Vinnie

And I am not sure why Brown makes the assumption of a "recess". I can't find anything in the text.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Slightly earlier (p. 1248) Brown mentioned the Tombs of the Kings and referred to FANT 181-219 "for excellent illustrations and explanations of tombs". My knowledge here isn't too god, though.

Of course that may be dated as its from 1969 (Jack Finegan, archaeology of the NT)

Vinnie

woops, thats Jack Finegan, not Joseph and I checked but I didn't see what Bbrown was talking about in those page numbers. In the "look inside" at amazon.com Finegan discusses tombs from p. 292-337.

Peter Kirby

What do we know about the moss-gathering capabilities of Jesus' followers? A rolling stone gathers no moss. They could have put moss on the stone so it looked like it hadn't been rolled away.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

I have no clue. That question is entirely new to me. Why would anyone want to put moss on this? I'm not following this at all here. Maybe its the Coronas

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

It was a bad joke. But do let us know if you turn up anything on the archaeology of tomb coverings outside Palestine (or inside for that matter).

MortalWombat

As long as we're doing bad jokes, they could have written on it "I can get some satisfaction."

MortalWombat

If a date of ~70ish is considered to be the most likely date for Mark, could one then look for areas aroung the Mediterranean that used round blocking stones at this time to deduce where the author of Mark was from? I think some have suggested that the author of Mark was from Rome. What were Roman tombs like in the mid to late 1st Century?

Vinnie

That is the question. And what would a person from Rome have known about Palestinian tombs? Did he think JofA was rich and envision Jesus as being buried in a fancier tomb?

This is what we know about the tomb from Mark's view:

"a tomb cut out of rock." "a stone [rolled] against the entrance of the tomb"

it was a "very large stone"

Mark has "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" all enter the tomb and there is a man "dressed in a white robe" who was "sitting on the right side". Was he sitting on a the floor? On a bench?

Apparently, this one seemingly was somewhat spacious on the inside in the mind of whoever wrote Mark as the three women inside saw a "man on the right".

Ted Hoffman

later...
I thought it was a funny joke. What with Millers wacky analogies of dreams and animated panckakes and loaves and wafers etc. It fitted right in and I found it Hilarious.

But more seriously, once it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that "rollable" tomb stones were only in use post 70CE, then Mark can be dated.

But there is still the danger that Mark was just relating what he thought happened and could be making some anachronisms ipso facto.

What would eliminate these errors would be an actual eye-witness to the burial etc. We dont have one, do we?

mike_decock

That would mean there actually was a burial. Maybe there wasn't a burial at all.

-Mike...