posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:07 PM
Well, I'm BAAAAACK as NEO-AMADEUS.
But back to the topic: Bear in mind that none of the Resurrection Pericopes in the Gospels match each other very closely (the crucifixion narratives
by comparison are more allignable with each other).
This fact should be a red flag to anyone who wants to "literalise" the resurrection "event" in some way or another. (You might have to read the
Resurrection Pericopes in the gospels over very carefully first and then line them up side by side to get an idea of what I mean when I say they all
bear witness to a very "confused tradition").
For example, "Luke" mentions a kind of Phantom-Jesus appearing to 3 persons on the road to Emmaeus "in a different form" and who could later
appear behind closed doors at will, yet the same "risen lord" could "eat a honeycomb & fish" in full few of witnesses.
He was "recognised" only when he "broke bread" (suggesting that the writer wanted to convey the idea that he was only "made manifest to the
disciples" at some kind of a shared/group meal---and not observable under other conditions)
John's gospel has Miryam of Magdalah not recognising the "risen Iesous" and thinking her (lit." husband" = Greek: "kuriou mou") to be the
gardner----and later in the same gospel there is the story of Judas-Thomas putting his fingers into the side wounds---suggesting that the writer of
that pericope in the gospel envisaged a more solid body than a phantom who can appear and disappear, but Mark (the earliest written Greek Gospel in
the canon of the NT) has no resurrection account at all (in fact it ends in mid sentence with a preposition (!) at 16:8 ephobounto gar : "the women
were afraid because...") and the parallel "synoptic" gospels (who use Mark as their primary source) start to diverge in their stories from that
point on in the narrative, which can hardly be construed as coincidental.
There is also the issue of Resurrection Appearance Locations: "Luke" places the risen "Jesus appearences" in Jerusalem, whereas "Matthew" places
them in the "Galilee" on a mountain-top like a New Moses.
"John's" gospel seems at one point to have translated into Greek an Aramaic phrase ("al Galileah" (I go before them "to the Galilee") as "al
Eliah" (I go "to my god").
So we have some very basic root linguistic problems in trying to ascertain the exact meaning of the language being employed in the garbled
Greek-gospel "resurrection" narratives.
It is vitally important (for the serious student of these narratives) to recognise the fact that the accounts of the "resurrection" of R. Yehoshua
bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jeezuz") in the gospels are not in their original form in Aramaic but in a late first century Koine Greek dialect (some
like the author of "Luke" use better Greek than others, e.g. the baby Greek of Mark) and that the original Galilean Aramaic Kerygma (or proclamation
of the Gospel message among the first "Nazorean Christians) is essentially lost (with a few exceptions that we can find scattered throughout the New
Testsament, such as "Gabbatha" ("exalted place") or "golgoltha"("skull there) or "Abba" ('daddy') or "mara-natha" ("may the Lord come
So too is the original meaning of the the Aramaic expression "he was EXALTED on the 3rd day" lost and later translated into Greek as "he was
raised" (notice the the Greek passive tense, in other words it never said "he rose" but rather, "he was raised/exalted").
There is a big difference between "he was exalted" (i.e. to the Right hand of Majesty) and "he rose from the dead": the first expression is more
of a proclamation of a righteous Martyr (e.g. Daniel chapter 12 where the "righteous shine like the stars of heaven" etc.) rather than a
resuscitated corpse, or some kind of transformed "body".
Also "Mark's" gospel (the earliest of the "canonical four") written about AD 70 mentions that the SOMA ("live body") of Iesous ("Jeezuz")
came down from the cross, not the PTOMA ("dead corpse") and since it takes usually about 70 hours to kill someone on a gibbet, there is a strong
chance that R. Yehoshua survived his ordeal (if in fact he was strung up at all, since there was a Shimeon of Cyrene carrying his gibbet at one point
and Roman soldiers in Judaea were extremely venal in the 1st and 2nd centuries and could have switched victims fairly easily).
Also the Greek expressions regarding the "resurrection" use the passive OPTHE ("he was manifested unto x ") rather than "x actually saw him" and
there is a curious phrase in "Matthew's" gospel which says "he was manifested unto his disciples in Galilee, but some doubted". (cf: the message
of the "angels" : "tell his disciples to go into Galilee and there he will manifest himself to them..." or in the 4th gospel: "Rabbi, when will
you manifest yourself to the world"?) etc.
One must also consider the role of MIDRASH in the earliest kerygma of the so-called Resurrection passages of "Jeezuz" in the gospels (where certain
specific passages from the Old Testament were patched together to form legendary stories about the teacher to "fill in the details" ("but he did
not leave his Nephesh (breathing-soul) in Sheol, neither did he allow his Holy One to see corruption..." or "after two days he will kill us, on the
third day he shall raise us up", or "since when has the Righteous (one) ever died?" etc.).
Believers in a "physical" resurrrection often cite the (late?) story of an "Empty Tomb" as proof that "Iesous rose bodilly" (whatever that
means). BVut an "empty tomb" does not "prove a resurrection-event": it merely indicates that the body/corpse was not in the place "the women"
thought it was supposed to be laid out when they came to the supposed site of the tomb to oil the body a few days later.
Although Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never met "Iesous" in the flesh (only in dreams and visions, like my cook !) he claimed to have had a
"manifestation" of the risen "christ" at some point in his career---"at last, he was manifested (OPTHE) unto me..."----but he never speaks of a
bodilly resurrection of "Iesous"(when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead, he speaks metaphorically: "it is sown a physical body, it is
raised a spiritual body: it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption..." echoing the language of the Mystery Reglions of Tarsus in Cilicia
(e.g. Mithra) where he was born. And Paul equates Christianity with The Mysteries of Christ: "behold, I tell you a Mystery: we shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be transformed...at the last Trumpet..." i.e. on Judgement Day)
Unfortunately in the "scientific: 21st century, we use language very differently than members of the mystery cults (and 1st century Jewish Messianic
Chrsitians who overlaid their speech with heavilly SYMBOLIC Old Testament midrash) did in the 1st century, and these mystery cults (which
Christianity was competing with in the Roman Empire) were heavilly overlaid with death-life symbolism and esoteric symbolic language. The language the
earliest Christians used for the "resurrection" of their "lord" is also expressed in the same vein: modern readers should be more aware of this
fact than most on this thread seem to realise.
Just some thoughts on the top of my head today. I know you all missed me!