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

[One Bad Pig]

Let's sum up.

This is a good summation of your position.

1. Resurrection was not always "physical," meaning it did not necessarily involve the resuscitation of the corpse or resurrection of the flesh. If Paul had more of a spiritual resurrection in view then we shouldn't even expect an empty tomb. He equates the appearances without distinction in 1 Cor 15:5-8. There's no reason to think the other appearances were more "physical" than Paul's vision. Appealing to the later Gospel accounts is anachronistic.

If appealing to later gospel accounts is anachronistic, appealing to even later accounts without regard to their anti-material worldview is even more anachronistic. Your efforts notwithstanding, a physical resurrection is the most natural reading of the text.

2. The burial account in the Gospels contradicts what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial.

It contradicts normative Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial (albeit from an idealized perspective 2 centuries later), yes. However, we have equally ancient evidence (Josephus) that this was not followed without exception.

3. There are 5 sources which may indicate another burial tradition.

In some cases, only because they are not as precise; in others, there is no reason to consider them to be authentic.

4. There's no record of veneration or the location of Jesus' tomb for 300 years. The absence of this expected evidence is good evidence there was no such tomb.

Gary helpfully provided this article, which does show some such evidence, although absence of such is not unexpected given the situation (buried under a pagan temple for most of that time) and the vagaries of time.

[One Bad Pig]

Re-read the article yourself, did you?

Melito of Sardo said nothing about an empty tomb. He only mentioned "the holy sites".

Would the tomb have been a holy site?

And there is zero mention that graffiti was found in the tomb "discovered" under the pagan temple, only that there might have been graffiti and that this may have helped to convince Eusebius of the veracity of the location.

This is another case of Christians jumping to conclusions with the thinnest of evidence.

It is an assumption that Eusebius did not want the location under the pagan temple to be the correct spot.

It is an educated presumption based on the totality of Eusebius' extant works. This is often how history must be reconstructed, Christian or not. Funny how you hold up the author as someone whose opinions you respect only when they agree with your presuppositions.

The author even states that as Eusebius was the official host of the Empress, he probably felt pressured to go along with the presumption that the site was the correct location. And remember, the pagan temple had been built over a quarry. There were many quarries outside the walls of Jerusalem. When they were abandoned, they were used as "cemeteries": the vertical walls of the quarry were perfect for creating tombs. Therefore, finding a tomb under the pagan temple is not surprising. The fact that it was empty proves nothing, and the exact location of "Golgotha" then and now is not an established fact. The fact that it was outside the walls is not proof of its veracity. ALL tombs had to be a certain distance outside the walls of a city.

I've already addressed this. You're just handwaving away part of the evidence, while ignoring the rest (which is how you typically respond).

[Juice]

I'm using Josephus to show the diversity of resurrection belief among Jews, not as a specific interpreter/interlocutor of Jesus' resurrection which he does not mention.

anachronistic

But staying strictly with Paul, we have no reason to believe in an earthly stage.

Romansraised Jesus our Lord from the deadraised from the deadraised from the deadraised from the deadraised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the deadraised Him from the dead1 CorinthiansHe was raisedraised from the deaddead are not raisedChrist has been raised from the dead2 Corinthiansdied and rose againGalatiansraised Him from the deadEphesiansraised Him from the deadColossiansraised Him from the dead1 Thessaloniansraised from the deadegeirōprima facie

The authorship and sources of the gospels are disputed. In any case, firsthand eyewitness testimony always trumps secondhand hearsay. Therefore, all of your arguments depend on anachronistically reading in later views into the earliest sources. They just aren't there when you actually investigate the primary material.

An eyewitness account in John.

Against Heresies 3.1.1, c. 180AD.

Irenaeus tells us he met Polycarp who knew the disciples including John. So we have an unbroken line coming down to us from around 100 years after the last Gospel was probably written.

Not that we even need it after Irenaeus' testimony, but here is more external evidence for John.

Church History 3.24.17

CH 6.14.7

CH - John 1:14

- John 21:24


An eyewitness account in Matthew

- Papias, as recorded by Eusebius CH 3.39.16

- Irenaeus Against HeresiesCH 3.24.6-9.


The account of Luke who met witnesses.

The account of Mark who met witnesses.

CHGallic Wardirectobjective history here there is no reasonable way to dismiss the authorship of the Gospels without also doing likewise for works like the Gallic Wars since the evidence for the former is just as strong, if not stronger, than the latter. Said another way, if the authorship of works like the Gallic War is considered established beyond doubt then so should the authorship for the Gospels since the evidence for the latter is just as strong, if not stronger, than the former.

[Gary]

Re-read the article yourself, did you?

Would the tomb have been a holy site?

It is an educated presumption based on the totality of Eusebius' extant works. This is often how history must be reconstructed, Christian or not. Funny how you hold up the author as someone whose opinions you respect only when they agree with your presuppositions.

I've already addressed this. You're just handwaving away part of the evidence, while ignoring the rest (which is how you typically respond).

Would the Empty Tomb have been a holy site? Answer: Absolutely...if it existed! But that is the million dollar question, isn't it? Remember, early catholic/orthodox Christians venerated practically anything they believed had to do with Jesus or the apostles. So if a group of Christians living in Jerusalem in the second century said that a particular spot on a street in Jerusalem is where the Apostle Peter sneezed and five people were healed of epilepsy, the spot would have become a "holy site".

Not good enough. We need a statement from someone in the second or third centuries who states the exact location of the tomb and that it had been regularly venerated since the Resurrection. We don't have that.

And let's look at the political background of this situation: At the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD the bishop of Jerusalem was a subordinate to the bishop of Caesarea. Macarius was bishop of Jerusalem and Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea. At the Council of Nicea, Macarius got a chance to talk to Emperor Constantine, who was a new convert to the Christian religion. It was Macarius who convinced Constantine to build three great churches in Palestine on the sites of the birth of Christ, the death and burial of Christ, and the ascension of Christ. It was Macarius who told Constantine that tradition had placed the tomb of Jesus underneath Hadrian's pagan temple. It was Macarius who convinced Constantine to tear down the pagan temple, dig up the foundation, and find this empty tomb.

Eusebius, his boss, bishop of Caesarea, and essentially the ecclesiastical authority over all of Palestine, including Jerusalem, was dubious of Macarius' claim.

Now, think about that, dear Readers. If all of Christendom, for almost 300 years, knew the location of the Empty Tomb, why would the Bishop of Palestine doubt it's veracity??? Did Eusebius know that it was simply a tradition, not based on actual historical facts, but on guesses, assumptions, rumors, or hearsay?

To me, this is near absolute proof that the exact location of the Empty Tomb was not a known fact in the first four centuries. So what was it that convinced Eusebius of the veracity of the tomb found under the foundation of the pagan temple? Was it just because the tomb was empty? But wouldn't there most likely be tombs that were empty if the owners had not yet died and been buried prior to Hadrian filling in the quarry in which the tombs were located?

Was there graffiti on the walls that said, "Here lied Jesus of Nazareth, but he is risen"? We have no evidence that any graffiti was found in this particular tomb, but if it was, why is it no longer there? Who would have erased this incredible evidence???

Or, was the motivation for Eusebius final acceptance of the veracity of this tomb the fact that Constantine was spending a fortune tearing down this pagan temple and excavating the site in hopeful expectation of finding the tomb of his new Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, and, the Emperor's mother had just arrived from Rome to oversee the excavation and proclaim the discovery of Christ's tomb?

Answer: We will never know, but I say the evidence favors the latter.

[Kbertsche]

Verses 3-5 provide a twofold proof, (a) from scripture and (b) from confirmatory fact and theological interpretation of said fact. Thus "he was buried" is connected with the dying and not the resurrection of Jesus. Verses 3-5 are to be read as follows:

(a) Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and he was buried;
(b) he was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and he appeared (ophthe) to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

Agreed. There are two main claims in this early creed, with evidence presented for each of the two claims: 1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His burial), and 2) He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His appearances).

Moreover, the word for "raised" egēgertai is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning that the word had in it's 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context.

It is true that the basic word has a wide semantic range. But this does make the word meaningless or useless. Its specific meaning here is determined by the literary context. Starting with 1 Cor 15:12, Paul uses the word repeatedly in contrast with death. To be raised is to be alive, the opposite of being dead (vv. 21-22). It is to have a real body (v. 38).

I agree that vv. 42ff are confusing. Paul contrasts the "spiritual" resurrection body with the "soulish" or "natural" body. In isolation, this could be interpreted as saying that the resurrection body is not physical. But Paul says that believers will one day be raised and receive the same sort of body as Jesus (15:51ff). Paul seems to tell the Thessalonians that this future resurrection of believers will be physical. Thus, when viewed in the context of the rest of Paul's teaching, a physical, bodily resurrection is most likely meant in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Josephus doesn't mention Jesus' resurrection or the appearances. He does, however, offer a view of Pharisaic belief in resurrection therefore his testimony should be considered when evaluating the Pharisee Paul's claims. Did Josephus just make up this belief on the spot or is it more reasonable to assume he was talking about a traditional point of view that was ascribed to the Pharisees?

anachronistic

Same era doesn't matter. The Gospels literally come after Paul and are wildly inconsistent in their appearance reports. It is fallacious to assume that the later accounts must represent Paul's own view. Can you provide a valid reason for thinking the appearances in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were different without appealing to the later accounts?

egeirōprima facie understood as a return to life from the state of being dead necessarily implying an earthly physical resurrection.

No it doesn't. Read the sources about resurrection here pages 31-40. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

The word for "raised" egeirō is a non-sequitur due to the wide range of meaning that the word had in it's 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish context. Moreover, the Aramaic vorlage qum had an even wider range of meaning. Spirits and souls could be "raised" - 1 Enoch 22:13b, 1 Enoch 103:4, Jubilees 23:30-31, Daniel 12:2-3 may be referring to spirits being "raised" out of Sheol. If the word can mean "to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life" well there are a number of different ways this was envisioned other than just the resuscitation of a physical corpse. The diversity of sources clearly attest to this.

Considering the diversity of the sources, being "raised from the dead" need not entail that a body literally left an empty grave behind. There was no necessary connection. Paul only says "Jesus was raised." It's important to understand the distinction and the plethora of meanings this could have had to a 1st century Hellenistic-Jewish audience. Even if a literal "raising" of the body was meant by Paul or the earlier composers of the creed, how do we know that they meant "raised to earth" as opposed to "raised to heaven?"

I will only deal with Mark since Markan priority is assumed. Matthew and Luke largely plagiarized Mark's gospel and it doesn't make sense for eyewitnesses to copy so much of someone else's account if they witnessed the events themselves. Moreover, all of the accounts are written in third person and never claim to be written by eyewitnesses.

Most scholars think Mark, the earliest gospel, was written in Rome by a non-eyewitness for a gentile audience.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XC...page&q&f=false

Since the other authors Matthew and Luke copied Mark, we're already in gentile story land. Papias even admits that Mark was not an eyewitness so we already know that the bulk of Matthew and Luke is not eyewitness testimony right from the start.

The rest of this is copied verbatim because it sums up the rest nicely.

"Note that Papias does not quote from Mark or Matthew or give any information which would identify them specifically as the Canonical books. Those descriptions were used to identify anonymous books. The above mentioned Irenaeus decided that THIS must be the book written by Mark, and THIS must be the book written by Matthew.

The reason these identifications are now rejected by critical scholars is because the descriptions don't match the Canonical books. Papias says that Mark wrote down Peter's memoirs verbatim, and not in chronological order or any other order.

Mark's Gospel is very ordered and employs Greek literary sctructures called chiasms that can't happen from spontaneous speech (it would be like somebody speaking in iambic pentameter or exclusively in limericks). That becomes even more unlikely when the alleged speaker was an Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have known only pigeon Greek at best.

In addition, it needs to be remembered that the Gospel of Mark does not itself claim to be a memoir of Peter's, nor does the author claim to have known him. Furthermore, Mark's Gospel is anti-Petrine in tone and portrays Peter as an unredeemed coward who runs away and denies Jesus, and who himself is denied any witness of the resurrection. Why would a memoir of Peter's leave out any witness of a risen Jesus?

Mark is also written in a 3rd person, omniscient voice and includes scenes for which Peter could not have been a witness because, even internally to Mark's narrative, he wasn't there. The baptism by John the temptations in the wilderness, the prayer in Gethsemane and trial before the Sanhedrin for example.

Mark's Gospel also contains a number of geographical and legal errors would not be expected from a witness.
There are also scenes which appear to be based on rewritings of stories from the OT (particularly stories about Elijah and Elisha), but that's a whole other long argument." https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBib...hew_mark_luke/

[Gary]

Agreed. There are two main claims in this early creed, with evidence presented for each of the two claims: 1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His burial), and 2) He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His appearances).


It is true that the basic word has a wide semantic range. But this does make the word meaningless or useless. Its specific meaning here is determined by the literary context. Starting with 1 Cor 15:12, Paul uses the word repeatedly in contrast with death. To be raised is to be alive, the opposite of being dead (vv. 21-22). It is to have a real body (v. 38).

I agree that vv. 42ff are confusing. Paul contrasts the "spiritual" resurrection body with the "soulish" or "natural" body. In isolation, this could be interpreted as saying that the resurrection body is not physical. But Paul says that believers will one day be raised and receive the same sort of body as Jesus (15:51ff). Paul seems to tell the Thessalonians that this future resurrection of believers will be physical. Thus, when viewed in the context of the rest of Paul's teaching, a physical, bodily resurrection is most likely meant in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Did the resurrected Jesus have a "physical" body?

A body that glows, walks through locked doors, teleports between cities, and levitates into thin air is not human. It is supernatural (or "heavenly", if you wish). Isn't it possible that Paul believed that there is a distinction between a human physical body and a spiritual physical body?

Ghosts have human form but no one believes that they have an actual physical body. The disciples believed that they had seen a ghost when they saw Jesus walking on the water on the Sea of Galilee. This demonstrates that the disciples had the same perception of ghosts that we do today: a human form but not a real, physical body.

The story of Thomas poking his finger in nail and sword holes is most likely a later embellishment to the original appearance stories.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If appealing to later gospel accounts is anachronistic, appealing to even later accounts without regard to their anti-material worldview is even more anachronistic. Your efforts notwithstanding, a physical resurrection is the most natural reading of the text.

What are you talking about? I've already laid the necessary ground work that demonstrates

(a) There aren't enough sources to conclude that resurrection always involved a "physical" resuscitation of the corpse.
(b) The sources we do have show a diversity of views.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

It contradicts normative Roman crucifixion practice and Jewish criminal burial (albeit from an idealized perspective 2 centuries later), yes. However, we have equally ancient evidence (Josephus) that this was not followed without exception.

Ehrman's points call Josephus testimony on crucifixion into question. (I'm not allowed to post them here but I assume you are familiar?)
And Josephus also says 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). Now contrast that with the burial of Jesus which gets increasingly more noble as the gospel story develops - Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

Gary helpfully provided this article, which does show some such evidence, although absence of such is not unexpected given the situation (buried under a pagan temple for most of that time) and the vagaries of time.

Did you see all this?

Eusebius says the location of the tomb was previously unknown - "For, that the monument of his most holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath the ground, should have remained unknown for so long a series of years, until its reappearance to his servants now set free through the removal of him who was the common enemy of all, is a fact which truly surpasses all admiration." - Life of Constantine III, ch. 30.

So even if there was a pagan temple constructed on the actual site, we're supposed to believe that no early Christians preserved the tradition of where their Risen Lord was buried? They just failed to tell their descendants? And the location remained unknown for 300 years? Really?

"For given the significance of the tombs of saints at the time of Jesus it can be presupposed that had Jesus' tomb been known, the early Christians would have venerated it and traditions about it would have been preserved." - Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 45

"This world of sacred tombs was a real element of the environment in which the earliest community lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could have allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten. That is all the more the case since for it the one who had lain in the tomb was more than one of those just men, martyrs, and prophets." Joachim Jeremias, Heiligengraber in Jesu Umwelt, pg. 145.

"There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets." - Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah, pg. 1280.

"During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored." - William Lane Craig

"Was (the Resurrection) that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not?" - Alexander Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, pg. 64

Matthew 23:29


Luke 11:47
"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed."

"The fact that the tomb of Jesus was unknown and that at first people had no relics does not seem to have disturbed anyone for 300 years. On the other hand, one can detect from the tremendous power of the Turin shroud what would have happened had the tomb of Jesus with all its magic properties in fact been known. However, no one seems to have missed it. Of course people had the legends about the tomb, and the vanished Jesus could be identified without further ado with the heroes and god-men of the pagan past who had similarly vanished without a tomb. The tomb was only "rediscovered" when it was needed. That it was found under a temple of Venus as the "cave of salvation" in the year 326 CE, as Eusebius reports in his Life of Constantine (III, 25-30), could hardly be misunderstood in the politics of religion. The background was again a magical one, as is confirmed by the first representations of the tomb of Christ which appeared in art around 400 CE: they also appear on ampullae of pilgrims, which probably served apotropaic ends." - Hans Dieter Betz, Zum Problem der Auferstehung Jesu in Hellenismus und Urchristentum, Gesammelte Aufsatze 1, pg. 246.

[Adrift]

Agreed. There are two main claims in this early creed, with evidence presented for each of the two claims: 1) Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His burial), and 2) He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (as evidenced by His appearances).


It is true that the basic word has a wide semantic range. But this does make the word meaningless or useless. Its specific meaning here is determined by the literary context. Starting with 1 Cor 15:12, Paul uses the word repeatedly in contrast with death. To be raised is to be alive, the opposite of being dead (vv. 21-22). It is to have a real body (v. 38).

I agree that vv. 42ff are confusing. Paul contrasts the "spiritual" resurrection body with the "soulish" or "natural" body. In isolation, this could be interpreted as saying that the resurrection body is not physical. But Paul says that believers will one day be raised and receive the same sort of body as Jesus (15:51ff). Paul seems to tell the Thessalonians that this future resurrection of believers will be physical. Thus, when viewed in the context of the rest of Paul's teaching, a physical, bodily resurrection is most likely meant in 1 Cor 15:3-5.

Just a heads-up Kbertsche before you waste too much of your time, the spiritual body theory seems to be Rhinestone's hobbyhorse as demonstrated in this thread where he was caught plagiarizing Carrier, and dropping the same Google Book links to Outi Lehtipuu's Debates Over the Resurrection of the Dead any chance he can get.

[One Bad Pig]

What are you talking about? I've already laid the necessary ground work that demonstrates

(a) There aren't enough sources to conclude that resurrection always involved a "physical" resuscitation of the corpse.
(b) The sources we do have show a diversity of views.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false

Your "spiritual resurrection" theory is arguing against the teeth of the evidence, and very few scholars find it persuasive. Most sources, including the earliest sources, are either referring incontrovertibly to a physical resurrection or are most naturally interpreted in that way.

Ehrman's points call Josephus testimony on crucifixion into question. (I'm not allowed to post them here but I assume you are familiar?)
And Josephus also says 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).

You question Josephus' testimony, and then immediately cite it in support?

While I'm at it, and bored, it appears that there is, after all, another exception to standard crucifixion burial practice, in the case of a Jew. It appears that, when it comes to ancient Jewish practices, as well as your citation of Raymond Brown, you're being curiously selective.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this material, but perhaps psstein can check the quotes from Raymond Brown.

Now contrast that with the burial of Jesus which gets increasingly more noble as the gospel story develops - Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.

I don't find your 'just so story' of development persuasive.

Did you see all this?

Eusebius says the location of the tomb was previously unknown - "For, that the monument of his most holy Passion, so long ago buried beneath the ground, should have remained unknown for so long a series of years, until its reappearance to his servants now set free through the removal of him who was the common enemy of all, is a fact which truly surpasses all admiration." - Life of Constantine III, ch. 30.

So even if there was a pagan temple constructed on the actual site, we're supposed to believe that no early Christians preserved the tradition of where their Risen Lord was buried? They just failed to tell their descendants? And the location remained unknown for 300 years? Really?

It was only "unknown" because Eusebius didn't think the information was accurate.

"For given the significance of the tombs of saints at the time of Jesus it can be presupposed that had Jesus' tomb been known, the early Christians would have venerated it and traditions about it would have been preserved." - Gerd Luedemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, pg. 45

"This world of sacred tombs was a real element of the environment in which the earliest community lived. It is inconceivable that, living in this world, it could have allowed the tomb of Jesus to be forgotten. That is all the more the case since for it the one who had lain in the tomb was more than one of those just men, martyrs, and prophets." Joachim Jeremias, Heiligengraber in Jesu Umwelt, pg. 145.

"There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets." - Raymond Brown, Death of the Messiah, pg. 1280.

"During Jesus's time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored." - William Lane Craig

"Was (the Resurrection) that not in itself reason enough to note and remember and cherish the site, regardless of whether it contained Jesus' remains or not?" - Alexander Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, pg. 64

Matthew 23:29


Luke 11:47
"Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed."

Sure. It's amusing that you take Eusebius at his word when you want to, but otherwise, he was making stuff up. That the Romans picked two sites of Christian veneration to plonk down temples antithetical to their worship cannot have been a coincidence.

"The fact that the tomb of Jesus was unknown and that at first people had no relics does not seem to have disturbed anyone for 300 years. On the other hand, one can detect from the tremendous power of the Turin shroud what would have happened had the tomb of Jesus with all its magic properties in fact been known. However, no one seems to have missed it. Of course people had the legends about the tomb, and the vanished Jesus could be identified without further ado with the heroes and god-men of the pagan past who had similarly vanished without a tomb. The tomb was only "rediscovered" when it was needed. That it was found under a temple of Venus as the "cave of salvation" in the year 326 CE, as Eusebius reports in his Life of Constantine (III, 25-30), could hardly be misunderstood in the politics of religion. The background was again a magical one, as is confirmed by the first representations of the tomb of Christ which appeared in art around 400 CE: they also appear on ampullae of pilgrims, which probably served apotropaic ends." - Hans Dieter Betz, Zum Problem der Auferstehung Jesu in Hellenismus und Urchristentum, Gesammelte Aufsatze 1, pg. 246.

You're really good at finding congenial quotes on the internet, aren't you?

Dr. Betz (and Luedemann who depends on him) is a bit stuck in the past. These days, the dependence of early Christianity on Hellenism is shown to be rather unlikely. He's well into fringe territory here with the pagan copycat thesis.

[Gary]

Your "spiritual resurrection" theory is arguing against the teeth of the evidence, and very few scholars find it persuasive. Most sources, including the earliest sources, are either referring incontrovertibly to a physical resurrection or are most naturally interpreted in that way.

You question Josephus' testimony, and then immediately cite it in support?

While I'm at it, and bored, it appears that there is, after all, another exception to standard crucifixion burial practice, in the case of a Jew. It appears that, when it comes to ancient Jewish practices, as well as your citation of Raymond Brown, you're being curiously selective.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this material, but perhaps psstein can check the quotes from Raymond Brown.



I don't find your 'just so story' of development persuasive.

It was only "unknown" because Eusebius didn't think the information was accurate.

Sure. It's amusing that you take Eusebius at his word when you want to, but otherwise, he was making stuff up. That the Romans picked two sites of Christian veneration to plonk down temples antithetical to their worship cannot have been a coincidence.

You're really good at finding congenial quotes on the internet, aren't you?

Dr. Betz (and Luedemann who depends on him) is a bit stuck in the past. These days, the dependence of early Christianity on Hellenism is shown to be rather unlikely. He's well into fringe territory here with the pagan copycat thesis.

The fact that Eusebius was initially unsure of the location of the Empty Tomb is the best proof that early Christians did NOT maintain a chain of custody for the location of this alleged site...if they ever had. If they had maintained a chain of custody regarding the location of this site, how likely would it be that in 325 AD, the Bishop of Palestine would be unsure as to the location of the holiest plot of real estate in all of Christendom???

So what was it that changed Eusebius' mind as to the location of this most sacred of sites in the Christian religion? Was it evidence or politics? Read the article and decide for yourself.

[DesertBerean]

The fact that Eusebius was initially unsure of the location of the Empty Tomb is the best proof that early Christians did NOT maintain a chain of custody for the location of this alleged event...if they ever had. If they had maintained a chain of custody regarding the location of this site, how likely would it be that in 325 AD, the Bishop of Palestine would be unsure as to its location???

So what was it that changed Eusebius mind as to the location of this most sacred of sites in the Christian religion? Was it evidence or politics? Read the article and decide for yourself.

*groan*

[Gary]

*groan*

Did you read the article or are you just having a gout attack?

[DesertBerean]

My health is fine.

The article's writer made it clear he considered Eusebius to be politically motivated NOT to believe there would be anything to find in that location. The author said it was Eusebius's historian training that forced him to acknowledge that his rival had made such a finding that could not be ignored.

[One Bad Pig]

The fact that Eusebius was initially unsure of the location of the Empty Tomb is the best proof that early Christians did NOT maintain a chain of custody for the location of this alleged site...if they ever had. If they had maintained a chain of custody regarding the location of this site, how likely would it be that in 325 AD, the Bishop of Palestine would be unsure as to the location of the holiest plot of real estate in all of Christendom???

So what was it that changed Eusebius' mind as to the location of this most sacred of sites in the Christian religion? Was it evidence or politics? Read the article and decide for yourself.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, Gary. A good start might be to loosen your evidential blinders filters enough to allow contrary evidence to your beliefs to at least brush your consciousness.