Maybe so, but I would suggest that claiming to be a Christian while not believing Christ was raised from the dead would be rather pointless.

In fact St. Paul made this very point in 1 Corinthians 15:14 “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

To this I would add, Amen.

Report comment to moderator

So before I actually begin looking at your verses, lets make it clear the context under which I view the Gospel materials. The Gospels are unique because we do have four different versions (although Irenaeus’ argument for four and only four seems a bit strained). The approach used in the Q effort, in Crossan’s effort, and in an effort savebygrace and I have pursued is to evaluate the commonality between the different versions. Those materials which are consistent across more of these Gospels are more probably part of the earliest tradition and those which are consistent across a smaller number of Gospels would be considered less probably part of the earliest tradition.

So for example, the Baptism by John is in all four Gospels and therefore seems well embedded in the early traditions. The narrative of the adulteress in John by contrast is only found in John and would seem less reliable, which is good, since it seems to be a latter addition.

These should actually be considered screening rules, not the final approach, but they will do for now.

As with all of my interpretations, your mileage may vary. All I can say is that I try to establish my analytical approach and then see what comes out, hence writing this before I have looked at your verses.

So:

Matthew 16:21

21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

[Before transfiguration]

Matthew 17:22-23

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.” And the disciples were filled with grief.

[after transfiguration]

Mark 8:31

31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

[Before transfiguration]

Mark 9:31

31because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.”

[after transfiguration]

Luke 9:22

22And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

[Before transfiguration]

Luke 18:33

32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again.”

[After transfiguration – although possibly a different version of the chronology]

Matthew 17:9

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

I suggest the interpretation here is disputable.

Mark 9:9

9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

I suggest the interpretation here is disputable

So we can make some statements:

1) All three wordings are nearly identical, it is reasonable to argue that these are all form the same tradition and that this tradition might be considered an early tradition
2) They all are timed in the narrative around the time of the transfiguration
3) It is probably important to note here that these appear to come from what is perhaps called the Synoptic tradition and they are not present in John
4) I will still hold my card for the lack of consistency in the post resurrection sightings (since I have already performed that study! )

So I believe you have made a good case for your point.

These are related to but not identical to some issues raised by savedbygrace which have raised some questions about the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus.

And my thanks for your effort here, because you have provided added urgency to my effort here (and have greatly increased my homework!).

As usual, you do your study and analysis well.

Thanks for the references!

Grumble: now I need to go and read that text which I have been procrastinating on. You are indeed infuriating!

Report comment to moderator

what is amusing is you actually know what you are talking about, while others with the hard argumentation approach clearly do not.

I will check on these and get back to you. I suspect this will be interesting.

Thanks for providing the refences.

P.S. but do carefully note my first level approach to considering the relative reliability of the Gospel materials.

Report comment to moderator

Others that I found this morning are Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; Mark 10:33-34; and Luke 18:32-33. In addition, in Matthew 17:9 and Mark 9:9, Jesus tells the disciples not to tell what they have just seen (the Transfiguration) until he has been raised from the dead.

And in a more oblique reference, he gives “the sign of Jonah.” In Matthew 12:39-40 he says he will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, implying that, like Jonah, he will emerge alive after that time. (He also refers to the sign of Jonah in Luke 11:29 though he does not explain about the three days and nights in the earth.)

Another somewhat oblique reference is in John 10:17-18, where Jesus has been talking of the good shepherd laying down his life for his sheep. He says that he lays down his life – only to take it up again, then adds that he has authority to lay down his life and to take it up again.

Report comment to moderator

Based on my understanding of the materials we have the following versions of Mark:

1) the oldest written versions which have what is sometimes called the short ending at Mark 16:8
- there is a linguistic tecnical argument that the ending here may be incomplete

2) the intermediate length ending (less material on this when I look)

3) the long ending ending at Mark 16:20 as in the KJV for example
- there are some linguistic style arguments that the verses Mark 16:9-20 are not in the same style as the remainder of the material

and interstingly enough

4) what is sometimes called “secret Mark” which seems to include passages which have been edited out of the traditional Mark
- similar style arguments which are used to suggest that there is missing material after Mark 16:8 can be used to suggest that this “secret” Mark material resolves certain linguistic problems with our traditional Mark
- in short arguments against the short version of Mark also support “secret” Mark as perhaps being closer to the original version

What we can sees is that there are four versions of Mark existent to our knowledge. The earliest written versions are the short version.

If one is arguing that the texts have been maintained and we need to stick with these preserved texts, THEN THE LOGICAL AND CONSISTENT VERSION TO CONSIDER VALID IS THE SHORT VERSION.

If one is, however, willing to use critical methods and early records then one is also admitting that it is valid to use interpretation to establish what you believe to be the most appropriate version of the texts.

And if you make this assertion, I agree with you, noting that you and I need not agree on which interpretation is appropriate.

Report comment to moderator

so I am willing to use your rules as posed in post 85,

but if we are to do this, then we need to do it consistently.

If you can introduce second hand evidence justifying your acceptance of Mark 16:9, then I can use similar sources to say reconstruct an earlier Matthews which arguably starts at Matthews 3 or so.

This is an excellent and interesting scholatic exercise, and I would be delighted tohear your thoughts and understandings here.

But do note, we have now explcitly admitted that the New Testament works have been malleable voer time and it will be our personal opinons on what the originals looked like.

Perhaps the next step might be your Hippolytus reference.

Report comment to moderator

We can indeed look to the earliest christian writings to see what these early writers (mostly from the latter second century) said was in the various books of the New Testament and use their material as corroborating evidence for the contents of the books in the New Testament.

BUT if we are to do this consistently, then we must also consistnelty accept the implications of this approach:

1) we are using what are in pretty much everyone’s opinion not canonical authorities to reeconstruct what are considered by some as canonical materials

- we are allowing interpretation on the part of hte reader or scholar on what was in fact incorporated into the original autographs: we will nbever known for sure

2) this approach cna then in fact be extended to arguing regarding which specifc books should be considered

- if the content is argued to have been modified over time until we have our earliest written copies, then we are admitting change and we are accepting, if we are consistent, that Matthew has argyuably been significantly rewritten from the first autographs

And the position we find ourtselves in is that the reader will be selcting what they choose to read. The reader will be listening to what the books say to them personally. In short, reading the New Testament materials will become a ourney of thought, discovery, and belief for the individual, not a prescribed course of study for which “someone” knows the correct answer and that the reader must agree with this answer.

Under Christian theology, this someone died on a cross in the first century and last I checked he was not posting in this blog.

Report comment to moderator

I agree that Jesus discussed his death.

I suggest that his words predicting his resurrection is perhaps more controversial.

So can you give me the verses in the Gospels in whhich Jesus predicts his resurrection?

Now I will accept that Paul discussed this in detail – which is exactly the point. As I look over the material, the focus on the resurrection is a focus from in the Epistles attributed to Paul and in fact the Epistles atributed to Peter. It is not discussed in detail in say the Epistles attributed to James and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

And it is not obvious to me that it was a topic which Jesus discussed as a normal topic.

So your references please?

If the resurrection is central to Christian theology then you can perhaps explain what role it plays? I suggest it is interesting that Pauline is the only poster who has made any observation on this point so far.

And it is observable that through history not all Christians have believed in the resurrrection, so I suggest your blanket statement here is making the same error as NJLawyer and Peter Leavitt have been making earlier in the discussion.

Report comment to moderator

Jesus predicted his death and resurrection repeatedly throughout his ministry. Paul and the other disciples witnessed the resurrected Christ and staked their very lives on that fact. All of the disciples except John died for their faith in Jesus and the resurrection. They never would have gone to death for something that they had lied about – nobody ever has.

The resurrected Christ is necessary to prove Christ’s divinity and power over sin and death. Without the resurrection, we have limited proof of his divinity and no proof of his power over death or sin.

The apostle Paul wrote at length about the resurrection in I Corinthians 15, Romans 4-6 and many other places. It was central to his theology and his preaching of the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15:17, Paul writes “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”

Paul is saying that if Christ did not raise from the dead, Christ must not have triumphed over sin. If Christ didn’t triumph over sin, Christ cannot give us forgiveness from sin and life as God’s children both now and for eternity.

The resurrection is central to Christian theology and I don’t see how you can be a follower of Christ in God’s eyes if you don’t believe in it. Of course, it doesn’t matter what I (or anyone else)think about your beliefs. Ultimately, God’s truth, His judgment and His salvation are all that matters.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator