FatherMithras

Possible, but you lack evidence to support it. So taking it as true would be an article of faith and I have to say no to that.

Mageth

All that's required to negate the "empty tomb" argument are other plausible explanations as to why there may have been an empty tomb, if there was one. And there are many.

Of course, it's plausible that the "empty tomb" is a total fiction as well.

I agree that the entombing of Jesus disagrees with what we know about the Romans' practices with crucified criminals and troublemakers. They would generally leave the bodies to rot or throw the bodies in the local trashpile to be consumed by dogs and jackals.

FatherMithras

Ah. I see now. I suppose it's a possibility and thus OFT conclusion is not the only one capable f being reached, but i still believe thet best assumption to be made in light of the lack of evidence is that if such a man ever lived, he was crucified and his corpse was eaten by dogs. Later, his cult created an elaborate story born from the conflicting accounts which led to the different tales about him, his resurrection, etc.

Mageth

I do not disagree, and have not disagreed. But I would put it "if such a man lived AND WAS crucified by the Romans...", which is what your plausible account counters quite well.

My plausible account counters "if such a man lived AND WAS crucified by the Romans AND WAS placed in a rich man's tomb..."

Llyricist

Yeah. like he wasn't dead to start with. In light of the 3 day tradition to make sure the person was really dead, and the fact (plot point) that he was in the tomb something less than a day and a half....

Richbee

Not really true is it?

What would three days be in Roman terms and/or Jewish terms?

Richbee

J.D. Crossan is a refuted old crone.

Case Study:

Bede.org.uk: The Historical Jesus

Crossan's argument goes like this. He insists that as soon as Jesus was arrested all his disciples immediately fled back to Galilee so none of them knew what had happened to him. Therefore, transformed from being illiterate peasants to well read rabbis, they comb the scriptures for prophecies about Jesus and from these they reconstruct a passion narrative. This forms a 'Cross Gospel' that is then freely adapted by Mark. The other evangelists use both Mark and the Cross Gospel (now preserved in the Gospel of Peter) to give us the passion accounts we have today.

So Crossan not only needs to postulate a new document, the Cross Gospel, that he has no evidence for, he also completely ignores the historical record by claiming it was all a fiction. Furthermore, scholars are nearly unanimous in saying that the Gospel of Peter is late and based on all four intra-canonical Gospels, not the mythical Cross Gospel that Crossan needs for his thesis. As for Jesus' burial in a tomb, he claims that Mark made it up. But in dismissing the story Barabas, he quotes Philo of Alexandria saying how at a high festival crucifixion victims were given back to their families for a descent burial. Archaeologists have even managed to dig up a Jewish crucifixion victim from a tomb near Jerusalem! Crossan dismisses all of this for no better reason than he has already determined that the passion narrative is fiction.

The biggest question that hangs over this book and which is not adequately addressed even in the last chapter is why this unremarkable Jesus who suffered an obscure death ever became the most influential figure in Western history. It is hard to believe there were even Christians around for Paul to persecute, let alone join, if their founder was such a non entity as Crossan believes.

Bede.org.uk


Yawn.

Next Skeptical Fool du Jour?

Vorkosigan

Crossan's core argument, that the Crucifixion, burial, and resurrection scene is a fiction, is correct. But there isn't any Cross gospel.

I'm sure it is just a coincidence that the gospel stories full of trials, tortures, crucifixions, empty tombs, resurrections, and so forth appeared at a time when Greek historical romances featured events such as full of trials, tortures, crucifixions, empty tombs, resurrections, and so forth.

Vorkosigan

michael wellenberg

This is exactly the way you keep arguing. If there is a view not according to your own you dismiss it by saying either it does not show any knowledge or it is not based on credible methodology. Now this is a highly self-satisfied attitude and a bit of contemplative thinking over it would do good.

This reference to a book even not yet published is irrelevant for now as is the reference to your own analysis which at best might render something just possible.

Michael

RUmike

Vork, what about the fragment of John dating to c. 120 CE? If you believe that John is dependent on the synoptics, or at least presents a more advanced theology/christology, you would have to assign the synoptics a significantly earlier date. Unless of course you dispute the dating of that fragment.