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

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umj0gu5nEGs

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 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here anything to eat?	-
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish.	-
43 And he took it, and ate before them.	Anti-Marcion. What is the point other than anti Docetic.
44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.	Anti-Marcion. Jewish Bible is source.
45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;	Paul. Revelation is source.
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;	Who ever wrote this before besides Paul (1 Corinthians).
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.	The likely source for Justin Martyr's related excerpt that is often wrongly claimed as witness for LE. The ending of GMark with the LE implies the send off was from Galilee, not Jerusalem. So we can probably add Justin to evidence for 16:8.
48 Ye are witnesses of these things.	-
49 And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.	-
50 And he led them out until [they were] over against Bethany: and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.	-
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.	MarkNewsonofMan! Note the Marcion parallel to GMark. The Gospel starts with Jesus descending from Heaven and ends with Jesus ascending to heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:	-
53 and were continually in the temple, blessing God.	-

And now back to Eusebius commentary on the resurrection sightings...


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

Ian Mills Duke University:

Marcion's Gospel and the Longer Ending of Mark: A Scribal Composition and Second Century Controversies (Handout)

The reigning paradigm for the composition of Mark’s “Longer Ending” is that of a ‘Gospel Pastiche’ (Kelhoffer, 2000; Parker 1997). Despite this model’s currency in contemporary scholarship, the case for the Longer Ending’s dependence on Matthew, Mark 1-16, John, and Acts’ resurrection narratives rests on tenuous source critical argumentation. Rather, I argue, the Longer Ending is thoroughly dependent on the Gospel of Luke to the exclusion of all other proposed sources. As such, Mark’s Longer Ending is the earliest witness to the twenty fourth chapter of Luke, a locus classicus for debates over New Testament textual pluriformity. Jason BeDuhn first noted a correlation between those narrative elements attested for Marcion’s text of Luke and those reproduced in the Longer Ending. This, BeDuhn suggests, might indicate a genetic relationship. BeDuhn’s catalog can be substantially expanded and, revisiting Tertullian’s "commentary" on Marcion's Gospel, a number of shared omissions may likewise be included. In addition to this, a redaction critical reading of the Longer Ending evinces a series of agreements with Marcionite interpretations of the Gospel. Namely, the persistent unbelief of the disciples, the omission of allusions to Jewish Scripture, Christological polymorphy in the Emmaus Road epitome, and novelty rhetoric in the miracle catalog all accord with distinctively Marcionite teachings.

Joseph

When Pigs Fly

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUB96c6EpY

JW:
General comments:

The Letter of Latino Latini to Andreas Masius

Latino Latini provides the last known reference to an existing copy of Eusebius' book:

[419]

He also wants you to know about the discovery in Sicily of a book
by Eustathius,4 bishop of Antioch, On the Creation of the World (i.e., on
the works of the six days), which is apparently the source of a great deal
in Basil;5 also of three books by Eusebius of Caesarea on discordance
between the gospels. He hopes these will all soon be published.

Latino Latini

Latino Latini (Latinus Latinius) (Viterbo, ca. 1513 — 21 January 1593) was an Italian scholar and humanist.

He gives us a taste of Christian censorship in the following letter:

"Why should you be planning for the publication of any new works at a time when nearly all the books which have thus far appeared (qui adhuc sunt editi) are being taken away from us? It seems to me that at least for some years to come, no one among us will dare to write anything but letters. There has just been published an Index of the books which, under penalty of excommunication, we are no longer permitted to possess. The number of those prohibited (particularly of works originating in Germany) is so great that there will remain but few. On this ground, I advise you to put to one side your variants of the Bible and the translation of Demosthenes. Faernus has been devoting some days to the 'purifying' of his library; I shall begin to-morrow going over my own collection so that nothing may be found in it which is not authorised. Should I describe the process as a shipwreck or a holocaust of literature? In any case this [censorship] must have the result of deterring many of your group from the production of books, and will serve as a warning to the printers to be cautious in making selections for their presses."[1]

Was Eusebius' book, claiming that GMark originally had no resurrection sightings, one of the victims? Note the timing of our related loss of evidence for Textual Criticism here. On the early side, before Christianity gains control and authors are free to author, we have no Manuscripts suggesting to some extent Christianity chose not to preserve/exterminate what was written early. On the late side c. Renaissance/Enlightenment we likewise start to lose related commentary like Eusebius if it was thought to be non kosher because...

In a related footnote to the above:

2. The humanist Giovanni Aurispa went to buy Greek manuscripts in Constantinople in the early fifteenth century. He bought so many that the citizens complained to the emperor. He tells that he sent a shipment of patristic manuscripts from Constantinople to Sicily, although none of these are known today. When he returned to Venice in 1423, he brought with him eight hundred manuscripts, many very old and of the highest value to modern philology. Is it possible that the Sicilian Eusebius was sent there by Aurispa? See Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977), 37.*

Giovanni Aurispa

Giovanni Aurispa Piciunerio (or Piciuneri) (June/July 1376–c. 25 May 1459)[1] was an Italian historian[2] and savant of the 15th century. He is remembered in particular as a promoter of the revival of the study of Greek in Italy. It is to Aurispa that the world is indebted for preserving the greater part of our knowledge of the Greek classics.[3]

...Believers did not like/want Christian evidence for Textual Criticism in the hands of non-believers and reported them to the highest Christian authorities.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

Morton Smith Forgery of Watch!

JW:
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[Page 123]

To Marinus

4. [3] Thus you would not be wrong in saying that the first stage of our Saviour’s resurrection is indicated in John, where “early in the morning, while it was still dark” the Magdalene is standing at the tomb, for both the first and the second time, and is in tears at not finding the Saviour’s body, because no-one yet knows of his resurrection; and that the second stage of the same period is the time in Matthew at which that same Magdalene is at the tomb for the third time, with the other Mary, and is no longer in tears, as having, in John, seen the angels and the Saviour himself. The accounts in Luke and Mark, you see, would refer to other stages, at which several other women are present at the sighting; regard the Magdalene, however, as having been there at intervals closely following each other, being present at the same place and during the same period on both the first and second occasions, the first time alone, and then with the other Mary.

JW:
At this point in Ad Marinus Eusebius says:

• 1) In GMark multiple women see a resurrected Jesus.
  
  2) In GLuke multiple women see a resurrected Jesus.

Regarding GMark, Eusebius presumably is referring to an addition after 16:8, not necessarily the LE in its current form or at all. Looking at the LE 16 there does not appear (so to speak) to be any description of women sighting a resurrected Jesus. So is Eusebius referring to some otherwise unknown addition? Or maybe Ken can once again rescue Eusebius with more cowbext. I gotta have more cowbext!

Regarding GLuke, generally we see regarding supposed witness to a resurrected Jesus that Eusebius lumps "John" and "Matthew" together as Good Cop(ies) and "Mark" and "Luke" as bad Cop(ies). Specifically for Luke 24 there likewise does not appear to be any women sighting (24:33 is masculine). A women sighting favors Marcion and fits most of 24 better. Another unknown addition?

Bonus material for Solo = When Esuebius says "sighting" above does he just mean sighting of the angel/man/angels/men instead of sighting of he who shall not be named?


Joseph

The New Porphyry