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

[Sparko]

Please copy and paste my statement in the OP which meets the criteria of Argument from Incredulity.

your whole premise is that it is too incredible that a rich guy buried Jesus in a stone tomb. that is your whole thread. an argument from incredulity with absofreakinglutely no actual supporting evidence.

[Sparko]

So says the story under scrutiny. Please provide one contemporaneous account written in Jesus lifetime that states that he had rich and influential friends.

please provide one contemporaneous account written in the lifetime of Jesus that shows he was not buried in a stone tomb.

[Gary]

Define "a respectable minority".

Stein could give us more accurate definitions of these terms, but here are mine:

1. consensus position: a position that all or almost all recognized scholars agree with.

Example: Jesus was a real historical person.

2. majority position: approximately 51-80% of scholars agree with this position.

Example: 75% of NT scholars believe that the Empty Tomb is historical fact.

3. fringe position: Less than a handful (or even zero) scholars hold this view:

Example: Jesus had a wife.

[psstein]

Stein could give us more accurate definitions of these terms, but here are mine:

1. consensus position: a position that all or almost all recognized scholars agree with.

Example: Jesus was a real historical person.

2. majority position: approximately 51-80% of scholars agree with this position.

Example: 75% of NT scholars believe that the Empty Tomb is historical fact.

3. fringe position: Less than a handful (or even zero) scholars hold this view:

Example: Jesus had a wife.

Your definitions aren't all that far off. Essentially, I see it like this:

1. Consensus: if I submit an article to JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature), Novum Testamentum, JSOT/JSNT, or any of the major academic journals, I don't have to provide a clarification or an explanatory footnote. There are very few consensus items in NT scholarship today.

Some examples: Markan priority (probably 99% hold to it), historicity of Jesus (everyone except Price, Brodie, and Carrier), gospels originally written in Greek, Jesus' crucifixion, etc.

2. Majority: I would have to provide a clarification or explanatory footnote in a journal article. Held to by the majority of scholars, but respectable opposition exists.

Examples: Jesus as eschatological prophet, Two-Source Hypothesis, existence of Q, non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, Luke-Acts' dating between 70 and 90

3. Minority: I would have to provide an explanatory footnote and the majority of scholars do not support the argument. Not widely held, but not held by absolutely nobody with published work.

Examples: Farrer Hypothesis, Jesus as Jewish Cynic, Pauline authorship of Ephesians or Colossians, Three-Source Hypothesis, Johannine dependence on the Synoptics (though this is gaining some traction again!).

4. Fringe: Few scholars support this point of view. It rarely (if ever) makes it into peer-reviewed journals, largely because a) nobody argues it and b) it's considered fatally flawed or simply refuted by existing evidence.

Examples: Jesus mythicism, Gospels written in the 2nd century, independence hypothesis of the Synoptic tradition, Aramaic gospels, Jesus' having a wife, the Conquest hypothesis of Israelite origins, Cross Gospel.

[Gary]

Your definitions aren't all that far off. Essentially, I see it like this:

1. Consensus: if I submit an article to JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature), Novum Testamentum, JSOT/JSNT, or any of the major academic journals, I don't have to provide a clarification or an explanatory footnote. There are very few consensus items in NT scholarship today.

Some examples: Markan priority (probably 99% hold to it), historicity of Jesus (everyone except Price, Brodie, and Carrier), gospels originally written in Greek, Jesus' crucifixion, etc.

2. Majority: I would have to provide a clarification or explanatory footnote in a journal article. Held to by the majority of scholars, but respectable opposition exists.

Examples: Jesus as eschatological prophet, Two-Source Hypothesis, existence of Q, non-Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, Luke-Acts' dating between 70 and 90

3. Minority: I would have to provide an explanatory footnote and the majority of scholars do not support the argument. Not widely held, but not held by absolutely nobody with published work.

Examples: Farrer Hypothesis, Jesus as Jewish Cynic, Pauline authorship of Ephesians or Colossians, Three-Source Hypothesis, Johannine dependence on the Synoptics (though this is gaining some traction again!).

4. Fringe: Few scholars support this point of view. It rarely (if ever) makes it into peer-reviewed journals, largely because a) nobody argues it and b) it's considered fatally flawed or simply refuted by existing evidence.

Examples: Jesus mythicism, Gospels written in the 2nd century, independence hypothesis of the Synoptic tradition, Aramaic gospels, Jesus' having a wife, the Conquest hypothesis of Israelite origins, Cross Gospel.

Would you have a problem with the following definition?

respectable minority position: any minority position that is not considered fringe.

Example: The Empty Tomb is probably not historical.

[psstein]

Would you have a problem with the following definition?

respectable minority position: any minority position that is not considered fringe.

Example: The Empty Tomb is probably not historical.

I'm not sure I'd phrase it exactly like that. Some minority positions are close to fringe, but scholars support them for a variety of reasons. For example, neither I nor 99% of NT scholars working today see any reason to support the Griesbach/Two-Gospel Hypothesis. However, other scholars support it. The most notable American advocate, W.R. Farmer, insisted that it was only due to a scholarly conspiracy that Griesbach was rejected.

Another minority position that I think has little warrant: the Book of Acts prior to the 70s. It's not as though scholars don't hold to it, though I'd contend that most of those who do do so due to theological considerations, not the evidence.

[Gary]

please provide one contemporaneous account written in the lifetime of Jesus that shows he was not buried in a stone tomb.

That is no different than this claim:

Provide one contemporaneous account written in the lifetime of George Washington that shows that he did NOT chop down his father's cherry tree. If you can't, that is proof that little Georgie DID chop down the tree.

This is a logical fallacy.

Here's why: if the legend that George Washington cut down his father's cherry tree did not emerge until years after George's death, then it will be impossible to find a contemporaneous source that would deny an event which no one at the time was claiming had happened. Therefore, the inability to find the evidence you demand, proves nothing.

Do you see that, Sparko?

[Gary]

Your boorish constant whining demand for a contemporaneous account is rather tiring. This was an oral tradition culture that never had any interest in making a written account until the eyewitnesses had been greatly reduced by the passage of time.

And speaking of the passage of time, it has taken quite a toll on works from antiquity that were enormously popular with numerous copies made but nevertheless still lost to us. Moreover, it should come as no surprise that if by chance there was some letter written by someone that mentioned various aspects of Christ's ministry when it happened that it does not exist now.

"This was an oral tradition culture that never had any interest in making a written account until the eyewitnesses had been greatly reduced by the passage of time."

Excellent point. And I hope you will agree that based on cumulative human experience, an oral story which has passed from person to person, city to city, country to country, region of the world to region of the world, one language to another, one culture to another, over a period of circa forty years can and probably did change and evolve over the passage of time. We therefore cannot be certain that the Resurrection belief that existed in say 30 AD was the same as that existed in 70 AD. In particular, we have no direct evidence that anyone prior to circa 70 AD (the writing of the Gospel of Mark) knew about an empty tomb donated by a man named Joseph of Arimathea. Therefore it is plausible, (but not provable), that this detail is an embellishment, not too unlike the numerous embellishments in the Gospel of Matthew. And since a sizable/respectable minority of NT scholars do not believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb, it is plausible that Jesus was not buried in a rock tomb, and, it is therefore plausible that the Early Christian Resurrection Belief was NOT based on an empty tomb story but only on alleged appearances.

[Gary]

I'm not sure I'd phrase it exactly like that. Some minority positions are close to fringe, but scholars support them for a variety of reasons. For example, neither I nor 99% of NT scholars working today see any reason to support the Griesbach/Two-Gospel Hypothesis. However, other scholars support it. The most notable American advocate, W.R. Farmer, insisted that it was only due to a scholarly conspiracy that Griesbach was rejected.

Another minority position that I think has little warrant: the Book of Acts prior to the 70s. It's not as though scholars don't hold to it, though I'd contend that most of those who do do so due to theological considerations, not the evidence.

How would you classify the belief that the Empty Tomb is not historical?

-minority
-almost fringe
-fringe

[Gary]

your whole premise is that it is too incredible that a rich guy buried Jesus in a stone tomb. that is your whole thread. an argument from incredulity with absofreakinglutely no actual supporting evidence.

Wrong. I never said that it is impossible or even nearly impossible that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. I simply stated that I believed it is unlikely. My (corrected) thesis is: It is plausible that Jesus was buried in a dirt trench and not in a rock tomb.

[Sparko]

Stein could give us more accurate definitions of these terms, but here are mine:

1. consensus position: a position that all or almost all recognized scholars agree with.

Example: Jesus was a real historical person.

2. majority position: approximately 51-80% of scholars agree with this position.

Example: 75% of NT scholars believe that the Empty Tomb is historical fact.

3. fringe position: Less than a handful (or even zero) scholars hold this view:

Example: Jesus had a wife.

I am sorry but is stein your boyfriend or something? Stein Stein Stein!!! That's all I hear out of you. so your latest argument is that we should believe a minority view? and one that you cannot even provide evidence for? regarding something that is not even a miracle claim, but merely where Jesus was buried. That the authors had no reason to lie about and the accounts were written within the lifetime of witnesses who could deny the claims if they were not true.

[Sparko]

That is no different than this claim:

Provide one contemporaneous account written in the lifetime of George Washington that shows that he did NOT chop down his father's cherry tree. If you can't, that is proof that little Georgie DID chop down the tree.

This is a logical fallacy.

Here's why: if the legend that George Washington cut down his father's cherry tree did not emerge until years after George's death, then it will be impossible to find a contemporaneous source that would deny an event which no one at the time was claiming had happened. Therefore, the inability to find the evidence you demand, proves nothing.

Do you see that, Sparko?

what I see is you making a false demand for a document "within the lifetime of jesus" when we have 4 documents written very soon AFTER his lifetime that you are denying are valid, when you cannot provide ANY documentary evidence from that same time period (during or soon after the lifetime of Jesus) that supports your theory.

What I see it like is like you claiming that George Washington never was president because we dont have a newspaper article written on the day of the election, but we do have documents written after the fact that show him as president.

you are just playing stupid gotcha games.

[Sparko]

Wrong. I never said that it is impossible or even nearly impossible that Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. I simply stated that I believed it is unlikely. My (corrected) thesis is: It is plausible that Jesus was buried in a dirt trench and not in a rock tomb.

don't give up your day job to become a mythbuster.

your entire motivation for believing it is "plausible" is that you think that it is too incredible that Jesus was buried in a stone tomb. That's it. nothing else. no actual evidence. Just argument from incredulity.

[psstein]

How would you classify the belief that the Empty Tomb is not historical?

-minority
-almost fringe
-fringe

Minority. There are good scholars who deny the historicity of the empty tomb (Crossan, Casey, Crossley, Ludemann, Goulder, et al.), but there are also cranks who deny the historicity of the empty tomb (Price, Carrier, et al.).

[psstein]

I am sorry but is stein your boyfriend or something? Stein Stein Stein!!! That's all I hear out of you. so your latest argument is that we should believe a minority view? and one that you cannot even provide evidence for? regarding something that is not even a miracle claim, but merely where Jesus was buried. That the authors had no reason to lie about and the accounts were written within the lifetime of witnesses who could deny the claims if they were not true.

I'm in a relevant field (Christian Origins), so I guess Gary defers to me with scholarly questions?