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

5002Two burial stories

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Codsi
    Sep 8, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill Bullin wrote on September 7

      <[.] Although I am inclined to follow the view that John 19:31 is
      primitive, it does not necessarily follow that the Romans buried Jesus.
      is where I introduce Acts.>

      Hi Bill,

      I can accept your version. But then I will ask you to please tell me how
      the "Jews" are likely to have buried the three corpses. Would they have
      used a common grave for the three of them, or would they have buried
      them in separate graves? Would they have dug graves in the earth or used
      tombs that were hewn out of the rock? Wouldn't you eliminate this last
      scenario as unlikely, since it would have been an honor to be buried in
      such a tomb? Assuming that they used separate graves and that Jesus'
      grave was identified as his, is it likely that the women would have gone
      back to the grave on the third day with the intention of digging Jesus'
      body out of the dirt in order to perform the proper burial rituals?

      I can see the women going to the grave in order to mourn Jesus, not in
      order to perform a new burial ritual involving the embalmment of the
      body. In this case, the account of GJohn would be the only one to fit in
      the scenario you suggest.

      Mark's account does not seem believable if Jesus had been buried in an
      ordinary grave dug in the soil. It requires that the burial at the hand
      of Joseph of Arimathea be temporary, and allowed for the proper rituals
      to be performed after the Sabbath. In this case, only a tomb hewn out of
      the rock would fit the requirement (cf. Mark 15:46). Thus Jesus would
      have been placed in a morgue-like place, waiting for the proper rituals
      to be performed as soon as possible.

      Do you think the Markan scenario can be maintained if we were to replace
      the burial by Joseph of Arimathea with a burial by the "Jews"?

      2 - I will move now to another question. I wrote, speaking of the author
      of GJohn:

      >I repeat, the evangelist could not have reproduced side by side two
      >burial stories that contradicted one another.

      You answered: "Agreed. But apparently Luke did!"

      Let's discuss the case of Luke. I have read GLuke and the Acts many
      times without ever noticing the contradiction that exists between the
      two burial accounts (Luke 23:50-56 and Acts 13:29). You are the one who
      discovered it. This shows that a contradiction is not perceived when we
      are not looking for it. So I think it is possible that Luke did not see
      the contradiction you are speaking of. Had he seen it, he would have
      altered his sources in order to remove the contradiction, as he has done
      in many other cases. It is relatively easy to document this point by
      comparing GLuke to GMark.

      So long,

      Joseph Codsi
      P.O. Box 116-2088
      Beirut, Lebanon
      Telephone (961) 1 423 145
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic