Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who buried Jesus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    I'll state the facts in simple terms:

    According to Mark:
    1/ Two days before Passover Judas agrees to betray Christ
    2/ Two days before Passover, other things also happened.
    3/ One day before Passover, they sacrifice the Passover lamb. (the first day of unleavened bread)
    4/ Also one day before Passover, they eat
    5/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is betrayed.
    6/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is arrested
    7/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is put on trial
    8/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is crucified
    9/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is taken down from the tree
    10/ Also one day before Passover, Jesus is laid in a tomb.

    According to 1st Century Jewish practice:
    2 days before Passover is the 13th
    1 day before Passover is the 14th - Passover lamb is sacrificed roughly 3 hours to 1 hour before the end of the day.
    Passover is the 15th. The Passover is EATEN around sundown (roughly 2 - 3 hours after the start of the day)
    On the morning of the Fifteenth (roughly 9 or 10 hours after the Passover is eaten), the left-over lamb is used as a burnt offering

    The 15th of Nissan is a Sabbath.
    So - if you disagree with the summation I've put up - use the same style of presentation to state your case.
    That is how you understand it. It is my understanding that in 30 A.D. the 15th began our Wednesday evening (Mark 14:17). In 33 A.D. it began our Friday evening.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • More red herrings?

      The key factors are not the precise named days of those dates, which none of the gospels declare, but whether the gospels agree about what they do declare, and (in this instance) whether Mark stated that the meal was on the same day as the crucifixion - in accord with the record of the other gospels.

      However, in AD 33, the rules preventing two Sabbaths occurring back to back did not exist: those rules were devised by Hillel II during the fourth century AD.
      Astronomical data shows that the first month of AD 33 began with the New Moon on a Thursday: 1st of Nissan that year was Thursday (6pm Wednesday by our calendar), 8th of Nissan likewise started at 6pm on a Wednesday, 15th of Nissan likewise started at 6pm on a Wednesday.

      Had the current calculations for the calendar existed in AD 33, the 14th of Nissan would have been the Friday - The 1st of Nissan would have been shifted one day after the new moon so as to prevent two Sabbaths on consecutive days.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        More red herrings?

        The key factors are not the precise named days of those dates, which none of the gospels declare, but whether the gospels agree about what they do declare, and (in this instance) whether Mark stated that the meal was on the same day as the crucifixion - in accord with the record of the other gospels.

        However, in AD 33, the rules preventing two Sabbaths occurring back to back did not exist: those rules were devised by Hillel II during the fourth century AD.
        Astronomical data shows that the first month of AD 33 began with the New Moon on a Thursday: 1st of Nissan that year was Thursday (6pm Wednesday by our calendar), 8th of Nissan likewise started at 6pm on a Wednesday, 15th of Nissan likewise started at 6pm on a Wednesday.

        Had the current calculations for the calendar existed in AD 33, the 14th of Nissan would have been the Friday - The 1st of Nissan would have been shifted one day after the new moon so as to prevent two Sabbaths on consecutive days.
        The Jewish days begin at the earliest after sundown. Not our 6 PM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • 1/ You are fully aware that 6pm is a notional time for the sake or rough equivalence.
          2/ pm means post meridian (after the sun reaches zenith, half way through the day.)
          3/ The Jewish RELIGIOUS day begins when the first three stars are visible - shortly before, but not at, sun-down.
          4/ The Jewish Calendar day begins before the Jewish Religious day.
          5/ In all probability, the length of a first century Jewish hour varied with the season, as did the Roman hour.
          Last edited by tabibito; 07-11-2017, 08:39 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            1/ You are fully aware that 6pm is a notional time for the sake or rough equivalence.
            No. And I reject that use. And you can continue using your notation if you want to.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by psstein View Post
              Probably Joseph of Arimathea, who buried Jesus dishonorably, likely in a tomb reserved for criminals.

              John Granger Cook has an excellent book on this called Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World; he discusses Jesus' burial in an entire chapter. PM me for information.
              Have you read Jesus and the Remains of His Day by Craig A. Evans? He makes it quite clear that Jesus was almost certainly buried; Jews believed that unburied bodies defiled the land, so even criminals were buried by nightfall - and Romans (in peacetime) tended to let subject peoples do what they usually did. It's also clear that, because family was extremely important, even criminals would often be reburied in their family plots after a year (including a man who apparently murdered a woman in his own family). The Sanhedrin seem to have had two tombs reserved for criminal burials, one for those stoned and one for those strangled (which would have included crucifixion victims, who died of asphyxiation). Even if that's where Jesus' body was put initially, its location would have been known (and temporary). Given that Jesus' relatives were well-known into the time of Trajan, it's sort of difficult to imagine that the gospels made the grave location up out of whole cloth and gotten away with it.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Have you read Jesus and the Remains of His Day by Craig A. Evans? He makes it quite clear that Jesus was almost certainly buried; Jews believed that unburied bodies defiled the land, so even criminals were buried by nightfall - and Romans (in peacetime) tended to let subject peoples do what they usually did. It's also clear that, because family was extremely important, even criminals would often be reburied in their family plots after a year (including a man who apparently murdered a woman in his own family). The Sanhedrin seem to have had two tombs reserved for criminal burials, one for those stoned and one for those strangled (which would have included crucifixion victims, who died of asphyxiation). Even if that's where Jesus' body was put initially, its location would have been known (and temporary). Given that Jesus' relatives were well-known into the time of Trajan, it's sort of difficult to imagine that the gospels made the grave location up out of whole cloth and gotten away with it.
                This is a topic I've read so much on over the last two years that I honestly don't know. I largely follow Evans' work here, as I think he does a pretty solid job arguing for at least the historical plausibility of the burial based on our knowledge of Jewish customs. It's interesting that Ludemann himself grants that Jesus' relatives were known into the second century. He's notoriously skeptical about the reliability of any of the tradition, so I'm surprised that he follows Eusebius.

                I think it more likely than not that Jesus was buried in a tomb (Mark, John, and 1 Cor. 15:3-8 all testify to this) and it's in keeping with what we know about Jewish and Roman burial practices.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Have you read Jesus and the Remains of His Day by Craig A. Evans? He makes it quite clear that Jesus was almost certainly buried; Jews believed that unburied bodies defiled the land, so even criminals were buried by nightfall - and Romans (in peacetime) tended to let subject peoples do what they usually did. It's also clear that, because family was extremely important, even criminals would often be reburied in their family plots after a year (including a man who apparently murdered a woman in his own family). The Sanhedrin seem to have had two tombs reserved for criminal burials, one for those stoned and one for those strangled (which would have included crucifixion victims, who died of asphyxiation). Even if that's where Jesus' body was put initially, its location would have been known (and temporary). Given that Jesus' relatives were well-known into the time of Trajan, it's sort of difficult to imagine that the gospels made the grave location up out of whole cloth and gotten away with it.
                  Has Evans finally discovered a source where people who claimed to be King in opposition to the Roman Empire were given a proper burial? Or is he still fallaciously extrapolating exceptions that weren't analogous in Jesus' case?

                  Moreover, the gospels don't say he was buried in a criminal's graveyard. They say he was given his own new empty tomb where no one had ever been laid. If such a site existed then we would expect it's location to be mentioned early on and that Christians venerated the site due it being the only place on earth where a Resurrection happened. The lack of such evidence is good evidence there was no such tomb.
                  Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-20-2017, 11:41 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                    Has Evans finally discovered a source where people who claimed to be King in opposition to the Roman Empire were given a proper burial? Or is he still fallaciously extrapolating exceptions that weren't analogous in Jesus' case?
                    Once he was dead, what did the Romans care?
                    Moreover, the gospels don't say he was buried in a criminal's graveyard. They say he was given his own new empty tomb where no one had ever been laid. If such a site existed then we would expect it's location to be mentioned early on and that Christians venerated the site due it being the only place on earth where a Resurrection happened. The lack of such evidence is good evidence there was no such tomb.
                    You mean the site that's still venerated today? Mentioned as nearby the place called the skull?
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Once he was dead, what did the Romans care?
                      According to all four gospels they put a big sign over his head that read "King of the Jews." That sounds exactly like someone you'd want to leave on display for awhile to serve as a warning. Also, as the numerous sources attest, most victims were picked apart by birds and it was considered part of the punishment to refuse a proper burial. All the exceptions I know of that Evans appeals to aren't analogous in Jesus' case.

                      For instance,
                      • He fallaciously extrapolates Philo's testimony about Alexandria's custom on the "emperor's birthday" to somehow mean "local Jewish holidays in Judea."
                      • He somehow thinks that Pilate allowing the Jews to practice their temple customs is evidence that he would "therefore let them interfere with the Roman justice system."
                      • He appeals to a SINGLE crucifixion victim's body that somehow eventually made it's way to an ossuary. It doesn't necessarily follow that this was a regular/common occurrence nor does it follow that the person was granted burial "immediately after death" or even granted burial at all by the Romans because the body could have been stolen or picked up after lying in a pit for several days for all we know.
                      • Josephus isn't necessarily talking about Roman crucifixion in War 4.317 because he uses the word άνασταυροΰν which he uses elsewhere to refer to Jewish post-mortem suspension punishments. Moreover, he's explicitly quoting scripture (Deut. 21:22-23) in order to make his Jewish homeboys look good compared to those despicable Idumeans.
                      • The Digesta applied to Roman citizens in Rome and doesn't mention crucifixion. Evans therefore takes liberty in concluding this 6th century document somehow applied to "crucified Jewish peasants in Judea charged with treason in the 1st century."



                      You mean the site that's still venerated today? Mentioned as nearby the place called the skull?
                      That site didn't get "discovered" until the 4th century.
                      Last edited by RhinestoneCowboy; 07-20-2017, 04:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                        According to all four gospels they put a big sign over his head that read "King of the Jews." That sounds exactly like someone you'd want to leave on display for awhile to serve as a warning. Also, as the numerous sources attest, most victims were picked apart by birds and it was considered part of the punishment to refuse a proper burial. All the exceptions I know of that Evans appeals to aren't analogous in Jesus' case.
                        Is this all you've got? Nice argument from incredulity. Those factors are mitigated by a number of things. Pontius Pilate was rather cozy with Jewish temple leadership, as evidenced by Caiaphas being the high priest for his entire procuratorship (he was removed from office the same time Pilate was, and coincidentally died the same year). They obviously worked well together. The same four gospels you eagerly accept when you reference the titulus also relate that Pilate didn't exactly take the charge seriously. If the Jews wanted the body down and buried by Passover, they very likely got that (in fact, Evans states that no archaeologist thinks that Jesus was left unburied).
                        For instance,

                        He fallaciously extrapolates Philo's testimony about Alexandria's custom on the "emperor's birthday" to somehow mean "local Jewish holidays in Judea."
                        Where does he say this is Alexandria's custom? He's complaining that an Alexandrian prefect isn't following it!

                        He somehow thinks that Pilate allowing the Jews to practice their temple customs is evidence that he would "therefore let them interfere with the Roman justice system."
                        Covered below.
                        He appeals to a SINGLE crucifixion victim's body that somehow eventually made it's way to an ossuary. It doesn't necessarily follow that this was a regular/common occurrence nor does it follow that the person was granted burial "immediately after death" or even granted burial at all by the Romans because the body could have been stolen or picked up after lying in a pit for several days for all we know.
                        More than that, actually. You obviously haven't read the book I referenced above. Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, was crucified by Roman client-king Herod and ended up in an ossuary (p. 121-2). He also has an entire chapter (7) on the burial of the executed in family tombs.

                        Josephus isn't necessarily talking about Roman crucifixion in War 4.317 because he uses the word άνασταυροΰν which he uses elsewhere to refer to Jewish post-mortem suspension punishments. Moreover, he's explicitly quoting scripture (Deut. 21:22-23) in order to make his Jewish homeboys look good compared to those despicable Idumeans.
                        Evans observes that both Philo and Josephus tend to apply Deut. 21:22-23 to crucifixion (p. 117). And your attempt to wave this away is entirely beside the point. Whether or not the person was dead before or after being nailed to the stake is irrelevant; the corpse needed to be underground by nightfall regardless.

                        The Digesta applied to Roman citizens in Rome and doesn't mention crucifixion. Evans therefore takes liberty in concluding this 6th century document somehow applied to "crucified Jewish peasants in Judea charged with treason in the 1st century."
                        If Josephus could get people removed from crosses while still living during wartime, it seems sort of obvious that Romans could allow dead bodies to be removed during peacetime, especially when leaving the bodies up could start a riot (given Jewish sensibilities which demanded explicitly that criminals be buried by nightfall in order to avoid defiling the land). As Evans relates, "Permission to bury the executed, including the crucified, is in keeping with what both Philo and Josephus state with regard to Roman respect for Jewish law and sensitivities. The former states that the Romans had not disturbed "the customs which throughout all the preceding ages had been safeguarded with disturbance by kings and by emperors" (Embassy 300). The latter agrees, adding that the Romans do not require "their subjects to violate their national laws" (Ag. Ap. 2/73) and that "by abstaining from all interference with the customs of the country [they] kept the nation at peace" (J.W. 2.220). Of course, one of the most important of these customs was the proper burial of a corpse (J.W. 2.11). Therefore, although Rome and Rome alone possessed capital power, the Jewish custom of burying the dead, even the executed, on the very day of death was respected." (p. 169)
                        That site didn't get "discovered" until the 4th century.
                        It didn't get uncovered until the 4th century. It was known prior to that point. It was also confirmed "against all expectation" by the hostile witness Eusebius of Caesarea. I've told you this before, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Is this all you've got? Nice argument from incredulity.
                          Leading up to that point there's also the near certain fact that the Sanhedrin trial scene is fiction. It was created in order to shift blame onto the Jews instead of the Romans. If the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy then they could have just stoned him like they do Stephen in Acts. There's also the unlikely empty tomb burial by Joseph which is embedded at the end of a demonstrably fictionalized passion narrative that comes from the Psalms.

                          1. Betrayal by friends at meal - Mark 14:18 comes from Ps 41:9
                          2. A soul full of sorrow - Mark 14:34 comes from Pss 42:6, 11; 43:5
                          3. Garments divided - Mark 15:24 comes from Ps 22:18
                          4. Derision of onlookers - Mark 15:29 comes from Pss 22:7; 109:25
                          5. Jesus' last words "My God, my God..." - Mark 15:34 comes from Ps 22:1
                          6. Vinegar to drink - Mark 15:36 comes from Ps 69:21
                          7. Conspiracy to kill - Mark 14:1 comes from Pss 31:4; 35:4; 38:12; 71:10
                          8. False witnesses - Mark 14:56, 57, 59 comes from Pss 27:12; 35:11; 109:2
                          9. Silence before accusers - Mark 14:61; 15:5 comes from Pss 38:14-16; 39:9
                          10. Mocking - Mark 15:20, 29 comes from Pss 22:7; 31:11; 35:19-25; 69:20; 109:25

                          Those factors are mitigated by a number of things. Pontius Pilate was rather cozy with Jewish temple leadership, as evidenced by Caiaphas being the high priest for his entire procuratorship (he was removed from office the same time Pilate was, and coincidentally died the same year). They obviously worked well together.
                          Well yes, the Romans hand picked the high priest so no surprise there. However, as you mentioned though, Pilate was removed from office and that was for not keeping "cozy" relations with the Jews.

                          Philo said this about Pilate:

                          “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity” Gaius 302

                          Luke 13:1 says this:

                          "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices."

                          Josephus in Antiquities 18 tells us how Pilate raided the Temple's treasury and killed many people afterwards. This was after the "standards" incident where the only reason he backed down was because he knew he couldn't slaughter so many people, and presumably the Jewish leaders in cold blood, as the news would make it back to Rome and he would be held responsible. This doesn't speak very well of Pilate's "cozy" relations with the Jews at all.

                          The same four gospels you eagerly accept when you reference the titulus also relate that Pilate didn't exactly take the charge seriously. If the Jews wanted the body down and buried by Passover, they very likely got that (in fact, Evans states that no archaeologist thinks that Jesus was left unburied).
                          They "very likely" got that? What do the sources describing crucifixion say again? What was Jesus charged with again? I think you need to change that to "unlikely."

                          Where does he say this is Alexandria's custom? He's complaining that an Alexandrian prefect isn't following it!
                          Alexandria is where Philo lived. He gives no specific evidence that he's talking about anywhere else. The main point is that the "emperor's birthday" doesn't equal "local Jewish holidays in Judea."

                          More than that, actually. You obviously haven't read the book I referenced above. Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king, was crucified by Roman client-king Herod and ended up in an ossuary (p. 121-2). He also has an entire chapter (7) on the burial of the executed in family tombs.
                          • It wasn't until 6 CE that Judea came under direct Roman rule. Until then it was just a client kingdom so I don't think it's fair to say that Antigonus suffered crucifixion at the hands of the Romans.
                          • Cassius Dio only says that Antigonus was "bound to a stake and flogged" and he was "killed." Josephus and Plutarch on the other hand, say he was "beheaded."
                          • Are they sure his body ended up in a ossuary? According to the Wiki article and this archaeologist, the identity of the person in the tomb is disputed.


                          Evans observes that both Philo and Josephus tend to apply Deut. 21:22-23 to crucifixion (p. 117). And your attempt to wave this away is entirely beside the point. Whether or not the person was dead before or after being nailed to the stake is irrelevant; the corpse needed to be underground by nightfall regardless.
                          But the Romans, not the Jews, had the say in what happened to the body. And I'm not "hand waving" this away. Josephus uses the word άνασταυροΰν in Antiquities 2.73 where he talks about the fate of the decapitated baker from Genesis 40 who was hung on a pole. He also uses the word in Antiquities 6.374 where he talks about hanging the dead body of Saul on display.

                          "άνασταυροΰν, as used by Josephus, does not mean "to crucify" in a traditional sense. In some texts, Josephus uses the verb in connection with executions by sus*pension, in which nailing sometimes was a part. However, since he also uses the verb when he refers to an act of displaying mutilated corpses, it is obvious that the usage of the verb covers both suspension forms, i.e., both execution by suspension and suspension of corpses......However, none of these texts shows explicitly that the suspension at hand really is a crucifixion. In the end, there are no firm crucifixion accounts in the corpus Josepheum......Sixth, it is main*ly the Romans who use the suspension punishment against the Jewish people in Josephus' texts. It is, however, not possible to exclude the pos*sibility that Josephus understood the prescribed punishment in Deuter*onomy 21.22-23 as a reference to execution by crucifixion. If this as*sumption is correct, the Jewish people used crucifixion according to Jose*phus' accounts of the events under the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jan*naeus (BJ 1.97/113 [par. AJ 13.380])." - Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, pages 110-111.

                          If Josephus, in War 4.317, was just talking about some sort of post-mortem suspension punishment the Jews practiced, like in the case of the blasphemer in Antiquities 4.202, then it can't be taken as evidence that the Romans allowed burial.

                          If Josephus could get people removed from crosses while still living during wartime, it seems sort of obvious that Romans could allow dead bodies to be removed during peacetime,
                          The important distinction here is that these people were "still living." These people weren't left on the cross long enough to die and be picked apart by birds or other animals. If they weren't dead yet then this has nothing to do with asking for and granting a proper burial i.e. irrelevant.

                          especially when leaving the bodies up could start a riot (given Jewish sensibilities which demanded explicitly that criminals be buried by nightfall in order to avoid defiling the land).
                          Yeah, those Jews shouting "Crucify him" over and over really seem like they'd start a riot if Jesus wasn't removed from the cross in time. Joseph doesn't seem to care too much about defiling the land since he leaves the two brigands crucified alongside Jesus alone.

                          As Evans relates, "Permission to bury the executed, including the crucified, is in keeping with what both Philo and Josephus state with regard to Roman respect for Jewish law and sensitivities. The former states that the Romans had not disturbed "the customs which throughout all the preceding ages had been safeguarded with disturbance by kings and by emperors" (Embassy 300).
                          The Embassy 300 is in reference to the golden shields placed in the royal palace in Jerusalem, not burial of crucifixion victims charged with treason. Philo goes on to record what Pilate's response was to the petition the Jews made in response to getting the shields removed - "But when he steadfastly refused this petition — for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate — they cried out….” Pilate was then forced, by the emperor, not the Jews, to remove the shields.

                          The latter agrees, adding that the Romans do not require "their subjects to violate their national laws" (Ag. Ap. 2/73) and that "by abstaining from all interference with the customs of the country [they] kept the nation at peace" (J.W. 2.220). Of course, one of the most important of these customs was the proper burial of a corpse (J.W. 2.11). Therefore, although Rome and Rome alone possessed capital power, the Jewish custom of burying the dead, even the executed, on the very day of death was respected." (p. 169)
                          First of all, the cumulative case of evidence involving Pilate's relations with the Jews shows that he didn't care about their customs, laws, or sensitivities. In fact, Josephus says, in regards to the standards incident, that he did it "in order to abolish the Jewish laws" - Ant. 18.55. He also knew what he was doing because he did it at nighttime.

                          Secondly, In Ag. Ap. 2.73 Josephus is referring to idolatry not burial practices. Jewish law and customs did not apply to Romans and they were the ones who executed Jesus. The Jews weren't "violating the national laws" because they didn't execute Jesus.

                          Third, JW 2.220 is referring to Agrippa 1 who ruled Judea over a decade after Jesus and the “procurators who succeeded” him meaning "after." So this can't be taken as evidence of what happened under Pilate, especially since we have so much evidence saying otherwise.

                          Fourth, the context of JW 2.11 is referring to what Moses commanded the Israelites to do. It is not describing how Jews in Judea were treated under the Roman judicial system.

                          It didn't get uncovered until the 4th century. It was known prior to that point. It was also confirmed "against all expectation" by the hostile witness Eusebius of Caesarea. I've told you this before, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten.
                          I don't remember seeing any conclusive evidence that the exact site was known about prior to the 4th century. All we have are late pilgrim traditions which are unreliable. We would expect mention of the location and it's veneration in Acts. Eusebius says that the site was "unknown" prior to its discovery - Life of Constantine III, ch. 30.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Once he was dead, what did the Romans care?
                            Crucifixion was a deterrent, and part of that was being buried dishonourable. Remember that this was a culture where honour was very important.

                            Also, the Jews venerated the tombs of martyrs. The Romans would have been keen to prevent that happening in the case of anyone executed for treason, such as Jesus.
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                              Crucifixion was a deterrent, and part of that was being buried dishonourable. Remember that this was a culture where honour was very important.

                              Also, the Jews venerated the tombs of martyrs. The Romans would have been keen to prevent that happening in the case of anyone executed for treason, such as Jesus.
                              You think the Jews would have venerated someone they handed over to the Romans to be crucified?
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RhinestoneCowboy View Post
                                Leading up to that point there's also the near certain fact that the Sanhedrin trial scene is fiction. It was created in order to shift blame onto the Jews instead of the Romans. If the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy then they could have just stoned him like they do Stephen in Acts. There's also the unlikely empty tomb burial by Joseph which is embedded at the end of a demonstrably fictionalized passion narrative that comes from the Psalms.

                                1. Betrayal by friends at meal - Mark 14:18 comes from Ps 41:9
                                2. A soul full of sorrow - Mark 14:34 comes from Pss 42:6, 11; 43:5
                                3. Garments divided - Mark 15:24 comes from Ps 22:18
                                4. Derision of onlookers - Mark 15:29 comes from Pss 22:7; 109:25
                                5. Jesus' last words "My God, my God..." - Mark 15:34 comes from Ps 22:1
                                6. Vinegar to drink - Mark 15:36 comes from Ps 69:21
                                7. Conspiracy to kill - Mark 14:1 comes from Pss 31:4; 35:4; 38:12; 71:10
                                8. False witnesses - Mark 14:56, 57, 59 comes from Pss 27:12; 35:11; 109:2
                                9. Silence before accusers - Mark 14:61; 15:5 comes from Pss 38:14-16; 39:9
                                10. Mocking - Mark 15:20, 29 comes from Pss 22:7; 31:11; 35:19-25; 69:20; 109:25



                                Well yes, the Romans hand picked the high priest so no surprise there. However, as you mentioned though, Pilate was removed from office and that was for not keeping "cozy" relations with the Jews.

                                Philo said this about Pilate:

                                “his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity” Gaius 302

                                Luke 13:1 says this:

                                "Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices."

                                Josephus in Antiquities 18 tells us how Pilate raided the Temple's treasury and killed many people afterwards. This was after the "standards" incident where the only reason he backed down was because he knew he couldn't slaughter so many people, and presumably the Jewish leaders in cold blood, as the news would make it back to Rome and he would be held responsible. This doesn't speak very well of Pilate's "cozy" relations with the Jews at all.



                                They "very likely" got that? What do the sources describing crucifixion say again? What was Jesus charged with again? I think you need to change that to "unlikely."



                                Alexandria is where Philo lived. He gives no specific evidence that he's talking about anywhere else. The main point is that the "emperor's birthday" doesn't equal "local Jewish holidays in Judea."


                                • It wasn't until 6 CE that Judea came under direct Roman rule. Until then it was just a client kingdom so I don't think it's fair to say that Antigonus suffered crucifixion at the hands of the Romans.
                                • Cassius Dio only says that Antigonus was "bound to a stake and flogged" and he was "killed." Josephus and Plutarch on the other hand, say he was "beheaded."
                                • Are they sure his body ended up in a ossuary? According to the Wiki article and this archaeologist, the identity of the person in the tomb is disputed.




                                But the Romans, not the Jews, had the say in what happened to the body. And I'm not "hand waving" this away. Josephus uses the word άνασταυροΰν in Antiquities 2.73 where he talks about the fate of the decapitated baker from Genesis 40 who was hung on a pole. He also uses the word in Antiquities 6.374 where he talks about hanging the dead body of Saul on display.

                                "άνασταυροΰν, as used by Josephus, does not mean "to crucify" in a traditional sense. In some texts, Josephus uses the verb in connection with executions by sus*pension, in which nailing sometimes was a part. However, since he also uses the verb when he refers to an act of displaying mutilated corpses, it is obvious that the usage of the verb covers both suspension forms, i.e., both execution by suspension and suspension of corpses......However, none of these texts shows explicitly that the suspension at hand really is a crucifixion. In the end, there are no firm crucifixion accounts in the corpus Josepheum......Sixth, it is main*ly the Romans who use the suspension punishment against the Jewish people in Josephus' texts. It is, however, not possible to exclude the pos*sibility that Josephus understood the prescribed punishment in Deuter*onomy 21.22-23 as a reference to execution by crucifixion. If this as*sumption is correct, the Jewish people used crucifixion according to Jose*phus' accounts of the events under the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jan*naeus (BJ 1.97/113 [par. AJ 13.380])." - Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity, pages 110-111.

                                If Josephus, in War 4.317, was just talking about some sort of post-mortem suspension punishment the Jews practiced, like in the case of the blasphemer in Antiquities 4.202, then it can't be taken as evidence that the Romans allowed burial.



                                The important distinction here is that these people were "still living." These people weren't left on the cross long enough to die and be picked apart by birds or other animals. If they weren't dead yet then this has nothing to do with asking for and granting a proper burial i.e. irrelevant.



                                Yeah, those Jews shouting "Crucify him" over and over really seem like they'd start a riot if Jesus wasn't removed from the cross in time. Joseph doesn't seem to care too much about defiling the land since he leaves the two brigands crucified alongside Jesus alone.



                                The Embassy 300 is in reference to the golden shields placed in the royal palace in Jerusalem, not burial of crucifixion victims charged with treason. Philo goes on to record what Pilate's response was to the petition the Jews made in response to getting the shields removed - "But when he steadfastly refused this petition — for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate — they cried out….” Pilate was then forced, by the emperor, not the Jews, to remove the shields.



                                First of all, the cumulative case of evidence involving Pilate's relations with the Jews shows that he didn't care about their customs, laws, or sensitivities. In fact, Josephus says, in regards to the standards incident, that he did it "in order to abolish the Jewish laws" - Ant. 18.55. He also knew what he was doing because he did it at nighttime.

                                Secondly, In Ag. Ap. 2.73 Josephus is referring to idolatry not burial practices. Jewish law and customs did not apply to Romans and they were the ones who executed Jesus. The Jews weren't "violating the national laws" because they didn't execute Jesus.

                                Third, JW 2.220 is referring to Agrippa 1 who ruled Judea over a decade after Jesus and the “procurators who succeeded” him meaning "after." So this can't be taken as evidence of what happened under Pilate, especially since we have so much evidence saying otherwise.

                                Fourth, the context of JW 2.11 is referring to what Moses commanded the Israelites to do. It is not describing how Jews in Judea were treated under the Roman judicial system.



                                I don't remember seeing any conclusive evidence that the exact site was known about prior to the 4th century. All we have are late pilgrim traditions which are unreliable. We would expect mention of the location and it's veneration in Acts. Eusebius says that the site was "unknown" prior to its discovery - Life of Constantine III, ch. 30.
                                Dude, that's a lot of hand-waving (despite your protest otherwise). Read the book I referenced, which deals with, well, pretty much all of this. Your special pleading is showing.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X