Haran

Do you have relatively quick access to the article? I wonder what Magness makes of 6:6-A?

Haran

Stay On Topic!! :devil3:

Notsri

Guess I'll just have to read that, then. Thanks, Stephen.

Regards,
Notsri

Toto

http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL1241.pdf

Haran

My bad....duh. Thanks.

Haran

Ok, so Magness admits in a footnote that Sanh. 6:6 contains a case where bones of the decayed bodies could be exhumed from trench graves and rebuired (presumably in ossuaries). She seems to simply assert that James would not have been exhumed and reburied because it would have been prohibitively expensive. Doesn't seem like a real powerful argument to me, especially in light of Joseph of Arimathea donating his tomb. Tabor seems to propose that Jesus' family did have the means to own a rock-hewn tomb and that the James Ossuary was stolen from it.

Toto

It seems that Magness assumes that Jesus' family was working class poor, as implied in the gospel description of Joseph as a carpenter, while I think Tabor assumes that they were of a higher status.

S.C.Carlson

In the gospels, Joseph of Arimathea lent his family's tomb to hold the body of Jesus, and that lasted only a couple days. For that scenario to work for James, however, he would have to have donated the tomb to the family of Jesus, but I don't know what evidence supports this.

If Tabor's proposing that Jesus's family had the means, the involvement of Joseph of Arimathea thirty-years earlier would not be relevant.

Stephen

Haran

That is not quite what I meant. I meant that there were those sympathetic to Jesus and likely to James who might have done the same as Joseph of Arimathea. It certainly seems plausible to me, whether it does to Magness or not.

Of course Jesus was only in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb for a short time, but we do not know how long Joseph intended to have him interred there. Perhaps, being sympathetic to Jesus, he would have had him permanently interred there. We do not know, do we?

Apparently I didn't word my post very well. I did not intend to connect Tabor's thesis to Joseph of Arimathea. My intention was simply to show that there are competing scholars (from the same school, no less...though I believe Tabor has more experience) who have come to different conclusions.

In light of the fact that Magness points out that the Mishnah postdates James and that Sanh. 6:6 points to the possibility that James could have been reinterred, it just doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me.

Llyricist

LOL that guy got blown to bits just after saying that ya know