The evidence for the resurection of Jesus

[leroy]

I touched on the fact that I knew you were going for a dishonest tactic last post but I thought I would wait and see if you were actually going that direction. You are.
No history is 100%, which is why so far all you have presented are inferences. I'm providing better evidence than speculation on inference, I'm providing analysis by biblical historians. They have already debunked your attempts at inference, which I have dealt with and now we can look at evidence that experts have presented.
So here is a PhD historian (actually 6) explaining we have excellent evidence that Mark copied Paul. Again, if you find an example in error or have alternate ways to explain them please provide a source and demonstrate where it's been peer-reviewed.

At some point you might provide some peer-reviewed scholarship that shows why borrowed myths and people believing myths are not the best answers for any of this? Even some layman apologetic answers are a place to start. This will help expose why apologetics does not follow logic in any sense but picks and chooses inference when it might support you (it never really does) but avoid it when you cannot answer questions.


"Mark composed his mythical tale of Jesus using many different sources: most definitely the Septuagint, possibly even Homer, and, here we can see, probably also Paul’s Epistles. From these, and his own creative impulses, he weaved together a coherent string of implausible tales in which neither people nor nature behave the way they would in reality, each and every one with allegorical meaning or missionary purpose. Once we account for all this material, there is very little left. In fact, really, nothing left.

We have very good evidence for all these sources. For example, that Mark emulates stories and lifts ideas from the Psalms, Deuteronomy, the Kings literature, and so on, is well established and not rationally deniable. That he likewise lifts from and riffs on Paul’s Epistles is, as you can now see, fairly hard to deny. By contrast, we have exactly no evidence whatever that anything in Mark came to him by oral tradition. It is thus curious that anyone still assumes some of it did. That Mark’s sources and methods were literary is well proved. That any of his sources or methods were oral in character is, by contrast, a baseless presumption. Objective, honest scholarship will have to acknowledge this someday."

The empty tomb only occurs in the fictional gospels. 3 of them are re-writes. Matthew is doing a re-write clearly because people started asking how did they know the body wasn't just stolen?

Again, as I look through the work of Bible historians I can't find any who don't think the gospels are myth? Even the sort of believer John Dominick Crossan believes empty tomb and resurrection are a parable? He is the only historian who still calls himself a Christian.

all I am asking is for a quote from. a peer reviewed article that concludes that Mark copied from Paul.

why is it so hard to provide such quote?

 

[joelr]

all I am asking is for a quote from. a peer reviewed article that concludes that Mark copied from Paul.

why is it so hard to provide such quote?

What is it that you don't understand about scholars arguing for Mark’s dependence on Paul? Why have you suddenly forgot that we cannot know which author copied which story but it's about evaluating evidence?
The entire thread is based on 5 arguments that you claim scholars support?
This argument about Mark is based on at least 6 scholars.

"It’s quite obvious that Mark has taken Paul’s teaching and simply rewritten it into a pithier teaching from Jesus."

Dr Carrier

That sounds like a conclusion. Chapter 10 of his peer reviewed book gives all the details.

Joel Marcus
“Mark—Interpreter of Paul” - New Testament Studies 46.4 [2000]: 473-87),
Mark “must” have gotten his theology of the crucifixion from Paul

In the The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark McDonald says that Mark used Homer (not entirely)to create his story. The entire book makes that argument. Homer not Paul but same difference. Actually that is the point, Mark is a masterpiece of storytelling and borrows from many sources. Like all great fiction.