Vergari,
The point is not to argue over fine points about the grave type belonging to the very wealthy or to the aristocratic. The point is that this type of grave , did not belong to the common man, being rock hewn and close to the city walls. Furthermore, only 4 such graves with circular disks have been located outside Jerusalem, and they are said to have belonged to royals or very wealthy.
The difficulty of moving the large stone is stated by Mark. There is nothing in the text that indicates that the stone was corkscrew-shaped. According to Amos Kloner, 98 percent where square (Do a google search). And they would be even more difficult to move, depending on the size, of course.
Do you mean cork-shaped? The images I have seen of cork shaped stones are square, with an outer plate, so that the the square block part is inserted into the opening, while the outer plate appears in the front of the opening. If that is the case, the women would be in even greater trouble.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
gavriel said
Vergari,The point is not to argue over fine points about the grave type belonging to the very wealthy or to the aristocratic. The point is that this type of grave , did not belong to the common man, being rock hewn and close to the city walls.
Translation: “The point is not to argue over the details of my argument. The point is that what I posted is correct.”
Sorry. I don’t find this technique of argument very persuasive.
You can keep repeating that “rock hewn and close to the city walls” “did not belong to the common man” over and over again, as if in cadence, it doesn’t change what archaeology shows.
If your argument is so strong, why do you need to corrupt the record to make it??
Rock-cut tombs were remarkably ubiquitous in First Century Jerusalem. We have abundant archaeological evidence on this point.
Please point me in Mark where it is written that the tomb is “close to the city walls.”
We haven’t even gotten into this, but Mark doesn’t even say that Joseph placed Jesus in his own family’s tomb.
gavriel said
Vergari,The difficulty of moving the large stone is stated by Mark.
Exactly. The point here is that the finely-cut, disc-shaped stones we’ve found are not large and are not difficult to move.
gavriel said
Vergari,Do you mean cork-shaped?
Yes. Sorry. I was typing too quickly.
gavriel said
Vergari,There is nothing in the text that indicates that the stone was corkscrew-shaped. According to Amos Kloner, 98 percent where square (Do a google search). And they would be even more difficult to move, depending on the size, of course.
So here’s the problem. I don’t think you’ve actually read this material.
The point Amos Kloner is making is not that the Gospels got it wrong, but that our translation of the koiné Greek word “kuliō,” which go back hundreds of years, is wrong.
[W]e must remember that “rolled” is a translation of the Greek word kulio, which can also mean “dislodge,” “move back” or simply “move.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
vergari said
Translation: “The point is not to argue over the details of my argument. The point is that what I posted is correct.”
Sorry. I don’t find this technique of argument very persuasive.
You can keep repeating that “rock hewn and close to the city walls” “did not belong to the common man” over and over again, as if in cadence, it doesn’t change what archaeology shows.
If your argument is so strong, why do you need to corrupt the record to make it??
Rock-cut tombs were remarkably ubiquitous in First Century Jerusalem. We have abundant archaeological evidence on this point.
Please point me in Mark where it is written that the tomb is “close to the city walls.”
We haven’t even gotten into this, but Mark doesn’t even say that Joseph placed Jesus in his own family’s tomb.
My source for the social status of rock hewn tombs with sealing stones is this Wikipedia article:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The traditional interpretation of the placement of the grave have always been that it was close to the execution place that would have been outside the city walls. This is directly stated in the gospel of John. Implicitly it also follows from the scarcity of time between death and nightfall even in the Synoptics. Also, Mark has in on single operation the taking down of the body, the application of linen, and placement into a grave. There is no mention of a prolonged transport to distant graveyards.
My main point is that it is highly illogical that the women on their own decide to buy spices in order to access the grave, knowing full well that the grave was inaccessible, without any agreement with Joseph and implicitly without co-operation with the male disciples. This clearly shows the legendary character of the tale, in particular as I have said, the story breaks down if the supernatural opening is removed. This is of course not a big problem for those who believe in supernatural events, but as historians we cannot do this.
vergari said
Exactly. The point here is that the finely-cut, disc-shaped stones we’ve found are not large and are not difficult to move.
gavriel said
Vergari,
Do you mean cork-shaped?Yes. Sorry. I was typing too quickly.
gavriel said
Vergari,
There is nothing in the text that indicates that the stone was corkscrew-shaped. According to Amos Kloner, 98 percent where square (Do a google search). And they would be even more difficult to move, depending on the size, of course.So here’s the problem. I don’t think you’ve actually read this material.
The point Amos Kloner is making is not that the Gospels got it wrong, but that our translation of the koiné Greek word “kuliō,” which go back hundreds of years, is wrong.
[W]e must remember that “rolled” is a translation of the Greek word kulio, which can also mean “dislodge,” “move back” or simply “move.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I think I got Kloner’s point. And I have already said that it doesn’t matter if Mark could be interpreted to mean “manipulating a cork shaped stone”. That just makes the probability of the story less, since it would be even less possible to move the stone. No rational people would get up in the middle of the night to access a grave when knowing the reality of such a sealing stone, without some agreement. And in particular not in a dangerous position in which the group as a whole was endangered and on the run!
Acts 2:29-32 English Standard Version (ESV)
29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
__________________
What can I say? When I read this passage the first thing that jumps out at me is that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne. I ask myself, how did God swear an oath? Does God do things that humans do? Does God have a mouth to swear oaths with? I also question whether there is a Hades, and how a body defies rotting after death, as all other bodies do. As for the last sentence, does proclaiming that they were all witnesses make it true? I can no longer believe these stories. I am not impressed. There is a much better explanation than an ascension.
When I was a little girl, I used to promise my brother things if he’d do what I wanted. I’d promise to get him a bike for Christmas if he’d let me use his fishing pole. I’d promise him a Lone Ranger costume if he’d let me ride his bike. I can remember promising a lot of things. He was two years younger. After a few years and no presents arrived under the Christmas tree, he stopped believing in my stories. I think this is the thinking of the New Testament writers who made the ascension story. Thousands of promises were made if people built the cathedrals, monasteries and nunneries across Europe. They were promised a place in heaven for their hard labor with no money paid to them. There needed to be a story of Heaven and eternal life, Hades with eternal punishments, and trusting people, which illiterate people were, in the face of learned churchmen.
As I said, there is a much better explanation than Jesus disappearing from a tomb and later ascending to Heaven as witnessed by his followers. I don’t doubt that a body disappeared from a tomb but the ascension story is really tacky. I think that Jesus was a made up person in the first place because his birth story was borrowed from earlier historical figures. There was a teacher, healer, and prophet in the first century who was not made up, yet we have little information about him. Some information was borrowed from John the Baptist’s life, but we only get this information through the “miracle lens” of the New Testament writers.
In the last 10 years, information has come forward of the Mandaeans, who claim to be the descendants of John the Baptist. They claim to be original Nazarenes of the first century. Today they are the Mandaeans. Reading the Mandaean history of John, John the Baptist was a diviner, healer, exorcist, mind reader and prophesier. Sounds like Jesus, doesn’t it?
I think the New Testament writers wanted to cover up the diviner part. Divination was considered a sin, but I can tell you now that today people don’t know what divination is. It is a method of getting information, and that’s all it is. It has nothing to do with reading entrails, the devil or dead souls that haunt and do the bidding of evil people. Divination was used by the ancient Israelites and was called Urim and Thummim, which means Yes, No. A priest would ask a question and get a Yes or No answer. It is not known how this was done, because the method is lost. Valentinus (Gnostic) tells us that there was a method that lifted the veil between man and God, and that with that method everything would be revealed. Wise King Solomon was a diviner. Remember the story of two women both claiming to be the mother of a child, and his solution was to rip the child in half and give each woman half? What was not known until recently is that King Solomon was a competent diviner, and so he must have used a divination technique to find out who was the mother. There were diviners during the time of the Old Testament. This was how prophets were able to prophesy the future. Solomon, after ascertaining which woman was the mother using divination, he thought of a trick to expose which was the real mother…the ripping the child in half trick. When he told them what he would do, the true mother screamed out not to harm her child, and Solomon then knew she was the mother. IMO.
There is much that we don’t know about the New Testament story. We are trying to understand what is fantasy and what is factual. I don’t believe there was a Jesus. John the Baptist? Yes, I believe he was the real healer, exorcist, diviner and prophesier. But he was a man. The early church fathers needed a Godman to preserve the function of the temples, which was to bring in money to fund their wars. Instead of Jesus, it was John who was crucified. He was taken off the cross before Passover. He was placed in a tomb still alive. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus brought herbs. Aloes was for clotting the blood of his wounds and the disinfectant was myrrh. But the Romans had other plans. They took the body out of the tomb (perhaps this solves the mystery of the empty tomb?). Later, in constructing a story, the writers had the Roman guard become an angel to greet the women and tell them that Jesus had risen. But he hadn’t risen. He was taken into custody again, beheaded, and his body was hidden. Nobody knew what had happened in real life. Perhaps Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were disposed of also. The early church fathers wrote a marvelous story, they had 300+ years to polish it up. It is really quite amazing, but it only works if there is a God, a Heaven and Hell, a faithful audience that believes in miracles and the betrayal by a god (God) who sends his only son to be killed as a sacrifice so that all people on earth who are good people can go to Heaven to live with Jesus and God for eternity.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)