Biblical Scholars who doubt guards at jesus tomb

[thedeist]

Hello all,


Do any of you know of Biblical scholars who doubt the historicity of guards at Jesus tomb besides [Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Raymond E. Brown,Richard Carrier, and Dr. Thomas Sheenan].

If you do please post your sources.



Thanks

[Malachi151]

That's kind of like asking who doubts the existence of flying monkeys in the land of Oz.

The only real debates are:

1) Did Jesus exist at all.
2) Was there even a tomb.

You won't find many people debating on whether or not guards were "really" at the tomb. Skeptics on the issue doubt the entire scene, not the details of the scene.

Here is some reading that touches on comments by other scholars and discusses the issue:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#12

[patcleaver]

That's kind of like asking who doubts the existence of flying monkeys in the land of Oz.

The only real debates are:

1) Did Jesus exist at all.
2) Was there even a tomb.

You won't find many people debating on whether or not guards were "really" at the tomb. Skeptics on the issue doubt the entire scene, not the details of the scene.

Here is some reading that touches on comments by other scholars and discusses the issue:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#12

Malachi151,

Your usually so right, but I think your wrong here.

There are lots of sites discussing various aspects of the flying monkeys just goggle ("flying monkeys" "wizard of oz") and peruse some of the sites. They debate things like the aerodynamics of flying monkeys, the possible histories of flying monkeys, where the flying monkeys lived, differences between flying monkeys in the oz books and in the oz movie. There are also huge numbers of sites debating various aspects of Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, and the gospels that have nothing to do with reality.

It is just as legitimist to debate whether there were guards at the tomb as it is to debate why in a room full of wizards including aurors, nobody tried to curse Voldemort except Harry Potter.

[spamandham]

Hello all,


Do any of you know of Biblical scholars who doubt the historicity of guards at Jesus tomb besides [Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Raymond E. Brown,Richard Carrier, and Dr. Thomas Sheenan].

If you do please post your sources.



Thanks

Rather than excluding real objective scholars such a Robert Price, you might consider excluding any "scholar" who takes the resurrection seriously.

[Huon]

Mark and Luke are also "scholars" who know nothing of the guards at the tomb of JC. How can this be possible ?

[Toto]

previous post by thedeist on the guards (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4493007#post4493007) seems to cover the ground.

It might be more useful to ask if there are any scholars who do argue for the historicity of the guards - aside from Christian apologists.

[spin]

Do any of you know of Biblical scholars who doubt the historicity of guards at Jesus tomb besides [Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Raymond E. Brown,Richard Carrier, and Dr. Thomas Sheenan].
I just wonder what your interest in the subject here is. You've been a member of BC&H for two years, albeit an almost silent member, so you should have had the chance to see what people are talking about, where they come from "philosophically", what they are prepared to assume. Given that you should know that most people would have some logical concerns with the subject of whose historicity concerns you. Would you expect people on BC&H to keep up with the sort of writers who would treat the guards as historical? For most of us who think about the issue the guards would be a late addition to the gospel tradition, even the core of whose origins is in doubt.

So 1) I fear you'll get little on the subject here and 2) what is the purpose of your enquiry?

[ETA: Just noticed Toto's pointer to thedeist's earlier shot at the subject, which makes me wonder all the more about the purpose of the enquiry here.]

(Post 10001.)


spin

[Chili]

[
(Post 10001.)


spin

Thanks for the contribution spin.

[John Kesler]

Even The Apologetics Study Bible--which was written by conservative apologists Ravi Zacharias, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff et al--acknowledges, even if tacitly, that the guards-at-the-tomb story may have been fabricated. Here is part of the annotation found on page 1460:

28:11-15 Though Matthew has been acused of inventing this story, it is still of great evidential value for the empty tomb, since it attests to polemics between Christians and Jews regarding the issue. Clearly the Jewish response to the Christian proclamation of the resurrection was that the disciples stole the body while the guards were asleep. (It would serve no purpose for Matthew to invent this charge, even if he invented the posting of the guard.)

The Interpreter's Bible, volume 7, page 613, offers the following regarding Matthew 27:62-65:

62-65. The Watch at the Tomb.-- Even conservative commentators are obliged to admit that these verses are probably legend. Thus The Expositor's Greek Testament says that this story is "among the less certain elements of the Passion history"...

Regarding 28:11-15, the same source states this:

11-15. The Bribing of the Soldiers.--...Almost all commentators agree that the story has legendary elements. The verses now before us do not lessen the difficulties. In 27:65 the soldiers are described as members of the temple guard, but this account would have us believe that belonged to Pilate's Italian cohort. The admission on the part of the soldiers that they slept would have been confession of a guilt punishable with death. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that the temple leaders would have as much influence with Pilate as it is here indicated...

[thedeist]

Hi all,


The purpose for my enquiry is because I am almost finished writing a paper in response to the following quote by Dr. William Lane Craig:

Dr. William Lane Craig writes: “Some of these alleged discrepancies are easy to answer and are what we should expect from independent accounts of the same event. Others are more difficult but are in the end not of great consequence. Historians expect to find inconsistencies like these even in the most reliable sources. No historian simply throws out a source because it has inconsistencies. Moreover, the inconsistencies Ehrman is talking about aren’t within a single source; they’re between independent sources. But obviously, it doesn’t follow from an inconsistency between two independent sources that both sources are wrong. At worst, one is wrong if they can’t be harmonized. The problem with focusing on discrepancies is that we tend to lose the forest for the trees. The overriding fact is that the Gospels are remarkably harmonious in what they relate. The discrepancies between them are in the secondary details.”

"“All four Gospels agree: Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by Roman authority during the Passover Feast, having been arrested and convicted on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then slandered before the governor Pilate on charges of treason. He died within several hours and was buried Friday afternoon by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb, which was sealed with a stone. Certain women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene, having observed his interment, visited His
tomb early on Sunday morning, only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the dead to the disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of His resurrection.”


To which I respond: The problem with Dr. Craig’s argument above is that if one strips away these so called discrepant secondary details [legendary fabrications] from the resurrection narrative (guards at Jesus tomb, Roman seal on Jesus tomb, resurrected saints walking around at Jesus death, two earthquakes, spearing Jesus side by the Roman soldier, the story of Jesus showing the doubting Thomas his wounds and putting his hand in his pierced side, the shroud of Jesus being left in his empty tomb etc., Jesus resurrected body having feet) then the skeptic is more able to provide a stronger explanation for Jesus NOT resurrecting. For example if there were no guards at Jesus tomb or a Roman seal on Jesus tomb, then the body of Jesus could have been relocated by Joseph of Arimathea Saturday night after the Sabbath was over because leaving Jesus body in his tomb would defile his tomb. Joseph wouldn’t have told anyone where he put the body of Jesus because as a member of the Sanhedrin he was a secret disciple of Jesus. Thereby Mary Magdalene (a woman who had psychological problems in the first place) who went to the open tomb (that Joseph had not rolled the stone back over after he took Jesus body out) could have had a hallucination of Jesus [as do many people who have post-mortem experiences of loved ones]…and so on."

[xaxxat]

(Post 10001.)


spin[/QUOTE]


Thanks for all of them. I've learned quite a lot from your posts.

:notworthy:

[thedeist]

I also am deeply aware of the fact that the Christian world is unaware that the guards at Jesus tomb is fictitious. They just readily believe they existed because their pastors NT Wright, Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, John Ankerburg, and Lee Strobel tell them so.

Every time you debate a christian over the resurrection they always point to the guards. "No one could have stolen the body because of the guards."

It maybe true that the whole Jesus story is fictitious, however there are millions of people in the world who do not think so. Moreover my paper is written to the Christian audience that doesn't think the whole story is fictitious. My paper is a starting point so they can spot the secondary details as legendary and then move on to see that whole periscopes in the gospels are legendary. You can't just go up to a christian and have a discussion with them that Jesus did not exist. They will think you are nuts and walk away. Thus I start by secondary details.



Dr. William Lane Craig argues the following: 'Allison overlooks the developing pattern of assertion and counter-assertion in the tradition history that lay behind Matthew’s guard story:

Christian: “The Lord is risen!” Jew: “No, his disciples stole away his body.” Christian: “The guard at the tomb would have prevented any such theft.” Jew: “No, the guard fell asleep.” Christian: “The chief priests bribed the guard to say this.”


In response to the Christian proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection, the Jewish reaction was simply to assert that the disciples had stolen the body. The idea of a guard could only have been a Christian, not a Jewish development. At the next stage there is no need for Christians to invent the bribing of the guard; it was sufficient to claim that the tomb was guarded. The bribe arises only in response to the second stage of the polemic, the Jewish allegation that the guard fell asleep. This part of the story could only have been a Jewish development, since it serves no purpose in the Christian polemic. At the final stage, the time of Matthew’s writing, the Christian answer that the guard were bribed is given. Given the early date of the pre-Markan Passion story, there is no need to quarrel with Allison’s surmise that the controversy arose between Mark and Matthew, so long as by “Mark” we mean Mark’s tradition." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5781


My commentary: Now christians are going to assume William Lane Craig is correct on this. They have NO IDEA of what Dr. Allison's rebuttal to Dr. Craig is. Why is this? Because they don't know where to look and moreover, many of the Christian Universities don't have commentaries by skeptical Biblical historians. Now here is Dr. Allison's rebuttal to Dr. Craig:


Dr. Dale Allison: One can imagine an exchange between Matthew and critical Jews. Matthew: Jesus rose form the dead and his tomb was empty (28.6) Opponent: did Jesus really die? Matthew: A roman guard kept watch over him; surely he was dead before his body was released (27:36). Opponent: was there a mix up in tombs? Matthew: Christian women saw where Jesus was buried (27:61). Opponent: the disciples, seeking to confirm Jesus’ prophecy of is resurrection after three days, stole the body. Matthew: the disciples had fled, they were nowhere near (26:56) Opponent: then someone else stole the body. Matthew: a large stone was rolled before the tomb; it was sealed; and Roman soldiers kept watch (28:62-6). Opponent: the soldiers fell asleep. Matthew: they were bribed to say that (28.12-15). Pg. 652-653

Despite factual parallels to the story of the guard at Jesus’ tomb, Matthew’s story does not compel as history. Mark, Luke, and John, who know that the rolling stone would be an obstacle for visitors to Jesus’ tomb (Mk 16:3; Luke 24:2; John 20:1), yet say nothing about the guard. In addition, we doubt that the authorities anticipated the proclamation of Jesus resurrection. Pg. 652 [W.D. Davies and Dale Allison. The International Critical Commentary : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew Vol. III 1998 T and T Clark. Edinburgh, Scotland. ]



Professor Raymond E. Brown also responds to Craig on this very same issue. Do you think Christians know of Professor Brown's rebuttal to Craig? Does Licona, Craig, Wright, Habermas, Geisler, bring this to light? NO!


Professor Raymond E. Brown: WILLIAM LANE CRAIG has written very perceptively on the resurrection of Jesus and has deflated some of the presuppositions that underlie facilely repeated arguments against its reality. In his attempt (unsuccessful in my judgement) to defend the historicity of the guard story, it is disappointing that he seems to see worthless legend as the alternative to a historical account (Guard 274) . The Bible is a collection of literatures of many different genres, and we devalue it if we emphasize history in a way that would demean other types of bilbical literature. Jonah is an OT book of extraordinary value even if no man bearing that name was ever swallowed by a large fish or put a foot in Nineveh. Gnilka (Mathaus 2.488-89), who thinks that Matt brought this story (which he has found) into the Easter narrative in order to refute Pharisee attacks on the resurrection, judges it a dubious way to defend the Gospel. But was defense its chief purpose? [1313]


“It is claimed that to sleep on duty was a capital offense in the Roman army; and so the soldiers would have known that they were contributing to their own demise, despite the promise that the chief priests would persuade the governor and thus could deliver them from worry.

1. On the level of storyline [internal evidence], however, as I pointed out, the chief priests are corrupt; and readers are meant to assume that they would lie to Pilate to and probably bribe him not to punish the soldiers.

2. On the level of background fact [external evidence], it is NOT CLEAR that sleeping on duty was always punished by death. Tacitus (Histories 5.22) tells of careless sentries whose sleeping on watch almost allowed the enemy to catch their general; but they seem to have use the generals scandalous behavior (he was away from duty, sleeping with a woman) to shield their own fault. Inn other words, bargains COULD BE STRUCK; and it is not implausible that Pilate might not have been so strict about the behavior of troops temporarily placed at the service of the Jewish authorities if those authorities chose not to push for punishment. [BROWN 1311]


Whose going to know about this if someone doesn't bring it to light? Why is Infidels here if no one brings these issues to light DIRECTED AT A CHRISTIAN AUDIENCE. I already know almost everyone here is a mythicist.

[thedeist]

spandham wrote: "Rather than excluding real objective scholars such a Robert Price, you might consider excluding any "scholar" who takes the resurrection seriously'


My response: I already have Dr. Price's commentary on the guards in my paper. I excluded him in my request because I can easily access his commentary right here off Infidels.org


Dr. Robert Price: The most embarrassing divergence between the narratives revolves around the spectacular scene in Matthew. In this version, the women are treated to the sight of a luminous angel flying down, causing an earthquake, and heaving the stone away from the empty tomb, and all this in full view of posted guards! The problem is that the other evangelists somehow seem to have forgotten to mention the guards and the whole sequence of events! Certainly if all this had really taken place, the women could not help but have included it in every telling of their story, and no gospel writer could have failed to use these facts had he known them. In a gospel otherwise known for midrashic expansion (e.g., the addition of Peter walking on the water), it would not seem improbable that we have an unhistorical addition here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/chap6.html

[thedeist]

Dr. William Lane Craig in Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ Strobel asked Craig “Are you convinced that there were Roman Guards?” Craig answered "Only Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb. But in any event, I don’t think the guard story is an important facet of the evidence for the Resurrection. For one thing, it’s too disputed by contemporary scholarship. I find it prudent to base my arguments on evidence that’s most widely accepted by the majority of scholars, so the guard story is better left aside.”


Christians will read this and not have half of a clue of WHAT EXACTLY the arguments that these scholars that don't believe in the guard story are.

They won't ask: "What are the exact arguments that these other scholars are making."

They won't do the work I am doing to actually find the scholars and the arguments made by those scholars that deny basically all of Matthew 27 and 28.


I plan to bring this to the light. Jews have been blamed for 2,000 years because of the LIES OF MATTHEW!!! Do we ever get the Jewish side of the story FROM JEWISH SOURCES? NO!! So why assume they lied?



Thus my paper will reveal the actual arguments made by Biblical scholars regarding this subject. This is a starting point for the Christian audience to get them skeptical. They won't be ready for all the "Jesus didn't exist" stuff yet.

[thedeist]

Dr. Thomas Sheenan: Matthew's story that the high priests set guards the next day at Jesus' tomb is a later legend, as we shall show below.) The story is rich in apocalyptic imagery (the earthquake, the angel, the fainting of the soldiers) and equally full of questionable elements: How did the priests know about Jesus' prediction? Would they have violated the Passover Sabbath as they did, first by visiting Pilate and then by sealing the tomb? Did Roman soldiers actually witness the appearance of an apocalyptic angel? How could they have reported "all that had taken place" if, as the Gospel says, they "became like dead men"? Matthew's purpose in devising this legend is revealed at the end of the story: "So [the guards] took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (verse 15). Matthew's tale was created in order to answer the widespread Jewish charge that the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax. Among other things, Matthew wanted to claim that the religious authorities admitted the emptiness of the tomb but explained it away by saying the disciples stole the body. [The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_sheehan/firstcoming/two.html


Dr. James D. Tabor: Matthew has two concerns. First, he wants the resurrection to be a dramatic cosmic event, and second he wants to refute the story that is being spread in Jewish circles that Jesus’ followers came Saturday night and moved the body to another location. At the death of Jesus he has already added earthquakes, tombs splitting open, and multiple corpses of the dead coming alive and appearing to various people in the city (Matt 27:51-53). So here, to Mark’s stark account of the empty tomb discovery, he adds another earthquake, an angel as bright as lightning descending from heaven and moving the heavy stone from the tomb entrance. He also relates that Pilate, the Roman governor, had authorized a band of soldiers to seal and guard the tomb against the possibility that someone might take the body and claim he was raised. At the sight of the angel they fell as dead for fear of the terrifying heavenly being. None of this is in Mark. It is wholly and completely a theological and apologetic embellishment on Matthew’s part. What we need to ask is what Matthew intends to address with such a dramatic retelling of his source Mark? Unlike Luke, he knows nothing of multiple appearances of Jesus in the city, and he has only one mountain- top sighting of Jesus in Galilee, where Jesus gives to them the so-called “Great Commission.” Those are obviously the most theologically constructed set of verses in his entire gospel, but even at that he notes that some of the Eleven “doubted” that they were really seeing Jesus, a most telling admission (Matthew 28:16-20).
http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/06/26/the-empty-tomb-how-traditions-grow/


Dr. Richard Carrier: But what about the guards? Doesn't the fact that the tomb was guarded make escape unlikely, even if Jesus survived? Although one gospel accuses the Jews of making up the theft story, it is only that same gospel, after all, which mentions a guard on the tomb, and the authors have the same motive to make that up as the Jews would have had to make up the theft story: by inventing guards on the tomb the authors create a rhetorical means of putting the theft story into question, especially for the majority of converts who did not live in Palestine. And it is most suspicious that the other gospel accounts omit any mention of a guard, even when Mary visits the tomb (compare Matthew 28:1-15 with Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, and John 20:1-9), and also do not mention the theft story--this claim is not even reported in Acts, where a lot of hostile Jewish attacks on the church are recorded, yet somehow this one fails to be mentioned. Neither Peter nor Paul mention either fact, either, even though their letters predate the gospels by decades.
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/2.html

[Amaleq13]

In response to the Christian proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection, the Jewish reaction was simply to assert that the disciples had stolen the body.

Which, of course, makes no sense if it was already known that there were guards at the tomb.

They won't ask: "What are the exact arguments that these other scholars are making."

Oddly enough, neither did Strobel. He seems to forget to ask many such follow-up questions. Not much of a "skeptical investigator". :rolleyes:

[Minimalist]

In order for there to have been guards at a tomb one must first admit that
there was some need felt by Roman authorities for the tomb to have been guarded. This is highly unlikely.

In fact, when the Romans crucified someone they tended to leave the body hanging on the cross until it rotted away. This was a potent message to others that "Screw With Us and You Will End Up HERE!" The notion that the Romans would crucify someone (an expensive form of capital punishment compared to running them through with a sword) and then allow the body to be taken down for a "proper burial" is so far outside what the Romans were doing when they resorted to crucifixion that it can best be explained only as more of the "special pleading" in which christians love to indulge.

If there was a crucifixion all the Romans would have had to do is leave him nailed right where he was and there wouldn't have been any "tomb" to guard.

So, to get around this the gospel writers invent "Joseph of Aramathea" and the whole ball of wax.

There is so much in the tale which is much more unbelievable than the guards on the tomb bit of nonsense I wonder why you are fixated on it.

Start with, what is the likelihood of waking a Roman Praefect in the middle of the night to hold a trial for a criminal and proceed from there.

[Malachi151]

Start with, what is the likelihood of waking a Roman Praefect in the middle of the night to hold a trial for a criminal and proceed from there.

How about start with what is the likelihood of Jews having a crucifixion party during the middle of their Passover festival.....

[Solo]

Most people miss the issue completely. The first thing to be resolved is whether there actually was an empty tomb. I am suspicious that both sides of the argument about whether there were guards guarding the tomb, agree that that Jesus body was placed in the tomb and vanished thence. This is far from established, given how the story was first told.

I, for one, think that the empty tomb was Mark's allegorical cipher, not based in a historical account at all. If there were 'baptismal burials' among the Jesus gnostics (Peter & Co.), they would have been strongly disapproved by the Paulinists (as pharmakeia, sorcery. Paul believed that the Holy Spirit is God's gift and does not come from men). The counter-suggestion of Paul to Romans was to think of Jesus death as the true baptism (Rom 6:3) - with the aim to link the crucifixion to the torments of the post-euphoric psychosis, the Jesus mystics were experiencing. If I am correct, then Mark had on one hand, the practice of live burials by the Palestinian Jewish followers of Jesus, and on the other, Paul's mystical union with Christ, in which the death on the cross and the resurrectional 'life' were complements.

So my little theory goes like this:

Mark had a disdain for the practice of live burials to obtain the Holy Spirit. He was an adoptionist: as Jesus was adopted by God, so Mark was baptized by Jesus into Holy Spirit (and Christ's death in the Passion). The natural way. The bumbling disciples of Jesus of course had no idea what resurrection really was. They saw Jesus transfigured before their very eyes and still did not get it. That was the body they were to meet in Galilee after he was gone.

After the crucifixion the two Marys went to the tomb (suggestion here is the baptismal tomb, in which "flesh" was initiated into the coming Son of Man) to take care of the body of Christ but the resurrected soma was not there. Only a messenger telling them what to say to the scattered entourage. But they were afraid and did not tell anything to anyone. The truth was revealed through the gospel.

No guards in sight. End of story.

Jiri

[thedeist]

Minimalist wrote: If there was a crucifixion all the Romans would have had to do is leave him nailed right where he was and there wouldn't have been any "tomb" to guard.


My Comment: Maybe but the Jews were allowed by the Romans to take the bodies down from the cross.

Deut. 21:22-23 -22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.


Minimalist wrote: Start with, what is the likelihood of waking a Roman Praefect in the middle of the night to hold a trial for a criminal and proceed from there.

My Response: I thought is was the Sanhedrin who held the trial at night and the Roman trial was in the morning.


Minimalist wrote: So, to get around this the gospel writers invent "Joseph of Aramathea" and the whole ball of wax.

There is so much in the tale which is much more unbelievable than the guards on the tomb bit of nonsense I wonder why you are fixated on it.


My Response: I'm not fixated on this. By demonstrating that there were no Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus I can also discount Matthew's placement of a Roman seal on the tomb, 2 earthquakes, Matthew's having the stone closed before the woman arrived at the tomb, Matthew's assertion that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

I don't think Joseph of Arimathea is an invention. The secondary details around this figure such as "he was a secret disciple" or "Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" may well be an invention. But its unlikely that the Anti-semite gospel writers would have a memeber of the Sanhedrin put in a positive light.

I shall reiterate that I am starting with secondary details and working up to the larger elements of the Jesus resurrection narrative [such as was there really an empty tomb.]

If you read The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=books&id=915) Jeff Lowder and Richard Carrier grant "for the sake of argument" that there was an empty tomb. Why did they do that? To demonstrate that there are more plausible explanations of how the tomb became empty even if one assumes the historicity of the empty tomb.

Take out the guards and you have:

1. Jesus body stolen by

a. disciples
b. Necromancers

2. Jesus body relocated by Joseph of Arimathea.

[thedeist]

Solo wrote:

I, for one, think that the empty tomb was Mark's allegorical cipher, not based in a historical account at all. If there were 'baptismal burials' among the Jesus gnostics (Peter & Co.), they would have been strongly disapproved by the Paulinists (as pharmakeia, sorcery. Paul believed that the Holy Spirit is God's gift and does not come from men). The counter-suggestion of Paul to Romans was to think of Jesus death as the true baptism (Rom 6:3) - with the aim to link the crucifixion to the torments of the post-euphoric psychosis, the Jesus mystics were experiencing. If I am correct, then Mark had on one hand, the practice of live burials by the Palestinian Jewish followers of Jesus, and on the other, Paul's mystical union with Christ, in which the death on the cross and the resurrectional 'life' were complements.


Hi Solo, do you think you could have a constructive conversation with a Christian with your "Interpretations" ? Do you think a Christian would be willing to listen to your "interpretations?"

[Toto]

Minimalist wrote: If there was a crucifixion all the Romans would have had to do is leave him nailed right where he was and there wouldn't have been any "tomb" to guard.


My Comment: Maybe but the Jews were allowed by the Romans to take the bodies down from the cross.

Deut. 21:22-23 -22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Quoting Deuteronomy does not show that the Jews were allowed by Romans to take down the body of a convicted criminal from a cross.

Of course, we still do not have a coherent theory of why the Romans would have crucified an obscure marginal Jewish preacher.

...
Minimalist wrote: So, to get around this the gospel writers invent "Joseph of Aramathea" and the whole ball of wax.

...
My Response: ....

I don't think Joseph of Arimathea is an invention. The secondary details around this figure such as "he was a secret disciple" or "Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea" may well be an invention. But its unlikely that the Anti-semite gospel writers would have a memeber of the Sanhedrin put in a positive light. ...

The gospel writers thought that they represented the true spirit of the Jewish faith, and rejected "the Jews" who disagreed with them. The invention of Joseph of Arimathea (which is a symbolic location, not an actual town) is quite in keeping with this.

[Solo]

Solo wrote:

I, for one, think that the empty tomb was Mark's allegorical cipher, not based in a historical account at all. If there were 'baptismal burials' among the Jesus gnostics (Peter & Co.), they would have been strongly disapproved by the Paulinists (as pharmakeia, sorcery. Paul believed that the Holy Spirit is God's gift and does not come from men). The counter-suggestion of Paul to Romans was to think of Jesus death as the true baptism (Rom 6:3) - with the aim to link the crucifixion to the torments of the post-euphoric psychosis, the Jesus mystics were experiencing. If I am correct, then Mark had on one hand, the practice of live burials by the Palestinian Jewish followers of Jesus, and on the other, Paul's mystical union with Christ, in which the death on the cross and the resurrectional 'life' were complements.

Hi Solo, do you think you could have a constructive conversation with a Christian with your "Interpretations" ? Do you think a Christian would be willing to listen to your "interpretations?"

I think we have a problem larger than just the Christian "ownership" of the NT history. The problem is called "halo effect" in psychology. The Christ personna has been so dominant in our culture that it does not really matter whether one confesses Christ or not - it has been designed to function not just as a central sacred object but as a model of righteousness to be self-projected in compulsive posturing and dominance displays. It doesn't really matter whether it projects in actual shootouts for the leadership of the Branch Davidians or debates on IID's BC&H.

So no, I would not expect evangelical Christians to listen to my "interpretations" but it is not because they are "credal" in a way that I am not. It is for the same reason that I would not expect Earl Doherty or aa5874 to listen to them.

Jiri

[manwithdream]

I think the whole story of guards at the tomb is illogical because the Jewish leaders would have wanted to leave his body unguarded. If his body was unguarded and disappeared, nobody would have said that he rose from the dead, but that his body was stolen. No one would have thought an empty tomb was proof of resurrection. The only proof of resurrection would have been if he had been seen alive. The whole story of the guards is based on the idea that everyone was so stupid that they would believe that an empty unguarded tomb was proof the guy was alive again. I don't think that makes any sense.

[Chili]

I think the whole story of guards at the tomb is illogical because the Jewish leaders would have wanted to leave his body unguarded. If his body was unguarded and disappeared, nobody would have said that he rose from the dead, but that his body was stolen. No one would have thought an empty tomb was proof of resurrection. The only proof of resurrection would have been if he had been seen alive. The whole story of the guards is based on the idea that everyone was so stupid that they would believe that an empty unguarded tomb was proof the guy was alive again. I don't think that makes any sense.


But the purpose of the guards is to make sure that 'the old body [of knowledge]' spend three days underground so the new man can be raised. These three days spend in the netherword or subconsvious mind are needed to set the intuit knowledge free so a new mind can be raised and not a mixture of both the old and the new that sends the old saved-sinner back to Galilee for 40 years and still die nonetheless.

The above is the exact reason why Jesus showed us a way that became know as the New Testament wherein the basic structure of Mark is fleshed out with the details in Luke (there is nothing synoptic about them).

I should add that only the ego was crucified but not the man who was set free by Pilate in der the name of bar-abbas.

[spamandham]

I think the whole story of guards at the tomb is illogical because the Jewish leaders would have wanted to leave his body unguarded. If his body was unguarded and disappeared, nobody would have said that he rose from the dead, but that his body was stolen. No one would have thought an empty tomb was proof of resurrection. The only proof of resurrection would have been if he had been seen alive. The whole story of the guards is based on the idea that everyone was so stupid that they would believe that an empty unguarded tomb was proof the guy was alive again. I don't think that makes any sense.

From a historical perspective, the body would have been dumped in Gehenna by the Romans as the final insult, not entombed.

Further, there is no historical corroboration that Rome was in the business of freeing the scoundrel of the mob's choice on the eve of passover.

The whole story is absurd.

[Solo]

I think the whole story of guards at the tomb is illogical because the Jewish leaders would have wanted to leave his body unguarded. If his body was unguarded and disappeared, nobody would have said that he rose from the dead, but that his body was stolen. No one would have thought an empty tomb was proof of resurrection. The only proof of resurrection would have been if he had been seen alive. The whole story of the guards is based on the idea that everyone was so stupid that they would believe that an empty unguarded tomb was proof the guy was alive again. I don't think that makes any sense.

I think Carrier has it right: the guards' story was a rhetorical counter, and written into Matthew (and into the apocryphal Gospel of Peter as well), after the 'empty tomb' legend became to be believed as something that really happened and proclaimed by Christian churches as 'proof' of the resurrection.

Interesting to note how quickly conservative biblical scholars make the leap of faith on the historical ground of the empty tomb: 'this whole incident is prompted by the need to answer a concrete accusation, known to be current in the days of the evangelist', says K.Stendhal in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 'in either case the empty case is recognized as a fact....it is therefore reasonable to suggest that the resurrection tradition has its nucleus not in visions or revelations but in an experience of the empty tomb...around this basic tradition Mt. has accumulated... more obviously...legendary (28:2-4)and apologetic (27:62-6 and 28:11-15) material. This type of reflection does not weaken the validity of the nucleus of the tradition'.

But this is self-validating nonsense. The possibility exist that the argument arose in reaction to the gospel of Mark ! If Mark wrote it up as a koan, and the more naive believers took it literally and asserted it as historical event, then the smarter Jews would have been pointing out their gullibility in the same manner !

Jiri

[Chili]

. . . and thus without the guards doing their job in good faith purgatory is converted into hell. To wit, the thiefs were his own righteousness that worked against the mandate of the mystery religion

Rev.14:6-12 is clear on this but not 13 where the raised saint who once died in the Lord is now enjoying his own good works in heaven while here on earth.

[Chili]

[ But this is self-validating nonsense.
Jiri


Also called self righteousness and self proclaimed Christians have lots of that.

Fact is that Christianity cannot be a religion if it is the end of religion.

[thedeist]

Solo wrote:

Interesting to note how quickly conservative biblical scholars make the leap of faith on the historical ground of the empty tomb: 'this whole incident is prompted by the need to answer a concrete accusation, known to be current in the days of the evangelist', says K.Stendhal in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 'in either case the empty case is recognized as a fact....it is therefore reasonable to suggest that the resurrection tradition has its nucleus not in visions or revelations but in an experience of the empty tomb...around this basic tradition Mt. has accumulated... more obviously...legendary (28:2-4)and apologetic (27:62-6 and 28:11-15) material. This type of reflection does not weaken the validity of the nucleus of the tradition'.


Hi Solo, can you provide the year and page number of your quote from the Peake's Commentary Bible. Also an Amazon link.


Thanks

[Toto]

Peake's Commentary on the Bible p. 798 in the 2001 paperback edition

[Solo]

Hi Solo, can you provide the year and page number of your quote from the Peake's Commentary Bible. Also an Amazon link.
Thanks

No problem:

Peake's Commentary , Routledge, 1999, p.798

Jiri

[thedeist]

Toto wrote:

Quoting Deuteronomy does not show that the Jews were allowed by Romans to take down the body of a convicted criminal from a cross.


My bad. Here is a passage from Dr. Byron McCane

Roman prefects like Pilate, in fact, often allowed crucifixion victims to be buried. Cicero, for example, mentions a governor in Sicily who released bodies to family members in return for a fee (In Verrem 2.5.45), and Philo writes that on the eve of Roman holidays in Egypt, crucified bodies were taken down and given to their families, "because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites" (In Flaccum 10.83-84). In addition, as Crossan has pointed out, the famous case of Yehohanan, the crucified man whose skeletal remains were found in a family tomb at Giv'at ha-Mivtar, proves that a Roman governor in Jerusalem had released the body of a crucifixion victim for burial.

[6] Finally, the Gospels' assertion that Pilate "used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked" (Mark 15:6 par.) is also relevant here, for it shows that during the first century CE one could plausibly tell stories of Roman judicial clemency, especially around religious holidays. Thus the fate of Jesus' body in Roman hands should not be regarded as automatic. The occasion of Jesus' death was a Jewish holiday, and Pilate was not in the process of suppressing a revolt, but rather simply trying to protect public order.

On balance, then, the Romans involved with the death of Jesus naturally would have expected that the body would remain on the cross, unless Pilate ordered otherwise. It was something of a commonplace in the Empire that victims of crucifixion would become food for carrion-birds, unless the clemency of a governor intervened. Certainly Rome had its reasons for leaving its victims on public display. This fact can help to explain an interesting detail in Mark's account of the burial of Jesus: Mark 15:43 says that Joseph of Arimathea "dared"…to approach Pilate and request the body of Jesus. Why "dared?" Because such a request would indeed have been daring in light of the fact that victims often remained hanging on crosses as symbols of Roman will. [7]

On the other hand, a request by a Jewish leader for the body of Jesus would not have been out of place, either, since Roman prefects--including at least one that we know if in first-century Jerusalem--did allow the burial of crucifixion victims. In the case of Jesus, such an allowance was likely, since Jesus was not caught up in a mass crucifixion, and his death did not come at a time of revolt against Rome. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' day generally cooperated with Pilate in preserving public order in Jerusalem, and the occasion of Jesus' death was a Jewish religious holiday. It may have taken a little nerve, then, but someone like Joseph of Arimathea could have reasonably expected that Pilate would grant his request for the body of Jesus.

http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm


To add to Dr. McCane's argument, the reason why the Jews took down the bodies of those who were hanging is due to a mitzvot [commandment] in Deut. 21:22-23 -22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Thus I wouldn't disregard Jesus actually being taken down and buried.

[thedeist]

Here are some more reasons why Jesus would have been buried from Dr. Craig Evans Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus


The Necessity of Burial in Jewish Thinking In the Mediterranean world of late antiquity proper burial of the dead was regarded as sacred duty, especially so in the culture and religion of the Jewish people. The first reason for providing proper burial was for the sake of the dead themselves. The importance of care for the dead and their proper burial is well attested in Scripture, from the amount of attention given to the story of Abraham’s purchase of a cave for the burial of Sarah (Gen 23:4–19), to the burial accounts of the patriarchs and monarchs of Israel.

Of special interest is the story of Jacob’s body taken to the land of Canaan, to be buried in a tomb that he had hewn (Gen 50:4–14). So also Joseph; though buried in Egypt, his bones are exhumed taken with the Israelites at the time of the exodus and are eventually buried in Canaan (Gen 50:22–26; Josh 24:32). The bones of the slain Saul and sons are buried in Jabesh (1 Sam 31:12–13). David later commends the men who did this (2 Sam 2:4–5: “May you be blessed by the Lord, because you showed this loyalty to Saul your lord, and buried him!”). Saul’s bones are later taken to the land of Benjamin (2 Sam 21:12–14).

Even the wicked and divinely judged are buried, too, such as those in the wilderness who were greedy for meat (Num 11:33–34), or individual criminals who are executed (Deut 21:22–23). Israel’s enemies, slain in battle, are buried (1 Kgs 11:15), including the eschatological enemy hosts of Gog (Ezek 39:11–16).


A second reason for burying the dead is to avoid defilement of the land of Israel. This requirement is grounded in the Mosaic law: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance” (Deut 21:22–23). It is also expressed in Ezekiel: “They will set apart men to pass through the land continually and bury those remaining upon the face of the land, so as to cleanse it . . . Thus shall they cleanse the land” (Ezek 39:14, 16).

It is far more probable that arrangements would have been made to have Jesus and the other men interred. The story of Joseph of Arimathea, who otherwise is not known, is probably historical. There are apologetic touches, to be sure. In the telling of the story, Joseph grows in sympathy and allegiance to Jesus.22But at its core is a story, in which Joseph either volunteers or was assigned the task of seeing to the prompt and
unceremonious burial of Jesus and, probably, the other two men
http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf.

[Chili]

Joseph grows in sympathy and allegiance to Jesus.22But at its core is a story, in which Joseph either volunteers or was assigned the task of seeing to the prompt and
unceremonious burial of Jesus and, probably, the other two men[/B]


It was his ego that they crucified and the tomb he had hewn as if with his own hands is the flip side of buiding the ark that got him thusfar. Take note that once a man gets to the other side of life a tomb will be needed to bury temporal life so that eternal life can be a reality.

This kind of makes the second death possible and we can now say that Joseph had a testamony because he was raised after the first death. The difference between temporal and eternal life is no longer a matter of 'time' but more like a matter of 'no-time' since both the concept of darkness and time were buried with the illusory ego that created darkness and time (you may look at Gen.1 to confirm this but on the seventh day evening does not follow (by inference) and thus time will be no more).

[aa5874]

Here are some more reasons why Jesus would have been buried from Dr. Craig Evans Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus

The excerpts from Dr. Evans only tries to establish the plausibility of the burial of Jesus as stated in the NT.

These excerpts do not establish that Jesus was actually buried. To establish that Jesus of the NT was buried, it is essential that there be some external non-apologetic source to corroborate either that Jesus actually lived, that he was really crucified or that he was indeed buried.

Plausibilty is not history as there are many fiction novels with plausible events.

[Chili]

. . . which then is why darkness prevailed in the TOK for Mary Magdalene when Jesus died until Mary of the TOL arrived to bring daylight about.

[aa5874]

One must never forget that the Jesus of the NT was called the Son of a God and no matter how plausible the burial may appear, this entity called the Son of a God is almost virtually impossible to have been conceived and could not have existed as described in the NT and by the early christian writers.

There is an absolute necessity for those who propose that this Son of a God, [born of the Holy Ghost ] was buried, to produce some documented proof or credible information external of apologetics to show that at least Jesus of Nazareth was really dead or that he lived.

Even if it is agreed that all the accounts of the burial by each author were reported by so-called witnesses, there would still be a major flaw or problem. There is no external corroboration of a burial of the Son of the God of the Jews.