Mark Goodacre thinks that Matthew and Luke made up the empty tomb story.
Mark speaks of a complete Jewish tomb with different ossuaries. Something similar to the Talpiot Tomb discovered in 1980 five kilometers south of the Old City in East Jerusalem and containing ten ossuaries.
The man points a niche to the women who came to find the body of Jesus.
“As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him.“
Matthew and Luke are concerned about this story. What if the man points to a wrong niche since there are other bodies inside? What if people reason about that, and the overall narration brings more doubts than confirmations?
They both solve the problem stressing out that the tomb was new and never used before.
Matthew: “And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. […] He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.“
Luke: ” They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they didn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. […] But Peter ran to the tomb. When he bent over to look inside, he saw only the linen cloth. Then he returned home, wondering what had happened.”
The Farrer hypothesis solves logically the textual problem of the different accounts, but Matthew, Luke, and Mark are at odd with each other.
RE: 1 Crinthians 15:3-11 (discussed at 6 min. 18 sec.) there is the possibility of interpolation as argued ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Corinthians and Ephesians 3:8 are the two places “Paul” calls himself “least”. If an interpolation, it may be dated at the same time as Ephesians.
I beg to differ.
In fact, on the opposite, I deny all your analysis.
I said: “Matthew and Luke made up the empty tomb story.”
What does “make up” means? It means: “to invent an explanation for something, especially to avoid being punished.” Or embarrassment.
Goodacre explains it very plainly.
Then I stated: “The Farrer hypothesis solves logically the textual problem of the different accounts, but Matthew, Luke, and Mark are at odds with each other.”
It’s not about Q, but the very fact that each redactor of each gospel has a different agenda, (Bart Erhman says this over and over ’till you feel nauseated), and the outcome is very clear.
I didn’t speak of John, since the Farrer hypothesis deals with Synoptics.
So let put him aside.
Matthew and Luke’s reaction is bound to be different since each one has a different identity, but for the sake of the argument, both don’t align with the idea of a tomb with different burials.
I mean, what is wrong with you guys?
I say A. I discuss A. I give references about A and documentation about A.
Then you come and say B.
The excuse is: “I merely provided additional background information,” or “I wasn’t trying to relate it to your point.”
I feel like the man driving on the highway. His wife calls him on his cell phone, and worried says: be careful! I just heard on the radio that a madman is driving the wrong way on Route 280!
The man replies: I know, but there isn’t just one, there are hundreds!
There is nothing wrong with being mad as long as you know how you are.
And what I do on purpose, it seems it is given here for free.
“As Lao Tsu would say: to show an isomorphism, it is often easier to define a natural transformation between ten thousand arrows than it is to find a pair of arrows between two objects.” (cit)
It is Luke and Mark that are adding something to Matthew to rule out the possibility that the niche where the body was laid was misidentified.
Luke 23:55 “The women who had followed him from Galilee saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.”
Mark 15:47 “and Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joseph saw where he was laid.”
“If there be nothing new, but that which is
Hath been before, how are our brains beguil’d […]“
The Farrer hypothesis defines not just an order. But the idea that reinterpretation of a text is bound to proceed from Mark to Luke.
What do we know about Jewish burial in the first centuries?
Without archeological evidence, there would be nothing then fewer conjectures.
The problem of Luke and Matthew re-writing appears clear only in the light of this knowledge.
If Luke and Matthew are willing to go to this extent to clarify important textual passages, what else are they willing to do to convey “their ” truth?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)