Was Jesus Eaten By Dogs?

[Me Myself]

Everything regarding Jesus is speculation (at best).

People truly need to remember this.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

nice information

but im not sure philosophy is the answer to everything

The issue is historiography. We're using sources to reconstruct to the exent possible a first century individual. We are beset with problems, from the religious motivations behind the texts and to the accuracy of the traditions they received and beyond. However, it is all too easy to either ignore these problems and proceed accordingly or throw one's hands up in despair.

What historians require, if there is any merit to historiography at all, are criteria to weigh the historicity sources not only by historical accuracy but according to several other dimensions (e.g., how much information the source provides, how it may or may not fit in with other depictions and the historians depiction as a whole, the genre, and so forth). Additionally, methods are needed to combine various weighed sources to construct a coherent depiction which best approximates reality. Thanks to everything from anthropology and archaeology to mathematics and graph theory, historians have vastly increased (or could) the techniques available to judge historicity. Take probability.
That historiography is a matter of finding the most probable explanation, given the available evidence, is nothing new. However, some historiographers have utilized developments in probability theory to define more formally and robustly what this means. Bayesian statistical theory, and the associated models, is designed to yield probability estimates given a posteriori evidence. Formally, Bayes’ theorem is
p(x|y) = p(y|x)p(x)/ ∫xp(y|x¯)p(x¯)d x¯
where p(x|y) is the probability of x event given y and x¯ is the complement of x. Although the standard formal expression utilizes integration, historians are much more likely to deal with discreate data where summation is required. In historiography, Bayesian models are applied to the probability of, for example, a particular hypothesis given the available evidence. Formally, Pr(H|E&B) = [Pr(E|H &B) * Pr(H|B)]r(E|B) where Pr is probability, H stands for a given historical hypothesis, E represents the evidence for that hypothesis, and B represents background theory. The application of Bayesian statistics allows historians to do what other social scientists have been doing for years: using available evidence to make a prediction about the likelihood of an event or the probability of a hypothesis.

The problem historians face, however, is the lack of data easily represented numerically. However, bayesian theory, combined with logic, allow formal arguments about the likelihood of a particular historical hypothesis to be expressed with greater ease and in simpler terms. This in turn allows the underlying logic of these arguments to be followed and evaluated more easily, much in the way symbolic logic does. It is easier, for example, to follow the logic of a series of statements connected by ifs, ands, iffs, ors, etc., and a conclusion if the entire argument is reduced to letters and symbols which represent the propositions, conclusion, and the logical relations between them. There isn’t a great deal of difference in identifying the logical fallacy in an argument with two connected propositions whether they are represented symbolically or not. The more statements one has to deal with, however, the harder the logic of the argument may be to follow, and the more use may be found in reducing the argument to its symbolic representation.
Formally expressing historical arguments does more than simplify the expression of an argument into symbolic components. It also better equips the historian to compare multiple hypothesis and arguments. Historians must deal with the probability of dependence between sources, and the relative merits of one hypothesis over another. Determining a relative degree of probability for the existence of evidence and/or for a particular hypothesis and then comparing it or combing it with others is simplified by formalization. Moreover, the use of “modeling” in historiography using techniques, graphs, and so forth from the social sciences allow complex hypotheses built upon various pieces of evidence and other hypotheses to be followed with greater ease. Furthermore, they allow the underlying logic to be made more explicit. Logical fallacies are, unfortunately, commonly made among historians, and historiography provides a method to, at the very least, identify these fallacies with greater ease.

Historiography need not end here, however. Just as other social sciences are beginning to make use of advances in fuzzy set theory, so too can historians. Ancient historians in general were not as rigorous methodologically or as developed theoretically as modern historians. Nor was the available evidence as abundant. Basically, although they may not be aware of it, modern historians us a graded membership function which maps texts onto a codomain set whose elements are (supposedly) texts which fall into a historical genre. However, the extent to which a text is historical is not binary, which is where fuzzy membership functions become useful. We can use such functions to formalize gradient membership and map those texts onto that set based on their degree of membership. Thucydides, for example, would have a higher value based on this function than Caesar, and both would be lower than modern historians like Robin Lane Fox or Mario Montuori. Furthermore, Bayesian statistical techniques, which were designed for “crisp” all-or-nothing sets, have already been developed for fuzzy sets. “Fuzzy” membership to a historical genre can be combined with greater ease and reliability with, for example, the cardinality of an attestation set. Fuzzy numbers/function allow us to transform terms like “very, not very, sort of, etc.” into formal models. Once this is done, the results can be combined with the number of attestations agreeing with, disagreeing with, or simply not contradicting, that of other evidence. By combining sources, their membership grades, the number of independent attestations for a particular version of an event or historical issue (like the druids), we can develop a much more rigorous model of comparative probability, which has as an additional benefit the simplicity and relative compactness of formal representation. With numerical representations for well-defined fuzzy numbers, we can even compute and graph probabilities.

while having good strong points and understanding the philosophy behind the literature goes a long way, one should not discount archeology and cultural anthropology when they are the best evidence we have as a foundation to build from with philosophy.

I'm not. In fact, I'm going further.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Everything regarding Jesus is speculation (at best).

Everything regarding anything is just specution. The same criticisms which were leveled against our ability to judge not just ancient history but modern history were also applied to the scientific method in the 20th century. In fact, perhaps to an even greater extent. What we have is evidence, of various types and of various values. The same is true in all sciences, and post-positivist critiques have attacked the fundamental notion that empirical inquiry of any type is possible. I reject this, along with the idea that historiography (even when it comes to someone like Jesus) is mere speculation. It's a weighing of evidence according to criteria.

 

[fallingblood]

not very probable...

i think the tomb story was added for the purpose to edit a previous theology.

The previous theology though didn't need a tomb, or a body, or anything that we see in this burial story. The earliest formulation of this idea is that Jesus died, was buried, and then was resurrected (this is in 1 Corinthians for example). So we have from our earliest source that Jesus was buried. And it is very likely that that is the earliest we will get, as Paul is himself referencing an older source here. So we are getting to a very early tradition, and we have good reason to believe it is based on what happened.

The body itself though is not important to the theology. Paul never mentions a missing body, and really, there is no reason to think that is important for him. Paul is talking about more of a spiritual resurrection, one in which the body is transformed. I am personally of the opinion that Jews did not believe that the physical body would be restored, mainly because of the way that they were buried.

So we have no reason for such a creation of a story. The resurrection narrative would do just fine if it didn't mention Jesus being placed on a tomb. It could logically go from Jesus being pronounced dead, to Jesus then appearing to his followers later. That is seemingly what happens in Paul anyway. They authors of the Gospels could have simply just mentioned that he was even buried, and then later resurrected, and it would work. There is no real reason for a tomb.

But if we look at the story, we have a logical reason why Jesus would be placed into a tomb. Someone wanted to place him in a tomb. It was probably someone sympathetic with Jesus, maybe just because he was a Jew and wanted to see some honor at least. But this individual mentioned would have the means.

More so, we know that there were also rumors about the body of Jesus having been stolen from a tomb. So this means that the story is old enough to have got passed around, and was found needing to be argued against.

The thing that convinced me the most though is the women being the ones who first appear at the tombs. I see no reason to suggest this if it wasn't historical. Especially considering that we end up seeing the women not being believed, or other problems with this idea that women were the first ones there. It seems like something that the Gospel writers want to gloss over, yet couldn't just erase. If it was truly a story just being made up, they wouldn't have had a problem not including the women here.

 

[fallingblood]

Everything regarding anything is just specution. The same criticisms which were leveled against our ability to judge not just ancient history but modern history were also applied to the scientific method in the 20th century. In fact, perhaps to an even greater extent. What we have is evidence, of various types and of various values. The same is true in all sciences, and post-positivist critiques have attacked the fundamental notion that empirical inquiry of any type is possible. I reject this, along with the idea that historiography (even when it comes to someone like Jesus) is mere speculation. It's a weighing of evidence according to criteria.

:yes: I think this is one of the hardest things to get across to people. To many people want to think of history as something like a science, where we have empirical evidence, that can be tested and shown to be true. That or they want to treat it like a court case, and have the ideas proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, with only first hand accounts. And that is simply an incorrect idea.

 

[fallingblood]

it sure wasnt popular for the jews, they avoided it like the plague.

Im not sure it was written for jews as its sole target.

I wanted to comment on this as I find it actually something funny to say. It really wasn't until the second century C.E. that Jews started to avoid the LXX, and that was primarily because it was being used by the Christians. Before that though, it was written for Jews. Both Philo and Josephus said that the Jewish translators were divinely inspired. Paul uses it as well, and it was well enough to be called scripture. It was almost a must as many Jews didn't now Hebrew or Aramaic. They knew Greek. And we can even see it being used for hundreds of years primarily by Jews (it was after all written some 300 years before Jesus was even born).

Even after they abandoned the LXX, there were still other Greek translations anyway. So I don't see Jews avoiding it like the plague, until almost 500 years after it was written, and then still using other Greek translations anyway. And really, we even see other popular Jewish religious writings in Greek too.

 

[waitasec]

The previous theology though didn't need a tomb, or a body, or anything that we see in this burial story. The earliest formulation of this idea is that Jesus died, was buried, and then was resurrected (this is in 1 Corinthians for example). So we have from our earliest source that Jesus was buried. And it is very likely that that is the earliest we will get, as Paul is himself referencing an older source here. So we are getting to a very early tradition, and we have good reason to believe it is based on what happened.

The body itself though is not important to the theology. Paul never mentions a missing body, and really, there is no reason to think that is important for him. Paul is talking about more of a spiritual resurrection, one in which the body is transformed. I am personally of the opinion that Jews did not believe that the physical body would be restored, mainly because of the way that they were buried.

So we have no reason for such a creation of a story. The resurrection narrative would do just fine if it didn't mention Jesus being placed on a tomb. It could logically go from Jesus being pronounced dead, to Jesus then appearing to his followers later. That is seemingly what happens in Paul anyway. They authors of the Gospels could have simply just mentioned that he was even buried, and then later resurrected, and it would work. There is no real reason for a tomb.

But if we look at the story, we have a logical reason why Jesus would be placed into a tomb. Someone wanted to place him in a tomb. It was probably someone sympathetic with Jesus, maybe just because he was a Jew and wanted to see some honor at least. But this individual mentioned would have the means.

More so, we know that there were also rumors about the body of Jesus having been stolen from a tomb. So this means that the story is old enough to have got passed around, and was found needing to be argued against.

The thing that convinced me the most though is the women being the ones who first appear at the tombs. I see no reason to suggest this if it wasn't historical. Especially considering that we end up seeing the women not being believed, or other problems with this idea that women were the first ones there. It seems like something that the Gospel writers want to gloss over, yet couldn't just erase. If it was truly a story just being made up, they wouldn't have had a problem not including the women here.

i'm sorry for not making myself clearer, by previous theology...i meant the jewish tradition...

it's interesting what comes out from a misunderstanding...(our misunderstanding)
that the christian theology went through various forms of editing...as you stated your case so well.

 

[ankarali]

According to islam Jesus not died in a cross it was his follower Judah (Yahuda Iskariyyot) died in the cross. The God (Allah) took Jesus to the sky far away and he will return when tha last day of the world is approaching. Judah (Yahuda Iskariyyot). Jesus' body is out of the question

 

[Renji]

This might be a good read for this thread :
The "Burial" of Christ's Body : ChristianCourier.com

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

A false accusation to insult Mary?

I think that when we lift stuff out of the story, we miss the point completely. It's *obviously* a story presented as a statement of fact. I don't think that it is an insult to Mary. The point of the story is to explain how Jesus's ministry was supported: by wealthy women who supported him and his disciples -- and more than that, they travelled with him.

I think that there were wealthy women who supported the church that produced this tradition, and they are honored here - not insulted. The "demons" speak to the powerful spiritual transformation that "Mary" celebrates by giving to the church.

The false accusation wasn't to insult Mary, for that it would have had to come after the fact. I find it more likely there was a woman, possibly named Mary, who was accused of being possessed and Jesus healed her. If the accusation of being possessed was false rather than a result of mental illness, then the woman would be fairly easy to cure. If she was indeed mentally ill then she would have continued to "act funny". If we are to believe that Jesus could magically heal mental illness we might as well say she really was possessed.

As to your theory on wealthy women supporting Jesus, it sounds good to me. It just isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

its pretty bad when you find holes in your favorite scholars work lol

your thinking, with all this knowledge they have, why are they missing the obvious here?

I dunno. I think that some of them are reckless and nutty, like Ben Witherington (who told us that he just writes whatever comes into his head) and Dennis Smith (who constantly makes an *** out of himself), and Mary Waithe (who embarrasses herself constantly). I hate Witherington and despise Waithe. Smith I can live with because he's funny.

But I've mainly contacted folks not because they were wrong, but because I was frustrated by incorrect or lacking documentation for their sources.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You guys are making me jealous, The only writers that have ever written back to me are Ray Bradbury and Maurice Sendak.

It helps when you tell them that you're writing for a journal and you'd like to verify that they really mean what they said on page 190 of their book.

 

[Renji]

It's Koldo who ate Jesus.

 

[waitasec]

It's Koldo who ate Jesus.

you're sick....


i like that

 

[outhouse]

I dunno. I think that some of them are reckless and nutty, like Ben Witherington (who told us that he just writes whatever comes into his head) and Dennis Smith (who constantly makes an *** out of himself), and Mary Waithe (who embarrasses herself constantly). I hate Witherington and despise Waithe. Smith I can live with because he's funny.

But I've mainly contacted folks not because they were wrong, but because I was frustrated by incorrect or lacking documentation for their sources.

Do you find that people inadvertently trap theirselves in or area or another within their scholarships by making a stand that strays away from a possible reality??

its almost like you have to take them all with a grain of salt to build your own view

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you find that people inadvertently trap theirselves in or area or another within their scholarships by making a stand that strays away from a possible reality??

its almost like you have to take them all with a grain of salt to build your own view

Well, I think that in the case of Witherington, he just pulls stuff right out of his butt.

Crossan and many others have a specialty in one thing, and they think that gives them the expertise to talk about anything. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, you take everything with a grain of salt - get many opinions and choose the best. Read critically.

 

[sooda]

When a person died on the cross, the Roman would often leave the body on the cross to rot and the carcass would be eaten by scavenger birds.

Sometimes they would take the body down and throw it either in a shallow common grave or a trash heap where the carcass would be eaten by wild dogs and vultures. Never in any other accounts of crucifixion have the Roman let a common criminal be taken down and buried. The whole thing was to be as cruel and horrible, to not only to punish the criminal but to show the subject people that this is what could happen to them if they got on the wrong side of Rome.

The death was meant to be as humiliating as possible, the criminal was considered trash and treated as such, so why would the Romans treat Jesus' carcass any different?

So was Jesus actually buried in the tomb of a wealthy man or did the Romans treat him like every other rabble rouser and just dump his body in the trash and let it be eaten by dogs?

That's a real good question.

 

[paarsurrey]

When a person died on the cross, the Roman would often leave the body on the cross to rot and the carcass would be eaten by scavenger birds.

Sometimes they would take the body down and throw it either in a shallow common grave or a trash heap where the carcass would be eaten by wild dogs and vultures. Never in any other accounts of crucifixion have the Roman let a common criminal be taken down and buried. The whole thing was to be as cruel and horrible, to not only to punish the criminal but to show the subject people that this is what could happen to them if they got on the wrong side of Rome.

The death was meant to be as humiliating as possible, the criminal was considered trash and treated as such, so why would the Romans treat Jesus' carcass any different?

So was Jesus actually buried in the tomb of a wealthy man or did the Romans treat him like every other rabble rouser and just dump his body in the trash and let it be eaten by dogs?

"was Jesus actually buried in the tomb of a wealthy man"

Pilate the Roman Official , his wife saw a dream that Jesus was innocent. She prevailed upon Pilate. Pilate also did not find him guilty of any charges. Pilate planned the event in such a way that Jews were pacified and Jesus remained on the Cross for a few hours. Death never occurred so soon on the Cross. Jesus was never buried in the tomb of Arimathea, yes, he was put into it for the treatment of injuries inflicted on him on the Cross.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That's a real good question.

And I did answer it well. Didn't I, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Crucifixion bodies were thrown into the burial pits of Gehenna where they were exposed to wild beasts. Joseph of Arimathea, accompanied by Nicodemus, went to Pilate and offered him a bribe for Jesus body. Pilate would not accept the bribe but signed the body over to them.

Representatives of the Jewish Sanhedrin were present when the Roman guard took Jesus body down, Joseph showed the Roman's the order from Pilate so they gave the body to Joseph. The Sanhedrin representatives complained and tried to actually take the body by force but the Roman Centurion ordered his men to his side with drawn swords.

By law, crucified persons could not be buried in Jewish cemetary. So they decided to bury Jesus in Joseph's family tomb. After the body was prepared Roman soldiers actually helped move the doorstone in place.

Celestial beings then abrogated time and decomposed the body instantly.

The bible does explain this but like most of it's explanations it's not exactly correct and not detailed enough.

Jesus was never on the wrong side of Rome. The Sanhedrin sentenced Him to death for "Deceiving the people, Advocating destroying the temple, and teaching magic."

"By law, crucified persons could not be buried in Jewish cemetary."

Jesus didn't die on the Cross, so there was no question of Jesus burial. Pilate handed over Jesus to his disciples for treatment of his injuries because there was some kind of deal, it seems, between Pilate and Jesus disciples. Right, please?

However, inform us about the Jewish Law one has mentioned, no harm.Right, please?

Regards