Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the assault on a 1st century "Mark":

From Super Skeptic Neil Godfree's sight:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/12/...spel/#comments

JW:
As usual, the anachronism seems better placed in the second century.



Josephus

ErrancyWiki

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This tradition about Gamaliel and burial customs seems late. I can't find reference to it in Mishnah or Tosefta.

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It seems quite plausible that Joseph of Arimathea, (who is not represented in Mark as a disciple or associate of Jesus), would carry out a rapid burial of an executed man in a much less elaborate way than would be expected of a man's family.

Originally Posted by spin

So why in a costly private tomb, when most burials in Jerusalem were multiple locus tombs?


spin

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Does Mark (read on its own) clearly imply a costly private tomb ?

Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by spin

So why in a costly private tomb, when most burials in Jerusalem were multiple locus tombs?

spin

Originally Posted by McDuff

5. THE ROLLING STONE

And I’ll simply quote Richard Carrier.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../indef/4e.html

“Amos Kloner, in “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that “more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones” (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, “the Second Temple period…ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common” (p. 25).
Why is this significant? Three of the four Gospels repeatedly and consistently use the word “roll” to describe the moving of the tomb’s blocking stone (“rolled to” proskylisas, Matthew 27:60; “rolled away” apekylisen, Matthew 28:2; “rolled to” prosekylisen, Mark 15:46; “roll away” apokylisei Mark 16:3; “rolled away” apokekylistai Mark 16:4; “rolled away” apokekylismenon Luke 24:2). The verb in every case here is a form of kyliein, which always means to roll: kyliein is the root of kylindros, i.e. cylinder, in antiquity a “rolling stone” or even a child’s marble. For example, the demon-possessed boy in Mark 9:20 “rolls around” on the ground (ekylieto, middle form meaning “roll oneself,” hence “wallow”). These are the only uses of any form of this verb in the New Testament.
Kloner argues that the verb could just mean “moved” and not rolled but he presents no examples of such a use for this verb, and I have not been able to find any myself, in or outside the Bible, and such a meaning is not presented in any lexicon. His argument is based solely on the fact that it “couldn’t” have meant rolled because the stone couldn’t have been round in the 30’s C.E. But he misses the more persuasive point: if the verb can only mean round, then the Gospel authors were not thinking of a tomb in the 30’s C.E. but of one in the later part of the century. If the tomb description is flawed, this would also put Mark as being written after 70 C.E., and it would support the distinct possibility that the entire tomb story is a fiction.”

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Does Mark (read on its own) clearly imply a costly private tomb ?

Originally Posted by spin

It's a single tomb.


spin

Originally Posted by McDuff

Right here goes a controversial one.

7. “ALL the Jews wash their hands…..
“Mark” 7.3

From Nineham “St.Mark” p.193

“According to the Jewish experts, the evidence of the Talmud is that in the time of Jesus ritual washing of the hands before meals was obligatory only on the priests…..but the ordinary layman -including the Pharisee and the scribe- was not concerned about such questions …except …
It is agreed by everyone that about 100AD, or a little later, ritual washing did begin to become obligatory on all;….”

Apparently E.P.Sanders has contributed to this debate, essentially, so I gather, questioning the idea that the Pharisees and others were concerned about purity to the level supposed by “Mark” and others. Unfortunately I can’t get a direct quote but googling suggests such.

So it seems possible that “Mark”s statement that “ALL the Jews wash their hands, is inaccurate for the purported era of JC but possibly accurate for a time several decades later.
Thus:
Suggested date:
Early 2C