> you're still circling

No I'm not. I know you're talking about probability and I'm talking about possibility, but I'm being more accurate. The fact is, you have no evidence to support the probability you claim. The evidence leans in the direction I take (or I wouldn't take the position I do).

> nonsense. see the existence of josephus.

??? I have NO clue what you're referring to here. Do you mean the debate about whether Josephus ever existed or not? And what does that have to do with the date of Matthew? The spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people was NOT a subject of writing after 70. The people were decimated and staggering. We have almost none (or none at all) from them in the immediate aftermath.

> again, nonsense, see josephus, who wrote in the 90's, and still squarely blames one jewish sect, the zealots.

Sure he did, but Josephus is greatly under questionable reliability, and that's ALL we have. What I said is not nonsense at all.

> what did the pharisees believe, vs the sadducees? the gospels don't tell us.

All the Gospels tell us is that the Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection.

> john the baptist sounds like a former essene, but gospels don't comment on it at all.

No one knows if he was a former Essene or not. You're right that the Gospels don't comment on that, but neither does anyone else.

> several gospels say certain people are zealots, who were only relevant around 6 CE and 66-70 CE.

Correct.

> judas is "iscariot", and the sicarii were more active in 66-70 CE.

"Iscariot" is likely his town. It means "Man of Kerioth" ('ish being the Hebrew word for male), which was a town down near Edom (Josh. 15.25). Frankly, no one is sure what Iscariot means, so you can't say with confidence it means he was of the sicarii.

> most of the gospels, including matthew, lump these sects all together as "the jews" and talk about them as if they are a monolith.

Nonsense. Mt. 3.7; 10.4; 16.1, 6, 11, 12; 22.23, 34.

> given that it appears to be talking about the events of 70, that's a silly argument.

Nonsense. It gives evidence of a pre-70 writing. Acts doesn't even mention the fall of Jerusalem, and Matthew was written before Acts.

> of the romans, yes. of judea, no.

Nonsense. The Romans were occupying Judea, and their money was around, as is clear from Mark. 12.16.

> the primary silver coin in judea until 70 CE was tyrian shekel. we have tens of thousands of examples of this coin from early first century judea, and iirc, something like 6 tiberian denarii. jesus asked for a strange foreign currency no one actually used locally. is it impossible he'd have done so? no. but it's not likely, and would have been met with, "sorry, we don't have any denarii. also our taxes are paid in shkelim."

I'm fine with this except that it's not likely that Jesus wouldn't have asked for a Roman coin. They DID use it locally, along with the shekel. They had to trade in Roman currency as well as their local shekel.

> the gospel of mark uses a lot of latin inclusions and loanwords...

This seems like a red herring to me. It is fairly firmly thought that Mark wrote from Rome, not Judea. No surprise at all about the Latin words. That doesn't mean a Roman author, but certain one acquainted with Roman culture, which Mark would have been. But we're talking about Matthew's Gospel.

> yes; descriptions of events usually take place after the events, not before. that said, it's impossible -- even in a naturalistic context.

I totally reject this notion of the impossibility of before-the-event prophecy.

> or instance, have you wondered why jesus recommends casting the rotten parts of yourself into gehenna? gey ben hinnom has some history as a site of child sacrifice in the old testament, and for tombs in the first century, so that fits. but why "cast"?

You've made a mistake here. Jesus, in Matthew, doesn't recommend casting the rotten parts of yourself into Gehenna. He says it's better for you to LOSE one part of your body (destroy it) than to have your whole body thrown (passive sense, thrown by someone else) into Gehenna. The subject receives the action, he is not the agent of it.

Gehenna was truly the site of the abomination of OT child sacrifice, and it became the symbol of the horror of God's judgment. That was Jesus's point. The point of being thrown is because it's not us doing this to ourselves, but God's judgment being executed on the spiritually rebellious and disobedient. That's why "cast."

> shows the possibility.

you're still circling around the point i'm making. you're talking about possibility. i'm talking about probability.

> Matthew's particular parables reflect a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people, not a subject of conversation after AD 70.

nonsense. see the existence of josephus. this was a more relevant topic in rome following the war, because of the war.

> The archaic terminology, expressions, and interest in ecclesiastical matters give evidence to a date before 70. (Albright & Mann)
neither here nor there, as there was a major cataclysm in jewish religion at that time. this simply shows that the author was alive prior to 70 CE.

> The sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel reflects the kinds of discussions and disputes within Judaism prior to 70. (Blomberg).

again, nonsense, see josephus, who wrote in the 90's, and still squarely blames one jewish sect, the zealots. worse for this case is that it's not even particularly accurate. the gospels do not present a clear idea of the sectarian disputes prior to 70 CE. what did the pharisees believe, vs the sadducees? the gospels don't tell us. john the baptist sounds like a former essene, but gospels don't comment on it at all. several gospels say certain people are zealots, who were only relevant around 6 CE and 66-70 CE. judas is "iscariot", and the sicarii were more active in 66-70 CE.

most of the gospels, including matthew, lump these sects all together as "the jews" and talk about them as if they are a monolith. they have jesus spend more time addressing the pharisees, rather than the sadducees which controlled the temple until about 66 CE.

> The Olivet discourse of Mt. 24 shows the probability of a pre-70 writing and focus.

given that it appears to be talking about the events of 70, that's a silly argument.

> Matthew 20 & 22. I don't understand this comment of yours. A denarius was the primary silver coin of the Romans at this time,
of the romans, yes. of judea, no.

the author, a roman, made a mistake in assuming so, the same mistake you have made. the primary silver coin in judea until 70 CE was tyrian shekel. we have tens of thousands of examples of this coin from early first century judea, and iirc, something like 6 tiberian denarii. jesus asked for a strange foreign currency no one actually used locally. is it impossible he'd have done so? no. but it's not likely, and would have been met with, "sorry, we don't have any denarii. also our taxes are paid in shkelim."

> I don't even know what you mean by this.

the gospel of mark uses a lot of latin inclusions and loanwords. latin was not frequently spoken in judea until 70; romans used greek to speak to jews, as it was the common language of the hellenic world. latin may have been spoken among roman officials and soldiers as the "vulgar" language, but this indicates the author was roman. roman authorship is more likely after 70, due to, well, stationing the legions there permanently in 70.

> You seem to be saying it makes more sense to "prophesy" in retrospect than in foresight.

yes; descriptions of events usually take place after the events, not before. that said, it's impossible -- even in a naturalistic context. see for instance all the times the simpsons predicted the future. nobody thinks matt groening is a prophet. it just works out that way sometimes.

however, if we have 1,000 sources talking about donald trump as president, out of those, only one of them is going to be the simpsons predicting the future. the rest are going to be news articles. given that, it's more likely that any given portrayal of trump of president is after he was elected, rather than before. the alternative isn't impossible, just unlikely.

> The chapter is phenomenally non-specific.

there are other instances that are a bit more specific. for instance, have you wondered why jesus recommends casting the rotten parts of yourself into gehenna? gey ben hinnom has some history as a site of child sacrifice in the old testament, and for tombs in the first century, so that fits. but why "cast"?

there's no reason to throw corpses into the valley unless you can't walk there -- because you're surrounded by roman blockades. in fact, in 70, so many bodies were thrown from the city walls into gey ben hinnom that a river of decomposing human remains flowed through it.
that's... kind of a specific reference.

> Arimathea is a city of Judea, of unknown location, is but thought to be what we know of as Ramah,

matthew spells that city Ῥαμὰ and joseph's city Ἁριμαθαίας. so, evidently, our most jewish evangelist in the first century did not think they were the same.

> about 5 miles north of Jerusalem.

to be clear, the identification of modern er-ram with the biblical ramah is also tentative. you're stringing together a lot of maybes here.

> Remember, though, that Jesus was not even executed for sedition or treason, but for blasphemy.

nonsense. you cannot separate first century jewish eschatological and messianic claims' religious content from their political implications to rome. claiming to be "king of the jews" was sedition, because tiberius was king of the jews.

in fact, we know that pilate himself executed another messiah who may have been leading a primarily religious venture. but he, evidently, viewed it as a political and military threat.

> Pilate said he found no reason to condemn Jesus, and found no fault in him.

pilate liked beheading insurrectionists for fun.

> Ultimately he turned Jesus over to be crucified on the insistence of the Jewish leaders, not because he found Jesus guilty of any crime against the State.

pilate liked beating rowdy jewish crowds to death.

> The release of a corpse for burial depended solely upon the generosity of the magistrate.

"his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity."

philo's description of pilate.

> It can be assumed that the practice was similar in Palestine under Tiberius during the era of Jesus. The fact that Pilate was willing to release the body of Jesus to Joseph is historically credible.

it can't be assumed that pilate followed roman custom of deference to local custom, and the edicts of tiberius. in fact, we know that he did not. he was literally fired for it.

> Burial in a tomb was consistent with Roman policies and practices regarding criminals who were crucified. ... This is extraordinary because victims of crucifixion would generally not have received an honorable burial.

interesting, tell me more about this is both consistent with standard practice and extraordinary because it wasn't standard practice.

I agree with you that's it's very plausible that a body was handed over after execution and it was done so through a rich/well connected follower in the Jesus Movement.

I think it's also plausible that Joseph of Arimathea is a fiction put into the Gospels so they align with the earlier letters of Paul saying Jesus was buried, as a way to deal with critics saying "but wouldn't the Romans have not allowed this prisoner to be buried".

But on the balance of probabilities I see no reason to say why the Romans wouldn't have allowed this for the Jews, just as a way to make it easier to rule and not have a mini-riot every time a Jewish prisoner was executed and their family came to give them their funerary rites. And some of the physical evidence such as the burial of Yehohanan

> it would have been impossible for a credible movement to explode into existence in the very same city in such a very short time

I'd have to dispute this.

Nowhere do we see evidence that the Jesus Movement in 30 CEs was exploded into existence.

If there was an immediate explosion of a credible movement post this so called empty tomb why is the next time we hear from a Christian Paul in early 50's CE?

Why isn't there really any talk of Christians by Roman or Greek notables until Tacitus writing in the 2nd Century CE says Nero blamed the 64AD fire of Rome on Christians (or Chrestians possibly)?

If there's an immediate explosion post ~ 33 CE in Jerusalem, why don't we really start hearing from Christians until 2 decades later (and the early Pauline letters aren't exactly full of historical or narrative facts being more spiritual advisors) or about Christians until 3 decades later at the earliest?

I think this speaks more into a gradual evolution of the Jesus movement post the death of their leader evolving into Christianity over the course of years and decades rather than the immediate bringing into being of a movement there and then.

Even if there was this explosion into existence of a credible moment in the same city, I don't see why it would have to be based on a fact of an empty tomb. It could just as easily come about because someone lied about it.

Look around you now and see how many people believe things that are objectively not true. And how those ideas spread quite quickly.

> an extreme rarity before 70 CE still indicates a most likely date of after 70 CE. it's still a useful dating mechanism, among many others.

I don't think so. The fact that round tombstones did exist in Jerusalem prior to AD 70 shows the possibility. Enough other information in the Gospels...

* Matthew's particular parables reflect a consuming interest in the spiritual history of Israel as a chosen people, not a subject of conversation after AD 70.
* The archaic terminology, expressions, and interest in ecclesiastical matters give evidence to a date before 70. (Albright & Mann)
* The sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel reflects the kinds of discussions and disputes within Judaism prior to 70. (Blomberg).
* The apologetic nature of the Gospel regarding ecclesiastical matters, in oral interpretation of law and custom, are matters of concern before 70, not after.
* The sharp language about various Jews in the Gospel (including on the lips of Jesus) reflects the intramural disputes within Judaism as to who were really the chosen people of God, not a concern after 70.
* The Olivet discourse of Mt. 24 shows the probability of a pre-70 writing and focus.

...shows a pre-70 focus that endorses the probability that the reference to the round tombstone is authentic to Jesus's era.

> is it impossible jesus referred to a denarius? no, but it's way less likely before 70.

Matthew 20 & 22. I don't understand this comment of yours. A denarius was the primary silver coin of the Romans at this time, and was the pay of a Roman solider (a day's wage) in Christ's time. it was very likely before 70.

> is it impossible for a highly latin context? no, but it's less likely before 70.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

> is it impossible to threaten the temple with destruction? no, but it makes more sense after 70.

You seem to be saying it makes more sense to "prophesy" in retrospect than in foresight. You're talking about Matthew 24, I presume. I disagree with you. The chapter is phenomenally non-specific. There are so many general references that specifics are impossible. Someone trying to rig the oracle after the fact would have included enough details to make it seem just fantastically prophetic; this is not the case.

I think we have many reasons to place Matthew before 70 and very few to place it after. I don't think there's enough substantial (rather than speculative) evidence to consider the tomb story, or other parts of Matthew, as historically anachronistic.

an extreme rarity before 70 CE still indicates a most likely date of after 70 CE. it's still a useful dating mechanism, among many others.

is it impossible jesus referred to a denarius? no, but it's way less likely before 70.

is it impossible for a highly latin context? no, but it's less likely before 70.

is it impossible to threaten the temple with destruction? no, but it makes more sense after 70.

etc.

one of these kind of arguments may be an exception. all of them, together, make 70 look most likely.

> Joseph of Arimathea existed and was wealthy.

There is no extra-biblical corroboration for Joseph, but every element of the narrative is plausible.

1. Joseph of Arimathea is portrayed as a member of the Sanhedrin. This character is an unlikely fictional invention. In the era in which the Gospels were written (the first century AD), if this were a fabrication it would be widely known and would easily discredit the account, subjecting the whole story to ridicule.

2. Arimathea is a city of Judea, of unknown location, is but thought to be what we know of as Ramah, about 5 miles north of Jerusalem. It’s perfectly within reason that a member of the Sanhedrin might live there and own a tomb just outside of Jerusalem.

3. It’s plausible that a member of the Sanhedrin might have become a follower of Jesus (John 12.42). The Gospels mention several. Not only was Joseph a follower of Christ, but also Nicodemus, known to us from John 3, was involved in Jesus's burial, suggesting that he, too, was a follower.

4. Joseph's request for the body of Jesus is plausible, and fits with what we know of Roman law. Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the 3rd century, says: "The bodies of those who are capitally punished cannot be denied to their relatives. At this day, however, the bodies of those who are executed are buried only in case permission is asked and granted; and sometimes permission is not given, especially in the cases of those who are punished for high treason. The bodies of the executed are to be given for burial to any one who asks for them."
Marvin Vincent adds, "Avaricious governors sometimes sold this privilege. Cicero, in one of his orations against Verres, has a terribly graphic passage describing such extortions. After dwelling upon the tortures inflicted upon the condemned, he says: 'Yet death is the end. It shall not be. Can cruelty go further? A way shall be found. For the bodies of the beheaded shall be thrown to the beasts. If this is grievous to parents, they may buy the liberty to burial.' " This proves that Roman officials allowed people to procure the corpses for burial.
Remember, though, that Jesus was not even executed for sedition or treason, but for blasphemy. Pilate said he found no reason to condemn Jesus, and found no fault in him. Ultimately he turned Jesus over to be crucified on the insistence of the Jewish leaders, not because he found Jesus guilty of any crime against the State.
The release of a corpse for burial depended solely upon the generosity of the magistrate. In actual practice, if the relatives of a condemned man sought permission for burial, the body was normally given to them. Cicero had permitted the burial of confederates of Catiline in response to the request of their wives, and Philo reports that before a great festival, like the emperor’s birthday (in Jesus's case, the Passover), the bodies of those who had been crucified were given to the relatives for proper burial. It can be assumed that the practice was similar in Palestine under Tiberius during the era of Jesus. The fact that Pilate was willing to release the body of Jesus to Joseph is historically credible.

5. Burial in a tomb was consistent with Roman policies and practices regarding criminals who were crucified. It is well attested from both literary and archaeological evidence.

6. Rabbinical and Qumran texts attest to the Sanhedrin taking responsibility for the burial of executed criminals. This gives credibility to the claim that Joseph asked for and was granted the body of Jesus even though he was not a relative, and was allowed to bury him in his family tomb.

7. Jerusalem tombs in this period were typically family tombs carved into limestone caves, fitting the Gospels' description of Joseph's tomb.

8. That a rich man owned a rock-hewn family tomb just outside of the city walls is a common custom of the day, and as a member of the Sanhedrin, it is no surprise that Joseph owned such a tomb. For similar royal tombs in gardens see 2 Ki. 21.18, 26; Neh. 3.16.

9. One crucifixion victim—a man named Yehohanan—has been discovered and identified by archaeologists. Yehohanan’s remains were found in an ossuary in a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem. This is extraordinary because victims of crucifixion would generally not have received an honorable burial. Jewish law, however, does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs.

In other words, this account rings historically true. It is fundamentally and thoroughly believable that Jesus was buried in a family tomb close to the sight of the crucifixion, a site obvious and known to friends and enemies, and that the tomb was empty three days later. Remember, not a single ancient writer disputes that the tomb was empty. If the tomb were not empty, it would have been impossible for a credible movement to explode into existence in the very same city in such a very short time.

If the skeptic would like to argue that it was unlikely that Jesus was buried in the tomb, he/she must present some evidence to support that claim and to refute the evidence I have presented.

> If there were round tombstones in pre AD70.

There were at least some, as the research of Amos Kloner shows.

I agree with your points. We need to treat this the way we treat other points of historical data.

This is by no means a problem for Christians if:

1. Joseph of Arimethea existed and was wealthy.
2. If there were round tombstones in pre AD70.

The skeptic could argue that it was unlikely that Jesus was buried in the tomb. But to argue it was anachronistic is bizarre given the already available information.

OK, weird. By your own note, Kloner has found 4 round stones prior to AD 70, so where's the anachronism? And if Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man (extremely rich), do we still have a problem here? If 4 have been found, there may have been more (it's not like we have found every one that ever was). Round stones may have been uncommon, but they existed and were used.

I was in Jerusalem about 5 years ago. We were walking around and came upon a common in-ground tomb with a round stone at the entrance (one of the 4?).

I don't really understand where your case is here. I see no anachronism.

The Gospels claim that Jesus was buried in an empty tomb. However, many skeptics argue that was not a historical event. One way that we know it is not historical is that the Gospels claim the stone was "rolled" away from the tomb. However, during the time of Jesus (30 CE - 33 CE) and before the Jewish War (70 CE) the tombs used square stones. Only after the Jewish War (70 CE) were round stones used for tombs. The gospels were written after 70 CE which explains the historical anachronism of round stones being used in the time of Jesus.
_______________________________________

"more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones, and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). The Second Temple period... ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common."

Source: "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" by Amos Kloner (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76).