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

[Adrift]

Exactly. Magness states that the Gospels accurately reflect Jewish burial customs but also states that it would not have been unusual or a violation of Jewish law for someone to have moved the body after the Sabbath had ended.

You don't find it all strange that you're now relying on a scholar who refutes an argument you previously relied on?

[Adrift]

Yes, and those other reasons are: You don't want to accept the truth!

Of course I do. Magness' claim about the lack of prohibition on moving the body after the Sabbath doesn't effect the claims of the Gospel either way. I'd still be interested in seeing how she handles those passages from the Talmud that contradict her claim though.

[Adrift]

And again we come to the issue of probabilities. For non-supernaturalists, the probability that the Sanhedrin would immediately (sunset Saturday) get Jesus' body out of Armathea's family tomb and into an unmarked criminal grave is much, much higher than your supernatural tale of a dead body exiting his sealed tomb. You on the other hand, as a supernaturalist, see just the opposite.

We will never come to an agreement on this issue until one of us adopts the other's worldview regarding the existence of an unseen, unproven, supernatural dimension.

It has nothing to do with being a "supernaturalist". Even non-Christians scholars like Vermes don't believe it's likely the body was moved. It would have been a non-issue to discover who moved the body in that case, and the Sanhedrin would have certainly mentioned if they had claimed the body rather than asserting the disciples stole it.

[Gary]

You don't find it all strange that you're now relying on a scholar who refutes an argument you previously relied on?

???

Magness specifically states that if the Gospels are correct...so, if Pilate gave the body of Jesus to Arimathea, and if Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus, and if Arimathea buried Jesus in his family tomb, it would be very unusual to leave the body of a non-family member in Arimathea's family tomb. It would be more likely that after the Sabbath had ended (Saturday night) the body would have been moved. In addition, she does state that the Jewish burial customs as described in the Gospels are accurate IF the Gospel stories are true. She does not comment (at least in that particular article which was discussing the alleged "Jesus family tomb") on the probability of Pilate giving the body of a peasant executed for treason an honorable burial. She is simply going with the story as told.

Do you now get it?

[Adrift]

???

Magness specifically states that if the Gospels are correct...so, if Pilate gave the body of Jesus to Arimathea, and if Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus, and if Arimathea buried Jesus in his family tomb, it would be very unusual to leave the body of a non-family member in Arimathea's family tomb. It would be more likely that after the Sabbath had ended (Saturday night) the body would have been moved. In addition, she does state that the Jewish burial customs as described in the Gospels are accurate IF the Gospel stories are true. She does not comment (at least in that particular article which was discussing the alleged "Jesus family tomb") on the probability of Pilate giving the body of a peasant executed for treason an honorable burial. She is simply going with the story as told.

Do you now get it?

Source: Adrift

She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."

© Copyright Original Source

[Gary]

Of course I do. Magness' claim about the lack of prohibition on moving the body after the Sabbath doesn't effect the claims of the Gospel either way. I'd still be interested in seeing how she handles those passages from the Talmud that contradict her claim though.

It certainly affects the argument put forward by Nick Peters, backed up by Stein and yourself, that no first century Jew would have moved a recently deceased body. Therefore your claim that "the body was moved explanation as the reason for the empty tomb is implausible" is proven to be false. It is funny how big you are on scholarship until scholarship proves one of your key arguments holding your supernatural tale together is false.

I accept scholarship on all issues related to ancient historical claims. I usually accept the majority scholarly position, but when I don't such as with the Empty Tomb, I side with a respectable minority scholarly position. Can you say the same regarding this issue? Is there a sizable minority of scholars who disagree with Magness? Please provide scholars/experts in the field (who are still living) who believe that it would have been a violation of first century Jewish law to move a recently deceased body. I'm not interested in what one or two non-experts believes on this subject.

[Gary]

It has nothing to do with being a "supernaturalist". Even non-Christians scholars like Vermes don't believe it's likely the body was moved. It would have been a non-issue to discover who moved the body in that case, and the Sanhedrin would have certainly mentioned if they had claimed the body rather than asserting the disciples stole it.

"would have certainly" = assumption.

And how about quoting a scholar who is still alive?

[Gary]

Source: Adrift

She also makes the argument, contra Ehrman (and Gary) and in agreement with Craig Evans that, "The following passage from Josephus indicates that the Jews buried victims of Roman crucifixion in accordance with Jewish law: 'Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun' (Jewish War 4.5.2)."

© Copyright Original Source

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. You have no proof that this comment refers to Roman practices during the time of Jesus. In addition, Josephus specifically uses the term "malefactors" (thieves, etc.) as the persons crucified in these situations. We have no evidence that Jesus was crucified for being a "malefactor".

[DesertBerean]

Magness said the bodies buried in tombs were NORMALLY left there until there were no more room for new burials, then collected into ossaries. Why would Adrift or Nick take this as meaning that Jesus's body was moved after all? Unless you refer to her suggestion that the family MIGHT have had the body moved on Saturday night to a trench?

[DesertBerean]

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. You have no proof that this comment refers to Roman practices during the time of Jesus. In addition, Josephus specifically uses the term "malefactors" (thieves, etc.) as the persons crucified in these situations. We have no evidence that Jesus was crucified for being a "malefactor".

[Gary]

Magness said the bodies buried in tombs were NORMALLY left there until there were no more room for new burials, then collected into ossaries. Why would Adrift or Nick take this as meaning that Jesus's body was moved after all? Unless you refer to her suggestion that the family MIGHT have had the body moved on Saturday night to a trench?

I'm not sure I follow your point.

Magness is going with the story as told in the Gospel of John. In this Gospel, Arimathea buries Jesus in his family tomb. Magness says this only makes sense if the reason for the burial in that particular tomb was just to get the body off the land for the Sabbath. It would have then been moved out after the Sabbath. According to Magness, it would be extremely unlikely that the body of a non-family member would be left in someone else's family tomb.

Stein gets around this dilemma by stating that the author of John is incorrect. The tomb in which Arimathea buried Jesus was the Sanhedrin criminal tomb, not Arimathea's family tomb. Adrift gets around this problem by saying that the scholar (Magness) is wrong and that his two evangelical non-scholars are correct.

[Adrift]

It certainly affects the argument put forward by Nick Peters, backed up by Stein and yourself, that no first century Jew would have moved a recently deceased body. Therefore your claim that "the body was moved explanation as the reason for the empty tomb is implausible" is proven to be false. It is funny how big you are on scholarship until scholarship proves one of your key arguments holding your supernatural tale together is false.

I don't remember ever claiming that Jesus' body could not be moved. If I had, then cite me. This is what I remember claiming.

1/29/2016

Your analogies suck. You're the one offering the claim that should be looked at with skepticism when you say that Jews would have moved a body on the Sabbath. You are the Bigfoot Believer, not Leonhard.

No, I'm asking you to support your claim that 2nd Temple Jews would have removed a corpse from its grave on the Sabbath. Give us an example. Jesus' own followers wouldn't even break the sabbath to finish the preparation of the body.

You're the one with the extraordinary claim. You're the one that is asking us to accept the claim that Bigfoot exists.

2/2/2016

No one argued that bodies could not be removed from the grave in ancient Israel. psstein even offered a similar example in a recent post. In the 1st century, especially in Jerusalem, bodies were laid out in tombs, and once the flesh had rotted away, the bones were moved to an ossuary. It's very likely that Jesus' burial in Joseph of Arimathea's grave was a temporary situation as dictated in Mishnah Sanhedrin:

6 How do they hang him? They sink the beam into the ground, and [a piece of] wood protrudes from it, and one places his hands together, and hangs him. Rabbi Yose says, the beam leans on a wall, and they hang him the way that butchers do. And then they undo him [from the gallows] immediately. If he stayed there overnight, [the court] violates a negative commandment on his account, as it says, (Deuteronomy 21:23), "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is a reproach unto God...." That is to say: why has he been hanged? Because he 'blessed' [i.e. cursed] God, and God's name has become desecrated.

7 Said Rabbi Meir, when a human being is in distress, what expression does the Divine Presence use, as it were? "My head is in pain, My arm is in pain." If so, the Omnipresent feels distress over the blood of the wicked that is spilled; how much more so [does He] over the blood of the righteous. And furthermore, anyone who leaves a dead body hanging overnight transgresses a negative commandment. But if one leaves a body hanging overnight for the sake of its honor, to bring it a coffin or shroud, he does not transgress [a negative commandment]. And such a body [i.e. that of one stoned to death] would not be buried in the grave of his ancestors. Rather, two grave-sites were set for the courthouse, one for those put to death by decapitation and strangulation, and one for those put to death by stoning and burning.

8 When the flesh decomposed, they collect the bones and bury them in their proper place. And the relatives come and greet the judges and the witnesses, as if to say, we hold nothing against you, since [we know that] your verdict was just. And they would not [observe rituals of] mourn[ing], but they would grieve, since grief is only in the heart.

What did not happen is the movement of bodies on the Sabbath, nor the handling of the recently deceased outside of close family and followers since coming into contact with a corpse was considered unclean.

All of the above has already been covered in other threads. I actually mentioned the above Mishnah in the Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus that you posted in. Since you're not at all interested in gaining understanding, but instead soapboxing, you can't be bothered to actually read what's being posted in these threads.

What does Magness say?

Source: Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?

...there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave...

© Copyright Original Source

I accept scholarship on all issues related to ancient historical claims. I usually accept the majority scholarly position, but when I don't such as with the Empty Tomb, I side with a respectable minority scholarly position.

No you do not. You flip flop more than a fish out of water. Your initial position was that the body was removed on the Sabbath. Then your position was that Jesus was never buried. Now it's that Jesus was buried, but that it was removed after the Sabbath.

Can you say the same regarding this issue?

Regarding whether or not bodies could be moved soon after the Sabbath? Sure. Like I said, doesn't affect the central claim that Jesus was not moved either way for other reasons.

Is there a sizable minority of scholars who disagree with Magness? Please provide scholars/experts in the field who believe that it would have been a violation of first century Jewish law to move a recently deceased body. I'm not interested in what one or two non-experts believes on this subject.

Well, one non-expert actually, but a non-expert using early manuscript sources. I don't know what minority or majority scholarship says on the subject, that's why I'm interested in how Magness would deal with Miller's objection.

[DesertBerean]

I'm not sure I follow your point.

Magness is going with the story as told in the Gospel of John. In this Gospel, Arimathea buries Jesus in his family tomb. Magness says this only makes sense if the reason for the burial in that particular tomb was just to get the body off the land for the Sabbath. It would have then been moved out after the Sabbath. According to Magness, it would be extremely unlikely that the body of a non-family member would be left in someone else's family tomb.

Stein gets around this dilemma by stating that the author of John is incorrect. The tomb in which Arimathea buried Jesus was the Sanhedrin criminal tomb, not Arimathea's family tomb. Adrift gets around this problem by saying that the scholar (Magness) is wrong and that his two evangelical non-scholars are correct.

Ah, I see. She says it would be extremely unlikely. Stein's comments is of course consistent with his view of John; I note however that some others here don't seem to agree there was a criminal tomb. But I don't see where Adrift said Magness was wrong per se, since all she said was there were two explanations about the tomb being empty.

Since tracking your flip-flops take too much time, I'll leave it to your three to discuss this yourselves.

[Adrift]

"would have certainly" = assumption.

It's not an assumption. It's an argument based on what we know about the behavior of Jesus' followers and the polemics of his movement's enemies.

And how about quoting a scholar who is still alive?

Uh, why? It's not like Vermes died in the 19th century. He died in 2013 and as far as I know his work is still regarded as relevant by NT scholars. Have you heard otherwise?

[Adrift]

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus. You have no proof that this comment refers to Roman practices during the time of Jesus. In addition, Josephus specifically uses the term "malefactors" (thieves, etc.) as the persons crucified in these situations. We have no evidence that Jesus was crucified for being a "malefactor".

But you do agree that Mangness made the quoted claim, correct?