If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.
If he were wading in a typical length robe, I shudder to imagine what the drag factor must have been. And in something probably made of wool, too! I'd expect it to pull on his shoulders and neck something fierce.
Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached.
How shallow?
A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.
You really need to use your powers of imagination better. Our house is built on just over a half acre of land, so a polystyrene boat or raft that size would almost certainly carry a dozen people and draw less than a foot. I expect you to say that there was not that much polystyrene around in first century Palestine, but how do we know that?
Not much no. But yeah! Look: 'Polystyrene was discovered in 1839 by Eduard Simon, an apothecary from Berlin. From storax, the resin of the Oriental sweetgum tree Liquidambar orientalis*, he distilled an oily substance, a monomer that he named styrol.'
'*native to the eastern Mediterranean region, that occurs as pure stands mainly in the floodplains of southwestern Turkey and on the Greek island of Rhodes.'
The Romans obviously bought it to sunny Leicester as it's scattered all over!
So all the polystyrene trash doesn't come from up the Amazon, it's home grown!
That's how Jesus walking in the water's edge fooled those stupid disciples in their houseboat.
The excavated boat was 27 feet (8.27 meters) long and 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) wide and very flat bottomed so quite a good size boat (several of the researchers think it was probably about the largest usual boat of the Lake of Galilee [especially since its construction indicated that usable wood for boat building might have been rare]). It likely had a sail but would also have depended upon rowers. From the literary reading, some researchers think the number of rowers might have been 4 along with a helmsman. On a fishing boat (and this is thought to be a fishing boat) there likely would have been some people along to help with the handling of nets and the catch. It could also hold more people if being used as a transport from A to B (this is where some of Josephus comes in since he talks about boats capable of having 10 or so people on board). When being used for fishing some of the space would be used for storing the catch so less people.
Some Titanic lifeboats were that long and could take 47 people.
I built a boat boat in the 1970's. It was 35 feet long, 3 ft. wide, 4 ft. deep, and had a 20 ft. pontoon on one side for stability. Also two sails and two rudders. I enslaved my younger brother for two years to finish building it, and we took it down the Mississippi to Florida where i started my ten year career as a boat-bum.
Wow @undead_rat, you sailed east on the Gulf to the panhandle? Huck Finn eat your heart out.
Well, motored on the intercoastal most of the way.
the outrigger canoe was not so great in big waves.
Wow: the 'second section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway extending from Brownsville, Texas, east to Carrabelle, Florida' I presume? You got on at the Mississippi River–Gulf Outlet Canal and off where? Where'd you set out? The Wisconsin River tributary of the Upper Mississippi? I mean, dang!
I built a boat boat in the 1970's. It was 35 feet long, 3 ft. wide, 4 ft. deep, and had a 20 ft. pontoon on one side for stability. Also two sails and two rudders. I enslaved my younger brother for two years to finish building it, and we took it down the Mississippi to Florida where i started my ten year career as a boat-bum.
Quick query @undead_rat. Is "boat boat" a misprint or is it a term I've never met before? If the latter, what does it mean? What's the difference between it and just a boat?
i should have previewed a little better. On the other hand,, the term "boat boat" does reflect a certain infantile mentality (my little sub-compact has a CAR CAR license plate.)
The 35' outrigger canoe in question was a replica of a Polynesian proa which is a type of sailing vessel which comes about by moving its rudder to the bow and then sailing backwards.
My current fascination is how every one keeps going on about 3 days and nights while not mentioning that the way you currently count days and nights is fully known to be different to the way people counted days and nights when the Gospels were written.
For example, no-one taking part in the current conversation conceives of the day starting when the sun goes down. You all think that 'Friday night' is just the evening of the same day that Jesus was crucified. Which, from a 1st century perspective, is wrong.
Nor have any of you wrestled with the fact that there's no set rule about whether the day that an event occurs is the first day of a period counting from that event, or whether the period does not include the actual day of the event. It so happened that earlier today I was talking about the rules in Interpretation Acts about this question, which exist because it isn't obvious even now. I've no idea if it was obvious to a 1st century Jew.
One of the troubles with arguments about literalism is that people act as if the text in front of them was just typed up fresh. Although of course when I say 'typed', I don't mean on a typewriter, no-one uses them these days, you can tell from the font...
My current fascination is how every one keeps going on about 3 days and nights while not mentioning that the way you currently count days and nights is fully known to be different to the way people counted days and nights when the Gospels were written.
For example, no-one taking part in the current conversation conceives of the day starting when the sun goes down. You all think that 'Friday night' is just the evening of the same day that Jesus was crucified. Which, from a 1st century perspective, is wrong.
Nor have any of you wrestled with the fact that there's no set rule about whether the day that an event occurs is the first day of a period counting from that event, or whether the period does not include the actual day of the event. It so happened that earlier today I was talking about the rules in Interpretation Acts about this question, which exist because it isn't obvious even now. I've no idea if it was obvious to a 1st century Jew.
One of the troubles with arguments about literalism is that people act as if the text in front of them was just typed up fresh. Although of course when I say 'typed', I don't mean on a typewriter, no-one uses them these days, you can tell from the font...
As a former strict Sabbatarian I'm fully aware of when the ancient Jewish day starts and I'm fully aware of inclusive and exclusive counting and all of the symbolism in the timing of the crucifixion over the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread with up to two weekly sabbaths thrown in.
@undead_rat, where'd you launch from? Did you build it on the waterside? You'd need some trailer!
I built the two hulls in my dad's backyard and then trailed them up to a lot on Lake Winnebago where they were joined together by crossbeams to make completed outrigger canoe. And, yes, a commercial trailer was needed, supplied by some interested party.
In the 1970s the Fox River locks were functional, and one could take a boat from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay.
Indeed not. So, down to Chicago for the Chicago River and Canal, Des Plaines then Illinois Rivers, and then on to the Mississippi at St. Louis?
Of course. Takes about a month to New Orleans using a four hp. outboard.
Met some canoe paddlers on the way. Some insanophiles actually run the whole river.
OK, enough of river canoeing. Let's dredge up the Shroud (pun intended.)
In THE SHROUD OF TURIN, (1998) Whanger and Whanger noticed that certain skeletal structures of the Shroud's corpse can be found on the Shroud's image. They used "a legitimate edge enhancement technique called 'continuous directonal derivitave in the Y vector.'
It does not alter anything that is not already there, but merely makes it possible to see many features more clearly . . ."
"What we saw (along with the X-ray like bones in the hands) has been called by nationally known radiologist Everette James 'the most amazing thing I ever saw!' . . .Perhaps most surprising of all is that 24 teeth with their roots may be seen!"
"These images provide the explanation of why the lips on the Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery appear to be chapped. Evidently the artist interpreted the images of teeth as chapped lips."
(Quoted from rom Chapter Ten: Evidence of Autoradiography, pg. 111)
I note that the gospels describe the presence of the cloths in the empty tomb but none of them say what happened to them.
According to Matthew the tomb was sealed on a Friday evening but by guarded by the Romans untill sometime on Saturday( Day time ) Did the soldiers check that they were not guarding an empty tomb ?
Why should they? That would be the priests' lookout. As long as the guards could report that the tomb remained in the state they received it to guard, they wouldn't care. There's no personal interest, see? And it's no fun rolling back a big honking stone, just to check on the whereabouts of a criminal's body when he's probably starting to decompose. I can't see them doing it unless they were ordered. (And if the priests gave such orders they risked offending Joseph of Arimathea whose tomb it was, and who was an influential member of the Sanhedrin. A guard he could not object to; but messing around with Jesus' body--he'd definitely cut up rough over that.)
Why should they? That would be the priests' lookout. As long as the guards could report that the tomb remained in the state they received it to guard, they wouldn't care. There's no personal interest, see? And it's no fun rolling back a big honking stone, just to check on the whereabouts of a criminal's body when he's probably starting to decompose.
Rolling a big stone away--with Roman guards nearby--was probably more than friends of Jesus or grave robbers would want to risk, or could manage.
AFAIK, it's not exactly common for a dead person to resurrect back into normal life, or even into some sort of undead state. So not so likely the soldiers would consider that, either.
(Of course, Buffy. And Angel. And a large cast of characters on both their shows.)
Why should they? That would be the priests' lookout. As long as the guards could report that the tomb remained in the state they received it to guard, they wouldn't care. There's no personal interest, see? And it's no fun rolling back a big honking stone, just to check on the whereabouts of a criminal's body when he's probably starting to decompose. I can't see them doing it unless they were ordered. (And if the priests gave such orders they risked offending Joseph of Arimathea whose tomb it was, and who was an influential member of the Sanhedrin. A guard he could not object to; but messing around with Jesus' body--he'd definitely cut up rough over that.)
But the Disciples had the opportunity to move the body before the guard was set ( even though it was the Sabbath)
Hmmm...I wonder if there's any backstory to J's resurrection that connects with L's?
J {in light trash-talking mode, with a twinkle in his eye}: Hey, Stinky! *I* had the sense to get out of there by the third day. What's your excuse?
L {in same mode}: *You*, bozo! Like my sis told you: if you'd been here on time, I might not have died at all. But nooooo, *you* had to prove something to your disciples. And yes, they talked. You, on the other hand, left before your own funeral! Really rude. There were plans for a really big send-off...
J {same mode, but wincing slightly}: Ok, ok, sorry. Seriously. What can I do to make it up to you? I know. Ever heard of something called "ice cream"? You'll love it.
I think that part of our discussion about the Shroud inevitably causes us to ask questions about the variations in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection.
How much reliance can we put on, say, John's very different account? And given that only Matthew talks about the tomb being guarded, do we accept that as fact or raise an eyebrow?
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
OK, enough of river canoeing. Let's dredge up the Shroud (pun intended.)
In THE SHROUD OF TURIN, (1998) Whanger and Whanger noticed that certain skeletal structures of the Shroud's corpse can be found on the Shroud's image. They used "a legitimate edge enhancement technique called 'continuous directonal derivitave in the Y vector.'
It does not alter anything that is not already there, but merely makes it possible to see many features more clearly . . ."
"What we saw (along with the X-ray like bones in the hands) has been called by nationally known radiologist Everette James 'the most amazing thing I ever saw!' . . .Perhaps most surprising of all is that 24 teeth with their roots may be seen!"
"These images provide the explanation of why the lips on the Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery appear to be chapped. Evidently the artist interpreted the images of teeth as chapped lips."
(Quoted from rom Chapter Ten: Evidence of Autoradiography, pg. 111)
No, enough of dredging up this garbage best left in the ooze. So I worked out your voyage. But I cannot work out this one, the psychology of it, that you have obsessed in for 60 years? So it's not just an age thing. Why do otherwise 'normal' shoe lace tying, tax paying people believe weird things? What nurture played out on what nature forges irrationality? I can ask as I am afflicted with rumination over a life of weakness and ignorance, but I know that. I address that. I've started addressing all of the people in my ruminations. No, not out loud in the supermarket. It creates more headspace.
So, @undead_rat, do you ask yourself why you obsess over this false relic? You're a semirural lower-mid middle class Midwestener, intelligent, articulate, what level of education did you reach before you became a boat bum? High school? What's your story? What did your father do?
Just popping to mischievously point out that nothing undead_rat tells us can be proven to be true...
I dunno, his itinerary was feasible. I'm sure he can find a feasible, actually interesting meta-narrative of his pathological obsession with The Shroud™.
Feasible, yes, but he can't prove to us that it happened to him personally...
However, I agree that a feasible, actually interesting meta-narrative of his pathological obsession with The Shroud™ might be worth reading, if only for entertainment value, and to while away a few minutes of lockdown ennui .
How much reliance can we put on, say, John's very different account? And given that only Matthew talks about the tomb being guarded, do we accept that as fact or raise an eyebrow?
Years ago I taught a Sunday School class where we compared the Easter story in the four gospels and focussed on the elements that all agreed on. I don't remember all of them by a longshot, but one thing I remember is that all agreed that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early in the morning. The Synoptic gospels say she was accompanied by two other women. John mentions only Mary, but but he does not say she went alone, Some people are inclined to dismiss the entire story because the accounts do not agree completely.
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
This is true. It is however also an indication that the witnesses are not inerrant.
How much reliance can we put on, say, John's very different account? And given that only Matthew talks about the tomb being guarded, do we accept that as fact or raise an eyebrow?
Years ago I taught a Sunday School class where we compared the Easter story in the four gospels and focussed on the elements that all agreed on. I don't remember all of them by a longshot, but one thing I remember is that all agreed that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early in the morning. The Synoptic gospels say she was accompanied by two other women. John mentions only Mary, but but he does not say she went alone, Some people are inclined to dismiss the entire story because the accounts do not agree completely.
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
If all the gospels agreed, we would only need one gospel.
Comments
If he were wading in a typical length robe, I shudder to imagine what the drag factor must have been. And in something probably made of wool, too! I'd expect it to pull on his shoulders and neck something fierce.
Not much no. But yeah! Look: 'Polystyrene was discovered in 1839 by Eduard Simon, an apothecary from Berlin. From storax, the resin of the Oriental sweetgum tree Liquidambar orientalis*, he distilled an oily substance, a monomer that he named styrol.'
'*native to the eastern Mediterranean region, that occurs as pure stands mainly in the floodplains of southwestern Turkey and on the Greek island of Rhodes.'
The Romans obviously bought it to sunny Leicester as it's scattered all over!
So all the polystyrene trash doesn't come from up the Amazon, it's home grown!
That's how Jesus walking in the water's edge fooled those stupid disciples in their houseboat.
No magnetohydrodynamic boots required.
Some Titanic lifeboats were that long and could take 47 people.
It was fun for me. i think that my brother got the short end. rations were a little short.
Well, motored on the intercoastal most of the way.
the outrigger canoe was not so great in big waves.
Wow: the 'second section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway extending from Brownsville, Texas, east to Carrabelle, Florida' I presume? You got on at the Mississippi River–Gulf Outlet Canal and off where? Where'd you set out? The Wisconsin River tributary of the Upper Mississippi? I mean, dang!
The 35' outrigger canoe in question was a replica of a Polynesian proa which is a type of sailing vessel which comes about by moving its rudder to the bow and then sailing backwards.
My current fascination is how every one keeps going on about 3 days and nights while not mentioning that the way you currently count days and nights is fully known to be different to the way people counted days and nights when the Gospels were written.
For example, no-one taking part in the current conversation conceives of the day starting when the sun goes down. You all think that 'Friday night' is just the evening of the same day that Jesus was crucified. Which, from a 1st century perspective, is wrong.
Nor have any of you wrestled with the fact that there's no set rule about whether the day that an event occurs is the first day of a period counting from that event, or whether the period does not include the actual day of the event. It so happened that earlier today I was talking about the rules in Interpretation Acts about this question, which exist because it isn't obvious even now. I've no idea if it was obvious to a 1st century Jew.
One of the troubles with arguments about literalism is that people act as if the text in front of them was just typed up fresh. Although of course when I say 'typed', I don't mean on a typewriter, no-one uses them these days, you can tell from the font...
As a former strict Sabbatarian I'm fully aware of when the ancient Jewish day starts and I'm fully aware of inclusive and exclusive counting and all of the symbolism in the timing of the crucifixion over the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread with up to two weekly sabbaths thrown in.
I built the two hulls in my dad's backyard and then trailed them up to a lot on Lake Winnebago where they were joined together by crossbeams to make completed outrigger canoe. And, yes, a commercial trailer was needed, supplied by some interested party.
In the 1970s the Fox River locks were functional, and one could take a boat from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay.
Well in 1814, we took a little trip,
Along with Colonel Packenham down the mighty Mississipp'.
I don't think they went down the St Lawrence, then followed the coast turning right at Key West and across the Gulf.
Indeed not. So, down to Chicago for the Chicago River and Canal, Des Plaines then Illinois Rivers, and then on to the Mississippi at St. Louis?
...the leadsman's cry for a measured river depth of two fathoms (12 feet), which was safe water for a steamboat.
As enny fule kno.
@Martin54 - you're doing well...
Of course. Takes about a month to New Orleans using a four hp. outboard.
Met some canoe paddlers on the way. Some insanophiles actually run the whole river.
In THE SHROUD OF TURIN, (1998) Whanger and Whanger noticed that certain skeletal structures of the Shroud's corpse can be found on the Shroud's image. They used "a legitimate edge enhancement technique called 'continuous directonal derivitave in the Y vector.'
It does not alter anything that is not already there, but merely makes it possible to see many features more clearly . . ."
"What we saw (along with the X-ray like bones in the hands) has been called by nationally known radiologist Everette James 'the most amazing thing I ever saw!' . . .Perhaps most surprising of all is that 24 teeth with their roots may be seen!"
"These images provide the explanation of why the lips on the Pantocrator icon at St. Catherine's Monastery appear to be chapped. Evidently the artist interpreted the images of teeth as chapped lips."
(Quoted from rom Chapter Ten: Evidence of Autoradiography, pg. 111)
The teeth cannot be proven to have belonged to Jesus. Why is that so apparently hard to grasp?
Perhaps they're famous for being in *The Papers* all the time? Though I'd rather not speculate on what sort of Papers...
The X-Rated kind.
According to Matthew the tomb was sealed on a Friday evening but by guarded by the Romans untill sometime on Saturday( Day time ) Did the soldiers check that they were not guarding an empty tomb ?
Lazarus left to the 4th day, so that he stank
AFAIK, it's not exactly common for a dead person to resurrect back into normal life, or even into some sort of undead state. So not so likely the soldiers would consider that, either.
(Of course, Buffy. And Angel. And a large cast of characters on both their shows.)
But the Disciples had the opportunity to move the body before the guard was set ( even though it was the Sabbath)
Hmmm...I wonder if there's any backstory to J's resurrection that connects with L's?
J {in light trash-talking mode, with a twinkle in his eye}: Hey, Stinky! *I* had the sense to get out of there by the third day. What's your excuse?
L {in same mode}: *You*, bozo! Like my sis told you: if you'd been here on time, I might not have died at all. But nooooo, *you* had to prove something to your disciples. And yes, they talked. You, on the other hand, left before your own funeral! Really rude. There were plans for a really big send-off...
J {same mode, but wincing slightly}: Ok, ok, sorry. Seriously. What can I do to make it up to you? I know. Ever heard of something called "ice cream"? You'll love it.
L {Puts on his headwear.} Road trip!
How much reliance can we put on, say, John's very different account? And given that only Matthew talks about the tomb being guarded, do we accept that as fact or raise an eyebrow?
Personally, I think it is unlikely that the tomb was guarded. The body of Jesus was stuffed hastily into the tomb, which then sealed until the proper burial rituals could be done. No need to waste time guarding a dead body.
Are we not given the reason that the tomb was guarded: Matthew 27:62–66?
No, enough of dredging up this garbage best left in the ooze. So I worked out your voyage. But I cannot work out this one, the psychology of it, that you have obsessed in for 60 years? So it's not just an age thing. Why do otherwise 'normal' shoe lace tying, tax paying people believe weird things? What nurture played out on what nature forges irrationality? I can ask as I am afflicted with rumination over a life of weakness and ignorance, but I know that. I address that. I've started addressing all of the people in my ruminations. No, not out loud in the supermarket. It creates more headspace.
So, @undead_rat, do you ask yourself why you obsess over this false relic? You're a semirural lower-mid middle class Midwestener, intelligent, articulate, what level of education did you reach before you became a boat bum? High school? What's your story? What did your father do?
I dunno, his itinerary was feasible. I'm sure he can find a feasible, actually interesting meta-narrative of his pathological obsession with The Shroud™.
However, I agree that a feasible, actually interesting meta-narrative of his pathological obsession with The Shroud™ might be worth reading, if only for entertainment value, and to while away a few minutes of lockdown ennui .
Years ago I taught a Sunday School class where we compared the Easter story in the four gospels and focussed on the elements that all agreed on. I don't remember all of them by a longshot, but one thing I remember is that all agreed that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early in the morning. The Synoptic gospels say she was accompanied by two other women. John mentions only Mary, but but he does not say she went alone, Some people are inclined to dismiss the entire story because the accounts do not agree completely.
I have heard that in a courtroom, if two witnesses tell the same story with all the same details, there is a strong suspicion that they are lying. No two people remember exactly the same details. If the accounts do not contradict each other, the broad outlines of the story are believable.
Yes we are,
Corrected quote. BroJames, Purgatory Host
If all the gospels agreed, we would only need one gospel.
Isn't that true of pretty much anything anyone says here? Unless they use their real name?
Give undead rat a chance, or more chances, ok, BF? For the above reason, and because I personally am greatly enjoying the boat adventure!