Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[rogue06]

Your "proof" as in ONE instance found, shows burial of crucifixion victims to be quite a rare occurrence! One burial does not establish a pattern of burial.

Nobody said it established a pattern. The point was that you're claim that it didn't happen at all is demonstrably wrong.

What is it about you guys and goal post moving? smiley goal posts.gif

Further, it isn't likely that most of those who were crucified had rich and powerful friends like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who were willing to stick their necks out like that.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Nobody said it established a pattern. The point was that you're claim that it didn't happen at all is demonstrably wrong.

What is it about you guys and goal post moving? [ATTACH=CONFIG]17591[/ATTACH]

Further, it isn't likely that most of those who were crucified had rich and powerful friends like Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who were willing to stick their necks out like that.

I never said it "couldn't happen." What is it about you guys using strawman arguments all the time?

[Juice]

The compilers of the Mishnah would have no motive to make up the burial rules on the spot. They're more likely to reflect older tradition. Whereas the author of Mark would have a motive to present Jesus being given a decent burial. That's why he invents the implausible scenario of Joseph going out of his way on Passover to go see the gentile Pilate and request the body of a crucified messianic pretender that he just condemned to death. He illegally buys linen to wrap the body in thereby becoming "unclean" for seven days for touching a corpse. Evidently, Joseph didn't mind missing out on the rest of Passover week. Mark needed to get Jesus' body off the cross before the sabbath to suit his theological purposes. That's why this makes more sense as a literary creation rather than actual history.

Classic Special Pleading. If the Mishnah, compiled probably more than a century after the last Gospel was published, may accurately reflect traditions from the first century how much more should sources like the Gospels written during the first century be preferred? I mean my goodness you've been blathering on for pages about how we should prefer Paul over the Gospels. As for the compilers of the Mishnah having no motive to make stuff up on the spot, tell me how you know those passages weren't simply written as a polemic against against the Gospels themselves? Boom. Motive to make stuff up in the Mishnah.

You're also forgetting about the 10 or so sources about Roman crucifixion which say that the person was forbidden burial. This, a priori, makes Jesus being handed over improbable which is what I've argued all along. The exceptions made for granting a burial don't seem to apply in Jesus' case since we don't know if they were considered enemies of the state or not. They definitely did not have a big sign over their head advertising "King of the Jews" for everyone to see. That sounds like something the Romans would want to leave on display for a while to serve as a warning. As far as we know, the Digesta, a sixth century document, only pertained to Roman citizens - not Galilean peasants and it never mentions crucifixion which was typically reserved for non-Roman citizens.

I'm not forgetting anything. But tell me again, how do you know Jesus had a sign saying "King of the Jews" hanging over his head.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

no it proves your claim that criminals could not be buried in stone tombs to be false, since we have a criminal found buried in a stone tomb. simple logic.

Jesus was a condemned criminal messianic pretender according to the Jews. We have no "gospel" record when it comes to Yehohanan. All we know is he was crucified which means he was executed by the Romans. Was he considered a criminal by Jewish standards as well? We don't know. How long was he on the cross after he died? We have no way of knowing that.

There's also a problem with the discovery. The ankle and bones were found but the bones were not connected to the ankle. The ossuary Yehohanan was buried in contained the remains of two other individuals. Craig Evans admits: (p. 84).

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Classic Special Pleading. If the Mishnah, compiled probably more than a century after the last Gospel was published, may accurately reflect traditions from the first century how much more should sources like the Gospels written during the first century be preferred?

Let's see.

Gospels (biased theological documents written with an agenda which exhibit extensive self-fulfilled "prophecies" based on rewriting the OT with Jesus as the protagonist, literary embellishment and legendary growth)

vs

Mishnah traditions regarding burial treatment of criminals.

Hmmm....At which point exactly does Jewish oral tradition become unreliable?

I certainly see no reason from you to doubt the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition. In fact, most scholars trained in the material would argue just that!

I mean my goodness you've been blathering on for pages about how we should prefer Paul over the Gospels. As for the compilers of the Mishnah having no motive to make stuff up on the spot, tell me how you know those passages weren't simply written as a polemic against against the Gospels themselves? Boom. Motive to make stuff up in the Mishnah.

You'd have to find something a little more specific to warrant that charge. There's no reason to assume passage 6:5 was written as polemic.

I'm not forgetting anything. But tell me again, how do you know Jesus had a sign saying "King of the Jews" hanging over his head.

Are you questioning the Word of God? Tsk tsk. Your pastor won't like that.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Gary and Rhinestone keep citing Magness as if she agrees with them. She doesn't. She tells us that crucified victims could be buried in a family tombs, and as McCane clarifies, dishonorable burial simply meant burial in a grave other than their own personal family's tomb. Jesus wasn't buried in his own family's tomb, according the Gospel tradition he was buried in Arimathea's tomb.

Where Magness goes wrong is she assumes the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5 must have mentioned crucifixion but this is wrongheaded because that was a Roman punishment. There would have been no need for a special grave for crucified persons.

She states:

"The Mishnah attaches no stigma to crucifixion by the Roman authorities and does not prohibit victims of crucifixion from being buried with their families. In contrast, felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs - What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like?, pg. 6.

Well, duh Jodi. The reason it doesn't attach a "stigma" is because it makes no mention of crucifixion. The reason it doesn't mention crucifixion is because that was a Roman punishment. The Mishnah is a Jewish document.

Where the argument hinges is if Jesus (the criminal messianic pretender) would have still been treated as a criminal by the Jews and given a criminal's burial. Magness and others here would have us believe that Jesus' sins were somehow absolved just from him being executed by the Romans. I see no reason to think that's the case.

[Adrift]

Where Magness goes wrong is she assumes the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5 must have mentioned crucifixion but this is wrongheaded because that was a Roman punishment. There would have been no need for a special grave for crucified persons.

She states:

"The Mishnah attaches no stigma to crucifixion by the Roman authorities and does not prohibit victims of crucifixion from being buried with their families. In contrast, felons who were executed for violating Jewish law could not be buried in family tombs - What Did Jesus' Tomb Look Like?, pg. 6.

Well, duh Jodi. The reason it doesn't attach a "stigma" is because it makes no mention of crucifixion. The reason it doesn't mention crucifixion is because that was a Roman punishment. The Mishnah is a Jewish document.

Where the argument hinges is if Jesus (the criminal messianic pretender) would have still been treated as a criminal by the Jews and given a criminal's burial. Magness and others here would have us believe that Jesus' sins were somehow absolved just from him being executed by the Romans. I see no reason to think that's the case.

It's generally agreed by scholars that crucifixion was considered by the ancient Jews a form of hanging or strangulation, and that the Talmudic reference that Magness alludes to would have been applicable to Jesus. Jesus was still given a criminal's burial seeing as he was not buried in honor, but rather buried in dishonor which involved the lack of burial in his own family's tomb, and the lack of public mourning.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

It's generally agreed by scholars that crucifixion was considered by the ancient Jews a form of hanging or strangulation, and that the Talmudic reference that Magness alludes to would have been applicable to Jesus. Jesus was still given a criminal's burial seeing as he was not buried in honor, but rather buried in dishonor which involved the lack of burial in his own family's tomb, and the lack of public mourning.

While those may count as a "dishonorable" burial, the account Mark intends to depict is actually quite honorable. He has Joseph go out and (illegally) buy linen which means it was new. Then, he places him in a "new" "empty" "rock hewn" tomb with a large rolling stone door. Large rolling stone doors were reserved for the very wealthy in Jesus' day. There are only a few we know about that predate 70 CE and they all belong to royalty. This doesn't sound so "dishonorable" anymore. In fact, when you read Matthew, Luke, and John you'll notice that the evangelists have a tendency to paint the burial in an increasingly better light. They sure couldn't have their hero Jesus be cast into a common grave now could they?

Magness also says that "rock hewn" tombs were family tombs by definition.

- pg. 8.

But this seems to contradict her assessment of the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5 above.

[rogue06]

It's generally agreed by scholars that crucifixion was considered by the ancient Jews a form of hanging or strangulation...

Interesting that it wasn't until rather late in the 20th century that modern medicine was able to determine that crucifixion generally killed through asphyxiation while the ancient Jews understood this long ago.

[Adrift]

That's why he invents the implausible scenario of Joseph going out of his way on Passover to go see the gentile Pilate and request the body of a crucified messianic pretender that he just condemned to death.

There is nothing implausible in the scenario, and the Gospels maintain that Joseph disagreed with the verdict. We also discussed the fact that it's just as likely that Joseph was not on the Greater Sanhedrin who made the verdict and/or that the word "all" does not mean "all without exception", but rather means a largely consensus opinion (as used throughout the Gospels).

He illegally buys linen to wrap the body in thereby becoming "unclean" for seven days for touching a corpse.

It likely was not illegal to buy linen on Passover. The Talmud offers provision for acquiring linen on Sabbath and Holy days for the burial of the dead, and scripture often allows for exceptions when the need was great or where the law might contradict.

You're also forgetting about the 10 or so sources about Roman crucifixion which say that the person was forbidden burial.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that burial was not always forbidden, especially if permission was asked for those who were not guilty of high treason, and as shown above, it's arguable that that is what Jesus was charged with, even after being condemned as "king of the Jews".

The exceptions made for granting a burial don't seem to apply in Jesus' case since we don't know if they were considered enemies of the state or not. They definitely did not have a big sign over their head advertising "King of the Jews" for everyone to see. That sounds like something the Romans would want to leave on display for a while to serve as a warning. As far as we know, the Digesta, a sixth century document, only pertained to Roman citizens - not Galilean peasants and it never mentions crucifixion which was typically reserved for non-Roman citizens.

This is an ad hoc excuse. The Romans crucified Jesus, as you're always quick to point out, not the Jews. It was well within Rome's purview to grant bodies to whomever they wished. Nowhere that I know of does Ulpian make exception for non-Roman citizens. This is precisely what he says,

The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book of his Life, said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason (48.24.1).

The bodies of persons who have been punished should be given to whoever requests them for the purpose of burial (48.24.3).

Evans adds,

Source: What Do We Know for Sure about Jesus' Death?

The Digesta refers to requests to take down bodies of the crucified. Josephus himself makes this request to Titus (Life 75 420-21). Of course, Roman crucifixion often did not permit burial, request or no request. Nonburial was part of the horror, and the deterrent, of crucifixion. But crucifixion during peacetime, just outside of the walls of Jerusalem, was another matter. Burial would have been expected, even demanded.

© Copyright Original Source

Rhinestone, you have no argument. They have all been dealt with. Time to wrap it up and go home.

[Adrift]

While those may count as a "dishonorable" burial, the account Mark intends to depict is actually quite honorable. He has Joseph go out and (illegally) buy linen which means it was new. Then, he places him in a "new" "empty" "rock hewn" tomb with a large rolling stone door. Large rolling stone doors were reserved for the very wealthy in Jesus' day. There are only a few we know about that predate 70 CE and they all belong to royalty. This doesn't sound so "dishonorable" anymore. In fact, when you read Matthew, Luke, and John you'll notice that the evangelists have a tendency to paint the burial in an increasingly better light. They sure couldn't have their hero Jesus be cast into a common grave now could they?

It doesn't matter what RhinestoneCowboy, radical skeptic who takes Carrier and brojangles at their word, thinks is dishonorable. What matters is what actually was dishonorable. None of the things highlighted above made the burial honorable. There were only two things that made burial honorable. Burial in one's own family tomb, and public mourning. We don't have either of those in the Gospel tradition.

Magness also says that "rock hewn" tombs were family tombs by definition.

- pg. 8.

But this seems to contradict her assessment of the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5 above.

Do you honestly not understand the distinction between Arimathea's tomb, and Jesus' family tomb? Jesus wasn't buried in Mary and Joseph of Nazareth's tomb. He was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. A non-relative. So nothing Magness says is contradictory (I notice now that you're more than willing to throw your own expert under the bus when it suits you). Jesus was buried in A family tomb. One could be buried in A family tomb and still receive dishonorable burial as long as one wasn't buried in HIS own family tomb.

[Adrift]

Interesting that it wasn't until rather late in the 20th century that modern medicine was able to determine that crucifixion generally killed through asphyxiation while the ancient Jews understood this long ago.

Yeah, I imagine this is something they must have known to some degree. After all, the whole point of breaking the legs was to quicken the death by strangulation, since the legs could no longer support the weight of the body.

[Sparko]

Jesus was a condemned criminal messianic pretender according to the Jews. We have no "gospel" record when it comes to Yehohanan. All we know is he was crucified which means he was executed by the Romans. Was he considered a criminal by Jewish standards as well? We don't know. How long was he on the cross after he died? We have no way of knowing that.

There's also a problem with the discovery. The ankle and bones were found but the bones were not connected to the ankle. The ossuary Yehohanan was buried in contained the remains of two other individuals. Craig Evans admits: (p. 84).

if his bones were in the ossuary, in the tomb, then he was buried in the tomb. do you think they buried him in a ditch, then dug him up and put him in the ossuary in the tomb???

you are stretching credulity in your desperate attempt to salvage your inane theory.

[Juice]

Let's see.

Gospels (biased theological documents written with an agenda which exhibit extensive self-fulfilled "prophecies" based on rewriting the OT with Jesus as the protagonist, literary embellishment and legendary growth)

vs

Mishnah traditions regarding burial treatment of criminals.

Hmmm....At which point exactly does Jewish oral tradition become unreliable?

I certainly see no reason from you to doubt the Mishnah reflects earlier tradition. In fact, most scholars trained in the material would argue just that!

By all means continue to tell us how religious oral traditions compiled hundreds of years after the fact are reliable. This train wreck should be a good one.

You'd have to find something a little more specific to warrant that charge. There's no reason to assume passage 6:5 was written as polemic.


Are you questioning the Word of God? Tsk tsk. Your pastor won't like that.

I'm questioning your methodology. And you don't seem to be able to cope. It's so obviously based upon a biased double standard it's ridiculous. I mean all I have to do to destroy your argument is turn your reasoning back on you, sit back, and watch as you desperately attempt to avoid falling on your own sword.

Your are arguments are void of validity but they do carry a certain entertainment value, RC. I'll give you that much.

[psstein]

We're on page 209. The same arguments have been repeated ad nauseum for the last 200 pages. I think it's time this thread finally dies.