For a response to Earl's last three posts, see:
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f.../000195-2.html

SecWebLurker

Earl first, since he failed to address a number of my points in his posts, and it appears they now need to be offered here as well as on the thread Jesus Christ: Worth Burying in a Tomb?:

In this post, I am going to stay focused on the key question of the thread, was Jesus buried in a tomb, and see why it is generally accepted in scholarly circles (as represented by Brown, Blomberg, Bultmann, Lane Fox, Chilton, Grant and countless others) that the simple answer to this question is a very unqualified yes. In outlining the argument for the burial, I will be drawing on the collective wisdom of a number of scholars, and their specific arguments for the historicity of the tomb. So let’s get started.

Let’s begin with the earliest known written recording of the burial itself:

Mark 15:46-47 And having brought a linen cloth, having taken him down, with the linen cloth he (Joseph of Arimathea) tied up and put him away in a burial place that was hewn out of rock; and rolled over a stone against the door of the tomb. But Mary Magdeline and Mary of Joses were observing where he was placed.

Mark (believed to have been written about 66-70AD) is generally believed to be drawing from an earlier burial tradition that dates as early as 36AD, roughly 3-5 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. I will cover this off in more detail later in the post.

In his seminal work, ”The Death of the Messiah”, (Doubleday, 1994), Raymond E. Brown treats this part of the Passion Narrative in chapters 46 through 48, pages 1205 to 1313. Clearly it is not possible in a single post to cover off such a mammoth amount of material, but it is my hope that I will cover off Brown’s principle reasons for believing in the historicity of the tomb to the point that he concludes that ” ”That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable…
(DM2, pg. 1240).

As this post develops I will draw heavily on Brown, but also on additional sources to test the strength of the arguments he puts forward to support these conclusions. Contrary to the assertion that Brown bases his argument first and foremost on the anti-Semitism of the early Christians, the actual supports that Brown uses, in order of importance, are the known sensitivity of the Roman authorities to Jewish religious practices and sensibilities, the lack of mythological embellishment found in Mark’s story, the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea, and the pre-Gospel burial tradition.

Jewish Burial Practices

Without question, the near fanatical devotion of the Jews to burying their dead plays a central role in explaining the general acceptance of the historicity of the burial of Jesus. I have covered off many of these reasons in my original post on this thread, but would like to summarize them again quickly.

From Scripture:

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 “If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged.”

See Joshua’s treatment of the King of Ai in Joshua 8:29 for an example of following this strict law, and also the burial of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:6, 10. Josephus confirms that this is the norm.

“The Jews were so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset.”
Jewish War 4.5.2; #317

For the Jews, even the most despicable of criminals were to be buried. Note please (as Brown does) that in the latter case the description of the burial of Ananias and Sapphira is not noble, or anything more than properly basic, and that in Mark’s account of Jesus’ own burial, it is nothing more than properly basic. Thus, even Josephus’ comment found in Antiquities 4. 202 that “He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried in an ignominious and obscure manner.”. So even working on the assumption that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy against God, he would be buried. And do not forget, Jesus was not convicted (even by the Sanhedrin) of blasphemy, so this burial would remain a bare minimum expected by observant Jews!

So would the Romans have respected Jewish practices and sensibilities on this question?

”Under the terms of Augustus’s settlement the Roman governors of Judaea had instructions to make allowance for the people’s religious susceptibilities. At Jerusalem the High Priest, assisted by his council, the Sanhedrin, exercised the usual powers of local self-government and an unfettered religious jurisdiction…
These disputes (between Greeks and Jews) usually arose out of attempts by the Greek elements (in Judaea) to deny the Jews the special privileges which had been granted to them by the Hellenistic kings, and confirmed by (Julius) Caesar (p. 274) and Augustus.”
A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine, M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, (The MacMillan Press, 1979), pg. 367-8.

I have already covered off in depth the rules under which Rome operated regarding the disposal of bodies. In times of peace and general civility, it was deemed wise to not go out of one’s way to offend the provincials, especially as regards the Jews. The extent to which local Roman officials went to abide by Augustus’s rules on tolerating Jewish customs is demonstrated very clearly in 40AD (less than 10 years after Jesus was killed, and still 26 years before open rebellion takes place in Judaea).

”In 40 a sudden reversal of Augustus’s policy of religious tolerance on the part of Caligula, who ordered the Jews to set up his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem, all but caused a general rebellion in Palestine. Forewarned of the trouble that would ensue by the governor of Syria, P. Petronius, and by M. Iulius Agrippa (‘Herod Agrippa’), a grandson of Herod the Great and a favourite at the Roman court, Caligula relented…”
(Ibid. pg. 367)

Pilote was a bit of a clod, when it came to his actions, and he was indeed relieved of his duties as governor in 36AD for general incompetence, but note that the people he offended were Samaritans, not Jews, and in spite of Josephus’ inflammatory post hoc attacks on Pilate reported in Jewish War 18, Brown notes that we have no portrayals of Pilote as being unusually cruel, or prone to breaking Augustus’s general instructions visa vi the Jews and their religious practices (see Section 31B, pgs. 695-8). Raiding the Temple’s coffers was one thing (especially considering the views most Jewish population as a whole had of the Sanhedrin as co-operators with the Romans). Letting a body rot on a cross, or not be buried in an acceptable fashion is quite another. Even Pilote would have understood this, and the fact that the ONLY obviously crucified body we have EVER found in a tomb was found outside of Jerusalem actually proves this point that the Jews were different. As an aside, the only reason we KNOW that this body was that of a crucified person was because the spike was still left lodged in the skeleton’s foot, having been bent, and therefore making it impossible to remove. Most crucified criminals were merely tied to the cross, leaving no tell tale signs of crucifixion for archeologists to prove conclusively how they died. Interestingly, Brown does tell us that this man was given a relatively honourable burial.

”…the bones of the crucified Yehohanan ben hgqul, found in a 1st-cent. burial place at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in 1968 were in an ossuary adjacent to the ossuary of Simon the builder of the Temple…”
(DM2, pg. 1210)

Finally, how would Jews treat the burial of a criminal by Gentiles (i.e. the Romans)?

”We find this issue raised in TalBab (Babylonian Talmud) Sanderdrin 47a-47b when Abaye complains, “Would you compare those who are slain by a [Gentile] government to those who are executed by the Beth Din? The former, since their death is not in accordance with [Jewish] law, obtain forgiveness; but the latter, whose death is justly merited, are not [thereby] forgiven.” Such a distinction had to be made much ealier, or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Maccabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial of one crucified by the Romans.”
(Ibid. pg. 1210)

The lack of Mythological embellishments in Mark

”The only burial preliminary reported by Mark is that Joseph “tied up” Jesus’ body in the linen material, i.e. the absolute minimum one could do for the dead… (all that would be expected) if Joseph was not a disciple and felt no obligation to care for the crucified criminal beyond burying him.”
(DM2 pg. 1246)

Brown goes on to remind us that the “honourable” part of the burial, the anointing, in Mark, takes place earlier in Bethany, when Mary anoints Jesus with the perfume.

”The anointing at Bethany (Mark 14:8) before the passion was the only item to an honorable burial that the marcan Jesus is said to have received; and Mark’s audience would have been expected to remember it since “Wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of here.”
(Ibid. pg. 1246).

And as to the simple nature of the tomb itself:

“Mark reports that the burial place was hewn out of the rock, a practice attested in Isa 22:16 and frequent in NT times, with quarries often serving as apt sites for such tunneling.”
(Ibid. pg. 1247)

Further evidence that Mark is not embellishing his story (but merely reporting the facts as he knew them) is found in how he presents the women:

”Notice that Mark does not have them involved in the burial, or lamenting as women of the time were wont to do, or even expressing sympathy…”
(Ibid. pg. 1251)

Nor should we forget the words of R. Bultmann (quoted by Brown on page 1241, note 86)

” ”This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vs. 44-45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark.”
R. Bultmann, “History of the Synoptic Tradition”, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pg. 274.

Summing up, Brown tells us:

“The Marcan description of the finale of the burial by Joseph is laconic; Joseph took down the body, tied it up in linen cloth, and put it away in a burial place hewn out of rock… John’s account… nevertheless, if one confines oneself to what Johan attributes to Joseph alone in 19:38b… the finale of the burial activities runs like this: Joseph came and took away the body; he (they) bound it with cloths; he (they) placed it in a nearby garden tomb… [T]he non-italicised portion (the embellishments offered by John) of the summary shows how close John is to Mark… mark and John have incorporated this tradition in quite different vocabulary. This difference not only helps to establish that John did not copy from Mark, but also suggests that the common tradition was shaped in the Semitic-speaking stage of the preGospel formation… This perception of early origin, although not itself proving historicity, contribute to my judgement at the end of the ANALYSIS of 46 that “there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus’ burial that could not plausibly be deemed historical.”
(Ibid. pg. 1271-72)

The historicity of Joseph of Arimathea

I have already addressed this point in my previous posts. To quote Brown again:

...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1)....
Ibid, pg. 1239

This statement is, of course, only the conclusion offered by Brown after an exhaustive treatment of Joseph’s role in all four Gospels, plus the Gospel of Peter.

In addition to the unlikelyhood that Mark would use a member of the Sanhedrin if such a person did not actually exist and do what he is reported to have done in the Gospels, we have also seen that in Mark’s Gospel, there is no mythological embellishment of Joseph or his character. Since it is reasonable to place Joseph of Arimathea in the preGospel tradition (based on the separate accounts of Mark and John), the chances that he is an historical figure is increased. Finally, the fact that Arimathea is both obscure, and contains no conceivable apologetic value (like fulfilling OT prophesy for example), we can assume that the town is also historical. It certainly adds to the weight of evidence that Mark was not engaging in mythological embellishment of Joseph.

The preGospel Tradition

I have already covered this topic off in some detail above. Brown covers this question off in much greater detail in pages 1272-9. His conclusions based on looking at how the Gospels present the burial offer the following conclusions about what was probably in the preGospel account:

1) There is no way to determine if it was Joseph (or his helpers), or the Roman soldiers that would have removed Jesus from the cross for burial. Either is acceptable.
2) The tomb was probably hewn from rock, and near to Golgotha
3) Joseph or his helpers rolled the stone in front of the tomb
4) Joseph was known to be a member of the Sanhedrin, and would have been identified as being from Arimathea
5) We cannot know with certainty who else may have been with Joseph at the tomb, although it is reasonable to believe that he had some help (although not necessarily Nicodemus), and the presence of the women may well be a back formation from the resurrection story.

Concluding Comments

As a final comment, Brown also speaks at length about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (see pgs. 1279-83), and draws the conclusion that the early Christians DID know where the tomb was, and probably did venerate it in some fashion, although this clearly ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Brown relies on the idea that James, the brother of Jesus would have had a familial interest in preserving the tomb, or even taking it over from Joseph of Arimathea. ”In that period he (James) might well have had a family interest in the tomb, an interest that could have been a living tradition among the relatives of Jesus who are supposed to have been prominent in Palestinian Christianity into the 2d cent. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.6.3-4).” (Ibid. pg. 1281).

“Because I do think that Christians remembered the tomb in which Jesus was buried, I tend to favor factuality over verisimilitude in explaining the origin of these details (about the tomb).”
(Ibid. pg. 1273).

While I have not studied the question of the Holy Sepulchre in any detail, I do include it since Brown and others do give it some weight. For me, however, the evidence of the attitudes of the Jews to burial, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea, the noticeable non-embellishment of the Marcan account of the burial, and the existence of a preGospel tradition all weigh heavily in my agreement with Brown and the great majority of Christian and secular scholars that Jesus was definitely buried in a tomb.
---------------------

So, in conclusion:

First, was Jesus buried?

Of course he was. Not only did all of the Gospels agree on this point, but so does Paul (1 Corinthians 15:4), and all serious scholars (including the Jesus Seminar that you like to quote collectively as some kind of holy of holy authority) agree that Paul was passing on a tradition that was given to him extremely early, probably inside of 3 years of Jesus' death.

Second, was Joseph of Arimathea historical?

Again, of course he is. Outside of wild speculations to the contrary (made necessary solely because some wish to remain sceptical of the burial no matter what), this is not even a seriously disputed point.

"...the evangelists manifestly do (Grant's emphasis in original) include some unpalatable or even incomprehensible doings and sayings of Jesus, and incidents in his life. They include them because they were so indissolubly incorporated in the tradition that their elimination was impracticable; in other words, because they were genuine. Examples are: ...the friendliness of a member of that much-criticized class, the scribes; the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man teaching...; and his burial by a Jew, a member of the hated Sanhedrin, without the participation of any of his own disciples."
(M. Grant, Jesus, [London, 1977], pg. 203).

Quite simply, for serious historians like Brown, Grant, Griffith-Jones, Lane Fox, ect. it is ridiculous to consider Joseph of Arimathea to be a fabrication. The only people that remain sceptical on such a thing do so for theological reasons alone.

Next, was Pilate so clueless about Jewish sensibilities (especially during the Passover) that he would have not realized that leaving Jesus on the cross during the Sabbath would have caused a riot?

Here I can only think that Earl was getting carried away with his need to justify his scepticism of the whole burial thing. Pilate had already been rapped once by Tiberius for being insensitive to the Jews (26AD, nasty stuff about violating the Temple and what not). Further, a previous governor had been given the boot when his own incompetence caused rioting shortly after Herod the Great's death in 4BC. Even the insane Caligula had the sense not to rile up the natives unnecessarily (in 41AD). Judaea was an especially difficult province to run, the Sanhedrin was specifically set up to help the governor avoid various faus pas (like breaking Jewish burial laws).

Quite simply, we do not study history merely by seeing who can come up with the most elaborate theory to explain each and every event. If the people that lived at the time give us a workable and probable explanation, then we go with it unless someone offers extraordinary evidence as to why they original explanation could not have happened. The account of the burial is given in Paul, Mark and John, and the tomb is offered in Mark and John independently of one another. To assert that any of these sources relied upon the other is nothing short of special pleading, as we have absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

Thus, if we were to employ Earl's methods to the study of history, then we would have to admit that we don't really know anything at all about anything that happened in the past. Did Julius Caesar get murdered in the Senate? Maybe not. Maybe he slipped in the tub, cracked open his head and bled to death. A tragic ending was invented after the fact to add an element of pathos to his life, and to further the ambitions of Mark Antony against his enemies (especially Brutus and Crassus). How about Augustus being murdered by his wife Livia? I read that in Robert Graves I Claudius. It looked perfectly plausible to me. On the other hand, the speculation was made up out of whole cloth by Graves and has no supporting evidence at all.

For all of his words, Earl's post amounts to exactly the same thing. He offers us an elaborate theory, driven solely by the need to refute what is reported in Paul, Mark and the Gospels. He has no supporting evidence for his arguments (outside of the fact that he can make them), and constructs his elaborate fiction out of thin air. He has as many "might have beens", and "could be's", and "the possibility of's" in his theories than do the best of the conspiracy theory nuts on JFK's assination, Roswell, Area 52, and any other speculative venture we might care to examine. I'm sorry Earl, but I will have to ask you to do better than this, and actually offer some evidenciary support to give more than the air of plausibility to your theorizing.

Bottom line, just because he can think it up doesn't make it so, and Earl should know this. If he wants to refute the burial tradition, he needs to offer actual evidence that what is reported by Paul and Mark (especially) and John had to be made up. Otherwise, we might as well just admit that history is unknowable to us, and agree with Henry Ford Sr. that history really is bunk.

What you have offered may be good story telling Earl, but it is not good methodology when studying history.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited April 07, 2001).]

Hmm... so Christianity came from where exactly max? And when did it start?

Once again. testimony is evidence. And when it comes to the things that people did and said in history, all we will ever have is testimony. On the basis of what you have just said here, we cannot know anything at all about what happened in our past.

Do you have evidence that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address? Or that Napoleon really was at the Battle of Waterloo?

I understand that many Americans do not know very much about history, or how it is studied, but such absurd reductionism and extreme scepticism as you have shown here would make the study of history impossible.

I did not say it was miraculous. I said it was unique. That has been my point all along through two threads now.

Thus far no one has addressed what happened in the first 300 years max, and that was the opening question of the thread. I will ask it again and if you do not have an answer, that is alright.

I agree that both of these religions are remarkable. But again, Islam needed military conquest, and Christianity could not do this when it was officially illegal in the Roman Empire. Hinduism does not rely upon the belief in any events written at the time they occurred. It also does not depend on the miraculous events that surrounded any individual.

You are changing the subject here. I want to know what happened, and we are beginning with the assumption that the resurrection did not take place. On that basis, why did this particular story last when others have not? Assume the story is false. Then tell me why it did not die out like every other false story you have listed (and hundreds or thousands of others we could no doubt come up with).

What is the good evidence that you have that proves that Cicero existed or said anything? How about Hannibal? How about any peasant from any era before the invention of the printing press? What is your definition of good evidence, and does anything meet that criteria?

I am sure you are aware that people can disagree about anything. I have even heard of scientists that say that evolution is bunk. I don't believe them, of course, but they exist.

Now, when an expert in the field of history believes a thing to be true, do you reject it? If many experts believe the same thing? If so, why? I think Layman hit the nail on the head when he equated debating with sceptics about history is a lot like debating with YEC's about evolution and the age of the earth. It is very frustrating to argue with a person that has no real evidence or supports for their claims.

I am not asking for decisive, just highly probable. Do you have any evidence to support your beliefs?

In 1943-44 how would you determine that such a thing was actually possible max? Almost no sane person thought such a thing was actually taking place.

So... you would believe him or not?

This analogy doesn't work either. We only have one testimony, with no independent sources to confirm it. With the Gospel accounts we do have this.

Just look at all the nonsense from Earl. It reads like something from Oliver Stone, but has absolutely no supporting evidence. It runs counter to all of the evidence we do have, and rests on multiple speculations that cannot be supported. Yet he claims it is believable. If we wanted to treat history like that, then I think in the very near future people are going to say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a fictional character too. After all, there is nothing spectatular, extraordinary, or supernatural about the things Earl wants to dispute, nor is there anything supernatural about any of the premise of this thread. Do we really want to be so sceptical of history that we just throw up our hands and say that we don't know anything, we can't learn anything, and we shouldn't even try?

This kind of attitude strikes me as highly anti-intellectual, and especially odd to be coming from sceptics who claim to rely on science and the knowable for what they believe.

When you use words like possible, what are you ruling to be impossible?

As for curses and such, do you have multiple independent attestation to such things? Especially dating from the Pharoah's?

On the other hand, is it possible to accept some miraculous claims, but not others? Or must we do an all or nothing, up or down vote on every single claim ever made?

Come on max. Setonius is the only one to tell us this story. He has major butt kissing motivation with Caesar. Even in the story he does tell us, Vespasian himself seems to be pretty surprised by the healing, and no one makes much more of it than this. (IOW, it never happens again). I hope your powers of discernment and differenciation are better than this.

Well, I do not see any other testimony from anywhere else, but at the same time, I cannot rule it out automatically. After all, extraordinary things do happen, and maybe the men were healed. Do you have evidence that they were not?

Were the writers there? Did they interview witnesses? Do their writings date from the same period in time? Do we have any cooberating evidence from an independent source? (BTW, we are getting very far off topic here. I am hoping to learn what you believed happened in the Roman Empire 30-300AD. I hope you can offer some ideas).

I would certainly look at any evidence offered, but I see no reason to confine miracles just to God, or to what is reported in the Bible. Angels and demons are said to have miraculous powers as well.

When we have multiple attestation from independent sources, this is generally seen to be more probably true than when we have one source. Recall my example of how courts value multiple witness testimony over single witness testimony.

You did not answer my question. Please try again.

Again, you have not answered my question. The resurrection did not happen. The only testimony we do have, all of it independent, early, and from multiple sources, all acting within the lifetimes of the people who witnessed the events, and living in the city where they happened say the same thing.

Why did they do this, and why did so many people believe them?

As I have explained before, I accept that sceptics reject the Christian stories. I want to know what the sceptics story(ies) happen to be. Thus far I have not been able to examine very much.

Thus far we have not really had a discussion. I have found that most sceptics do not really think about these questions, and appear content to either not think about them, or to simply say they didn't happen as described, and leave it at that. This overall lack of genuine curiosity is astonishing to me.

Unique in that it lasted, in that it came from Jews, in that it took over the Roman world in what history considers to be an eye blink, in that it is based on actual historical claims dating from the the time the people lived, rather than the ancient past, and unique in that it is still among the most powerful forces in the world.

Uniqueness, however, does not equal truth, but I would not mind hearing an alternative theory of what happened that makes sense.

You missed my point again. If one story lasts, and none of the others do, then don't you want to know what makes it different? We have already assumed that it is not true. Now we just need to find out why it has held up (unlike Elvis, false Messiah's, ect.)

None of the stories that underly these religions were based on anything more than remote antiquity. Christianity dates back to the period right after Jesus died. This is unique. What happened?

I already told you that it is not true. Please answer my questions rather than merely asking more of me. If you have none, no problem, but I really would like to know what you think.

You are aware that many non-believers come to believe them as well right? In fact, outside of Jesus immediate circle, no one was a believer in the beginning. Today, billions claim to believe. How come on both counts (but especially in those first 300 years).

There is nothing miraculous about reincarnation per se, and certainly nothing on the order of the miraculous claims for Jesus life. Once again, we are assuming these miracles are all equally false however. So please tell me, if you have any ideas, what has made Christiantiy the success that it is?

But Michael has already backed off on that point, and agreed that he is not really using multiple independent attestation of the same events. What he is talking about is not even close to what we are talking about so far as claims about a single man at a single moment in history.

There really are no parallels to what we have on Jesus.

But this doesn't address the point either. You said that you wanted to be able to cross examine witnesses, but we both know you cannot do this with the vast majority of history. Are you prepared to live with not knowing anything about history at all?

I am looking for naturalistic explanations max, not miracles. If you have any, please offer them.

This is cool. Do you understand the differences in the claims for each? And are the claims of any besides Christianty subject now, or ever in the past, to any kind of verification? In other words, when the disciples said the tomb was empty, people could go see for themselves that it was. Do we have anything like this in other religions? Ever?

Could you please answer my questions?

Fair enough. I only hope by this that you mean you will be open to revelation from God when you receive it.

Not at all, and quite the opposite really. If the Muslim experience of God, or the Hindu or Buddhist, or whatever other religion made more sense then did Christianity, then I would embrace it. Thus far, they do not even come close however (and once again we are very far from the point of this thread).

Don't be so sure of this.

Are you saying that I do not know my own experiences and mind? How would you know this?

Umm.. this is how science works max. If we cannot trust our senses and what they tell us (especially when multiple people experience the same thing), the what can we trust?

As I have said before, it is beyond my power to produce any and every kind of evidence demanded by other people. I can only offer my own testimony, together with the supporting evidence from other people and sources, then ask each to make their own judgement. I believe, however, that the only convincing evidence can be provided by God Himself, and that He will do this for everyone.

In the meantime, when I meet a sceptic that tells me that "that didn't happen", then I will ask him or her to tell me what they think did happen.

Thanks again for your time, and your answers max, and good luck in your quest.

Peace,

Nomad

Nomad,

You give the game away with your absolute terms and exaggerations. My "nonsense" has "absolutely no supporting evidence," "runs counter to all the evidence we do have," rests on multiple speculations that can't be supported," and my attitude is "anti-intellectual"? I don't take this reaction to my last three-part post seriously. You're just hand-waving at this point. The evidence is not so clear that a case for the ahistoricity of Jesus' burial is as baseless as you say. And why should we expect it to be? We're talking about an obscure event that happened two thousand years ago. Historians have to dig through the scraps of evidence we have just for fragmentary information about the historical Jesus, and different interpretations of the same piece of evidence are very often warranted. Your absolutism reveals that you're doing theology rather than history, since all historians know that there is no such thing as historical "certainty," only probability, and the fewer, more unclear pieces of evidence we're left with, the harder it is to establish even probability. I've given many reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus' burial, and I don't think you've shown that they're "all wild speculations."

I don't plan on replying to your last post, by the way, since I've covered more than enough material in my three-part post to Secweblurker. You've relied heavily on Raymond Brown, and not only have I offered a number of criticisms of Brown in my three-part post, but even Secweblurker doesn't buy Brown's interpretation. To say that my three-part post doesn't cover the main points you raise is just false. On the contrary, your last post doesn't cover my three-part reply to Secweblurker, such as my criticism of Brown who, as you say, you draw on heavily. But it's just as well that you posted that reply in this thread; readers can judge for themselves who has made the better case.

I am finishing a short reply to Secweblurker's last post in the other thread, though, regarding the necessity of mourning and nearness to the family tomb for an honourable burial, and the burden of proof issue. And then I'll give you and SWL the last word.


[This message has been edited by Earl (edited April 08, 2001).]

Bede

Here's why the pagan Emperor Julian thought Christianity was doing well despite his efforts to promote paganism:

-Letter from Julian to Arsacius 360AD

So... big sacrifices are not helping revive paganism because those wretched Christians were just so damned nice.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

>"Mohammed did not claim to be divine or >perform miracles."

Actually, he tried one. Said he would move a mountain by prayer. After a day or two, when it was observed it would not move, he said, "Well, if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad will have to go to the mountain."

Very sensible guy, Muhammad.

Hmm. Something seems to be wrong with my quote function. I wanted to quote more but I only got the above.

I am no expert, but Robin Lane Fox is. You might want to read his PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS which deals with the history of exactly the period you are talking about.

Anyway, here's a few thoughts.

All the Gospels agree that Jesus' teaching was wildly popular among those Jews who heard it. Perhaps this is self-serving but let's assume its true. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. They were not trying to leave Jewry; they wanted to reform it. It always was willing to accept Greeks (pagans) but was primarily a Jewish movement. The Apostles disagreed over whether a Greek had to convert to Judaism first or could go directly from pagan to Jew/Christian.

This movement was resisted even to the point of murdering its chief prophet, Jesus, and any of his more important followers who preached his Gospel, by the temple priests. But outside of Jerusalem as the influence of the temple waned, the ability of the Disciples to gain converts among the Jewish population of the Near East increased.

Eventually, the movement began to flag and the rate of new conversions among Jews fell off. At this point, the movement could have survived as a major sect of Judaism or it could have become submerged in the general history of the Jews from that point on. But two things happened that changed the fundamental character of Christianity and ensured its continued rise.

1. The Jewish War, reported so admirably by Josephus. This war led to the destruction of the Temple and a widespread fear and suspicion of Jews throughout the Empire. The Christians, whether consciously or unconsciously, began to see the political advantage of distancing themselves from Judaism. There had always been a steady trickle of Greek converts but the Kasruth and the circumcision were formidable barriers to widespread conversions. But then,

2. St. Peter had his dream about the all the good, nonkosher foods spread on a blanket and St. Paul began to preach the substitution of baptism for circumcision.

Just at the point when Judaism was becoming unpopular in the Roman Empire, the Christians split from Judaism, opening themselves up to countless new pagan converts.

Well, I finally got a moment to go back and reformat my last post only to see that toto was right! Nomad did indeed concede! What a red letter day...

That's remarkable, Nomad. You're finally growing up. Congratulations. Though, I did notice that you continue to use the same evasion tactics with others, so I'll try one final attempt here and then that's it. More or less an observation so you needn't get your panties in a knot...

You keep harping on what an incredible thing it is that this "happened" between 30AD and 320AD (setting aside the numerous counter points refuting this from my last post), so I'll just end this ridiculousness now and point out that the three hundred year period you so artfully disguise as representing something incredible, actually points much more to the fact that it's all a bunch of bullshit deliberately created in order to indoctrinate.

After all, if the Lord God Almighty - Creator Of All Existence had actually trifurcated and killed himself as a sacrifice to himself and deliberately wanted Mankind to know this in order for Man to achieve salvation, then the fact that it took three hundred years for it to achieve recognizable status (i.e., outside of the cult) illustrates much more convincingly that it was a myth (a.k.a., deliberate fabrication) rather than the Will Of God In Order For Mankind To Achieve Salvation. Not to mention the fact that there are currently billions of people who do not believe God did this, two thousand years after it allegedly happened.

According to your logic, if it only took three hundred years to "sweep" across the empire, then two thousand years later it should be so "swept" as to leave no human unconvinced! Yet, The One True Judeo/Christian God Of All Creation remains a myth (a.k.a. fraudulent creation) to the vast majority of people living (and dead, for that matter).

Or will you now claim the devil is responsible for this obfuscation? Or is it that it hasn't "swept" enough?

It's a laughable premise at best made all the more hysterical by your stubborn reliance on unwarranted hyperbole as if that hyperbole proved your contention, but keep it up, little clubber!

I'm sure some idiot somewhere will buy into it and sweep away, if history is the judge!

Oh, and Mars? Is it bombastically rhetorical for me to ask you to tritely fuck off? No? Because as an adult, sometimes naughty words get used.

Close your eyes and it won't be so bad.

Well, I have company coming, and don't know if or how much I will get to post until they leave, so let's see if I can wrap up the threads I am currently involved with.

Earl first.

Oh come on Earl. Do you offer any evidence at all that the Romans would not allow a crucified man to be buried in Jerusalem c. 30AD? No. Do you offer any evidence that Jesus was left on the cross? Or thrown in a common grave? Or that Joseph of Arimathea was fictional? Again, no. Do you denonstrate that anything recounted about the burial of Jesus in Mark or Paul was so outrageous or extraordinary that we should not believe the accounts? Well, you don't deal with Paul at all, and you offer no more than speculation about Mark's version of events. Do you demonstrate that John was dependent on Mark? No. You merely assert it.

The simple truth of the matter is that you have drawn on a 20th Century theory about Jesus not being buried, a theory put forward ONLY because it negates the need to wonder about the empty tomb when we get to the question of the resurrection. In other words, your theories are theologically driven, and do not even attempt to make us of actual methods of historical studies.

So now you know why I have not taken your wild speculations seriously. I have looked for actual supporting evidence, and instead what I see is one speculation built on another. Let's look at some examples:

Was Joseph of Arimathea a Marcan invention? If he was, then John must have known about Mark. But does John depend on Mark for anything in his Gospel except for the existence of Joseph? No. Yet you want to assert that John depends on Mark on this one point! Actually, you said that John depends on Mark for his Passion Narrative, yet you failed to demonstrate this on any point EXCEPT on the question of Joseph of Arimathea. Sheesh Earl. This kind of circular reasoning could get you laughed out of the business.

To put it simply, you fail to address evidence, and instead offer speculations. You offer no evidence in support of your speculations beyond your own assertions. On what basis can we be expected to take what you say seriously?

Try this. Paul does not depend on the Gospels, and he tells us that Jesus was buried. You failed to address this point at all.

John and Mark both tell us about Joseph of Arimathea. Yet you merely assert that John depends on Mark. Since there is no evidence that John depends on Mark (or any of the Synoptics for that matter) for anything, your assertion requires some supporting evidence.

The Jewish burial practices for the dead include burial of the dishonoured. This is a well established truth. I offered additional examples by showing that even Judas, Ananias and his wife (Acts 5) were buried. Again you failed to address these points.

You said that I relied on Raymond Brown, and while this is true, I have offered supports from the likes of Rudolf Bulttmann and Michael Grant, neither of whom could be considered friendly to Brown or Christianity. For your part you have offered no one to support your theories at all.

Agreed, but the evidence we have for this event is not unclear, and we have three (at least) independent sources for the events as I have reported them. From your end we have exactly zero sources to support your theories. Theories without evidence are at best mere speculation, and when those speculations are driven by a theological motive (in your case to refuse to address the question of what happened int he aftermath of Jesus' death), then we have a genuine example of theologically (or ideologically) driven historical studies. So do not patronize me and say that I am driven by theology. Would you say the same of Bulttmann, or Grant, or Lane Fox? Try to be serious, and then I will treat your ideas seriously.

Allow me to help you understand what I mean by wild speculations. You have no evidence to support your ideas. The theories you put forward run directly counter to the evidence we do have, including evidence that comes from three independent sources. Further the evidence offered is of a highly embarrassing nature to the early Church (for all of the reasons listed in my posts, as well as SWL's). Your failure to address this evidence with more than your own theorizing (sans evidence) is the sure fire methodology of the conspiracy nut crowd. Normally you are more rational than this Earl. Your dogmantism on this point is unfortunate.

SWL disagrees with Brown? Perhaps you could show me where.

I think you would do better to start offering some evidence to support your theories, or they will remain mere speculations Earl.

Nomad