5002Two burial stories
- Sep 8, 2004Bill 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.>
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
>I repeat, the evangelist could not have reproduced side by side twoYou answered: "Agreed. But apparently Luke did!"
>burial stories that contradicted one another.
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.
P.O. Box 116-2088
Telephone (961) 1 423 145
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>