The First easter

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Wed May 04, 2016 3:31 am

Metacrock wrote:the evidence is that they are in peter and theory not coped because Peter did not copy Matthew,
There is a lot of debate about Peter. Some scho;ars hold that it is early, and its content comes not from eye witness accounts but from an exegetical tradition, i.e., they determined what happened from scripture (the Old Testament).

Analysis reveals that the passion narrative of the Gospel of Peter has been composed on the basis of references to the Jewish scriptures. The Gospel of Peter thus stands squarely in the tradition of exegetical interpretation of the Bible. Its sources of the passion narrative is oral tradition, understood in the light of scripture, interpreted within the wisdom movement. This accords with what we know of the confessions of the earliest believers in Jesus: in the beginning, belief in the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was simply the conviction that all this took place "according to the scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3-5).
Ron Cameron argues that the Gospel of Peter is independent of the canonical four (The Other Gospels, pp. 77-8):

The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospels of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use an older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed, and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access.
Koester

You have cited Raymond Brown in this context. From what I can see, Brown, like most scholars, dates Peter to the second century, and says it depends on the earlier gospels.

In The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown maintains that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical gospels by oral remembrance of the gospels spoken in churches. The opinion that the Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the canonical gospels directly is also a common one.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html


Raymond E. Brown and others find that the author may have been acquainted with the synoptic gospels and even with the Gospel of John; Brown (The Death of the Messiah) even suggests that the author's source in the canonical gospels was transmitted orally, through readings in the churches, i.e. that the text is based on what the author remembers about the other gospels, together with his own embellishments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Instead, following the work of Raymond Brown, Joel Green, Alan Kirk, and others, we accept the majority view that the Gospel of Peter is indeed a second-century work, literarily dependent on earlier gospel accounts.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ATB ... wn&f=false

So Biblical scholarship seems divided on whether Peter depends on the canonicals or was devised from scripture. Either the guards came from Matthew or the Old Testament. And not from then actually being there.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10016
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The First easter

Post by Metacrock » Wed May 04, 2016 5:08 am

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:the evidence is that they are in peter and theory not coped because Peter did not copy Matthew,
There is a lot of debate about Peter. Some scho;ars hold that it is early, and its content comes not from eye witness accounts but from an exegetical tradition, i.e., they determined what happened from scripture (the Old Testament).

you are talking about the finished product. I'm talking about the traditions it follows. the consensus is for an early independent tradition.

[
i]Analysis reveals that the passion narrative of the Gospel of Peter has been composed on the basis of references to the Jewish scriptures. The Gospel of Peter thus stands squarely in the tradition of exegetical interpretation of the Bible. Its sources of the passion narrative is oral tradition, understood in the light of scripture, interpreted within the wisdom movement. This accords with what we know of the confessions of the earliest believers in Jesus: in the beginning, belief in the suffering, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was simply the conviction that all this took place "according to the scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3-5).[/i]
Ron Cameron argues that the Gospel of Peter is independent of the canonical four (The Other Gospels, pp. 77-8):

all of that speaks for it being early


The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospels of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use an older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed, and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. Koester
that helps
You have cited Raymond Brown in this context. From what I can see, Brown, like most scholars, dates Peter to the second century, and says it depends on the earlier gospels.
already answered . the final product is late but it draws upon earlier tradition



In The Death of the Messiah, Raymond Brown maintains that the Gospel of Peter is dependent on the canonical gospels by oral remembrance of the gospels spoken in churches. The opinion that the Gospel of Peter is dependent upon the canonical gospels directly is also a common one.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html


Raymond E. Brown and others find that the author may have been acquainted with the synoptic gospels and even with the Gospel of John; Brown (The Death of the Messiah) even suggests that the author's source in the canonical gospels was transmitted orally, through readings in the churches, i.e. that the text is based on what the author remembers about the other gospels, together with his own embellishments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Instead, following the work of Raymond Brown, Joel Green, Alan Kirk, and others, we accept the majority view that the Gospel of Peter is indeed a second-century work, literarily dependent on earlier gospel accounts.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ATB ... wn&f=false
So Biblical scholarship seems divided on whether Peter depends on the canonicals or was devised from scripture. Either the guards came from Matthew or the Old Testament. [/quote]


no that'; just loaded against the possibility of an historical event. we have already demonstrated that itg does not follow Mat. so you can't assert the guards are taken from mat. they are not from the OT because there is not passage in the OT like that, SO it means they are historical., that's what the scholars say, an early intendant tradition.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Wed May 04, 2016 5:18 am

Metacrock wrote:you are talking about the finished product. I'm talking about the traditions it follows. the consensus is for an early independent tradition.
So now all you have to do is prove the empty tomb and the guards were in that original version. As I keep saying.
all of that speaks for it being early
And not based on any witness accounts. Scholars either say it is late, and based on the canonicals, or early, and based on the OT. Neither of which gives you a witness to the guards.
The Gospel of Peter, as a whole, is not dependent upon any of the canonical gospels. It is a composition which is analogous to the Gospels of Mark and John. All three writings, independently of each other, use an older passion narrative which is based upon an exegetical tradition that was still alive when these gospels were composed, and to which the Gospel of Matthew also had access. Koester
that helps
Koester takes the view the account in Peter comes from the OT, not from witnesses. How does that help you?
already answered . the final product is late but it draws upon earlier tradition
And as I keep saying, you have no evidence the guards were in that earlier tradition.
no that'; just loaded against the possibility of an historical event. we have already demonstrated that itg does not follow Mat. so you can't assert the guards are taken from mat. they are not from the OT because there is not passage in the OT like that, SO it means they are historical., that's what the scholars say, an early intendant tradition.
You have certainly not demonstrated it does not depend on Matthew. You have asserted Brown says it comes from another source, but you have, for your own reasons, excluded the possibility that Peter draws on both Matthew and this other source.

Rather more damning, all the evidence I can find indicates that actually Brown is of the opinion that Peter was influenced by the other gospels, as the quotes in my last post show.

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Wed May 04, 2016 4:34 pm

Just came across this be Adela Collins:
http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf

It talks a lot about the Gospel of Peter. I will just quote one paragraph.
John Dominic Crossan devoted a book-length study to the relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the canonical Gospels. He posited three major stages in the composition of the present Gospel of Peter. The first and earliest stage is what he calls the Cross Gospel. This work is equivalent to the early passion narrative that Koester argues was written under the authority of Peter. The second stage involves the use of thissource by all four canonical Gospels. Mark used this source alone in composing his passion narrative. Matthew and Luke used both this source and Mark in writing theirs. John used the early passion narrative along with the other three canonical Gospels. The third and final stage involves the expansion of the Cross Gospel into the present Gospel.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10016
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The First easter

Post by Metacrock » Thu May 05, 2016 8:14 am

The Pixie wrote:Just came across this be Adela Collins:
http://austingrad.edu/images/SBL/Collins.pdf

It talks a lot about the Gospel of Peter. I will just quote one paragraph.
John Dominic Crossan devoted a book-length study to the relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the canonical Gospels. He posited three major stages in the composition of the present Gospel of Peter. The first and earliest stage is what he calls the Cross Gospel. This work is equivalent to the early passion narrative that Koester argues was written under the authority of Peter. The second stage involves the use of thissource by all four canonical Gospels. Mark used this source alone in composing his passion narrative. Matthew and Luke used both this source and Mark in writing theirs. John used the early passion narrative along with the other three canonical Gospels. The third and final stage involves the expansion of the Cross Gospel into the present Gospel.
nothing in that account negates my view it sure doesn't[t prove that the empty tomb was latter than the oro9tgional events/
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Fri May 06, 2016 1:59 am

Metacrock wrote:nothing in that account negates my view it sure doesn't[t prove that the empty tomb was latter than the oro9tgional events/
It happened a long time ago; no way can these things be proved.

I guess we will have to agree that we do not know either way.

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Fri May 06, 2016 6:15 am

A quick note on what the Jews expected. Here are a couple of quotes from Josephus (in the first he is talking about the Essenes):

That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward.
War of the Jews, Book 2

The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies.
War of the Jews, Book 3

I am having hard time reconciling that with the claim that all Jews expected to be resurrected in their original bodies. It is striking how close this is to Paul in 1 Cor 15, where Paul contrasts the perishable old body and the imperishable new body.

Also worth noting the Josephus does not seem to be talking about ghosts here.

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10016
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The First easter

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 06, 2016 9:09 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Metacrock wrote:nothing in that account negates my view it sure doesn't[t prove that the empty tomb was latter than the oro9tgional events/
It happened a long time ago; no way can these things be proved.

I guess we will have to agree that we do not know either way.
we know it had to be circulating before mid century.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10016
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: The First easter

Post by Metacrock » Fri May 06, 2016 9:13 pm

The Pixie wrote:A quick note on what the Jews expected. Here are a couple of quotes from Josephus (in the first he is talking about the Essenes):

That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward.
War of the Jews, Book 2

The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies.
War of the Jews, Book 3

I am having hard time reconciling that with the claim that all Jews expected to be resurrected in their original bodies. It is striking how close this is to Paul in 1 Cor 15, where Paul contrasts the perishable old body and the imperishable new body.

Also worth noting the Josephus does not seem to be talking about ghosts here.

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/

you think Paul say we resurrect without bodies and get new bodies totally unrelated to the old he does not, he sys we put on immortality njot new body, the old bodfy is renovated.



Corinthians 15: 50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen,29 I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep,
but we will all be changed—
52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable,
and this mortal body must put on immortality.



the moral bo9dy will put on immortality so this moral bod the same one that died will become immortal.


54 Now when this perishable puts on the imperishable, and this mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will happen, “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: The First easter

Post by The Pixie » Sat May 07, 2016 3:00 am

Metacrock wrote:we know it had to be circulating before mid century.
No we do not. You have some scholars who believe that to be the case, but nevertheless think it was made up. Other scholars disagree, and think it was added later.

Post Reply