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

[Adrift]

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.

Yeah, it seems like more of a side point for Magness. It's certainly not the main thesis of the paper so I would like to see how she deals with Miller's argument, and specifically those Talmudic passages that do seem to prohibit movement of fully buried bodies, but as previously mentioned, there are other reasons to reject the movement of the body hypothesis.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

I'm granting for the sake of argument that an "empty tomb" was found by someone. I'm not granting the historical timeline as reported in the gospels as accurate and I have given sufficient reason for doing so. Even the early creed in 1 Cor 15 says "according to the scriptures." Exactly what is it that's improbable about the scenario above?

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?

Yes, I've looked up all the sources and they say what they say. Is this the first time someone's brought this to your attention?

[Adrift]

• Edited by a Moderator •]

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.

Yes, we've previously dealt with Ehrman's response. What does any of this have to do with your Magness quote mine?

[DesertBerean]

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.

I've seen you argue this elsewhere, and I regret to inform you, you are badly reading I Cor 15. As a a Pharisee, there is no way he's presenting anything other than a CORPOREAL resurrection. If he had been a Sadducee, maybe; I'm not totally familiar with their beliefs. Why else was he able to create a huge disagreement within the Sanhedrin when he had been brought before them when he declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." Acts 23:6-8?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yes, we've previously dealt with Ehrman's response. What does any of this have to do with your Magness quote mine?

I was responding to when you said this.

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)."

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

So in opposition to this we have the gospels (which ultimately lead back to one source - Mark) and Josephus. Since when do two sources trump ten?

[Adrift]

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?

Yeah, there's something strange going on in his posts. Compare his post to psstein that you just replied to,

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 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

To this post on Reddit's atheism forum,

There is evidence of a conflicting burial tradition. In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which Luke has Paul say 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 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. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This conflicts with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone.

Parts of it are word for word, and that doesn't seem like much of a coincidence considering he was previously busted for directly plagiarizing Carrier in another thread.

[Adrift]

I was responding to when you said this.

So I take it you've decided to ignore the greater point I was making, that you erroneously quote mined Magness.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I've seen you argue this elsewhere, and I regret to inform you, you are badly reading I Cor 15.

Oh really? Where does Paul make a distinction between the appearances? Where does he give a reason to think the experiences of the apostles were different than his own?

As a a Pharisee, there is no way he's presenting anything other than a CORPOREAL resurrection. If he had been a Sadducee, maybe; I'm not totally familiar with their beliefs. Why else was he able to create a huge disagreement within the Sanhedrin when he had been brought before them when he declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." Acts 23:6-8?

What sources do you have that speak specifically about Pharisaic belief in resurrection? Here's what Josephus has to say:

their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolution of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies""It is their belief that souls have power to survive death, and under the earth there are rewards and punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or wickedness. Some receive eternal imprisonment, while others pass easily to live again." Josephus on the Pharisees (Ant. XVIII, 14)

[DesertBerean]

RhinestoneCowboy, your very lengthy quote from Erhman's blog appear to contain material that one must pay to access. This is a paywall link and not allowed if the quoted material is not visible.

[Gary]

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.

The Sanhedrin moved the body or gave permission for someone else to move the body. They didn't bother telling the disciples about the body transfer! The women show up on Sunday morning and find: empty tomb.

Why didn't the Sanhedrin trot out the body when the disciples started preaching on Pentecost:

--The Sanhedrin didn't care.

--After forty days in a dirt trench, the body would have been unrecognizable anyway.

[Gary]

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.


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?

And again we come to the issue of probabilities. For non-supernaturalists, the probability that the Sanhedrin would immediately (sunset Saturday) get Jesus' body out of Armathea's family tomb and into an unmarked criminal grave is much, much higher than your supernatural tale of a dead body exiting his sealed tomb. You on the other hand, as a supernaturalist, see just the opposite.

We will never come to an agreement on this issue until one of us adopts the other's worldview regarding the existence of an unseen, unproven, supernatural dimension.

[Gary]

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,




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)."

Exactly. Magness states that the Gospels accurately reflect Jewish burial customs but also states that it would not have been unusual or a violation of Jewish law for someone to have moved the body after the Sabbath had ended.

[Gary]

RhinestoneCowboy, your very lengthy quote from Erhman's blog appear to contain material that one must pay to access. This is a paywall link and not allowed if the quoted material is not visible.

Why is this rule only enforced on atheists and agnostics but not Christians? Adrift quoted multiple times from a paywall link from Ehrman's blog. I should know because he was quoting my questions to Ehrman, printed below the paywall!

[Gary]

Yeah, it seems like more of a side point for Magness. It's certainly not the main thesis of the paper so I would like to see how she deals with Miller's argument, and specifically those Talmudic passages that do seem to prohibit movement of fully buried bodies, but as previously mentioned, there are other reasons to reject the movement of the body hypothesis.

Yes, and those other reasons are: You don't want to accept the truth!

[DesertBerean]

*sigh* my quote function is not cooperating, so this is in response to Gary. If Adrift was quoting anyone including the link, the link will be edited. Since I am now involved in the thread, one of the other mods will have to do that.

EDITED TO ADD: after discussion with other mods, link has been deleted and citation shortened due to copyright concerns.