An Ongoing Dialogue Between Matthew J. Green and JP Holding
An Ongoing Dialogue Between Matthew J. Green and JP Holding
Subject: The Battle Burial: Does Peter Kirby Have a Case?
Well, my head is spinning more than a little after Matthew's kind words about me in the opening of his last round. I think I'll do the honorable thing here and deflect it back to him a bit (as Malina says a proper citizen of an honor-shame society would do, right, buddy?). Our mutual respect, as well as our relatively young ages, make it likely that we'll continue these discussions for quite some time, and I think that's a good thing. Of course, Matthew will eventually have less time to pursue such discussions as he goes further in his scholarly career (and I think it is inevitable that he will succeed in it), because as I know from other readers who ended up going in similar directions, pursuit of academic excellence is no vacation! But consider that a case where lesser quantity will mean also even greater quality. Matthew already exceeds in knowledge every other Skeptic I have dealt with who is without an academic degree in the field, and he even makes some who do have one look like amateurs. My return compliment for this round is that he is one of the few I have met who grasps the need for interdisciplinary study. In other words, he realizes (as so many do not that I encounter) that, eg, to arrive at a fully informed position on a given issue might require not just knowing the social science aspect, but also arriving at an informed conclusion in regards to literary dependence (eg, did Mark precede Matthew or not?). And if one wishes to be an "apologist" for any given position, and defend a view thoroughly, they will have to become interdisciplinary. Matthew may not end up using his academic skills as a full time defender of a given position, as I have, but his realization of the need for an interdisciplinary approach will make him a force to continue to be reckoned with.
An example of this indeed emerged in this last round, in which Matthew related his reading of McCane's study on the burial of Jesus. While he says he is still digesting McCane's arguments, he has nevertheless easily recognized their application to the topic at hand. McCane's study, as I mentioned, caused me to change some of my views and arguments, and it is now doing the same for Matthew. That's a sign of someone ready and willing to "surrender," so to speak, to the superiority of an interdisciplinary approach when required (but not necessarily to an ideological opponent, mind you!).
I'll skip over for now what Matthew said of his comments about William Lane Craig, etc. I do appreciate his candor in the matter, and have to admit that I have a certain "blind spot" for what he refers to as spin-doctoring. My natural tendency is to not care about such things when ideological opponents do them; I take it as a chance to take up a challenge to outwit them at their own game. Matthew's direction into academia most likely won't allow him to take that route -- try spin-doctoring before neutral peer review and you'll go nowhere fast! I have a bit more freedom, I suppose, as an engager on the popular level, to withstand such things. And with that, the ado is "a done" and I will proceed to comments on
Matthew aided us in his last entry by reprinting earlier comments from Round One. For my part, I'd like to try to streamline things a bit, while still maintaining sufficient information for contextual understanding. As before, there will be cases where we have come to an agreeable conclusion to some point, and little more will be needed than perhaps some note of confirmation.
High and Low Context. Matthew has indeed correctly grasped my point here, that "it would have to be part of the high-conext knowledge pool of the writers if [my] case for an empty tomb is to have any serious value" and we seem to have come to a conclusion on this point, agreeing that "any knowledge of the empty tomb is something that needs to be examined separately and we would need definitive criteria for determining whether it was part of knowledge pool of the earliest Christians." My one caveat is that (as is inevitable with historical study) the arguments would have to devolve to assessing whether and to what degree the knowledge of the empty tomb would be accessible to a Paul, or a Peter, or so on. My own (admittedly offhand) thoughts on this, which Matthew may feel free to comment upon, is that neither chronological nor geographical constraints exist to suppose a negative finding; and that every reason points towards a positive finding (eg, the locale of the events, Jerusalem and the tomb, would be easily accessible to the Apostles, and so on). Offhand I also cannot think of any argument against the accessibility of this knowledge that would be effective or plausible, but I will leave it to others to suggest such if so desired. Matthew himself has said that, "it might be wise to skip any discussion of exact criteria for determining the knowledge-pool of any high-context society," and even emailed one of our mutually respected scholars (Richard Rohrbaugh) for comment, so perhaps we can pick this up again at a later date. (This, by the way, would be another good example of how he realizes the need for interdisciplinary study, as well as for consulting with those whose experience counts for something.)
Clement's Non-Mention of Jesus' Resurrection. I offered two "offhand" reasons why Clement would perhaps not use Jesus' resurrection as one of his "probabilities" proving our future resurrection: Jesus' identity as divinity, and that his resurrection was a reversal of the shame of the crucifixion. As I said:
I can see a hypothetical opponent of Clement saying, "Well of course Jesus was resurrected, look at who he was and why it was needed!" And that may be why he would appeal to more mundane things like fruits and the phoenix; he wants to show also that resurrection is something that isn't limited to a divine being like Jesus. It may be helpful to recall (I can't just now) what sort of people Clement may have had as opponents at the time.
Matthew does agree that some knowledge of who Clement was writing to and why would be helpful; upon my own reflection, I would wonder whether Clement's issue was with people of the sort Paul encountered and answered in 1 Cor. 15. Some Corinthians denied the resurrection, and it is a matter of discussion among scholars as to whether they also denied that Jesus had been resurrected. The weight of the text suggests that they did not deny Jesus' resurrection, for Paul is able to use it as an example (which would be of no sense if they denied it) and uses their denial of their own future resurrections as a way to plant a rhetorical seed of doubt about Jesus' resurrection. In short, the Corinthians seem to have been inconsistent in their approach, affirming Jesus' resurrection while denying their own in the future. If Clement was dealing with the same sort of argument from his own readers, then it becomes clear why an appeal to Jesus' resurrection would be fruitless -- that would have already been put forward, or else dismissed!
This may answer Matthew's question, when he says:
As for any opponents, we need to ask whether they would've considered the resurrection as limited to divine beings. I don't see why though, especially given that Jesus assumed a human body from his conception. According to writers like Paul, the historical resurrection of Jesus was the only that Christians had that anyone would be raised! On further thought- why not appeal to Jesus' resurrection as a perfect example of what God can do with something "mundane" as a human body. In Colossians Paul writes that Jesus humbled himself as he took on human form. This is a mundane as the Almighty may want to get!
Inevitably we may be left with the conclusion -- not hard to fathom -- that the Corinthians (and Clement's readers) were inconsistent, and just didn't care or didn't worry about thinking through their inconsistency. Now briefly, let me address that point made that "Jesus assumed a human body from his conception." This is true, but I would say (and the readers of Clement would believe) that Jesus maintained a divine identity; and so they could still regard him as a different "species", so speak, with different rules, and so a simple appeal to it as "an example of what God can do" I can see falling on deaf ears; or with the reply, "It's not what God CAN do that I have a problem with; it's what God WILL do that I have a problem with!" I can see, actually, this sort of view being what Clement is responding to; the mundane examples of fruit and the phoenix would (hypothetically! no accounting for stubborn people here by Clement) shut down any objection that God doesn't deal in resurrection of everyday joes, just special people like Jesus. I can even see this sort of objection coming to the fore in a heavily stratified society like this one was; perhaps some argued that only those with great honor (like Jesus, or the wealthy and powerful) would be resurrected, while everyone else would get chump change in the afterlife. Indeed, did not the view called docetism likely arise as a way to iron out what some perceived to be a problem on this matter?
Second, I agree that for Paul et al, "the historical resurrection of Jesus was the only that Christians had that anyone would be raised." If indeed Jesus had been raised, as Paul argues, then it is indeed ludicrous to deny our own resurrection. That is, in fact, the point. The Corinthians were victims of their own inconsistency and/or ignorance. They made an error, which is why we have 1 Corinthians in the first place! (Grin! -- as I say in one of my teachings, "Have your ever noticed how much of the Bible was written because somebody goofed?" -- whether it be because of idolatry in Israel or false teachings about the resurrection in Thessalonica.) Matthew and I easily see the folly in that kind of position. Did Clement's people? Apparently not, I'd say.
I don't wish to engage a potential anachronism here, but let's take as a modern example one of my own foes from "within the fold", a fellow named L. Ray Smith of "bible-truths.net". My search stats show that as many as a hundred people a month come to Tekton looking for info on this guy. His arguments are amateurish, and he disdains scholarship as much as Farrell Till does. Even Matthew would probably scream at his screen for hours if he read this guy's nonsense (not an actual suggestion, there, bud!), just as a matter of principle for academic integrity. I get letters about L. Ray now and then, and they're about halfway divided between people who are glad I've taken him to task, and those who still think L. Ray is God Almighty. Could it be that Clement is writing to the L. Ray fans of his day -- people too blind, so to speak, to see the inconsistencies and the foolishness they admire? I tend to think so.
Defining Resurrection. Matthew notes that he is "just making the point that this is something that needs to be considered and defended" so it seems we're at an agreement point that will elicit no further discussion until Matthew finishes his own study and arrives at a conclusion. I would like to note for the reader that Glenn Miller over at the Think Tank has promised his own study on this subject soon, and I look forward to it.
John the Baptist. We skip now to where I said:
Holding Re John the Baptist: This is a excellent point. My response would be that with John we don't have any indication of the development of a metaphor within which baptism was connected with burial and resurrection. It would be speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if indeed, though, he and other Jews developed some analogy in which their immersions were said to symbolize resurrection.
Matthew responds:
J.P's response tends to verify my point! That we lack any indication of a metaphorical connection of baptism with burial and resurrection illustrates that baptism only implied death and burial being left behind, not necessarily that of an empty tomb. I would add to this that it would also make sense that conservative Christians believe that there will be a future resurrection, in which all believers will be united with Christ. Not every Christian is buried in a tomb when s/he passes away. Some Christians chose to be cremated and there are, sadly, some Christians who might die in a car wreck or a plane crash, whose bodies are incinerated by fire and burned. I have no doubt that Christians believe that God will raise these Christians up and give them glorified, resurrected bodies. However, what this proves is that the resurrection itself, whether it is a risen body of flesh or not, doesn't necessarily imply an empty tomb is being left behind or else, every Christian who has died since Jesus is believed to have departed this planet would have to be raised out of a tomb and that simply isn't possible given that some Christians die in very horrible, tragic deaths where there are simply no bodily remains to be buried!
Further reflection here leads me to a point I believe I missed before. If we grant a general belief in resurrection by the Jews (which, outside the Sadduccees, would be something that the consensus agrees upon in general, if not about all particulars of that belief), and if the Jews buried people in tombs as a rule, then we inevitably have the proposition that resurrection would mean your bodily remnants got out of something -- the ground, an ossuary, whatever. But please note that I have said that John did not, apparently, connect baptism to resurrection OR burial. But with Paul we have explicit connections of burial to baptism, and a direct implication of connecting resurrection to being raised to new life after baptism. What I'm trying to say here is that an implication of an empty tomb (or some other space) being left behind (popular allusion not intended!) goes with the package and can't be separated from it, because the Jews did bury their dead and did use tombs. The only way this might not work out is if the Jews normally, eg, cremated people and so did not use graves or tombs -- yes, modern Christians aren't all buried like that, but as far as I have seen, Jews were. I cannot see any way, with the context of the rituals engaged for the dead by Jewish persons, that an empty tomb could NOT be implied in what Paul says.
Let me pretend to be, say, Acharya S for a moment (!) so I can illustrate my point. Someone like Acharya might try to argue that Jesus was from India, and so when his life ended he was burned on a fire, not entombed. That argument, if factually valid, would defeat my own argument. But if Jesus was dealt with in the manner of Jewish custom -- and of course, especially after McCane, we have no reason to doubt this -- then we have a tomb that he was in that would have to be an "empty tomb" if he was resurrected. The only way I see out of this is to show that Jesus was not buried in a normal Jewish fashion (not necessarily that he was not in Joseph's tomb, which is a different issue). This is why I said:
At this point the question arises of necessity of whether Matthew would want to try to argue for some other alternative burial having actually been done to Jesus. (Maybe Crossan's "the dog ate it"[grin]?) I am arguing here (and with my citation of Paul) with the view that "buried in Joseph's tomb" does best fit the evidence. Yes, Paul's language could fit, say, a grave like one we bury people in today; but don't we need some story of Jesus being buried like that to at least start to match with the evidence we do have for a "Joseph's tomb" burial?
Matthew does refuse to endorse Crossan's speculation, with a hearty "no way jose!" that would make Julio on Sanford and Son proud. He does say, however, that "I plan to elaborate on some questions I need to answer in my own studies before I can come to a reasonable conclusion regarding Jesus' burial" and further, "I am glad that J.P. agrees that Paul's language is compatible with an alternative sort of grave. I would only expect J.P. to argue that the burial story of Joseph's tomb in the synoptics best fits." That is the case. For indeed, we can argue the first apart from the second; someone could argue eg, that Jesus was actually buried in a family tomb of his own, not Joseph's; and then my argument using Paul is preserved. Or someone could argue that the dog ate it (grin) or Jesus was buried at sea, and then I lose the connection to Paul. So we seem to be at a point of halting here, and I will close with this remark. Matthew says, "I don't think that we need a full-fledge alternative story of Jesus being buried by other means; indirect references can provide evidence although a full-fledge story would be of greater help and would consitute stronger evidence!" Whether such a case can be made of specific indirect references remains to be seen, and we will wait upon it coming to fruition, but I would note that certain forms of burial would still keep my argument intact in general. Eg, if Jesus was buried in a family tomb and not Joseph's, then we don't have any real change to the nature of the witness; certain technical aspects of the argument for the resurrection may change, but the critical core will, as far as I can see, remain the same.
There's a bit that follows here which requires no comment, though I can't resist re-affirming our mutual respect for Weird Al Yankovic! I would also like to note that I believe Matthew has correctly grasped the essence of Randel Helms' arguments (that the Gospels are "intentional fiction", though I will add that I don't know how far Helms believes this to be so; at least, he does explicity discount the Christ myth!).
I'll also offer a comment on this:
First of all, let me begin with an extremely important observation that has dawned on me since my first contribution. I have come to realize that the arguments for or against the temporary silence of the women depend on Markan priority, which I believe J.P. rejects. If Markan priority should be rejected, then I have to imagine that many of the arguments proposed might loose quite a bit of their steam and don't pack quite the punch that they might have under the assumption that Markan priority is valid. Also, I want to state that I am not dogmatically committed to the argument that the women's silence was meant to be permanent. I have no problem with a temporary silence; if Markan priority is flawed then I have to consider that the women's silence might have been temporary. As far as I can see, it's only logical! With this said, let me state my reasons for believing so far that the women's silence was meant to be understood as permanent.
Let me first say that this is a perfect example, again, of what I said about Matthew being cognizant of the need for interdisciplinary study. So much of what is offered today (such as MacDonald's Homeric Epics thesis) would collapse in a heap if a copy of Matthew's Gospel were found dated to 40 AD, or if Markan priority could not be assumed. Markan priority is being seriously questioned by many writers today, and many like MacDonald who use Markan priority as a strong basis should, I think, be obliged to re-examine and re-argue the case for it rather than assume it at this point.
With that, let's look at Matthew's reasons why he thinks the silence was meant to be permanent:
I accept a hypothesis put forth by Gerd Ludemann regarding the "young man" in Mark's resurrection account. Ludemann has proposed that the "young man" in Mark 14:51 is the same "young man" in Mark 16. I suspect that the "young man" is Mark's author and intends for the silence of the women to be permanent to explain why the story hasn't been heard before- the "young man" ( I am assuming to be Mark's author) is the first to proclaim the empty tomb. Kirby, agreeing with Fuller, rejects this. I think Fuller's criticism is misplaced; I think that the reason that Mark wants the "young man" to be the first is illustrate a point: the "young man" was the last of the disciples to abandon Jesus, being seized and feeling naked, whereas the others abandoned Jesus more cowardly, without being seized. Thus, Mark is using the "young man" to shame the disciples; it's them who should have been there to witness the empty tomb and be the first to proclaim Jesus risen. They could've had the honor of doing so if they didn't act so shamefully! They did act shamefully, betraying the ingroup loyalty, and the "young man" didn't and so, therefore, he got the honor of being the first to proclaim that Jesus had risen from the dead!
I myself would argue that Mark intends for some connection to be made between the two young men, but that it goes to far to do as Ludemann does and say they were meant to be the same person. As I have noted elsewhere, an angel in Josephus is described with the appearance of a "young man." I believe that Mark has appropriated this description (not from Josephus, but as part of a stock of common Jewish conceptions) to draw a contrast between the "young man" who fled (who I suspect may have been him, but it need not have been) and an angel described as a "young man" who loyally proclaimed the Gospel message. So I do see something happing similar to what Matthew describes, but not the same.
But the two young men perhaps can still be different people and Matthew's argument remain intact; nevertheless, I have to admit I am not clear on the connection being made here. Why does the young man's proclamation lead to the women's silence? What is it about the young man's being the first to proclaim the empty tomb that silences the women permanently? I do agree that the angelic "young man" shames the disciples who fled, but I don't see that this requires the women to be silent beyond this. In Luke and Matthew, those who are described as angels are the first to have the honor to announce the resurrection, and the women go on to spill the beans. What am I missing here?
There is no explanatory note of the women's silence as being temporary. In various places in Mark's gospel, Mark gives explanatory notes to his readers. For instance, in Mark 7, Mark explains in verse 3 "The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, and kettles". I feel that an explanatory note of the women's silence, if temporary, would've been appropriate in Mark's ending, especially if it was written to people who already believed and if they were aware of appearance traditions, wondering how the disciples got word of the risen Jesus, if it was written as a biography for an ingroup of Jesus' disciples who were already convinced. For instance, Mark could've written "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing at first to anyone, for they were afraid" or, perhaps, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled the tomb to tell the disciples. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" What about "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, for they had yet to tell the disciples for they afraid."
The point here has some validity, I think, but there are too many related issues that might change the tenor (including of course Markan vs Matthean priority). If Mark 16:8 is not the original end of the Gospel, then 16:9 may have been the explanatory note Matthew was looking for. Or, if it was the end, it may have functioned as a "shocker" designed to prompt evangelism by the hearer, and so there would be no more. Furthermore, it seems to me that most of Mark's notes are in the service of explaining Jewish customs that his mostly Gentile audience would not understand, and there is nothing of a matter of Jewish custom here to explain, that I can see. In the end, I think this has done well to restate the nature of the puzzle, but it has not negated viable answers to the puzzle, in the main because of the open variables of composition.
There is no awareness of any temporary silence in the other gospels. Matthew has them go out with the direct intent to tell the disciples with apparent enthusiasm. Matthew 28 reads "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples" The element of fear is present but also joy and an enthusiasm to spread the news! Surely if the silence was temporary, Matthew and others would've noted a temporary silence or perhaps an initial hesitancy in telling the disciples. Luke says that the women went and told them everything that happened at the tomb. I believe that even Luke's account would've mentioned a temporary silence or an initial hesitancy if the fear was that strong to begin with as Mark seems to suggest.
And of course, the same variables appear here as an issue: Is Mark or Matthew first; was this Mark's actual ending; and so on. Matthew (my debate partner, not the Gospel!) acknowledges that the compositional priority issue does affect arguments here, and may or may not agree with the other points I have made, but that one by itself leads to one of our traditional friendly impasses, so we move on to this:
Assisting Joseph. I'm going to preface this next reply with a few points. Matthew asks what are assuredly reasonable questions about the women who visited the tomb. However, for the most part these are questions whose absolute answer is inaccessible to us, and for which one can only offer (as is often the case in historical study) plausible suggestions. In terms of this, it would be my argument generally (and Matthew may agree) that there is no problem here that is insurmountable; that there are some for which any answer will necessarily be speculative. Biographical data for these women that might answer our questions is simply lacking.
I've done a lot of work on Mary Magdalene of late, between all this ongoing about The Da Vinci Code and an article that just appeared in the CRI Journal, so what I'll do here is try to address Matthew's questions for her only as a way of illustrating my point. Among the named women, she is arguably the one about which we have the most data; and even that is minimal. To begin, I said:
In terms of not assisting Joseph, I expect that for the woman to associate so directly with Joseph -- who was not THEIR husband! -- may have been too scandalous. There may have also been issues of class involved (he was a highly rated member of the Sanhedrin; they were -- ?).
Matthew replies:
I'm not really convinced here. If there was a fear of possible rumors of scandal, perhaps the women could've arranged for assistance in advance. Let me elaborate here. If the women were in at least a sober enough state of mind (not being completely sober, mind you) to prepare spices (as in Luke's gospel chapter 23, vs. 55-56), then perhaps they could've gotten some men to come with them. As for associating so directly with Joseph who was not their husband- that's an excellent point! Speaking of any husbands- where were they at? If any fear of scandal or anything unbecoming and unseeming was a concern, then why didn't the women simply have their husbands, brothers, or anyone of near kin, blood relations, or family come with them to assist them? Why didn't they seek the disciples to come with them to watch Jesus being buried and, then, later to visit the tomb?
How might I answer this for the Magdalene? Could she have arranged for assistance in advance? "Some men," but whom? Her profile information suggests that she was not married but rather a women of independent means (Luke 8:3). Brothers or other relatives are unknown to us, in terms of who they were, where they lived, and whether she was even in good straits with them (having had seven demons, and now associating with a controversial and crucified teacher; what would that have done or do to family relations?). Other male disciples (I assume meaning, those that were not chicken at the time, if any???)? Married or unmarried, wouldn't that be scandalous too? Would they be otherwise occupied protecting and mourning with their own families?
Matthew is right to point out that this would seem inconsistent, though, with them going later to tell Peter and Co. of the resurrection. That is an excellent point. Yet there is something of a difference here, between reporting a paradigm-shattering event such as a resurrection and going to ask for assistance to move the rock. The former seems far more action-inspiring than the latter; and moreover, we might argue that they had an angelic command (or at least believed that they did) to get moving.
Another good question is:
I also ask-for fear of scandal- who would have known if the women had assisted the disciples? If it was Preparation Day, I imagine most people would be preparing at home while many (except, perhaps, the very closest) of Jesus' followers would feel defeated and would leave the crucifixion scene and not stick around to see Jesus buried. I don't imagine most people caring at this point about who would bury Jesus and whether any women were helping or what-have-you so I don't imagine it would be that much of a deal considering the overall mood that was prevalent at this time.
My comment on this would be that Preparation Day or no, we do still have a society where everyone minds everyone else's business (and hence, rather "much of a deal" as it would not be to us). Not even a direct meeting, but a single glance out the window or door at Mary Magdalene being escorted by a male disciple (other than a brother or relative, which is again what we know nothing about) is more than sufficient to start tongues rolling -- as it is even in our small towns which remain closer analogues to honor-shame societies. Indeed, I don't expect they cared about who buried Jesus either. I have read in one of the books that Matthew and I respect from the Context Group that male and female together would be assumed to be up to no good if left alone, and that would have been the subject of scandal, not who was burying whom.
On reflection, one more point has also occurred to me, perhaps the strongest of all. McCane has argued that Joseph was NOT a disciple of Jesus in any way. I would argue otherwise, but would take from this the point (for what it is worth, affirmed by the Gospels) that if Joseph was a disciple of Jesus secretly, the women would not know this at the time. They would more likely assume what McCane assumed: That Joseph was a loyal Sanhedrin member doing his duty to bury a criminal dishonorably, and that therefore, he was not someone they could approach for help (and this would also resolve the conundrum Brown proposed). This also means that their hopes of anointing Jesus may have been a bit forlorn, but as Keener noted in his commentary on Matthew's Gospel, women were given somewhat more latitude in mourning, so perhaps they held out some hope to get their work done; or perhaps this was simply a case of them "acting out" a forlorn hope with no real expectation that they'd get inside the tomb (eg, it may have been no more than a symbolic demonstration of their loyalty to Jesus, with no expected tangible result; like the lunch counter "sit ins" performed by black men in the 1960s, who took a seat at segregated lunch counters knowing they would be ignored).
In all of this I have also assumed that the women's "who will move the stone" question is literal-historical rather than being a form of narrative drama to set up the finding of the open tomb. In the end, that's the option I may prefer more than any of these, certainly to keep Ockham's Razor as sharp as possible -- and the point I return to is that both sides of this debate may be chasing butterflies with fishermen's nets thanks to the paucity of data we have about these persons and their relationships with one another.
Matthew asks one other question I'd like to address, about why the women went as early as they did, while it was still dark. I believe (if memory serves me) that the answer to this would be that the typical day for people of this era and place always began so early (as it does still for our American farmer) because when the day became too hot, it was impossible to do anything comfortably. Glenn Miller once wrote an essay in which he mentioned this as a reason why Pilate would be up and about at such an early hour, and I wouldn't presume other than that the peasant or artisan of the day kept much the same schedule.
Anoint the Point! Matthew here allows that a secondary anointing is "not impossibly out of the question" but does take the view that it is "historically improbable." He notes then McCane's comments, and asks for clarification on the issue of Joseph of Arimathea. Gladly! I can envision events in this order:
In short, with no better alternative, Joseph acted covertly to at least be the one who had custody of the body and could do it some honor, however little it would reverse the shame. I see this as a reasonable way to reconcile the issues, and would be interested in any potential replies.
Matthew then asks:
If Jesus was innocent, wouldn't the women believe that being of low rank in society they wouldn't have had the class standing to perform that kind of rite? Wouldn't it have taken someone of higher social standing to do this, especially given the honorable reputation that Jesus might've enjoyed as a Israelite holy man?
Whether the women were of low rank is one of those things we're not sure about. Mary Magdalene, my exemplar, actually may have been of a high enough rank or class, if she was a wealthy supporter of Jesus' ministry as Luke 8:3 may intimate. At the same time, I would not say with certainty that their own personal rank directly affected the honor value of the anointing. Even so it may have been offered after the manner of giving the few cents in my analogy.
And wouldn't the women be of the improper gender to carry anything like that out?
It is my understanding the burial duty was primarily women's work.
And thus, if Jesus was innocent, despite their well-intentions, it might not have been seen as necessary since God would ultimately vindicate Jesus one way or another and overturn the flawed judgement of those who got Jesus crucified in the first place. If God was to raise or vindicate Jesus, within the next couple of days or at the end times, then the women might have believed their contribution might not have been really necessary.
That's a good issue to consider -- as to whether the women did believe God would raise or vindicate Jesus. Were they privy to his teachings that he would be vindicated? I am not sure they were. My recollection is that Jesus gave that teaching to the Twelve, and thus it may not have reached down to a wider circle of his disciples. It does seem to be the sort of startling claim of honor that Jesus would tell his inner circle, but also tell them to withhold.
Apocrypha Now! Matthew is certainly correct to say that it would be wise for some Christians not to dismiss it so hastily out of hand by saying "Oh well that is a second-century document; it's not a serious contender to the canonical burial traditions". Careful analysis should be done on these; for my part, I find Philip Jenkins' book Hidden Gospels a user-friendly introduction to many of these works. That said, I think we have come down to an agreeable terminus for this issue and can move on to specific works or traditions as warranted or desired.
I accept Matthew's retraction based on his consideration of McCane, further on -- as I told him, it blew more than a few things out of the water for me as well, though in a direction I found generally amenable!
Artificial Ingredients. Matthew asserts no "beef" (rare, I hope!) with the use of artificial literary techniques in the Gospels; he raises the issue of verb tenses, and I would only suggest that the inconsistency in tenses are part of the necessary package of rearranging narrative order. To say more than this would require more knowledge than I have, not knowing Koine Greek, and so perhaps I can only bow out on this point and defer Matthew to an expert (there is someone on TheologyWeb we both know, Jaltus, who could perhaps give feedback).
One other point I would like to make, however, is that in this we see the importance of abandoning what I would call "fundamentalist" presuppositions about the NT text. As I have told Matthew in correspondence, many opponents fail to understand my work. The reason for this is that they come out of fundamentalist backgrounds, and assume coming to me that I will be defending my views from a fundamentalist perspective, and further, that this is de facto the ONLY perspective I can possibly defend! Matthew does not make this mistake in our debate -- there is no scent of fundamentalism left on him!
Patronage and Adoption. Further on, Matthew expresses his regrets for an error which I have to admit I didn't notice :-) so it probably wasn't that serious. That said, he raises a question which I have actually had posed to me in email as well:
I believe, however, that J.P. might have left an important point out and that is the concept of "family surrogation" and "kinship loyalty". I believe the earliest Christians would've understood themselves as not just being "clients" and God being the patron and Jesus being the broker of the covenant, but I believe the earliest Christians would've seen themselves as being "kin" of God. They would see themselves as being adoptive kin in the family of God and the Christian Church as a surrogate family. In fact, when Paul speaks of being adopted as "sons of God", this is precisely what Paul has in mind.
Now as it happens, this very matter came up in a discussion I have had with Calvinist opponents who did not agree at all with the model of patronage being applied. They claimed that the "adoption" language of Paul proved that there was NOT a patronage relationship. My answer to them -- which I think applies here as well, in a different way -- is that adoption is a form of patronage relationship; the only question is, which governs the defining of which? Given that patronage was the defining factor for a broad range of relationships in this setting, I would have to go with arguing that patronage defined the adoption relationship, and so was primary. I think Matthew IS right that Christians saw themselves as "kin" of God, but that patronage defined how that kinship was understood.
Matthew's next argument section has at its center the idea that the Gospels were "written for a third generation of Christians and in a post-70 era." If that is true, then I would concede that the further argument about the change in knowledge pool would have strength. But since I have serious disagreement with that fundamental premise of the dates of the Gospels (I date all of them before 70), I engage the remainder of the argument offered with a caveat that I am commenting with the assumed premise of the Gospels as late documents, which I do not agree with. Matthew writes:
After the shameful events leading up to the dispersion of Jews and Christians after the destruction of the Temple, the Christians would migrate elsewhere, occupying new social niches, and might tend to forget or suppress any memory of the shameful events such as the destruction of the Temple. Therefore, while the later generation of Christians knew of the basic kerygmatic elements of the gospels, they didn't know of the surrounding background details. Therefore the gospel authors proceeded to fill in the gap by writing about these events. I don't see why they would do so if the information was already part of the high-conext, knowledge pool. It makes better sense to me that the gospel authors would try to fill in the gap of the high-context knowledge pool where the memories were forgotten or supressed. This even presumes that the empty tomb and postmortem "sightings' of a fleshly, risen Jesus were part of the knowledge pool of the earliest Christians. If not, then I would imagine that the empty tomb and resurrection narratives were didadic creations or perhaps legendary embellishments, but this is a discussion topic for another time and something I would rather not get into right here.
The issues that come to mind -- allowing for the late dating of the Gospels -- are, for me: 1) Is it really possible to "suppress the memory" of something like the destruction of the Temple? What about that it would provide an excellent apologetic (in a Jewish context) for Jesus' prophetic authority, and thus in a way be honoring to him (since he predicted its destruction)? 2) What was the content of the original kerygmatic message? In other words, if Paul is standing in the square in Corinth, what will he say at a date of 50 AD, under this rubric, since there is a lack (complete? partial?) of what we find in the Gospels? 3) If the Gospels are gap fillers, what was the life of Jesus really like and how did he get to be called divine? 4) I have some serious (but not authoritative) reservations about the paradigm of memory suppression; forgive my doubts, but I have become familiar with cases where that was used as a resort in trials to convict persons of horrible crimes (particularly child molestation). I will simply leave those questions in the air for now; Matthew has indicated a desire to look into the matter later, and I will respect that.
Matthew now begins rounding off his entry with some kind words:
I hope he has enjoyed the effort put into answering these questions and sharing his thoughts with me. I have to say that I have enjoyed every minute I have invested into this discussion!
I have indeed very mcuh enjoyed it, and very much appreciated Matthew's efforts. As I have told him in correspondence, I find it difficult today to find discussion partners from the other side of the fence (so to speak) who are qualified as well as interesting, and not given to uncritical acceptance of whatever comes down the pike. The Scholarly Diplomacy Series started with one such other opponent (Kyle Gerkin), and while Kyle has been busily engaged with other projects, I would say that Matthew has worn the same shoes and fit into them perfectly. I couldn't be more pleased, especially after years of dealing with people who think hauling up the Pope Leo X "fable" quote is a worthwhile argument.
Jerusalem HQ. I argued that for Jesus to "have had headquarters in the city that he regarded as impure would have been inconsistent with his own preaching" since he saw its destruction forthcoming. Matthew replies:
As for the "prophesized" eventual destruction, that was another 40 years in the future! Perhaps Jesus may have wanted to establish a temporary headquarters until the time that Jerusalem was going to clash with Rome and then in the decade or so before it, gradually, migrate the the headquarters to Galilee, once enough of a base was established there. In fact, in Acts, it seems to me that the embryonic Church had much of its roots in Jerusalem. As for having headquarters in a city that he regarded as impure, I'm not sure I understand what J.P. is getting at. Can you elabroate J.P.?
To begin, I think it might be good to backtrack and define what *I* mean, at least, by "headquartered." I don't want to apply anachronistic ideas of modern corporations here unintentionally.
By "headquartered" I mean that it would be the place that Jesus called "home" -- living and working there for the majority of time, and using it as a base for ministry. As far as we can tell from the record, it was Capernaum that served this role for Jesus for a time; and then he seemed to have become thoroughly itinerant, with no "headquarters" of this sort (viz. the "Son of Man" saying about not having a place to lay his head). Now it is this last point that I think shows that Jesus would have not only not chosen Jerusalem for headquarters (as I define it), but indeed NOWHERE in Jewish lands at all. The entirety of the Jewish nation was under judgment because it was impure (meaning, had sinned, had violated the covenant, and was not repenting), as far as he was concerned; Jerusalem is the subject of many prophecies of judgment, but the other cities like Capernaum get their whacks too.
What of the early church in Jerusalem? I regard this as more an accident of geography (it is merely because it is where the church started) rather than a matter of choosing Jerusalem as an HQ above, say, Capernaum (Some might also say that James the brother of Jesus was a priest at the Temple, but that's speculative.), combined with that someone had to be there if for no other reason that to conduct evangelism. But I'd be interested in any arguments Matthew has for Jerusalem as HQ, starting with being sure we're on the same wavelength in terms of what we mean by "headquartered." If it's loose enough a definition, one could say that Jesus used Jerusalem as an HQ at certain times like Passion Week.
In terms of preterism, I will leave that matter alone other than to briefly answer Matthew's question as I read the subject:
What I had in mind and mispoke of, was whether this "second-coming" was a literal phyiscal one as opposed to a spiritual coming. What I was trying to get at was a "second-coming" in which they would actually see Jesus descend from the clouds and rapture his first-generation disciples into heaven. Sorry for the confusion J.P.- that was my fault.
No worries! Actually, blame the Left Behind types for corrupting the language. I have long disdained the use of the word "coming" because it implies definitive directional movement towards a target, namely, the earth. But parousia implies no such thing, and the other word used at times (erchomai, as I recall), as Wright points out, indicates movement but can also mean "going" (leading Wright to the joke that after one of his students was told this, he himself did not know if he was coming or going!). In fact I do not see a physical or a spiritual "coming" at all. For me the parousia is simply Christ formally ascending the throne of heaven. There is nothing visible on earth of this event; there are signs of it on earth (this is something Matthew will see Wright argue for, in books he is now reading) but there is nothing of a visible Jesus popping a wheelie on a cumulus, as I have put it, and also no "rapture" at that time of any sort. More on this will have to be had later -- it's complex, and it took me years to work out all my ideas!
Closing Comments. Matthew sums up his experience in the study of McCane, and to this I will simply say: Enjoy the process of discovery! :-) No matter what point of view we hold, this is the sort of journey that is worth having. He identifies certain "crucial questions" and for my own closure this round, I will offer my own answers or comments:
So I probably come closest to the first option Matthew gives: If the answer to both is "no", then I would probably have to agree that there is no historical reason for doubting any core historical "fact" that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Jospeh was described in the gospels. Therefore, there would be no reason for assuming that an empty tomb would not have been part of the high-context knowledge-pool of the earliest Christians as well as any burial tradition underlying our canonical gospels. I leave it to Matthew to pursue the issue as he sees fit in Round 3, and look forward to continuance of the discussion.