- in a temporary tomb next to where he was crucified because of the imminent arrival of the Sabbath and Passover
- in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb right after the Sabbath and Passover were over (Saturday night)
(1) Mark 15:46 “And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb”.
> no mention that it was JoA’s tomb
John 19:41-42: “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there”.
> again no mention that it was JoA’s tomb, instead the text indicates that this tomb had been chosen because people were in a hurry and this tomb happened to be nearby. and what would have been the odds that this tomb just conveniently happened to be JoA’s?
(2) JoA’s people went to the temporary tomb immediately after Passover to finally give Jesus a decent burial, moving the corpse into the second, definitive tomb. Jesus’ friend did not witness this and when some of them came to the tomb it was empty! Leaving them at a loss as what has happened to the corpse and where it was moved to.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Comments?
Xeronimo74 said
- in a temporary tomb next to where he was crucified because of the imminent arrival of the Sabbath and Passover
- in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb right after the Sabbath and Passover were over (Saturday night)
(1) Mark 15:46 “And he [Joseph of Arimathea] bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb”.
> no mention that it was JoA’s tomb
John 19:41-42: “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there”.
> again no mention that it was JoA’s tomb, instead the text indicates that this tomb had been chosen because people were in a hurry and this tomb happened to be nearby. and what would have been the odds that this tomb just conveniently happened to be JoA’s?
(2) JoA’s people went to the temporary tomb immediately after Passover to finally give Jesus a decent burial, moving the corpse into the second, definitive tomb. Jesus’ friend did not witness this and when some of them came to the tomb it was empty! Leaving them at a loss as what has happened to the corpse and where it was moved to.
(** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Comments?
Bart Ehrman doubts the historical accuracy of the gospel story regarding the burial of it’s Jesus figure. You can find his arguments in his book: How Jesus Became God. (‘‘There are numerous reasons for doubting the tradition of Jesus’ s burial by Joseph”.)
From my own perspective, a perspective that views the gospel Jesus as a composite literary figure, the two tomb idea is of interest.
1) the historical figure of Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, was, re Cassius Dio, hung on a cross/stake prior to being executed. (beheaded re Josephus). Someone hung on a tree/cross/stake is accursed and would not be given a dignified burial.
2) the second historical figure reflected in the composite Jesus figure is Philip the Tetrarch. Josephus tells us that Philip built a monument in which he was to be buried with great pomp.
In other words; with these two historical figures two very different burial tombs would be demonstrated. A rich man’s tomb and a tomb, or burial place, of, to Roman eyes, a criminal. Thus, giving the gospel writers opportunity to reflect this history within their gospel account of the burial of their Jesus figure.
——————————————————————
”Philip died in the city of Julias in the fall of 33 AD, in the twentieth year of the reign
of Tiberius, and the thirty-seventh year of his own. He left no heirs, and so his territory,
including Banias, was annexed to the province of Syria, but with the right to administer
its own revenues”….. Josephus says that his body was ‘carried to that monument which he
had already erected for himself beforehand’ and that he was ‘buried with great pomp’. It
is usually presumed that this monument was located in Bethsaida-Julias, but excavations
there show the place to be very modest at best, and besides, Philip’s capital and home were
at Banias. It seems more reasonable to understand Josephus to mean that a sad procession
carried the remains of this successful ruler, respected by both the Romans and his own
subjects, northward along the banks of the nascent Jordan’s cool waters to the springs of
Banias. There, somewhere, he was laid to rest.”
Caesarea Philippi: The Lost City of Pan
John Francis Wilson
In reality Jesus was not a literary figure, but an actual person. I’m also in the camp that believes Jesus likely received no burial at all. The Romans didn’t play nice with those they believed were fomenting rebellion. In any event, let’s say the Markan story is, while possibly not true, at least a made up story about a real person. Matthew is the writer who added the bit about Joseph of Arimethea owning a tomb. Mark did not have that added bit (nor did John) and Matthew is known for adding to Marks story to make the narrative fit what he believed was OT prophecy. I forget which story Matthew was appealing to, but I think it was something in II Samuel that mentioned the area of Arimethea.
There’s an interesting sequence in Acts 13:27-29 that makes it appear that perhaps Joseph of Arimethea wasn’t really a supporter of Jesus. Some interpret the applicable verses in Mark as implying that Joseph was really a member of the Sanhedrin. While the Sanhedrin may have opposed Jesus they still had to follow the Law with regards that no slain man was to be left exposed after the sun went down.
gmatthews said
In reality Jesus was not a literary figure, but an actual person.
In reality you cannot establish historicity for Jesus. Much better to simply state that you believe for x reasons that Jesus was historical. In reality there is no historical evidence to support historicity.
I have no problem with people viewing Jesus as a historical figure. Each to their own. What I do have problems with is the attempt to claim reality is on their side. It is not. The question of the historicity of Jesus is an open question. Both sides in this debate need to be aware of the limitations of the positions they advocate. No side has a monopoly on reality….
The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence that exists (you know it as well as I so no need to waste my time listing it) is of no consequence. People come here with questions about the Bible, not to be ambushed by fringe theories. Everyone should know up front (or soon figure out) that Bart is not a Christian, but he still believes in a historical Jesus. I don’t understand why you and Steefen and the others that I will equitably describe as “deniers” come here looking for an audience that doesn’t exist except amongst yourselves.
If you’ve got a problem with the way I and others on here deal with reality then perhaps you’re better off on one of those other forums you frequent. There seem to be far more “alternative-view” types there than here.
gmatthews said
The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence that exists (you know it as well as I so no need to waste my time listing it) is of no consequence. People come here with questions about the Bible, not to be ambushed by fringe theories. Everyone should know up front (or soon figure out) that Bart is not a Christian, but he still believes in a historical Jesus. I don’t understand why you and Steefen and the others that I will equitably describe as “deniers” come here looking for an audience that doesn’t exist except amongst yourselves.
Oh, dear. Any argument that I present on this forum is open to be debated. ‘‘Ambushed by fringe theories’‘? Open discussion is surely a better way of going about NT study than laying charges of ”fringe theories”. That Bart Erhman has allowed ”fringe theories’ on his website is commendable. No scholar is afraid of ideas. Take them or leave them – that’s the way ideas function. They either find their niche or will fade away. Looking for an audience – not at all. I much prefer a rational discussion.
If you’ve got a problem with the way I and others on here deal with reality then perhaps you’re better off on one of those other forums you frequent. There seem to be far more “alternative-view” types there than here.
Reality – yep, you could say that I have a problem with people who claim that reality is on their side of an argument – thereby denying the position of their opponent any credibility. Much better to grant ones opponent some good grace than to throw ‘fringe theories’ around. Interacting with those with different views is far more beneficial than preaching to the choir….That way I have to face any holes in my arguments.
”fringe theories’ attempts to disparage ones opponents position. Is Bart Ehrman really going to start his debate with Robert Price with an attack on ‘fringe theories’ – or will he allow his opponent the dignity of having an alternative position?
Xeronimo74 said
- in a temporary tomb next to where he was crucified because of the imminent arrival of the Sabbath and Passover
- in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb right after the Sabbath and Passover were over (Saturday night)
The more interesting question is whether he was “buried” on that specific weekend.
If he was left to rot on the cross till there was only bones left and then tossed into a pit then it seems he wasn’t put into a tomb at all. Theoretically you could say, he was buried in a common pit or that at some point his family took his bones and put them in their family tomb, but I think I am with Gregg on this one. Rome did not treat insurgents with any deference. It’s hard to believe they would honor local customs for someone who to their thinking was directly challenging Caesar’s legitimacy. Remember Caesar was King of the Jews
maryhelena said
Oh, dear. Any argument that I present on this forum is open to be debated. ‘‘Ambushed by fringe theories’‘? Open discussion is surely a better way of going about NT study than laying charges of ”fringe theories”. That Bart Erhman has allowed ”fringe theories’ on his website is commendable. No scholar is afraid of ideas. Take them or leave them – that’s the way ideas function. They either find their niche or will fade away. Looking for an audience – not at all. I much prefer a rational discussion.
If you’ve got a problem with the way I and others on here deal with reality then perhaps you’re better off on one of those other forums you frequent. There seem to be far more “alternative-view” types there than here.
Reality – yep, you could say that I have a problem with people who claim that reality is on their side of an argument – thereby denying the position of their opponent any credibility. Much better to grant ones opponent some good grace than to throw ‘fringe theories’ around. Interacting with those with different views is far more beneficial than preaching to the choir….That way I have to face any holes in my arguments.
”fringe theories’ attempts to disparage ones opponents position. Is Bart Ehrman really going to start his debate with Robert Price with an attack on ‘fringe theories’ – or will he allow his opponent the dignity of having an alternative position?
I doubt Bart even knows what goes on here, but based on something he’s said I don’t think he’s crazy about the crazy talk. Yes, I marginalize you, but that’s where you are: out on the margins compared to mainstream. At least I don’t call names or question people’s intelligence (except for Steefen). As to the debate, Bart is far too nice to start with an attack on fringe theories. That said, if you’ve watched any of his “debates” you can see where it’s clear he scoffs at some of the claims his opponents make and their unfamiliarity with the material they quote. He just doesn’t outright call them on their BS.
You could at least have the courtesy of telling Xeronimo that your ideas aren’t mainstream. I wouldn’t personally have an issue with what you say in general if you had done that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“Oh, dear. Any argument that I present on this forum is open to be debated. ”
Ignoring the evidence is not an argument. Calling something a fringe theory is no more an attempt to disparage than
using the term farm team to describe minor league baseball teams or College football to talk about, College football.
This is really the only argument mythicists have. “They’re trying to disparage us.” “They’re just trying to protect their profession.” That one lasted about as long as it took someone, to request peer review and voila mythicist forgot that one faster than Ken Ham can down a bucket of Brontosaurus burgers.
An argument against the consensus is a fringe argument and with only two credentialed scholars on your side, that’s PRECISELY what it is. You can rattle on all day about rational discussion but ignoring the evidence is not rational.
“you could say that I have a problem with people who claim that reality is on their side of an argument”
A claim no one made, but the EVIDENCE clearly is on our side. Declaring it an open question because you are infatuated with a specific conclusion, doesn’t make it an open question.
gmatthews said
maryhelena said
Oh, dear. Any argument that I present on this forum is open to be debated. ‘‘Ambushed by fringe theories’‘? Open discussion is surely a better way of going about NT study than laying charges of ”fringe theories”. That Bart Erhman has allowed ”fringe theories’ on his website is commendable. No scholar is afraid of ideas. Take them or leave them – that’s the way ideas function. They either find their niche or will fade away. Looking for an audience – not at all. I much prefer a rational discussion.
If you’ve got a problem with the way I and others on here deal with reality then perhaps you’re better off on one of those other forums you frequent. There seem to be far more “alternative-view” types there than here.Reality – yep, you could say that I have a problem with people who claim that reality is on their side of an argument – thereby denying the position of their opponent any credibility. Much better to grant ones opponent some good grace than to throw ‘fringe theories’ around. Interacting with those with different views is far more beneficial than preaching to the choir….That way I have to face any holes in my arguments.
”fringe theories’ attempts to disparage ones opponents position. Is Bart Ehrman really going to start his debate with Robert Price with an attack on ‘fringe theories’ – or will he allow his opponent the dignity of having an alternative position?
I doubt Bart even knows what goes on here, but based on something he’s said I don’t think he’s crazy about the crazy talk. Yes, I marginalize you, but that’s where you are: out on the margins compared to mainstream. At least I don’t call names or question people’s intelligence (except for Steefen). As to the debate, Bart is far too nice to start with an attack on fringe theories. That said, if you’ve watched any of his “debates” you can see where it’s clear he scoffs at some of the claims his opponents make and their unfamiliarity with the material they quote. He just doesn’t outright call them on their BS.
You could at least have the courtesy of telling Xeronimo that your ideas aren’t mainstream. I wouldn’t personally have an issue with what you say in general if you had done that.
Here is what I said in reply to the OP:
From my own perspective, a perspective that views the gospel Jesus as a composite literary figure,…
That you don’t find that a ‘courtesy’ surprises me. Are you sure your not simply looking for fault?
Yep, ‘marginal’ might be better than ‘fringe’ but still has an undercurrent of disdain. Much better to use the correct terminology – alternative view. That way no slight is given or taken….;-)
spiker said
** you do not have permission to see this link **“Oh, dear. Any argument that I present on this forum is open to be debated. ”
Ignoring the evidence is not an argument. Calling something a fringe theory is no more an attempt to disparage than
using the term farm team to describe minor league baseball teams or College football to talk about, College football.
This is really the only argument mythicists have. “They’re trying to disparage us.” “They’re just trying to protect their profession.” That one lasted about as long as it took someone, to request peer review and voila mythicist forgot that one faster than Ken Ham can down a bucket of Brontosaurus burgers.
An argument against the consensus is a fringe argument and with only two credentialed scholars on your side, that’s PRECISELY what it is. You can rattle on all day about rational discussion but ignoring the evidence is not rational.
“you could say that I have a problem with people who claim that reality is on their side of an argument”
A claim no one made, but the EVIDENCE clearly is on our side. Declaring it an open question because you are infatuated with a specific conclusion, doesn’t make it an open question.
spiker – all your doing here is ranting…..That mythicists get under your skin speaks more about yourself than any theory the mythicists might come up with.
maryhelena said
From my own perspective, a perspective that views the gospel Jesus as a composite literary figure,…
That you don’t find that a ‘courtesy’ surprises me. Are you sure your not simply looking for fault?
Yep, ‘marginal’ might be better than ‘fringe’ but still has an undercurrent of disdain. Much better to use the correct terminology – alternative view. That way no slight is given or taken….;-)
Not everyone will pick up on the nuance of your caveat, ie. not everyone will fully appreciate that you mean “made up” when you say “literary figure”.
gmatthews said
maryhelena said
From my own perspective, a perspective that views the gospel Jesus as a composite literary figure,…
That you don’t find that a ‘courtesy’ surprises me. Are you sure your not simply looking for fault?
Yep, ‘marginal’ might be better than ‘fringe’ but still has an undercurrent of disdain. Much better to use the correct terminology – alternative view. That way no slight is given or taken….;-)
Not everyone will pick up on the nuance of your caveat, ie. not everyone will fully appreciate that you mean “made up” when you say “literary figure”.
Now you really are nit-picking! The term I used was not ‘literary figure’ – it was ‘composite literary figure’…That term automatically denotes a ”made up” literary figure.
Are you suggesting that in this day and age that the poster has no idea what a literary figure, a figure within the context of a literary work, is? Has the poster never heard of Harry Potter or James Bond?
Has the poster never been to a James Bond movie and realized that a literary figure can be portrayed in various ways. From the Scottish accent of Sean Connery to the Irish accent of Pierce Bronson to the English of Daniel Craig. Different faces, different accents. James Bond is as much a composite character on the pages of Fleming’s books to the faces he displays on the silver screen.
So – given that the poster, in your view, is unable to understand the term ‘literary figure’ and needs it spelled out so that the poster gets the drift – ‘literary figure’ in the context of the gospel story is a marginal/fringe position – are you going to be so precise in answering the latest post from the writer of the OP?
Are you going to make it crystal clear that Bart Ehrman’s position is on the fringe, is a marginal position, regarding no tomb for Jesus. After all, the mainstream, the consensus position, is that Jesus was buried in the rich man’s tomb. (Joseph of Arimathea)
Are you going to point to a book that has taken Ehrman’s view to task? How God Became Jesus:
—————————
”Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Xeronimo74 said
But if the whole story about a burial of Jesus’ corpse has been made up then why would one invent details like the one in John 19:41-42?So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there”
I wouldn’t say it was made up, at least not in the way that we normally think of making things up. Bart has used the same analogy many times to explain things like this. Do you know of the game children play where they sit in a circle and one starts by whispering something in the ear of the next child. Then the second whispers what he heard into the ear of the next person and on and on around the circle. By the time the whispered words get back around to the start they never sound anything like what the first person said. We mishear things, we subconsciously add tiny, tiny details that we never actually heard, some of us intentionally add a tiny detail that we never heard, etc. By the time these things happen many times the story will change quite a bit. This is how oral stories are transmitted. We’ve heard all our lives how oral transmission is so infallible. That ancient cultures are able to preserve their history through oral history across hundreds or thousands of years. As Bart’s upcoming book will illustrate, the reality of the fallibility of oral transmission could not be more striking.
John was the last Gospel written and had the most to lose in the preservation of the stories its community retained on the written page. Granted, it was an edited book of earlier versions and we don’t know for sure how much earlier. John has many details and pericopes not found in the other Gospels. No matter how early you want to say John was REALLY written it was at least two generations after the death of Jesus. This is like a person today relying on their memory and the transmission of oral stories trying to write the Gospel of John F. Kennedy and his assassination. Imagine how difficult that might be. Of course there are going to be tiny details (like the one you quoted) that are simply not true, or whose truth it is impossible to verify (imagine there was no video footage of Kennedy being shot, or for that matter imagine radio, TV and video didn’t exist at all for the Gospel of John F. Kennedy to rely on).
gmatthews said
Xeronimo74 said
But if the whole story about a burial of Jesus’ corpse has been made up then why would one invent details like the one in John 19:41-42?So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there”
I wouldn’t say it was made up, at least not in the way that we normally think of making things up. Bart has used the same analogy many times to explain things like this. Do you know of the game children play where they sit in a circle and one starts by whispering something in the ear of the next child. Then the second whispers what he heard into the ear of the next person and on and on around the circle. By the time the whispered words get back around to the start they never sound anything like what the first person said.
I get that and I agree that a lot of stories develop like that. But which ‘misunderstandings’ resulted in this quite specific statement? And I don’t just mean the claim that Jesus has been buried. But that his corpse had been put in THAT tomb simply BECAUSE it was close at hand and people were in a hurry?
Xeronimo74 said
gmatthews said
Xeronimo74 said
But if the whole story about a burial of Jesus’ corpse has been made up then why would one invent details like the one in John 19:41-42?So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there”
I wouldn’t say it was made up, at least not in the way that we normally think of making things up. Bart has used the same analogy many times to explain things like this. Do you know of the game children play where they sit in a circle and one starts by whispering something in the ear of the next child. Then the second whispers what he heard into the ear of the next person and on and on around the circle. By the time the whispered words get back around to the start they never sound anything like what the first person said.
I get that and I agree that a lot of stories develop like that. But which ‘misunderstandings’ resulted in this quite specific statement? And I don’t just mean the claim that Jesus has been buried. But that his corpse had been put in THAT tomb simply BECAUSE it was close at hand and people were in a hurry?
Yep, that was not a very satisfying answer you got there!
”..whispered words” that become distorted from the original…..That, somehow, sounds a bit like wanting to have ones cake and eat it too….i.e. rather than facing the possibility that the words used by the writer/writers of the gospel of John were not a result of whispers or oral tradition gone haywire but are words used to demonstrate the writers own intention. Which was – the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb.
Arguments, re Ehrman, that crucified bodies were not given a dignified burial reflect historical findings. Thus, re Ehrman, Jesus was not given a dignified burial – therefore the gospel Jesus burial accounts are not historical accounts. But that approach looses out on the gospel story. Within the gospel story Jesus is buried in a rich man’s tomb. Jesus is given a dignified burial. Sure, the gospel writers needed a dignified burial, a tomb, for their resurrection story to have a basis. But if the resurrection story is fiction, if the tomb is not historical – where does that leave Jesus? Away with the dogs re Crossan….
Once one goes down that route – of depriving the gospel story of it’s story – then, to my thinking, one has lost the plot. The gospel story is what it is. A story. A story where an author can take liberties with reality.
It’s not a case of identifying which parts of the gospel story are historical and which parts are non-historical. It’s not a case of gospel writers writing from a whispering source or listening to oral traditions gone haywire. They were authors of their own words. Thus, rather than attempting to discredit their words, methinks, we need to take their words to heart. Listen to their words instead of taking a historical stick by which to beat them…it’s a grand old story after all and deserves to be appreciated for what it is…
Xeronimo74 said
I get that and I agree that a lot of stories develop like that. But which ‘misunderstandings’ resulted in this quite specific statement? And I don’t just mean the claim that Jesus has been buried. But that his corpse had been put in THAT tomb simply BECAUSE it was close at hand and people were in a hurry?
Sometimes there are no “satisfying” answers. Perhaps Jesus’ mangled corpse was eventually found and buried in a nearby tomb. While I don’t personally have any particular belief in either one, here are a couple of theories that have been put forward by respected scholars. Note that neither of theories involve literary figures or anyone named Antigonus.
1) as I said at the start: perhaps Joseph of Arimethea wasn’t really a supporter of Jesus. Some interpret the applicable verses in Mark as implying that Joseph was really a member of the Sanhedrin. While the Sanhedrin may have opposed Jesus they still had to follow the Law with regards that no slain man was to be left exposed after the sun went down. This idea was put forward by professor emiretus Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic priest who was a specialist of the Gospel of John and noted for casting doubt on the historical accuracy of some parts of the Gospels. Brown further suggests that since no mention is made of mourning rites or placement of the body in a family sepulchre that Jesus did not have an honorable burial. That would he would have been lain within the nearest tomb at hand would certainly make sense with this understanding.
2) an alternative view is that Jospeh was sympathetic. Using Philo’s Against Flaccus as evidence it can be shown that at least one occasion those crucified were allowed to be buried. R.T. France (New Testament scholar) and Joel Marcus (Gospel of Mark specialist, teaches at Duke University) put forward the idea that Joseph of Arimethea was a secret follower of Jesus who boldly asked Pilate for the remains of Jesus so they could be honorably buried and that Joseph used his own family tomb for that.
With regards to your question about why Jesus would have been buried in THAT tomb so close at hand, ie coming with the suggestion that it was a temporary place of burial. Per Joel Marcus: keep in mind that 1st century tombs of the upper classes are known from the Kidron Valley which is next to the Valley of Gehenna (an area deemed to be cursed due to its association with the sacrifice of children by Palestinian tribes in the OT). So, if wealthy Jews are willing to be buried there why not next to Golgotha?
Personally, I find actual scholarship “satisfying”.
** you do not have permission to see this link **Sometimes there are no “satisfying” answers. Perhaps Jesus’ mangled corpse was eventually found and buried in a nearby tomb. While I don’t personally have any particular belief in either one, here are a couple of theories that have been put forward by respected scholars. Note that neither of theories involve literary figures or anyone named Antigonus.
1) as I said at the start: perhaps Joseph of Arimethea…
I wonder if you could name the ”respected scholars’‘ who can provide historical evidence for the existence of Joseph of Arimathea ?
If not – then taking digs at an alternative theory regarding the gospel burial stories, a theory involving two real flesh and blood historical figures, Antigonus and Philip the Tetrarch – is just plain silly.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)