Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[DesertBerean]

No, I'm not. Redaction can involve clarifying material. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon redacts Genesis 15 when it clarifies that Abram gives a tithe to Melchizedek (that might be the other way around; I don't have a DSS translation in front of me). In the Hebrew, the text is ambiguous.

Redaction can also involve removing embarrassing material (when Jesus' family thinks he's insane in Mk. 6).

Redaction is much more complex than just making material up.

the clarification psstein offered on his view of the word "Redaction".

[Adrift]

James Tabor argued that in a (fairly) recent book. I think you'd then have to account for the silence of whomever moved the body.

Yeah, I pointed out that Vermes made this argument, but that he also dismissed it in post #599, "However, the fact that the organizer(s) of the burial was/were well known and could have easily been asked for and supplied an explanation, strongly mitigates against this theory"

I don't think anybody has claimed that it's a violation of Jewish law. It isn't a violation, per se. I think there are other considerations that militate against it.

I think an argument can be made that it was a violation of Jewish Law. While I usually resist citing non-experts, folks like W.L. Craig find that Glenn Miller makes a compelling argument using Talmudic sources demonstrating that there may actually have been laws against moving a body once it was officially buried (Semahot IV and XIII). Bodies could be moved from a borrowed tomb, but only after the flesh had rotted from the bones, and the bones gathered up to be moved to the family grave in the practice known as ossilegium. This accords well with what we know about criminal burial in tractate Sanhedrin 46a,

AND THEY DID NOT BURY HIM [THE EXECUTED PERSON] IN HIS ANCESTRAL TOMB, BUT TWO BURIAL PLACES WERE PREPARED BY THE BETH DIN, ONE FOR THOSE WHO WERE DECAPITATED OR STRANGLED, AND THE OTHER FOR THOSE WHO WERE STONED OR BURNED.

WHEN THE FLESH WAS COMPLETELY DECOMPOSED, THE BONES WERE GATHERED AND BURIED IN THEIR PROPER PLACE. THE RELATIVES THEN CAME AND GREETED THE JUDGES AND WITNESSES, AS IF TO SAY, WE HAVE NO [ILL FEELINGS] AGAINST YOU IN OUR HEARTS, FOR YE GAVE A TRUE JUDGMENT.

Miller goes on to argue that bodies could be moved to temporary places during a pre-burial period, but once full burial occurred then the body likely could not be moved again until ossilegium. He argues that full burial included shrouding the body and placing it in a sealed tomb, and the Gospels claim that this was carried out on Jesus.


At any rate, as you say, there are other considerations for why Jesus' body was likely not moved.

[One Bad Pig]

You claimed that the resurrection was false because until the fourth century Christians could even be bothered to remember where the tomb was.

The very existence of the tradition means that your premise was as false as your conclusion. And by the 4th century meant that the tomb was inside the new walls built by Hadrian which is why they didn't believe the local tradition at first because the Gospels say it was outside the walls. As we now know the site is outside the pre 135.A.D walls.

Was the tradition correct maybe, maybe not. The fact that there was a tomb found where the tradition said it was, and it is outside the pre 135A.D. walls gives it a fairly high probability of being correct.

Actually, it was only outside the walls pre AD 41-44, which is certainly before John was written.

[Gary]

the clarification psstein offered on his view of the word "Redaction".

Ask Stein this question and ask for a straight answer: Does he believe that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret follower of Jesus who buried Jesus in his family tomb?

[Gary]

Yeah, I pointed out that Vermes made this argument, but that he also dismissed it in post #599, "However, the fact that the organizer(s) of the burial was/were well known and could have easily been asked for and supplied an explanation, strongly mitigates against this theory"






I think an argument can be made that it was a violation of Jewish Law. While I usually resist citing non-experts, folks like W.L. Craig find that Glenn Miller makes a compelling argument using Talmudic sources demonstrating that there may actually have been laws against moving a body once it was officially buried (Semahot IV and XIII). Bodies could be moved from a borrowed tomb, but only after the flesh had rotted from the bones, and the bones gathered up to be moved to the family grave in the practice known as ossilegium. This accords well with what we know about criminal burial in tractate Sanhedrin 46a,

AND THEY DID NOT BURY HIM [THE EXECUTED PERSON] IN HIS ANCESTRAL TOMB, BUT TWO BURIAL PLACES WERE PREPARED BY THE BETH DIN, ONE FOR THOSE WHO WERE DECAPITATED OR STRANGLED, AND THE OTHER FOR THOSE WHO WERE STONED OR BURNED.

WHEN THE FLESH WAS COMPLETELY DECOMPOSED, THE BONES WERE GATHERED AND BURIED IN THEIR PROPER PLACE. THE RELATIVES THEN CAME AND GREETED THE JUDGES AND WITNESSES, AS IF TO SAY, WE HAVE NO [ILL FEELINGS] AGAINST YOU IN OUR HEARTS, FOR YE GAVE A TRUE JUDGMENT.

Miller goes on to argue that bodies could be moved to temporary places during a pre-burial period, but once full burial occurred then the body likely could not be moved again until ossilegium. He argues that full burial included shrouding the body and placing it in a sealed tomb, and the Gospels claim that this was carried out on Jesus.


At any rate, as you say, there are other considerations for why Jesus' body was likely not moved.

An expert (Magness) says your non-expert is wrong.

[Juice]

You are typing a lot of words and saying the same thing repeatedly. Add to that, these posts are just too long to respond to every one of your points. Many of which aren’t even arguments against my position or for yours. Many of your responses are either Red Herrings, just questions, or demands that I explain something. I’ll address what I think are your stronger points; the ones which I think you have presented some type of actual rebuttal. The rest I’ll chalk up to you not really knowing how to respond. Probably because Carrier doesn’t have a response. If you think there is something material to the debate which I have left let me know and I’ll go back and address it.

From these passages [Romans 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 4:1, Phil 2:8-9] we have no reason to interpret being "raised" other than it being a simple one step process where Jesus was resurrected and exalted straight to heaven. There was no intermediate earthly stage where Jesus gets touched or is physically interacted with. That's a later development. It's nowhere found in Paul so you're relying on later secondary (or worse) sources, whereas I'm relying on the earliest and only firsthand reports. Therefore, your case solely relies on an argument from anachronism which is fallacious. By fiat, I've already won.

Yes, yes, we all know you think you’ve won. The Black Knight thought he won too. Mind you by the end of the exchange he had no arms or legs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

By the way, you aren’t just relying on firsthand reports. You have been appealing to Josephus which, using your own reasoning, is a fallacious argument from anachronism as well.

More to the point, the proof texts from Paul for a physical resurrection aren’t limited to Romans 8:34, Eph 1:20, Phil 4:1, Col 4:1. Secondly, these paasgaes don’t explicitly say there was NO intermediate earthly stage either.

And of course I have reason to interpret these passages as other than a “one step process” because 1) none of them say anything about this being a “one step process” 2) the context of these passages places the emphasis on asserting Christ’s post ascension authority at the right hand of the Father so I wouldn’t expect there to be much said about the nature of the resurrection itself 3) they follow the pattern of death, resurrection, and ascension consistent with the corpus of the NT 4) the terminology used such as “raised from the dead” (Eph 1:20) is prima facie most easily interpreted as a resurrection, not a one-step ascension to heaven 5) “raised [egeirō] from the dead” (Eph 1:20) is never used in the NT in the direct context of a “one step process where Jesus was resurrected and exalted straight to heaven.” It is used directly, however, in the context of a physical earthly resurrection on numerous occasions (e.g. regarding Lazarus in John 12).

And Luke was writing after the resurrection had become a wholly physical revivification. He seems to preserve some of the older exaltation Christology tradition by having Jesus say "today you will be with me in paradise" - Lk. 23:43. Oops. How does that work with the Acts 40 day period before ascending to Heaven?

Here’s an example of one of your Red Herrings. By the way, are you saying Luke faithfully and accurately preserved the older traditions he received? Oops. I wonder if you spend any time whatsoever evaluating your own arguments for internal consistency before you submit your reply.

As for Luke 23:43, perfectly compatible with Christian theology regarding the soul leaving the body at the point of death.

That swooshing sound was the salient point flying right over your head by the way. Luke preserves the high Christology in Peter’s speeches (Acts 2:32-33, 5:30-31), which are very similar in terminology to the proof texts you provided from Paul, because there was no one in the early church who understood these statements to be a “one step process where Jesus was resurrected and exalted straight to heaven.” If there had been even the slightest confusion on this point we would have expected Luke to modify the speeches of Peter to reflect a bodily earthly resurrection. After all, isn’t it often argued Luke redacted his material to fit his theology? That Luke left Peter’s preaching the way it was confirms there was no confusion; that these high Christological statements were not understood as affirming a one step process but were consistent with the formula of death, physical resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of the Father.

It's not a strawman at all. Luke and John depict the Risen Jesus as a revivified flesh and blood corpse (with immortal/spiritual aspects) that is physically touched and has his wounds intact, whereas Paul represents a spiritual/mystical heavenly Christ that's only experienced through visions and revelations.

You have acknowledged, albeit unwittingly, your strawman. If the resurrected Jesus was depicted by Luke and John "with immortal/spiritual aspects" then it wasn’t merely depicted as a "revived corpse."

If he makes no distinction then equation cannot be ruled out. He's definitely happy enough to include his own vision in the same list as the other appearances and uses the same verb which has certain spiritual connotations. He gives no reason to think they're different. In fact, without knowledge of the later empty tomb and gospel appearances we'd have no reason to think they're different. You're just reading that in. An argument can be made that he claims to have seen the exact same thing as the others did in 1 Cor 9:1. Evidently, "seeing" Jesus was a requirement for apostleship in the early church - he's basically saying "Am I not an apostle (like you guys)? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord (just like you guys did)?" And we all know, Paul only "sees" Jesus in a vision, nothing more. This makes sense when you finally realize that Paul thought Jesus was resurrected/exalted straight to heaven as opposed to earth. If Paul gives no reason to think the appearances were more "physical" then this just shows you're committed to later secondhand or worse sources instead of Paul's primary material.

Of course we can’t rule it out entirely. But saying we can’t rule out a position isn’t the same as arguing for the affirmative of that position. And you don’t have a concrete argument for your position because Paul gives no explicit reason to think the appearances must have all been the same in nature either. In fact, Paul says nothing at all about the nature of the appearances in 1Cor 15:5-8 or 1 Cor 9:1. The point Paul was making was that Jesus appeared to him. That’s what made him credible. Not that the appearance had to be the same type as the disciples. If that had been a necessary condition we would have expected Paul to spend much more effort explaining how his experience was the same type as the disciples. He doesn’t though. In fact he says nothing in this regard. The creed itself emphases the timeline of the appearances, not the nature of them.

It's true the word could be used for actually "seeing" something but Paul never indicates that Jesus was physically "seen" or touched. He's using the word in the spiritual sense of revelation. After all, Paul only had a "vision/revelation" and makes no distinction between the appearances so you can't claim they were more "physical" than his own experience without reading in the later secondary (or worse) accounts, another argument from anachronism.

Paul uses the aorist passive form of ὤφθη which we know from the LXX was used commonly for describing visionary seeing or "seeing" a divine being. There are 6 main ways this word was used in the LXX:

http://imgur.com/Z5DOsHB
Pages 44-45 https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bit...pdf?sequence=1

So this is another case where you're simply reading in later accounts instead of letting the earliest sources speak for themselves. Firsthand eyewitness testimony always trumps secondhand or thirdhand hearsay. Therefore, my case wins again by fiat.

It’s hardly an argument from anachronism to point out that the word for “appearance” in 1 Cor 15:5-8 is used elsewhere in the NT (Acts 1:3) for a physical resurrection. Certainly no more of anachronism than your appeals to Josephus.

Seeing a divine being in the context of the risen Christ isn’t inconsistent with the later Gospel accounts either. So I’m not sure why you think this argument from the LXX is meaningful. And the same word was also used in the LXX for seeing something physical. At any rate, certainly if you can argue from the LXX, I can argue from the corpus of the NT.

By the way Paul uses optomai in the context of Jesus’ earthly physical resurrection (Acts 13:31). You can’t argue against this without displaying an obvious double standard since you appealed to Luke’s reliability for recording older traditions in Luke 23:43. Oops again.

This puts a monkey wrench into the later physical resurrection theology that you're committed to. It's more than "just a flesh wound" I'm afraid. You're stuck having to explain why these amazing physical encounters don't show up in the earliest sources - Paul, Mark, or Matthew. They just didn't feel like they were important enough to mention? Really?

They are mentioned. That they aren’t mentioned explicitly enough for you is irrelevant. Paul was writing letters dealing with problems in the church. I wouldn’t expect him to go into much detail about the resurrection of Jesus. That he spends time on the nature of the resurrection body in 1Cor15 is a direct result of a question arising in the church and Paul dealing with it. Mark tells his readers there will be appearances as promised and implies a physical resurrection with the declaration the body of Jesus is gone.

”He has risen [egeirō]; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.” – Mark 16:6 (cf. 1 Cor 15:12-20)

As for Matthew.

”And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.” – 28:9

You were saying?

All I need to show is the disconnect and legendary growth that took place between Pauline theology and the later gospels.

Even if there were a “disconnect” that doesn’t establish the two-body hypothesis was held by Paul.

I've given a more than reasonable defense of this. It doesn't matter how "widely held" the two-body view was, Paul mentions different types of bodies, thereby making it plausible.

Plausibility doesn’t establish that Paul held a two-body view either.

Paul doesn't mention a "tomb" at all in his firsthand material and his theology is perfectly consistent with Jesus' corpse rotting in a grave.

Too bad for you Paul never mentions Jesus’ corpse.

And anyway, Josephus says that the Pharisees believed souls would be "removed into other bodies." The word "other" implies that it was not the same one which does support the two body view.

Except Josephus never says there are “two bodies.” He just says other bodies. Which bodies those were he doesn’t say. How do you know Josephus isn’t teaching reincarnation here? Josephus also says souls “are again sent into pure bodies.” Which could be interpreted as supporting a reincarnation view as well. Or perhaps Josephus meant the souls are sent back again to the bodies from which they came.

Josephus’ eschatology is that only the good are resurrected.

”They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.” – Josephus

Which, by the way, is inconsistent with what Paul seems to think the Jewish belief was where there will be a resurrection of both good and bad.

"themselves allowed that there should be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust," Paul, Acts 24:15.

The eschatological views between what Josephus reports and what Paul is recorded to report about the resurrection are different enough to prevent us from using Josephus as a reliable lens for Paul. That’s the same type of argument you employ regarding reading Paul through the Gospels. That is, they “depict something entirely different than Paul.” Said good-bye to Josephus. Or are you going to make a Special Plea for him?

The appearance reports, while inconsistent when compared, are actually more consistent with legendary accretion over time.

Not at all. Even if we grant your dating when we look at them there’s no clear progression of legendary development. There’s even instances of de-evolution or a dumbing down of the supernatural in the overall resurrection narratives where we would expect there to be evolution towards legendary accrual from one Gospel to the next if your theory held any water. And all four Gospels imply a physical resurrection. Granted Matthew, Luke, and John elaborate on the details of the appearances whereas Mark does not. But that’s merely a difference in reportage and to be expected.

Luke contradicts Paul in numerous places but specifically disagrees on the nature of the resurrected Christ. Lk. 24:39 says that Jesus has "flesh and bones" and was not a "spirit". Contrast that with what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:50 and 15:45.

There’s no contradiction here. ”Flesh and bone” vs. “flesh and blood.” There’s a difference, the latter being an idiom for mankind.

In regards to Paul saying the last Adam became a life giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45) Paul also says right before that Adam became a living soul. Was Paul saying Adam became a non physical soul when God breathed life into him? Of course not. So why would Paul mean Jesus became a non physical spirit?

It’s also noteworthy here that Paul doesn’t say in the verse right before (44) that the natural body is raised as a “spirit.” He could have if that’s what he meant. But he didn’t. He said it’s a spiritual [/i]body[/i] which is raised.

Paul's own words in 1 Cor 15:40 and 15:44 support the two-body hypothesis. And the interpretation of the Daniel passage may indicate a spiritual resurrection from Sheol rather than Jesus physically leaving an empty tomb. Where was Jesus the three days between his death and resurrection? 1 Peter 3:18-19 seems to imply that he went to Sheol.

Yes, he may have. But what makes you think 1Peter 3:18-19 implies Jesus’ corpse remained in the tomb? 1Peter 3:18-19 is consistent with Paul’s words (and the Gospels’ depiction) where the resurrected body is capable of the supernatural. The funny part is 1Peter 3:18-19 works against you as it implies a fleshly resurrection.

” For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison...”

Compare this to Paul’s words.

”But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. “– Romans 8:11

You originally said “Flesh and blood is a euphemism for the corruptibility of mankind" but how does that euphemistic meaning make sense in Galatians 1:16 where he just means conferring with other "human beings"? Are you saying the idiom "flesh and blood" has the same meaning in 1 Cor 15:50 as it does in Eph. 6:12 and Gal. 1:16?

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Same for its use in Matthew 16:17. Simply insert “mankind” (or “man” or some corruptible characteristic of mankind) where you see “flesh and blood” in the NT and it makes perfect sense. Try reading each instance literally and they become nonsensical. You are making an unwarranted Special Plea in regards to 1Cor 15:50.

If that's the case then how do you know he's not using it as an idiom for the perishable/corruptible earthly body in 1 Cor 15:50 which actually makes more sense in the context?

He may very well be. I don’t think this is too far off Paul’s intended meaning. And along the lines I’ve been arguing. This reading goes to support my case, not yours. Paul would be saying it’s the perishability of the earthly body which does not inherit the Kingdom. Not that the earthly body itself cannot inherit the kingdom. It’s the state of perishability of the body which must be changed. It’s changed by putting on immortality. That’s why Paul says the mortal must put on immortality.

Exactly. It's destroyed. It's figuratively "swallowed up" by "life."

To destroy something necessarily implies an external agency is immediately acting upon that which is being destroyed. Same with swallowing up something. If the old body just lays there and rots nothing is destroying it or swallowing it up.

It's the future passive 'allagesometha' that Paul uses which suggests barter or exchange.

Where is it ever used in the NT for bartering? The context doesn’t allow for exchange. The immediate context demands it to be translated change. Which is why every translation renders it that way.

Ok so Paul thought that the body that was buried was the same corpse (with immortal aspects) that rose out of the ground? You're still stuck in the embarrassing position of explaining why Paul only mentions that this physically Risen Christ was only experienced through visions and revelations. Did Peter and James just forget to tell Paul that Jesus was touched, ate fish, and flew to heaven while they watched? Did Mark and Matthew not think that mentioning Jesus was on earth for 40 days was important enough? Give an explanation for this that is more probable than legendary growth. I'd really love to see it.

You don’t have a cogent counter argument here which is why you are attempting this Red Herring. I point it only because the bottom line is that 1Cor 15:51ff destroys your entire argument. The mortal must put on immortality. It’s pretty much that simple.

What's ironic is that you insist on going by what later hearsay sources say rather than the earliest eyewitness testimony. Who's the one doing actual objective history here again?

I’m happy to look at Paul on his own. His words are much better interpreted through a single body hypothesis than a two-body one.

By the way, objective history would give us Mark and Luke as ancient biographies written by people who knew eyewitnesses and Matthew and John as ancient bios written by people who were eyewitnesses themselves. The external evidence which supports this is just as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence which supports other secular texts for which authorship is never questioned by Classical scholars. I’ve been granting for the sake of argument that the Gospels can’t be established as having any connection to eyewitness sources. Perhaps it’s time I burry you in a landslide of evidence and arguments regarding authorship?

That must be why the later church branded him as a heretic then huh?

But not for his views on the resurrection which was bodily. He even affirms Paul and the churches view was of a fleshly resurrection. Origen kinda back fired on you eh.

Ignatius was reading Paul in light of the gospels, just like you are. Hehe

Ignatius knew witnesses. Hehe

Oh well that's even more suspicious. So you just now commented on your dummy account because you didn't want to use your regular one? How's that for observation?

Even worse. I don’t have a “dummy account” or a “regular” one. I have only one and I started it before you ever joined. Therefore I couldn’t have started it just to respond to your posts. But by all means continue telling me how I did.

By the way, assuming the two-body hypothesis was the resurrected body of Jesus referred to by Paul incorporeal or corporeal? You can’t even seem to answer this coherently without stumbling all over yourself. If it was corporeal, there’s no legendary development and this whole thread is a big fat rabbit trail.

Visions support a spiritual resurrection in heaven not a physical earthly one like the later gospels describe.

Okay so the resurrected body was not physical then.

Or wait, no, it was physical...

The "spiritual body" was still "physical" in that it was made of material, but Paul definitely did not envision it as a formerly dead corpse that had returned to life and left an empty tomb. That view was a later development. The spiritual body was a body in heaven, not on earth.

I'm not saying the body was not physical. I'm saying it was a spiritual body in heaven made of different "material", devoid of "flesh and blood" - 1 Cor 15:50

Physical, not physical, physical, not physical. She loves me, she loves me not, she loves me, she loves me not...

The irony in this is that when we boil it all right down you are actually fundamentally arguing for the orthodox position of a physical resurrection. You just can’t bring yourself to actually admitting that because you desperately want to imply the resurrected body was a spirit. We all know that’s what you want to imply when you say “spiritual resurrection.”

You cannot overcome this without appealing to the later legendary accounts.

And you can’t argue your case without dismissing the Gospels (actually you can’t even make your case for a two-body hypothesis just by appealing to Paul either).

That’s how history is done Rhinestone. By sifting through all the available data and working towards the best explanation that accounts for all the data. Historians don’t ignore large blocks of data. For instance, try to get an accurate picture of Caesar’s assassination by appealing only to Cicero’s brief cryptic mentions in his letters without appealing to later legendary accounts. The Gospels aren’t even that late by historical standards anyway and that’s granting they weren’t connected to eyewitnesses. Not to mention you’ve been appealing to later sources, much later than the gospels, yourself with Josephus and Origen. There are so many double standards and inconsistencies in your methodologies I honestly don’t even know where to start

[DesertBerean]

An expert (Magness) says your non-expert is wrong.

All she says is, they COULD have moved him after the Sabbath.

ETA: Sorry, should have added that it still could not have been done without someone noticing.

[One Bad Pig]

Why would the people who moved the body care? To them it was just another day of work and another executed criminal. If they were moving bodies all day it would be pretty hard to remember exactly where a specific one was especially if it was placed in a mass grave. We don't even know how long it took for the earliest Christians to start proclaiming the Resurrection. Acts says it took 40 days (which is theological not historical) and by that time most likely the location would have been forgotten and Jesus' corpse would have been unrecognizable.

This makes absolutely no sense. IF it was moved by Jews, the only window is Saturday night after sunset, so no, they wouldn't have been moving bodies all day - and why bother moving the body at night, still near the beginning of a week-long festival? And Acts says it took 50 days, not 40.

There's also evidence of a conflicting burial tradition within the New Testament. This is highlighted by Luedemann in The Resurrection of Jesus and Raymond Brown in The Burial of Jesus.

Acts 13:27-29 says it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 "then they (the Jews) drew the nails…and gave the body to Joseph” and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. The book dates early to mid second century which may indicate the author had no knowledge of the burial found in the other gospels. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This seems to conflict with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone and which get conspicuously more detailed in an apologetic manner. Matthew turns Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus while Luke says "he had not consented to their plan and action."
https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...page&q&f=false

While this is ostensibly a quote from the book, it contains material from somewhere else. If you have to use deceit to make your case, you've lost. Further, Luedemann is using general referents to argue against a specific which is not inconsistent with the general referents (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were, after all, Jews); I don't find that convincing. If two texts can be construed to harmonize or conflict depending on how one interprets them, why not accept the interpretation where they harmonize?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

This makes absolutely no sense. IF it was moved by Jews, the only window is Saturday night after sunset, so no, they wouldn't have been moving bodies all day - and why bother moving the body at night, still near the beginning of a week-long festival?

But you're assuming that it had to be moved immediately. They could have waited until after the Sabbath or even after the whole festival when the normal routine was back in play. The whole "3 day" period in the gospels is a theological construct not an actual historical timeline. It's based off of passages such as Hosea 6:2, Jonah 1:17, and other Jewish beliefs that deem "3 days" with significance.

And Acts says it took 50 days, not 40.

Then Jesus' corpse would have been even more unrecognizable and the location where he was buried would have been long forgotten.

While this is ostensibly a quote from the book, it contains material from somewhere else. If you have to use deceit to make your case, you've lost.

Huh? I've posted this same quote more or less on other forums.

Further, Luedemann is using general referents to argue against a specific which is not inconsistent with the general referents (Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were, after all, Jews); I don't find that convincing. If two texts can be construed to harmonize or conflict depending on how one interprets them, why not accept the interpretation where they harmonize?

Nicodemus only pops up in the Gospel of John. There are 5 reference points that may indicate another burial tradition. The link is from Raymond Brown by the way.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm sorry. Laid it in "his" unfinished tomb? The tomb wasn't "empty"?

The archaeological evidence at the tomb shows that it was not finished, which comports with the gospel attestation that it was new.

What does the Mishnah, Tosefta and Josephus have to say about Jewish criminal burial? Does it make sense for their to be an empty criminal's tomb (without other bodies in it) conveniently located just for Jesus?

It would not have been a criminal's tomb. As Dr. Magness attests, rock-hewn graves were for the rich. It wasn't "conveniently located just for Jesus"; it was used for Jesus because it was convenient.

Sorry, but the fact that the gospels contradict what we know about Roman crucifixion practices and Jewish criminal burial makes the story extremely dubious. Two improbabilities don't make a probable case.

You're arguing from generalities that specific exemptions could not be made, while relying on Josephus, who reports an exemption (crucifixion victims were removed at his request).

According to Mark, they "all" condemned Jesus to death. So we're supposed to believe that a well respected member of the Council - Joseph of Arimathea (he's not called a disciple until Matthew), who just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - aka the King of the Jews?

No, we're supposed to believe that Mark isn't being as rigidly literal as your interpretation demands.

"If the corpse of Jesus had really been removed by his enemies, the tradition would have grown like this. Jesus was laid in a common grave, like anyone who had been executed. Soon people found this intolerable, but knew that none of his followers had shown him, or could have shown him, the least service of love. A stranger did, and preserved his body from the ultimate shame. Now this could not have been an insignificant stranger, but had to be someone who could dare to go to the court authorities; he had to be a counsellor. The name was to be found in the Gospel tradition, like any other name, and gradually - this last phase is reflected in the Gospels themselves - the pious stranger became a secret...or even an open...disciple of Jesus (Matthew 27:57), someone who did not approve of the counsel and action of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:50-51)...someone who was a friend not only of Jesus but also of Pilate (Gospel of Peter 3). So the story of Joseph of Arimathea is not completely impossible to invent." Hans Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, pg. 180.

Scholar or no, I'm not required to accept his admittedly invented hypothetical. I could make up hypotheticals too - he's just got the training to make his BS more plausible.

[Adrift]

Even if Jesus was granted burial by the Romans, the burial of Jesus in the gospels violates Jewish burial procedure for criminals.

Archaeologist Jodi Magness in What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like? pg. 48 argues:

“There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-hewn tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have have been buried in individual trench graves or pits.”

Magness literally says in the exact same article, "I believe that the Gospel accounts accurately reflect the manner in which the Jews of ancient Jerusalem buried their dead in the first century."

Here's your quote mine in context,

Source: The Burial of Jesus by Jodi Magness

When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave—that is, there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock-cut tomb—before the Sabbath. It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy Jew, perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock- cut family tomb. The Gospel accounts apparently describe Joseph placing Jesus’ body in one of the loculi in his family’s tomb. The “new” tomb mentioned by Matthew probably refers to a previously unused loculus. The Gospels include an accurate description of Jesus’ body being wrapped in a linen shroud. When Joseph departed, he sealed the entrance to the tomb by blocking the doorway with a rolling stone.

Joseph’s tomb must have belonged to his family because by definition rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem were family tombs. There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in individual trench graves or pits. This sort of tradition is preserved in the reference to “the Potter’s Field, to bury strangers in” (Matthew 27:7-8).

Unlike Crossan, who “cannot find any detailed historical information about the crucifixion of Jesus,” I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus’ body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law.

© Copyright Original Source

She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their 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' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Much as I begin to dislike the argument from silence, I have to wonder at the non-response of the officials regarding the claims of the resurrection:

1. They never produced the body of Jesus.

2. They said nothing about Jesus to Peter and John when they confronted them about their preaching of Jesus's resurrection after they had healed a lame man (Acts 4:5-14). Perfect time for them to prove they had the body of Jesus, while they had the healed man and the upstarts right there. Nope, they just told them not to preach in Jesus's name or else.

3. Saul didn't bring out the evidence of Jesus's remains either. He instead persecuted the believers.

Dang. Something smells here.

You're assuming that they were preaching a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus in the first place. Based on the earliest evidence given from Paul, a physical body empty tomb type revivification is nowhere found. He puts his own vision in parallel with the other appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 without distinction. Paul gives no evidence of a physically resurrected Jesus walking around on earth. That doesn't come until 20-30 years later.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Magness literally says in the exact same article, "I believe that the Gospel accounts accurately reflect the manner in which the Jews of ancient Jerusalem buried their dead in the first century."

Here's your quote mine in context,

Source: The Burial of Jesus by Jodi Magness

When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave—that is, there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock-cut tomb—before the Sabbath. It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy Jew, perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock- cut family tomb. The Gospel accounts apparently describe Joseph placing Jesus’ body in one of the loculi in his family’s tomb. The “new” tomb mentioned by Matthew probably refers to a previously unused loculus. The Gospels include an accurate description of Jesus’ body being wrapped in a linen shroud. When Joseph departed, he sealed the entrance to the tomb by blocking the doorway with a rolling stone.

Joseph’s tomb must have belonged to his family because by definition rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem were family tombs. There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from impoverished families. Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in individual trench graves or pits. This sort of tradition is pre- served in the reference to “the Potter’s Field, to bury strangers in” (Matthew 27:7-8).

Unlike Crossan, who “cannot find any detailed historical information about the crucifixion of Jesus,”17 I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus’ body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law.

© Copyright Original Source

She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their 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' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."

Here's Ehrman's response:

"1. Josephus is clearly saying what he does about the piety of the Jews, who bury “even crucified victims,” in order to provide an contrast them with the despised Idumeans, who not only slaughter at will but refuse to bury their victims. But if he says that Jews buried “even crucified victims” in order to show their (his) moral superiority to the hated Idumaeans – has he exaggerated a bit to make the point? There is no way to know.

2. Josephus does not say who crucified these Jews who were given decent burials. The normal assumption is that he means that these people were crucified by the Romans rather than by the Jews. That may be the correct reading, although he is contrasting how the Idumeans treated people they killed with how Jews acted — so is it not in reference to people that Jews executed? It’s worth remembering that, at earlier periods (e.g., under Alexander Jannaeus in the Maccabean period) we do know that Jewish leaders crucified Jews. Is that what Josephus is referring to? I’m not sure what to think about this.

3. For the sake of the argument let’s just say that he is indeed saying that Jews typically buried victims crucified by Romans. Even if so, another bit of doubt is cast on his claim by the fact that two of his goals in writing are:

a. To celebrate the great piety of the Jews. Remember how Josephus does this elsewhere, in ways that simply cannot be believed: he actually claims that Jews executed their children when they planned to do something unjust to their parents!

b. To exonerate the Romans, in part by saying that the war was not their fault. Here the implication would be that the Romans were highly merciful, even allowing decent burials contrary to their own customs. Again, contrast those hated Idumeans.

These two objectives are never far below the surface in Josephus’s works – and they dictate what he has to say, so that he often stretches the truth in order to make his point. Is that the case here?

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Paywall link deleted and citation shortened.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[One Bad Pig]

But you're assuming that it had to be moved immediately. They could have waited until after the Sabbath or even after the whole festival when the normal routine was back in play. The whole "3 day" period in the gospels is a theological construct not an actual historical timeline. It's based off of passages such as Hosea 6:2, Jonah 1:17, and other Jewish beliefs that deem "3 days" with significance.

Then Jesus' corpse would have been even more unrecognizable and the location where he was buried would have been long forgotten.

So you'll accept one timeline as theological in order to refute one argument, while simultaneously accepting another has historical to buttress it? You're a hoot.

Huh? I've posted this same quote more or less on other forums.

Did you ever bother checking it, or did you just copy it uncritically from somewhere, and use the first sentence to google up the book?

The link is from Raymond Brown by the way.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The archaeological evidence at the tomb shows that it was not finished, which comports with the gospel attestation that it was new.

It would not have been a criminal's tomb. As Dr. Magness attests, rock-hewn graves were for the rich. It wasn't "conveniently located just for Jesus"; it was used for Jesus because it was convenient.

But according to Jewish law, criminals weren't allowed to be buried "next to the righteous" or in ancestral tombs. This rules out that it was Joseph's "own" tomb. The gospels try to paint the burial in an increasingly better light. They depict the tomb as "new" "empty" "rock-hewn" where "no one had ever been laid." It's almost as if they're going out of their way trying to cover up a dishonorable burial.

You're arguing from generalities that specific exemptions could not be made, while relying on Josephus, who reports an exemption (crucifixion victims were removed at his request).

The burial of Jesus as reported in the gospels is improbable when compared to all the other evidence. That is not an unreasonable conclusion. See the Ehrman points above.

No, we're supposed to believe that Mark isn't being as rigidly literal as your interpretation demands.

So it's safe to say Mark exaggerates the story about Jesus in some areas? Ok, fine.

What about when Mark depicts Joseph buying a brand new linen cloth (for the criminal messianic pretender he just condemned to death) - Mk. 15:46? Did someone forget to tell Mark it was illegal to purchase goods on a holy day - Lev. 23:6-7, Neh. 10:31? Oops...