maryhelena said
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.
I provided a source and thus credited Tabor. If you don’t click the link to the source, well, that’s not my problem 😉 Also, what difference does it make?
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.
Hi, there
Yep, perhaps Xeronimo74 should clarify just what points he has taken from Tabor and what points are his own – if that is the case.
Anyway, I found the gospel two burial idea rather interesting. I’d not come across it before. Don’t know how the fundamentalists would take to it if it was used to cast doubt on the gospel resurrection accounts. For the historicists – well those who follow Bart Ehrman – then it’s no big deal, i.e. the gospel burial account is not viewed as history anyway – so whether it’s one or two burial accounts becomes irrelevant. I find that my own theory can throw some light on the two burial idea – hence I am able to find some value in it.
Xeronimo74 said
maryhelena said
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.
I provided a source and thus credited Tabor. If you don’t click the link to the source, well, that’s not my problem 😉 Also, what difference does it make?
What difference does it make? Credit where credit is due is the best policy when using another’s work. Yes, you gave a link but your words, or lack of them, brought about a bit of confusion regarding authorship of the theory you were presenting.
Judith said
FOUND IT!What Can We Know about the Life of Jesus posted May 2015. There are only eleven “true to historical reality” possibilities that most scholars agree with.
Thanks, Judith. Here is the link:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”If we are looking for gist memories that appear to be true to historical reality among these materials, most scholars would agree with at least the following.”
Well, now we shall have to wait for that new book. It would be nice to see the book reviewed and debated on this site – as I’m pretty sure it will be on ahistoricist/mythicist sites.
I’ve not seen the book for pre-order on amazon yet.
———————————-
For anyone interested in memory – there is a new movie coming out this year. It’s based on the book by the Irish writer Sebastian Barry: The Secret Scripture (not gospel…)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
maryhelena said
Judith said
FOUND IT!What Can We Know about the Life of Jesus posted May 2015. There are only eleven “true to historical reality” possibilities that most scholars agree with.
Thanks, Judith. Here is the link:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”If we are looking for gist memories that appear to be true to historical reality among these materials, most scholars would agree with at least the following.”
Well, now we shall have to wait for that new book. It would be nice to see the book reviewed and debated on this site – as I’m pretty sure it will be on ahistoricist/mythicist sites.
I’ve read it and I can’t wait to see you dispute it simply for the sake of disputing it.
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 …
Mark doesn’t say it (to some he implies it), but John does. Which is right? I did say that I didn’t believe either theory. I was merely presenting ideas of others. Furthermore, John had an agenda. I’m not going to pretend to understand it other than that he wanted his readers to understand how badly his community was being persecuted by the Temple Jews. To do so he had to manipulate his narrative.
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
James Tabor, partner of Simcha Jacobovici the snake oil salesman extraordinaire. I try to stay as far as away from both as I can.
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Judith said
FOUND IT!What Can We Know about the Life of Jesus posted May 2015. There are only eleven “true to historical reality” possibilities that most scholars agree with.
Thanks, Judith. Here is the link:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
”If we are looking for gist memories that appear to be true to historical reality among these materials, most scholars would agree with at least the following.”
Well, now we shall have to wait for that new book. It would be nice to see the book reviewed and debated on this site – as I’m pretty sure it will be on ahistoricist/mythicist sites.
I’ve read it and I can’t wait to see you dispute it simply for the sake of disputing it.
Why impute such a motive to me?
Greg Matthews said
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
James Tabor, partner of Simcha Jacobovici the snake oil salesman extraordinaire. I try to stay as far as away from both as I can.
I agree that some of Tabor’s ideas are a bit cooky but that doesn’t not mean that they all are. One should judge each on their merit and not all as one.
Simcha is quite nuts and a snake oil salesman indeed.
Greg Matthews said
Mark doesn’t say it (to some he implies it), but John does. Which is right? I did say that I didn’t believe either theory. I was merely presenting ideas of others. Furthermore, John had an agenda. I’m not going to pretend to understand it other than that he wanted his readers to understand how badly his community was being persecuted by the Temple Jews. To do so he had to manipulate his narrative.
Maybe. But still why manipulate it in THIS way? Why add such a ‘superfluous’ detail?
Xeronimo74 said
Greg Matthews said
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
James Tabor, partner of Simcha Jacobovici the snake oil salesman extraordinaire. I try to stay as far as away from both as I can.
I agree that some of Tabor’s ideas are a bit cooky but that doesn’t not mean that they all are. One should judge each on their merit and not all as one.
Simcha is quite nuts and a snake oil salesman indeed.
For me he’ll always be tainted because of his association with Jacobovici. 
Even before that, though, I thought he was a little…..off. For me personally I always think that if they go so far off the reservation on one thing (Jacobovici and Tabor’s “Jesus family” hocum) then how will I know if they haven’t on something that seems mundane? To each his own. I noticed something on his blog when this topic was first posted. Tabor teaches at UNC-Charlotte, a satellite school of (I hate to say it since I went to a rival school here in NC) the more “prestigious” UNC-Chapel Hill. His blog, though, says he teaches at UNC (those three letters imply Chapel Hill and not any of the 5 satellite schools– Greensboro, Charlotte, Asheville, Wilmington and Pemboke being the satellites). Conversely, Bart teaches at UNC. Intentional “mistake” or not?
Greg Matthews said
For me he’ll always be tainted because of his association with Jacobovici.
Yes, that association definitely taints him. But I’m reading Tabor’s blog and he does have interesting stuff on it (not everything). Especially because some of the stuff is quite novel and refreshing. And it makes you think or gets you a new perspective on things that you thought you knew well. Which does not mean that one should simply accept everything as, uh, gospel truth 😉
Stephen said
Historically it does seem implausible and there are obviously theological reasons why Mark included (invented?) it.
Stephen could Mark have used it as a literary device? Consider that while an empty tomb would not be evidence of a resurrection, it never the less would have had to have been empty if Jesus was physically raised. Just for funzies consider that Mark deliberately ended his gospel with an empty tomb to 1.) emphasis the resurrection and, 2.) to get his audience to think about it. Maybe the show got canceled after the season 1 finale cliffhanger and so no one saw the season 2 opener where the crucifixion was all just a bad dream.
I think the burial account in the gospel of John is the oldest gospel account. (that is not to say that the gospel of John is the oldest gospel – just that the burial story in that gospel looks to be older than the synoptic accounts.) Below is a chart that indicates how reading first the burial account of John’s gospel makes better sense of the synoptic accounts. i.e. the burial story developed over time. The character of Joseph of Arimathea develops from John to Luke.
The text is from ** you do not have permission to see this link ** – and its the ISV version. It’s a pity there is no preview option with this forum’s software – if the chart is a mess I’ll cancel the post.
(oh well – chart is so so – don’t know why the table format seems to work so erratically…..)
| Gospel of John ch.19. | Gospel of Mark ch.15 | Gospel of Matthew ch.27 | Gospel of Luke ch.23 |
| 38 Later on, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus (though a secret one because he was afraid of the Jewish leaders),[r] asked Pilate to let him remove the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, and he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, the man who had first come to Jesus at night, also arrived, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about 100 litra.[s] 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths along with spices, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 A garden was located in the place where he was crucified, and in that garden was a new tomb in which no one had yet been placed. 42 Because it was the Jewish Preparation Day, and because the tomb was nearby, they put Jesus there. | 42 It was the Day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath. Since it was already evening, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a highly respected member of the Council,[ah] who was waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate was amazed to hear[ai] that Jesus[aj] had already died, so he summoned the centurion to ask him if he was in fact dead. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he let Joseph have the corpse. 46 Joseph[ak] bought some linen cloth, took the body[al] down, wrapped it in the cloth, laid it in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 47 Now Mary Magdalene[am] and Mary the mother of Joseph observed where the body[an] had been laid. | 57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. | 50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council,[ag] a good and righteous man— 51 he had not voted for their plan and action—from the Jewish town of Arimathea; and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. 52 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb cut in the rock, in which no one had yet been laid. 54 It was the Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was just beginning. 55 So the women who had come with Jesus[ah] from Galilee, following close behind, saw the tomb and how his body was laid. |
maryhelena said
I think the burial account in the gospel of John is the oldest gospel account. (that is not to say that the gospel of John is the oldest gospel – just that the burial story in that gospel looks to be older than the synoptic accounts.) Below is a chart that indicates how reading first the burial account of John’s gospel makes better sense of the synoptic accounts. i.e. the burial story developed over time. The character of Joseph of Arimathea develops from John to Luke.
Or, it could just be that John adds details in order to make the mean old Jews seem even more mean Joseph had to hide his belief in the Messiah from them. Mark, while sparse on the details, did not have the same agenda where this embellishment would have been appealing. Luke virtually copies Mark and Matthew took Mark’s version and added his prophetic comments like he is known to do.
I won’t dispute you on whether or not John’s account is the oldest, maybe it was. I don’t believe that necessarily, but it’s not something I worry about over much one way or the other. But there are all kinds of theories about it being written outside of Palestine. The setting I believe for Mark’s community is the hills north of Galilee. As such Mark would not have had exposure to John’s account if John’s account didn’t travel far outside of his community early on.
Xeronimo74 said
I was referring to Greg’s claim that John manipulated the story for his aims.
Greg said:
“Mark doesn’t say it (to some he implies it), but John does. Which is right? I did say that I didn’t believe either theory. I was merely presenting ideas of others. Furthermore, John had an agenda. I’m not going to pretend to understand it other than that he wanted his readers to understand how badly his community was being persecuted by the Temple Jews. To do so he had to manipulate his narrative.”
Don’t like the word manipulate. The implication seems to be that he lied or made stuff up. My sense is he embellished or elaborated
on his embellishments. What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
I think the burial account in the gospel of John is the oldest gospel account. (that is not to say that the gospel of John is the oldest gospel – just that the burial story in that gospel looks to be older than the synoptic accounts.) Below is a chart that indicates how reading first the burial account of John’s gospel makes better sense of the synoptic accounts. i.e. the burial story developed over time. The character of Joseph of Arimathea develops from John to Luke.Or, it could just be that John adds details in order to make the mean old Jews seem even more mean
One of the wonderful things about reading the gospel story as a literary construct, as a political allegory, is that it removes the anti-Jewish interpretation of this story. An interpretation that, through the years, has caused much Christian antagonism towards Jews. On my reading of the gospel story it is not the Jews that killed Jesus 1) because this figure did not exist historically. 2) because with a historical reading of the story, of acknowledging historical reflections within that story, those who, in the story, kill the story’s central character are not Jews – they are Herodian Jews. The gospel antagonism is towards Herodian Jews not Jews in general. Who was responsible for the execution of Antigonus – the Herodian Jew, Herod 1. Yep, it was the Herodian Jews, in the story and in reality, that were prepared to have the blood of Antigonus on their hands. Thus, reading ‘Jews’ I automatically read ‘Herodian Jews’…..
Joseph had to hide his belief in the Messiah from them. Mark, while sparse on the details, did not have the same agenda where this embellishment would have been appealing. Luke virtually copies Mark and Matthew took Mark’s version and added his prophetic comments like he is known to do.
I won’t dispute you on whether or not John’s account is the oldest, maybe it was. I don’t believe that necessarily, but it’s not something I worry about over much one way or the other. But there are all kinds of theories about it being written outside of Palestine. The setting I believe for Mark’s community is the hills north of Galilee. As such Mark would not have had exposure to John’s account if John’s account didn’t travel far outside of his community early on.
I do lean towards the gospel of John being earlier than generally thought – how early is another question. That this gospel contains elements that appear to suggest earlier tradition is something that seems to be getting some attention.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
spiker: ”What interests me here is for those who think John was written by the Disciple John, it’s got to strain credibility to think a Jewish man was that hostile (if not antisemitic) to the Jews”
Instead of reading ‘Jew’ try reading ‘Herodian Jew’ and the gospel of John might start to make more sense….
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert