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

[Meh Gerbil]

Where have I said that I KNOW that those details are not accurate? I haven't. The point is that scholarship and the historical evidence strongly INDICATE (not "prove") that the Empty Tomb story is not historical.

I understand your claim as rational given the probable fate of a treasonous crucifixion victim.
However, we've some additional details from this particular crucifixion victim's trial that explain his unusual treatment.

You seem to want to divorce the empty tomb from the context.

The claim isn't: For a typical treasonous crucifixion victim the fate of the body was usually the tomb of a wealthy family.
The claim is: The body of a specific victim, under extraordinary consequences, ended up in the tomb of a wealthy family.

If we limit the discussion up until the point Jesus is buried I'd have to say that you and Shunyadragon are making the more extraordinary claim. I say that because Jesus was teaching out in the open for years before he was arrested. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus was teaching treason in Jerusalem to thousands of people for years and the Romans just weren't interested in doing anything about it until the Jewish leadership got upset? What kind of an idiot would Pilate have to be to actually believe Jesus was a revolutionary? You paint the Romans as a bunch of clueless keystone cops bumbling around Jerusalem - Pilate, stupid and unaware - in order to sell a weird narrative where Pilate actually thought Jesus was a threat.

The text paints Pilate as knowing the Jewish Leadership were full of nonsense.
The tomb makes a great deal of sense when you consider that fact - Pilate probably thought that was funny.
Put a would be Messiah in a Jewish cemetery and in the tomb of a wealthy man.
Laugh riot.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge the elements of this story that make the tomb burial quite reasonable.

[Gary]

[QUOTE=Adrift;319849]No, I don't recall making a single post with two long quotes from Evans. Stay off the herbal treatments.



Evans interacts with this critique in his article,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices

What Josephus says here is especially relevant for the question of the burial of the crucified Jesus. Josephus is speaking of his own time, that is, from the time of Pontius Pilate, prefect of Samaria and Judea, to the time of the Jewish revolt.

© Copyright Original Source

Gary: Ehrman refutes this assertion in the review I gave above.

So what time period was Josephus referring to in this statement? The idea that Evans can claim that Josephus was referring to the time period of Pilate is preposterous! Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from 26-36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 AD! Evans is obviously stretching things here.

If Josephus was born in 37 AD, his adult life would have been spent mostly during the Jewish Wars and the aftermath of those wars. To claim that he was referring to the time of Pilate and Jesus, an era in which he had not yet been born, is a real stretch of the imagination.

[Meh Gerbil]

Assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption. Our entire discussion revolves around this point: Are the Gospels reliable, accurate descriptions of real historical events? Therefore, you cannot use the Gospels to confirm the Gospels. All we can say with any reasonable historical certainty about the trial is that Jesus was condemned to be crucified. We have no other non-Christian corroborative evidence of other details of the trial. Therefore, they might be accurate, and they might be literary embellishments. We will never know. But, IF it is true that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews, or even refused to deny that he was the King of the Jews, that is treason, and therefore the most likely reason he would be crucified. If you want to claim that he never claimed or denied that he was the King of the Jews, then you have a different argument. Is that what you are claiming?

Most NT scholars seem to believe that Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews, a capital offense under Roman law.

Did Pilate, the judge, think that Jesus was a treasonous threat?
That would be more important than what 'most NT scholars seem to believe'.

The evidence we have makes it clear that Pilate didn't see Jesus as a treasonous threat.
The burial in the tomb makes sense given the context of the trial.

You may reject that evidence; however, accepting that evidence doesn't make any of the Christians in the room 'irrational'.

[Gary]

Did Pilate, the judge, think that Jesus was a treasonous threat?
That would be more important than what 'most NT scholars seem to believe'.

The evidence we have makes it clear that Pilate didn't see Jesus as a treasonous threat.
The burial in the tomb makes sense given the context of the trial.

You may reject that evidence; however, accepting that evidence doesn't make any of the Christians in the room 'irrational'.

The only evidence you have are the four books under question for their historical accuracy.

This is Begging the Question.

We have no certain idea of what happened or what was said in the trial of Jesus. You are building a case on assumptions, not historical evidence.

[Adrift]

The point is that scholarship and the historical evidence strongly INDICATE (not "prove") that the Empty Tomb story is not historical.

No, it doesn't. The majority of scholars accept the empty tomb tradition.

[Gary]

I understand your claim as rational given the probable fate of a treasonous crucifixion victim.
However, we've some additional details from this particular crucifixion victim's trial that explain his unusual treatment.

You seem to want to divorce the empty tomb from the context.

The claim isn't: For a typical treasonous crucifixion victim the fate of the body was usually the tomb of a wealthy family.
The claim is: The body of a specific victim, under extraordinary consequences, ended up in the tomb of a wealthy family.

If we limit the discussion up until the point Jesus is buried I'd have to say that you and Shunyadragon are making the more extraordinary claim. I say that because Jesus was teaching out in the open for years before he was arrested. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus was teaching treason in Jerusalem to thousands of people for years and the Romans just weren't interested in doing anything about it until the Jewish leadership got upset? What kind of an idiot would Pilate have to be to actually believe Jesus was a revolutionary? You paint the Romans as a bunch of clueless keystone cops bumbling around Jerusalem - Pilate, stupid and unaware - in order to sell a weird narrative where Pilate actually thought Jesus was a threat.

The text paints Pilate as knowing the Jewish Leadership were full of nonsense.
The tomb makes a great deal of sense when you consider that fact - Pilate probably thought that was funny.
Put a would be Messiah in a Jewish cemetery and in the tomb of a wealthy man.
Laugh riot.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge the elements of this story that make the tomb burial quite reasonable.

I think it is reasonable that Pilate would execute a Jewish peasant that Jewish authorities claimed was stirring up the people. If that is what you claim happened, I think it is then much more probable that Pilate wouldn't care what was done with Jesus' body. But the Gospels specifically state the issue at Jesus' trial, for Pilate, was the issue of whether or not Jesus was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He doesn't seem to care about anything else.

If therefore Jesus was crucified for the crime of claiming to be the King of the Jews, Pilate would be risking his own neck to allow the body of Jesus to be given a proper burial. It would be a slap in the face of Caesar, and more importantly, a capital offense of...treason by Pilate. Pilate wouldn't dare allow the body of someone who was claiming to be the King of the Jews to be given a rich man's burial.

If you want to deny that Jesus ever claimed to be or never denied that he had claimed to be the King of the Jews, then you have a good argument. But as long as you hold to the "King of the Jews" claim, the burial of Jesus in a rich man's tomb is very implausible, regardless of whether Pilate believed Jesus was a serious threat or not.

[Adrift]

So what time period was Josephus referring to in this statement? The idea that Evans can claim that Josephus was referring to the time period of Pilate is preposterous! Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from 26-36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 AD! Evans is obviously stretching things here.

If Josephus was born in 37 AD, his adult life would have been spent mostly during the Jewish Wars and the aftermath of those wars. To claim that he was referring to the time of Pilate and Jesus, an era in which he had not yet been born, is a real stretch of the imagination.

Evans is obviously referring to the period of time between the two major events. The point being made is that precedent had not radically changed within that period.

[psstein]

http://ehrmanblog.org/josephuss-clea...ified-victims/

The mass of textual (and archeological) evidence speaks against this. As Dale Allison points out in his Resurrecting Jesus, it's astounding that we've a crucified body with the nails in it. The fact is that the nails were thought to provide some type of protection and were often removed to be used as amulets of a type.

[psstein]

Gary, if Pilate thought Jesus was a threat then:

1: Why did he offer to beat Jesus and let him go?
2: Why did he offer up Barabbas instead?
3: Why did he claim to find no reason to charge Jesus?
4: Why did Pilate 'wash his hands' of him?
5: Why did the Jews chant 'Let his blood be on us and our children?'

The entire trial from start to finish is Pilate trying to get Jesus out of his court.
All of the evidence suggests that Pilate didn't think Jesus was guilty but had his hand forced by the Jewish leadership.

I really don't give a flying donut what some modern commentator has to say on the issue.
Again, the gospel accounts where written within the lifetimes of people who witnessed the events.
Given their decidedly non-miraculous nature - quite pedestrian actually - I'm completely puzzled why anyone would find it debatable.

I'm so tired of modern 'scholars' contradicting the evidence of the New Testament based on next to nothing whatsoever.
If the New Testament isn't the truth than we'll never know what actually happened - I can live with that - what I find ridiculous is some egghead claiming he knows the real story because... well because.

The issue is that, as the gospel tradition moves forward, there's a tendency to shift the blame for Jesus' crucifixion from the Romans onto the Jews. Pilate's washing his hands is symbolic of his lack of responsibility in the Matthean account.

[psstein]

Stein:

For what reason do you believe that Jesus was crucified by the Romans? Do you believe that he was crucified for claiming to be the King of the Jews? What is the position of most scholars on this issue?

I can't remember if it is this thread or another, but Adrift has made the claim that Jesus was NOT crucified for treason when he claimed (or at least refused to deny) to be the King of the Jews. If true, Adrift knows that this increases the probability that Pilate might have let someone like Arimathea have the body, and thus, spare Adrift the embarrassment of having to deal with the statement in the Digesta which clearly states, that in most cases, the bodies of persons crucified for high treason, were NOT given to family and friends for proper burial.

So this is the issue we must resolve: For what reason/crime was Jesus crucified?

Here is what NT scholar Larry Hurtado says:

"So the most likely crime for which Jesus was crucified is reflected in the Gospels' account of the charge attached to Jesus' cross: "King of the Jews." That is, either Jesus himself claimed to be the Jewish royal messiah, or his followers put out this claim. That would do to get yourself crucified by the Romans." Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...crucified.html

Sounds like TREASON to me.

I'm not convinced that treason is the answer. Treason is also a bit of loaded term, because there were several messianic claimants in 1st century Palestine (I'm using Palestine deliberately here; the area is larger than simply Israel).

I also don't think you can use the Digesta in the way that it's being used. It dates from the time of Justininan, and in order to use it at all, you have to carefully sift through it for first century material.

[One Bad Pig]

The issue is that, as the gospel tradition moves forward, there's a tendency to shift the blame for Jesus' crucifixion from the Romans onto the Jews. Pilate's washing his hands is symbolic of his lack of responsibility in the Matthean account.

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Even in Mark 15, the responsibility is clearly placed on the Jews. Developments prior to this rest pretty much wholly on speculation. 1 Cor. 2:8 is too vague to determine either way. 1 Thes. 2:15 places the blame squarely on the Jews.

[psstein]

[
Gary: Ehrman refutes this assertion in the review I gave above.

So what time period was Josephus referring to in this statement? The idea that Evans can claim that Josephus was referring to the time period of Pilate is preposterous! Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from 26-36 AD. Josephus was born in 37 AD! Evans is obviously stretching things here.

If Josephus was born in 37 AD, his adult life would have been spent mostly during the Jewish Wars and the aftermath of those wars. To claim that he was referring to the time of Pilate and Jesus, an era in which he had not yet been born, is a real stretch of the imagination.

Josephus had access to earlier sources... just like a modern historian can write about World War II or the Weimar Republic.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not convinced that treason is the answer. Treason is also a bit of loaded term, because there were several messianic claimants in 1st century Palestine (I'm using Palestine deliberately here; the area is larger than simply Israel).

I also don't think you can use the Digesta in the way that it's being used. It dates from the time of Justininan, and in order to use it at all, you have to carefully sift through it for first century material.

That treason is a loaded term is precisely why Gary is using it.

[psstein]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Even in Mark 15, the responsibility is clearly placed on the Jews. Developments prior to this rest pretty much wholly on speculation. 1 Cor. 2:8 is too vague to determine either way. 1 Thes. 2:15 places the blame squarely on the Jews.

1 Thess. 2:14-16 is possibly a later interpolation, as many scholars have argued. I think 1 Cor. 2:8 is actually a reference to Pilate.

The early church, as it became more disconnected from its Jewish roots, became more anti-Jewish. This is especially on display in the Gospel of John, where it's often described as "Jesus, the Disciples, and the Jews."

[psstein]

That treason is a loaded term is precisely why Gary is using it.

Treason also too strongly reminds me of Reza Aslan's terrible book, Zealot.