Reserection "historical Reality"

[Badger]

So I wanted to know Badger's view on Josephus closet Christian faith, and why Origen claims Josephus was a dedicated Jew. One of them is lying.

The Testimonium Flavianum stands, as we have it, in all Greek manuscripts and was known by Eusebius in 4th century (c. 324 AD). Origen's statement about Josephus cast doubt only on Origen's knowledge, not on the Testimonium as a whole. My view is the passage may indeed include some later omissions and alterations.

[Badger]

Who was Joseph from Arithmatea?

The presence of Joseph the Arimathea in the burial tradition speak for its authenticity, rather than against. Mark 15:43 describes him as a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, and it can be argued that such a person is unlikely to be a Christian invention. In fact, the development of the tradition may suggests that Joseph's actions were seen as somewhat embarrassing, and the tradition has grappled with the question of how to make his actions understandable. (Green, Burial of Jesus) How could Messiah receive anything but an honorable, indeed royal, burial? Mark's account, however, is very simple and is not heavily imbued with theological motifs. We may conclude that "Joseph undertook his act of service in Mark as an expression of his piety as a Jew, his response to the longstanding Jewish insistence that no corpse be left unburied." (Green) From an historical viewpoint it is plausible that Jesus' burial was rather lacklustre than honorable.

 

Green, J. B. "Burial of Jesus" in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.

[mwc]

In Acts we read that Paul is being persecuted because he believes in resurrection but that's simply not plausible. Pharisees would all have to be persecuted if that were the case. So I find it a bit odd that xians couldn't convince a people that were already open to the idea of resurrection to buy into the idea of resurrection.

It was the message about the resurrection of the crucified Messiah why Paul was persecuted and why the Jews rejected it. Actually, how does one explain the beginning of the Christian faith, without reference to the resurrection? In his online publication, The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem, N.T. Wright argues that Christianity began as "a kingdom-of-God movement, a messianic movement, and a resurrection movement." He then writes, "The Jewish context for all these movements indicated certain expectations that decidedly had not been fulfilled. Indeed the crucifixion of Jesus was the symbol not merely of hope deferred but of hope crushed and trampled upon. The historian is therefore bound to seek an explanation not only as to why early Christianity began in the first place, but also as to why it took the shape it did." (Wright)

Well, I wouldn't know about that since I'm not one of the scholars you love to quote.

 

What I do like to do is look at source material. And in the Acts it has:

 

21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, come to our help: this is the man who is teaching all men everywhere against the people and the law and this place: and in addition, he has taken Greeks into the Temple, and made this holy place unclean.

[...]

23:6 But when Paul saw that half of them were Sadducees and the rest Pharisees, he said in the Sanhedrin, Brothers, I am a Pharisee, and the son of Pharisees:

I am here to be judged on the question of the hope of the coming back from the dead.

[...]

9 And there was a great outcry: and some of the scribes on the side of

the Pharisees

got up and took part in the discussion,

saying, We see no evil in this man

: what if he has had a revelation from an angel or a spirit? 10 And when the argument became very violent, the chief captain, fearing that Paul would be pulled in two by them, gave orders to the armed men to take him by force from among them, and take him into the army building.

[...]

24:5 For this man, in our opinion, is a cause of trouble, a maker of attacks on the government among Jews through all the empire, and a chief mover in the society of the Nazarenes: 6 Who, in addition, was attempting to make the Temple unclean: whom we took,

[...]

17 Now after a number of years I came to give help and offerings to my nation: 18 And having been made clean, I was in the Temple, but not with a great number of people, and not with noise: but there were certain Jews from Asia, 19 And it would have been better if they had come here to make a statement, if they have anything against me. 20 Or let these men here present say what wrongdoing was seen in me when I was before the Sanhedrin, 21 But only this one thing which I said among them in a loud voice,

I am this day being judged on the question of the coming back from the dead.

[...]

24 But after some days, Felix came with Drusilla his wife, who was of the Jews by birth, and sent for Paul, and gave hearing to him about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 And while he was talking about righteousness and self-control and the judging which was to come, Felix had great fear and said, Go away for the present, and when the right time comes I will send for you.

[...]

25:16 To whom I gave answer that it is not the Roman way to give a man up, till he has been face to face with those who are attacking him, and has had a chance to give an answer to the statements made against him. 17 So, when they had come together here, straight away, on the day after, I took my place on the judge's seat and sent for the man. 18 But when they got up they said nothing about such crimes as I had in mind: 19 But had certain questions against him in connection with their religion, and

about one Jesus, now dead, who, Paul said, was living

.

[...]

26:8 Why, in your opinion,

is it outside belief for God to make the dead come to life again?

[...]

22 And so, by God's help, I am here today, witnessing to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come about; 23 That

the Christ

would go through pain, and

being the first to come back from the dead

, would give light to the people and to the Gentiles.

That should do it.

 

Paul is originally accused of taking Greeks into the temple.

 

At his trials he says that the charge is about the resurrection of the dead. Playing the "sect" card the Pharisees obviously agree with him. They "find no evil in [Paul]." If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it. But we're to believe the Sadducees had the power and so things escalate. This is beside the point. The Pharisees apparently could accept what Paul was teaching.

 

Move to Felix. Paul again says it is about resurrection. A pagan accepts this and takes no issue with it. We're told he wants money. In the meantime he gets further info. No problem. He find Paul crazy but not guilty.

 

On to Agrippa II. More of the same. Paul speaks of resurrection ("jesus" even). No finding of guilt. Nothing. It's accepted. If Paul hadn't appealed to Caesar he'd have been set free. This isn't someone who is being persecuted by those in charge for his beliefs. They seem to have no problem with the idea of resurrection. They think it strange perhaps but nothing more. Certainly not illegal. If we believe the propaganda we might even believe Paul almost converted Agrippa II.

 

The key point here is that a small group of Jews seemed to conspire against Paul and when he realized what was really going on he used the beliefs of the Pharisees to help him out of his immediate program with the Sanhedrin. It worked. And at no point in this narrative can I find anyone berating or persecuting him for a belief in the events surrounding "jesus" specifically. It is mentioned but resurrection is the sticking point. Which makes sense as 1 Corinthians shows that Greeks had a very difficult time with such a concept.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I have claimed the post-mortem appearances of Jesus are multiple attested. That's true. However, the appearance of the risen one is not exactly same as the resurrection; the resurrection of Jesus means something that happened to him after death. Moreover, my conclusion from this attestation is, as I have wrote in my first post, that the disciples had experiences which they thought were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.

I'm not sure what hair you're trying to split with this game of semantics. I don't feel like playing.

 

I think you're oversimplifying my point. The crucifixion of Jesus was an integral component of the earliest Christian tradition (e.g. 1 Cor 15:3, and so-called Passion narrative), the six authentic letters of Paul refers to it, and it is narrated in all canonical Gospels and in some non-canonical Gospels. What made Christians to believe, from the outset, that Jesus was crucified? Since the story of the Messiah who died at the hands of the pagans is definitely not the first one they would have made up, and since the crucifixion is supported by historical context, it is reasonable to conclude Jesus indeed died due to crucifixion. But then we have also non-Christian writings that mention this event incidentally, like Josephus (AD 93-94) and Tacitus (c. AD 110), which means they also think it happened. To claim that ancient historians didn't care about facts, or they had no ability for accuracy, shows only ignorance.

So you're on to "proving" the crucifixion via multiple attestation? But what about the poor Phoenix? I wonder if irony is proved via multiple attestation?

 

There is no crucifixion mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3.

 

Should we even discuss Josephus? It has the word "cross." That's pretty good for you but as you (should) know it's a hotly contested paragraph. Considered a total fabrication even. But maybe it hasn't been tampered with at all? That section could be utterly secure. Origen didn't use it though he seemed to know of other related items (Contra Celsus Book 1):

 

Chapter 47

 

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in

the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist

, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ

, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that

these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice

.

Paul

, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he

regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine

. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews,

how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure

.

So, as I said, Origen knows of the John the Baptist passage and the James the Just passage (in Book 20) but the Jesus paragraph in Book 18 isn't worth much of a comment. Unless that comment is in relation to thinking "Jesus as the Christ" which would mean the paragraph was edited later to add "Christ" or to remove a comment by Josephus that stated he did not accept Jesus as the Christ (far less likely). This failes to explain why anyone would assume, then, the "Christ" reference next to James would be something Josephus would place there without any qualification as he did not accept the xian "jesus" as the "christ." If by "christ" they simply meant "annointed" and as the context in Book 20 is temple politics with priests it makes sense that we're likely talking about two annointed priests ("christs") and not a Messiah. This is simply someone reading-in.

 

Then Eusebius seemed to come up with a variant as well. Here's a little peek at Eusebius' Church History (Book 1):

Chapter 11

1. Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.

[...]

4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.

Right on the money so far. He's doing pretty good...

7.

After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work

, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

 

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.

 

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

Ouch. He does make mention of "jesus" in the same work but many paragraphs BEFORE John. Jesus is mentioned in 18:3:3 and John in 18:5:2. It seems something is out of order here. You'd still think that Origen would have caught it. He seemed to have read through this entire period.

 

So let's skip back:

Chapter 9

2. Accordingly

the forgery

of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

 

3. For the things which they have

dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign

; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Uh oh. That's roughly where the TF happens to be located right now (give or take). So what are we dealing with exactly? Certainly whatever it is we are dealing with it is not an uncorrupted copy. Not one that has simple scribal errors but something that has been intentionally altered. Eusebius claims it was by some enemy camp and I can well imagine had their writings survived they would claim likewise. We now have two dates for the "jesus" to enter into the picture. The 7th and 15th years of Tiberius. One is supported by G.Luke and the other seemed to be supported by whatever group Eusebius is speaking against here. And if I were to push exact dates I could say that he's slightly off when you include other passages but I'm not going to bother. He's very off if you include traditional dating for the 15th year of Tiberius (29 CE) and the accepted date for the death of John according to Josephus (~37 CE). No point to that here though since that's not really the issue. The issue, I think, is tampering.

 

The point to take away is at least one xian group is being accused of altering Josephus and this by another xian (Eusebius in this case). The document is not trustworthy in matters relating to xianity. But if it makes you feel better to claim this as it has what you need to make your case that there was an anointed "jesus" crucified under Pilate then by all means use it.

 

On to Tacitus:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands

of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Since this (now) about crucifixion we'll just look at the passage. I don't see anything about crucifixion. Nothing at all. Does "extreme penalty" now equal "crucifixion?" If it does I was not made aware. Of course this passage was also ignored by early xians and recent document imaging on the 11th century manuscript that preserves the text shows that the text read "Chrestians" (in Latin of course). It appears this text was altered. An easy error in English but less so in Latin. So correcting the long forgotten "Chrestians" to the now dominant "Christians?" Perhaps, but we know of a "Chrestus" who was an instigator and inspired others. But for our purposes it demonstrates that no form of death is given.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Who was Joseph from Arithmatea?

The presence of Joseph the Arimathea in the burial tradition speak for its authenticity, rather than against. Mark 15:43 describes him as a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, and it can be argued that such a person is unlikely to be a Christian invention. In fact, the development of the tradition may suggests that Joseph's actions were seen as somewhat embarrassing, and the tradition has grappled with the question of how to make his actions understandable. (Green, Burial of Jesus) How could Messiah receive anything but an honorable, indeed royal, burial? Mark's account, however, is very simple and is not heavily imbued with theological motifs. We may conclude that "Joseph undertook his act of service in Mark as an expression of his piety as a Jew, his response to the longstanding Jewish insistence that no corpse be left unburied." (Green) From an historical viewpoint it is plausible that Jesus' burial was rather lacklustre than honorable.

 

Green, J. B. "Burial of Jesus" in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.

I don't know. Why would it speak for authenticity? It seems like everything in the Gospel is argued to speak for authenticity by apologists. If there's a difference between Gospels, well, that speaks for authenticity. Is there something that is the same, or even every single word choice, well, again, it speaks for authenticity. If something adds up, or a place or person is mentioned that exist, again, that to the apologist is the proof. And again, when something doesn't add up, sigh, it still is a proof that it all authentic. So basically, the Gospels could theoretically have been written as a novel or a fiction, and it still would have been authentic, because to the Christian apologist both A and Not A are evidence for support.

 

My question about Joseph wasn't if he was invented as a character or not, but rather the thought that he was a con artist. The disciples saw him, and they thought he took Jesus to the tomb, but he lied to them. The issue is that he wasn't a city dweller, but an outsider, with the access to a very expensive and rare commodity in the city. If you live in Kansas, and you're rich, why would you have a prepaid, and empty, burial ground in Los Angeles? It doesn't make sense. Why would he own an empty tomb in a city he didn't live in? From the story he seems to be of middle age, and he didn't bring any family entourage. So here he is. The super-rich mega-dude, without any family or servant with him, taking Jesus to an empty family grave... Every con-alarm goes off when I think of it.

 

Lets put this a little more in place here. A family tomb would contain bodies and bones from other family members. Right? It wouldn't be empty. Like the one a couple of years ago which they claimed to have been the tomb of Jesus. It had several boxes, not one, and not empty. Wouldn't a family grave have several past members put there? So how come it was empty? Did he just buy it? What kind of influence did he have on the city by doing that? Nah, I think this guy claimed to be someone who he was not, and the disciples bought it with hook, line, and sinker. And Jesus was never put in that tomb, which by the way could not have been completely empty regardless of who it belonged to.

[centauri]

Who was Joseph from Arithmatea?

The presence of Joseph the Arimathea in the burial tradition speak for its authenticity, rather than against. Mark 15:43 describes him as a prominent member of the Sanhedrin, and it can be argued that such a person is unlikely to be a Christian invention. In fact, the development of the tradition may suggests that Joseph's actions were seen as somewhat embarrassing, and the tradition has grappled with the question of how to make his actions understandable. (Green, Burial of Jesus) How could Messiah receive anything but an honorable, indeed royal, burial? Mark's account, however, is very simple and is not heavily imbued with theological motifs. We may conclude that "Joseph undertook his act of service in Mark as an expression of his piety as a Jew, his response to the longstanding Jewish insistence that no corpse be left unburied." (Green) From an historical viewpoint it is plausible that Jesus' burial was rather lacklustre than honorable.

 

Green, J. B. "Burial of Jesus" in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.

 

So according to "history", Joseph of Arimathea was a prominent member of the Sanhedrin.

I didn't realize that the Sanhedrin would meet on Passover to hold a trial, or that they would recommend that someone be executed on Passover.

Is this authentic history?

 

Here's some more "history":

Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus. (Matt 27:57)

He was a secret disciple of Jesus because he "feared the Jews". (John 19:38)

 

Why would a disciple of Jesus condemn him to death for blasphemy?

Was it peer pressure and fear that made him condemn Jesus?

Mark 14:53,64

And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

 

Also, why would the Sanhedrin and pious Jews select crucifixion as the proper punishment for blasphemy rather than stoning?

 

According to New Testament "history", Pilate asked the Jews, including the priests and council what should be done with Jesus and they all screamed for him to be crucified.

Is this authentic history also?

[Badger]

If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it.

Seems you are lacking understanding of how resurrection was understood in Judaism.

[mwc]

If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it.

Seems you are lacking understanding of how resurrection was understood in Judaism.

Actually, I do. However I'll admit your "answer," that I lack understanding, does shed light on Paul and the Pharisees. Thank you for sharing your insights.

 

mwc

[Badger]

The disciples saw him, and they thought he took Jesus to the tomb, but he lied to them. The issue is that he wasn't a city dweller, but an outsider, with the access to a very expensive and rare commodity in the city. If you live in Kansas, and you're rich, why would you have a prepaid, and empty, burial ground in Los Angeles? It doesn't make sense. Why would he own an empty tomb in a city he didn't live in?

If my source is correct, Arimathea was a city located 9 km. north of Jerusalem. Anyway, the burial of death was the greatest of obligations for Jews, even if they were criminals. Mark's Gospel does not say Jesus was buried to Joseph's own tomb. "So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb." (Mark 15:46)

[Badger]

Actually, I do.

When you say the Pharisees must have been able to accept the idea of resurrection, as early Christians proclaimed it concerning Jesus Christ, it appears you obviously don't know how Pharisees understood resurrection.

[mwc]

When you say the Pharisees must have been able to accept the idea of resurrection, as early Christians proclaimed it concerning Jesus Christ, it appears you obviously don't know how Pharisees understood resurrection.

That you keep on about this only demonstrates that you misunderstand me and not that I misunderstand the Pharisees.

 

I'll simply repost the verses from Acts:

23:6 But when Paul saw that half of them were Sadducees and the rest Pharisees, he said in the Sanhedrin, Brothers, I am a Pharisee, and the son of Pharisees: I am here to be judged on the question of the hope of the coming back from the dead.

[...]

9 And there was a great outcry: and some of the scribes on the side of the Pharisees got up and took part in the discussion, saying, We see no evil in this man: what if he has had a revelation from an angel or a spirit?

And my comment on these verses:

At his trials he says that the charge is about the resurrection of the dead. Playing the "sect" card the Pharisees obviously agree with him. They "find no evil in [Paul]." If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it.

There's no mention of how the Pharisees view resurrection here. Simple a statement of fact. He states he is being judged on the "hope of coming back from the dead." They find no "evil" in him. They even make comment on his possibly seeing visions (which I never commented on since it's beside the point).

 

Maybe your copy of Acts states that he spoke of the resurrection "as early Christians proclaimed it concerning Jesus Christ" but none of mine do. Not a single copy mention any of that in this trial. You're making the assumption that Paul spoke on a topic in a certain way but that simply is not there. What the Acts does state is what I presented. And the Pharisees did believe in resurrection and as a result they did not find Paul "evil."

 

Had he said something so counter to their way of thinking, so outrageous, then they would have no need to fight with the Sadducees and could simply find him guilty. Just like all the xians they sent Saul to persecute. Just like Stephen. Just like all the rest. But upon having Paul in front of them they failed do find a problem with him for the stated issue and that is the "hope of coming back from the dead." The only issue we're provided beyond the initial charge of bringing Greeks into the temple (which is not pursued...and actually would have been resolved on the spot in the temple).

 

Even if we were to never know anything of any of their beliefs we could simply deduce that the Pharisees must have not found what Paul was saying criminal. And if the idea of resurrection is not believable on any level to the Sadduccees then why should they care if Paul teaches a single man came back to life or if he teaches all will return to life at a given time? It's all the same relative nonsense at that point and Pharisees are just as guilty as any xians. This becomes a matter of splitting hairs. If anyone should take offense it should be the Pharisees and yet they side with Paul.

 

mwc

[Badger]

And the Pharisees did believe in resurrection and as a result they did not find Paul "evil."

Of course the Pharisees believed in resurrection; that's not the issue. But you said: If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it. However, the passage does not support your reasoning. I suggest you read the context (Acts 21:17–23:30)

[mwc]

And the Pharisees did believe in resurrection and as a result they did not find Paul "evil."

Of course the Pharisees believed in resurrection; that's not the issue. But you said: If they couldn't accept his "jesus/messiah" return to life story they most certainly would have found "evil" in him. They must have been able to accept it. However, the passage does not support your reasoning. I suggest you read the context (Acts 21:17–23:30)

How do they not accept it? Where in the trial do the Pharisees reject Paul's take on the resurrection? If you can point that out I would be most appreciative.

 

Or is it that you're focusing on the "'jesus/messiah' return to life story" portion on this and that's why I'm not seeing the connection? Perhaps I misspoke by adding that? It was in response to your statement: "It was the message about the resurrection of the crucified Messiah why Paul was persecuted and why the Jews rejected it." Obviously, the text makes no mention of any "crucified Messiah" but with the assumption being placed onto the table I guess I thought it needed to be addressed.

 

From your "context" statement it would appear that you think it really is about taking Greeks into the temple. How odd that Paul doesn't think so and that no one else really seems to think so either. Greeks could be taken into the temple as long as they did not pass the Soreg. This is not a problem and is what the Court of the Gentiles was for. There is an assumption that Paul took the Greeks past the Soreg into other areas of the temple. Maybe, but we have part of the Soreg (the originals were nearly 6 feet tall) and we know what was written on it (from here or here):

"No foreigner is to enter the barriers surrounding the sanctuary.

He who is caught will have himself to blame for his death which will follow.

"

 

Josephus mentions it as well:

"The center of the structure was the tallest, with the front wall being built with beams which sat upon interlocking pillars. Highly glossed stones made up this wall, so finely polished that those who looked upon it for the first time marveled at it in amazement. This was the description of the first structure. Located within it, and nearby, were steps which led up to the second structure, which was surrounded by a stone wall used as a barrier, engraved with an inscription

not allowing foreigners to enter into it under the penalty of death

."

If those who came with Paul truly did breach this, and did not belong, they were all killed. And according to the Soreg they've only themselves to blame. The "crime" and the punishment are pretty clear.

 

The first site I got those items from claims that Paul writes about this same wall in Ephesians:

"For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, .....that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross,..... "

If that's the case then it would seem Paul is clearly aware of its existence and significance.

 

Regardless, the claim of whether Paul deserves any punishment for taking Greeks into the temple is nonsense. Greeks were allowed. They passed the barrier. They would all be killed according to the law on the Soreg. Even if Paul told them to go ahead they sealed their own fate when they passed that line.

 

If it were about the temple being defiled then his associates would have been killed. Paul later, at his second trial (or speech opportunity) says:

17 Now after a number of years I came to give help and offerings to my nation: 18 And having been made clean, I was in the Temple, but not with a great number of people, and not with noise: but there were certain Jews from Asia, 19 And it would have been better if they had come here to make a statement, if they have anything against me. 20 Or let these men here present say what wrongdoing was seen in me when I was before the Sanhedrin, 21 But only this one thing which I said among them in a loud voice, I am this day being judged on the question of the coming back from the dead.

"All this stuff happens but it comes down to the whole resurrection issue" seems to be the gist of what Paul says. No mention of his companions being killed off in accordance to the law (which they would have been). So it's not about the Greeks. It's not about the temple. It's about what Paul says it's about. The resurrection. And the Pharisees did not tell him that his views on the resurrection were "evil" or in any way defective.

 

Resurrection, especially a physical one, is well within their world view (even if it is not the precise xian take on it) so they see no problem with Paul and actually appear to have more issues with their peers that don't believe in any resurrection at all.

 

mwc

[Badger]

Or is it that you're focusing on the "'jesus/messiah' return to life story" portion on this and that's why I'm not seeing the connection? Perhaps I misspoke by adding that? It was in response to your statement: "It was the message about the resurrection of the crucified Messiah why Paul was persecuted and why the Jews rejected it." Obviously, the text makes no mention of any "crucified Messiah" but with the assumption being placed onto the table I guess I thought it needed to be addressed.

My mistake I didn't check your claim about Paul being persecuted because he believes in resurrection. Maybe Paul was not persecuted because of his believe in resurrection, but something else?

 

Resurrection, especially a physical one, is well within their world view (even if it is not the precise xian take on it) so they see no problem with Paul and actually appear to have more issues with their peers that don't believe in any resurrection at all.

Yes, that's true.

[Ouroboros]

If my source is correct, Arimathea was a city located 9 km. north of Jerusalem.

Really? What I read was that they can't be sure, and why would they use some Greek sounding name for a Jewish city, for some important person that traditionally was part of the Sanhedrin even? Would it make him more important to give him a birth location outside of town, and give that town some Greek name? It just doesn't add up. If the city was a close-by little suburban town to Jerusalem, then why not call the other actors in the story with their birth-towns too, and give them all Greek names? I smell story enhancement.

 

Anyway, the burial of death was the greatest of obligations for Jews, even if they were criminals.

I don't recognize that. That's news to me. My understanding was that criminals were burned in the Gehenna valley, or something like that, and the tradition that Joseph from Arimathea putting Jesus in a tomb was the idea that Jesus's body was saved for the resurrection and that the ended up with the rich and wealthy, or whatever. So I guess that tradition isn't right then, and that they didn't burn criminals or anyone without a tomb after all. So we should now assume that everyone had their own tombs...

 

But wait, Jesus's mom was still alive. So she didn't put the body in her tomb because she was ashamed? Well, the authorities should have forced her to accept the body anyway, since they couldn't disrespect the bodies.

 

Mark's Gospel does not say Jesus was buried to Joseph's own tomb. "So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb." (Mark 15:46)

Ah, so the tradition is wrong in this case then? The tradition is that it was Joseph's own tomb, but you're right, we shouldn't trust traditions... which means that you should take a good look at your beliefs and start questioning some of your beloved traditions and look into the validity of them.

 

You can start with the tradition that Arimathea was just outside Jerusalem, because there are no records about this city.

[mwc]

My mistake I didn't check your claim about Paul being persecuted because he believes in resurrection. Maybe Paul was not persecuted because of his believe in resurrection, but something else?

Which is? Certainly not taking Greeks into the temple. I addressed that. They were allowed and if they passed the Soreg into the inner courts they did so at their own risk. However, it would appear that no Greeks actually entered the temple anyway:

 

21:23 Do this, then, which we say to you: We have four men who have taken an oath; 24 Go with these, and make yourself clean with them, and make the necessary payments for them, so that they may be free from their oath: and everyone will see that the statements made about you are not true, but that you put yourself under rule, and keep the law.

[...]

26 Then Paul took the men, and on the day after, making himself clean with them, he went into the Temple, giving out the statement that the days necessary for making them clean were complete, till the offering was made for every one of them.

These four sound like they took something like the Nazirite vow (unless we're to believe that James set Paul up and secretly handed him Greeks...which I doubt). The way he describes it doesn't sound like the way that I recall that vow ends but it they may not be referring specifically to that vow (or I'm not recalling it correctly). Paul seems to be under the same, or similar, oath since the purification ritual is the same. This is all to demonstrate Paul is under the law and he declares it all in the temple. Yet those in the temple easily believe he brought Greeks (the other men who declared their cleanliness) with him into the temple and defiled it only days after they declared their cleanliness? Seems suspicious. The priests should be able to resolve this quickly but they do not.

 

If this was to fulfill the Nazirite vow they should all have shaved heads which would certainly clear up any questions. The text verifies they've finished all the offerings (sacrifices) needed. The more I read this the less likely this event seems.

 

mwc

[Badger]

So we should now assume that everyone had their own tombs...

Funeral rites extended to criminals were qualitatively different from normal practise. Criminals, as Josephus pits it with reference to Achan (Josh 7:25-26), were give the ignominious burial proper to the condemned (Ant. 5.1.14 §44; cf. 4.8.6 §202). In practical terms this meant (at least) that executed criminals were denied to burial in their family tombs (e.g., 1 Kings 13:21; Jer 26:36).

 

L. Y. Rahmani has gathered evidence, which he dates to the period to A.D. 70, that after the flesh of the executed has wasted away the bones were gathered and buried in the family tomb (cf. m. Sanh. 6:5-6; t. Sanh. 9:8).

 

which means that you should take a good look at your beliefs and start questioning some of your beloved traditions and look into the validity of them.

Isn't this exactly what I have done...

[Ouroboros]

So we should now assume that everyone had their own tombs...

Funeral rites extended to criminals were qualitatively different from normal practise. Criminals, as Josephus pits it with reference to Achan (Josh 7:25-26), were give the ignominious burial proper to the condemned (Ant. 5.1.14 §44; cf. 4.8.6 §202). In practical terms this meant (at least) that executed criminals were denied to burial in their family tombs (e.g., 1 Kings 13:21; Jer 26:36).

 

L. Y. Rahmani has gathered evidence, which he dates to the period to A.D. 70, that after the flesh of the executed has wasted away the bones were gathered and buried in the family tomb (cf. m. Sanh. 6:5-6; t. Sanh. 9:8).

I see. Okay, that explains why Mary couldn't put him in his family tomb.

 

Still doesn't explain how a person from a Greek-named city--assumed to be close to the city, by tradition--had a family in Jerusalem. Isn't it more likely his family was in Arimathea?

 

Since it's open season on tradition, and you make a point that maybe it wasn't his tomb or family tomb, then we can question the tradition that the city was close to Jerusalem. Perhaps it was a garrison at the borders of Judea? And tradition holds that he was a part of the Sanhedrin, which we can put into question too.

 

which means that you should take a good look at your beliefs and start questioning some of your beloved traditions and look into the validity of them.

Isn't this exactly what I have done...

Do you question the tradition that Arimathea was close to Jerusalem? Do you question the tradition that he was part of Sanhedrin? Do you question the tradition that it was the disciples Mark, Matthew, and John who wrote the Gospels? How far are you willing to go to question the traditions? Which tradition do you hold sacred, and which one do you discard when you see it fit? What is you measurement to know when to believe in them or not?

 

Since we can't know if this character who suddenly shows up in the story is valid, we can't be sure if Jesus was treated as a regular criminal and put into some other tomb. And if this person existed, we can't be sure if he put Jesus in the tomb which later was discovered to be empty. It could have been a simple mix-up, or it could have been an intentional deceit.

[mwc]

I see. Okay, that explains why Mary couldn't put him in his family tomb.

You may also wish to read this. It's old but good.

 

mwc

[Badger]

Since we can't know if this character who suddenly shows up in the story is valid, we can't be sure if Jesus was treated as a regular criminal and put into some other tomb. And if this person existed, we can't be sure if he put Jesus in the tomb which later was discovered to be empty. It could have been a simple mix-up, or it could have been an intentional deceit.

I think I gave some reasons why the story about Joseph of Arimathea is likely. But why should we assume the burial is a simple mix-up, or an intentional deceit, rather than historical event? From the outset, Christianity has proclaimed Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; how do we explain this? In fact, why they thought something has happened to Jesus at all?

[Ouroboros]

Since we can't know if this character who suddenly shows up in the story is valid, we can't be sure if Jesus was treated as a regular criminal and put into some other tomb. And if this person existed, we can't be sure if he put Jesus in the tomb which later was discovered to be empty. It could have been a simple mix-up, or it could have been an intentional deceit.

I think I gave some reasons why the story about Joseph of Arimathea is likely. But why should we assume the burial is a simple mix-up, or an intentional deceit, rather than historical event? From the outset, Christianity has proclaimed Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; how do we explain this? In fact, why they thought something has happened to Jesus at all?

A few posts ago you claimed that we can't trust the tradition that the tomb was Joseph. The Gospel was carried by oral tradition (supposedly) before it was written down. How can we trust anything? Doubt is the default position for all these things, not belief in one personal or particular idea sphere. You have made your decision what you believe, and hence whatever comes that support your belief you accept, and whatever is against, you deny. All in all, the doubt is the real master one should follow, not belief beyond facts.

 

It is just as likely that the disciples were fooled, tricked, or delusional, as it is to believe that it was an alien who used his UFO to lift Jesus up in the sky. We really don't know. So to assume "Jesus->proper tomb->empty->witnesses->correct report...", is to take the stories of history beyond what they support.

 

Consider this, you say the story is "likely". So how much likely? 100%, which would be a fact, or 70%, or 50%? Do you base you life totally on a 70% probability? Or is it 60%? You probably would say it's 90%, while I might settle for 50%, which means I think you put too much trust in these stories and traditions than you should.

[Ouroboros]

I see. Okay, that explains why Mary couldn't put him in his family tomb.

You may also wish to read this. It's old but good.

 

mwc

I like this part: "The tomb, however, was not immediately closed over the dead. During the first three days it was customary for the relatives to visit the grave to see whether the dead had come to life again (Massek. Sem. viii.; see Perles, "Leichenfeierlichkeiten," p. 10, and Brüll, "Jahrb." i. 51). In the course of time the Mishnaic law was insisted upon, notwithstanding the altered conditions, and quick burials involved the danger of entombing persons alive."

 

I guess they had stopped that practice during the time of Jesus, since they closed the tomb, and also the fact that we still have the "3 day wake" tradition because of the risk of false-deaths in the old days. The doctors couldn't establish death as precise as they do today, so occasionally people who were buried were not dead but in temporary coma or something.

 

So why does tradition say that it was Joseph of Arimatea's grave? And why does that mean it fulfills the prophecy that Jesus was to be buried with the rich? Was his tomb more fancy, or did it have a better view?

[mwc]

I like this part: "The tomb, however, was not immediately closed over the dead. During the first three days it was customary for the relatives to visit the grave to see whether the dead had come to life again (Massek. Sem. viii.; see Perles, "Leichenfeierlichkeiten," p. 10, and Brüll, "Jahrb." i. 51). In the course of time the Mishnaic law was insisted upon, notwithstanding the altered conditions, and quick burials involved the danger of entombing persons alive."

I had a feeling you'd notice that. It is an interesting note and if it holds up in the face of the latest and greatest research (meaning I've not checked) then it would demonstrate why G.Matthew goes out of its way to explain the special closing of the tomb. Checking the mourning rituals would probably be a good idea as well.

 

I guess they had stopped that practice during the time of Jesus, since they closed the tomb, and also the fact that we still have the "3 day wake" tradition because of the risk of false-deaths in the old days. The doctors couldn't establish death as precise as they do today, so occasionally people who were buried were not dead but in temporary coma or something.

They seemed to temporarily suspend, stop, change or whatever you wish to argue, lots of things during the time of "jesus." Meaning specifically during the exact moments and places he and his were going about their business and in the locations they were doing whatever they were doing. Everywhere else it was business as usual. Kind of like that massive local, yet global, flood of Noah that somehow impacted neither.

 

So why does tradition say that it was Joseph of Arimatea's grave? And why does that mean it fulfills the prophecy that Jesus was to be buried with the rich? Was his tomb more fancy, or did it have a better view?

I had to look up this prophecy since no one seems to mention any of this is a fulfillment of anything. I do think that only G.Matthew refers to this Joseph as "rich" and he is the one that is into fulfilling "prophecy" so maybe there's something there. It's hard to say. I believe that some of the gospels say that they put him in the tomb just because it was handy but considering they always had the option of a wood box and a hole in the ground it seems strange to steal a tomb.

 

Since no one knows where "Arimathea" was (it's another NT mystery town) there's no way to know anything about anyone or anything there or why anyone wouldn't want to be buried there (other than it's impossible to be buried in a town that doesn't exist). If "jesus" had many followers in that town that could explain why we have problems locating evidenece though.

 

If you want to look at the story a slightly different way then there is the parallel of births. Joseph/Mary offer the first virgin soil in which "jesus" is "planted" and born. He is made human. Now this Joseph places him into another virgin womb in which he is (re)born. He is made something else (spiritual). Two virgin wombs. Two births. Two forms. First "fruits" of each. Etc.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Since no one knows where "Arimathea" was (it's another NT mystery town) there's no way to know anything about anyone or anything there or why anyone wouldn't want to be buried there (other than it's impossible to be buried in a town that doesn't exist). If "jesus" had many followers in that town that could explain why we have problems locating evidenece though.

What I find kind of strange, or curious oddity, is the name itself? It sounds Greek, but there's no word like this, and no roots I could find to fit in either. And even if this is a city close to Jerusalem, why would it be referred to by a Greek name?

 

I'm thinking of a couple of reasons:

1) the reference was put into the Gospel at a later date, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and no one remembered the original name of the city

or

2) the city was a Greek city, and Joseph was a Hellenistic Jew

or

3) the person is complete fiction and the name has some other mystical meaning.

 

 

Btw, regarding the burial of the criminals, I read somewhere that Gehenna was derived from the Valley of Hinnon, where they once sacrificed children to Moloch, and during the time of Jesus it was a garbage dump and a place where they burned the criminals. With the new information here, this doesn't add up, since every criminal was given a proper burial.

 

---

 

I think I found the answer, Hinnom's Valley was not used to burn criminals during the time of Jesus, but it was used at an earlier date for various acts of burning people. It was only a dump at the later date.

[Ouroboros]

I had a feeling you'd notice that. It is an interesting note and if it holds up in the face of the latest and greatest research (meaning I've not checked) then it would demonstrate why G.Matthew goes out of its way to explain the special closing of the tomb. Checking the mourning rituals would probably be a good idea as well.

Another thing about that is the purpose the tomb usually was to be kept open was to safeguard against false-deaths. In other words, if they closed the tomb, they wanted him to die even if he was just in a temporary coma. Or put it this way, that Jesus lived again wasn't really a miracle, but the miracle was that someone overtook the guards and moved the stone! And that is... yeah, (a little) wow, so amazing.

 

I have wondered for the last couple of years why Jesus died must faster than the other crucified. I thought about, if you wanted to create some elaborate magical trick, this is a perfect template. You have a person crucified, and it's painful, but people can survive it for a shorter while (considering that people do it willingly today in remembrance and self-torture), and then "die" early in the process. Yes, he got stabbed in the side, but then again, if you get the right inside person at the right time, there might be ways of doing some tricks here. He's taken down, and he's perhaps passed out, taken to the tomb for the three day wake, and the tomb is closed... to avoid revealing that someone had been hiding in there, with food and medical supplies, restoring him for a whole 36 hours, and then... well, the overpowering of the guards and rolling the stone is matter of deciding who, rather than how.