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

[DesertBerean]

Nor have I, and I've read quite a bit on the Resurrection. Often I would see the observation that instead of being flung into a mass grave or buried in the ground or things like that, a great deal is made of the fact that Jesus was put IN A TOMB. Clearly it was known this was unusual.

Maybe its because you've only been reading Christian scholars? Notice in her bio that she studied in Israel and has been involved in extensive excavations in Israel. She is also Jewish.

Is there any evidence in the literature of any scholar rejecting her claim that it was perfectly acceptable in first century Judaism for Jews to move a recently deceased body? If so, I would like to see it and see who said it to compare his or her qualifications/credentials against those of Dr. Magness.

Stein? Any input?

Be very careful, Gary. You had stated,

"Therefore the oft repeated Christian claim that everyone who died in first century Palestine was buried in a rock tomb is proven false."

and that is what OBP and I responded to.

Because of this flip flop you took with complaining about the so called "oft repeated " Christian claim of everybody being buried in tombs then advising me after I observed that in all my reading I've never seen that claim that I had been reading CHRISTIAN scholars...whom you had accused of claiming everybody was buried in tombs (Gee...why would I use non Christian sources to counter your claim that Christians made this very claim?), I have even less confidence you can track your own arguments.

[DesertBerean]

I didn't. What I said is that the later evangelists take pains to redact the embarrassing nature of the Markan burial account.

I rest my case.

[Gary]

The later evangelists are at great pains to try to deal with the issues that the Markan account of the burial provides. In Mark, Jesus receives what is more or less a criminal's burial. In order to deal with the embarrassing issues the portrayal brings up, they redact the story.

Matthew redacts it by having Joseph place Jesus in his own tomb in a clean linen sheet. Luke has Jesus buried in a previously unused tomb. John's account gives Jesus the burial of a king.

When you use "redact" you are simply saying "made up".

[Gary]

Because of this flip flop you took with complaining about the so called "oft repeated " Christian claim of everybody being buried in tombs then advising me after I observed that in all my reading I've never seen that claim that I had been reading CHRISTIAN scholars...whom you had accused of claiming everybody was buried in tombs (Gee...why would I use non Christian sources to counter your claim that Christians made this very claim?), I have even less confidence you can track your own arguments.

Nick Peters claims that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the first century were buried in rock tombs.

[DesertBerean]

Nick Peters claims that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the first century were buried in rock tombs.

*waiting for you to back that up with ACTUAL citation*

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations as attested by the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

A unique grave was not necessary for crucified people, since crucifixion was not an official Jewish penalty.

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." So the Mishnah and the Tosefta definitely rule out Jesus' burial in Joseph's own family tomb but are we to imagine that there was a brand new empty criminal's tomb just waiting for Jesus?

Josephus comments on the end of a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

So not only is it improbable that he would be allowed to be buried by the Romans, it's doubly improbable that he would be given a proper burial in a tomb by the Jews. Judging from all this historical evidence we should infer that Jesus was most likely buried in a grave that was reserved for criminals if he was even buried at all. It's highly unlikely that he was given his own "new" and "empty" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" like the later gospels describe.

[Gary]

Nick Peters claims that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the first century were buried in rock tombs.

Ask him yourself. Ask Nick if most first century Jews were buried in rock tombs or in trenches (holes in the dirt).

[DesertBerean]

Ask him yourself. Ask Nick if most first century Jews were buried in rock tombs or in trenches (holes in the dirt).

Nope. You made the claim in response to my criticism. You provide the proof.


ETA: oh, nice moving of the goalposts...you added trenches to your original accusation.

[Gary]

Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations as attested by the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

A unique grave was not necessary for crucified people, since crucifixion was not an official Jewish penalty.

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." So the Mishnah and the Tosefta definitely rule out Jesus' burial in Joseph's own family tomb but are we to imagine that there was a brand new empty criminal's tomb just waiting for Jesus?

Josephus comments on the end of a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

So not only is it improbable that he would be allowed to be buried by the Romans, it's doubly improbable that he would be given a proper burial in a tomb by the Jews. Judging from all this historical evidence we should infer that Jesus was most likely buried in a grave that was reserved for criminals if he was even buried at all. It's highly unlikely that he was given his own "new" and "empty" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" like the later gospels describe.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Oh and don't forget Gary. We have evidence that the Sanhedrin reserved the right to execute people for religious crimes. There would have been no need to hand him over to Pilate.

(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.

"All this evidence clearly shows that the Jewish authorities did have the power to execute people for religious crimes. Josephus' account of their execution of James indicates that, in the 60s AD anyway, they needed to get endorsement of their sentence from the Roman prefect before they carried it out, but they did not need to get the Prefect to carry it out for them, nor would someone condemned by the Sanhedrin be executed by the specialized Roman method of crucifixion."
http://www.quora.com/Why-was-Jesus-crucified

The whole Sanhedrin trial is most likely fiction (no one was there to record the events so Mark made it up) while the story of handing Jesus over to Pilate may have a kernel of historicity, I don't think we're getting the full picture from the Gospels. I think it's more likely that the author of Mark, since he was writing in Rome, shifts the blame from Pilate onto the Jews. He sort of "whitewashes" Pilate's hands of putting Jesus to death and the other gospel authors do so as well. It was awkward in the wake of the Jewish revolt and destruction of the temple to mention a Roman crucifying their Lord, especially when writing in a Roman provenance.

So in the end, it's possible that some leader Jews brought Jesus to Pilate's attention or Jesus just caused such a ruckus in the temple that he was executed like any other rabble-rouser.

[Gary]

Oh and don't forget Gary. We have evidence that the Sanhedrin reserved the right to execute people for religious crimes. There would have been no need to hand him over to Pilate.

(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.

"All this evidence clearly shows that the Jewish authorities did have the power to execute people for religious crimes. Josephus' account of their execution of James indicates that, in the 60s AD anyway, they needed to get endorsement of their sentence from the Roman prefect before they carried it out, but they did not need to get the Prefect to carry it out for them, nor would someone condemned by the Sanhedrin be executed by the specialized Roman method of crucifixion."
http://www.quora.com/Why-was-Jesus-crucified

The whole Sanhedrin trial is most likely fiction (no one was there to record the events so Mark made it up) while the story of handing Jesus over to Pilate may have a kernel of historicity, I don't think we're getting the full picture from the Gospels.

You hit the nail on the head. It is highly probable that "Mark" made up most of the story regarding the Trial, Crucifixion, and Arimathea's tomb. In all likelihood, Jesus was unceremoniously crucified as an insignificant trouble maker and his body tossed into an unmarked hole in the ground...days after the scavengers had picked it apart.

[One Bad Pig]

You mean could not have "expected", right?

Nope. Archaeology is a very new field. People back then typically did not think along those lines.

It is from the Gospel of John that we get the information that the tomb and Golgotha were just outside the walls of the city. But that's it. Does "John" even tell us which gate one must exit to get to this location? Maybe he does, I don't remember, but what I do remember is that the Gospels are extremely vague as to the location of "Golgotha, the place of the skull". Do you have any other information from the Gospels or from anyone in the first three centuries regarding the location of the tomb? Just being outside the walls is not very specific. So what specifically was it that could not have been "interpreted" or "expected"?

The Gospels are only "vague" in this regard because they weren't written with low-context 21st century readers in mind. Golgotha was a place name, like "Mount of Olives." The place was well-known at least when the gospels were written. Ironically, you complain when John provides more detail! The location would be unexpected because 4th century Christians were most likely not aware of things like Jewish burial practices in the 1st century and (more importantly) it was now inside the walls, where John said it wasn't.

And Constantine pulled down all the Greek temples in Jerusalem, not just one.

Where did you get that information? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Constantine "pulled down" all the Roman temples in Jerusalem, the truly labor-intensive part of finding the tomb was removing all the fill material upon which the temple had been built.

Where are the statements from anyone living in the second and third century that Hadrian built a pagan temple over the site of Jesus' tomb?

There aren't any which have survived, as far as I know - which doesn't mean that there weren't any (Eusebius, for example, quotes many writings of Greek philosophy which are not otherwise extant). And (I repeat myself) that something wasn't written down immediately in no way means that the information is therefore false.

And remember, it is the Gospel of John that says that Jesus' was buried in the family tomb of Arimathea...but Stein tells us that scholars believe that "John" made up this detail...so then how do we know that "John" didn't make up the "just outside the walls" claim...and other claims only found in the Gospel of John?

It must be pure coincidence that the spot identified as Golgotha today is just outside the walls of early first-century Jerusalem, was a prominent spot ideal for displaying the humiliation of crucifixion, and had several rock-cut tombs of a type only utilized for a century or so on either side of the putative event (and could not have been used a decade later), in a garden, one of which was never even finished.

[Gary]

Nope. Archaeology is a very new field. People back then typically did not think along those lines.

The Gospels are only "vague" in this regard because they weren't written with low-context 21st century readers in mind. Golgotha was a place name, like "Mount of Olives." The place was well-known at least when the gospels were written. Ironically, you complain when John provides more detail! The location would be unexpected because 4th century Christians were most likely not aware of things like Jewish burial practices in the 1st century and (more importantly) it was now inside the walls, where John said it wasn't.

Where did you get that information? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Constantine "pulled down" all the Roman temples in Jerusalem, the truly labor-intensive part of finding the tomb was removing all the fill material upon which the temple had been built.

There aren't any which have survived, as far as I know - which doesn't mean that there weren't any (Eusebius, for example, quotes many writings of Greek philosophy which are not otherwise extant). And (I repeat myself) that something wasn't written down immediately in no way means that the information is therefore false.

It must be pure coincidence that the spot identified as Golgotha today is just outside the walls of early first-century Jerusalem, was a prominent spot ideal for displaying the humiliation of crucifixion, and had several rock-cut tombs of a type only utilized for a century or so on either side of the putative event (and could not have been used a decade later), in a garden, one of which was never even finished.

"The Gospels are only "vague" in this regard because they weren't written with low-context 21st century readers in mind. Golgotha was a place name, like "Mount of Olives." The place was well-known at least when the gospels were written. Ironically, you complain when John provides more detail! The location would be unexpected because 4th century Christians were most likely not aware of things like Jewish burial practices in the 1st century and (more importantly) it was now inside the walls, where John said it wasn't."

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. "The place was well-known at least when the Gospels were written." Yes, and the exact location of the cherry tree that George Washington allegedly cut down and about which he "could not tell a lie" was well known to the people of the eighteenth century.

Not so fast!

Both of these stories could just be legends, Pigster!


Gary: Where are the statements from anyone living in the second and third century that Hadrian built a pagan temple over the site of Jesus' tomb?
OBP: There aren't any which have survived, as far as I know - which doesn't mean that there weren't any...

Exactly! So the location could be true, but it could also not be true. We don't know either way because we have no statements from anyone during the two hundred years between "John" writing his story and Eusebius making his claims.

You are grasping at straws.

[Gary]

Will Nick, Stein, or Adrift please admit that scholarship (Magness) does NOT claim that it would have been implausible for any first century Jew to have moved a recently dead body from one burial site to another? Come on. Just admit it.

Therefore, it is possible that even if Arimathea was not a disciple of Jesus as Stein claims, and even if it is true that Arimathea did not bury the body in his personal, family tomb as Stein claims, but buried it in the Sanhedrin's prisoners' tomb, it is still possible that someone moved the body sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

[One Bad Pig]

- Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pg. 446

No one is arguing that Jesus was a typical case.

Jews buried criminals in entirely different locations as attested by the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5:

"And they did not bury them in the graves of their fathers, but two burying places were arranged for the Court (Beth Dīn), one for (those) stoned and (those) burned, and one for (those) beheaded and (those) strangled."

A unique grave was not necessary for crucified people, since crucifixion was not an official Jewish penalty.

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." So the Mishnah and the Tosefta definitely rule out Jesus' burial in Joseph's own family tomb but are we to imagine that there was a brand new empty criminal's tomb just waiting for Jesus?

Josephus comments on the end of a biblical thief, (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God (Jesus' original charge), (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).

So not only is it improbable that he would be allowed to be buried by the Romans, it's doubly improbable that he would be given a proper burial in a tomb by the Jews. Judging from all this historical evidence we should infer that Jesus was most likely buried in a grave that was reserved for criminals if he was even buried at all. It's highly unlikely that he was given his own "new" and "empty" tomb where "no one had ever been laid" like the later gospels describe.

And no one is arguing that he would be given a "proper burial" by "the Jews" or that he was given "his own 'new' and 'empty' tomb." The general argument is that a particular Jew (or rather Jews, as Nicodemus was also involved), who happened to be a follower of Jesus and was in a position of some authority, prepared the body for burial and laid it in his unfinished tomb. The line you quote from Jodi Magness, which I notice has proliferated on anti-apologetics sites, is similarly arguing against a position no one is taking. Tilt at windmills much?

I also note the unintended irony of you relying on, e.g., the Mishnah, which is rather later than the gospels you disparage for being late.