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

[DesertBerean]

Will Nick, Stein, or Adrift please admit that scholarship (Magness) states that first century Jews in first century Palestine often moved recently dead bodies from one burial site to another and that such an action would not have violated Jewish law or custom?

But she doesn't say that, does she? She only said in the article you provided that they moved the bodies when there was no more room and placed them in ossaries. She DOES say it's possible the family moved Jesus into a trench grave, when discussing the theories for the empty tomb. Nothing about how often this was done.

[psstein]

Likewise, we can't point to the gospels and say "look, see Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb." I'm familiar with Vermes, Neusner, Aus, and others. I'm not as ignorant as you make it seem and tend to have the same reaction every time you respond to me - "tell me something I don't know."

Many people are ignorant of the material... it's nice that someone actually cares to read it. I'm used to dealing with people who make fundamentalist arguments and ignore scholarly works.

I don't think Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb. I think Jesus was buried in a tomb owned by the Sanhedrin, or something like that.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Another alternative theory is that Jesus could have been temporarily buried in a tomb only to meet the Sabbath deadline. Later, someone moved his body to a common criminals grave and when the women went to the tomb his body was missing. This is much more plausible than an actual resurrection happening.

[Gary]

Many people are ignorant of the material... it's nice that someone actually cares to read it. I'm used to dealing with people who make fundamentalist arguments and ignore scholarly works.

I don't think Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb. I think Jesus was buried in a tomb owned by the Sanhedrin, or something like that.

Stein: Do you agree with Magness' statement that it would not be a violation of Jewish law for a first century Jew to move a recently deceased body from one burial site to another?

[psstein]

Another alternative theory is that Jesus could have been temporarily buried in a tomb only to meet the Sabbath deadline. Later, someone moved his body to a common criminals grave and when the women went to the tomb his body was missing. This is much more plausible than an actual resurrection happening.

James Tabor argued that in a (fairly) recent book. I think you'd then have to account for the silence of whomever moved the body.

[psstein]

Stein: Do you agree with Magness' statement that it would not be a violation of Jewish law for a first century Jew to move a recently deceased body from one burial site to another?

I don't think anybody has claimed that it's a violation of Jewish law. It isn't a violation, per se. I think there are other considerations that militate against it.

[Gary]

I don't think anybody has claimed that it's a violation of Jewish law. It isn't a violation, per se. I think there are other considerations that militate against it.

What??

I argued on another thread that there was time between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning for someone to take the body (even if we accept Matthew's guards as historical). You and Nick both stated that it is implausible that any first century Jew would have moved a recently deceased body; they had to wait a period of time until only bones remained before moving the body (placing them in an ossuary). With that being the case, you both stated that there is no plausible natural explanation for the empty tomb.

You are now changing your story??

If Magness is right, the Sanhedrin could have moved Jesus' body Saturday sundown and dumped it in a criminals' dirt grave, or, they could have given the body to some of Jesus' family to bury somewhere else. How can you still claim that a natural explanation for the empty tomb is "implausible"?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

James Tabor argued that in a (fairly) recent book. I think you'd then have to account for the silence of whomever moved the body.

Why would the people who moved the body care? To them it was just another day of work and another executed criminal. If they were moving bodies all day it would be pretty hard to remember exactly where a specific one was especially if it was placed in a mass grave. We don't even know how long it took for the earliest Christians to start proclaiming the Resurrection. Acts says it took 40 days (which is theological not historical) and by that time most likely the location would have been forgotten and Jesus' corpse would have been unrecognizable.

There's also evidence of a conflicting burial tradition within the New Testament. This is highlighted by Luedemann in The Resurrection of Jesus and Raymond Brown in The Burial of Jesus.

Acts 13:27-29 says it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. The book dates early to mid second century which may indicate the author had no knowledge of the burial found in the other gospels. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. This seems to conflict with the synoptics which have Joseph of Arimathea acting alone and which get conspicuously more detailed in an apologetic manner. Matthew turns Joseph into a "disciple" of Jesus while Luke says "he had not consented to their plan and action."
https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...page&q&f=false

[Gary]

James Tabor argued that in a (fairly) recent book. I think you'd then have to account for the silence of whomever moved the body.

1. The Sanhedrin moved the body Saturday night, tossed it into an unmarked hole in the ground, and covered it up. They had only put the body in Arimathea's tomb in the first place because they had had only a short amount of time Friday afternoon between taking Jesus off the cross and the sun going down (the beginning of the Sabbath) to get Jesus' body into the ground. The Christian movement (within Judaism) was never the big deal that the Gospels and Acts make it out to be. Only a very small number of Jews ever converted, therefore, the Sanhedrin could care less if a few peasants believed that the empty tomb meant a resurrection.

2. The body was secretly given to Jesus' father, Joseph, who buried it in an unmarked grave somewhere known only to him. Joseph had never believed that Jesus was the Messiah and believed that his son and his wife, Mary, were nut cases. Joseph took his secret to his grave.

3. The Sanhedrin was paid a large sum of money to release the body to a secret, rich friend of Jesus, to be buried in this friend's secret tomb. The friend's name: Mary Magdalene.

Mary M. only pretended to be surprised on Sunday morning as she visited the tomb with the other women. She was only too happy to allow the legend to take off that Jesus was resurrected---she was then beyond suspicion for taking the body for herself.

[Raphael]

1. The Sanhedrin moved the body Saturday night, tossed it into an unmarked hole in the ground, and covered it up. They had only put the body in Arimathea's tomb in the first place because they had had only a short amount of time Friday afternoon between taking Jesus off the cross and the sun going down (the beginning of the Sabbath) to get Jesus' body into the ground. The Christian movement (within Judaism) was never the big deal that the Gospels and Acts make it out to be. Only a very small number of Jews ever converted, therefore, the Sanhedrin could care less if a few peasants believed that the empty tomb meant a resurrection.

The Sanhedrin had a vested interest on making sure that Jesus body stayed in a known location given that Jesus had already predicted that he would rise from the dead (That's why they got Pilate to post soldiers outside the tomb.
So secretly disposing of the body was against their best interests.

2. The body was secretly given to Jesus' father, Joseph, who buried it in an unmarked grave somewhere known only to him. Joseph had never believed that Jesus was the Messiah and believed that his son and his wife, Mary, were nut cases. Joseph took his secret to his grave.

By all accounts Joseph died before Jesus' ministry started.

3. The Sanhedrin was paid a large sum of money to release the body to a secret, rich friend of Jesus, to be buried in this friend's secret tomb. The friend's name: Mary Magdalene.

Mary M. only pretended to be surprised on Sunday morning as she visited the tomb with the other women. She was only too happy to allow the legend to take off that Jesus was resurrected---she was then beyond suspicion for taking the body for herself.

Again it would have been against the interests of the Sanhedrin to do this.

All three scenarios are implausible based on the information we have.

[Gary]

The Sanhedrin had a vested interest on making sure that Jesus body stayed in a known location given that Jesus had already predicted that he would rise from the dead (That's why they got Pilate to post soldiers outside the tomb.
So secretly disposing of the body was against their best interests.

By all accounts Joseph died before Jesus' ministry started.

Again it would have been against the interests of the Sanhedrin to do this.

All three scenarios are implausible based on the information we have.

"The Sanhedrin had a vested interest on making sure that Jesus body stayed in a known location given that Jesus had already predicted that he would rise from the dead (That's why they got Pilate to post soldiers outside the tomb. So secretly disposing of the body was against their best interests."

You are assuming that Matthew's "guard story" is historical and that Jesus really did predict his resurrection. However, even Christians like Stein say that scholars believe that both of these passages are embellished fiction...or "redacted".

"By all accounts Joseph died before Jesus' ministry started."

Maybe Joseph wasn't mentioned because he was a non-believer. The authors of the Gospels found this embarrassing for their Jesus Story...so they left him out.

"Again it would have been against the interests of the Sanhedrin to do this."

Even Nick Peters suggests that the Gospels exaggerate Jesus' importance. "This is why Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, never mentions Jesus even once." So the Sanhedrin wouldn't have given a rat's behind about whether or not a handful of Galilean peasants believed that their leader had been raised from the dead. The Sanhedrin knew that the overwhelming majority of Jews would never believe this preposterous Dying/Rising Messiah Story---and they were right: only a very, very small number of Jews have converted to Christianity over the last 2,000 years.

"All three scenarios are implausible based on the information we have."

The only information you have are four books of Christian evangelization (propaganda), written decades after the alleged events, by anonymous authors, writing in lands far away, none of whom were eyewitnesses to any of the alleged events they wrote about---according to the opinion of the majority of NT scholars.

[DesertBerean]

Much as I begin to dislike the argument from silence, I have to wonder at the non-response of the officials regarding the claims of the resurrection:

1. They never produced the body of Jesus.

2. They said nothing about Jesus to Peter and John when they confronted them about their preaching of Jesus's resurrection after they had healed a lame man (Acts 4:5-14). Perfect time for them to prove they had the body of Jesus, while they had the healed man and the upstarts right there. Nope, they just told them not to preach in Jesus's name or else.

3. Saul didn't bring out the evidence of Jesus's remains either. He instead persecuted the believers.

Dang. Something smells here.

[Raphael]

You are assuming that Matthew's "guard story" historical and that Jesus really did predict his resurrection. However, even Christians like Stein says that scholars believe that both of these passages are embellished fiction...or "redacted".

Please cite where psstein claims that the majority of NT scholars believe that Matthew's account about the guards is "embellished fiction". Additionally you seem to be ignoring psstein's clarification as to what he means by a redaction.



Here is a very interesting PhD thesis on the topic (where the conclusion is that it was a later tradition possible in acknowledging Jewish apologists saying that the body was stolen....it's over 200 pages): https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handl...iemi_matti.pdf

[Gary]

Much as I begin to dislike the argument from silence, I have to wonder at the non-response of the officials regarding the claims of the resurrection:

1. They never produced the body of Jesus.

2. They said nothing about Jesus to Peter and John when they confronted them about their preaching of Jesus's resurrection after they had healed a lame man (Acts 4:5-14). Perfect time for them to prove they had the body of Jesus, while they had the healed man and the upstarts right there. Nope, they just told them not to preach in Jesus's name or else.

3. Saul didn't bring out the evidence of Jesus's remains either. He instead persecuted the believers.

Dang. Something smells here.

You are assuming that the stories written in the Book of Acts are historical facts. You are assuming that Jesus and his handful of followers were considered a threat to the ruling Jewish authorities. If Jesus had been the major threat to Judaism that the Gospels and Acts make him out to be, why did Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, never mention him? Philo mentioned Pilate; several times. But nothing about Jesus. Nothing at all. Nothing about the great Jesus, leader of thousands, who was interrogated by Pilate himself, and executed as "the King of the Jews" accompanied by two earthquakes, dead saints shaken out of their tombs to roam the streets of Jerusalem to chat up old friends, the tearing in two of the Temple veil, sightings of angels, and over 500 eyewitnesses claiming to see his resurrected body.

But nope. Not...one...word.

I don't buy the mythicist's argument that Philo's silence proves that Jesus did not exist, but to me, it proves that Jesus was an insignificant messiah pretender. His teachings never caught on in Judaism. Very few Jews ever believed. That is why within decades Christianity had become an overwhelmingly Gentile religion.

The Sanhedrin had no need to trot out a body. No one (within Judaism) believed it...or at least, no one but a few uneducated peasants. And how could they trot out the body? It wasn't as if it had been buried in some rich man's tomb, for Pete's sake. It was decomposing in an unmarked, common dirt grave, mixed with the decomposing, unrecognizable bones of other executed peasant criminals, as was the custom, both Roman and Jewish, for disposing of the bodies of peasant criminals.

And that, dear Readers, is why no one ever "trotted out" the body.

"Saul didn't bring out the evidence of Jesus's remains either. He instead persecuted the believers."

So much for Matthew's guards. That fact that Saul didn't buy the Resurrection Story puts a hole in the claim that the Empty Tomb was such a powerful piece of evidence for the Resurrection. If there really was an empty tomb, Saul obviously believed that there were plenty of PLAUSIBLE, NATURAL EXPLANATIONS for it being EMPTY! If the evidence had been as overwhelming as Christians claim, Paul wouldn't have needed to see Jesus (or at least a bright light) with his own two eyes!

Anyway...

The claim that the Empty Tomb was indisputable proof of a resurrection fails!

Big time.

[Gary]

Please cite where psstein claims that the majority of NT scholars believe that Matthew's account about the guards is "embellished fiction". Additionally you seem to be ignoring psstein's clarification as to what he means by a redaction.



Here is a very interesting PhD thesis on the topic (where the conclusion is that it was a later tradition possible in acknowledging Jewish apologists saying that the body was stolen....it's over 200 pages): https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handl...iemi_matti.pdf

to redact: to obscure or remove (text) from a document prior to publication or release

So is that what Stein is telling us that "Matthew", "Luke", and "John" did? They obscured or removed text from the first Gospel of Mark...God's Holy Word???

Baloney. They didn't delete...they added. They added details to the story to turn Arimathea from a devout Jew into a secret, Jew-despising, Christian disciple. Come on, Christians. Wake up and smell the coffee! The Jesus Story became more and more embellished as each new Gospel "rolled off the presses"...or at least as the newly-inked parchments rolled off of each gospel author's desk.