gregor2

[Warning - a bit of an aside]

Mr. Carrier wrote an article about how tomb-covering stones were typically square until after 70 CE. Square stones used in 33 CE wouldn't be "rolled" in place or "rolled" away by an earthquake, thus supporting a later date for the burial stories.

Glenn Miller, however, (in the Xian Think-Tank) goes about the OT and other sources to find instances where the greek term used for "rolling" could also apply to end-over-end tumbling.

My point - has anyone ever pointed out to Mr. Miller the physical impossibility of having an earthquake (even a heavenly one) make a square stone, that was lodged in a depressed crypt, tumble up a hill and travel end-over-end?

Steven Avery

The Garden Tomb is the exemplar for considering how the round stone would be in place. (Notice above that Carrier apparently actually does not deny round stones in A.D. 30).

While such stones might normally be about 5/6' in diameter and 1' thick, apparently the one at the Garden Tomb was a "great stone" (Matthew 27:60) about 13' in diameter and 2' thick, and is embedded in the ground nearby.

It would be.. "sealed by the stone being rolled in the closed position and then a one inch diameter steel rod being driven into a chiseled hole." "The Roman practice was pouring molten lead into the hole before inserting the iron nail." (I have not confirmed the Roman practice part, the tomb gives evidence of the rods).

The account in Matthew does not say that Joseph rolled the stone unassisted ... nor does it say that it would take 16 men to roll the stone :-)

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

John A. Broussard

Why all this fuss about rolling a stone? For a god who was able to make the sun stand still, rolling a round or square or hexagonal stone would have been child's play.

Please explain why there's any need to appeal to human efforts for this stone removal business. With god's help, Joseph could have lifted it with his little finger.

I must admit I'm completely baffled by this discussion, but I would like to know why my explanation isn't obvious to everyone. Then we can move on if it is. If it isn't, someone may be able to explain why it isn't.

Seekeraftertruth

Maybe these will help....hope so.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../indef/4e.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Amaleq13

In his essay, Carrier refers to a BAR article describing the archaeological evidence relevant to tomb door shapes. It has been found that round doors only became common after 70CE. Prior to that, they are quite rare and found exclusively on a few (3 I think) large, family tombs belonging to the wealthy.

The account does not describe Joseph having anyone with him and says "he" rolled the stone. There is no basis in this account for assuming he was accompanied and that he was alone is the most obvious reading of the text.

Steven Avery

I really don't see Carrier helping his case with the BAR article, as Joseph of Arimethea is specifically called a rich man, and the stone is a great stone, making the tomb large, exactly in line with the 'quite rare' round stone tombs, and the burial site of Jesus is the most exceptional one ever known :-) Imho, he is actually supporting the Gospel account.

Matthew 27:57-60
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

If it was impossible for one man to move such a great stone, then he had assistance.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

ficino

Maybe it was moved by... Archimedes! Standing somewhere on Mt. Carmel.

Amaleq13

J of A is described as "rich" and the stone is described as "great" in Matthew but no other version. Unfortunately for your attempts to establish correspondence, it is also described as an unused (ie new) tomb while the pre-70CE tombs with round doors were old family tombs that were used over and over again. That the stone was "great" does not require that the tomb was large and, as the passage from Matthew you quoted appears to state, Joseph carved the thing himself which certainly calls into question how large it could have been. In addition, it is never described as a family tomb but as Joseph's "own".

There is no credible evidence that the true burial site of Jesus, if there ever was one, has ever been found.

There is no reason to think it was "impossible" because your Gospels describe him doing alone.

Steven Avery

Fine by me, Joseph was a rich man, with diirect access to Pilate, who asceded to his request. All sounds consistent.

So do you think the new tombs of rich people in the 1st century switched to non-rolling stones? Backwards on the technology ? Hmmm... evidence ? Or are we talking about such a small sample size that all generalizations are suspect.

Honestly, so far this is one of the weakest attempts I have ever seen to try to discredit the Gospel accounts.

A great stone on a small tomb does not seem a little incongruous ?

I'm really not sure what you are arguing here, but it is fun to watch you pull out every possible rabbit :-)

What would you allow as "credible evidence" ? An example would be helpful. Does matching a number of particulars, like location, dating, or being hewn out of rock, or a rolled stone, or a great stone, or being found empty, or a nearby earthquake crack, count as credible, uncredible or incredible ?

Possibly.
"and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."

However a lot of times we describe an endeavor as our own when we have assistance.
"Did you pick up the groceries for dinner"
"I picked up some good veggies and stuff at Waldbaum"
Yet we could have had someone with us helping.

The language is simply not conclusive, and I do not know the answer of whether Joseph did either action by himself or with assistance.

Interestingly, the Syriac "smoothed" the text to take out the first singular and added a plural to the rolling. Maybe a Greek expert would comment on whether the English ambiguity in usage is similar in Greek.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

John A. Broussard

I still don't understand why you fuss so much about this incident. For someone who believes that god could make the sun stand still, what's the big big deal about moving a rock?

Why don't you just say, "This was just another miracle," and let it go at that?

Puzzled.