Doxa

Joe, look in the Bible. Those gospels are absent. They are absent because the Church decided there are not canon.

Of course they are historical artefacts. But that does not make them true - and even the Church recognised that centuries ago. And the big problem with non-canonical works is we have only a tiny number of actual documents, so no way of knowing with confidence what the originals said.

that does not negate the way I use them, since they are artifacts we can derive probability from them lending credence to the canonical account. The early church could not have thought that way about those documents because they were not modern scholars they had no concept of cultural artifacts or probability,

Metacrock wrote:I am not sure Crosson says empty tomb is made up, he says women were made up but he accepts an event. Paul is writing before the Gospels so women right not have been famous to the whole checker that way at that time, Paul is more engaged with the James church so reflects James' account,

Crossan is pretty well known for saying the body was probably thrown to the dogs to eat.
http://apprising.org/2008/12/03/john-do ... s-or-dogs/

That means no burial in a tomb, which means no empty tomb, which means the empty tomb account was made up.

Metacrock wrote:that does not negate the way I use them, since they are artifacts we can derive probability from them lending credence to the canonical account. The early church could not have thought that way about those documents because they were not modern scholars they had no concept of cultural artifacts or probability,

They are evidence, and we need to account for what they say, why they were written. We certainly do not have to think that they are true, especially given that even the Church rejected them.

The guards on the tomb is a great example. We have to account for them being in the narrative, we do not have to think it actually happened (it might, it might not).

The Pixie wrote:

Metacrock wrote:I am not sure Crosson says empty tomb is made up, he says women were made up but he accepts an event. Paul is writing before the Gospels so women right not have been famous to the whole checker that way at that time, Paul is more engaged with the James church so reflects James' account,

Crossan is pretty well known for saying the body was probably thrown to the dogs to eat.
http://apprising.org/2008/12/03/john-do ... s-or-dogs/

That means no burial in a tomb, which means no empty tomb, which means the empty tomb account was made up.

Doesn't invalidate his dating Josephus shows us he got people down from cross so they did not always wind up in mass graves, or unhurried.

That means no burial in a tomb, which means no empty tomb, which means the empty tomb account was made up.

Metacrock wrote:
that does not negate the way I use them, since they are artifacts we can derive probability from them lending credence to the canonical account. The early church could not have thought that way about those documents because they were not modern scholars they had no concept of cultural artifacts or probability,

They are evidence, and we need to account for what they say, why they were written. We certainly do not have to think that they are true, especially given that even the Church rejected them.

I did not argue that they are true as documents, I argued that points in agreement with orthodoxy are more likely to be true.

The guards on the tomb is a great example. We have to account for them being in the narrative, we do not have to think it actually happened (it might, it might not).

they are backed by two sources and you can;t account for it in any other way,

Metacrock wrote:Doesn't invalidate his dating Josephus shows us he got people down from cross so they did not always wind up in mass graves, or unhurried.

No it does not. However:

1. It makes it look as if you cherry-pick the data that fits your own pet theory. You accept Crossan's data when it agrees with you, and reject it when it disagrees.

2. It is apparent that the dating is consistent with the empty tomb being made-up.

Metacrock wrote:I did not argue that they are true as documents, I argued that points in agreement with orthodoxy are more likely to be true.

Okay. But that only follows if those points are not derived from the same source. If Peter draws from the PMPN, then Peter is not independent of the synoptics, and does not help at all. And if the guards were added in a later editing, based on the account in Matthew, then that does not help you either.

they are backed by two sources and you can;t account for it in any other way,

Yes, Joe, I can. And have. Here it is again:

The author of Matthew made it up. A later redactor of Peter inserted into that text, embellishing it to shore up the holes.