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

[Juice]

We're on page 209. The same arguments have been repeated ad nauseum for the last 200 pages. I think it's time this thread finally dies.

RC will take that as evidence he won though.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Since the threads are now merged why should we trust someone when they say they had a "vision"? Do you guys commonly accept this type of testimony or is the typical reaction to roll your eyes and walk the other way?

[Cow Poke]

...or is the typical reaction to roll your eyes and walk the other way?

That's generally the response to your posts.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

There is nothing implausible in the scenario, and the Gospels maintain that Joseph disagreed with the verdict.

Only in Luke. Notice how Matthew omits that Joseph was a member of the council. They were most likely correcting Mark's account to reflect something more believable.

We also discussed the fact that it's just as likely that Joseph was not on the Greater Sanhedrin who made the verdict and/or that the word "all" does not mean "all without exception", but rather means a largely consensus opinion (as used throughout the Gospels).

There was only one Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The "lesser" ones were local courts composed of a smaller group of members.

It likely was not illegal to buy linen on Passover.

Oh no? Who was allowed to work on Passover?

Exodus 12:16
"On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat; that is all you may do."

Leviticus 23:6-7
do no regular work."

Nehemiah 10:31
we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day. Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts."

Did Joseph have to do a back alley deal with the linen salesman? Quite a peculiar way to depict a "distinguished member of the council." Haha

The Talmud offers provision for acquiring linen on Sabbath and Holy days for the burial of the dead, and scripture often allows for exceptions when the need was great or where the law might contradict.

Burial of the dead was allowed, however, business transactions were not.

"Whoever performs a labor that is not for the sake of [the preparation of] food on one of these days - e.g., he builds, destroys, weaves, or the like - negates [the performance of] a positive commandment and violates a negative commandment, as [Leviticus 23:7] states: "You shall not perform any servile labor," and [Exodus 12:6] states: "You shall not perform any work on them." - Shevitat Yom Tov 1:2
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...m/mobile/false

"By the same token, it is forbidden to buy, to sell, to rent, or to rent out." - Shabbat 23:12

"It is forbidden to make a sale with a verbal [agreement] or to transfer the article [to the purchaser], whether one weighs it or not." - Shabbat 23:13
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...m/mobile/false

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that burial was not always forbidden, especially if permission was asked for those who were not guilty of high treason, and as shown above, it's arguable that that is what Jesus was charged with, even after being condemned as "king of the Jews".

At best, the claim and terms are disputed.

This is an ad hoc excuse. The Romans crucified Jesus, as you're always quick to point out, not the Jews. It was well within Rome's purview to grant bodies to whomever they wished. Nowhere that I know of does Ulpian make exception for non-Roman citizens. This is precisely what he says,

The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book of his Life, said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason (48.24.1).

The bodies of persons who have been punished should be given to whoever requests them for the purpose of burial (48.24.3).

Evans adds,

Source: What Do We Know for Sure about Jesus' Death?

The Digesta refers to requests to take down bodies of the crucified. Josephus himself makes this request to Titus (Life 75 420-21). Of course, Roman crucifixion often did not permit burial, request or no request. Nonburial was part of the horror, and the deterrent, of crucifixion. But crucifixion during peacetime, just outside of the walls of Jerusalem, was another matter. Burial would have been expected, even demanded.

© Copyright Original Source

Rhinestone, you have no argument. They have all been dealt with. Time to wrap it up and go home.

Where's the evidence that the 6th century Digesta Roman law document applied to non-Roman citizens i.e. Galilean peasants? It doesn't mention crucifixion and crucifixion typically wasn't a punishment for Roman citizens. Would the same rule apply to the first century Galilean Jew Jesus?

Also, what about the 10 or so sources that say crucifixion victims were denied burial?

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446. https://books.google.com/books?id=nO...page&q&f=false

The Digesta refers to requests to take down bodies of the crucified.

Where exactly?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't matter what RhinestoneCowboy, radical skeptic who takes Carrier and brojangles at their word, thinks is dishonorable. What matters is what actually was dishonorable. None of the things highlighted above made the burial honorable. There were only two things that made burial honorable. Burial in one's own family tomb, and public mourning. We don't have either of those in the Gospel tradition.

The gentile author of Mark was obviously not familiar or concerned with what a Jewish "dishonorable" burial was. He depicts the burial as fitting for his hero - not buried naked or cast into a pit. No, he's given an empty rock hewn tomb all to himself with a huge rolling stone door. Look how the other authors make the burial even more honorable as time goes on.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between Arimathea's tomb, and Jesus' family tomb? Jesus wasn't buried in Mary and Joseph of Nazareth's tomb. He was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. A non-relative. So nothing Magness says is contradictory (I notice now that you're more than willing to throw your own expert under the bus when it suits you). Jesus was buried in A family tomb. One could be buried in A family tomb and still receive dishonorable burial as long as one wasn't buried in HIS own family tomb.[/QUOTE]

But Magness says: "felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs"

Yet, you say Joseph was perfectly fine with burying Jesus the criminal messianic pretender in his family tomb? No, sorry, it looks like Jesus would have been buried in a designate area for criminals. These were most likely not empty rock hewn tombs.

[Adrift]

Only in Luke. Notice how Matthew omits that Joseph was a member of the council. They were most likely correcting Mark's account to reflect something more believable.

Or, more likely, they stem from two separate traditions.

There was only one Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The "lesser" ones were local courts composed of a smaller group of members.

Nope. Wrong again. "According to the Tannaite Jose b. Chalaftha, well known as a chronologist and a source of historical information, there were in Jerusalem itself, besides the Great Sanhedrin other two little synedria. This statement, which is coupled with information about the activity of the Sanhedrin (Tosefta, Chagiga ii. 9. and Sanhed. vii, 1 Jerus. Sanhed. 19e; Bab. Sanhed. 88b), agrees with the anonymous statement of the Mishna (Sanhed. xi. 2) and the Sifre (on Dt 17 paragraph 152)." - A Dictionary of the Bible: Pleroma-Zuzim. "Towns with not less than 120 representative men had a small Sanhedrin of 23 members, also appointed by the Great Sanhedrin. The power of these lesser Sanhedrin was also limited, but extended to capital causes in certain cases (Sanh. i. 4). There were two of these Lesser Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (Sanh. xi. 2)." - The Illustrated Bible Dictionary edited by William Coleman Piercy.

Oh no? Who was allowed to work on Passover?

Exodus 12:16
"On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat; that is all you may do."

Leviticus 23:6-7
do no regular work."

Nehemiah 10:31
we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any holy day. Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts."

Did Joseph have to do a back alley deal with the linen salesman? Quite a peculiar way to depict a "distinguished member of the council." Haha

Burial of the dead was allowed, however, business transactions were not.

"Whoever performs a labor that is not for the sake of [the preparation of] food on one of these days - e.g., he builds, destroys, weaves, or the like - negates [the performance of] a positive commandment and violates a negative commandment, as [Leviticus 23:7] states: "You shall not perform any servile labor," and [Exodus 12:6] states: "You shall not perform any work on them." - Shevitat Yom Tov 1:2
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...m/mobile/false

"By the same token, it is forbidden to buy, to sell, to rent, or to rent out." - Shabbat 23:12

"It is forbidden to make a sale with a verbal [agreement] or to transfer the article [to the purchaser], whether one weighs it or not." - Shabbat 23:13
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...m/mobile/false

"One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter." "By 'techoom' is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance." - Mishnah Shabbath 23.4

Source: Jesus - Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels by Gustaf Dalman translated by Rev. Paul P. Levertoff

Although Jewish Law, as we have seen, implies the permission to execute on a feast-day (see above), it says nothing concerning the interment on that day; but there can be no doubt that the rule would be that if a person has been hanged on a feast-day, the body must necessarily be also buried on that day, especially when it is followed by a Sabbath. The prohibition not to let the body hang over-night on the wood, and the command to bury it, would in this case, certainly have annulled the prohibition of work on a festival. The fact that there as a ready-made grave near (John xix. 42) made the performance of the interment simpler. A coffin, which even to-day is only used in Palestine for the carrying of the corpse to the grave, was, in the case of a rock grave, still more superfluous. The grave clothes alone could not be done without, since all the clothes of Jesus had been taken away from Him (Mt. xxvii. 59; Mk. xv. 46; Lk. xxiii. 53; John xix. 40).

© Copyright Original Source

Where's the evidence that the 6th century Digesta Roman law document applied to non-Roman citizens i.e. Galilean peasants? It doesn't mention crucifixion and crucifixion typically wasn't a punishment for Roman citizens. Would the same rule apply to the first century Galilean Jew Jesus?

Palestine was a Roman province. Of course it applied to Galilean peasants executed by Roman officials.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It doesn't matter what RhinestoneCowboy, radical skeptic who takes Carrier and brojangles at their word, thinks is dishonorable. What matters is what actually was dishonorable. None of the things highlighted above made the burial honorable. There were only two things that made burial honorable. Burial in one's own family tomb, and public mourning. We don't have either of those in the Gospel tradition.

The gentile author of Mark was obviously not familiar or concerned with what a Jewish "dishonorable" burial was. He depicts the burial as fitting for his hero - not buried naked or cast into a pit. No, he's given an empty rock hewn tomb all to himself with a huge rolling stone door. Look how the other authors make the burial even more honorable as time goes on.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between Arimathea's tomb, and Jesus' family tomb? Jesus wasn't buried in Mary and Joseph of Nazareth's tomb. He was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. A non-relative. So nothing Magness says is contradictory (I notice now that you're more than willing to throw your own expert under the bus when it suits you). Jesus was buried in A family tomb. One could be buried in A family tomb and still receive dishonorable burial as long as one wasn't buried in HIS own family tomb.

But Magness says: "felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs"

Yet, you say Joseph was perfectly fine with burying Jesus the criminal messianic pretender in his family tomb? No, sorry, it looks like Jesus would have been buried in a designated area for criminals. These were most likely not empty rock hewn tombs.

[Sparko]

But Magness says: "felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs"

Yet, you say Joseph was perfectly fine with burying Jesus the criminal messianic pretender in his family tomb? No, sorry, it looks like Jesus would have been buried in a designate area for criminals. These were most likely not empty rock hewn tombs.

But you have been claiming that Jesus was executed for treason. that would be breaking a Roman law, not a Jewish one.

make up your mind

it's also hilarious how you switch between using Magness and throwing her under the bus, depending on what you want to claim. Just like you do the gospels.

[Adrift]

The gentile author of Mark was obviously not familiar or concerned with what a Jewish "dishonorable" burial was. He depicts the burial as fitting for his hero - not buried naked or cast into a pit. No, he's given an empty rock hewn tomb all to himself with a huge rolling stone door. Look how the other authors make the burial even more honorable as time goes on.

Earth to Rhinestone. What are you not getting here? It doesn't matter what you think about Mark's view on the burial. According to the scholars on the subject, it was dishonorable. It was a burial not in his family tomb, and without public mourning. You can't walk yourself around this. Nothing you say can change it. Mark paints a picture of a dishonorable burial. That's it.

But Magness says: "felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs"

Yet, you say Joseph was perfectly fine with burying Jesus the criminal messianic pretender in his family tomb? No, sorry, it looks like Jesus would have been buried in a designate area for criminals. These were most likely not empty rock hewn tombs.

Now I know you're just trolling. Jesus was not buried in HIS family tomb. Magness knows this. And besides, if we're going to get technical here, Jesus wasn't executed for violating Jewish law. He was executed for violating Roman law. Remember? Hasn't that been something you've been jumping up and down about for pages? "Jewish law does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Or, more likely, they stem from two separate traditions.

So when Matthew and Luke contradict Mark's ending by having the women run and immediately tell the disciples that's a "separate tradition" as well? Wow, you can't lose. Since when do contradictions make the "traditions" actual history?

Nope. Wrong again. "According to the Tannaite Jose b. Chalaftha, well known as a chronologist and a source of historical information, there were in Jerusalem itself, besides the Great Sanhedrin other two little synedria. This statement, which is coupled with information about the activity of the Sanhedrin (Tosefta, Chagiga ii. 9. and Sanhed. vii, 1 Jerus. Sanhed. 19e; Bab. Sanhed. 88b), agrees with the anonymous statement of the Mishna (Sanhed. xi. 2) and the Sifre (on Dt 17 paragraph 152)." - A Dictionary of the Bible: Pleroma-Zuzim. "Towns with not less than 120 representative men had a small Sanhedrin of 23 members, also appointed by the Great Sanhedrin. The power of these lesser Sanhedrin was also limited, but extended to capital causes in certain cases (Sanh. i. 4). There were two of these Lesser Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (Sanh. xi. 2)." - The Illustrated Bible Dictionary edited by William Coleman Piercy.

That source is over 100 years old and it seems to have fallen out of favor among modern scholars. I certainly don't see it cited in any modern primary literature. The Sanhedrin was the council of 70 priests who operated basically as a Supreme Court for the Temple. Sometimes the Talmud uses the word "sanhedrin" to refer to ad hoc local "courts" being convened in villages. So it's kind of like the difference between "The Court" and "a court." The Sanhedrin in the Gospels was for sure The Sanhedrin, though. There's no ambiguity in it. The High Priest is there.

"Composition and Structure: Because the ancient sources offer conflicting information, scholars differ concerning the Sanhedrin's precise structure....Most interpreters conclude that there was only one Sanhedrin and that the high priest was its leader." - Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 795. https://books.google.com/books?id=go...page&q&f=false

It doesn't really matter though, Mark says the "whole" council was consulted in 15:1. The word for "whole" is ὅλος holos meaning "all, whole, completely" so there's not much wiggle room for your ad hoc interpretation. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3650.html

"For βουλευτής used without qualification apparently for Sanhedrin members cf. Josephus War 2.405. There were other, lesser, local councils (Mark 13:9) but the Sanhedrin is the only one which has been in view in Mark's Narrative." - R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, pg. 665 https://books.google.com/books?id=B4...page&q&f=false

"One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter." "By 'techoom' is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance." - Mishnah Shabbath 23.4

Source: Jesus - Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels by Gustaf Dalman translated by Rev. Paul P. Levertoff

Although Jewish Law, as we have seen, implies the permission to execute on a feast-day (see above), it says nothing concerning the interment on that day; but there can be no doubt that the rule would be that if a person has been hanged on a feast-day, the body must necessarily be also buried on that day, especially when it is followed by a Sabbath. The prohibition not to let the body hang over-night on the wood, and the command to bury it, would in this case, certainly have annulled the prohibition of work on a festival. The fact that there as a ready-made grave near (John xix. 42) made the performance of the interment simpler. A coffin, which even to-day is only used in Palestine for the carrying of the corpse to the grave, was, in the case of a rock grave, still more superfluous. The grave clothes alone could not be done without, since all the clothes of Jesus had been taken away from Him (Mt. xxvii. 59; Mk. xv. 46; Lk. xxiii. 53; John xix. 40).

© Copyright Original Source

Doesn't say anything about "buying" there. According to my sources, "buying" something was illegal. Was the vendor just open for business in plain public view selling things on a holy day?

Palestine was a Roman province. Of course it applied to Galilean peasants executed by Roman officials.

No, it's not clear that the Digesta is in reference to non-Roman citizens at all. It doesn't specifically mention crucifixion. This is noteworthy because Romans typically didn't crucify their own citizens. That punishment was reserved for foreigners.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

But you have been claiming that Jesus was executed for treason. that would be breaking a Roman law, not a Jewish one.

make up your mind

it's also hilarious how you switch between using Magness and throwing her under the bus, depending on what you want to claim. Just like you do the gospels.

Does the Sanhedrin not condemn Jesus to death for blasphemy in the gospel story?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Earth to Rhinestone. What are you not getting here? It doesn't matter what you think about Mark's view on the burial. According to the scholars on the subject, it was dishonorable. It was a burial not in his family tomb, and without public mourning. You can't walk yourself around this. Nothing you say can change it. Mark paints a picture of a dishonorable burial. That's it.

The disciples all fled and his family wasn't there. How exactly was he supposed to be "mourned" for? The linen and tomb present a more "honorable" burial than being thrown in a pit at least, right?

Now I know you're just trolling. Jesus was not buried in HIS family tomb. Magness knows this. And besides, if we're going to get technical here, Jesus wasn't executed for violating Jewish law. He was executed for violating Roman law. Remember? Hasn't that been something you've been jumping up and down about for pages? "Jewish law does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs.

Correct. He was executed by the Romans, however as the gospels indicate, he was found guilty and condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. Therefore, he still would have been considered a Jewish criminal. Or would all his sins be absolved and therefore his criminal charges would no longer apply? You tell me.

I already explained why I think Magness is wrong in her conclusion. See here in case you forgot: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post352535

[Adrift]

So when Matthew and Luke contradict Mark's ending by having the women run and immediately tell the disciples that's a "separate tradition" as well? Wow, you can't lose. Since when do contradictions make the "traditions" actual history?

Assuming Matthew and Luke contradict Mark, that doesn't mean that they're not pulling from separate traditions as even Ehrman agrees. But of course, it's possible to harmonize all four Gospels without assuming contradiction.

That source is over 100 years old and it seems to have fallen out of favor among modern scholars. I certainly don't see it cited in any modern primary literature.

Scholars routinely pull from sources this old and older. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland pull from the "A Dictionary of the Bible" for their commentary on Romans and Galatians (2011), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament refers to it; Frank S. Thielman in his "Theology of the New Testament" (2011); and James R. Lewis, and Jesper Aa. Petersen in their "Controversial New Religions" do too.

The Sanhedrin was the council of 70 priests who operated basically as a Supreme Court for the Temple. Sometimes the Talmud uses the word "sanhedrin" to refer to ad hoc local "courts" being convened in villages. So it's kind of like the difference between "The Court" and "a court." The Sanhedrin in the Gospels was for sure The Sanhedrin, though. There's no ambiguity in it. The High Priest is there.

We're not talking about the High Priest, though. We're talking about Arimathea.

"Composition and Structure: Because the ancient sources offer conflicting information, scholars differ concerning the Sanhedrin's precise structure....Most interpreters conclude that there was only one Sanhedrin and that the high priest was its leader." - Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 795. https://books.google.com/books?id=go...page&q&f=false

And in between your ellipsis, "Some interpreters (e.g., Mantel) contend that there were actually two Sanhedrins; one, consisting of Sadducees, which focused on public and political matters, and another, consisting of Pharisees, which focused on matters of Torah observance."

It doesn't really matter though, Mark says the "whole" council was consulted in 15:1. The word for "whole" is ὅλος holos meaning "all, whole, completely" so there's not much wiggle room for your ad hoc interpretation. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3650.html

"For βουλευτής used without qualification apparently for Sanhedrin members cf. Josephus War 2.405. There were other, lesser, local councils (Mark 13:9) but the Sanhedrin is the only one which has been in view in Mark's Narrative." - R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, pg. 665 https://books.google.com/books?id=B4...page&q&f=false

This is the same R.T. France who says that "whole" or "all" in Mark 14:64 shouldn't be taken literally, right? Or are you going to throw him under the bus too?

Doesn't say anything about "buying" there. According to my sources, "buying" something was illegal. Was the vendor just open for business in plain public view selling things on a holy day?

You're assuming that a 1st century vendor had to have an "Open" sign on their door in order for Arimathea to procure burial linen? You don't think he knew where the textile merchant lived for just such occasions, or that he couldn't make arrangements to make payment after the Sabbath?

No, it's not clear that the Digesta is in reference to non-Roman citizens at all. It doesn't specifically mention crucifixion. This is noteworthy because Romans typically didn't crucify their own citizens. That punishment was reserved for foreigners.

The part of the Digesta this comes from is Ulpian's On the Duties of the Proconsuls which was specifically for provincial governors.

[Adrift]

The disciples all fled and his family wasn't there. How exactly was he supposed to be "mourned" for?

Exactly.

The linen and tomb present a more "honorable" burial than being thrown in a pit at least, right?

Nope. An honorable burial required burial in one's OWN family tomb, and public mourning. Jesus received neither of these, so was therefore buried dishonorably.

Correct. He was executed by the Romans, however as the gospels indicate, he was found guilty and condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. Therefore, he still would have been considered a Jewish criminal. Or would all his sins be absolved and therefore his criminal charges would no longer apply? You tell me.

Regardless, he was not executed for violating Jewish law. He was executed for violating Roman law. I'm certain at that point the Council didn't care one way or the other as long as he was out of the picture.

I already explained why I think Magness is wrong in her conclusion. See here in case you forgot: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post352535

And in case you didn't see my reply, see here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post352543

[Sparko]

Does the Sanhedrin not condemn Jesus to death for blasphemy in the gospel story?

The Romans do not execute for blasphemy (unless it is blasphemy against Caesar) so he was not charged or executed for blasphemy was he?

You can't have it both ways. You have been arguing that he was executed by Rome for breaking Roman law. The Sanhedron had no power to execute. Now conveniently when it is shown that if Jesus was executed for Roman law, he was not barred from a burial, you want to say he was executed for breaking Jewish Law. This has been the way you have operated from the beginning. You will switch evidence at the drop of a hat. One minute a source is proof that Jesus was not buried in a tomb, the next it is useless because we showed you that it contradicts what you were claiming. Like Magness, or the gospels, and now you contradict your own previous arguments. I never thought I would see someone toss themselves under the bus to keep on going. But there it is. wow.