How far back can the supposed tomb of Jesus be traced?

[Don_t_Panic]

@aldiboronti

As for Galerius, yeah, he was certainly no angel but to be fair to the old bastard he was the first emperor to issue an edict of toleration regarding the Christians, 2 years before Constantine and Licinius came up with a similar edict. (OTOH he’d been enthusiastically helping Diocletian persecute them for years and only changed direction a week or so before dying so not too many brownie points for that then!)

Should we give Galerius some brownie points? Nah, screw him. The bastard.

BTW, you have to wonder about the role of role of Licinius in this. I mean, don’t you? Don’t we? So, the Edict of Milan. For one thing, the conspiracy theory version, which is that it was strictly a political move directed at Maximinus Daia in the East, who is about to get clobbered by Licinius. Anyway, the way you’ll often hear it, it’s like Constantine wrote the Edict of Milan. Then he told Licinius, “here’s what we do”. But Licinius isn’t sone lieutenant of Constantine, right? He’s another guy with a massive ego, who will be Constantine’s opponent for the final round. So it makes me wonder who is coming up with ideas here. Even if Constantine really is the idea guy, and even if those ideas are good, I can’t help thinking that Licinius would interfere just for the sheer obstinacy of it. And then there’s this tidbit (I’ll quote Wiki):

Before the decisive engagement [meaning between Licinius and Maximinus Daia], Licinius allegedly had a vision in which an angel recited him a generic prayer that could be adopted by all cults and which Licinius then repeated to his soldiers.

So who is having visions now, then? Sure, it’s not “in this sign”, but still. I’ve seen this mentioned here and there, but I can’t find any proper info on it. Wiki references a book in French, and… well, I don’t read French. Actually, the way I’ve heard this “explained”, is that if there was such a prayer, it wasn’t written by an angel, but by Constantine. So, same thing again, with Constantine calling shots. But why not say: Not by an angel, but by Licinius? If anyone knows more about this, please let me know.

Later, of course, Constantine will be playing the Christian card big time stylie, and Licinius will be the one cast in the role of evil pagan. But, at least around this time, I’m really starting to wonder if I even have a clue what is going on. It’s like the more I think I know, the less it turns out that I actually know. And it’s been getting progressively worse lately as I’ve been posting in this thread.

[TYphoonSignal8]

@dtilque

If he really did see a “cross” in the sky, it was probably a sun dog.

If Jesus was involved it was not a cross: it was a staurogram: https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/staurogram-essay.pdf

[Don_t_Panic]

@TYphoonSignal8

If Jesus was involved it was not a cross: it was a staurogram: https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/staurogram-essay.pdf

Well, it was a staurogram, or it was a Chi-Rho. Although I do like to think that Constantine’s vision, or whatever, had something to do with the sun, since it fits with the Sol Invictus connection.

Or maybe you could say that the labarum standard includes the cross. But that’s just the part that the flag bit is hanging from, isn’t it? That’s just because it’s a military standard. The sign that you’re supposed to conquer in there, it seems to me, is clearly the Chi-Rho.

They’re all sort of variations on a theme, though, aren’t they? And then there’s this thing you could throw into the mix: The IX monogram.

[Avery_Weisman]

Since it was the Romans who made archaeological verification impossible, weren’t there at least some Roman records? It’s a long shot for the place of burial, but what about Golgotha? They should at least know where they crucified people. That’ll be enough for me.

[Don_t_Panic]

@Avery_Weisman

Since it was the Romans who made archaeological verification impossible, weren’t there at least some Roman records? It’s a long shot for the place of burial, but what about Golgotha? They should at least know where they crucified people. That’ll be enough for me.

Keep in mind that between the times of Christ and Helena, those same Romans trashed the living bejeezus out of Jerusalem on a number of occasions (no pun intended), before putting things back not exactly the way they were, to put it mildly. Most notably, Hadrian did a good job of it.

But, yeah, when Helena trucked into town, what did she have to work with? Would there have been a convenient sign in that location, saying “this is where we used to crucify people 300 plus years ago”? In principle, I suppose that such a thing might not have been impossible. In a hypothetical world. But there wasn’t, was there? Instead, there was a temple of Venus, of all things, built by Hadrian.

On the other hand, it was probably somewhere in that area, and I don’t think anyone has any better ideas. At least as far as I can tell. Whether that will do in terms of specificity will, I suppose, depend on how invested one is.

[DrDeth]

@Avery_Weisman

Since it was the Romans who made archaeological verification impossible, weren’t there at least some Roman records? It’s a long shot for the place of burial, but what about Golgotha? They should at least know where they crucified people. That’ll be enough for me.

Most records were destroyed or the parchment reused. The Romans did keep meticulous records, but we have only a few left.

[md2000]

It’s an educated guess that tradition and geography seem to support… There aren’t that many small hills just outside the old city walls.

[aldiboronti]

@Avery_Weisman

Since it was the Romans who made archaeological verification impossible, weren’t there at least some Roman records? It’s a long shot for the place of burial, but what about Golgotha? They should at least know where they crucified people. That’ll be enough for me.

Ah, Roman records! The Holy Grail of historians of the period and just as elusive. I sometimes imagine some future discovery of Pilate’s memoirs, this one not some Christian forgery but the genuine article. I’m sure the choleric Pontius would not have mellowed with age and his memoirs, perhaps written in the late 30s AD in his retirement somewhere in Samnia (he was a Samnite), would have been chock full of anti-semitism, bitter recriminations against those damn Jews and Samaritans who destroyed his career by dropping him in the shit with Tiberius. And all because he tried to keep them in line, show them who was boss. Sure, he’d slaughtered some of them but that was the Roman way and to be bollocked for it by Tiberius of all people! Bloody hypocrite! That bastard had murdered more people in a week than he’d done in a lifetime.

Perhaps these memoirs had come to the attention of Caligula. Even though he’d probably killed Tiberius he would not have taken kindly to others slagging off his family and it would fit nicely with the story of Eusebius, that Caligula had ordered Pilate to commit suicide in AD 39.

And what about Jesus? I’m convinced that if we’d have been around to question Pilate in his modest villa and had asked about Jesus, Pilate would have replied,“Who?”

“You remember. Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified for declaring himself King of the Jews? You questioned him yourself.”

“I don’t have a clue who you’re talking about. Do you realize how many of these troublemakers there were out there? Every second one of them was their promised King or whatever they called it. And as for questioning them myself that’s absurd. I was the Prefect of Judea, do you think I had the time or inclination to bandy words with some raggedy-ass Jewish rebel? I find that positively offensive.”

Who knows? One day perhaps. And maybe I’m wrong and the memoirs will be an Apologia Pro Vita Sua full of remorse, guilt and praise for the Risen God. But somehow I doubt it.

[md2000]

In “Zealot” Reza Aslan suggests that the trial of Jesus by Pilate was complete embellishment by later writers trying to make the Jews out as villains and the Romans as blameless. Pilate was not likely to even bother with a minor criminal, let alone engage in a quaint debate with some obscure Galilean troublemaker (in what language?). The locals had complained about how harsh he was to anyone who stepped out of line. This is not the sort of man to wash his hands and say he did not see why a man who threatened civil disorder should be punished.

[SmartAlecCat]

@md2000

In “Zealot” Reza Aslan suggests that the trial of Jesus by Pilate was complete embellishment by later writers trying to make the Jews out as villains and the Romans as blameless. Pilate was not likely to even bother with a minor criminal, let alone engage in a quaint debate with some obscure Galilean troublemaker (in what language?). The locals had complained about how harsh he was to anyone who stepped out of line. This is not the sort of man to wash his hands and say he did not see why a man who threatened civil disorder should be punished.

Is it likely that someone crucified by the Romans would be allowed to be buried in a private tomb at all or would he remain on the cross until the body decayed?

[DrDeth]

@md2000

In “Zealot” Reza Aslan suggests that the trial of Jesus by Pilate was complete embellishment by later writers trying to make the Jews out as villains and the Romans as blameless. Pilate was not likely to even bother with a minor criminal, let alone engage in a quaint debate with some obscure Galilean troublemaker (in what language?). The locals had complained about how harsh he was to anyone who stepped out of line. This is not the sort of man to wash his hands and say he did not see why a man who threatened civil disorder should be punished.

Other than the New Testament, we know just about Jack Shit about Pilate*. In fact it wasnt until recently (well, 1961) that there was any actual archaeological evidence he was real, and some doubters claimed the Christians made him up.

What evidence we do have corroborates the NT.

*There’s a brief mention in Tacicus, which is doubted by some but does confirm Jesus:

Tacitus on Jesus

and in Josephus, and one in Philo, both Jewish literature which describe Pilate as very hands on.

[Shodan]

@SmartAlecCat

Is it likely that someone crucified by the Romans would be allowed to be buried in a private tomb at all or would he remain on the cross until the body decayed?

I don’t know how likely it was, but it did happen at least once to someone else.

During the Roman period (first century B.C.–first century A.D.) Jews who could afford this type of burial would lay out the dead bodies of loved ones on stone benches in rock-cut tombs. A year later, after the flesh had desiccated, the bones were collected into an ossuary and left in the tomb with those of other family members.

Examination of Yehohanan’s bones showed one of the many Roman crucifixion methods. Both of his feet had been nailed together to the cross with a wooden plaque while his legs were bent to one side. His arm bones revealed scratches where the nails had passed between. Both legs were badly fractured, most likely from a crushing blow meant to end his suffering and bring about a faster death. Yehohanan was probably a political dissident against Roman oppression.

Regards,
Shodan

[DrDeth]

@SmartAlecCat

Is it likely that someone crucified by the Romans would be allowed to be buried in a private tomb at all or would he remain on the cross until the body decayed?

Josephus states:* “the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset.*” Josephus in War .

[Isilder]

@Pleonast

I read a children’s Christmas book that showed a picture of stable described as a “manger”.

Manger, as with words like Mandible (jaw),comes from latin for “chew”.
A manger stable is a little stable you put vulnerable animals in to ensure their food isn’t eaten by bigger ,stronger,faster, animals…
Its also the stable you put them in to keep them safe from predatory animals and extreme weather. (or just to keep them)… hence the mix up between an enclosed stable and the feeding trough in such a stable.

So the manger (as in manger stable ) might have a manger as in feeding trough.

[Don_t_Panic]

@md2000

Of course the whole “Roman census, go to Bethlehem” is thought by many scholars to be a later embellishment to explain why a Galilean peasant would be born in the City of David… It included the descent from avid through Joseph, followed by further embellishment that Joseph was not his father. And of course, there was no census. There was a census of the Syrian province a few years before that, it did not require inhabitants to journey to a remote city of origin to register. So much of what’s in the bible is actually writer embellishments decades to centuries later to enhance the reputation of Jesus and rewrite existing narratives to conform to the approved orthodoxy.

Oh, the census. Yes, the census story, and the birth in Betlehem, is clearly madey-uppey. But, as I ranted about in another thread, probably to excess: This is a story that has *miracles *in it. The protagonist is basically a wizard. You’d think that would clue people in right there that the Gospels may be, um, somewhat fictionalized. Embellishments? Yeah, ya think? But for some reason, this census is always what sets everyone off.

I swear, sometimes it’s like watching people debating the historical accuracy of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and all they do is nitpick the costumes. But I probably shouldn’t get into to that again. Although, I’ll quote a review of Abraham, Lincoln, Vampire Hunter:

If you go into Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter looking for a balanced, thoughtful portrayal of a historical topic, then you’re either certifiably insane, or very confused.

[aldiboronti]

Speaking of Jesus and his miracles it’s instructive comparing him with his contemporary Apollonius of Tyana, subject of a book by the 3rd century philosopher Philostratus, based in part on the writings of one of Apollonius’ disciples. I remember when I first read it I was astonished by the parallels between him and Jesus. The wiki linked above has a long list including:

Birth miraculously announced by God
Religiously precocious as a child
Denounced wealth
Wore long hair and robes
Was unmarried and childless
Was anointed with oil
Went to Jerusalem
Healed the sick
Spoke in parables
Performed miracles
Cast out evil spirits
Raised the dead
Condemned by the Roman authorities
Was imprisoned
Was assumed into heaven
Appeared after his death
Was the object of a cult

I realize now that some, probably much, of this may be in direct imitation of Christian literature but what is interesting is that his followers took it as gospel just as the Christians did all the stories about Jesus. The cult of Apollonius survived for centuries and his disciples were still being denounced by Byzantine writers in Late Antiquity (between the 4th and 7th centuries AD).

I still recall with embarrassment in my early 20s (around the late 60s) announcing, much to the amusement of my wife, that I was going to re-establish the worship of Apollonius and become his chief apostle on Earth. The next day of course I’d moved on to some other idiocy. Reading too much was (and still is) my worst fault although now the credulity of youth has long since given way to a healthy skepticism, something which is essential to those who read to excess. Boy, was I a dummy back then!

[AK84]

@Avery_Weisman

Since it was the Romans who made archaeological verification impossible, weren’t there at least some Roman records? It’s a long shot for the place of burial, but what about Golgotha? They should at least know where they crucified people. That’ll be enough for me.

Yes there would have been. Most likely intelligence reports and the death warrant itself, the Roman Empire ran on papyrus and the written word. Unlikely to have survived especially in a city which has been sacked a dozen times in the meantime including being razed twice in the decades after the event.

[AK84]

@SmartAlecCat

Is it likely that someone crucified by the Romans would be allowed to be buried in a private tomb at all or would he remain on the cross until the body decayed?

From Josephus we know that the Romans did sometimes remove people who were not yet dead from the cross.

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered

You don’t win and maintain an Empire by being inflexible.

[AK84]

@md2000

In “Zealot” Reza Aslan suggests that the trial of Jesus by Pilate was complete embellishment by later writers trying to make the Jews out as villains and the Romans as blameless. Pilate was not likely to even bother with a minor criminal, let alone engage in a quaint debate with some obscure Galilean troublemaker (in what language?). The locals had complained about how harsh he was to anyone who stepped out of line. This is not the sort of man to wash his hands and say he did not see why a man who threatened civil disorder should be punished.

Its been said that the image of Alexander the Great that we have is one that later Roman admirers (he was lets say revered almost as a deity in Roman times) created that of a Patrician old fashioned Roman, not the half civilized Macedonian he actually was. Actions and opinions that Roman writers attribute to Alexander are not what he actually would have held.

I see Reza Aslan in the same vein. His interpretation is informed living in an era shortly after the worst manifestation of anti-antisemitism and with a centuries long history of the blood libel. Whoever reported in the Gospel’s had no such complexes. On the contrary other contemporary depictions both of the place and the Roman Empire in general are pretty clear that the Romans did overturn local magistrates decisions or ignore their wishes when the thought it was just. We know that a couple of decades after Jesus, another man acted out in the Temple and was released by the Romans as a “madman” despite the wishes of the local Jews (its in Josephus).

To say that Pilate was reluctant and that the locals were baying for blood and he acquiesced, only since (we know this from history) he had a testy relationship at best with the local leaders and did not want to complicate matters, seems to be a fairer reading.

[Darren_Garrison]

@Martian Bigfoot

This is a story that has *miracles *in it. The protagonist is basically a wizard.

Waddiminnit, I just realized something–Jesus is a horcrux of God!