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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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.

No, you can't have the women "leave and tell no one" then have them "leave and immediately tell the disciples." That is a contradiction. The only way to "harmonize" that is to make the texts say something they don't. In other words, you're just making up your own version of the events.

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.

Most scholars think there was only one Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

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

And βουλευτής, without qualification, the word used to describe Arimathea in Mark 15:43 was typically used to designate a member of the Sanhedrin.

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."

"Most interpreters conclude that there was only one Sanhedrin and that the high priest was its leader." - Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, pg. 795.

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?

Originally, your argument was the word for "all" πᾶς pas in Mark 14:64 doesn't always mean "all" which is fair enough. However, both Mark 14:55 and 15:1 use a different word - ὅλος holos meaning "all, whole, completely". This puts the argument in my favor, not yours.

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?

Buying linen requires someone selling it and working on Passover which was illegal. This is just another ad hoc attempt to get out of what the text actually says. You're just making up your own gospel because you're ideologically committed to the inerrancy of scripture.

Furthermore, it's quite hard to believe that Joseph took care of all these tasks before the Sabbath. According to Mark 15:34, Jesus dies at 3pm then in Mark 15:42 the translations read "When evening had come" or "as evening approached." Therefore, Joseph had to go visit Pilate and get his permission, go and buy a linen cloth, then get the body down from the cross and bury it. He probably had to take the body quite a ways away from the site of crucifixion because it's unlikely his "own" tomb would be near such a place. All of that was accomplished before the Sabbath? Remember, the Sabbath started at night. It seems Mark was unaware or didn't care to present accurately these Jewish customs as the text may imply that Joseph was carrying out these actions at night (Sabbath) which would have been illegal as well.

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

Ok so you're saying that this 6th century document reflects accurately how non-Roman citizens were treated when they were crucified? Even though it doesn't specifically mention crucifixion?

Because it seems we have some discrepancies:

1. 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

2. 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, (Library of History 16.25.2).

7. From around 100 CE, the Greek author Dio Chrysostom indicates that in Athens, anyone who suffered was (Discourses 31.85).

8. 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, (Suetonius, Augustus 13).

9. 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 (Annals 6.29h).

- extracted from Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, pgs. 119-122 Digital edition.

10. - Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

Sorry, but it looks like those that were crucified were left up to rot and forbidden burial. That seems to conflict with the testimony in your 6th century document.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Exactly.

But you make it sound as if they were prevented from mourning. But there was no one there to mourn...

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.

While the burial may have been "dishonorable" according to Jewish standards, the details in which Mark has Jesus buried are presented as particularly noble. I agree that Jesus was most likely buried dishonorably. I just don't agree that it was in a nice new empty "rock hewn" tomb that was later found empty.

"disciple" of Jesus. Luke 23:51 says he 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." http://debatingchristianity.com/foru...=727512#727512

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.

The question must still be asked. Would Jesus, the criminal, have been buried in someone's family tomb or would he have been buried in a designated grave for criminals?

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

You're missing the point. Magness' argument "Jewish law does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs" solely hinges on the fact that the Mishnah does not specifically mention crucifixion. That's a very weak argument because as I explained above, crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one so we would not expect a mention of it in the Jewish Mishnah. Would Joseph the pious Jew have buried this cursed criminal in his own tomb? According to the Mishnah "they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers." 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."

[RhinestoneCowboy]

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

Read Mark 14:53-65. Are you somehow saying Jesus was not convicted of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin? Was he somehow exonerated from this crime by the Jews just because he was executed by the Romans?

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.

(i) Archaeologists have found two inscriptions in Greek warning non-Jews against entering the inner courts of the Temple on pain of death. Josephus (Ant. XV) also notes that intruders in this part of the Temple were executed.

(ii) Talmudic texts, including the Tractate Sanhedrin, give long and detailed instructions on how a capital trial was carried out in the Second Temple Period, including what forms of execution were to be applied for what crimes and exactly how an execution was to be mandated by the Sanhedrin.

(iii) Talmudic literature also mentions or details examples of executions being ordered by the Sanhedrin, with the names of the victims and of the court members involved.

(iv) Philo of Alexandria matter of factly notes that anyone entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple "is subjected to inevitable death for his impiety".

(v) Josephus mentions the execution of James the brother of Jesus and "some others" by the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan who "delivered them to be stoned" (Ant. XX. 9. 1)

(vi) Several NT passages involve or imply executions by the Jewish authorities. Stephen is depicted as executed by the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:54-8:2 and the letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix in Acts 23:25-30 talks about Paul potentially being executed by the Sanhedrin.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Jesus-crucified

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.

Slow down and read for comprehension. My argument is that Jesus would have still been viewed and treated as a criminal messianic pretender by the Jews.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Since the earliest account (Paul) makes no mention of an empty tomb, I'd like to draw attention back to how he seemingly equates his vision with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Only Paul's account is firsthand, therefore his testimony should be given preference over anonymous documents written 40-60 years after Jesus' death. Since it's clear from Paul's testimony that these "appearances" were spiritual visionary encounters, I'm curious as to how exactly that supports an empty tomb or physical revivification of the corpse? Any takers?

[Sparko]

Since the earliest account (Paul) makes no mention of an empty tomb, I'd like to draw attention back to how he seemingly equates his vision with the other "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8. Only Paul's account is firsthand, therefore his testimony should be given preference over anonymous documents written 40-60 years after Jesus' death. Since it's clear from Paul's testimony that these "appearances" were spiritual visionary encounters, I'm curious as to how exactly that supports an empty tomb or physical revivification of the corpse? Any takers?

WOW!!! Starting over AGAIN???

Come on RC. You have tried this several times already. You got your answers, go back and read them and stop pretending like you are posting something new and nobody has answered you.


Stop trolling or we will end up just closing this travesty of a thread.

[Juice]

No, you can't have the women "leave and tell no one" then have them "leave and immediately tell the disciples." That is a contradiction. The only way to "harmonize" that is to make the texts says something they don't. In other words, you're just making up your own version of the events.

Big whoop RC. So there's a discrepancy. Heck let's even grant it's an irreconcilable contradiction. So what does that prove?

From your arguments I doubt you are at all familiar with history outside what you've probably read from Carrier. Ancient biographies often contradict one another on secondary details but no historian would take that as evidence of non historicity. For example take the assassination of Caesar. Plutarch records Caesar cried out at the first blow, "Accursed Casca, what does thou?" Whereas Suetonius says at the first blow Caesar, "uttered not a word." They can't both be the case, right? Therefore that's evidence it was made up and the assassination probably never happened right?

[Sparko]

Big whoop RC. So there's a discrepancy. Heck let's even grant it's an irreconcilable contradiction. So what does that prove?

From your arguments I doubt you are at all familiar with history outside what you've probably read from Carrier. Ancient biographies often contradict one another on secondary details but no historian would take that as evidence of non historicity. For example take the assassination of Caesar. Plutarch records Caesar cried out at the first blow, "Accursed Casca, what does thou?" Whereas Suetonius says at the first blow Caesar, "uttered not a word." They can't both be the case, right? Therefore that's evidence it was made up and the assassination probably never happened right?

Not only that but RC keeps claiming how everyone copied Mark, but somehow got all the details different. Whut up wit dat?


as any lawyer and police officer can attest, witness statements often differ in various details but not in the core story. In fact if they did agree completely they would be suspicious of collusion or fabrication. So the differences in the four gospels on minor details and parts left out, or expounded upon, make them more reliable and trustworthy.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Big whoop RC. So there's a discrepancy. Heck let's even grant it's an irreconcilable contradiction. So what does that prove?

It proves that there was no empty tomb story floating around until Mark decided to divulge the information to his readers around 70 CE. And since he left the appearances out, we don't hear about those until Matthew was written c. 80 CE. Therefore, for the first 50 years or so of Christianity the only ways we know the Risen Jesus' appearances were announced were by the words "vision" "revelation" and saying that he "appeared" ōphthē, in which the evidence from Paul necessitates it was in the "spiritual" sense. These words in no way provide support for an empty tomb or the later physical appearances in the gospels.

From your arguments I doubt you are at all familiar with history outside what you've probably read from Carrier. Ancient biographies often contradict one another on secondary details but no historian would take that as evidence of non historicity. For example take the assassination of Caesar. Plutarch records Caesar cried out at the first blow, "Accursed Casca, what does thou?" Whereas Suetonius says at the first blow Caesar, "uttered not a word." They can't both be the case, right? Therefore that's evidence it was made up and the assassination probably never happened right?

Here's some history for you outlining the inconsistencies in the Sanhedrin "trial" of Jesus:

1. It takes place at night, whereas capital trials were to be held only during the day.
2. It takes place on the eve of Passover, whereas no capital trials were to take place on festival days.
3. The death sentence could not be passed on the same day of the trial.
4. It could not take place in the High Priest's house.
5. Blasphemy requires someone pronouncing the divine name, something Jesus does not do.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6O...page&q&f=false

This evidence points towards the non-historicity of the event. Therefore, I am justified in concluding that this event probably didn't happen as depicted by Mark. If Mark is ok with writing demonstrable fiction then what's to keep him from writing it elsewhere? I've already shown the implausibility of the Joseph story above so that's probably fiction as well. In fact, the whole of Mark's passion story can be shown to come from the Psalms: https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

Earlier you criticized my "methodology" so let's establish one. Do you believe all supernatural claims recorded in ancient documents? If not, what method do you use to determine whether a supernatural claim is true or false? It's not my fault for doing honest research and pointing out the reasons why these stories make more sense as fiction than actual history.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Not only that but RC keeps claiming how everyone copied Mark, but somehow got all the details different. Whut up wit dat?

They changed/corrected Mark's story to suit their needs.

as any lawyer and police officer can attest, witness statements often differ in various details but not in the core story. In fact if they did agree completely they would be suspicious of collusion or fabrication. So the differences in the four gospels on minor details and parts left out, or expounded upon, make them more reliable and trustworthy.

The abundance of shared/copied material and editorial fatigue proves the dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark. When you have Matthew and Luke blatantly contradict Mark's ending and have Luke deliberately change the location of the appearances from Galilee to Jerusalem, then which account do you go by? Why must you always try to harmonize the accounts instead of just accepting that these really are irreconcilable contradictions written by storytellers?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

WOW!!! Starting over AGAIN???

Come on RC. You have tried this several times already. You got your answers, go back and read them and stop pretending like you are posting something new and nobody has answered you.


Stop trolling or we will end up just closing this travesty of a thread.

Trolling? I'm trying to get a straight answer. The evidence point towards Christianity being based on a bunch of superstitious 1st century Jewish hillbillies having visions of a dead guy they thought had returned to life. Why should we trust someone who says they have a vision? Hindus have visions of their gods too. Do they really see their gods? Are their gods real?

[Sparko]

They changed/corrected Mark's story to suit their needs.

begging the question. It is copied from Mark because it is the same as Mark, yet it is different from Mark because they changed it to suit their needs, thus proving they copied Mark.

[Sparko]

Trolling? I'm trying to get a straight answer. The evidence point towards Christianity being based on a bunch of superstitious 1st century Jewish hillbillies having visions of a dead guy they thought had returned to life. Why should we trust someone who says they have a vision? Hindus have visions of their gods too. Do they really see their gods? Are their gods real?

you got your answers several times. so what do you do? ignore them and start over, pretending that nobody answered you. That is trolling. Or an inability to accept defeat.

[RumTumTugger]

you got your answers several times. so what do you do? ignore them and start over, pretending that nobody answered you. That is trolling. Or an inability to accept defeat.

So he suffers from Dunning syndrome?

[Juice]

It proves that there was no empty tomb story floating around until Mark decided to divulge the information to his readers around 70 CE.

And since he left the appearances out, we don't hear about those until Matthew was written c. 80 CE. Therefore, for the first 50 years or so of Christianity the only ways we know the Risen Jesus' appearances were announced were by the words "vision" "revelation" and saying that he "appeared" ōphthē, in which the evidence from Paul necessitates it was in the "spiritual" sense. These words in no way provide support for an empty tomb or the later physical appearances in the gospels.

leave outspeecheshow

Here's some history for you outlining the inconsistencies in the Sanhedrin "trial" of Jesus:

1. It takes place at night, whereas capital trials were to be held only during the day.
2. It takes place on the eve of Passover, whereas no capital trials were to take place on festival days.
3. The death sentence could not be passed on the same day of the trial.
4. It could not take place in the High Priest's house.
5. Blasphemy requires someone pronouncing the divine name, something Jesus does not do.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6O...page&q&f=false

The Mishnah codified pharisaic rabbinic Halakah rather than the Sanhedrin practice that predominated before A.D. 70,

In other words your entireNicolas of Damascus, Plutarch, and Suetonius

This evidence points towards the non-historicity of the event. Therefore, I am justified in concluding that this event probably didn't happen as depicted by Mark. If Mark is ok with writing demonstrable fiction then what's to keep him from writing it elsewhere? I've already shown the implausibility of the Joseph story above so that's probably fiction as well. In fact, the whole of Mark's passion story can be shown to come from the Psalms: https://books.google.com/books?id=fN...page&q&f=false

Earlier you criticized my "methodology" so let's establish one.

Do you believe all supernatural claims recorded in ancient documents?

What is supernatural about the trial or burial of Jesus?

But to answer your question. I treat ALL claims from antiquity the same way methodologically. I do NOT a priori

If not, what method do you use to determine whether a supernatural claim is true or false?

It's not my fault for doing honest research and pointing out the reasons why these stories make more sense as fiction than actual history.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. You are many things, RC. But an honest researcher you are not. Do I need to remind you of this?

[Cow Poke]

Holy big fat non-sequitur Batman!

I shall now wipe the coffee off my monitor!