Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Age of tomb tradition

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    David, 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.
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 25, 2013

      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
      Atlanta, Georgia

      From: David Mealand <D.Mealand@...>
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      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 web:

      The first is by Dan Bahat who was the Jerusalem city archaeologist.
      See http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-06.asp

      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 M.

      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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.