But in the last several years, a remarkable change seems to have taken place, and the scepticism that so characterized earlier treatments of this problem appears to be fast receding. Though some theologians still insist with Bultmann that the resurrection is not a historical event, this incident is certainly presented in the gospels as a historical event, one of the manifestations of which was that the tomb of Jesus was reputedly found empty on the first day of the week by several of his women followers; this fact, at least, is therefore in principle historically verifiable. But how credible is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus's empty tomb?[1]The canonical authors give limited but acurate accounts of the kind of tomb that would have been used, [2] There is no first century account other than the Gospels early church writers do point to the empty tomb.If there was an empty tomb why would the early apologists the apostoli fathers not mention it? Because they didn't think about things the way we do.They had no concept of a modern courtroom much less courtroom evidence.
According to both Eusebius and Jerome,Hadrian (c. A.D. 135) built a temple to both Jupiter and Venus on the site of the tomb, that is how christians marked the site of the tomb. When the Jeswis-Christians fled Jerusalem after the revolt of 134 they aprized gentile christians of this knowledge. That also indicates that the tomb was vindicated at that time since Romans desecrated the site. [3]
From the second half of the second century we have the Gospel of Peter (aka GPet).GPet gives us a look at the empty tomb reflecting the notion that the empty tomb was well established by that time.
For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let us throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes."There are critics, such as Mark Cameron support idea of GPet as reflecting an ancient and independent tradition.[5]"John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Peter, as it is found in the modern day, was composed in the 2nd century but incorporates a passion narrative source that predates all other known passion accounts."[6]
[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them:
[56] "Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent."[4]
There are writers after the second century who allude to the empty tomb, "Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses."[7]
I have made a much more involved page with lots of documentation going into great detail on the subject,Its on my original website Doxa, 9t's ca;ed "have tomb,will argue."[8]
I invite the reader to read that essay.
NOTES
[1]William Lane Craig, "The Historicity of the empty tomb of Jesus,"extract, Cambridge Unversity Press,1985, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus1/39C53623AC0517088951E31CF346B540
[2]Gary D. Myers,"the Empty Tomb: archeaology and early Chuch writers Point to Jesus Tomb" NOBTS, (MARCH 28, 2016) https://www.nobts.edu/news/articles/2016/the-empty-tomb-archaeology-early-church-writers-point-to-jesus-tomb.html Myers is the director of public relations at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
[3] Ibid.
[4]:Gospel of Peter," Linius,org,1998;2020
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/gospel-of-peter/
[5]Walter Richard Cassels, Supernatural Religion - An Inquiry Into the Reality of Divine Revelation, Read Books, 2010. Vol. 1, p. 419–422
[6]Crossan, John Dominic. The Cross that Spoke, pp. 16–30. Wipf and Stock, 1988.
[7]Op cit,Myers fn2.
https://www.nobts.edu/news/articles/2016/the-empty-tomb-archaeology-early-church-writers-point-to-jesus-tomb.html
[8]Joseph Hinman, "Have Tomb,Will Argue," Doxa, apologetocs website, 2010.
https://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html
https://doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html
35 comments:
Hi Joe
My personal view is that the tomb was made up, some time after Paul was writing, and possibly as later as the Gospel of Mark.
1 Cor 15 makes it clear Paul was not aware of it.
Furthermore, Mark's account looks to be contrived to allow for no one in Jerusalem at that first easter having heard of it.
Suppose - hypothetically if you like - that it was made up. Anyone who had been there in Jerusalem around that time would know there were no stories of an empty tomb circulating at that time. If they read the account in the later gospels, they would know it was wrong. There is no way the disciples knew of the empty tomb; if they did, they would have mentioned it. This would have been a topic they talked about like no other!
Mark's account avoids that problem, he has the empty tomb only seen by two women, and they never told anyone (and were presumably dead by then). It is a "safe lie"; a lie that cannot be definitely refuted.
The later gospels avoided the problem by being written after the people who could refute it were dead!
That does not mean Mark made it up necessarily. The empty tomb could have been made up previously and he invented the women seeing it to suit his narrative, or the whole thing was made up earlier, and he recorded it thinking it was true.
Also of passing note, there is no mention in Acts of the disciples visiting the tomb as a place they revered or of citing it as evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
As an aside, Tabor says the tomb was empty because Joseph of Arimathea came back after the sabbath was over - i.e., Saturday night - and moving the body to where it should have gone if he had had time on the Friday. I think he is wrong, but that is a neat explanation without any supernatural hand.
Pix
Joe: The canonical authors give limited but acurate accounts of the kind of tomb that would have been used,
Hardly evidence. If they thought Jesus was buried in a tomb, it does not take much imagination to invent a tomb that matched the many round Jerusalem. I am sure most people knew what tombs were like, just as well as we know what cemeteries are like.
Joe: According to both Eusebius and Jerome,Hadrian (c. A.D. 135) built a temple to both Jupiter and Venus on the site of the tomb, that is how christians marked the site of the tomb. When the Jeswis-Christians fled Jerusalem after the revolt of 134 they aprized gentile christians of this knowledge. That also indicates that the tomb was vindicated at that time since Romans desecrated the site.
That is pretty shaky grounds you are on there.
Cassius Dio tells us the temple to Jupiter was built on the site of the Jewish temple.
"At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there."
This may be what sparked the Bar Kochba Revolt - building on Jesus' tome certainly would not. Also, it makes sense the Roman's would build their temple on the site of the old temple, as that was the higher ground.
Was there another temple dedicated to Jupiter and Venus?
Further, it is easy to make up the location of a tomb if you claim the tomb is buried under a temple. It is another "safe lie", just like Mark's.
Joe: From the second half of the second century we have the Gospel of Peter (aka GPet).GPet gives us a look at the empty tomb reflecting the notion that the empty tomb was well established by that time.
The fact that Matthew, Luke and John all include it attest to it being well established by the end of the first century, but I do not think that helps you.
Joe: John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Peter, as it is found in the modern day, was composed in the 2nd century but incorporates a passion narrative source that predates all other known passion accounts.
Crossan, of course, takes the view Jesus was left on the cross for birds and dogs to eat.
Pix
My personal view is that the tomb was made up, some time after Paul was writing, and possibly as later as the Gospel of Mark.
there was a res there had to be an empty tomb but historians argue that they did not have our modern understanding of evidence, so they didn't make a point of the tomb.
1 Cor 15 makes it clear Paul was not aware of it.
Furthermore, Mark's account looks to be contrived to allow for no one in Jerusalem at that first easter having heard of it.
they looked at it differently. they didn't think of forensic proof.
Suppose - hypothetically if you like - that it was made up. Anyone who had been there in Jerusalem around that time would know there were no stories of an empty tomb circulating at that time. If they read the account in the later gospels, they would know it was wrong. There is no way the disciples knew of the empty tomb; if they did, they would have mentioned it. This would have been a topic they talked about like no other!
There were stories of the resurrection, they did not think about needing to prove it. they didn't think about the empty tomb, although they venerated the sight in first century. There was probably some talk of the empty tomb but not much.
Mark's account avoids that problem, he has the empty tomb only seen by two women, and they never told anyone (and were presumably dead by then). It is a "safe lie"; a lie that cannot be definitely refuted.
still sticking with the literalists view
The later gospels avoided the problem by being written after the people who could refute it were dead!
That does not mean Mark made it up necessarily. The empty tomb could have been made up previously and he invented the women seeing it to suit his narrative, or the whole thing was made up earlier, and he recorded it thinking it was true.
Also of passing note, there is no mention in Acts of the disciples visiting the tomb as a place they revered or of citing it as evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
As an aside, Tabor says the tomb was empty because Joseph of Arimathea came back after the sabbath was over - i.e., Saturday night - and moving the body to where it should have gone if he had had time on the Friday. I think he is wrong, but that is a neat explanation without any supernatural hand.
There is no reason J of A would not have spilled the beans and so killed the resurrection.
i'll get to the next one latter today please don't post until I get it up
Anonymous said...
Joe: The canonical authors give limited but acurate accounts of the kind of tomb that would have been used,
Hardly evidence. If they thought Jesus was buried in a tomb, it does not take much imagination to invent a tomb that matched the many round Jerusalem. I am sure most people knew what tombs were like, just as well as we know what cemeteries are like.
With that topic people chose what looks nice not what is historically accurate like the garden tomb, so its mot proof nit t is important
Joe: According to both Eusebius and Jerome,Hadrian (c. A.D. 135) built a temple to both Jupiter and Venus on the site of the tomb, that is how christians marked the site of the tomb. When the Jeswis-Christians fled Jerusalem after the revolt of 134 they aprized gentile christians of this knowledge. That also indicates that the tomb was vindicated at that time since Romans desecrated the site.
That is pretty shaky grounds you are on there.
Not at all most historians consider that right on.
Cassius Dio tells us the temple to Jupiter was built on the site of the Jewish temple.
It's not that is a simple matter pf looking at where it is the Corbo expedition the 60s proved the cUs is that site..
"At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there."
First who sys there's only ne thing to Jupiter? secondly how much corroboration Corbo had a major rep he knew what he was doing
This may be what sparked the Bar Kochba Revolt - building on Jesus' tome certainly would not. Also, it makes sense the Roman's would build their temple on the site of the old temple, as that was the higher ground.
That's silly, BarKoba Started that rev olt
Was there another temple dedicated to Jupiter and Venus?
woth researching, thdy proved that there were things to Jupiter under the CHS
Further, it is easy to make up the location of a tomb if you claim the tomb is buried under a temple. It is another "safe lie", just like Mark's.
thye tomb of christ has been excavated, they unconverted it two summers ago e enb fore thei Carbo oundit sand Biddle found it, its theshrieto Jupiter.
Joe: From the second half of the second century we have the Gospel of Peter (aka GPet).GPet gives us a look at the empty tomb reflecting the notion that the empty tomb was well established by that time.
The fact that Matthew, Luke and John all include it attest to it being well established by the end of the first century, but I do not think that helps you.
I documented that gpet uses an ancient tradition Nathew,Markand luke usecthat tradtionthe all the PMPN.But GPet also used oethe syboptics didn't use.
Joe: John Dominic Crossan argues that the Gospel of Peter, as it is found in the modern day, was composed in the 2nd century but incorporates a passion narrative source that predates all other known passion accounts.
Crossan, of course, takes the view Jesus was left on the cross for birds and dogs to eat.
that isirrelivant, he got something wromg doesnt mean he ot everything wrog
Pix
5:34 AM
Pix you didn't read the lomg article I linked to
Bruce attests to the evidential support.(FF Bruch, New Testament Documents) . More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. (1976). Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods. Jewish-Christians could no longer worship at the site for that reason, but they continued the knowledge of it until the time of Constantine when they were able to point him to it as the original site of the resurrection. Constantine put up a basilica over the original shrine, the Anastasis. Excavations by V. Corbo found a gold ring with the representation of the dome of the original shrine Anastasis. This indicates that this site was venerated by Christians in ancient times as the site of the resurrection. (and there is an empty tomb underneither it). (See Archaeology of The Bible: Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 271-2).
Chruch of The Holy Seplechur--Government of Israel site, visited 6/7/01
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00v10
"This courtyard, outside the present-day Church of the Holy Sepulcher, is partly supported by a large, vaulted cistern. The northern wall of this cistern is very impressive, consisting of large blocks with dressed margins, still standing several meters high. It has been suggested that this early wall served as the retaining wall of the second century Hadrianic raised platform (podium). This appears to support Eusebius' statement that the Temple of Venus, which Hadrian erected on the site of Jesus' tomb, stood here before the original church was built."
Virgilio Canio Corbo ofm (1918 - 1991)
Dr. Corbo was a major figure in his field
A
lviero Niccacci, O.F.M.
Archaeology, New Testament, and Early Christianity
Tomado de la página del "Estudio Bíblico Franciscano"
"Since 1961 archaeological soundings, excavations and restorations went on in the Basilica of the HOLY SEPULCHRE. The works were done by the three main Communities - the Greeks, the Armenians and the Franciscans. Fr. Virgilio Corbo acted as a supervisor and the archaeologist of the three communities. In 1981-1982 he published a three-volume illustration on the history of the Holy Sepulchre. By combining the Gospel traditions with the archaeological data Fr. Corbo showed that the area of Golgotha was a quarry of malaky stone since the seventh century BC. The quarry was abandoned in the first century BC and all the area was levelled and transformed into a garden. In this garden two kinds of tombs were carved. One is a single burial with an arcosolium arch. It was cut by Joseph of Arimathea, according to the Gospels and eventually became the tomb of Jesus. The other, lying at a small distance, has many burial places, known as kochim. The place remained a garden until 135 AD when, after curbing the second Jewish revolt, emperor Adrian founded a completely new city under the name of Aelia Capitolina. The area of Golgotha was covered under the basement of the Capitolium, a sacred pagan building. In the new layout the Golgotha found itself inside the city while before it was located outside. From Eusebius of Caesarea we learn that Adrian covered with earth the tomb of Christ in order to conceal it. St Jerome tells us that a statue of Jupiter was erected upon the tomb of Jesus and a statue of Venus on the top of the Golgotha. Archaeological excavations revealed sparse remains of these installations. Again, the pagan transformation helped keep the memory of the site."
(1) Venus and Jupiter
J.Randall Price
Th.M. DTS, Ph.D. Middle Eastern Studies Univ. Texas.
"Excavations conducted in the late 1970's at the site revealed further evidence for this being the place where the original Easter drama was performed. In the lower sections of the Church were discovered the foundations of the Roman emperor Hadrian's "Forum," in which his Temple of Aphrodite had been erected around A.D.135. Hadrian followed Roman custom in building pagan temples and shrines to supercede earlier religious structures. This was done at the site of the Jewish Temple, located not far from the Holy Sepulchre Church, and the fourth century church historian and Bishop of Caesarea Eseubius confirms that it was also done in this case: "Hadrian built a huge rectangular platform over this quarry, concealing the holy cave beneath this massive mound." If the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the actual site venerated by Christians as the tomb of Jesus, it would explain this location for the Roman building."
(2) Was it Really a Roman Temple? What kind of Temple was it?
I'm sure atheists will cloud the issue by probing to find what kind of temple. There appear to be "conflicting traditions as to wheather it was a temple of Venus, or of Jupiter, or even another diety. This obscrues the fact that all archaeologists agree there was a pagan temple there. The evidence points to both, statue of Jupiter, temple of Venus.
Joe: there was a res there had to be an empty tomb but historians argue that they did not have our modern understanding of evidence, so they didn't make a point of the tomb.
It is not about evidence as such, it is about getting the story straight.
If we believe the Gospel of John, Peter saw the empty tomb; this was his first hint of the resurrection. If that really happened, it is no exaggeration to say Peter would have recounted that story thousands of times. We would expect it to be in that early creed in 1 Cor 15 - and in Mark too. That it is not can only really be explained by it being made up later.
Joe: There were stories of the resurrection, they did not think about needing to prove it. they didn't think about the empty tomb, although they venerated the sight in first century. There was probably some talk of the empty tomb but not much.
But the empty tomb was - supposedly - an integral part of the story from the perspective of the disciples - and they were the ones telling the story.
We have no actual account of the resurrection itself; the gospel only tell us what happened afterwards when they discovered Jesus had already ben resurrected. This is presumably what the disciples preached. They told people what they saw, what they experienced.
If we believe the Gospel of John, that would include Peter finding the empty tomb.
Joe: There is no reason J of A would not have spilled the beans and so killed the resurrection.
We are talking about a claim made possibly 20 years after the event. It is possible he could not remember. What was Jesus to him? Just another stupid rebel who had got caught be the Romans, and who had forced him to go kowtowing to the Romans to satisfy the Jewish laws.
It is also quite possible J of A was dead by then. Presumably he was not a young man when Jesus was crucified, perhaps in his forties. He could have been in his sixties by the time Mark's gospel was around.
Bear in mind the Roman's sacked Jerusalem at that time. If J or A was alive at that point it is very likely he either died then, or was arrested as a member of the Sanhedrin, or fled the city and kept out of public view.
Joe: Not at all most historians consider that right on.
I already pointed out that historians believe the temple of Jupiter was built on the site of the Jewish temple.
Joe: woth researching, thdy proved that there were things to Jupiter under the CHS
This seems fundamental to the Christian claims. Why have they not done the research already?
Joe: thye tomb of christ has been excavated, they unconverted it two summers ago e enb fore thei Carbo oundit sand Biddle found it, its theshrieto Jupiter.
No, a tomb they claim was Jesus' has been excavated.
Joe: I documented that gpet uses an ancient tradition Nathew,Markand luke usecthat tradtionthe all the PMPN.But GPet also used oethe syboptics didn't use.
But we do not know what sources they were. They could have been stories made up after Mark.
What I find interesting about Peter is the very ending. After it has the women find the empty tomb, it describes how the men see the risen Jesus whilst fishing. I suspect that bit is the original story. The disciples saw (what they thought was) the risen Jesus whilst fishing on the sea of Galilee. This account has Peter see Jesus first, which fits with Paul's account in 1 Cor 15, and it has Jesus seen first in Galilee which fits with the original ending of Mark. I suggest a version also got appended to John.
That is the kernel of truth you are looking for. The empty tomb was made up, but the sighting of Jesus (or something) whilst out fishing in Galilee, that happened.
Pix
Joe: Bruce attests to the evidential support.(FF Bruch, New Testament Documents) . More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. (1976). Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods. Jewish-Christians could no longer worship at the site for that reason, but they continued the knowledge of it until the time of Constantine when they were able to point him to it as the original site of the resurrection. Constantine put up a basilica over the original shrine, the Anastasis. Excavations by V. Corbo found a gold ring with the representation of the dome of the original shrine Anastasis. This indicates that this site was venerated by Christians in ancient times as the site of the resurrection. (and there is an empty tomb underneither it). (See Archaeology of The Bible: Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 271-2).
But venerated from when? If the empty tomb was made up, no one would know where it was. But they could take a guess, and after Jerusalem was levelled, who would say they were wrong? It would not take long for a guess to be a certainty, especially with a helpful statue to mark the vague area, which evolved into marking the exact spot over the years.
Joe: "This courtyard, outside the present-day Church of the Holy Sepulcher, is partly supported by a large, vaulted cistern. The northern wall of this cistern is very impressive, consisting of large blocks with dressed margins, still standing several meters high. It has been suggested that this early wall served as the retaining wall of the second century Hadrianic raised platform (podium). This appears to support Eusebius' statement that the Temple of Venus, which Hadrian erected on the site of Jesus' tomb, stood here before the original church was built."
Okay, so a temple to just Venus, not Jupiter. That makes more sense. But also this is saying is that there was a Roman temple there. It does not lend credibility to the Christians who talked to Constantine.
Joe: I'm sure atheists will cloud the issue by probing to find what kind of temple. There appear to be "conflicting traditions as to wheather it was a temple of Venus, or of Jupiter, or even another diety. This obscrues the fact that all archaeologists agree there was a pagan temple there. The evidence points to both, statue of Jupiter, temple of Venus.
The real issue is why we should believe the Christians who said the tomb was there.
Pix
I had a look at the linked page on Doxa.
I would say we have two competing hypotheses here.
1. Jesus was resurrected, left the tomb, which was then found empty. Jewish Christians venerated the site, as did gentile Christians later. The site had a temple to Venus built over it ca. AD 135. When Constantine came, the local Christians pointed out where the tomb had been.
2. There was no empty tomb - that was made up ca. AD 60, and found traction in the new religion over the next twenty years. Christians started to speculates with regards to where the tomb had been, and supposed a general area, which became more and more specific overtime, especially when a temple to Venus was built and they could point to a certain statue as the exact site. When Constantine came, the local Christians pointed out where they believed the tomb had been.
Joe: The modern site of CHS is the site Constantine chose; its place in the sourrounding city is an exact fit for the physical and social envoriment of the tomb.
The argument here seems to be with regards to the existence of the basilica which is not something I am debating. For example, one section concludes: "There is virtually no doubt that the CHS is the site Constantine chose." I do appreciate the page was not written to counter me personally!
Joe: One of the major means of identification is through the relation to the city wall. They know where the tomb was suppossed to be in relation to the wall and that gives a vector in which to begin searching. Than there are two other peices of crucial evidence, the description by Eusebius and artifacts which link the site with the tomb.
This may have more promise, but is very vague. How do they know where the tomb is supposed to be?
Unfortunately the link given does not go anywhere.
Joe: In 1963 Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon while digging near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher proved that at the time of the Crucificion, the Church location was outside the walls of the Old City
I am sure there are a lot of places that were outside the walls!
Joe: Some eight rock-cut tombs have so far been found below the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
That would account for why the early Christians decided this must be why Jesus' tomb was here too. The empty tomb was made; they had no idea it was supposed to be, so they guessed it was where the other tombs were.
Joe: Name Galgotha Stuck to the Site.
Or the name was transferred to the site. They knew Jesus was crucified at Golgotha. They had now decided this was where Jesus tomb was, so this must be Golgotha. If that seems unlikely, remember there were two major upheavals with the Jewish revolts. Josephus claims over a million Jews died in the revolt of AD 70. Probably an exaggeration, but it illustrates the huge impact. Both events involved major destruction of Jerusalem and left the Jewish people a scattered minority in the region.
Now consider the alternative. Joseph of Arimathea is a well-to-do man who has chosen to buy a new tomb for himself when he dies. Does he buy a tomb near where criminals are crucified? A tomb in the most ritually unclean area in all Judah? Of course not! He would want his tomb well away from there.
Joe: No one really knows how Contantine chose the site.
Kudos for admitting that.
Joe: But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowledge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Do the scholars think that because they are Christians and they want it to be true, or is there good solid evidence to support the claim? How certain are they?
Pix
Joe: These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who were converts from Judaism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs.
This is speculation presented as fact.
Joe: "The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-35), may have included Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts."
Again, what might have happened. That is in no way evidence that is actually did.
Joe: Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ. The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, especially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known."
The finding of three crosses is just too convenient to be believable. The Roman's crucified thousands, but these three crosses happen to be preserved ..
Joe: "It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour."
This is dubious to say the least. For many many centuries the only people educated to read and write were the Christian priesthood, the very last people who who express or admit such a doubt. Whatever did or did not happen, we would not expect there to be much dissent before the eighteenth century.
Pix
What's dubious to me is the idea that the Romans would even allow Jesus to have a dignified burial. He was an enemy of the state. He was tortured. His supposed identity as "king of the Jews" was cruelly mocked with a crown of thorns. He was executed in a most brutal way, all in keeping with how they treated enemies of the state. And they would have left his body for the scavengers, because that's what they did. But then we are told that the people who did those horrible things to him were really well-meaning, and allowed him to have a dignified burial? Why would they do that? I don't buy it.
Josephus talks about people he knew who were crucified and had funerals he buried them or helped burry them.
"But as historians know, crucified Jews in the peacetime (i.e. before the war), such as when Jesus was alive, were allowed to receive proper burial. This is pretty explicit in the sources.
Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. (Josephus, War of the Jews, 4.317)"
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/mq3ekw/it_is_certain_that_jesus_was_given_a_proper_burial/
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who were converts from Judaism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs.
This is speculation presented as fact.
Joe: "The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-35), may have included Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts."
Pix:: Again, what might have happened. That is in no way evidence that is actually did.
This gives us a better reason to accept it than we have to doubt it.
Joe: Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ. The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, especially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known."
The finding of three crosses is just too convenient to be believable. The Roman's crucified thousands, but these three crosses happen to be preserved ..
noit's not it's tp be expected
Joe: "It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour."
This is dubious to say the least. For many many centuries the only people educated to read and write were the Christian priesthood, the very last people who who express or admit such a doubt. Whatever did or did not happen, we would not expect there to be much dissent before the eighteenth century.
Pix
that is a situation coser to the middle ages
im-skeptical: What's dubious to me is the idea that the Romans would even allow Jesus to have a dignified burial. He was an enemy of the state. He was tortured. His supposed identity as "king of the Jews" was cruelly mocked with a crown of thorns. He was executed in a most brutal way, all in keeping with how they treated enemies of the state. And they would have left his body for the scavengers, because that's what they did. But then we are told that the people who did those horrible things to him were really well-meaning, and allowed him to have a dignified burial? Why would they do that? I don't buy it.
Agreed. I have pointed that out to Joe a few times. The point of crucifixion was to humiliate, and that was especially important to the Romans with Jesus - or anyone hailed as the king of the Jews - as the last thing they wanted was a dead martyr the Jews might rally behind.
Jewish law demanded the body be interred, but it did not require honourable burial. If the gospels are believed, Jesus was also guilty of blasphemy, which would give Jews - like Joseph or Arimathea - reason to deny Jesus honourable burial.
This is confirmed by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews — Book IV:
"He that blasphemeth God let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day: and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner."
Pix
Anonymous said...
im-skeptical: What's dubious to me is the idea that the Romans would even allow Jesus to have a dignified burial. He was an enemy of the state. He was tortured. His supposed identity as "king of the Jews" was cruelly mocked with a crown of thorns. He was executed in a most brutal way, all in keeping with how they treated enemies of the state. And they would have left his body for the scavengers, because that's what they did. But then we are told that the people who did those horrible things to him were really well-meaning, and allowed him to have a dignified burial? Why would they do that? I don't buy it.
Agreed. I have pointed that out to Joe a few times. The point of crucifixion was to humiliate, and that was especially important to the Romans with Jesus - or anyone hailed as the king of the Jews - as the last thing they wanted was a dead martyr the Jews might rally behind.
I documented that it was rare but not unherd of. you did not read the stuff I posted. nothing makes me madder than that, you're willing to have a real discussion.
Jewish law demanded the body be interred, but it did not require honourable burial. If the gospels are believed, Jesus was also guilty of blasphemy, which would give Jews - like Joseph or Arimathea - reason to deny Jesus honourable burial.
Ray Brown tells us we are also dealing with the additional element of the high holy day, They had to void profaning the Holy day.
This is confirmed by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews — Book IV:
"
"He that blasphemeth God let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day: and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner."
that does nt answer Brown's argument
Joe: Josephus talks about people he knew who were crucified and had funerals he buried them or helped burry them.
But not rebel leaders. Not people hailed as the new king of the Jews. The Romans had a particular reason to refuse honourable burial for Jesus.
Further, the gospel accounts say Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, which means the Jewish authorities would also demand there was no honourable burial.
Joe: This gives us a better reason to accept it than we have to doubt it.
No it does not. Anyone can make up stories of what might have been. What we need is evidence that supports your hypothesis against mine. You do not have that. It is telling that none of your replies even address on why we should believe Constantine's temple was built in the right place.
Joe: noit's not it's tp be expected
Of course it is not! Are you seriously claiming Jesus and the two bandits were the last people crucified on that site? The Romans crucified thousands of Jews.
There are reports of them crucifying hundreds a day at the time of the Jewish Revolt ca AD 70. But you think it is reasonable that those three crosses were preserved? Seriously?
Joe: that is a situation coser to the middle ages
We are talking from Constantine to the seventeenth century. Most of that was the middle ages.
You tell me who you think was in a position to doubt the authenticity of the tomb before the eighteenth century.
Joe: I documented that it was rare but not unherd of. you did not read the stuff I posted. nothing makes me madder than that, you're willing to have a real discussion.
What stuff? I responded to the article you linked to in the blog post.
I agree it was not unheard of in some situations, but Jesus' case was significantly different, as I pointed out above.
Joe: Ray Brown tells us we are also dealing with the additional element of the high holy day, They had to void profaning the Holy day.
But that only required that the corpse be buried, not that it is buried honourably.
Joe: that does nt answer Brown's argument
Then Brown must have got it wrong - or more likely you have his argument wrong. Josephus explicitly states that Jews of his time - of Jesus' time - would bury blasphemers without honour. He is the better authority here.
Are you really going to claim that a blasphemer who happens to die just before a holy day get honourable burial, but if he died any other time he would not? Does that really make sense to you?
The holy day meant it was more important than normal to ensure te laws were observed. They would have wanted the corpse off the cross before night fall any time of year, but perhaps did not get that option as it was up to the Romans. At a holy festival, it was more important, and it is plausible the Romans appreciated that, and so allowed it on that occasion when they would not otherwise.
But none of that leads to honourable burial.
Jewish custom required honourable burial, but not Jewish law. Jewish law, observance of God's commands, only required burial. That is all that was needed for Jesus.
There was no reason for the Romans to allow anything more than that.
And if he was found guilty of blasphemy, there was no reason the Jews would want any more than that.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Josephus talks about people he knew who were crucified and had funerals he buried them or helped burry them.
But not rebel leaders. Not people hailed as the new king of the Jews. The Romans had a particular reason to refuse honourable burial for Jesus.
they were regel leaders they did not see Jesus that way, Remeber Pilot said I find no fault in this man, they were just doing a favor for the Sanhedron;
Further, the gospel accounts say Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, which means the Jewish authorities would also demand there was no honourable burial.
they Romans didn't care abut that
Joe: This gives us a better reason to accept it than we have to doubt it.
No it does not. Anyone can make up stories of what might have been. What we need is evidence that supports your hypothesis against mine. You do not have that. It is telling that none of your replies even address on why we should believe Constantine's temple was built in the right place.
Joe: noit's not it's tp be expected
when it helps you you accept the record. they did not give Jesus a tomb because they liked him but to avoid profaning the high holy day. that you cannot deny brown sys it.
Of course it is not! Are you seriously claiming Jesus and the two bandits were the last people crucified on that site? The Romans crucified thousands of Jews.
There are reports of them crucifying hundreds a day at the time of the Jewish Revolt ca AD 70. But you think it is reasonable that those three crosses were preserved? Seriously?
I did not claim that, you are distorting what I said.
Joe: that is a situation coser to the middle ages
We are talking from Constantine to the seventeenth century. Most of that was the middle ages.
No we are not we are talking about when Christ was crucified.
what normally happened is that a person was left to decompose and to serve as food for the scavenging animals. Crucifixion was meant to be a public disincentive to engage in politically subversive activities; and the disincentive did not end with the pain – it continued on in the ravages worked on the corpse afterward.
Philo is mentioning this kind of exceptional case precisely because it goes against established practice. ... bodies were taken down so that they could be given to the crucified persons’ family ... it was a favor done for certain families, and one might assume these were elite families with high connections. ... Jesus’ family did not have high connections, his family did not have the means of burying anyone in Jerusalem
The bigger point has to do with when and why these exceptions mentioned by Philo were made. They were made when a Roman governor chose to honor a Roman emperor’s birthday – in other words, to honor a Roman leader on a Roman holiday. ... a Jewish festival widely recognized as fostering anti-Roman sentiments. It is just the opposite kind of occasion from that mentioned in Philo.
But it must be remembered that the Christian storytellers who indicated that Jesus was an exception to the rule had an extremely compelling reason to do so. If Jesus were not buried, his tomb could not be declared empty.
- Bart Ehrman https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/
You tell me who you think was in a position to doubt the authenticity of the tomb before the eighteenth century.
Joe: I documented that it was rare but not unherd of. you did not read the stuff I posted. nothing makes me madder than that, you're willing to have a real discussion. [that is referring to burial after crusifiction]
What stuff? I responded to the article you linked to in the blog post.
I agree it was not unheard of in some situations, but Jesus' case was significantly different, as I pointed out above.
you have no proof that that difference would be enough t nix any burial, they had to bury him to avoid profaning Passover, you have not responded to that,
Joe: Ray Brown tells us we are also dealing with the additional element of the high holy day, They had to void profaning the Holy day.
But that only required that the corpse be buried, not that it is buried honourably.
it would mean more than throwingn the grbage. proper murial ens some hole
covering and some dignity.
Joe: that does nt answer Brown's argument
Then Brown must have got it wrong - or more likely you have his argument wrong. Josephus explicitly states that Jews of his time - of Jesus' time - would bury blasphemers without honour. He is the better authority here.
but nt on Passover
Are you really going to claim that a blasphemer who happens to die just before a holy day get honourable burial, but if he died any other time he would not? Does that really make sense to you?
read Brown
The holy day meant it was more important than normal to ensure te laws were observed. They would have wanted the corpse off the cross before night fall any time of year, but perhaps did not get that option as it was up to the Romans. At a holy festival, it was more important, and it is plausible the Romans appreciated that, and so allowed it on that occasion when they would not otherwise.
But none of that leads to honourable burial.
proper burial demands it
Jewish custom required honourable burial, but not Jewish law. Jewish law, observance of God's commands, only required burial. That is all that was needed for Jesus.
There was no reason for the Romans to allow anything more than that.
of course there was to keep things quite
Brown:An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews....[4]
............(2) Jesus Burial Certain
Brown:
That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausibleŠ While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)[5]
[4]Raymond Brown,SS. Death of the Messiah. Vol, 2., 1210-1211.
[5] Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)
Brown:
An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews....[4]
............(2) Jesus Burial Certain
Brown:
That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausibleŠ While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)[5]
[4]Raymond Brown,SS. Death of the Messiah. Vol, 2., 1210-1211.
[5] Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)
Brown has a section "Jewish Attitudes towards the Bodies of the Crucified", in volume 2 of The Death of the Messiah, at page 1209. You quote some of it, but in context it looks a little different.
"The crucial issue in Judaism, however, would have been the type of burial. The hanged person was accursed, especially since most often in Jewish legal practice this punishment would have been meted out to those already executed in another way, e.g., stoning. In the OT we see a tendency to refuse to the wicked honorable burial in an ancestral plot (I Kings 13:21-22). Even a king like Jehoiakim, despite his rank, having been condemned by the Lord for wickedness, had these words spoken of him by Jeremiah (22:19): "The burial of an ass shall be given him, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." Jer 26:23 refers to a prophet condemned (unjustly) and slain by the king being thrown "into the burial place of the common people" (see also II Kings 23:6). I Enoch 98:13 excludes from prepared graves the wicked who rejoice in the death of the righteous, and Josephus (Ant. 5.1.14; #44) has Achar at nightfall given "the ignominious burial proper to the condemned" (see also 4.8.24; # 264). The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb. By the time of the Mishna (Sanhedrin 6.5), there is a reference to two places of burial which "were maintained in readiness by the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned." Tosepta Sanhedrin 9.8 states, "Even if the criminal were king of kings, he may not be buried in the grave of his fathers, but only in that prepared by the court." (Some have thought that the wording of that passage was polemically phrased against Christians.) Once the flesh of the deceased criminal had decomposed, the bones could be gathered and buried in the ancestral burial place (Mishna Sanhedrin 6.6). (Obviously, the common burial place provided by the court is not thought of as an indistinguishable common grave or charnel house where corpses could be confused, for the bones had to be recoverable.) Some aspects of the mishnaic practice were surely ideal or reflect a post-NT situation (see n. 1 above); but the bones of the crucified Yehohanan ben hgqwl found in a 1st-cent. burial place at Giv'at ha-Mivtar in 1968 (p. 950 above), were in an ossuary adjacent to the ossuary of Simon the builder of the Temple, so that the honorable second burial of the crucified was not so late a practice as once thought.
"How would this attitude that criminals should receive (at first) shameful burial be applicable to those crucified by Gentiles? In the Bible and the Mishna there is an assumption that the condemned person was punishable by death under Jewish law, which is God's law. In a political situation where the death penalty was imposed by Gentiles, however, the opposite could be true: An innocent or noble Jew might be crucified for something that did come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in TalBab Sanhedrin 47a-47b when Abaye complains, "Would you compare those who are slain by a [Gentile] government to those who are executed by the Beth Din? The former, since their death is not in accordance with [Jewish] law, obtain forgiveness; but the latter, whose death is justly merited, are not [thereby] forgiven." Such a distinction had to be made much earlier, or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Maccabean martyrs." Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial of one crucified by the Romans.
"What would have been the Jewish attitude toward the crucified Jesus? A desire to get his body off the cross before sunset is implicit in the appeal of Joseph to Pilate in the Synoptics and explicit in John 19:31; GPet 2:5; 5:15. Yet would the tendency have been to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Matt the Sanhedrin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus (Ant. 4.8.6; # 202) would have the blasphemer stoned, hung, "and buried ignominiously and in obscurity." Mart. of Polycarp 17:2 has Jews instigating opposition lest the body of Polycarp be given to his adherents for honorable burial. On the other hand, Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with Jewish law and so not necessarily subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?"
As far as I can see, he does not actually answer that question. Your quote certainly gives the impression he does, but it is clear that that is not the case when seen in context.
He goes on to other things, but gets back to this on p 1240, to discuss a pre-gospel account. It is not clear if that would be an honorable burial or not, but I get the impression it is the latter.
"Only as the basic account is modified in the later Gospels under the impact of the increasing ennoblement of Joseph is it stated that the cloth was clean white, that the body was washed (GPet), that there were spices (John: but even then, no anointing), and that the tomb was new and even Joseph's own. While the need for haste was certainly a motive for the frugality of the burial in the basic account, such a burial also matches the account's portrait of Joseph: one who was motivated by God's rule (kingdom) expressed in the law that the crucified should be taken down and buried before sunset, but one who at this stage had no reason to honor the condemned criminal.
I have been outlining a detectable preGospel account of the burial of Jesus by Joseph. (Whether the presence of other dramatis personae constitutes ancient tradition, along with details about the tomb, will be discussed in the ANALYSIS of 847.) How much of that is history? That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain..."
Pix
Joe: they were regel leaders they did not see Jesus that way,
The issue they had with Jesus was he was being hailed as the new king of the Jews, the man the Jews believed would lead them to other throw Roman rule.
Mark 11:8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, while others spread branches they had cut in the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted,
“Hosanna![a]”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”[b]
10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
That is reason enough for Pilate to crucify him.
Joe: Remeber Pilot said I find no fault in this man, they were just doing a favor for the Sanhedron;
And who witnessed him saying that? None of the disciples were there.
This was made up to help Christianity appeal to the Romans.
Joe: they Romans didn't care abut that
But my point is that the Jewish authorities - and more specifically Joseph of Arimathea - did. He had good reason not to have Jesus buried honourably.
Joe: when it helps you you accept the record.
When the record says something that embarrasses Christianity, the most like reason for that is because it actually happened.
Joe: they did not give Jesus a tomb because they liked him but to avoid profaning the high holy day. that you cannot deny brown sys it.
Brown says:
"The account of the death of Judas in Matt 27:5-8 shows that the Jews of Jesus' time would think of a common burial place for the despised, not a family tomb. By the time of the Mishna (Sanhedrin 6.5), there is a reference to two places of burial which "were maintained in readiness by the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and the other for those who were stoned or burned." Tosepta Sanhedrin 9.8 states, "Even if the criminal were king of kings, he may not be buried in the grave of his fathers, but only in that prepared by the court."
Joe: I did not claim that, you are distorting what I said.
I said "The finding of three crosses is just too convenient to be believable. The Roman's crucified thousands, but these three crosses happen to be preserved ..", and you responded "noit's not it's tp be expected". Please make clear what you are saying with regards to the claim.
Joe: No we are not we are talking about when Christ was crucified.
I was thinking about the siting of Constantine's temple at the tomb.
If you want to go back all the way, the issue is who would preserve the text of those who dissent? It was Christian monks who preserved the manuscripts, and they got to choose which were preserved.
Joe: you have no proof that that difference would be enough t nix any burial, they had to bury him to avoid profaning Passover, you have not responded to that,
What you are proposing is that Joseph of Arimathea had purchased a new family tomb for himself adjacent to the most ritually unclear site for miles around. Meanwhile, you are also claiming the grave for crucifixion victims was at some distance from where they were crucified. Neither makes sense.
Joe: it would mean more than throwingn the grbage. proper murial ens some hole covering and some dignity.
No it does not. Jewish law only required that they get under ground. That is it.
Joe: but nt on Passover
So find the text that shows that at Passover blasphemers get honourable burial.
Joe: of course there was to keep things quite
If the Romans wanted to keep these quiet, their best course of action was to allow burial, as Jewish law demanded, but not allow honourable burial. Jewish law did not demand that, and it would prevent the man the Jews were proclaiming as their new king from being a figurehead after death.
Pix
"The point of crucifixion was to humiliate".
And more than that, it was a strong message to the people: "This is what happens to enemies of the state." They want it to be seen. They want to make a spectacle of it.
Jesus was not crucified by the Jews he was not crucified for blasphemy.
Joe: Jesus was not crucified by the Jews he was not crucified for blasphemy.
If you had read the comments, you would realise no one is saying otherwise.
Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was a threat to their order, and the way to deal with that was crucifixion and burial in obscurity.
Pix
I think you asserted that he was crucified for blasphemy that is a reason why they would not give him a tomb I think you said as much.
No, I said the gospels claim he was convicted of blasphemy, and if that is true, that would ALSO give Joseph of Arimathea to refuse honourable burial in addition to the Romans wanting to prevent it.
Pix
where do the Gospels claim that? why would the Romans care about blasphemy?
you want to propose an analogy to the Gospels, you need to show that the analogy matches the level of verifiable detail that we find in the Gospels. It isn't enough just to show that a mythical account mentions a few real cities or kings. The Gospels contain numerous authentic details. Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, Herod the Tetrarch and John the Baptist were real but relatively obscure people. They were quite important locally but not internationally. The Pharisees and Sadducees were real groups who held the views that the Gospels attribute to them. Capernaum was a real but insignificant town. People from Galilee really did travel to Jerusalem for Passover. The Romans did indeed occupy Judaea and people were likely to question whether it was right to pay taxes to them. There really were debates about observing the Law and, for example, whether or not you could rescue an animal from a ditch on the Sabbath was a real issue. Simon and Mary really were common names at the time, hence the need for various ways of distinguishing between two or more Simons or two or more Marys. The teaching of Jesus was both a recognizable product of that time and also very distinctive, as Geza Vermes and others have argued.
So it's all about the level of detail. Do we see the same level of verifiable detail in any ancient myth? I don't think so. Of course, it isn't surprising that we find so much detail in the Gospels. They were written quite soon after the period they depict. That doesn't necessarily prove that they are historical accounts but it does reframe the debate. You now have to argue that the Gospels are a form of elaborate historical fiction with no real parallel in the ancient world. You can try to do that but the onus is on you to show that they were only ever seen as fiction - and that is impossible. The existence of an organized Jesus movement, which appears to have started at the time when the Gospel story is set, is now fatal to the mythicist case. That is about as surprising as finding that there was an organized Harry Potter movement before the novels were written.
Are the cases of Ned Ludd and John Frum helpful to the mythicist case? Hardly. Do we have an account which shows Ned Ludd recruiting followers? Is it packed with authentic detail? Do we have accounts of the teaching of Ned Ludd or John Frum? Are their teachings revered and likely to be remembered and discussed for centuries? No on all counts. So I remain sceptical of the myth theory.
Reply
Post a Comment