Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MortalWombat · 03-24-2003, 04:10 PM

In Richard Carrier's piece: Craig's Empty Tomb and Habermas on the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus, Carrier writes

Quote:

There is another reason to doubt the tomb burial that has come to my attention since I first wrote this review: the tomb blocking stone is treated as round in the Gospels, but that would not have been the case in the time of Jesus, yet it was often the case after 70 C.E., just when the gospels were being written. Amos Kloner, in "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that "more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones" (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, "the Second Temple period...ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common" (p. 25).

I don't know if this has been discussed here before, but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to if this provides evidence for a post 70 date for Mark, or if it is just the mark of a later redactor?

Peter Kirby · 03-24-2003, 08:03 PM

What do we know about the shape of tomb stones outside of Palestine?

Unbeliever · 03-24-2003, 08:11 PM

I'm not a Christian, by any means, but I can just imagine someone of that persuasion asserting that "because Jesus was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man, then such a round stone might well have covered Jesus' (temporary) burial site. Just because only four are known so far, doesn't mean that more could not have existed."

Sorry, I just wanted to play a little "devil's advocate"!

Vinnie · 03-24-2003, 08:35 PM

Brown says "Apparently Matt 28:2 supposes a boulder, since the angel who rolls away the stone sits on it--a wheel-shaped stone would most likely have been rolled back into a rock recess or flat along the outside of the tomb and thus not available for sitting." (BDM p.1248)

In a footnote on the same page: "We should remember that there is not proof that any of th canonical evangelists, who were not themselves eyewitnesses and were writing from thirty to seventy years after the event, had seen the tomb of Jesus. Under the influence of the tombs that he had actually seen, each may bee describing what he supposed the tomb of Jesus to have been (so Ghiberti, Sepoltura 63).

Brown also said, "I have already mentioned the "Tomb of the Kings" (in reality, the tomb complex of Queen helen of Adiabene, who died about twenty-five years after Jesus) that offer an excellent parallel in many features for studying the kind of place in which Jesus was probably buried (cut in a quarry; containing both kokim and arcosolium burials; closed by a rolling stone)." p. 1281

Some information on stones here and tombs:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00vb0

See pictures here (includes Tomb of the Kings):
http://www.bibleplaces.com/tombofkings.htm

Under the assumption that no evangelist saw the tomb is it plausible that Mark took the burial story and described Jesus tomb in more elaborate terms (e.g. round stone( rather than as a more simple one (square stone)?

Interesting post. I would like to see more information on this.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-24-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
What do we know about the shape of tomb stones outside of Palestine?

Good question.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-24-2003, 08:46 PM

Also, is it possible that the author of Mark may have only known about fancy "rolling stone" type tombs of this type in Jerusalem? As they are the more fancier ones? Don't forget that Mark's Palestinian geography is messed up at times in the Gospel.

Mark 16:4 tells us that the author that of the stone as being very large as well.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-24-2003, 09:20 PM

Found another site with info:

http://www.andrews.edu/ARCHAEOLOGY/p...ws/tombs_2.htm

Glen Miller critiques Carrier's comments here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rocknroll.html

Any thoughts on Miller's comments? They seem to cohere with Brown's understanding of Matthew having the angel sit on the stone.

Vinine

Peter Kirby · 03-24-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Brown says "Apparently Matt 28:2 supposes a boulder, since the angel who rolls away the stone sits on it--a wheel-shaped stone would most likely have been rolled back into a rock recess or flat along the outside of the tomb and thus not available for sitting." (BDM p.1248)

Can you explain this? Why couldn't a circular stone be rolled into a flat area along the outside of the tomb and be available for sitting? Obviously the situation would be different if it is assumed that the stone would be rolled "into a rock recess"--but why would Brown make that assumption?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 03-24-2003, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Glen Miller critiques Carrier's comments here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rocknroll.html

Any thoughts on Miller's comments?

I couldn't help chuckling a little when reading Miller's attempt to enlist this passage as a counter-example:

Quote:

When Gideon arrived, there was a man telling a dream to his comrade; and he said, "I had a dream, and in it a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian, and came to the tent, and struck it so that it fell; it turned upside down, and the tent collapsed." (Judg 7.13; also in Josephus version of this: "The dream was this: - He thought he saw a barley-cake, such a one as could hardly be eaten by men, it was so vile, rolling through the camp, and overthrowing the royal tent, and the tents of all the soldiers"�note: tumbling applies to non-disc objects too. Barley loaves came in several shapes: hearts (2 Sam 13.6, 8, 10), ring-shaped (Lev 2.4), and other mold-based forms (esp. figurines of deities). The predominant cake form was disc, of course, but wafers were also made [not good candidates for 'rolling'], and disc thickness could vary considerably. In this case, ISBE, s.v. 'bread' notes: "Barley bread is a symbol of the Israelite army in Jgs. 7:13, because the logic of the dream asks for a thick and heavy cake." The NAS actually translates this as 'round loaf', as opposed to the more disc-shaped 'cake'. ABD points out that bread shapes were quite varied: "Some 300 kinds of bread are mentioned in Mesopotamian vocabulary lists. These breads were made from a variety of ingredients such as flours, spices, and fruit fillings and came in a variety of shapes and sizes." (Mesopotamia) and "Breads were made in numerous shapes: conical, circular with slashes, triangular, semicircular, flat and curved, rolled into spirals, and even shaped into animal and human figures." (Egypt). We have evidence in NT times that the rectangular-shaped loaf was in use, too, but we do not know how far back that usage went. WBC at Lev 2.4 points out that the Hebrew word for bread refers to "a twisted or round loaf", and not primarily to a cake-shaped form. There is no reason to assume the loaf in this case is a disc-shaped object, rolling on its edge, bumping into tents. The tumbling word along suggests a more tumultuous type of motion. )

This passage reflects Miller's technique, intentional or not, to bury the reader with lots of words that don't amount to a hill of beans (and those may be coffee beans or refried beans, and the hill may be conical or cylindrical, as there is nothing to suggest that bean formations do not naturally occur...yada yada).

Miller would have done better to state clearly what his position was up front, specifically that the rock was not pushed but was "rolled," after a fashion, in a jerky tumble, and that the Greek word does not always refer to the natural movement of a circular object. Many quotes, such as the one above, do not provide clear counter-examples and serve merely as padding. The examples that were the most compelling were Antiq. 6.121, where the stone is flat enough to be used as an altar, and the example of Apollodorus, Library and Epitome. But even these are not airtight, as a cylinder shape could be rolled and have a flat surface, and there is nothing to say that the stone of Ascalaphus was not spherical in shape. Otherwise Miller seems to use metaphorical uses of the term, such as the roll of the clouds or of an argument, which doesn't negate the sense of the term when applied to the movement of a stone. I think that Miller can fall back on the idea that any end over end motion could be described as rolling, even if it is in fits and starts.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 03-24-2003, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Can you explain this? Why couldn't a circular stone be rolled into a flat area along the outside of the tomb and be available for sitting? Obviously the situation would be different if it is assumed that the stone would be rolled "into a rock recess"--but why would Brown make that assumption?

best,
Peter Kirby

I wondered that myself.

How thick were these stones? Do they provide ample room for sitting?

Also, how big (height) are they in general? Given that the stone is said to be big, if its along the flat of the wall the question of how one could actually get on it to sit may arise. Of course, this may be disputed on the basis that we are talking about an angel sitting on something

It could be wondered how one sits on a "large" boulder as well but do we need to imagine a perfect sphere here?

As an aside, none of this is meant to imply that I accept the historicity of a "large stone".

Vinnie

03-24-2003, 08:11 PM	#3
Unbeliever Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ca., USA Posts: 283	Round stone? I'm not a Christian, by any means, but I can just imagine someone of that persuasion asserting that "because Jesus was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man, then such a round stone might well have covered Jesus' (temporary) burial site. Just because only four are known so far, doesn't mean that more could not have existed." Sorry, I just wanted to play a little "devil's advocate"!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2003, 08:03 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	What do we know about the shape of tomb stones outside of Palestine?

03-24-2003, 08:35 PM	#4
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Brown says "Apparently Matt 28:2 supposes a boulder, since the angel who rolls away the stone sits on it--a wheel-shaped stone would most likely have been rolled back into a rock recess or flat along the outside of the tomb and thus not available for sitting." (BDM p.1248) In a footnote on the same page: "We should remember that there is not proof that any of th canonical evangelists, who were not themselves eyewitnesses and were writing from thirty to seventy years after the event, had seen the tomb of Jesus. Under the influence of the tombs that he had actually seen, each may bee describing what he supposed the tomb of Jesus to have been (so Ghiberti, Sepoltura 63). Brown also said, "I have already mentioned the "Tomb of the Kings" (in reality, the tomb complex of Queen helen of Adiabene, who died about twenty-five years after Jesus) that offer an excellent parallel in many features for studying the kind of place in which Jesus was probably buried (cut in a quarry; containing both kokim and arcosolium burials; closed by a rolling stone)." p. 1281 Some information on stones here and tombs: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00vb0 See pictures here (includes Tomb of the Kings): http://www.bibleplaces.com/tombofkings.htm Under the assumption that no evangelist saw the tomb is it plausible that Mark took the burial story and described Jesus tomb in more elaborate terms (e.g. round stone( rather than as a more simple one (square stone)? Interesting post. I would like to see more information on this. Vinnie

03-24-2003, 08:46 PM	#6
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Also, is it possible that the author of Mark may have only known about fancy "rolling stone" type tombs of this type in Jerusalem? As they are the more fancier ones? Don't forget that Mark's Palestinian geography is messed up at times in the Gospel. Mark 16:4 tells us that the author that of the stone as being very large as well. Vinnie

03-24-2003, 09:20 PM	#7
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Found another site with info: http://www.andrews.edu/ARCHAEOLOGY/p...ws/tombs_2.htm Glen Miller critiques Carrier's comments here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rocknroll.html Any thoughts on Miller's comments? They seem to cohere with Brown's understanding of Matthew having the angel sit on the stone. Vinine

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.