gmatthews said
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?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?
but it does not say that it’s JoA’s tomb. the GoJ claims that the corpse was (according to ‘my’ theory: temporarily) put in that tomb ONLY BECAUSE it happened to be near and because people were in a hurry. Why would someone invent a detail like that?
I mean, if the point was to have Jesus’ corpse end up in JoA’s tomb then you would not include such an explanation …
maryhelena wrote
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.
I don’t think there is any real evidence that J of A was a historical figure. Unfortunately for your theory there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for that either. No mechanism described whereby such a composite figure might have been created, where or when or by whom.
Just because you can provide an “alternative theory” doesn’t mean it’s true. An assertion is not evidence.
On the other hand we have the testimony of Paul, who we know existed because we have his letters and independent sources attesting to his existence, recording his meeting with Jesus’ biological brother James and his chief disciple Peter and making several references to his earthly existence, writing within twenty years of Jesus’ death.
I dare say that if Jesus wasn’t the founder of a major world religion and was just another of the countless figures of which we are aware from ancient history no one at all would question his existence for a minute. I suspect there’s more going on in the mythicist project than a disinterested quest for historical understanding.
Stephen said
maryhelena wroteI 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.
I don’t think there is any real evidence that J of A was a historical figure.
Well done. Thank you for that.
Unfortunately for your theory there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for that either. No mechanism described whereby such a composite figure might have been created, where or when or by whom.
Just because you can provide an “alternative theory” doesn’t mean it’s true. An assertion is not evidence.
Indeed – all I’ve done is make a chart with history on one side and the gospel story on the other side. What this chart does demonstrate is that there was historical material available for the authors of the Jesus story to use. Did they use Jewish history – well, that’s the question. 😉 The figure of the gospel Jesus reflects historical details – as far as can be known from Josephus. Coins, of course, testify to the historical existence of those figures I have used in the chart.
On the other hand we have the testimony of Paul, who we know existed because we have his letters and independent sources attesting to his existence, recording his meeting with Jesus’ biological brother James and his chief disciple Peter and making several references to his earthly existence, writing within twenty years of Jesus’ death.
Paul? Although of interest, Paul is not my major interest. The gospel story is my major interest. Methinks Paul should be put on the shelve until the gospel story starts to make sense. I’m not an ahistoricst/mythicist that finds any need to use Paul as proof of anything…i.e. I won’t be quoting Paul in connection to the gospel story. Wherever one dates the gospel writing is incidental to the story the gospels portrays. It”s the story that is fundamental not the date of gospel writing.
I dare say that if Jesus wasn’t the founder of a major world religion and was just another of the countless figures of which we are aware from ancient history no one at all would question his existence for a minute.
Of course there would be no interest. The interest lies because Christianity is a major component of Western culture.
I suspect there’s more going on in the mythicist project than a disinterested quest for historical understanding.
Now now – don’t brush all ahistoricists/mythicist with the same brush….;-)
Xeronimo74 said
gmatthews said
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?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?
but it does not say that it’s JoA’s tomb. the GoJ claims that the corpse was (according to ‘my’ theory: temporarily) put in that tomb ONLY BECAUSE it happened to be near and because people were in a hurry. Why would someone invent a detail like that?
I mean, if the point was to have Jesus’ corpse end up in JoA’s tomb then you would not include such an explanation …
It’s an interesting theory you have outlined in the OP. Two tombs….The explanation that you have proposed – a temporary tomb and a permanent tomb makes sense re the story about the shock of not finding the body. i.e. that it had been moved to the permanent tomb. The gospel of Matthew making that tomb as belonging to the rich man Joseph of Arimathea – to fulfill OT prophecy.
Interestingly, it could well be that it is the account in the gospel of John that reflects an earlier story – an earlier tradition. It is gJohn that speaks about a garden where Jesus is placed in a tomb. This story has reflections from the Toledot Yeshu:
”Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave (tomb) where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave (tomb) and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.”
Two burials are part of an earlier story. Could be a case of temporary and permanent tombs – re your argument in the OP – an argument based on a historicist reading of the gospel story. Since I don’t read the gospel story in that way I’m free to consider alternative scenarios for two gospel burials – which I have outlined previously.
maryhelena said
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.
There you go again! Yes, your critics MUST be ranting. That’s really the only argument you have.
Might come up with?
Finally! Some honesty from the mythicist camp. Was it accidental? If only they would come up with a theory rather than conspiracy theories, wishing upon a star, insinuation and posturing. If you had an ACTUAL theory you wouldn’t need to lather on about undercurrents of disdain, being in the minority or try to make debating points by taking things out of context. Your logic is laughable. Because Philip the Tetrarch wanted an elaborate tomb, therefore Jesus is a myth er cough cough “a composite literary figure”
Well President Washington had an elaborate funeral and Lincoln was shot therefore JFK was a “composite literary figure”
Yes, in terms of his ideas about burial, Ehrman is on the fringe. But no one here is prattling on about scholars needing to find common ground to make progress in that debate. No one is worrying about UNDERCURRENTS; no one declaring it an open question.
Now as to the historicity of Joseph of Arimethia. The burial explanation doesn’t depend on him in the way that the alternative “theory” depends on Antigonus or Philp the Tetrarch . Further, the respected scholars are offering explanations of the given account.
Consider it this way. You get mugged, you tell the police it was a black man, medium build etc, they have to follow up the lead. It’s that simple. The officer might have a suspicion that you’re lying, but he either needs to show that you are lying or come up with a better suspect. Unfortunately he can’t try to pin it on Antigonus or Philp the Tetrarch.
Dr. Ehrman has listed what exactly can be known about Jesus, what is generally accepted by most scholars and it would seem all else is debatable. I’ve not been able to find that post but it’s among those for this year. Maybe someone will provide?
My apologies for entering the fray as it’s sure to shut down any further discussion. We lightweights have that effect here.
Judith said
Dr. Ehrman has listed what exactly can be known about Jesus, what is generally accepted by most scholars and it would seem all else is debatable. I’ve not been able to find that post but it’s among those for this year. Maybe someone will provide?My apologies for entering the fray as it’s sure to shut down any further discussion. We lightweights have that effect here.
No apologies needed Judith – it’s open house around here. All questions, theories, speculation and assumptions demonstrate energy not the dry desert of rigid dogmatism. It’s the turbulence opposing views create that can set sparks flying. Theory, anti-theory and maybe a synthesis might emerge…..
Kazibwe Edris said
The explanation that you have proposed – a temporary tomb and a permanent tomb makes sense re the story about the shock of not finding the body.
———————–
i think that’s tabor’s explanation
Your probably correct. Xeronimo74 just seems to be promoting the idea – though perhaps could make more effort to credit Tabor. Should not rely on people clicking the links in the OP.
Your probably correct. Xeronimo74 just seems to be promoting the idea – though perhaps could make more effort to credit Tabor. Should not rely on people clicking the links in the OP.
greetings Mary.
what i meant was that i read that argument last year in tabor’s article. i think he was replying to one of his students.
maryhelena I give up Joseph grudgingly mainly because growing up in the church the Empty Tomb was one of my favorite parts of the gospel story. It was spooky and mysterious. But I think the gig is up. Historically it does seem implausible and there are obviously theological reasons why Mark included (invented?) it. (Of course the story in Mark is still spooky and mysterious and it’s lack of historicity is simply irrelevant. But that’s another thread – coming soon.)
You can’t simply shelve Paul. He refuses to be ignored. You must deal with him in some way. Richard Carrier realizes that. His version of mythicism is based on a reinterpretation of Paul’s message without which his arguments fall apart like Watergate testimony.
I didn’t say that if Jesus wasn’t the founder of a major world religion there would be no interest in him, I said no one would question his historicity. Jesus is in the same status as countless other figures from world history that left literary remains. Either they wrote something themselves or somebody wrote something about them. This is true of everyone. Not just Jesus. He isn’t special. Socrates left no writings but his disciples gave us accounts of his life and teachings. It seems to me we have to be consistent. If we doubt Jesus was a historical figure then we have to question all the others too. But no one doubts Socrates was a historical figure. Why is that? If I am going to accept Plato’s account of Socrates then why am I not going to accept Paul’s account of meeting Jesus’ brother and chief disciple?
Stephen said
maryhelena I give up Joseph grudgingly mainly because growing up in the church the Empty Tomb was one of my favorite parts of the gospel story. It was spooky and mysterious. But I think the gig is up. Historically it does seem implausible and there are obviously theological reasons why Mark included (invented?) it. (Of course the story in Mark is still spooky and mysterious and it’s lack of historicity is simply irrelevant. But that’s another thread – coming soon.)
A new thread – nice
You can’t simply shelve Paul. He refuses to be ignored. You must deal with him in some way. Richard Carrier realizes that. His version of mythicism is based on a reinterpretation of Paul’s message without which his arguments fall apart like Watergate testimony.
How about putting Paul on the back-burner for a while…..
Richard Carrier? I don’t buy his version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position at all. I did buy his door-stop of a book but never got very far….It’s useful when wanting to check what he says on this that and the other but as for theory – I’m not buying it. The book has been reviewed and debated on the earlywritings.com Biblical Criticism and History forum so I’m aware of it’s arguments – and problems…..I’ve made the odd comment on his blog but that is as far as my interaction with Carrier goes – as for Doherty, well, that’s a whole different ball game and lets just say that we tend to rub one another up the wrong way….
I didn’t become an ahistoricist/mythicist by reading any mythicist books. What put me on this path was a small book by Jesus historicists! The Myth of God Incarnate (1977) edited by John Hick. (re-issued 2012 re amazon). All one needs is something to open ones eyes and then let ones own thinking begin the journey – to wherever……
I didn’t say that if Jesus wasn’t the founder of a major world religion there would be no interest in him, I said no one would question his historicity.
OK – sorry if my comment has misrepresented your position.
Jesus is in the same status as countless other figures from world history that left literary remains. Either they wrote something themselves or somebody wrote something about them. This is true of everyone. Not just Jesus. He isn’t special. Socrates left no writings but his disciples gave us accounts of his life and teachings. It seems to me we have to be consistent. If we doubt Jesus was a historical figure then we have to question all the others too. But no one doubts Socrates was a historical figure. Why is that? If I am going to accept Plato’s account of Socrates then why am I not going to accept Paul’s account of meeting Jesus’ brother and chief disciple?
I don’t agree on that point – that if we question the historical existence of Jesus we also have to question everyone else. Each to their own of courses. However, Jesus is front and center stage in Western culture – so much so that one can hardly walk out of ones front door without coming across some reflection of that culture. From crosses on churches to crosses on war memorials to crosses around the necks of the faithful. Jesus is everywhere. Even for school children getting their daily dose of Jesus. (in the UK).
Whether Paul was historical or ahistorical, whether the words attributed to him are his own, or words put in his mouth, has no relevance for the gospel story. That story exists on it’s own merit and has to stand on it’s own two feet. Reading the gospels into Paul or reading Paul into the gospels cannot add clarity to the gospel story. The gospel story – whether viewed as history or viewed as a literary construct – is older than the Pauline story. The gospel story is old in the tooth. (not talking dating of manuscripts here – story taking prominence over dating the material it is written upon). So, yes, my focus is the gospel story – I’m not easily sidetracked…..
Kazibwe Edris said
The explanation that you have proposed – a temporary tomb and a permanent tomb makes sense re the story about the shock of not finding the body.
i think that’s tabor’s explanation
it is (and I linked to it in the first post). I find it compelling and wanted to know your opinions about it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert