they raze the Temple they kill those left and they burn down the Temple. Note that Josephus does his best to keep everyone from believing it was Titus who burned the Temple to the ground. Sure.

Also note that Titus prepares a fire and fries some fish for the disciples. Compare that with the Set Piece in Mark and elsewhere where Peter is inside the Courtyard warming himself at a charcoal fire. This is a Symbol and it means that some group is getting massacred.

9. John 6 is from the Story that has been suppressed. It is the Story of Peter, not Titus. The 5 loaves and the 2 fish are probably the Pentateuch and the 2 Teachers who were immolated at the Golden Eagle incident. The "Calming of the Seas" is found most explicitly in Mark where Jesus is sleeping on cushions in the stern of the boat. "Are we to drown, for all you care?" state the disciples. Definitely and positively from the Story of Peter.

Am I moving too fast?

10. The John 11 passage is one of the most important sections in all of the NT and it is most certainly a rewrite of the Peter Story, rewritten to proclaim Titus. Again, see the Posts I gave on this most important chapter!

11. The John 9 section is a reference to...Vespasian! His Court Sycophants wrote of him in several places. Compare with Tacitus, Histories. " 'N who is this Mucianus guy that Tacitus writes about? Is he important or sumpin'?" Most definitely, "YES!".

12. The next section covers John 5 and it is a TIME MARKER! (Notice the city is "...called in Hebrew Beth-Zatha". Onward to "Bethsaida"!). This is most certainly not Titus. It is Hyrcanus 2 who is shunted from his High Priest position into death - a Hasmonean killed by Herod. This introduces another Theme into the NT. The Promises made to the Hasmoneans, of the House of Eleazar, are to be taken from them and given to the "New Priesthood" of ROME.

Twelve sections are a lot to look at and they sometimes appear as bare assertions but they can be cross-checked with Josephus, Tacitus and others.

The Romans did it. Once the Transvaluations are made, the meanings that originally accrued are lost. " 'mmr-Yah" may mean "Lamb of Yah" or "Lamb of God" or simply "Lord" but when the words are translated into Greek, those word plays are lost. "Jesus" is now the "Lamb of God" and he will raise the Temple in 3 days after it is destroyed. "What day did Passover begin on...what year? And when was the Sabbath? Which Mishmarot Group was on duty?" LOST.

"You must be born again" may make a stirring oration in Christian Church but if Nicodemus, a "Ruler of the Jews", misunderstood an idiom that stretches back centuries to a word like "amargi" then there is evidence that the NT authors didn't get it either. They were first constructing an Honor for their Caesars to obtain worship from an obstinate race of people. Then, the Transvaluation. Its success came in fits and starts. Then, when the original Time Markers and Story Lines are forgotten...Success. But, as always...What Price Victory?

More later,

CW

Rough proof by alignment for the First Sign being Titus' first battle at Tarichiae:

John 2:

[1] On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
[2] Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
[3] When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
[4] And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
[5] His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
[6] Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
[7] Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
[8] He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
[11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Verse one is full of "Could be's" but I will not cover those now.

V. 2: If "Jesus" is a cipher for "Titus" here, this marks a Symbolic Turn for the events described by Josephus in Wars..., Book 3, Chapter 10. Let's see:
3, 10, 1: "...But Vespasian hearing that a great multitude of them were gotten together in the plain that was before the city, he thereupon sent his son, with six hundred chosen horsemen, to disperse them."

V. 3: They have no wine. Uh-Oh. Like warming yourself on a charcoal fire, beware being on the wrong side of the Conflagration.
3, 10, 1 gives a little listing of some skirmishes and little more. Sides are being laid out and Vespasian is about to be proud of his son.

V.4: Obviously a look at a "Jesus" telling "Mother" that his time has not yet come but...
3, 10, 2: "...But when Titus perceived that the enemy was very numerous, he sent to his father, and informed him that he should want more forces. But as he saw a great many of the horsemen eager to fight, and that before any succors could come to them, and that yet some of them were privately under a sort of consternation at the multitude of the Jews, he stood in a place whence he might be heard, and said to them..."

So Titus wants to wait for Daddy to send more troops. Titus, however, SEES. His troops are ready to kill all of the Jews they encounter. It is here that Titus gives an oration and I'm sure that Josephus' Recorders were turned on to get every word exactly as pronounced.

"My brave Romans! for it is right for me to put you in mind of what nation you are, in the beginning of my speech, that so you may not be ignorant who you are, and who they are against whom we are going to fight...And I cannot but think this an opportunity wherein my father, and I, and you shall be all put to the trial, whether he be worthy of his former glorious performances, whether I be his son in reality, and whether you be really my soldiers; for it is usual for my father to conquer; and for myself, I should not bear the thoughts of returning to him if I were once taken by the enemy...Do not you therefore desert me, but persuade yourselves that God will be assisting to my onset."

3, 10, 2: "As Titus was saying this, an extraordinary fury fell upon the men..."

V.5: "Do whatever he tells you".
V.6: There were 6 stone jars for the rites of Jewish Purification. From my side of the fence, I almost always react when I see the pure Cynicism with which this was all written - "Jewish Purification". Grit. My. Teeth.

Josephus then lists six lakes. They are:
1. Gennesraeth.
2. Panium.
3. Phiala.
4. Semechonitis
5. Lake Asphaltitis
6. "Capharnaum".

There are Stories attached to most of these and they make for interesting reading, from Phiala full up to its edges and this interesting note concerning the lengthy description of Caphernaum:
"Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria..." REALLY?!??

V. 7: "Fill the jars with water...". The battle will be ended on water. Titus then leads the way, grinding everyone under his heels, killing everyone he encounters.

3, 10, 4 and 5: " Fellow soldiers, now is the time; and why do we make any delay, when God is giving up the Jews to us? Take the victory which is given you: do not you hear what a noise they make? Those that have escaped our hands are ill an uproar against one another. We have the city if we make haste; but besides haste, we must undergo some labor, and use some courage; for no great thing uses to be accomplished without danger: accordingly, we must not only prevent their uniting again, which necessity will soon compel them to do, but we must also prevent the coming of our own men to our assistance, that, as few as we are, we may conquer so great a multitude, and may ourselves alone take the city:"

5. As soon as ever Titus had said this, he leaped upon his horse, and rode apace down to the lake; by which lake he marched, and entered into the city the first of them all, as did the others soon after him..."

[8] He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

"Hereupon Titus sent one of his horsemen to his father, and let him know the good news of what he had done; at which, as was natural, he was very joyful, both on account of the courage and glorious actions of his son; for he thought that now the greatest part of the war was over. He then came thither himself, and set men to guard the city, and gave them command to take care that nobody got privately out of it, but to kill such as attempted so to do. And on the next day he went down to the lake, and commanded that vessels should be fitted up, in order to pursue those that had escaped in the ships. These vessels were quickly gotten ready accordingly, because there was great plenty of materials, and a great number of artificers also..."

So, Vespasian, the "Wine Steward", ends with the capture of Tarichiae.

OH! The "Water into Wine"?: "

But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them...As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands..."

"...one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped..."

[11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.


CW

Josephus was a commander in Galilee. Do you think that affects this too?

Apples and oranges.

But whatever, dude...

Charles Wilson wrote:3. IF the Signs Gospel fills in the blanks, the blanks filled in are concerned with another Subject and not a "Jesus". Here is where the bus stops for many. The Roman/Flavian Hypothesis is simply not convincing to many, especially here on this site. So, move on if need be. Provisionally, you might assume that there were Court Scribes who carried out a mission given to them. As I have pointed out, Scribes were much valued even through the Roman Period. Not everyone read, not everyone had access to manuscripts and fewer people wrote anything anyway. In ancient Sumer, Ebla was at war with Mari and the 2 city states still exchanged scribes.

My problem with "Jesus was Titus" is that in the Roman empire there was already a Roman religion and a Roman imperial culta nd the most famous of the caesars was Julius, so that he would be the best candidate for protagonist of the "new" religion.

Does Titus cross a river somewhere? Does Titus get crucified, at least as a wax effigy? Is Titus assassinated the day of his coronation? Does Titus have a funeral similar to that of Julius? I think all those questions matter.

Since the emperors Josephus knew were the Flavians, he might have compared them to Julius, and that might have influenced Josephus's writings but that still does not make the Flavians the same as Julius.

Charles Wilson wrote:Rough proof by alignment for the First Sign being Titus' first battle at Tarichiae:

John 2:

[1] On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
[2] Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
[3] When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
[4] And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
[5] His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."
[6] Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.
[7] Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.
[8] He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."
[11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

Verse one is full of "Could be's" but I will not cover those now.

V. 2: If "Jesus" is a cipher for "Titus" here, this marks a Symbolic Turn for the events described by Josephus in Wars..., Book 3, Chapter 10. Let's see:
3, 10, 1: "...But Vespasian hearing that a great multitude of them were gotten together in the plain that was before the city, he thereupon sent his son, with six hundred chosen horsemen, to disperse them."

V. 3: They have no wine. Uh-Oh. Like warming yourself on a charcoal fire, beware being on the wrong side of the Conflagration.
3, 10, 1 gives a little listing of some skirmishes and little more. Sides are being laid out and Vespasian is about to be proud of his son.

V.4: Obviously a look at a "Jesus" telling "Mother" that his time has not yet come but...
3, 10, 2: "...But when Titus perceived that the enemy was very numerous, he sent to his father, and informed him that he should want more forces. But as he saw a great many of the horsemen eager to fight, and that before any succors could come to them, and that yet some of them were privately under a sort of consternation at the multitude of the Jews, he stood in a place whence he might be heard, and said to them..."

So Titus wants to wait for Daddy to send more troops. Titus, however, SEES. His troops are ready to kill all of the Jews they encounter. It is here that Titus gives an oration and I'm sure that Josephus' Recorders were turned on to get every word exactly as pronounced.

"My brave Romans! for it is right for me to put you in mind of what nation you are, in the beginning of my speech, that so you may not be ignorant who you are, and who they are against whom we are going to fight...And I cannot but think this an opportunity wherein my father, and I, and you shall be all put to the trial, whether he be worthy of his former glorious performances, whether I be his son in reality, and whether you be really my soldiers; for it is usual for my father to conquer; and for myself, I should not bear the thoughts of returning to him if I were once taken by the enemy...Do not you therefore desert me, but persuade yourselves that God will be assisting to my onset."

3, 10, 2: "As Titus was saying this, an extraordinary fury fell upon the men..."

V.5: "Do whatever he tells you".
V.6: There were 6 stone jars for the rites of Jewish Purification. From my side of the fence, I almost always react when I see the pure Cynicism with which this was all written - "Jewish Purification". Grit. My. Teeth.

Josephus then lists six lakes. They are:
1. Gennesraeth.
2. Panium.
3. Phiala.
4. Semechonitis
5. Lake Asphaltitis
6. "Capharnaum".

There are Stories attached to most of these and they make for interesting reading, from Phiala full up to its edges and this interesting note concerning the lengthy description of Caphernaum:
"Some have thought it to be a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as well as that lake does which is near to Alexandria..." REALLY?!??

V. 7: "Fill the jars with water...". The battle will be ended on water. Titus then leads the way, grinding everyone under his heels, killing everyone he encounters.

3, 10, 4 and 5: " Fellow soldiers, now is the time; and why do we make any delay, when God is giving up the Jews to us? Take the victory which is given you: do not you hear what a noise they make? Those that have escaped our hands are ill an uproar against one another. We have the city if we make haste; but besides haste, we must undergo some labor, and use some courage; for no great thing uses to be accomplished without danger: accordingly, we must not only prevent their uniting again, which necessity will soon compel them to do, but we must also prevent the coming of our own men to our assistance, that, as few as we are, we may conquer so great a multitude, and may ourselves alone take the city:"

5. As soon as ever Titus had said this, he leaped upon his horse, and rode apace down to the lake; by which lake he marched, and entered into the city the first of them all, as did the others soon after him..."

[8] He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast." So they took it.
[9] When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom
[10] and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

"Hereupon Titus sent one of his horsemen to his father, and let him know the good news of what he had done; at which, as was natural, he was very joyful, both on account of the courage and glorious actions of his son; for he thought that now the greatest part of the war was over. He then came thither himself, and set men to guard the city, and gave them command to take care that nobody got privately out of it, but to kill such as attempted so to do. And on the next day he went down to the lake, and commanded that vessels should be fitted up, in order to pursue those that had escaped in the ships. These vessels were quickly gotten ready accordingly, because there was great plenty of materials, and a great number of artificers also..."

So, Vespasian, the "Wine Steward", ends with the capture of Tarichiae.

OH! The "Water into Wine"?: "

But now, when the vessels were gotten ready, Vespasian put upon ship-board as many of his forces as he thought sufficient to be too hard for those that were upon the lake, and set sail after them...As for those that endeavored to come to an actual fight, the Romans ran many of them through with their long poles. Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands..."

"...one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped..."

[11] This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.


CW

This is really exciting stuff. It reminds me of amateur astrologers making all sorts of "gee" "wow" "oh man" "that's so true!" discoveries in their horoscopes.

neilgodfrey wrote:This is really exciting stuff. It reminds me of amateur astrologers making all sorts of "gee" "wow" "oh man" "that's so true!" discoveries in their horoscopes.

Like when you re-read your own stuff, I suppose.

Lookit. It's not "Jesus was Titus", ghost. My point here is that there was a Signs Gospel. I believe the original "Signs" came from an attempt to glorify Titus and the Flavians. You can read Atwill if you wish but I'm not Atwill and my work is not Feuerbach to Hegel to Marx.

There was another Story and it was the Story of Peter. It was dismembered and rewritten. It appears that Bultman in 1941 saw the Signs Gospel as a Primary Source of John. He did not know of Peter's Mishmarot Story and therefore his and subsequent work has worked on a Story that has been merged from 2 sources. When you assume that there was a Jesus who appeared as he appears in the NT, you will make those kinds of mistakes. I don't make that mistake and I have made progress. Although it is easy at times to reason incorrectly to correct results, my work has ended exploring a real community that was inhabited by people who believed in the Priestly Order, were of the Mishmarot Group "Immer" and believed that the Hasmoneans came from them and left records singing their praises. That Settlement was "Jabnit", in Upper Galilee. REAL. Empirical work leading to empirical ends.

Neil, that was shameful. You don't like what I write? Don't read it. Since you cannot critique it, don't read it.

"Doctor, it hurts when I read Charlie's material."
"DON'T READ CHARLIE'S MATERIAL."

CW

Jay Raskin's The Evolution of Christs and Christianities

Linkage of Mark and John

Jay Raskin's excellent book has an extremely important point to make in discussing both Mark and John. Dr. Raskin finds that there is material that does not make sense in isolation but does make sense if the authors of Mark and John had a common source from which they both cut and pasted material.

In the Section "Why did the three Women Come to the Tomb?", Dr. Raskin looks at problems in the essential descriptions of the Burial of Jesus as recorded in Mark:

"Let us step back for a moment. The changes that Mark made in the earlier tomb story are important. These changes present some serious difficulties to plausibility...The first problem is the unanointed body of Jesus lying in the tomb throughout the Sabbath Day.

"...we may ask why the women did not anoint Jesus with spices before his entombment. If Joeseph had time to buy linen, why did the women not have time to buy spices to anoint the body?...

"The women should have anointed Jesus' body before he was buried. This ceremony does not take place. The women should have anointed Jesus' body when they hurried to the tomb. The ceremony again does not take place. Mark has perhaps suggested that the women missed their first appointment to perform a ceremony with Jesus' dead body, due to the coming of the Sabbath and the need to quickly bury Jesus. They missed their second appointment because they arrived too late at the tomb and Jesus had already risen.

"It seems that Mark does not want the women seeing and testifying to Jesus' resurrection. It also seems Mark does not want the women cleaning Jesus' dead body. We may suspect that in an earlier story, Jesus' body was cleaned, probably by Mary. We may also suspect the women did keep their appointment to see the resurrected Jesus, or at least Mary did. This is exactly what we find in the Gospel of John...".

Dr. Raskin then "fills in the blanks". He quotes a section of John, Chapters 19 and 20, verses 38 - 42 and 20: 1 - 18. He notes the incompleteness of John's narrative. He cites four problems:
1. "Mary does not have a reason for going to the tomb and how does she know where the tomb is?"
2. "She sees that the stone has been removed from the entrance, but how did she know that there was a stone in the first place?"
3. "She says, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know there they have put him." How does Mary immediately know that the Lord's body is not in the tomb without going inside.
4. Why does she use the pronoun "we" when she was alone in seeing the tomb?

Dr. Raskin's work involves analysis of directing movies and film and seeing the Plausible Scene. An awkward scene is an indicator of revision and, in the case of the Gospels, redaction. Dr. Raskin takes the measure of Mark and John and remakes a plausible scene from the fragments of Mark and John.

John 19: 38 - 42 (RSV):

[38] After this Joseph of Arimathe'a, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body.
[39] Nicode'mus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight.
[40] They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid.
[42] So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Mark 15: 47, 16: 1 - 2:

[47] Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
...
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
...

"We should notice how well the text from Mark fits within the text of John at this point.This could hardly be accidental. The way they fit helps us to understand how both the Gospel of John and Mark developed.

"The Modus Operandi of Mark and the Earlier Gospel of John"

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb, but does not have the spices being place with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would be necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for two such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text from a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."
***
This is sterling work. Argue some point of minutiae if you must but please see that this is quite a realistic formulation based on the evidence in the text. Dr. Raskin's training has served him well. The created Plausible Scene points to what has been stated here. The Gospels are a Construction from earlier Source Material, much of it Semitic in origin. There were Stories that were dismembered and re-written for another Purpose.

If we can take this step in seeing a Construction, we may have other Source Clues as to the Original Story. BTW, I seldom quote Atwill on this site but he is worth examining here for one idea he presents: If you follow the sun in the four Gospel accounts, it is possible to put the entire Tomb Scene into a non-contradictory framework. Before sunrise, dawn, daybreak, day. It echoes another of Dr. Raskin's themes, that this may have come from a Play, a Play written by a female.

Jay Raskin's book is important.

CW

PS: I may have something important to add in a day or two on John, Mark and the Story of Lazarus - and the tomb. There is something else in the Tomb Story before it gets reconstructed to a story of Jesus. "Who's tomb is it, anyway?" Hint: It ain't Jesus'...