spin

Guido di Pietro aka Giovanni da Fiesole!? That'll really confuse'im.


(You gotta car? Would you take me for a...


spin?)

Ben C Smith

Well, I know it is late, but the box in each of the pictures in question (including Dura-Europos) is clearly based on a simple sarcophagus (Roman, I think). Even if that is not how the gospels describe the burial, that is indeed how many later artistic images portrayed it.

Ben.

spin

Strange. I took the question to mean the box in the second Mary's hand, ie the material to anoint him with. But you're probably right, the box referred to is the tomb.



And note, there actually seem to be three women, the few remains of the third on the right.


spin

Ben C Smith

Oh, I see. That explains a lot. (I thought your Mark 16.1 was a mistake for 16.2, for example.)

At any rate, I think the question (whichever box it meant) is pretty well answered.

Ben.

J-D

I have seen no evidence that any Gentiles read and believed in the Septuagint, and it makes no sense to imagine them believing in the Septuagint but rejecting Judaism.

spamandham

The question is "what is the box", not "why did they go to the tomb". I think I know what it is, but would like others to take a stab first.


...nevermind, just noticed your confusion about what I meant in your exchange with Ben. Right. It's a sarcophagus (or worse, possibly an ossuary!?). This seems inconsistent with the canonical Gospel story.

spamandham

Yes, well, later artists also depicted Jesus as a European, so I don't find it odd to see them retroject their customs onto Jesus in spite of the inconsistency with the Gospel stories. But the fresco in question is claimed to be from pre-Roman Christianity. A sarcophagus in that context is out of place for the canonical Gospel story.

spin

I don't think you mean quite that!?

What problem do you see? The fresco just has three women and a tomb. It shows nothing else, no contextualization. It is just the tomb and the women and you don't know from the image where they are.


spin

Sheshbazzar

WHO were the Bereans? WHERE did they live? and WHAT was their language? And what Bible do you think these Bereans employed to "search the Scriptures daily" ? (Acts 17:10-12)
Do you think that these Bereans, after hearing the preaching of Paul, searching the Scriptures, and evidently believing, ran off to the nearest Jewish synagogue to get themselves circumcised and become Jewish proselytes?

J-D

PLEASE STOP SHOUTING at me.

You make as poor a Socrates as Pete does. Evidently you have an interpretation of the passage you cite from Acts which you think supports your theory. If so, you do not make your case stronger by choosing to present it indirectly by cross-examination instead of simply stating it. The technique is just tiresome.

Nevertheless, I will answer your questions. I don't know anything about who the Bereans were in general, except that they were evidently the people of or from a place called Berea. Wikipedia tells me that this is a variant spelling of Beroea, which was an ancient Macedonian city on the site of the modern Veria. Presumably, therefore, Bereans lived in Berea/Beroea, although possibly some people continued to be considered Bereans while living elsewhere. I presume, however, that you have in mind more particularly the people referred to in the passage from the Book of Acts you cited. I don't automatically assume that because something is recorded in the Book of Acts it must be true. I don't know whether you do. I can't see any good reason to do that. However, for what it's worth, that passage describes Paul arriving in Berea and going into the synagogue of the Jews. Presumably, therefore, the Bereans to whom Paul was preaching in that story were the Jews of Beroea/Berea. There's nothing there to say what language they are supposed to have spoken. If there were Jews in that town at that time, which is likely enough, they might have spoken Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin. If somebody preached to them in their synagogue, most likely he would have done so in Hebrew. I have no idea what text of the Scriptures they would have used, and can't see how it would make any difference. Obviously, if the people Paul was preaching to were Jews, they wouldn't have reacted to his preaching by converting to Judaism--that wouldn't have been necessary.

I'm sure that's not the way you see it. Perhaps you will explain how you see it. I am particularly interested to know what message you think Paul was preaching and where you think he got it from.