Diogenes the Cynic

This is a misrepresentation of Crossan's theory. He does not say that the apostles themselves composed the Cross Gospel. He does believe that the resurrection mythos was based on visionary experiences of Peter and James but he does not say the apostles themselves wrote any gospels.

dongiovanni1976x

I am at work right now but here is my spin on the article as I read it:


In the eyes of Jewish tradition it was considered “proper” or “honorable” to be buried in the traditional manner- in the tomb of one’s fathers. The Tosefta however condemns persons who disobey God’s commands and says that “Your body shall not go into the tomb of your fathers,”-a dishonorable fate. A Biblical example would be in Jeremiah which God describes the dishonorable burial King Jehoiakim is to receive, “They shall not lament for him…with the burial of a donkey he shall be buried…” (22:18,19) Josephus provides another example, when citing the story of Achan who he claimed was “straightway put to death and at nightfall was given the ignominious…burial proper to the condemned.” (Antiquities 5.1.14) Thus there is no clear distinction to say that Jesus could NOT have been buried in “a” tomb, but the evidence seems to support that he was to have a “dishonorable” or “ignominious” burial (one in which was unlikely to be similar to the Gospel tradition) and that his family and friends were to keep their lamentations to themselves. This is primarily so because Romans did not give criminals a proper burial. ( Notable exceptions were extremely rare, see: Philo, In Flaccum, 83; Josephus, Life, 420-421; Plutarch, Antonius, 2; Cicero, Orationes Phillippicae 2.7.17-18) And Rabbinic Law, as I stated above, forbids formal tomb burial to criminals as well (See: Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7) Plus, there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that there was even a figure named Joseph of Arimathea, let alone that this mythic figure provided Jesus with a tomb. For the Roman’s to give up the body of Jesus for burial would have been nothing short of acknowledging Jesus’ innocence. Pilate was concerned about keeping order at a time of year (Passover) when Jews from all over the Mediterranean were pouring in to worship in Jerusalem. The event that led to Jesus’ death was when he smashed all the business’ set up around the Temple…such acts do not go unpunished by the Romans.

So what is this articles evidence for this formal tomb burial?

The article begins by appealing to “hope”. It offers the reader a chance to believe in what is about to be told because the putative alternative is an existence that is you must accept that you are, “an accidental by-product of nature, the result of matter plus time plus chance. There is no reason for your existence. All you face is death. Your life is but a spark in the infinite darkness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever.”
The article then moves to shift the burden of proof by asserting that anyone who denies the Resurrection, does so on grounds of “physicalism” – assuming natural explanations for things instead of supernatural. Well, this begs the question…why should we take a Presuppositionist stance when we have no reason? The article is supposed to demonstrate why the supernatural alternative is the more rational, it is not supposed to command its readers to suppose it is true a priori.

The article then asks, “What are the facts that underlie…[the]…credibility of the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?” [Article is quoted and then my replies are in parentheses]


• 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula - the formula cited by Paul the expression "he was raised" following the phrase "he was buried" implies the empty tomb (On the contrary, this implication points to a common grave burial)
• Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. (Claiming 500 unnamed witnesses saw Jesus appear to them in Judaea, to people in Corinth, Greece is not a very solid claim. Assuming this was not an interpolation and we had a list of names of the 500 there is no good reason to assume that the appearance was anything more than the collective effervescence many Pentecostals experience each Sunday when they worship together.)
• We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. (We can deny that they occurred if it was an interpolation like Robert Price argues)
• Comparing Herodotus to the Gospels (Herodotus claims makes claims of gold-digging ants and dog-headed men, are we to believe this as true as well?)
• a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. (unsupported claim- who are they, what are their biases/reasons for this new movement…just putting it into the article without any reference to support it makes it appear as if it is just a group of conservative scholars that agree with each other)
• If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus' grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. (this is a conditional requiring evidence, it does not take into account a common grave burial with other criminals)
• For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. (Paul was heavily influenced by Platonic thought, 1 Cor 15:35-54 he explicitly calls the Corinthians “Fools!” for thinking that an earthly fleshy body will be raised. This corruptible thing cannot pass the lunar orbe for a Platonist like Paul- only a new “heavenly body” can. In short, Paul did not think that the flesh could exist in the “Heavenly” realm of what Plato called, “The Forms”…which were ideal and perfect- unlike the flesh which is tainted and corruptible. Paul uses the Greek word psuchikos in 1 Corinthians 15 to distinguish between a natural/physical/sensual/earthy BODY and a spiritual one, “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body…But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.”
• So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly. (if Jesus was buried in a common grave for criminals and it was a spiritual resurrection that Paul preached – then like Toto said, this new “heavenly” body would be a powerful incentive to gain adherents and get the movement going.)
• The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside. (not if his body decayed in a common grave and no one believed that it was a physical resurrection but rather they believed Jesus’ corruptible body was left like a shell and he exchanged it for a new heavenly incorruptible one)

• The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.4 (no tomb mentioned, no physical resurrection either- spiritual resurrection implied, and again, the article never touches on the possibility of an interpolation)
• ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel. (unsupported claim)
• The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development (here is the famous apologetic answer to such claims: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”)
• The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus' day (and so how does this make it any more than a story?)
• No other competing burial traditions exist (what about “common grave burial”)
• The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. [if this is not an interpolation like R. Price argues, then it “probably” may not mean anything more significant than why Jonah was in the belly of a whale for three days]
• the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. (or it could have been later and the name of the priest was unknown at the time or insignificant)
• If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief (why? Do we need to get into neuroscience for every group of people and analyze why they fly planes into buildings or fight ATF agents in Waco? We have plenty of examples of people dying for what they believed to be true. We also have plenty of examples of people claiming to have had personal experiences with Jesus, Buddha, and even Aliens (i.e. Heaven’s Gate) etc. All that is necessary is that they “believed” that Jesus “appeared” to them)

Llyricist

If you are taking about p52, it is my understanding that center of the error bar for the dating is at 150, and it ranges from 125 to 175 (I could be wrong, the experts here will correct me I'm sure). So it doesn't really present a problem for Vork's dating.

TomboyMom

Your first problem, Ortodox, and Craig's is that you accept the gospels as evidence of anything. But the best evidence and soundest opinion is that the gospels were written decades after the events they describe, by people who were not there when they happened, and are therefore not useful as evidence. For that reason, there is no reason to believe that there was a tomb at all, let alone an empty one, and no dilemma to resolve.

Diogenes the Cynic

Not only that but we don't really have any reason to presume that the disciples held any such belief in the first place.

dongiovanni1976x

While we make lack conclusive proof, I feel Paul makes a pretty solid case that, in addition to himself, Peter and James held some kind of belief of a risen Jesus.

TomboyMom

You have to explain why people believe things that aren't true? Are you kidding? Conservatively, I'd say most of what people believe is not true. btw, does the name Haile Selaisse ring a bell? Do you have to explain why people believe he was divine?

Doug Shaver

Yes, I have considered that possibility. I have given it all the consideration that I think it deserves taking into consideration all the relevant evidence.

Vorkosigan

No problem then. Supply a credible dating for the gospels based on a sound methodology!

Vorkosigan



This reference to a book even not yet published is irrelevant for now as is the reference to your own analysis which at best might render something just possible.

Michael[/QUOTE]

Iasion

Greetings,

P52 is dated :
* 100-199
* 100-150
* 120-170
by various authorities.

It is not correct to say it is dated to c.120, without giving error bars or later datings.


Iasion