Re: [Synoptic-L] Age of tomb tradition
Thanks for the follow up. I would add that in addition to "was buried," "and rose on the third day" was part of the pre-Pauline tradition also.
Rev. Chuck Jones
From: David Mealand <D.Mealand@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Age of tomb tradition
I said “some evidence” i.e. our current evidence tends in that direction
rather than settles the matter conclusively.
That there was a burial is in a tradition available to Paul prior to
54CE, that it was a rock tomb is Mark c.65-75, that it
was at a site 250m NW to NNW from the Gennath gate was a
tradition known later which puts it in the area into which the city
expanded in 41-44CE. However the tradition arose, it reflects the
details of the topography prior to 44CE.
Two carefully argued discussions of the relevant sites can be found on
The first is by Dan Bahat who was the Jerusalem city archaeologist.
The second is the revision of her earlier more sceptical view of the
matter by Joan E. Taylor.
(Those with access to NTS 44.2 will find a better version there with
the correct scripts.)
David Mealand, University of Edinburgh
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]