The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards? One of the major innovations in countering this argument has been a tendency for Skeptics to argue that most crucifixion victims were not buried in individual tombs, but were tossed aside in mass graves or left for dogs to eat. Thus, it is assumed, the narrative of the Tomb was a fabrication, one calculated to produce an apologetic which would set up proof of a resurrection.
This argument can be countered in several ways:
I. Some burials for Crucifixion victims did happen and were not that uncommon.
A. The Skeptical Argument that Crucified Criminals were not given burial.In Fact the Romans did leave bodies on the cross often until they disintegrated.
B. Jews were horrified by non-burial of the crucified.
1) Crucifixion comes under heading of hanging.
This point has often been made in a different way by skeptics in argument. They will say that the references to being hung on tree indicate that Jesus was actually hung and not crucified. But hanging on a tree was the euphemism for crucifixion. It came from the OT custom of handing the body of an executed criminal on a tree. When crucifixion was brought in by the Romans the euphemism was created and applied to crucifixion. (See Raymond Brown, Death of The Messiah, Vol. II p.1209)
This means that the Jews had a horror of non-burial.
Deut. 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).
2) Burial of crucified mandatory.
The Conflict between Roman and Jewish practices is phrased thus by S. Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." In the first Jewish revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this Josephus states: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." [Ibid. and Josephus in War 44.5.2 #317]
Skeptics will quote this horror as though that is the main thing that made Jews fear crucifixion, but they will go on asserting that the Roman practice dominated, whereas the Jews found it mandatory according to their religion to bury the dead, even those crucified after having been found guilty of a crime.
3) Type of burial is the issue.
Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?
C. Jews would probably have allowed burial of Jesus in Joseph's Tomb.
1) They key to the issue is the charge against him.
The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).
2) Jesus was not exicuted on criminal charges.
Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.
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 the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]
"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...."[Brown 1210-1211]
The Sanhedrin believed Jesus guilty of blasphemy, that doesn't mean that he was formally executed for it. That means his he may have been entitaled to honorable burial.
3) Clues in Mark and in Gospel of Peter (GPet).
a) Time indications.
Mark is probably the basis for Synoptic understanding of the events and John may have an account independent from that of Mark. There is a time requirement implicit in the request to get the body buried since the death occurred about 3pm and some time between this time and sunset the body had to be placed in the ground to prevent profanation of the Holy day (Passover). Thus there was a race against time and it was expedient to to follow through with events as quickly as possible.
b) Jospeh of Aramethia.
Brown points out that since the first mention of Jospeh in all the Gospels is at this juncture, his Role in burying Jesus, he was not thought of as a follower or as a supporter, but merely one who wanted to prevent profanation of the Holy Day. He was a distinguished member of the Sanhedrin and would have had a certain degree of political influence. If he was merely concerned with doing his duty he might be willing to offer his own tomb for the sake of expediency. This makes sense of what seems to be a lack of cooperation between two parties, the women and Jospeh. Had both groups been followers it makes no sense why Joseph would not have been there to roll away the stone for the women, or why the women would not have stayed to anoint the body. This also makes sense of the tendency of John and GPet to speak of the Jews burying Jesus, "they drew out the nails, " and so forth. (John 19:38, GPet 6:21).
4) Roman Respect for Jewish Customs.
"During the Roman period decrees were promulgated which prohibited the removal of the stone coverings of tombs and the mutilation of their contents." [R.K. Harrison Archaeology of The New Testament, New York: Association Press 1964, p. 31]
There is an inscription of such a law, called "The Nazareth law" found on the stone covering the entrance to a tomb, which dates to Claudias' time (about AD 41). This may have been in response to the claims of Jesus' resurrection. Brown does not regard that as a serious argument, however, although it does show that the Roman's were willing to respect the Religious practices of the Jews. We do know this from other instances in fact, that exceptions were made to honor the specific religious requirements of the Jews whenever possible. Thus there would probably have been no insistence that Roman custom be followed with regard to the bodies on crosses. IN fact Browns gives an example of three friends of Josephaus' who were crucified and Josephus was able to have them taken down on the insistence that leaving them up violated their religious customs.
While it is true that in some cases the Romans did leave the bodies of crucified victims on crosses for extended periods of time (typically to horrify rebellious locals), the basic rules for how to treat the crucified was laid out in "The Digest of Justinian" 48:24 in which Ulipian tells us that the bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be denied to their relatives, and this is extended by Julius Paulus to include any who seek them for burial (see R.E. Brown, "Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, pg. 1207).
As Brown says:
Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves.The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):>
Further...
"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239
The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16) as mentioned by Josephus in Jewish War 4.5.2; #317 "The Jews were so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." These practices arise especially Mosaic Law.
Deuteronomy 21:22-23 "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged."
Further, we have from Josephus again mentioning of the command to bury on the same day one who has been hung on a tree after being stoned to death, in a first-century context Antiquities 4. 202 and Jewish War 4. 317.Brown documents the story of Josephus, who saw three of his freinds hanging on corsses, and was able to have them taken down because it was almost sunset. Two of the three survived, but the one who died was burried honorably.
In his concluding remarks on the burial of Jesus, Raymond Brown had this to say:
"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 implausible. While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic Gospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)
One of history's most liberal theologians concurs. Commenting specifically on Mark 15:42-47:
"This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vs. 44-45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark." R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pg. 274.
"A straightforward reading of the Gospels' portrait of the burial has been challenged by revisionist scholars, who theorize that Jesus died in a mass crucifixion: the body was thrown into a common, shallow trench, to become carrion for vultures and scavenging dogs. This makes for vivid drama but implausible history. Pilate, after all, had been forced in the face of Jewish opposition to withdraw his military shields from public view in the city when he first acceded to power. What likelihood was there, especially after Sejanus' death, that he would get away with flagrantly exposing the corpse of an executed Jew beyond the interval permitted by the Torah, and encouraging its mutilation by scavengers outside Jerusalem?"Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point. It is worth explaining why I go along with much of the Gospel's account of Jesus' burial, because doing so will help us grapple with the vexed question of what happened three days after his crucifixion."Time and again, the Gospels reveal the tendancy of the first Christians to shift the blame for Jesus' death away from Pilate and onto the Sanhedrin. Yet when it comes to taking on the weighty responsibility of burying Jesus, we find members of that same council taking the lead, while most of Jesus' disciples had beaten a hasty and ignominious retreat. Joseph's and Nicodemus' public act cost them: they donated mortuary dressing and ointment as well as use of the cave. They also contracted uncleanness for seven days after the burial. On each of those seven days they would have had to explain to curious colleagues where and why they had come into contact with a corpse, a powerful source of impurity."Joseph's act went beyond mere display of ordinary decency. He ensured that Jesus was interred in one of the caves he had recently dug for himself and his family. The significance of this gesture is plain: there were those wihtin the council who had not agreed with Caiphas' condemnation of Jesus to Pilate."[Chilton, Bruce. "Rabbi Jesus: The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity", (New York: Doubleday, 2000) p. 270-272.]
II. The "No Tomb" Theory doesn't account for or explain the early faith in the resurrection.
Had it been common custom for crucifixion victims to always have been left on the cross for several days and finally to be thrown to dogs, one can scarily see how anyone would not know this. Knowing the fate of crucifixion victims to always lack any real burial, who in Jerusalem would be convinced by the stories of Jesus and the empty tomb? The very fact of the contradictory nature of the story would turn off any interest in the group from the beginning. It would have been known to most people that crucified and empty tomb just don't' go together, so who would have believed the story? Than to think that they waited 50 years until Mark wrote his Gospel to try and add apologetics touches such as Jospeh of Aramethia volunteering his tomb, is absurd. Clearly the story had to emerge at a very early period, yet if it emerged very early it would have been know to be a lie. No one would believe something that so violated common knowledge and of which they had never heard a word and knew no one else who ever heard of such events. The notion that these aspects of the Jesus story do not have a basis in historical fact just does not hold water.
40 comments:
Joe: The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards?
And yet Brown doubts the guards on the tomb actually happened. He discusses the issue on pages 1311-2. of Death of the Messiah, volume 2:
"Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they relate about the tomb almost unintelligible."
The text discusses the issue with all gospels saying the women went to the tomb worried about how they would move the stone, but none suggest the women were worried about the guards. Then there is the idea that the Jewish authorities knew Jesus was supposed to come back, when the disciples did not. Plus that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention. Then he continues:
"Can one save historicity by going back to a preGospel situation and contending that the Jewish Sanhedrin member who buried Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, may have taken some precaution to protect the sepulcher, and that this developed into the story that Matt now tells? This is a very hypothetical suggestion, however, for neither Matt nor GPet connects the guard with Joseph, and even some minor precaution should have left a trace in the other Gospels as an obstacle to the women on Easter. Absolute negative statements (...) most often go beyond the kind of evidence available to biblical scholars. More accurate is the observation that as with other Matthean material (...) there is neither internal or external evidence to cause us to affirm historicity."
Brown's position is that it was made up prior to Matthew, but after Mark.
Joe: Some burials for Crucifixion victims did happen and were not that uncommon.
Jesus was executed as the pretender to King of the Jews, not as a rank-and-file rebel.
Burial in a tomb could have led to Jesus being a symbol for resistence to Roman rule long after his death - the NT says how the Jews venerate the tombs of their dead heros. The Romans had good reason to deny Jesus a tomb.
The Romans had reason to allow burial, but not to allow burial in a tomb.
Joe: This means that the Jews had a horror of non-burial.
All your arguments so far are that Jesus was buried. What is contended is whether he was buried in a tomb.
Joe: Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?
So Brown says the guilty were put in common graves, but you are ignoring that because... you do not want it to be true?
Joe: C. Jews would probably have allowed burial of Jesus in Joseph's Tomb.
The issue is whether they would have pro-actively decided to bury Jesus in a tomb, rather than a common grave. Having found him guilty of blasphemy, so the gospels tell us, they assuredly would not.
Pix
Joe: Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.
According to the gospel accounts, the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy. Do you think that was made up?
Joe: 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 the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial?
According to the gospel accounts, the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy. Do you think that was made up?
Joe: The Sanhedrin believed Jesus guilty of blasphemy, that doesn't mean that he was formally executed for it. That means his he may have been entitaled to honorable burial.
So your position is that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, but because he got executed for something else, the Sanhedrin decided to bury him honourably?
Does that actually make sense to you?
If he was merely concerned with doing his duty he might be willing to offer his own tomb for the sake of expediency.
So you really think this high-ranking Jew had his brand new tomb near to the most profane place for dozens of miles around? And the common grave for crucified criminals was not near the place where they crucified criminals?
Does that actually make sense to you?
Joe: Thus there would probably have been no insistence that Roman custom be followed with regard to the bodies on crosses.
Agreed. But religious law was satisfied by burial in a common grave.
Joe: Further, we have from Josephus again mentioning of the command to bury on the same day one who has been hung on a tree after being stoned to death, in a first-century context Antiquities 4. 202 and Jewish War 4. 317.
Why did you not quote Josephus? Oh, right, because that would destroy your argument.
When we actually read Josephus, he is quite clear that said burial was without all honour.
"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."
Joe: The "No Tomb" Theory doesn't account for or explain the early faith in the resurrection.
Sure it does. The earliest Christians believed Jesus was resurrected in a new body made of heavenly matter. See 1 Cor 15.
1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
The claim that Jesus was resurrected in his original body was made up later, and directly contradicts Paul.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards?
And yet Brown doubts the guards on the tomb actually happened. He discusses the issue on pages 1311-2. of Death of the Messiah, volume 2:
"Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other Gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they relate about the tomb almost unintelligible."
The point here is nt the guards but the tomb. Yet I don't see how there could be a belief in res without the guards, the natural assumption would be they just moved the body.
The text discusses the issue with all gospels saying the women went to the tomb worried about how they would move the stone, but none suggest the women were worried about the guards.
they may not have known they were there
Then there is the idea that the Jewish authorities knew Jesus was supposed to come back, when the disciples did not.
they knew by the time it happened,
Plus that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention. Then he continues:
"Can one save historicity by going back to a preGospel situation and contending that the Jewish Sanhedrin member who buried Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, may have taken some precaution to protect the sepulcher, and that this developed into the story that Matt now tells? This is a very hypothetical suggestion, however, for neither Matt nor GPet connects the guard with Joseph, and even some minor precaution should have left a trace in the other Gospels as an obstacle to the women on Easter. Absolute negative statements (...) most often go beyond the kind of evidence available to biblical scholars. More accurate is the observation that as with other Matthean material (...) there is neither internal or external evidence to cause us to affirm historicity."
that is mere conjecture. So with all of this attention to the guards you try to divert us from the tomb.so you agree there as a tomb.
Brown's position is that it was made up prior to Matthew, but after Mark.
Sometimes fine scholars come up with stupid ideas.
Joe: Some burials for Crucifixion victims did happen and were not that uncommon.
Jesus was executed as the pretender to King of the Jews, not as a rank-and-file rebel.
that would not mean no tomb, in fact it means he would get a tomb,
Burial in a tomb could have led to Jesus being a symbol for resistence to Roman rule long after his death - the NT says how the Jews venerate the tombs of their dead heros. The Romans had good reason to deny Jesus a tomb.
The research I used in this essay proves conclusively that if Jesus was not guilty of a criminal charge he had to be given a tomb, with passover so close if they planned to throw him away they would have waited,
The Romans had reason to allow burial, but not to allow burial in a tomb.
for the Jews it was mandatory and the Romans respected the Jew's religious needs,
Joe: This means that the Jews had a horror of non-burial.
Pix: All your arguments so far are that Jesus was buried. What is contended is whether he was buried in a tomb.
NO COMMON BURIAL DID NOT COUNT, there was no reason why they would with hold burial in a tomb.
read this quote by 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 implausible. While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic Gospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)
Note the last sentence nothing in the story not plausaibly historical,
Brown tells us there that J of A's role is very probable. That means it's probable he got put in a tomb.
Joe: Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?
So Brown says the guilty were put in common graves, but Jesus was not crucified for a crime, you are ignoring that because... you do not want it to be true?
Joe: C. Jews would probably have allowed burial of Jesus in Joseph's Tomb.
The issue is whether they would have pro-actively decided to bury Jesus in a tomb, rather than a common grave. Having found him guilty of blasphemy, so the gospels tell us, they assuredly would not.
Obviously they would have for reasons said above.
Joe: The point here is nt the guards but the tomb. Yet I don't see how there could be a belief in res without the guards, the natural assumption would be they just moved the body.
You started the post:
"The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards?"
Now you want to say it is NOT about the guards? What game are you playing here?
Joe: they may not have known they were there
Brown sees that as one of three reasons to conclude the guard was made up.
Joe: they knew by the time it happened,
How is that relevant to Brown's point about the guard?
Joe: that is mere conjecture.
It was a quote straight from Brown's book. The "conjecture" is his.
Joe: So with all of this attention to the guards you try to divert us from the tomb.so you agree there as a tomb.
Ah, so that is the game you are playing. Do you think anyone will fall for it?
Joe: Sometimes fine scholars come up with stupid ideas.
And sometimes they are right.
Joe: that would not mean no tomb, in fact it means he would get a tomb,
It means the Romans had good reason to deny burial in a tomb.
Joe: The research I used in this essay proves conclusively that if Jesus was not guilty of a criminal charge he had to be given a tomb, with passover so close if they planned to throw him away they would have waited,
This is nonsense. What you presented does no such thing. You are claiming a technicality of the law, based on very little evidence. And even if you are right, why would Joseph want to explot that tecvhnicality? He spent the previous night condemning Jesus to death!
Joe: for the Jews it was mandatory and the Romans respected the Jew's religious needs,
Burial was mandatory. A tomb was not.
Joe: NO COMMON BURIAL DID NOT COUNT, there was no reason why they would with hold burial in a tomb.
And yet Josephus tells us that is what they did.
Joe: read this quote by Brown:
"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. ...
Note the last sentence nothing in the story not plausaibly historical,
You are clutching at straws. Brown is clear on what points he is discussing here. Burial, done for Jewish sensibilities, by Joseph of Arimathea.
He is certainly NOT telling us Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian or Jesus was smoothed in spices, which we can also find in the gospel accounts!
Joe: Brown tells us there that J of A's role is very probable. That means it's probable he got put in a tomb.
No it does not. It means burial is very probably. but not in a tomb.
Joe: So Brown says the guilty were put in common graves, but Jesus was not crucified for a crime, you are ignoring that because... you do not want it to be true?
The gospels tell us Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty was death. Do you honestly think Joseph of Arimathea thought that he would take the corpse of a man guilty of blasphemy to a nice tomb just because on a technicality he was allowed to? Joseph was a member of the council that condemned Jesus to death!
It is just plausible he would have been allowed to bury the body in a tomb by Jewish law (but not Roman), but he would not have wanted to. He would have wanted Jesus' corpse to be treated as a blasphemer.
Pix
The treatment of the crucified varied throughout Roman occupation of Judea.
Jewish tradition was not always respected. In the case of Josephus friends, they were but three of many that were crucified at that time and only taken down because of Josephus personal request to Titus. Of the three, only one survived.
You say that the story would have been denounced if the treatment of Jesus was known to go against normal practice and the insertion of Jospeh of Aramethia was known to be a lie.
That assumes knowledge by the audience of both these things.
Many NT scholars conclude that Mark was written in Rome for a Roman audience. Not many people there would question the details.
I quoted Brown (Px's hero) saying the of the story is probable. He argues for the historicity of Joe of A, Why make up a town no one has heard of?
Ray Brown: " 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."
The all knowing Brown knows all, tells all.
Cuttlebones
I agree with you about Josephus; the situation was quite different. The three men were just rank-and-file rebels, not the claimant to the title of King of the Jews. Plus, as you say, Josephus had a personal interest in saving them, which Joseph of Arimathea did not - he had just condemned Jesus as a blasphemer.
With regards to Joseph of Arimathea being made up, I find that unlikely. The text implies he was an enemy of Jesus, and yet it also says he was a pious man. If it was made up, it would either say he was sympathetic to Jesus - as the later gospels do - or that he was a bad person with no redeeming qualities.
My guess is that Joseph of Arimathea was the guy who did this whenever Jewish custom demanded it. The disciples had fled Jerusalem, so had no idea what actually happened, but they HOPED Jesus had been taken down from the cross, and they knew Joseph of Arimathea was the guy who would have done, so that is what they assumed.
Yes, Mark was written in Rome, but as Joe says it was almost certainly based on an older document, and Joseph of Arimathea likely was in that.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: The point here is nt the guards but the tomb. Yet I don't see how there could be a belief in res without the guards, the natural assumption would be they just moved the body.
You started the post:
"The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards?"
Now you want to say it is NOT about the guards? What game are you playing here?
Read the while paragraph I transitioned from guards to tomb
Joe: they may not have known they were there
Brown sees that as one of three reasons to conclude the guard was made up.
Joe: they knew by the time it happened,
How is that relevant to Brown's point about the guard?
Joe: that is mere conjecture.
It was a quote straight from Brown's book. The "conjecture" is his.
Joe: So with all of this attention to the guards you try to divert us from the tomb.so you agree there as a tomb.
Ah, so that is the game you are playing. Do you think anyone will fall for it?
Joe: Sometimes fine scholars come up with stupid ideas.
And sometimes they are right.
Joe: that would not mean no tomb, in fact it means he would get a tomb,
It means the Romans had good reason to deny burial in a tomb.
Joe: The research I used in this essay proves conclusively that if Jesus was not guilty of a criminal charge he had to be given a tomb, with passover so close if they planned to throw him away they would have waited,
This is nonsense. What you presented does no such thing. You are claiming a technicality of the law, based on very little evidence. And even if you are right, why would Joseph want to explot that tecvhnicality? He spent the previous night condemning Jesus to death!
Briown does not see it that way You want to sweep aside as a technically which all scholrs agree to,
Joe: for the Jews it was mandatory and the Romans respected the Jew's religious needs,
Burial was mandatory. A tomb was not.
Mass burial was not proper burial. No way to be sure they would close it up by passover
Joe: NO COMMON BURIAL DID NOT COUNT, there was no reason why they would with hold burial in a tomb.
And yet Josephus tells us that is what they did.
there is no quote by Josephus saying they always without exception put crucified victims in common grave.
Joe: read this quote by Brown:
"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. ...
Note the last sentence nothing in the story not plausaibly historical,
You are clutching at straws. Brown is clear on what points he is discussing here. Burial, done for Jewish sensibilities, by Joseph of Arimathea.
J of A was a Jew that does not make him lessprobable.
He is certainly NOT telling us Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian or Jesus was smoothed in spices, which we can also find in the gospel accounts!
Nithing in NT says Joe was a Christian,
Joe: Brown tells us there that J of A's role is very probable. That means it's probable he got put in a tomb.
No it does not. It means burial is very probably. but not in a tomb.
Nope J of A's only role is giving Jesus a tomb. so if J of A is probable the private tomb is probable.
Joe: So Brown says the guilty were put in common graves, but Jesus was not crucified for a crime, you are ignoring that because... you do not want it to be true?
The gospels tell us Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty was death. Do you honestly think Joseph of Arimathea thought that he would take the corpse of a man guilty of blasphemy to a nice tomb just because on a technicality he was allowed to? Joseph was a member of the council that condemned Jesus to death!
J of A's purpose was not to profane the day. But common grave meant not burried with ancestors that would profane the day.
It is just plausible he would have been allowed to bury the body in a tomb by Jewish law (but not Roman), but he would not have wanted to. He would have wanted Jesus' corpse to be treated as a blasphemer.
He was willing to serve the greater good, making sure the day was Holy
Koester says:
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.[3]
[and again]
"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 208.
As early as mid century they wrote about empty tomb, it was in oral tradition before that It does not deem likely they should make it up as early to the original events with eye witnesses still around,
Joe: Read the while paragraph I transitioned from guards to tomb
Sure, but the guards clearly were important to your argument. The fact that you started the article shows that. Then you got proved wrong, and want to pretend actually they have nothing to do with your argument.
Joe: Briown does not see it that way You want to sweep aside as a technically which all scholrs agree to,
So quote Brown supporting your position.
I have re-read that bit of Death of the Messiah, and Brown's position is that Joseph was a real person, but he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and not sympathetic to Jesus.
He says nothing about the technicality that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy, but not executed for blasphemy, so could be honourably buried that I could see. Certainly nothing you have quoted supports that.
And still there is the very important fact that as one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus, Joseph would have no desire to exploit that technicality. Joseph's position was that he believed Jesus was a blasphemer, and therefore deserved to be stoned to death and buried dishonourably.
So why would Joseph subsequently choose to exploit a technicality of the law to give Jesus and honourable burial?
And why would the Romans let him?
Joe: Mass burial was not proper burial. No way to be sure they would close it up by passover
Of course they could be sure. They were right there, chucking the body in.
Joe: there is no quote by Josephus saying they always without exception put crucified victims in common grave.
Sure - he was talking about men found guilty of blasphemy. Like Jesus.
"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."
Joseph, at best, would have desired to see Jesus was "buried in an ignominious and obscure manner" as per Jewish law.
Joe: J of A was a Jew that does not make him lessprobable.
Who said it does? How does this relate to the discussion in any way?
Joe: Nithing in NT says Joe was a Christian,
It is undoubtedly a later fabrication, but the NT does indeed claim just that.
Mat 27:57 Now when it was evening, a rich man from Arimathea came, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus.
John 20:38 Now after these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the [t]Jews,...
Joe: Nope J of A's only role is giving Jesus a tomb. so if J of A is probable the private tomb is probable.burial is probable.
Joe: J of A's purpose was not to profane the day. But common grave meant not burried with ancestors that would profane the day.
That is simply nonsense. The quote from Josephus proves that is not the case. All that was required to avoid the day being profaned was that the body was buried.
Joe: He was willing to serve the greater good, making sure the day was Holy
Right, and all he needed to do to ensure that was to get Jesus buried.
We know those guilty of blasphemy were "buried in an ignominious and obscure manner" and that did not profane any holy days. Jesus was just the same.
Pix
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb.[3]
[and again]
"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 208.
As early as mid century they wrote about empty tomb, it was in oral tradition before that It does not deem likely they should make it up as early to the original events with eye witnesses still around,
1:04 AM
Anonymous said...
Joe: Read the while paragraph I transitioned from guards to tomb
I read it. but i don't have the book now so why don;t you quote it?
Sure, but the guards clearly were important to your argument. The fact that you started the article shows that. Then you got proved wrong, and want to pretend actually they have nothing to do with your argument.
tell me more about your delusion that I was proved wrong? you stop your propaganda and learn what really happened. I do not mind arguing about the guards. But they are not what I wanted to talk about. You can't let anything go your desperate to win a point,
Joe: Brown does not see it that way You want to sweep aside as a technically which all scholrs agree to,
So quote Brown supporting your position.
I have re-read that bit of Death of the Messiah, and Brown's position is that Joseph was a real person, but he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and not sympathetic to Jesus.
I agree with that because I've read it before. Bur it may be a bit more compeciated. Perhaps he admired Jesus and considered supportig him bt could not. who knows?
He says nothing about the technicality that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy, but not executed for blasphemy, so could be honourably buried that I could see. Certainly nothing you have quoted supports that.
You just did not look hard: "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...."[Brown 1210-1211]
And still there is the very important fact that as one of the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus, Joseph would have no desire to exploit that technicality. Joseph's position was that he believed Jesus was a blasphemer, and therefore deserved to be stoned to death and buried dishonourably.
He obviously thought profaining the day was a bigger issue. we have been through you nothing new to say you are just desperate.
That is simply nonsense. The quote from Josephus proves that is not the case. All that was required to avoid the day being profaned was that the body was buried.
He says nothing to imply that a mass grave constituted proper burial.
Just res it out man. Brown says Joe gave his tombto save the Hoky day, that had to mean puttimghimina mass brave would not not do it, Otherwise why did he give hs tomb?
Joe: "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, Their History and Development. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, 208.
It is page 218, not 208. Koester goes on to say, page 219.
"There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis. The first is the reliability of the extant text..."
This first issue is about the Gospel of Peter, which Crossan views as very earlier, but Koester and Brown disagree. The second problem is that Koester is dubious of very idea of "major literary compositions of a very early date". The third problem is that the various accounts of the appearances of the risen Jesus are from obviously different sources.
So again you are presenting text as though it represents the author's view, when in fact the author immediately goes on to say why he disagrees with the claim.
Another quote-mine in other words.
Pix
Joe: I read it. but i don't have the book now so why don;t you quote it?
I think you are replying to your own comments here.
Joe: tell me more about your delusion that I was proved wrong? you stop your propaganda and learn what really happened. I do not mind arguing about the guards. But they are not what I wanted to talk about. You can't let anything go your desperate to win a point,
You started your post saying how the guard on the tomb is great evidence for the empty tomb, and when we get to the discussion, you claim that was not your point at all. Looks clear to me you are back-pedalling.
Joe: I agree with that because I've read it before. Bur it may be a bit more compeciated. Perhaps he admired Jesus and considered supportig him bt could not. who knows?
Oh, well, if we get to make stuff up, maybe aliens came down and cloned Jesus. Or we can stick with what makes sense given the evidence we have.
The evidence we have indicates Joseph was a pious Jew, who was not sympathetic to Jesus.
In fact Brown points out that Pilate would be far less likely to hand over the corpse to a sympathiser. Likely Joseph was only successful with Pilate because he was part of the group that handed Jesus over in the first place.
Pix: He says nothing about the technicality that Jesus was condemned for blasphemy, but not executed for blasphemy, so could be honourably buried that I could see. Certainly nothing you have quoted supports that.
Joe: You just did not look hard: "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...."[Brown 1210-1211]
Nothing there about Jesus being buried in a tomb because of a technicality in the law. I guess you could not find anything either.
Further, Brown is considering those viewed as heroes, martyrs even, who had been crucified. That was absolutely not how Joseph saw Jesus - he saw Jesus as a man condemned for blasphemy.
Joe: He obviously thought profaining the day was a bigger issue. we have been through you nothing new to say you are just desperate.
All Joseph wanted was for the holy day not to become profaned. Hence, all he would have done was chuck the body in a common grave, and got it covered over.
Joe: He says nothing to imply that a mass grave constituted proper burial.
And you have utter failed to find anything at all to suggest burial in a common grave would not suffice.
Joe: Just res it out man. Brown says Joe gave his tombto save the Hoky day, that had to mean puttimghimina mass brave would not not do it, Otherwise why did he give hs tomb?
He did not give up his tomb. That was made up later - some time after Mark was written in fact.
Pix
"There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis. The first is the reliability of the extant text..."
This first issue is about the Gospel of Peter, which Crossan views as very earlier, but Koester and Brown disagree. The second problem is that Koester is dubious of very idea of "major literary compositions of a very early date". The third problem is that the various accounts of the appearances of the risen Jesus are from obviously different sources.
So again you are presenting text as though it represents the author's view, when in fact the author immediately goes on to say why he disagrees with the claim.
Another quote-mine in other words.
No you don't read the, carefully I do. you make assumptions based upon what you want them to think, I know Koester believed the epiphanies from many sources nut not the empty just the sightings latter. He believed in one early Pre Mark writting by mid century with the empty tomb if you don't know that ypu don't know koester. he says more thanonce. AS to Peter He believed Peter was secomd centry ut that he used the PMR.
Joe: No you don't read the, carefully I do. you make assumptions based upon what you want them to think, I know Koester believed the epiphanies from many sources nut not the empty just the sightings latter. He believed in one early Pre Mark writting by mid century with the empty tomb if you don't know that ypu don't know koester. he says more thanonce. AS to Peter He believed Peter was secomd centry ut that he used the PMR."John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
However, that misrepresents Koester's position, because in the very next paragraph he says "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." That is, he rejects Crossan's position of a clearly defined document, set down around AD 50.
The point about Peter is that Crossan claims Peter pre-dates Mark, and uses that as the basis for the above claim - a "literary document at a very early date". Koester says Peter is later than Matthew, which pretty much destroys Crossan's argument (if correct).
Pix
However, that misrepresents Koester's position, because in the very next paragraph he says "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." That is, he rejects Crossan's position of a clearly defined document, set down around AD 50.
No he is referring to the source of the epiphanies, he agrees with a single source pre Mark that all four gospels use. It is called "pre mark redaction. they have have something to redact."
The point about Peter is that Crossan claims Peter pre-dates Mark, and uses that as the basis for the above claim - a "literary document at a very early date". Koester says Peter is later than Matthew, which pretty much destroys Crossan's argument (if correct).
No he Peter is secpnd century but he use material from PMR. Koester says this over and over again,
read this quote Kester 220
“The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source. They are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not from a common source.”
Back when I had the book I wrote a whole page o Koester's belief about PMR and thius was used in JP Holding;s book,
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
Joe: No he is referring to the source of the epiphanies, he agrees with a single source pre Mark that all four gospels use. It is called "pre mark redaction. they have have something to redact."
You were claiming that Koester says the empty tomb was in the "pre mark redaction" from ca. AD 50. Now you are merely claiming Koester says there was a "pre mark redaction". Quite the difference.
The "pre mark redaction" is pretty well established, and we both accept it.
What we dispute is whether it contained the empty tomb as early as AD 50. Looks like you are tacitly admitting Koester is with me on this one.
Joe: No he Peter is secpnd century but he use material from PMR. Koester says this over and over again,
I cannot recall either way, but given you are not now claiming Koester believes the empty tomb was in the "pre mark redaction" from AD 50, I am not going to dispute it.
read this quote Kester 220
“The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source. They are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not from a common source.”
Back when I had the book I wrote a whole page o Koester's belief about PMR and thius was used in JP Holding;s book,
http://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2010/05/story-of-empty-tomb-dated-to-mid-first.html
So you have been pedalling the same quote-mine of Koester's book for some years.
Joe says elsewhere: "John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
He is talking in both cases about the original passion Narrative of “Ur Gospel” that he sees standing behind these five works. Here he tells us that this original work, this “Ur gospel” was circulating at the mid century point and that it contained the story of the empty tomb. Thus, the empty Tomb was part of the Gospel narrative as early as mid century. If we take the conventional accepted dates it was within 20 years after the original events. How does he prove this?
WRONG. Koester is telling us Crossan thinks it dates from the mid first century, and in the very next paragraph, he tells us why he thinks Crossan is wrong.
Joe says elsewhere: Koester agrees with Crossan and Denker about the passion narrative (what he calls the Passion Narrative—which includes the empty tomb) circulating early.
WRONG. After presenting the position of Crossan and Denker, he then says "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." He disagrees with Crossan and Denker.
Likely he does think the empty tomb was in the "pre mark redaction", but not in AD 50, and not in single litary work in the sense that the gospels exist.
Pix
Joe: No he is referring to the source of the epiphanies, he agrees with a single source pre Mark that all four gospels use. It is called "pre mark redaction. they have have something to redact."
You were claiming that Koester says the empty tomb was in the "pre mark redaction" from ca. AD 50. Now you are merely claiming Koester says there was a "pre mark redaction". Quite the difference.
you are nuts. You have no reasom whatsoever to ifer that I changed. saying there was a PMR is perfectly compatible with my former statement, just because I don't reiterate the whole position does not mean I changed but it's not even a reasonable inference.
Joe: you are nuts. You have no reasom whatsoever to ifer that I changed. saying there was a PMR is perfectly compatible with my former statement, just because I don't reiterate the whole position does not mean I changed but it's not even a reasonable inference.
There are two different claims here:
1. There was a PMR
2. The PMR included the empty tomb as early as AD 50
You are very good at supporting (1), but you need to support (2) to make your case.
Both Koester and I agree with (1), but reject (2).
You repeatedly trot out Koester's quote saying that Crossan believes (2), but you fail to quote the next paragraph, "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis...", where Koester makes it clear that he rejects (2), leaving the reader with the erroneous impression that Koester supports your position on (2).
Is this a deliberate ploy? That you are still doing it - and this is not first time I have pointed this out - makes me wonder.
Pix
this is Koesters own opinion, he;smot quotimg anyoneelse.
“The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source. They are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not from a common source.”
The dispute he had with crossen was over the epiphanis, they agree upon the empty tomb being part of the pre Mark narrative, You see that above where that is included in the stuff he agrees on all except the epiohanies.
"You repeatedly trot out Koester's quote saying that Crossan believes (2), but you fail to quote the next paragraph, "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis...", where Koester makes it clear that he rejects (2), leaving the reader with the erroneous impression that Koester supports your position on (2)."
wrong th quote above says he agrees with Danker and crosson and co except for the epiphanes, That is separate from, the empty tomb.
Joe: this is Koesters own opinion, he;smot quotimg anyoneelse.
Where does it say the empty tomb was in there from AD 50? It does not. Did you not bother to read what you posted, or did you know it fails to support your position and posted it anyway?
Joe: wrong th quote above says he agrees with Danker and crosson and co except for the epiphanes, That is separate from, the empty tomb.
Again, not true. The disparity of the epiphanies is just one reason why he rejects Crossan's hypothesis. What is Crossan's hypothesis? You quote Koester often enough:
"he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE"
That is what Koester rejects.
no you are wrong. He clearly states the only t5hing he and Crossom disagtee about is the sightings not the empty tomb, The pages where I quote him wre written when I had the ook and I extremely careful.
Koester agrees with Crossan and Denker about the passion narrative (what he calls the Passion Narrative—which includes the empty tomb) circulating early. He disagrees with three specific points none of which negates this basis thesis. The three points are these: (1) Reliability of the text (of Gpet) which comes to us from one latter fragment and could have been influenced by oral traditions and the canonical gospels as read by latter copyists. (2) Crossan believes that all the variations in Gospel tradition came from a core nucleolus of very early writings that form the cross Gospel and that is the basis of the canonical Gospels (combining a saying source (Q) with a narrative Gospel). But Koester believes that the oral tradition was still going up to the early part of the second century,[11]and that it was a fountain of information for various gospel writings all along the way. (3) Crossan holds that the epiphanies (resurrection sightings) were all from the Cross Gospel; Koester holds that they were from various sources. But none of them negates the basic core thesis which all three of them hold to, which is that the Ur Gospel passion Narrative includes the empty tomb and that it circulated early, perhaps mid century. Koester tell us his true opinion when the sates at the end of his list of these three problems:
“The account of the passion of Jesus must have developed quite early because it is one and the same account that was used by Mark (and subsequently by Matthew and Luke) and by John and as will be argued below by the Gospel of Peter, However except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source. They are independent of one another. Each of the authors of the extant gospels and of their secondary endings drew these epiphany stories from their own particular tradition, not from a common source.”[12] 220
Koester says 220: "except for the story of the discovery of the empty tomb, the different stories of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection in the various Gospels cannot derive from one single source."
except for the empty tomb that means the empty tomb can be derived from a single source, It has to be an earlier source since it's shared by all f them, the four gospels ad Peter,
Joe: except for the empty tomb that means the empty tomb can be derived from a single source, It has to be an earlier source since it's shared by all f them, the four gospels ad Peter,
Brown tells us Peter is based on the other gospels, and especially Matthew. Brown made his reputation on the Gospel of Peter, so is probably right. John could as readily be based on Mark as a pre-Markan document.
With regards to Koester, he says there was a PMR, and the empty tomb was in it. But he does not say we can date the empty tomb in the PMR to AD 50. He says he disagrees with Crossan on that.
Pix
Brown tells us Peter is based on the other gospels, and especially Matthew. Brown made his reputation on the Gospel of Peter, so is probably right. John could as readily be based on Mark as a pre-Markan document.
No that is most emphatically wrong. He says many times that Pete is not dependent upon the canonicals but shows another tradition,
With regards to Koester, he says there was a PMR, and the empty tomb was in it. But he does not say we can date the empty tomb in the PMR to AD 50. He says he disagrees with Crossan on that.
he sys someone else dates it ut agrees with it, I think it's Crosson. He does not disagree with Crossson for dating the writting if PMR he disagrees only about episphanies,I am totally certain,I know the quote where he sys it,I may look it up after brekfast.
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."(Koester 208)[3]
[and again]
"John Dominic Crosson has gone further [than Denker]...he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE" (Ibid). Said another way, the interpretation of Scripture as the formation of the passion narrative became an independent document, a ur-Gospel, as early as the middle of the first century![4]
He does not go on to say they are wromg, If you think he does quote the passage.
Joe: No that is most emphatically wrong. He says many times that Pete is not dependent upon the canonicals but shows another tradition,
You need to re-read Brown. He says that Peter was not directly copied from the canonicals, but that instead the author was writing from memory, having heard them read in services.
"After working through the table and lists above (...), I am convinced that one explanation makes better sense of the relationship between GPet and the canonicals than any other. I doubt the author of GPet had any written Gospel before him, although he was familiar with Matt because he read it carefully in the past and/or had heard it read several times in community worship on the Lord's Day, so that it gave the dominant shaping to his thought. Most likely he had heard people speak who were familiar with the Gospels of Luke and John..."
- Brown, The Death of the Messiah vol 2, p 1334-5
Joe: he sys someone else dates it ut agrees with it, I think it's Crosson. He does not disagree with Crossson for dating the writting if PMR he disagrees only about episphanies,I am totally certain,I know the quote where he sys it,I may look it up after brekfast.
He says of Crossan "he argues that this activity results in the composition of a literary document at a very early date i.e. in the middle of the First century CE". Then, in the next paragraphs explains why he things that is wrong, starting "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis..."
"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb."(Koester 208)[3]
So now you are supporting the claim that there was a PMR, rather than the claim that the empty tomb was part of it as early as AD 50.
Joe: He does not go on to say they are wromg, If you think he does quote the passage.
I have - the first sentence anyway. "There are three major problems regarding this hypothesis." You can find more here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DGK4sIPk4PYC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=%22There+are+three+major+problems+regarding+this+hypothesis%22+koester&source=bl&ots=ezqVagB8qS&sig=ACfU3U3gGcMvlIUq8v4k5czaTX1KxgU8hw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjujaCcoaz-AhXLh1wKHWfbAOkQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22There%20are%20three%20major%20problems%20regarding%20this%20hypothesis%22%20koester&f=false
It is worth noting that on the next page, 220, Koester says:
"Both Denker and Crossan have contributed substantially to a better understanding of the passion narrative by demonstrating how it was developed through scriptural interpretation."
So the passion is based on verses in the OT, not what witnesses actually saw!
Pix
Koester says GPet was influenced by canonicals but canon it was not dependent om them, There's a specific thig to which it refers: because his Passion follows the Pslams not the canonicals. Influence is not the same as dependence, dependence means word for word copy,
Joe: Koester says GPet was influenced by canonicals but canon it was not dependent om them, There's a specific thig to which it refers: because his Passion follows the Pslams not the canonicals. Influence is not the same as dependence, dependence means word for word copy,
That is not my understanding of "dependence", but as long as we are clear on it.
So Brown says that Peter is based or influenced by on the canonical gospels, but did not copy them. Koester says the same, but yes, he sees an additional source, the PMR, which was based on OT verses, especially Psalms.
How does that help you? Nothing in that supports your claim that the PMR included the empty tomb in AD 50.
Pix
Koester says that several times. Crosson believed that Koester agreed. The independence of Peter is another matter,
Another point here is that Koester believes the early texts were changed a lot.
"During the first period of their transmission, all gospel texts were very unstable. The text of the canonical gospels later enjoyed a certain degree of protection, beginning with the process of canonization in the 3d and 4th centuries CE. Apocryphal gospels, however, never shared the privilege."
- Koester, in Ancient Christian Gospels, p 219
This certainly allows for the empty tomb to be added to the PMR in say AD 65. I am not saying it proves it, but it makes it plausible.
And of course Crossan thinks the empty tomb was made up. I have been unable to find anything in Koester that indicates either way; his book is more concerned with the development of the text than whether it actually happened.
Pix
I guess I should put a sign with every post: "I use enemy work against itself."
Crosson did not disbelieve the resurrection because he had stnnuning evidence that disproved it. But because it was the logical result of his ideological predilections. he was too well educated, too sophisticated, too modern not t be a materialist. I am sure you are familiar with the type? very popular in UK.
Crossan still considers himself a Christian; he is no materialist. As a catholic priest, his ideological predilections were certainly towards mainstream Christianity. As far as I can tell, he rejects a literal resurrection because of the evidence.
Pix
I know he's a Christian I did not say he isn't. Christians can be materialistic philosophically, in this ontological sense. It's a type, like 19th century theologcal liberlism, An evangelical would say you can't be a real Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection, I am not an evangelical so I just say he's Christian who is wrong about the resurrection.
Post a Comment