Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:00 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:41 am
Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:03 am
Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:47 am
I think we would have to assume that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius did not contain any appearances of Jesus at the tomb, but did contain at least some version of the Road to Emmaus story.
To put that another way, I don't think there's any evidence that the text form of Luke known to Eusebius was any different from canonical Luke.
There are important differences between Luke 24 in codex Bezae and the text of most other Greek manuscripts. Do we know which text type Eusebius used in Luke 24 ?

Andrew Criddle
I checked the notes in Metzger's Greek New Testament. In Luke 24 Eusebius definitely does not use a text similar to Codex Bezae. His text is probably Caesarean similar to Codex Koridethi (Theta).

Andrew Criddle

Stuart
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Stuart » Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:47 pm

A couple things as I look at the text here. Eusubius is often not the voice in the commentary. It could well be verbatim lifting of another source. So if it is an accurate statement, which it may well not be, then it must be from a very early, as in late 2nd century, church father who knew earlier forms before additional materials crept into the text, even before the "Lukan layer" was put on Luke and John.

We can only speculate, educated guesses if you will, as to what the texts looked like. How could that work?

Matthew: 28:1-10, 16, 18-20
// about verse17: certainly οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν "but some doubted" was added with Thomas story in view; Luke 24:11 argues against my opinion
// the Apostles never worship Jesus in Matthew, others do, excepting 14:33 which was probably added with Peter's walk on the water material
Mark: end at 16:8
John: 20:1, 11-23 (possible verse 30)
Luke/Marcion: end at 24:11

I frankly think Eusubius is mistaken. But if he's not the gospels at some point in their circulation likely ended as I describe above. (No freaking way will I defend that, it's just postulating for conceptualizing the implications of Eusubius' comments.)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Who Were the Original Witnesses in GLuke?

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:05 am

You Can't Stop The Children of the Pharasaic Revolution

JW:
Let's go up to the Lab and put "Luke" on the tomb slab. An analysis of "Luke" orthodox ending to use as a base for related Patristic commentary:

Verse Commentary
24 1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came unto the tomb, bringing the spices which they had prepared. -
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. -
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. -
4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel: -
5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? -
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, -
7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. -
8 And they remembered his words, The Jew turn from the base of GMark
9 and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. -
10 Now they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the [mother] of James: and the other women with them told these things unto the apostles. Supports the theory that GLuke was written by a woman. Favors Marcion's emphasis on Paul over the disciples. Now there are other general women witnesses and believers. The women have faith and believe but it is not because of the Disciples, it is despite the Disciples. That's a long way from orthodox Christianity.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Who Were the Original Witnesses in GLuke?

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jun 21, 2020 4:06 pm

JW:
Let's go up to the Lab and put "Luke" on the tomb slab. An analysis of "Luke" orthodox ending to use as a base for related Patristic commentary:

Verse Commentary
24
11 And these words appeared in their sight as idle talk; and they disbelieved them.
-
12 But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb; and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths by themselves; and he departed to his home, wondering at that which was come to pass. -
13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was threescore furlongs from Jerusalem. On the road to Emmaus. An echo of Paul on the road to Damascus. Note that GLuke's base, GMark, had no resurrection sighting, so this is more of a transition from it than GMatthew, suggesting this is earlier.
14 And they communed with each other of all these things which had happened. -
15 And it came to pass, while they communed and questioned together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. -
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. Jesus is revealed to them but they do not see him. Again, Pauline.
17 And he said unto them, What communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. -
18 And one of them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, Dost thou alone sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to pass there in these days? Cleopas, not a named disciple in the Gospels.
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: -
20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. -


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

What's My Line?

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:45 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=653Jk1sffMY

JW:
Let's go up to the Lab and put "Luke" on the tomb slab. An analysis of "Luke" orthodox ending to use as a base for related Patristic commentary:

Verse Commentary
24

21 But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass.
Now the witnesses are referring to prophecy, And the witnesses have had a sex change due to insertion.
22 Moreover certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; -
23 and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. -
24 And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Well 24:11 sez the men thought the women's report was nonsense. The last few verses seem to have had a change of heart (author).
25 And he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! -
26 Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? -
27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. It's the men who get the sonofmansplainin - directly from Jesus. "I bid one heart." "I raise you Jesus".
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go further. -
29 And they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in to abide with them. -
30 And it came to pass, when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the bread and blessed; and breaking [it] he gave to them. None of them physically recognize Jesus. That sounds like the other guy's theology.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Parallels of Pauline

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:57 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w36z7XnwOM

JW:
Let's go up to the Lab and put "Luke" on the tomb slab. An analysis of "Luke" orthodox ending to use as a base for related Patristic commentary:

Verse Commentary
24

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
Sounds like Paul
32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Sounds like Paul
33 And they rose up that very hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Sounds like Paul
34 saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. Really sounds like Paul. Fake Paul. That's what Acts is, Fake Paul. This claim of previous appearance to Simon has no context in the body of "Luke" ("Peter" was used in the earlier (original?) part of the chapter).Sounds like the LE all over again with Mary Magdalene. An elsewhere claimed resurrection appearance to Simon/Peter was added on/forged to the original ending chapter of GLuke.
35 And they rehearsed the things [that happened] in the way, and how he was known of them in the breaking of the bread. Paul (Galatians) again o foolish readers.
36 And as they spake these things, he himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. Notice the in between of Revelation (Paul) verses Narrative (GMark). We know Acts was written as a sequel to GLuke and by a different author. Since the purpose of Acts was to merge Paul with the Disciples, it supports the author of Acts also editing the last chapter of GLuke to merge Pauline supposed evidence of resurrection with orthodox Christianity supposed evidence of resurrection.

When we get back to Eusebius related commentary on post resurrection narrative note that per Gluke:
1. Resurrected Jesus is first id'ed on the road to Emmaus kinda sortof = Paul
2. Positively id'ed in Jerusalem = Disciples
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit. Sure sounds like Marcion influence.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do questionings arise in your heart? -
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having. Strange/bizarre/macabre. Hands and feet would not prove you were the same person to people that knew you. Your face would (this was a long time before Jewish plastic surgeons). "Hands and feet" is something you would add for people who did not know Jesus.
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. -


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Last edited by JoeWallack on Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

lsayre
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by lsayre » Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:06 am

Going out on a limb here, but perhaps they actually saw Paul.

For I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. Gal. 6:17

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:57 pm

Thomas Brodie has proposed one component of the passion narrative - Luke 23:50 - 24:53 - is a reshaping of Judges 19, a gruesome passion account of the fate of a woman, via a forlorn journey from Bethlehem past Jerusalem to Ephraim, that was to awaken all Israel to the horror of sin (Judges 19:30; the consequences continue in Judges 20). Brodie also says there's an "affinity of Judges 19 with Genesis 19 (the destruction of Sodom)--a text in which some of the characters seem interchangeable with the Lord ... the attack on the woman [in Judges 19] is comparable to an attack on God's messengers [in Gen 19] ...". Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament, chapter 50; pp.503ff.

Brodie also relates Lk 24:13-16, confusion on the road to Emmaus, to Mk 9:9-13, confusion coming down the mountain; and Lk 24:17-49, from sadness to the recognition of Jesus, to Mk 9:14-29, from weak faith to the raising of the boy (p.179).

Stuart
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Stuart » Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:22 pm

Joe,

I don't think we can be confident, given you think the latter material after Luke 24:10, is mostly Catholic, that there was not tampering with the material before that verse. The entire death and resurrection was central to the sectarian competition, each wanting to shape their own. Each successive writer/editor would go back over the material and leave their mark.

It is interesting also that the Marcionite version has Emmaus, although Jesus does not enlighten them to the scripture, rather to his words -- similar to the 4th gospel.

I'm also not comfortable saying Mark is the source. Rather simpler form common to Mark and Luke/Marcion was likely the source. Or as I responded to Ben, who likes to say an earlier version of Mark, what's the difference between my prototype synoptic and your ur-Mark, except that you put a label on it giving mark a priority it may not deserve. I mean after all the names were affixed to the Gospels later, as we see in the earliest manuscripts with ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ or ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ added in the margin by a second hand, either before or after the gospel. This makes sense, when there are not competing sects putting out different versions, you don't have to specify an author or associated legendary patron saint, you simply say "the gospel of (Jesus) Christ."

Anyway, I think you oversimplify by assuming verses in their complete canonical form were in earlier versions, and all editing was via additional verses.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7579
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Luukeey! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. Did Original "Luke" Have No Resurrection Sightings?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:26 pm

Stuart wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:22 pm
Or as I responded to Ben, who likes to say an earlier version of Mark, what's the difference between my prototype synoptic and your ur-Mark, except that you put a label on it giving mark a priority it may not deserve.
It is just that the proto-gospel text I have in mind at least seems to resemble our extant Mark more than it resembles any other extant gospel. The nomenclature is less important than the concept.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply