TedM

I've been reading some blogs by James Tabor, and at first blush anyway, his writings about the burial of Jesus make sense in that they very reasonably explain some odd things we find in the various gospel accounts regarding the resurrection, long observed by scholars.

They help explain the tradition of the empty tomb.

They help explain why Paul (the earliest writer) seems to have believed in a spiritual resurrection.

They help explain Mark's (the earliest gospel) abrupt ending, without any resurrection accounts..just a promise of one.

They help explain Matthews tradition that Jews said the disciples stole/moved Jesus' body.

They help explain why the strong indications in all(including GPeter) but Luke that the disciples went home to Galilee before they had developed belief in Jesus' resurrection.



This is a LOT of stuff to be explained, and his theory does it nicely. And for the ice cream topping: They make a lot of sense!


Here it is:

A wealthy Jewish leader, Joseph of Arimathea, gets permission to take down Jesus' body before nighttime (all 4 gospels, and GPeter agree). This is a reasonable idea if Jesus had been of some importance.
Jesus was put in a tomb/cave in a garden by Joseph in the place where he was crucified.(Gjohn)
It is reasonable to conclude that he was quickly put in that tomb for the purpose of removal the next day and placement in a tomb Joseph already had in mind to move him to--perhaps even owned himself. Then, his body would be properly prepared.
So, early the next morning Jesus' body is moved to the tomb owned by Joseph, who presumably would have to have lived close by.(the Tapiot excavation is very close, and the tomb area appears to be on a wealthy estate)
The women arrive at the temporary tomb in the crucifixion garden to anoint Jesus' body, but find the body missing.(GMark GPeter)
The women were very frightened, but the explanation is simple. Joseph had Jesus' body moved to another tomb for a more proper burial.
The disciples went home to Galilee.(GJohn, GPeter, implied in GMark and GMatthew).
Jesus' followers remember his words about the resurrection, and hope he will appear to them in Galilee.
Some of his followers (in Galilee) believed he was resurrected as a spirit, aware also of his re-burial.
The story arises that Jesus appeared to them in Galilee (GJohn(add on), implied in GMark, GMatthew. Some of his followers even doubt it (GMatt)
Word spreads of his resurrection
Paul also has a vision of Jesus as a resurrected 'life-giving spirit'.

Either reports of the empty tomb or knowledge of the actual tomb owned by Josephus lead unbelieving Jews to believe that someone moved the body.
Christianity grows as many wild reports circulate.
Christianity takes hold in Jerusalem.(Acts)
Jesus' family and some disciples move to Jerusalem(Acts). (Perhaps they had ongoing contact with Joseph of Arimathea, who was described as a disciple of Jesus).
Joseph of Arimathea uses Jesus' tomb for other members of Jesus family: His brother Jose, his wife Mary Magdalene, son Judah, his mother's relative Matthew, and later James(excavation, resides on wealthy estate)

An earlier tradition of a spiritual resurrection is consistent with knowledge of a physical tomb owned by Joseph Arimathea .
After the Jerusalem War the actual Tapiot tomb gets forgotten, and the empty (first) tomb reports drive adoption of belief that the resurrection had been physical.
Gluke places the resurrection accounts in Jerusalem. Gjohn says the disciples returned home but then says Jesus appeared that night (in Jerusalem) The chronology is not quite right, so it makes more sense to see the appearance in Galilee at the see of Tiberias as being an earlier account.
Both GLuke and the GJohn Jerusalem accounts stress Jesus' physical resurrection, yet with also references that make Jesus more like a ghost. This therefore appears to reflect a later transition from belief in a spiritual resurrection to a physical resurrection, as would happen when the actual tomb is forgotten, but the empty tomb story remains...


The need to find Jesus a quick, temporary resting place before sundown is consistent with the gospel accounts.
The need to give Jesus a proper burial is consistent with Joseph moving the body, and the women coming prepared to anoint the body.
The tradition of an empty tomb is consistent with Joseph moving the body from the temporary first tomb.
The tradition of the disciples stealing the body is consistent with Joseph moving the body.
The return home to Galilee is consistent with Joseph moving the body.
The early belief in a spiritual resurrection is consistent with Joseph moving the body.
The tomb of Tapiot is consistent with Joseph moving the body.

This is the best explanation I've heard for explaining the various accounts of the resurrection.

outhouse

Im sorry.








Have you read much on the subject from others ?





There are inconsistancies because we have Romans telling about one of their oppressed victims they never knew! Their legend is told with a Roman lense on the telescope looking decades in the past.

We are talking about people who never

heard jesus
witnessed jesus
didnt live where he did
didnt live how he did
wrote decades after his death

They were factully competing this created divinity with the created divinity of Roman Emporers



Horse Pucky

Who can state Jesus would have said this with any certainty.?


WE know Augustus thought he was the "son of god" first before this jesus legend existed. Because he witnessed his father Julius in a comet and proclaimed his father was ressurected. A coin minted with a star on it had also influenced the gospel authors.

aa5874

Your story is total absolute Fiction derived from myth fables of Gods, Sons of Gods, Holy Ghosts, Satan, the Devil, Demons and Angels.

You have utterly failed to present a corroborative source for your Fiction stories.

The very Gospels that claim Jesus resurrected also claim he was the Son of a Ghost, that he walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascensded in a cloud.

Please, you NEED credible witnesses of antiquity.

TedM

Yeah who knows really. I just thought it was a pretty reasonable reconstruction of what might have really happened. I"m not married to it.

No one. It may have just been attributed to him. The reconstruction certainly doesn't require it.

Toto

You would do better to read Mark Goodacre's blog


In particular The Talpiyot Tomb and the Bloggers , which has a link to an excerpt from a recent book Archaeology, Bible, Politics, and the Media.