1. Paul indicates no knowledge of it. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, - nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious.
=====================================
2. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to espouse. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark and John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced
by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel.
=====================================
3. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.
A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.
Sound familiar?
This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives. I'm not arguing for direct dependency or copying but it does show that the empty tomb story in Mark was nothing new.
Furthermore, the gospels also depict people believing that John the Baptist rose from the dead after his execution and even that Jesus was the risen John (see Mark 6:14 and Mark 8:27-28). The idea that John had risen from the dead came from the belief in the coming general resurrection. Obviously, the concept of a prophet rising from the dead as a pre-figurement of the coming kingdom of God was very much in the air when Jesus was executed.
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus
=====================================
4. It conflicts with archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.
Kloner says that the word can also mean "to move" but he is incorrect. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html
The word was only used in regards to round objects.
Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?
=====================================
5. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the narrator of Mark had a strong motivation to present his hero Jesus as receiving a noble rather than a shameful burial, consistent with tendencies in ancient hero biography.
Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in the tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb." Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.
It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin, which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews. But even if we grant the possibility, it is more likely that a "rich distinguished councillor" would not climb up the cross himself to get a dead body down but rather have his servants do it. Most crucified criminals were left on the cross to rot then later thrown into a common criminals grave. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Din), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."
Therefore, we should infer this is most likely what happened to Jesus' body. According to Paul (Acts 13:29) it was "the Jews" who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.
"When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb."
The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."
The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.
In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which records that it was "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", there are other traditions that indicate things were not as straightforward as the canonical gospels might indicate. For example, 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. 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.
"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.
=====================================
6. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains.
Arguments against the empty tomb
Moderator: Moderators
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #52
I have expanded and revised my arguments against the empty tomb.
1. It is improbable that Jesus was given a proper burial at all considering he was executed by the Romans who usually left bodies up on the cross to serve as a warning. The bodies were eaten by scavengers and what was left was thrown into a mass grave. It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities. If they put a sign above him that read King of the Jews it makes more sense to leave him up on display for a while to serve as an example to those passing by rather than handing him over immediately upon request. If Jesus was allowed a proper burial then he was the exception, not the rule.
=====================================
2. It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea), which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews.
"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.
=====================================
3. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the authors of the gospels appear to present their hero Jesus as receiving an increasingly noble rather than a shameful burial. The later additions also attempt to Christianize Joseph by making him into a good guy but these details are conspicuous in their absence from Mark.
Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus. Luke 23:51 says he had not consented to their decision and action. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in his own NEW tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb." Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.
Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Din), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."
The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."
Archaeologist Jodi Magness (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 also notes that there is no surviving evidence that these tombs were inscribed with names, and thus they could have very easily been completely anonymous:
After the trench was filled in, a rough headstone was often erected at one end the headstones are uninscribed, although some may once have had painted decorations or inscriptions that have not survived.
Therefore, we should infer that if the Jews obtained Jesus' body, this is how he would have been buried - in a criminal's grave, not in a "new" or "empty" "rock-hewn" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" as the later gospels describe.
The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.
Luke has Paul say in Acts 13:29 it was "they" - the Jews (plural) who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.
"When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb [-]."
This passage does not provide independent corroboration of the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, since the Greek word used to describe the burial site " - " can also be used to refer to unmarked graves in the ground. For example, the same author uses the word in Luke 11:44 to refer to ground burials:
Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves [-], which people walk over without knowing it.
As such, this separate burial tradition does not contradict the hypothesis outlined above that Jesus probably received a ground burial in an unmarked grave. But even if the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was historical, its emptiness can still be explained through a temporary burial " in which Jesus body had been taken down to abide by the regulations of the Sabbath, and was only temporarily put in Josephs tomb for storage " only to later be reburied in a criminal graveyard before the third day.
=====================================
4. 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 nailsand 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. 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.
=====================================
5. Paul indicates no knowledge of an empty tomb. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious. The creed in 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus was buried (-); however, this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials, such as outlined above, in addition to tomb burials, making it too vague to corroborate the later burial traditions in the Gospels. That Jesus "was buried" means he was dead. This makes the lack of mention of an empty tomb more remarkable, not less.
=====================================
6. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to assert. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark. John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel. In any case, John's Passion narrative cannot be demonstrated to be independent of the Markan empty tomb story.
=====================================
7. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions/rapture stories/translation fables" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.
A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.
Sound familiar?
This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives.
Roger David Aus has discovered what inspired Marks story of the enormous rolling- stone. This is the stone which was rolled from Jacobs well (Gen. 29.3, 8, 10). This stone was large already at Gen. 29.2, and the shepherds explain that they cannot water their flocks until the stone is rolled away (Gen. 29.8). In later Jewish tradition, there are three shepherds (corresponding to the three flocks of Gen.29.2), who could not roll the stone away, whereas Jacob did so (e.g. Neof I on Gen. 29.8, 10). In story mode, it was thus perfectly reasonable for Mark to have three women who knew they could not roll away the stone, and wondered who would remove it. Jacob was a young man when he rolled away the stone from the well, and it is a natural interpretation of Marks narrative that the stone had been removed from the tomb by the angel, who is described as a young man (Mk 16.5).
In Jewish tradition, Jacobs well was the same as Abrahams well, Isaacs well and above all Miriams well or Moses well, which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness. The well is described as like a rock which rolled along (e.g. Tanh. Bemidbar 2, 21, on Num. 1.1). Jewish tradition interpreted Num. 21.18-20 to mean that the well ended its journey at the top of Pisgah, where Moses died (Deut. 34.1-5). Pisgah is interpreted as Ramatha, height (e.g. Tg. Ps-J. Num. 21.20 rmth), and Joseph coming from Arimathea is sufficient to remind a storyteller of this. Pisgah is also interpreted in some passages of the LXX with terms which mean hewn from rock (e.g. Num. 21.20), which could have caused a storyteller to say that Joseph placed Jesus in a tomb hewn from rock (Mk 15.46), or a genuine tradition that Jesus was placed in a tomb for criminals which was in fact hewn from rock could have further helped a storyteller to make up his story about the big rolling-stone and the young man. - Maurice Casey, cf. Roger David Aus, Death, Burial and Resurrection pp. 139-197.
The fact that such strong parallels exist indicates that invention of the story is a likely possibility.
=====================================
8. It is improbable according to archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.
Kloner says that the word can also mean "to move" but he is incorrect. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html The word was only used in regards to round objects or rolling something rounded. Square blocking stones could only be pulled back/away. Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?
=====================================
9. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains. The lack of evidence for the veneration of Jesus tomb is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
1. It is improbable that Jesus was given a proper burial at all considering he was executed by the Romans who usually left bodies up on the cross to serve as a warning. The bodies were eaten by scavengers and what was left was thrown into a mass grave. It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities. If they put a sign above him that read King of the Jews it makes more sense to leave him up on display for a while to serve as an example to those passing by rather than handing him over immediately upon request. If Jesus was allowed a proper burial then he was the exception, not the rule.
=====================================
2. It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea), which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews.
"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.
=====================================
3. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the authors of the gospels appear to present their hero Jesus as receiving an increasingly noble rather than a shameful burial. The later additions also attempt to Christianize Joseph by making him into a good guy but these details are conspicuous in their absence from Mark.
Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus. Luke 23:51 says he had not consented to their decision and action. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in his own NEW tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb." Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.
Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Din), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."
The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."
Archaeologist Jodi Magness (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 also notes that there is no surviving evidence that these tombs were inscribed with names, and thus they could have very easily been completely anonymous:
After the trench was filled in, a rough headstone was often erected at one end the headstones are uninscribed, although some may once have had painted decorations or inscriptions that have not survived.
Therefore, we should infer that if the Jews obtained Jesus' body, this is how he would have been buried - in a criminal's grave, not in a "new" or "empty" "rock-hewn" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" as the later gospels describe.
The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals) and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.
Luke has Paul say in Acts 13:29 it was "they" - the Jews (plural) who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.
"When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb [-]."
This passage does not provide independent corroboration of the rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, since the Greek word used to describe the burial site " - " can also be used to refer to unmarked graves in the ground. For example, the same author uses the word in Luke 11:44 to refer to ground burials:
Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves [-], which people walk over without knowing it.
As such, this separate burial tradition does not contradict the hypothesis outlined above that Jesus probably received a ground burial in an unmarked grave. But even if the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was historical, its emptiness can still be explained through a temporary burial " in which Jesus body had been taken down to abide by the regulations of the Sabbath, and was only temporarily put in Josephs tomb for storage " only to later be reburied in a criminal graveyard before the third day.
=====================================
4. 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 nailsand 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. 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.
=====================================
5. Paul indicates no knowledge of an empty tomb. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious. The creed in 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus was buried (-); however, this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials, such as outlined above, in addition to tomb burials, making it too vague to corroborate the later burial traditions in the Gospels. That Jesus "was buried" means he was dead. This makes the lack of mention of an empty tomb more remarkable, not less.
=====================================
6. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to assert. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark. John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel. In any case, John's Passion narrative cannot be demonstrated to be independent of the Markan empty tomb story.
=====================================
7. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions/rapture stories/translation fables" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.
A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.
Sound familiar?
This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives.
Roger David Aus has discovered what inspired Marks story of the enormous rolling- stone. This is the stone which was rolled from Jacobs well (Gen. 29.3, 8, 10). This stone was large already at Gen. 29.2, and the shepherds explain that they cannot water their flocks until the stone is rolled away (Gen. 29.8). In later Jewish tradition, there are three shepherds (corresponding to the three flocks of Gen.29.2), who could not roll the stone away, whereas Jacob did so (e.g. Neof I on Gen. 29.8, 10). In story mode, it was thus perfectly reasonable for Mark to have three women who knew they could not roll away the stone, and wondered who would remove it. Jacob was a young man when he rolled away the stone from the well, and it is a natural interpretation of Marks narrative that the stone had been removed from the tomb by the angel, who is described as a young man (Mk 16.5).
In Jewish tradition, Jacobs well was the same as Abrahams well, Isaacs well and above all Miriams well or Moses well, which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness. The well is described as like a rock which rolled along (e.g. Tanh. Bemidbar 2, 21, on Num. 1.1). Jewish tradition interpreted Num. 21.18-20 to mean that the well ended its journey at the top of Pisgah, where Moses died (Deut. 34.1-5). Pisgah is interpreted as Ramatha, height (e.g. Tg. Ps-J. Num. 21.20 rmth), and Joseph coming from Arimathea is sufficient to remind a storyteller of this. Pisgah is also interpreted in some passages of the LXX with terms which mean hewn from rock (e.g. Num. 21.20), which could have caused a storyteller to say that Joseph placed Jesus in a tomb hewn from rock (Mk 15.46), or a genuine tradition that Jesus was placed in a tomb for criminals which was in fact hewn from rock could have further helped a storyteller to make up his story about the big rolling-stone and the young man. - Maurice Casey, cf. Roger David Aus, Death, Burial and Resurrection pp. 139-197.
The fact that such strong parallels exist indicates that invention of the story is a likely possibility.
=====================================
8. It is improbable according to archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.
Kloner says that the word can also mean "to move" but he is incorrect. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0617.html The word was only used in regards to round objects or rolling something rounded. Square blocking stones could only be pulled back/away. Source: Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?
=====================================
9. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains. The lack of evidence for the veneration of Jesus tomb is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #53
[Replying to post 52 by YahWhat]
Romans were fairly tolerant of Jewish customs, especially in Jerusalem. We know of several governors/prefects who lost their position because they did not honor Jewish customs. Thus typical treatment of crucified criminals does not apply here. All the Jewish aristocrats wouldve raised hell if the bodies of any crucified Jew were left over night. It defiled their land.
So no, it was not an exception to the rule in Jerusalem that a criminal be cut down from a cross: that was the rule. In this case, they needed to hurry, for that evening began the Sabbath on which no work was allowed (including burial customs).
Yes, if Jesus were allowed a proper burial that would have been a major exception; but then, a proper burial wouldve been in a family tomb. That wouldve raised eyebrows, for sure. But the gospels do not have him buried in a family tomb. It still remains remarkable that he was given an honorary burial. Certainly, it wouldve been implausible to the point of incredulous if Joseph gave him such a burial without any former knowledge of Jesus and considered him truly guilty of insurrection. It is not implausible that a religious leader should win the favor of persons in high positions. This happens all the time in history. It is demonstrated in the gospels that there were divisions among the aristocrats over what to make of Jesus; as there were divisions (in Acts) of what to make of the disciples (cf. Gamaliel in Acts 5.34, who speaks very good sense; cf. John 7:49 where Nicodemius tiptoes on thin ice regarding Jesus"nothing implausible here"this is what real, concrete situations are like).
=====================================
It is extremely implausible that a member of the Sanhedrin would show any respect to a person he thought guilty. True. It is not implausible that he would show respect to a person he thought innocent, and who won his favor. It is not implausible that a religious leader like Jesus should win such favor.
It is extremely implausible that a fiction should arise giving a detailed name (geographical locations were attached to common names to distinguish them) to a person whose existence could easily have been disproved (Mark is about 60 AD; it is unlikely that he made this up exactly at 60 AD and it caught on like wildfire; so even if it is a fiction, the fiction began earlier, and involved not someone anonymous or marginal, but one of 70 or 72 members). That is not how deliberately deceptive fiction works. To leave the person anonymous would've been strategic. That is something that sketpics like you don't ask: if this is such an obvious flaw, and they made it up, why was it not obviously implausible to them? It is far more plausible that there was a real Joseph of Arimathea, and that his name made the books because he did exactly what the gospels report him doing.
=====================================
As you pointed out: it is implausible that Joseph would've honored Jesus if he were not a sympathizer. But the gospel does depict him honoring JEsus. Thus, it is inferred, he was a sympathizer. The other gospels simply render explicit what was implicitly there. You read the gospels as if they were addressing YOU, a 21st c. skeptic. They aren't.
And the fact that the gospel authors had agendas does not mean they were wrong? If I am accused of something, during meetings with my attourney I will recollect details which I think demonstrate I am innocent. I will certainly have an apologetic agenda. Of course I will!
Historically you will have a very difficult time pulling the cart before the horse. The peculiarity of Christian prophetical quotes is that the majority of the prophecies referenced were not Messianic at all. Search them out in 2nd T. Jewish literature and you will find hardly any applied to messianic hopes. Not even Psalm 110 made it as a messianic text, though it is the most quoted in the N.T.. It other words, these were not prophecies waiting to be fulfilled: that is an apologetical claim used by Christian fundamentalists and they are for the most part wrong. The only explicit Messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled is that he was born in Bethlehem. And I am willing to yield to the argument that Prophecy produced history. For the rest, the more natural drift is that after the events, Jewish Christians searched their Scriptures and found parallels to real history, and these BECAME Messianic prophecies: history produced prophecy.
Even if we entertain this absurdity, here is how the story should've run: 1) Disciples are distraught, 2) Women arrive at the tomb to find it vacated. 3) They inquire about the body (Cf. Mary's question to the "gardener" "where have you taken him?"--a very plausible question). 4) After inquiry, they learn of the relocation. 5) No Jesus movement occurs. 6) 2000 years later Jesus makes it onto an obscure wikepedia page on Messianic pretenders along with Judas the Galilean.
=====================================
You are ignoring that Luke wrote Acts. You are citing extremely late gospels (have you even read it?). You are ignoring that in ancient culture (especially Jewish) a single person can be employed to represent the rest: as when a king declares war the entire nation is described as declaring war. If you are going to apply an overliteralistic reading (i.e. because we have the plural Jews and not a singular Joseph than you need to argue that the author of Acts believed EVERY SINGLE JEW IN JERUSALEM (i.e. a million?) was involved in taking Jesus down from the cross. Quite a collaborative effort!
=====================================
This one is retired. The Apostles Creed doesnt mention the tomb. The argument in Cor. did not require it.
The Corinthians doubted the general resurrection. They were not asking about the specific resurrection of Jesus. Note the way Pauls argument runs:
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
(1Co 15:12-14 NAS)
The term resurrection of the dead refers to the general resurrection. It is that (multiple resurrections) that is in doubt. Pauls argument assumes they assume Jesus was raised, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. But if they were doubting that, they would never have believed in the first place, that was the central tenet of being a Christian. Pauls entire argument hinges on a shared belief: Jesus was raised from the dead. From this he goes on to argue that, therefore everyone will be raised from the dead. It was this that the Corinthians had a difficult time grasping.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
The concern here is not Christs resurrection, but all those in Christ.
Then he answers his own rhetorical question: 35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" (1Co 15:35 NAS)
The question is not how was Christ raised? but the dead. The problem is about their bodies. The Corinthians are concerned (and rightly) about the long since deceased, whose bodies have long since dissipated. This was not the case of Jesus. Hence he alludes to Genesis where God creates bodies for things bodiless. But for those that live to see Christs return, they are transformed. Jesus fits this category. His body was reanimated and transformed.
Appealing to the tomb/resurrection of Jesus would not have answered the Corinthian question about the "resurrection of the dead".
=====================================
=====================================
It should be stated at once that mythic borrowings were abandoned by scholarship (liberal and conservative) in the 1950s. They are enjoying a come-back among hypercritical bloggers.
Roger has discovered he has a vivid imagination; there is no hint of allegory in Marks narrative. No ancient author in his right mind would back his case up by inventing women eyewitness, whether one, three, or 40.
Curious: Is there a cite that you are cutting and pasting from at random? Because this is getting tiresome.
The "strong parallels" are "rock, hewn, rolled". Somehow a connection has been made between a rolling well and an empty tomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please, from now on, do a quick search on the dates of all proposed parallels. Targums!?
=====================================
Already dealt with. Do a word search. Plethora of instances where the term is applied to any shape undergoing end over end motion. And Johns gospel has removed"so even if this were a legimate maneuver, we would have to argue that the later gospel somehow retained earlier terminology?
=====================================
Veneration is a late historical phenomenon. When a tomb has been vacated by the most important event in history, and that that person is expected to return imminently, one does not indulge in site-seeing.
Yahwah. This was exhausting. I cannot believe that you seriously examined all these arguments and found them all plausible. Some of them are so preposterous (Rogers allegory!!) that their strength is they will leave their opponents silent, because silence is the only response to such wild fancies. If you are just cutting and pasting, then say so, and simply give the links
Yes, Romans typically left bodies to rot; we are in Jerusalem. No, you are dead wrong when you say that Romans lacked Jewish sensitivity. Cf. Josephus War 4.317.I have expanded and revised my arguments against the empty tomb.
1. It is improbable that Jesus was given a proper burial at all considering he was executed by the Romans who usually left bodies up on the cross to serve as a warning. The bodies were eaten by scavengers and what was left was thrown into a mass grave. It was not Jews who killed Jesus, and so they had no say about when he would be taken down from the cross. Moreover, the Romans who did crucify him had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities. If they put a sign above him that read King of the Jews it makes more sense to leave him up on display for a while to serve as an example to those passing by rather than handing him over immediately upon request. If Jesus was allowed a proper burial then he was the exception, not the rule.
Romans were fairly tolerant of Jewish customs, especially in Jerusalem. We know of several governors/prefects who lost their position because they did not honor Jewish customs. Thus typical treatment of crucified criminals does not apply here. All the Jewish aristocrats wouldve raised hell if the bodies of any crucified Jew were left over night. It defiled their land.
So no, it was not an exception to the rule in Jerusalem that a criminal be cut down from a cross: that was the rule. In this case, they needed to hurry, for that evening began the Sabbath on which no work was allowed (including burial customs).
Yes, if Jesus were allowed a proper burial that would have been a major exception; but then, a proper burial wouldve been in a family tomb. That wouldve raised eyebrows, for sure. But the gospels do not have him buried in a family tomb. It still remains remarkable that he was given an honorary burial. Certainly, it wouldve been implausible to the point of incredulous if Joseph gave him such a burial without any former knowledge of Jesus and considered him truly guilty of insurrection. It is not implausible that a religious leader should win the favor of persons in high positions. This happens all the time in history. It is demonstrated in the gospels that there were divisions among the aristocrats over what to make of Jesus; as there were divisions (in Acts) of what to make of the disciples (cf. Gamaliel in Acts 5.34, who speaks very good sense; cf. John 7:49 where Nicodemius tiptoes on thin ice regarding Jesus"nothing implausible here"this is what real, concrete situations are like).
=====================================
2. It is extremely improbable that a respected member of the Sanhedrin (Joseph of Arimathea), which just demanded that Pilate have Jesus killed, would concern himself with the body of a man condemned and executed as a criminal messianic pretender - the King of the Jews.
It is extremely implausible that a member of the Sanhedrin would show any respect to a person he thought guilty. True. It is not implausible that he would show respect to a person he thought innocent, and who won his favor. It is not implausible that a religious leader like Jesus should win such favor.
It is extremely implausible that a fiction should arise giving a detailed name (geographical locations were attached to common names to distinguish them) to a person whose existence could easily have been disproved (Mark is about 60 AD; it is unlikely that he made this up exactly at 60 AD and it caught on like wildfire; so even if it is a fiction, the fiction began earlier, and involved not someone anonymous or marginal, but one of 70 or 72 members). That is not how deliberately deceptive fiction works. To leave the person anonymous would've been strategic. That is something that sketpics like you don't ask: if this is such an obvious flaw, and they made it up, why was it not obviously implausible to them? It is far more plausible that there was a real Joseph of Arimathea, and that his name made the books because he did exactly what the gospels report him doing.
=====================================
That is fine; I have brought up this general theme in another OP. The gospel writers embellished things for theological reasons. What is not conspicuously absent in Mark is Josephs deed. That remains constant throughout all the gospels.3. In regards to the burial of Jesus it should be pointed out that the authors of the gospels appear to present their hero Jesus as receiving an increasingly noble rather than a shameful burial. The later additions also attempt to Christianize Joseph by making him into a good guy but these details are conspicuous in their absence from Mark.
You are very fond of the arguments from silence. Absence does not mean contradiction. If one gospel said he was buried in a tomb with other people, and another said it was empty, that would be a contradiction.Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Matthew and John turn Joseph into a"disciple" of Jesus. Luke 23:51 says he had not consented to their decision and action. Mark has the body wrapped in a newly purchased linen cloth and laid in "a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock." Matthew 27:60 has the variant "in his own NEW tomb, which HE HAD hewn in the rock" - that means Joseph himself or workers commissioned by him hewed out the tomb which is not the case in Mark. Luke 23:53 has "rock-hewn tomb."Matthew says that he laid him in his own tomb and Luke 23:53/John 19:41 notes that it was a tomb "Where no one had ever been laid." All of these are later additions to the oldest Gospel Mark and they are all apologetic attempts to show that Jesus had an honorable burial as opposed to a dishonorable one.
As you pointed out: it is implausible that Joseph would've honored Jesus if he were not a sympathizer. But the gospel does depict him honoring JEsus. Thus, it is inferred, he was a sympathizer. The other gospels simply render explicit what was implicitly there. You read the gospels as if they were addressing YOU, a 21st c. skeptic. They aren't.
And the fact that the gospel authors had agendas does not mean they were wrong? If I am accused of something, during meetings with my attourney I will recollect details which I think demonstrate I am innocent. I will certainly have an apologetic agenda. Of course I will!
Both of these are late documents; and even if they apply, it has been dealt with above. No one is saying that Jesus was treated as a common criminal. All the gospels agree that Jesus had sympathizers, that Joseph was one of them, and therefore he paid him homage. An exception to the rule? Yes, but unrealistic? No. No more unrealistic than that Joan of Arc should be condemned as a heretic and then canonized as a saint. Real history is complex.Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations. This was in accordance with the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:
"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Din), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."
The Tosefta 9:8-9 states that criminals may not be buried in their ancestral burying grounds but have to be placed in those of the court. This is justified by a quoting of the Psalm of David: "Do not gather my soul with the sinners" (26:9). In b. Sanhedrin 47a - "a wicked man may not be buried beside a righteous one."
Are you just cutting and pasting from a random Google search? None of the gospels claim that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid homage to Jesus. They all agree that one particular (two in the case of John) aristocrat did so. There is nothing implausible here.Archaeologist Jodi Magness (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.
Irrelevant if we are dealing with a tomb. Irrelevant when all three gospels record women observing the place of burial (the Sabbath was closing in, which meant that a proper burial wouldve been impossible; so they located the tomb with the intention of returning after the Sabbath.Magness also notes that there is no surviving evidence that these tombs were inscribed with names, and thus they could have very easily been completely anonymous:
After the trench was filled in, a rough headstone was often erected at one end the headstones are uninscribed, although some may once have had painted decorations or inscriptions that have not survived.
Inferred if we were dealing with a man whose life was clearly criminal. Absolutely zero evidence shows this of Jesus. He had no pretensions of being a militant Messiah. The court proceedings of the Jews and Pilate show that it was difficult to convict him. Both authorities had reasons. Passover was at hand; a festival ripe for uprisings as it celebrated Israel's original independence (cf. Josephus). Other uprisings had occurred, to the detriment of the Jews. The chief priests had reason to be wary of Jesus--he had followers from Galilee, the home land of previous zealots, his motives were unclear, he caused a disturbance in the temple, and passover was approaching. It was best to have him killed than risk another uprising. But it is clear that Jesus was not a typical insurrectionist.Therefore, we should infer that if the Jews obtained Jesus' body, this is how he would have been buried - in a criminal's grave, not in a "new" or "empty" "rock-hewn" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" as the later gospels describe.
The earliest Christians and the author of Mark could have seen in Jesus' body being placed in such a burial site the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:9 "And they (Sanhedrin) made his grave with the wicked (criminal burial/crucified between two criminals)and with the rich (Joseph of Arimathea) in his death." So the composer of the narrative just "fulfilled" prophecy by creating the story of the empty tomb.
Historically you will have a very difficult time pulling the cart before the horse. The peculiarity of Christian prophetical quotes is that the majority of the prophecies referenced were not Messianic at all. Search them out in 2nd T. Jewish literature and you will find hardly any applied to messianic hopes. Not even Psalm 110 made it as a messianic text, though it is the most quoted in the N.T.. It other words, these were not prophecies waiting to be fulfilled: that is an apologetical claim used by Christian fundamentalists and they are for the most part wrong. The only explicit Messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled is that he was born in Bethlehem. And I am willing to yield to the argument that Prophecy produced history. For the rest, the more natural drift is that after the events, Jewish Christians searched their Scriptures and found parallels to real history, and these BECAME Messianic prophecies: history produced prophecy.
This is sloppy Yahwah. Acts is written after the gospel, a gospel in which Jesus is given a respectable burial. If you are going to use Acts, you have to use all of it"including when Paul and Peter both deny that Jesus was left to rot. If you are arguing that this part of Pauls speech represents an earlier and therefore more reliable tradition, you will need to demonstrate this, and demonstrate that statements to the effect that Jesus was not left to rot like David who both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day are late. A prodigious task. If I were you, I would leave Acts alone"it will only work against you.Luke has Paul say in Acts 13:29 it was "they" - the Jews (plural) who buried Jesus. Acts 13:29 also fits perfectly well with him being thrown in a common criminal's tomb.
who was going to move him on the SAbbath? Work is prohibited. Romans?! The women arrive at the tomb "very early". To say that someone beat them to the punch means that someone, the second the Sabbath was over (i.e. dusk) got lanterns, moved the stone, took the body (what time is it now? 3 in the morning!!) buried the body outside of Jerusalem (now what time is it? 12 pm?), then went home!As such, this separate burial tradition does not contradict the hypothesis outlined above that Jesus probably received a ground burial in an unmarked grave. But even if the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was historical, its emptiness can still be explained through a temporary burial " in which Jesus body had been taken down to abide by the regulations of the Sabbath, and was only temporarily put in Josephs tomb for storage " only to later be reburied in a criminal graveyard before the third day.
Even if we entertain this absurdity, here is how the story should've run: 1) Disciples are distraught, 2) Women arrive at the tomb to find it vacated. 3) They inquire about the body (Cf. Mary's question to the "gardener" "where have you taken him?"--a very plausible question). 4) After inquiry, they learn of the relocation. 5) No Jesus movement occurs. 6) 2000 years later Jesus makes it onto an obscure wikepedia page on Messianic pretenders along with Judas the Galilean.
=====================================
4. 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 nailsand 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. 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.
You are ignoring that Luke wrote Acts. You are citing extremely late gospels (have you even read it?). You are ignoring that in ancient culture (especially Jewish) a single person can be employed to represent the rest: as when a king declares war the entire nation is described as declaring war. If you are going to apply an overliteralistic reading (i.e. because we have the plural Jews and not a singular Joseph than you need to argue that the author of Acts believed EVERY SINGLE JEW IN JERUSALEM (i.e. a million?) was involved in taking Jesus down from the cross. Quite a collaborative effort!
=====================================
5. Paul indicates no knowledge of an empty tomb. He does not reference a Joseph of Arimathea, angel, the women, nothing. I acknowledge that the absence of a detail from Paul does not on its own indicate ahistoricity, given the brief summary nature of his account and the obvious differences with the style of the later narrative accounts. But elements that would have helped Paul's argument greatly are conspicuous by their absence. If Paul was arguing for a physical revivification and knew of an "empty tomb" tradition, for example, it's very strange it gets no mention in 1 Cor 15. The Greek audience he's addressing didn't believe in bodily resurrection. He goes through all that "spiritual body" stuff but not mentioning the empty tomb is quite suspicious. The creed in 1 Cor. 15:4 states that Jesus was buried (-); however, this verb simply describes generic burial and can refer to ground burials, such as outlined above, in addition to tomb burials, making it too vague to corroborate the later burial traditions in the Gospels. That Jesus "was buried" means he was dead. This makes the lack of mention of an empty tomb more remarkable, not less.
This one is retired. The Apostles Creed doesnt mention the tomb. The argument in Cor. did not require it.
The Corinthians doubted the general resurrection. They were not asking about the specific resurrection of Jesus. Note the way Pauls argument runs:
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
(1Co 15:12-14 NAS)
The term resurrection of the dead refers to the general resurrection. It is that (multiple resurrections) that is in doubt. Pauls argument assumes they assume Jesus was raised, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. But if they were doubting that, they would never have believed in the first place, that was the central tenet of being a Christian. Pauls entire argument hinges on a shared belief: Jesus was raised from the dead. From this he goes on to argue that, therefore everyone will be raised from the dead. It was this that the Corinthians had a difficult time grasping.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
The concern here is not Christs resurrection, but all those in Christ.
Then he answers his own rhetorical question: 35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" (1Co 15:35 NAS)
The question is not how was Christ raised? but the dead. The problem is about their bodies. The Corinthians are concerned (and rightly) about the long since deceased, whose bodies have long since dissipated. This was not the case of Jesus. Hence he alludes to Genesis where God creates bodies for things bodiless. But for those that live to see Christs return, they are transformed. Jesus fits this category. His body was reanimated and transformed.
Appealing to the tomb/resurrection of Jesus would not have answered the Corinthian question about the "resurrection of the dead".
=====================================
What do you mean by attested? No one claims that Luke or Matthew or Mark were present. The eye-witness sources were the women, then later the disciples. You are confusing the difference between attestation and personal authorship.6. It is not multiply attested as apologists like to assert. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark. John was written at such a late date that it was likely influenced by the Markan empty tomb story. Since both M and L both copied Mark, the empty tomb story would have been well known and circulating in the Christian communities by the time the author of John wrote his gospel. In any case, John's Passion narrative cannot be demonstrated to be independent of the Markan empty tomb story.
=====================================
I think I dealt with this elsewhere. The story was a romance and known to be romance. It was written sometime around 50 AD (although scholars place it in the 2nd c. AD, others in the 1st c. BCE). You also are leaving out the important part: no one dies in the romance.7. Similar stories involving the disappearance of bodies and "heavenly assumptions/rapture stories/translation fables" were quite common in this time period. A Jewish example is found in the Testament of Job 39:8-13; 40:3-4. The disappearance/assumption motif is used to explain what happened to the bones of Job's dead children. They were taken up to heaven by God and glorified.
A more interesting Greek example is found in the 1st century novel by Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3. The hero Chaereas visits the tomb of his recently dead wife saying he "arrived at the tomb at daybreak" where he "found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright." He finds it empty and concludes that one of the gods has taken Callirhoe up to heaven.
Sound familiar?
You gave one example, and extrapolate commonality? And from a story that involves NO apotheosis. Apotheosis was granted a very few prominent people. They were not raised from the dead (they were cremated). Nor were they seen. One person claims to have been visited in a dream. Julius Caesars apotheosis was inferred from a comet.This is just an example of how common the idea of apotheosis was in the period and shows how there was already a set of tropes that the Gospels could adapt for their narratives.
It should be stated at once that mythic borrowings were abandoned by scholarship (liberal and conservative) in the 1950s. They are enjoying a come-back among hypercritical bloggers.
Roger David Aus has discovered what inspired Marks story of the enormous rolling- stone. This is the stone which was rolledfrom Jacobs well (Gen. 29.3, 8, 10). This stone was largealready at Gen. 29.2, and the shepherds explain that they cannot water their flocks until the stone is rolled away (Gen. 29.8). In later Jewish tradition, there are three shepherds (corresponding to the three flocks of Gen.29.2), who could not roll the stone away, whereas Jacob did so (e.g. Neof I on Gen. 29.8, 10). In story mode, it was thus perfectly reasonable for Mark to havethree women who knew they could not roll away the stone, and wondered who would remove it. Jacob was a young manwhen he rolled away the stone from the well, and it is a natural interpretation of Marks narrative that the stone had been removed from the tomb by the angel, who is described as ayoung man (Mk 16.5).
Roger has discovered he has a vivid imagination; there is no hint of allegory in Marks narrative. No ancient author in his right mind would back his case up by inventing women eyewitness, whether one, three, or 40.
Curious: Is there a cite that you are cutting and pasting from at random? Because this is getting tiresome.
In Jewish tradition, Jacobs well was the same as Abrahams well, Isaacs well and above all Miriams well or Moses well, which accompanied the Israelites in the wilderness. The well is described as like a rock which rolled along (e.g. Tanh. Bemidbar 2, 21, on Num. 1.1). Jewish tradition interpreted Num. 21.18-20 to mean that the well ended its journey at the top of Pisgah, where Moses died (Deut. 34.1-5). Pisgah is interpreted as Ramatha, height (e.g. Tg. Ps-J. Num. 21.20 rmth), and Joseph coming fromArimathea is sufficient to remind a storyteller of this. Pisgah is also interpreted in some passages of the LXX with terms which mean hewn from rock (e.g. Num. 21.20), which could have caused a storyteller to say that Joseph placed Jesus in a tombhewn from rock (Mk 15.46), or a genuine tradition that Jesus was placed in a tomb for criminals which was in fact hewn from rock could have further helped a storyteller to make up his story about the big rolling-stone and the young man. - Maurice Casey, cf. Roger David Aus, Death, Burial and Resurrection pp. 139-197.
The fact that such strong parallels exist indicates that invention of the story is a likely possibility.
The "strong parallels" are "rock, hewn, rolled". Somehow a connection has been made between a rolling well and an empty tomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please, from now on, do a quick search on the dates of all proposed parallels. Targums!?
=====================================
8. It is improbable according to archaeology. In regards to Mark's "rolling stone" door (Mark 16:3-4) the use of the Greek word (to roll away) indicates that the stone closing the tomb was round. A survey of First Century Jewish rock cut and cave tombs by Amos Kloner found that 98% of them were closed by square stones prior to 70 AD, with only 4 (out of over 900) closed by a rolling round stone. After 70 AD, however, round stones became far more common. So this detail seems to be indicating the kind of tomb in the later First Century (when Mark was writing), or it could be that the tomb itself, an element conspicuous by its absence in Paul's version, was an addition to the story.
Already dealt with. Do a word search. Plethora of instances where the term is applied to any shape undergoing end over end motion. And Johns gospel has removed"so even if this were a legimate maneuver, we would have to argue that the later gospel somehow retained earlier terminology?
=====================================
9. We have no record of Jesus' tomb being venerated or even the location mentioned until it was "discovered" in the 4th century. Quite strange for the exact spot where God raised Jesus from the dead to go unnoticed/unmentioned for 300 years don't you think? Jewish tomb veneration was increasing during this time period. The site of the tomb where a Resurrection by God happened would not have been forgotten. The site would have been as important to their preaching as it is in the narrative accounts of all four Gospels. The objection "because Jesus was alive" or because "his body wasn't there" doesn't work because the Church of the Holy Sepulchre became venerated when Jesus was supposedly "alive" and without his remains. The lack of evidence for the veneration of Jesus tomb is good evidence that there was no such tomb.
Veneration is a late historical phenomenon. When a tomb has been vacated by the most important event in history, and that that person is expected to return imminently, one does not indulge in site-seeing.
Yahwah. This was exhausting. I cannot believe that you seriously examined all these arguments and found them all plausible. Some of them are so preposterous (Rogers allegory!!) that their strength is they will leave their opponents silent, because silence is the only response to such wild fancies. If you are just cutting and pasting, then say so, and simply give the links
Post #54
liamconnor wrote:
Yes, Romans typically left bodies to rot; we are in Jerusalem.
And Jerusalem was under Roman rule during this time period. Why should we expect anything different? Romans typically didn't crucify Roman citizens. Crucifixion was reserved for foreign criminals.
No, you are dead wrong when you say that Romans lacked Jewish sensitivity....Romans were fairly tolerant of Jewish customs, especially in Jerusalem. We know of several governors/prefects who lost their position because they did not honor Jewish customs.
Oh really?
What should we make of Luke when he says this? the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices (Luke 13:1).
Josephus tells us when Pilate first came into Jerusalem, he had stationed around town the Roman standards, which had an image of the emperor embellished on them. When the Jews of Jerusalem saw the standards in the morning, they were outraged: no images were allowed in the holy city, as suggested in the law of Moses, let alone images of a foreign ruler who was worshiped elsewhere as a god. A Jewish crowd appeared to Pilate at his palace in Caesarea and demanded that he remove the standards, leading to a standoff that lasted five days. Pilate had no interest at all in bowing to Jewish demands (contrast the stories of Jesuss trial in the Gospels!). On the contrary, at the end of the five days he directed his troops to surround the Jewish protestors, three rows deep, and cut them to shreds. Rather than backing down, the Jews to a person reached out their necks and told the soldiers to do their utmost. They would rather die than cave in. Pilate realized that he could not murder such masses in cold blood and, surprised at their prodigious superstition, ordered the standards removed (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1).
Josephus also tells us when Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct to provide freshwater to Jerusalem he financed the project by raiding the sacred treasury of the temple. The authorities and the people were outraged and protested loudly. Pilate responded by having his soldiers mix in with the crowds, disguised, to attack the people, not with swords but with clubs, at his command. They did so, and many of the Jews were killed in the onslaught, and many others were trampled to death in the tumult that followed (Antiquities 18.3.2).
Philo says of Pilate:
his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity (Embassy to Gaius 302).
John Dominic Crossan states:
Pilate was an ordinary second-rate Roman governor with no regard for Jewish religious sensitivities and with brute force as his normal solution to even unarmed protesting or resisting crowds.
"Decisions in the provinces dealing with non-citizens were most often extra ordinem, so that such a matter as the deposition of crucified bodies would have been left to the local magistrate. Before Jesus' time, in Sicily, much closer to Rome, Cicero (In Verrem 2.5.45; #119) reports that a corrupt governor made parents pay for permission to bury their children. Philo (In Flaccum 10.83-84) tells us that in Egypt, on the eve of a Roman holiday, customarily "people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites." But the prefect Flaccus (within a decade of Jesus' death) "gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross," even on the eve of a feast. Indeed, he crucified others, after maltreating them with the lash."
Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62) reports on the treatment of the martyrs of Lyons: The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain." - Raymond Brown
Cf. Josephus War 4.317.
Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.
1. Josephus discusses burying of crucifixion victims in a specific context of describing the piety of the Jews: they 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? Its 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? Im not sure what to think about this.
3. For the sake of the argument lets 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 Josephuss 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?
4. It is important to note that in this short statement, Josephus does not say that burial of crucified victims had been the Jewish custom from time immemorial. He is writing about events that transpired 35-40 years after the days of Jesus, in a very different circumstance. Its not immediately obvious that he can be taken to mean this always, or typically, happened " only that it was, in his claim, something that took place in his day.
5. More important " this is probably the key point " his statement is simply not true as a general practice. During the Jewish War, about which Josephus is writing, there were massive crucifixions. At one point, the Roman general Titus was capturing and crucifying 500 Jews a day " a day! " in front of the walls of Jerusalem, while those inside looked on. There is no one on the planet (now or in antiquity) who honestly thinks that Jews inside Jerusalem regularly left the relative safely of the walls to ask the Roman commanders for permission to take down the bodies because they didnt want their laws to be broken. Why not? Because it was a time of war.
6. In other words, if Josephuss statement *was* true " even if this was a Jewish practice " it was not true all the time, but only in some circumstances, when the conditions allowed. For most of the crucifixions of the first century, conditions did not allow.
7. Did conditions allow in the case of Jesus? At this time, around 30 CE, the Romans were not laying siege to Jerusalem and there was not a war going on. But its important to look closely at what Josephus actually says. When he says that even malefactors who were crucified were given decent burials, for the term malefactor he uses a generic term (-). He uses the term or its derivatives 17 times in his surviving writings, always to refer generally to someone who is condemned to something (e.g., slavery, dishonor, or crucifixion). In none of the 17 times that he uses it does he use it to refer to someone who was condemned to crucifixion as an enemy of the state or an insurrectionist. Jesus in the New Testament is never referred to with this term (translated here as malefactor). When he is crucified, he is not simply condemned. He is charged with calling himself the King of the Jews " i.e., it is a charge of political insurgency. He was an enemy of the Romans.
8. Most people who were crucified throughout the Roman empire in times of relative peace, in Judea or elsewhere, were simply malefactors " e.g., murderers, robbers, run-away-slaves. If Josephus is right in the claim that Ive quoted " i.e., if he is not exaggerating the piety of the Jews in order to have a nice contrast with the Idumeans and to emphasize the benevolence of the Romans " and if it is the case, as it *has* to be, that he does not and cannot mean that Jews *always* buried crucified victims (since they didnt for many thousands), then it may be plausible (though Im not convinced its true) that in times of peace, Jews were sometimes given the right to bury some crucified victims when they were guilty of lesser crimes, when they were simply malefactors, as opposed to being enemies of the state.
9. The reasons Jesus would not have been one of these for whom burial would be allowed are the ones that I have given extensively over the course of the past three weeks. To sum it up, not only during war but also in times of (relative) peace the Romans publicly humiliated and tortured to death enemies of state precisely in order to keep the peace. Jesus was condemned not for blasphemy, not for cleansing the temple, not for irritating the Sadducees, not for bad-mouthing the Pharisees, not for well, not for anything but one thing. He was crucified for calling himself the King of the Jews. Only Romans could appoint the King. If Jesus thought he himself was going to be the King, for the Romans this would have been a declaration of war (since he would have to usurp their power and authority to have himself installed as king) (Im talking about how Romans would have interpreted Jesus claim to be king, not what he himself may have meant by it). They may have found it astounding, if not pathetic, that this unknown peasant from the rural hinterlands would be imagining that he could overthrow Roman rule in Judea. But Romans didnt much care if someone was a megalomaniac, a feasible charismatic preacher, or a bona-fide soldier in arms. If the person declared war on Rome " which a claim to being the King amounted to " the Romans knew how to deal with him. He would be publicly tortured and humiliated, left to rot on a cross so everyone could see what happens to someone who thinks he can cross the power of Rome. There was no mercy and no reprieve. And there was no decent burial, precisely because there was no mercy or reprieve in cases such as this. After the point was made " after time, the elements, and the scavengers had done their work " the body could be dumped into some kind of pit or common grave. But not until the humiliation and the punishment were complete. Yes, its true that in Jesus day, the country was not in armed rebellion against Rome. There was a general peace. But this is the very reason *why* there was peace. Would-be offenders " insurrectionists, political enemies, guerilla warriors, rival kings, enemies of the state " were brought face to face with the power of Rome in a very gruesome way, and most people, who for as a rule preferred very much not to be food for the birds and dogs, stayed in line as a result.
10. In sum, even if Josephus is stating a general practice among Jews (Im not sure we can trust that he is. But even if he is), it is not a practice that applied to times of war or threats of war. As we have seen repeatedly in the past three weeks, it did not apply to enemies of the state. Jesus was an enemy of the state, crucified for calling himself King of the Jews.
Thus typical treatment of crucified criminals does not apply here.
Special pleading. Jesus declared himself to be "King of the Jews". The Romans would have seen this as a political threat and he was dealt with accordingly just like the rest of those found guilty of sedition and/or treason against Rome.
How do you know this? Any instance of this happening? I'm aware of the Old Testament passages that says it defiles their land but, as I've demonstrated, the sources we have seem to illustrate Pilate not caring about Jewish law or their sensitivities. Besides, why would the Jews be concerned with the body of a criminal messianic pretender anyway?All the Jewish aristocrats wouldve raised hell if the bodies of any crucified Jew were left over night. It defiled their land.
So the fact that the only instance you have of this happening comes from the Gospels (biased theological documents) means that this was the rule? I'm afraid not. Here's what contemporary sources regarding crucifixion have to say:So no, it was not an exception to the rule in Jerusalem that a criminal be cut down from a cross: that was the rule.
- An ancient inscription found on the tombstone of a man who was murdered by his slave in the city of Caria tells us that the murderer was hung . . . alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey.
- The Roman author Horace says in one of his letters that a slave was claiming to have done nothing wrong, to which his master replied, You shall not therefore feed the carrion crows on the cross (Epistle 1.16.46"48).
- The Roman satirist Juvenal speaks of the vulture [that] hurries from the dead cattle and dogs and corpses, to to bring some of the carrion to her offspring (Satires 14.77"78).
- The most famous interpreter of dreams from the ancient world, a Greek Sigmund Freud named Artemidorus, writes that it is auspicious for a poor man in particular to have a dream about being crucified, since a crucified man is raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds (Dream Book 2.53).
- And there is a bit of gallows humor in the Satyricon of Petronius, a one-time advisor to the emperor Nero, about a crucified victim being left for days on the cross (chaps. 11"12).
- The Greek historian of the first century BCE Diodorus Siculus speaks of a war between Philip of Macedonia (the father of Alexander the Great) in which he lost twenty men to the enemy, the Locrians. When Philip asked for their bodies in order to bury them, the Locrians refused, indicating that it was the general law that temple-robbers should be cast forth without burial (Library of History 16.25.2).
- From around 100 CE, the Greek author Dio Chrysostom indicates that in Athens, anyone who suffered at the hands of the state for a crime was denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace of a wicked man (Discourses 31.85).
- Among the Romans, we learn that after a battle fought by Octavian (the later Caesar Augustus, emperor when Jesus was born), one of his captives begged for a burial, to which Octavian replied, The birds will soon settle that question (Suetonius, Augustus 13).
- And we are told by the Roman historian Tacitus of a man who committed suicide to avoid being executed by the state, since anyone who was legally condemned and executed forfeited his estate and was debarred from burial (Annals 6.29h).
Well, we know that the gospels don't always get everything right when it comes to honoring the Sabbath. For instance, according to Mark's chronology, and that of Matthew and Luke, Joseph's purchase of the linen occurs on the first day of Passover. Leviticus 23:6-7 and Nehemiah 10:31 forbid purchasing goods on a holy day (festival day). Nonetheless, Mark 15:43 reports that Joseph, a respected member of the council, purchased linen on a holy day in direct violation of the law in full public view. Moreover, no Jew would have been selling linen because it was a holy day. Consequently, Joseph would have had to purchase linen from a non-Jewish merchant in which he would still be violating Jewish law.In this case, they needed to hurry, for that evening began the Sabbath on which no work was allowed (including burial customs).
Matthew has Jesus buried in Joseph's "own" tomb. If this wasn't a family tomb then what was it? Joseph just happened to have empty tomb plots all over Jerusalem for the off chance that he had to hastily bury a crucified criminal?Yes, if Jesus were allowed a proper burial that would have been a major exception; but then, a proper burial wouldve been in a family tomb. That wouldve raised eyebrows, for sure. But the gospels do not have him buried in a family tomb.
Keep in mind these details only occur in the later gospels. That Joseph was a "disciple" of Jesus and thought he was "innocent" is absent from Mark, our earliest source.It is extremely implausible that a member of the Sanhedrin would show any respect to a person he thought guilty. True. It is not implausible that he would show respect to a person he thought innocent, and who won his favor. It is not implausible that a religious leader like Jesus should win such favor.
Scholarly consensus places Mark around 70 CE. Most likely all the members of the Sanhedrin were dead by then (life expectancy was around 40-50 years) so no one could have even fact checked the claim, let alone cared to. It's interesting how this "Joseph of Arimathea" character pops up out of nowhere and conveniently fulfills Isaiah 53:9 only to fall into obscurity and never be heard from again. He conspicuously provides a narrative role for retrieving Jesus body, and then buries it in a tomb which just happens to end Marks narrative being found empty (strangely, Joseph is never questioned in the Gospels or Acts for the whereabouts of Jesus body, despite this being a matter that he would have been suspect in).It is extremely implausible that a fiction should arise giving a detailed name (geographical locations were attached to common names to distinguish them) to a person whose existence could easily have been disproved (Mark is about 60 AD; it is unlikely that he made this up exactly at 60 AD and it caught on like wildfire; so even if it is a fiction, the fiction began earlier, and involved not someone anonymous or marginal, but one of 70 or 72 members). That is not how deliberately deceptive fiction works. To leave the person anonymous would've been strategic. That is something that sketpics like you don't ask: if this is such an obvious flaw, and they made it up, why was it not obviously implausible to them? It is far more plausible that there was a real Joseph of Arimathea, and that his name made the books because he did exactly what the gospels report him doing.
So you admit they "embellished things for theological reasons". Well, if that's the case then how can we be sure of what's true and what's just "theological embellishment"? This makes it quite hard for the historian to discern what actually happened when the content of the sources is unreliable.That is fine; I have brought up this general theme in another OP. The gospel writers embellished things for theological reasons. What is not conspicuously absent in Mark is Josephs deed. That remains constant throughout all the gospels.
You are very fond of the arguments from silence. Absence does not mean contradiction. If one gospel said he was buried in a tomb with other people, and another said it was empty, that would be a contradiction.
Acts 13:27-29 says it was Jesus' enemies, the "Jews" - "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who were responsible for his death. "When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb."
Luke 23:50-51 says "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action." Verse 53: "Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb..."
By using the word they, the narrative includes Joseph in the conspiracy against Jesus while Luke exonerates him. There's your contradiction.
You're assuming the story is true when I've given plenty of reasons to doubt that it is. There's nothing implied in Mark's gospel other than Joseph was a "respected member of the council". That's it. The later embellishments may just be that, embellishments instead of facts, which you readily admit are in the gospels.As you pointed out: it is implausible that Joseph would've honored Jesus if he were not a sympathizer. But the gospel does depict him honoring JEsus. Thus, it is inferred, he was a sympathizer. The other gospels simply render explicit what was implicitly there. You read the gospels as if they were addressing YOU, a 21st c. skeptic. They aren't.
Except the "agenda" here was not to defend against an accusation. It's to preach faith literature which, as you've admitted, is embellished.And the fact that the gospel authors had agendas does not mean they were wrong? If I am accused of something, during meetings with my attourney I will recollect details which I think demonstrate I am innocent. I will certainly have an apologetic agenda. Of course I will!
So the reliability of Jewish oral tradition pertains to the gospels but when it comes to other Jewish sources that are inconvenient for you that just goes out the window right? Double standard. We have no reason to doubt that the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition. You certainly have given no reason here to doubt that it does. Burial rules didn't just pop out of nowhere and magically appear on paper.Both of these are late documents;
and even if they apply, it has been dealt with above. No one is saying that Jesus was treated as a common criminal. All the gospels agree that Jesus had sympathizers, that Joseph was one of them, and therefore he paid him homage.
Mark doesn't say that.
Er....yup. The "implausible" part is that Jesus was buried in a "new" or "empty" "rock-hewn" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" when the evidence indicates Jewish criminals weren't buried in such tombs.Are you just cutting and pasting from a random Google search? None of the gospels claim that the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities paid homage to Jesus. They all agree that one particular (two in the case of John) aristocrat did so. There is nothing implausible here.
All the evidence we have indicates criminals weren't buried in "rock hewn" tombs.Irrelevant if we are dealing with a tomb.
All the gospels have women watching because Matthew and Luke copied Mark. Therefore, you have one source claiming this, not three.Irrelevant when all three gospels record women observing the place of burial (the Sabbath was closing in, which meant that a proper burial wouldve been impossible; so they located the tomb with the intention of returning after the Sabbath.
Newsflash - the Sanhedrin found him guilty of blasphemy before turning him over to the Romans. The traditional penalty for blasphemy was stoning to death. It doesn't matter if he had a lifelong career of criminal mischief. According to the gospel accounts, the Sanhedrin viewed Jesus as a criminal messianic pretender.Inferred if we were dealing with a man whose life was clearly criminal. Absolutely zero evidence shows this of Jesus. He had no pretensions of being a militant Messiah. The court proceedings of the Jews and Pilate show that it was difficult to convict him. Both authorities had reasons. Passover was at hand; a festival ripe for uprisings as it celebrated Israel's original independence (cf. Josephus). Other uprisings had occurred, to the detriment of the Jews. The chief priests had reason to be wary of Jesus--he had followers from Galilee, the home land of previous zealots, his motives were unclear, he caused a disturbance in the temple, and passover was approaching. It was best to have him killed than risk another uprising. But it is clear that Jesus was not a typical insurrectionist.
I don't see how any of that overturns Joseph fulfilling Isaiah 53:9. We know such proof-texting was common practice. Literalistic interpretations of Hebrew parallelism as though they were twofold prophecies of Jesus are evident in Matthew 21.5 (cf. Zechariah 9: two donkeys!); John 19.23-24 (cf. Psalm 22.18: two different treatments of clothing versus garments!); and Acts 4.25-27 (cf. Psalm 1: two different rulers!). The authors used Psalm 22 , 31:5 for the last words of Jesus. The OT provided plenty of material for making it look as if prophecy was "fulfilled."Historically you will have a very difficult time pulling the cart before the horse. The peculiarity of Christian prophetical quotes is that the majority of the prophecies referenced were not Messianic at all. Search them out in 2nd T. Jewish literature and you will find hardly any applied to messianic hopes. Not even Psalm 110 made it as a messianic text, though it is the most quoted in the N.T.. It other words, these were not prophecies waiting to be fulfilled: that is an apologetical claim used by Christian fundamentalists and they are for the most part wrong. The only explicit Messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled is that he was born in Bethlehem. And I am willing to yield to the argument that Prophecy produced history. For the rest, the more natural drift is that after the events, Jewish Christians searched their Scriptures and found parallels to real history, and these BECAME Messianic prophecies: history produced prophecy.
It's possible that Luke was working with earlier source material while at the same time writing/inventing what he saw fit. According to Matthew Ferguson (Ph.D Greek) Acts 13:28-31 is a pre-Lukan fragment. Based on lexical considerations, this passage probably belonged to the source material of the author of Acts.This is sloppy Yahwah. Acts is written after the gospel, a gospel in which Jesus is given a respectable burial. If you are going to use Acts, you have to use all of it"including when Paul and Peter both deny that Jesus was left to rot.
If you are arguing that this part of Pauls speech represents an earlier and therefore more reliable tradition, you will need to demonstrate this, and demonstrate that statements to the effect that Jesus was not left to rot like David who both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day are late. A prodigious task. If I were you, I would leave Acts alone"it will only work against you.
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/
And Acts doesn't actually say "rot". Paul nowhere mentions Jesus' body or the "empty tomb" at all. Keep in mind Luke was using the LXX for his translation of Psalm 16:10 in Peter and Paul's speeches. The Hebrew has the words "Sheol" and "the Pit" not "decay" or "corruption" as is found in the LXX. The connection with the bodily raising from death was only possible from the existing Greek translations, while in the Hebrew it is clearly excluded. The "Jews" plural is supported by three other sources.
Of course, they would have waited until the Sabbath was over. That still leaves room for the women to come and find the tomb empty. That accounts perfectly for the "empty tomb" right there. Any natural explanation will always be more probable than a supernatural one.who was going to move him on the SAbbath? Work is prohibited. Romans?! The women arrive at the tomb "very early". To say that someone beat them to the punch means that someone, the second the Sabbath was over (i.e. dusk) got lanterns, moved the stone, took the body (what time is it now? 3 in the morning!!) buried the body outside of Jerusalem (now what time is it? 12 pm?), then went home!
Even if we entertain this absurdity, here is how the story should've run: 1) Disciples are distraught, 2) Women arrive at the tomb to find it vacated. 3) They inquire about the body (Cf. Mary's question to the "gardener" "where have you taken him?"--a very plausible question). 4) After inquiry, they learn of the relocation. 5) No Jesus movement occurs. 6) 2000 years later Jesus makes it onto an obscure wikepedia page on Messianic pretenders along with Judas the Galilean.
But most likely Jesus wasn't buried in a tomb at all and no one knew where his body was.
They are all attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. And the fact that it's 4 different sources that mention the "Jews" plural vs Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels which all go back to the same source - Mark. Moreover, there's a contradiction in Luke/Acts.You are ignoring that Luke wrote Acts. You are citing extremely late gospels (have you even read it?). You are ignoring that in ancient culture (especially Jewish) a single person can be employed to represent the rest: as when a king declares war the entire nation is described as declaring war. If you are going to apply an overliteralistic reading (i.e. because we have the plural Jews and not a singular Joseph than you need to argue that the author of Acts believed EVERY SINGLE JEW IN JERUSALEM (i.e. a million?) was involved in taking Jesus down from the cross. Quite a collaborative effort!
Acts 13:27-29 says it was Jesus' enemies, the "Jews" - "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who were responsible for his death. "When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb."
Luke 23:50-51 says "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action." Verse 53: "Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb..."
By using the word they, the narrative includes Joseph in the conspiracy against Jesus while Luke exonerates him.
Paul never indicates that Jesus was first "raised" to earth. He believed Jesus was "raised" immediately to heaven and exalted. The later gospel authors differed in this regard. It's to this later development that you seem to be a priori committed.This one is retired. The Apostles Creed doesnt mention the tomb. The argument in Cor. did not require it.
The Corinthians doubted the general resurrection. They were not asking about the specific resurrection of Jesus. Note the way Pauls argument runs:
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
(1Co 15:12-14 NAS)
The term resurrection of the dead refers to the general resurrection. It is that (multiple resurrections) that is in doubt. Pauls argument assumes they assume Jesus was raised, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. But if they were doubting that, they would never have believed in the first place, that was the central tenet of being a Christian. Pauls entire argument hinges on a shared belief: Jesus was raised from the dead. From this he goes on to argue that, therefore everyone will be raised from the dead. It was this that the Corinthians had a difficult time grasping.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
The concern here is not Christs resurrection, but all those in Christ.
Then he answers his own rhetorical question: 35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" (1Co 15:35 NAS)
The question is not how was Christ raised? but the dead. The problem is about their bodies. The Corinthians are concerned (and rightly) about the long since deceased, whose bodies have long since dissipated. This was not the case of Jesus. Hence he alludes to Genesis where God creates bodies for things bodiless. But for those that live to see Christs return, they are transformed. Jesus fits this category. His body was reanimated and transformed.
Appealing to the tomb/resurrection of Jesus would not have answered the Corinthian question about the "resurrection of the dead".
I'm referring to the historical criteria of multiple attestation. The empty tomb story does not pass this criteria. The gospels are not eyewitness testimony as they're written in third-person and do not name their sources. The only eyewitness account in the entire NT is Paul.What do you mean by attested? No one claims that Luke or Matthew or Mark were present. The eye-witness sources were the women, then later the disciples. You are confusing the difference between attestation and personal authorship.
And it still sounds exactly like when the women find the tomb empty in the gospels...I think I dealt with this elsewhere. The story was a romance and known to be romance. It was written sometime around 50 AD (although scholars place it in the 2nd c. AD, others in the 1st c. BCE). You also are leaving out the important part: no one dies in the romance.
There's also Romulus, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death. An even closer parallel to the stories of Jesus' resurrection can be found in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. The teacher and miracle worker Apollonius speaks in advance of his coming life after death and even tells his followers where he will meet them after he dies - the town of Dicaiarchia, near Naples. After meeting them there he continues to appear to them and teach them for forty days. At one point one of his followers, Demetrios, doubts that it is really Apollonius back from the dead speaking to them so the teacher encourages him to put out his hand and touch him to prove he is not a phantom. Apollonius later ascends into heaven, though he does later appear again in a dream vision to convince a doubter. The parallels between these stories and those of Jesus are obvious, though it is not certain if Philostratus may have been influenced by the Jesus stories, so it is hard to know how significant the parallels with Apollonius are. Details aside, what is clear is the idea of a great man being taken up into heaven and appearing after his death was commonplace in the ancient world.You gave one example, and extrapolate commonality?
http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus
Roger David Aus has discovered what inspired Marks story of the enormous rolling- stone. This is the stone which was rolledfrom Jacobs well (Gen. 29.3, 8, 10). This stone was largealready at Gen. 29.2, and the shepherds explain that they cannot water their flocks until the stone is rolled away (Gen. 29.8). In later Jewish tradition, there are three shepherds (corresponding to the three flocks of Gen.29.2), who could not roll the stone away, whereas Jacob did so (e.g. Neof I on Gen. 29.8, 10). In story mode, it was thus perfectly reasonable for Mark to havethree women who knew they could not roll away the stone, and wondered who would remove it. Jacob was a young manwhen he rolled away the stone from the well, and it is a natural interpretation of Marks narrative that the stone had been removed from the tomb by the angel, who is described as ayoung man (Mk 16.5).
We are not dealing with a 1st century Jewish legal document so what you might think about women serving as witnesses in a Jewish court is irrelevant here. Women were considered heroines in ancient Jewish literature. There's Deborah in the book of Judges and there's also the books of Ruth, Esther and Judith, all of which were held as sacred in Jesus' time.Roger has discovered he has a vivid imagination; there is no hint of allegory in Marks narrative. No ancient author in his right mind would back his case up by inventing women eyewitness, whether one, three, or 40.
This was from Maurice Casey's Jesus of NazarethCurious: Is there a cite that you are cutting and pasting from at random? Because this is getting tiresome.
3 shepherds/3 flocks/3 women, large rolling stone that could not be rolled away, rock-hewn tomb, young man, Ramatha/Arimathea - Did you miss all those?The "strong parallels" are "rock, hewn, rolled". Somehow a connection has been made between a rolling well and an empty tomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm well aware of the dates of Rabbinic literature but the fact that these connections were only written down later does not exclude the possibility that the author/s of the empty tomb story made these same connections early on. The Old Testament was readily available and we have plenty of evidence that Palestinian Jewish Christian authors wrote spin-offs. For instance, Luke's ascension scene is a direct parallel to Elijah's assumption into heaven.Please, from now on, do a quick search on the dates of all proposed parallels. Targums!?
Any shape? Ok, where is the word used in regards to a square object? Because you've still been unable to provide an instance of that.Already dealt with. Do a word search. Plethora of instances where the term is applied to any shape undergoing end over end motion. And Johns gospel has removed"so even if this were a legimate maneuver, we would have to argue that the later gospel somehow retained earlier terminology?
How many other prophets were resurrected by God?Veneration is a late historical phenomenon. When a tomb has been vacated by the most important event in history, and that that person is expected to return imminently, one does not indulge in site-seeing.
Zero.
This makes the empty tomb one of a kind and according to Jesus' followers he was one of a kind as well. Tomb veneration was quite common and even increasing in Jesus' time so considering Resurrection was sort of a rare occurrence, you would expect the site to have been held in high esteem and venerated by the earliest Christians.
"There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets." - Raymond Brown
"During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored." - William Lane Craig
"Of the many Jewish shrines of the Middle East, some of which are undoubtedly of very great antiquity, the most famous were traditionally the supposed tombs of the prophet Ezekiel at el-Kifl and of Ezra the Scribe at Kurna, both in Babylonia (modern Iraq)." - Nicholas de Lange
Joachim Jeremias thought it "inconceivable" that the primitive community would have let the grave of Jesus sink into oblivion.
"Was (the Resurrection) that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not?" - Alexander Wedderburn
Matthew 23:29
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous"
Luke 11:47
"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed."
It follows that we would expect some record of veneration at the empty tomb, had it existed. The lack of evidence for the veneration of Jesus tomb is good evidence that there was no such tomb. No doubt it would have been extremely important to early Christian preaching as it is in all four Gospels. It is reasonable to expect some early source mentioning the location and veneration of this one of a kind Holy place, however we have nothing for 300 years. How is this lack of mention best explained?
I think it's best explained by the hypothesis that Jesus received a shameful burial hence there was no such "empty tomb" and the gravesite was simply unknown to the earliest Christians.
In order to overturn this argument you would have to show that the lack of veneration of Jesus' grave is more probable on the assumption that the empty tomb story is historical rather than on the assumption that Jesus ultimately received a shameful burial and the site was simply unknown to the earliest followers.
I've provided the links many times. I use Matthew Ferguson's outline here:Yahwah. This was exhausting. I cannot believe that you seriously examined all these arguments and found them all plausible. Some of them are so preposterous (Rogers allegory!!) that their strength is they will leave their opponents silent, because silence is the only response to such wild fancies. If you are just cutting and pasting, then say so, and simply give the links
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/
I also make use of Tim O'Neill's post here: http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #55
[Replying to post 54 by YahWhat]
I didn't read past the first post on this. You don't know Jewish history. Pilate was eventually expelled from Judea because he failed to keep peace with the Jews. Rome's general attitude there was, let them keep their observances, so long as they pay tribute. Pilate too often agitated the Jews; it cost him his position. Read Josephus--all of him.
Go to the other thread, we will walk through theories together.
I didn't read past the first post on this. You don't know Jewish history. Pilate was eventually expelled from Judea because he failed to keep peace with the Jews. Rome's general attitude there was, let them keep their observances, so long as they pay tribute. Pilate too often agitated the Jews; it cost him his position. Read Josephus--all of him.
Go to the other thread, we will walk through theories together.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Post #56
[Replying to post 54 by YahWhat]
Quit blogs if you want real truth.
Thank you.
online blogs. I suspected. I looked them up. They have popular blogs advocating popular beliefs. Do they have any theories published? Are there reviews of their works. My information comes from stuff on my bookshelf--works that range from E.P. Sanders (a liberal, and probably my favorite historian of the 1st c. Jewish area) to N.T. Wright, or Hume, Kant, Plato.I've provided the links many times. I use Matthew Ferguson's outline here:
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/
I also make use of Tim O'Neill's post here: http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus
Quit blogs if you want real truth.
Thank you.
Post #57
liamconnor wrote: I didn't read past the first post on this. You don't know Jewish history.
You mean the "Jewish history" that you're just inventing on the spot?
Pilate was eventually expelled from Judea because he failed to keep peace with the Jews.
Well that sure doesn't sound like someone who would appease Jewish sensitivities by releasing a crucified criminal now does it?
Exactly. All the evidence we do have of Pilate is that he was a ruthless prefect with no concern for Jewish law. If Pilate didn't follow the rules then that undercuts your whole position and only goes to support mine. Remember, only Pilate is relevant here. What Rome's "general attitude" may have been is entirely irrelevant. By claiming "Pilate often agitated the Jews" means that we have even more reason to doubt that he cared about Jewish customs. You just shot yourself in the foot here.Rome's general attitude there was, let them keep their observances, so long as they pay tribute. Pilate too often agitated the Jews; it cost him his position.
I provided 10 points against the Josephus passage. You ignored them.Read Josephus--all of him.
Last edited by YahWhat on Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Post #58
You're just guilty of the genetic fallacy here. I don't get all my history from blogs. I just posted the links because some of the information I'm using is readily available there. The same stuff is found in scholarly works but I can't link every single book because that would get tedious.liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 54 by YahWhat]
online blogs. I suspected. I looked them up. They have popular blogs advocating popular beliefs. Do they have any theories published? Are there reviews of their works. My information comes from stuff on my bookshelf--works that range from E.P. Sanders (a liberal, and probably my favorite historian of the 1st c. Jewish area) to N.T. Wright, or Hume, Kant, Plato.I've provided the links many times. I use Matthew Ferguson's outline here:
https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... pologetic/
I also make use of Tim O'Neill's post here: http://www.quora.com/What-evidence-exis ... n-of-Jesus
Quit blogs if you want real truth.
Thank you.
I've also read books by John P. Meier, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Gerd Luedemann, Roger David Aus, etc. My knowledge of these works has helped me to refute every single one of your points with ease. My 9 arguments and rebuttal still stand.
-
enviousintheeverafter
- Sage
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 12:51 am
Post #59
Indeed, that was a surprisingly honest (and clearly damaging) admission (that, whatever other Romans attitude may have been, Pilate was not at all concerned with respecting Jewish religious practices or cultural sensibilities, and thus would not have been especially motivated to remove Christ's body from the cross).YahWhat wrote: Exactly. All the evidence we do have of Pilate is that he was a ruthless prefect with no concern for Jewish law. If Pilate didn't follow the rules then that undercuts your whole position and only goes to support mine. Remember, only Pilate is relevant here. What Rome's "general attitude" may have been is entirely irrelevant. By claiming "Pilate often agitated the Jews" means that we have even more reason to doubt that he cared about Jewish customs. You just shot yourself in the foot here.
