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

[psstein]

1. Stein is very intelligent.
2. He is soon to be if not already qualified to be called a NT scholar.
3. In my many interactions with him I find him fair and find that he bases his views primarily on evidence, not on dogma.

But no, Stein is not my boyfriend. Stein is a very good looking man. I like my men fat and ugly.

:)

I'm not going to be qualified as a NT scholar for awhile... I'm fairly aware of the literature, but I haven't really made any contribution to the field. Plus, I'm technically in Christian Origins, which is a little different from NT. As much as I like NT, I think there are some fundamental issues with the field, just as there are with Hebrew Bible.

I don't know how intelligent I am. I'm a member of an evil brainwashing institution according to you.

[psstein]

Within 10 years if Crossley's dating of Mark proves to be correct.

Crossley's date is really interesting. If you haven't read his book, you should. I don't think he's entirely right, but it should be paid the attention it deserves.

Many of the scholars who date the gospels early often have a theological bias. That's not good or bad, it's just the way it is.

[Yttrium]

Being a maths guy, I wish you hadn't used the term "Probability says that...", because I keep trying to figure out how you would calculate the odds of something like this.

For the sake of argument, you accept the idea presented in the Gospels that Jesus existed, that he did a lot of preaching, and that he was crucified by the Romans. Yet you question the part where he was buried in a rock tomb, even though there is nothing supernatural about that claim, simply because someone of his social station was normally buried in a dirt trench.

However, as has been noted, Jesus was quite influential. He had a perceived social status that was beyond his actual social status; and it seems to me to be quite believable, even likely, that his friends and followers were able to swing a tomb for him. Since he could easily have been buried in a rock tomb, and the Bible says he was, I would say that the likelihood that he was buried in a rock tomb is quite high.

[Raphael]

Crossley's date is really interesting. If you haven't read his book, you should. I don't think he's entirely right, but it should be paid the attention it deserves.

I've read portions of it and I've heard him talking on the topic.....I just can't afford to buy a copy although I would really like to get one.

I do know his PhD supervisor was Maurice Casey, who also held the view that Mark was written earlier than the generally accepted date, but Crossley said in an interview I listened to (can't find the link): he has entirely different reasons for reaching that conclusions. (Crossly as you know was looking at how Mark understood Jewish law was applied ... I have still to read Casey's work )

Many of the scholars who date the gospels early often have a theological bias. That's not good or bad, it's just the way it is.

I know. Which I why I appreciate Crossley's insites on some of the matters as he is a critic who holds to an early date.

[Gary]

Within 10 years if Crossley's dating of Mark proves to be correct.

I am using the dating of the majority of NT scholars:

Gospel of Mark: 65-75 AD

Gospels of Matthew and Luke: 75-90 AD

Gospel of John: 90-100 AD

[Gary]

I see no reason to doubt the fundamental historicity of the story. The burial in a criminal's tomb by a member of the Sanhedrin is rather embarrassing. The later gospels attempt to soften the blow of Jesus' being buried by a Jew by making Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple or fulfilling a prophecy.

I agree that the Empty Tomb story is plausible.
But it is also plausible that it is an embellishment (fictional addition to the story), as testified by the fact that a respectable minority of NT scholars doubt the Empty Tomb's historicity.

[Gary]

I'm not going to be qualified as a NT scholar for awhile... I'm fairly aware of the literature, but I haven't really made any contribution to the field. Plus, I'm technically in Christian Origins, which is a little different from NT. As much as I like NT, I think there are some fundamental issues with the field, just as there are with Hebrew Bible.

I don't know how intelligent I am. I'm a member of an evil brainwashing institution according to you.

Not evil. Just misguided.

:)

[Gary]

Being a maths guy, I wish you hadn't used the term "Probability says that...", because I keep trying to figure out how you would calculate the odds of something like this.

For the sake of argument, you accept the idea presented in the Gospels that Jesus existed, that he did a lot of preaching, and that he was crucified by the Romans. Yet you question the part where he was buried in a rock tomb, even though there is nothing supernatural about that claim, simply because someone of his social station was normally buried in a dirt trench.

However, as has been noted, Jesus was quite influential. He had a perceived social status that was beyond his actual social status; and it seems to me to be quite believable, even likely, that his friends and followers were able to swing a tomb for him. Since he could easily have been buried in a rock tomb, and the Bible says he was, I would say that the likelihood that he was buried in a rock tomb is quite high.

You may have missed it, I changed my thesis to "It is plausible that Jesus was buried in a dirt trench and not in a dirt tomb". The word "probable" is too subjective. For instance, the probability of a resurrection is going to be very different for a person who believes in the supernatural and someone who does not.

My contention is that it is plausible that the Empty Tomb story is an embellishment by the author of the Gospel of Mark. I'm not saying it is or that it probably is, just that it is plausible that it is.

"as has been noted, Jesus was quite influential. He had a perceived social status that was beyond his actual social status; and it seems to me to be quite believable, even likely, that his friends and followers were able to swing a tomb for him.

We have no idea how Jesus was perceived in society at large from any source other than the Gospels---the very documents whose historical accuracy is in dispute. The absence of any mention of him by his contemporaries, in particular Philo, makes me doubt he was the big sensation that the Gospels make him out to be.

[Yttrium]

You may have missed it, I changed my thesis to "It is plausible that Jesus was buried in a dirt trench and not in a dirt tomb". The word "probable" is too subjective. For instance, the probability of a resurrection is going to be very different for a person who believes in the supernatural and someone who does not.

Ah. Yes, I missed that. Very good, then. Yes, put that way, it's a vaguely interesting possibility, even if unlikely.

[Sparko]

I am using the dating of the majority of NT scholars:

Gospel of Mark: 65-75 AD

Gospels of Matthew and Luke: 75-90 AD

Gospel of John: 90-100 AD

Funny how you use the majority view when it helps your theories but toss them when they don't

[Sparko]

I agree that the Empty Tomb story is plausible.
But it is also plausible that it is an embellishment (fictional addition to the story), as testified by the fact that a respectable minority of NT scholars doubt the Empty Tomb's historicity.

See? All of a sudden you go with a minority view when it suits you

LOL

[One Bad Pig]

Is it or is it not true that Dr. Magness states in her article that most first century people of the lower classes were buried in dirt trenches.

Sure. Of course, she also believes that Jesus wasn't buried in one. You're so transparent, Gary.

[Sparko]

Sure. Of course, she also believes that Jesus wasn't buried in one. You're so transparent, Gary.

So keeping score...

Argument from incredulity
Argument from silence
Cherry picking sources out of context

[rogue06]

"While inconsequential difference could conceivably creep in this was at a time when people took great pains to memorize what was said and repeat it exactly."

This is one of the biggest assumptions made by many Christians.

It isn't something specific with Christians but rather with cultures that heavily rely on oral tradition.

[psstein]

"While inconsequential difference could conceivably creep in this was at a time when people took great pains to memorize what was said and repeat it exactly."

This is one of the biggest assumptions made by many Christians.

Yes, and it's actually a particularly faulty one. Under the model of oral tradition I think most likely (similar to Bauckham's, though not exactly the same), memorization was not word for word. Dunn's model doesn't hold to that idea either, nor (to my knowledge) does Byrskog's or Le Donne's. The tradition was controlled, though not nearly as strictly as some would want to think. Nor was it as uncontrolled as Bultmann and the form critics thought (NT scholarship is still heavily indebted to form criticism, which is deeply problematic, but I digress).

In an oral culture, the general outline of the story remains the same. Specific details will be altered, such as "how many women were at Jesus' tomb?," or "who carried Jesus' cross?" The somewhat fluid nature of oral tradition explains many of the so-called contradictions in the gospels. On a side note, I don't think contradictions is always the best way to describe the discrepancies... it implies that the gospels were designed to be Scripture from the outset, when they weren't.