Amaleq13

It wouldn't be a switch if the tomb was not a large, elaborate family tomb. It would be entirely consistent with the archaeological evidence. The actual "switch" was that round stones became more common after 70CE.

The archaeological evidence doesn't actually discredit the Gospel stories. It just casts doubt on any attempt to date the stories earlier than 70CE.

In reality, this discussion has involved yet another example of the kind of strained efforts required to retain faith-based beliefs about the stories regardless of the evidence.

No more so than identifying "hills" as "mountains".

I'm pointing out reasons against the assumption that J of A's tomb was the kind of elaborate, family tomb that had round tomb doors. It was new and apparently intended to hold only a single body.

Evidence that the tomb location was known from the early to mid 1st century would be best. That a tomb was identified as the one in which Jesus was buried centuries later when all sorts of similar "discoveries" were being made does not suggest it should be embraced as authentic.

I'm not sure how you would match the location except in a very general way.

Dating would be credible support though I'm not sure how specific you could actually get with the available science.

A round stone would be problematic for the reasons already stated unless some really specific dating could be somehow obtained to argue an exception to the "rule".

A "great" stone is unhelpful given the hills/mountains sort of subjectivity involved.

Empty would be consistent, I suppose, but not really credible evidence for specific identification. Also, I'm not sure we should expect it to still be empty since it could very well be reused later.

An earthquake crack would be consistent with one version, I suppose, but not necessarily credible evidence for specific identification.

Early evidence of a known location would be best.

Steven Avery

Actually the whole Carrier/Amaleq13 argument here is more a source of bemusement than anything else. Carrier trying to develop a very mild probabilistic argument against a round stone for Jesus' Tomb !! You don't get much more desperate than that, I think Richard might have let his position as a Net skeptic writer go to his head.

So, when there is "no there there" the most convoluted arguments are offerred, such as this one, so I may play along a bit to see what in carnation they are talking about :-)

Similar with Amaleq *still* stuggling over Greek word and Israeli usage for "mountains" and "hills" in the NT not having our USA Rocky Mountain, Appalachian type of distinction, as above. Humorous, and even interesting, edumactional, for awhile.

Or my spending lots of ink on Amaleq's dissection parsing of Josephus (giving Josephus a type of technical conceptual textual infallibility far beyond what he fights in the Bible ... looking back that is rather ironic) trying to keep the country of the Gadarenes away from the Kinneret, when the only real errancy issue is which part, or parts, of Kinneret are more likely, and are there hills/mountains/geography (Decapolis, "over against Galilee") there to fit the account :-) And of course the fascinating issue of Matthew between a distinct event from Mark/Luke :-)

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

Steven Avery

Actually I believe you are generally post-facto defining
"credible evidences" - those which we don't have
"uncredible evidences" - those which we do have

And arranged your ideas and descriptions accordingly.

That is your right, but I think I will go on to other ventures :-)

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

Amaleq13

I'm not sure why you think I'm "still" struggling since I'm clearly accepting the subjectivity involved in the identification. I guess creating a strawman is easier than accepting that the hills/mountains reasoning should also apply to "great" even though that doesn't support your argument.

Two strawman arguments in one post! Arguing that you were reading a great deal more into Josephus than was actually supported by the text in no way requires any kind of assumption of "textual infallibility". Your assertion clearly exceeded the actual support of the evidence. Simple as that whether you acknowledge it or not.

Three strawman arguments in one post! Are you going for a record? The only effort was in your in attempting to read coastal territory where none was actually described.

As I pointed out in the final post of the thread, if you intend to rely on Nun for identifying shoreline property belonging to Gadara, you're going to have to find your hills/mountains and tomb and city on the southeastern coast. Only then will you have geography that fits the entirety of account.

Well, you are wrong but I understand why you might prefer to believe this.

Steven Avery

Sombody started this silly Carrier - round stone in square-tomb argument, and you have been carrying the banner. Maybe you realize it is "subjective" but hey, that seems to be the basis of most of your claims against the Bible, including the ones below.

The same single word is used for hills/mountains while the word for great "megas" is quite consistent in NT usage, I'll conjecture its related to our "mega-". Your attempt to compare the two issues was rather unproductive and left-fieldish so I figgered it needed good response.

Sure, my initial statement needed further research, and could technically have been an overstatement. No provolene.

Bottom line -- "Country of the Gadaranes" to Kinneret is very reasonable (and I am working on a full summary of references). Why there is even a supposed errancy point on that any more is my question. It then somehow switched to dissecting of the Greek word for mountains along with the Israeli understanding of hills and mountains, and then your insisting on my locating tombs, and it really became something of a joke, (although still a lot of fun) just like this Carrier-round-stone thread.

Agreed. Nun's theories fully accord with the text, even though they may dissect your ultra-literalistic approach to one imprecise Josephus quote. So if I was wrong about the land below Poriya being a part of Gadarenes, I will very happily and gracefully accept the correction and we will simply have the hills on the southeast corner of the Kinneret as the locale.

It remains an interesting historical/geographical question, but, either way,. there is no real errancy issue at all, despite the good cop/bad cop routine from yourself and Diogenes.

The remaining real errancy isssue was the fella objecting to two separate incidents because of the various similars between Matthew and Luke/Mark, however the more I looked at it the two accounts interp seemed exactly right, and I moved away from the vaguer interpretations of Gill and Lightfoot, where they work with the geographical vagueness of Gergesenes to try to fold it into one account. Both the country of the Gergesenes AND the country of the Gadarenes lost some swine to demons in having men men healed.

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

Amaleq13

There nothing subjective nor silly about the fact that the only pre70CE tombs that have been found with round stones blocking the doors are large, elaborate tombs belonging to wealthy families. There is also nothing subject nor silly about recognizing that none of the Gospel stories actually describe the tomb of Joseph as a large, elaborate family tomb but clearly do describe it as having a round door. Absent new evidence or strong faith, anachronism is the most reasonable explanation.

Get back to me when you find one. As it stands, a single description of the stone as "great" does not warrant an assumption of a large, elaborate family tomb.

I appreciate the concession though the inclusion of "technically" qualifier makes me laugh.

Again, moving on to other parts of a multi-part assertion is not a "switch". Locating tombs and a city near the shoreline is not a joke if you intend to someday argue the "perfect fit" you believe exists. It is simply a logical requirement.

Still working on the strawman record? As I already stated, my interpretation of Josephus is only "ultra-literalistic" compared to your "wishful thinking" approach. You read far too much into the passage and that was clear. That I refuse to read your beliefs into Josephus' words does not make me "ultra-literalistic".

It would only be a potential locale until you identify the tombs and city from the story. I don't understand why you have so much difficulty comprehending what is required to establish the claim. Showing that some parts of the story correspond to actual geography does not establish correspondence for the entire story.

I think that appears to be a reasonable interpretation only if viewed through "faith colored" glasses. From a rational standpoint, however, this same evidence in any ancient text would be understood as variations on a single story.

Steven Avery

How many tombs are involved in this analysis ? Where are they ? Are you sure there are 0, didn't Carrier talk in terms of less prevalent ? Is there any intrinsic reason why any large tomb wouldn't have a rollable stone ? What about the Garden Tomb, does it get dated later *because* it has a round stone ?

To make theories on such carefully crafted criteria, without a point-to-point analysis, may not be *silly*, but it is poor scholarship.

It was such a trivial technical issue that was bypassed 10 fold in the discussion, that I was simply surprised that rather than acknowledge that the main and basic errancy argument against Mark had failed, you would always go back to that one quote.

However, it was a complete reversal from the argument from Diogenes and others that Mark didn't know geography, he was incompetent and such. It is more on the level of geographic interest than anything else.

The Josephus thing was ultra-literalism, I will always get a chuckle thinking about how you argued that one. And my actually entertaining the diversion.

And they fled and told it in the city.. could even have been Gadara, or a smaller village nearby.. you are asking for an impossible identification. Similarly with tombs, 2000 years later. That is why this type of thing becomes a good errantist/bad errantist joke.. you raise this non-issue and then Diogenenes jumps on it as some sort of necessity, all to mask the fact that "the country of the Gadarenes" in Mark has been demonstrated to be eminently fine. You folks can do better.

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

Biff the unclean

So what is someone who was crucified doing in a tomb anyway? Tombs were for people who were stabbed or hung or strangled as a means of execution.
Crucifixion was a very involved, expensive, labor-intensive form of execution. The whole point of it wasn’t even the killing of the malfeasant as there were many more efficient economical ways to do that. The point was that the dead body would hang there being eaten by birds and rats to give the local folk something to think about.
Why go through all the trouble of a crucifixion if you weren’t interested in the public display of the body?

Steven Avery

Very true, Biff.

It would take a very unusual set of circumstances (probabilistically very unlikely) -- like a popular spiritual leader, where the trial left some real questions, and a man of real influence, going to the procurator, and a tomb already ready, shabbat drawing neigh..

Without such a set of circumstance... it would be virtually an impossibility !

Shalom,
Praxeas

Biff the unclean

Did no one think to mention to the Romans ahead of time that Jesus was a popular spiritual leader? I got the impression that this was the reason to crucify him

I can understand why this might cause them to postpone or call off the execution…but they didn’t do that.

Odd that he waited until after Jesus was “dead.� Why would the Romans care if a tomb were already ready? Their cross was already in use and the tomb surely wouldn’t go to waste.

That didn’t get them to take the two thieves down. Or are you implying that the Shabbat somehow slipped the Romans minds until they were halfway through….�No, today’s Thursday I tell you, not Friday. Look Monday was III and Tuesday was the IV, so that means today is…oh crap… am I gonna catch it from my wife.�

With such a set it become purely ridiculous.