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

[Adrift]

I do it because I know it annoys you.

:)

Um, sure. It doesn't, but Ok.

[Adrift]

Yes, but I was thinking of a different song on the album.

Ah, I was never really into them. They were a silly band.

[One Bad Pig]

Ah, I was never really into them. They were a silly band.

Yes, they were.

[Gary]

Bart Ehrman specifically singles out Craig Evans in the posts on his (Ehrman's) blog that I referred to previously, stating that Evans is flat out wrong in his claim that the Romans routinely allowed the bodies of those crucified, during peace time, to be given to their families for proper burial. Craig pulls this claim from Philo's statements regarding the rare occasions that this occurred in ALEXANDRIA on the occasion of the birthday of the Emperor, and, from the Digesta, a document written in the SIXTH century which states that person who were crucified were sometimes given to their families, but usually NOT if the person had been crucified for high treason.

Jesus was crucified for HIGH TREASON, therefore it is highly unlikely that his body would have been given by the brutal Pilate to his family and friends for a proper burial.

Pay the $3.95 monthly fee to join Ehrman's blog and read this for yourself.

[Adrift]

Bart Ehrman specifically singles out Craig Evans in the posts on his (Ehrman's) blog that I referred to previously, stating that Evans is flat out wrong in his claim that the Romans routinely allowed the bodies of those crucified, during peace time, to be given to their families for proper burial. Craig pulls this claim from Philo's statements regarding the rare occasions that this occurred in ALEXANDRIA on the occasion of the birthday of the Emperor, and, from the Digesta, a document written in the SIXTH century which states that person who were crucified were sometimes given to their families, but usually NOT if the person had been crucified for high treason.

Jesus was crucified for HIGH TREASON, therefore it is highly unlikely that his body would have been given by the brutal Pilate to his family and friends for a proper burial.

Pay the $3.95 monthly fee to join Ehrman's blog and read this for yourself.

Yes, I'm aware of Ehrman's attempt to pick apart Evans' thesis. You've only mentioned it a half dozen times already. Nothing you just said interacts with the point I made by citing Evans. Here, let me highlight it for you,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans[/cite

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. War was another matter, of course. When Titus besieged Jerusalem from AD 69 to 70, thousands of Jews were crucified and very few of them were buried. The whole point of these thousands left unburied in plain view of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was to terrorize the resistance and bring the rebellion to an end (as recounted by Josephus, J.W. 5.289, 449).

© Copyright Original Source

Which was a response to your criticism,

Tens of thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century yet archeologists have only found ONE of these crucified persons in an ossuary? Where are the rest of them??? Answer: Most likely in common graves dug by the Romans. Do you believe that first century Jews believed that all these devout Jews who died fighting for Jewish independence would not rise in the final resurrection??? If so, please give your source.

Is this thread that hard for you to follow?

[Gary]

Yes, I'm aware of Ehrman's attempt to pick apart Evans' thesis. You've only mentioned it a half dozen times already. Nothing you just said interacts with the point I made by citing Evans. Here, let me highlight it for you,

Source: The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices by Craig Evans[/cite

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. War was another matter, of course. When Titus besieged Jerusalem from AD 69 to 70, thousands of Jews were crucified and very few of them were buried. The whole point of these thousands left unburied in plain view of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was to terrorize the resistance and bring the rebellion to an end (as recounted by Josephus, J.W. 5.289, 449).

© Copyright Original Source

Which was a response to your criticism,



Is this thread that hard for you to follow?

The Romans crucified many thousands of Jews during the first century PRIOR to the wars. Where are the skeletons of all these crucified Jews??? Why have you only found ONE ossuary in all of Palestine with a crucified corpse if the Romans were handing these thousands of crucified bodies back to their families for burial in ossuaries???

Archeologists are not finding them because this was NOT the custom of the Romans. Craig is wrong on this, according to Bart Ehrman.

Craig: "Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. "

LET'S SEE THE SOURCES! Ehrman says there are none.

[psstein]

Do you deny that a substantial minority of scholars today do not believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb? Are you tying to imply that Bart Ehrman is the only one who holds this position?

A significant minority deny the empty tomb, yes. I don't think the evidence they adduce is sufficient to deny something we have significant independent attestation of.

[psstein]

Please name one "church enemy" in the first century AD who assumed the empty tomb (using a source other than the Gospels, whose historical reliability is under question).

There aren't any extant Christian writings from earlier than AD 150, Gary. I suppose one could point to the anti-Jewish polemic in Matthew 28:13-15, but there are some problems with arguing like that...

[psstein]

---Mark 15:20b-24a: ... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him.

Gary: If Mark was written in 70 AD, in Rome, who would be around to challenge this detail in the Story of Jesus? Who knows if this part of the story is true or if it is false. What is odd is that the author of John, if he was an eyewitness to all these events as many conservative Christians believe, says nothing about anyone carrying Jesus' cross...other than Jesus.

The issue is that Mark is probably using earlier material (i.e. the pre-Marcan passion narrative) in order to create at least part of his gospel. That's why I said earlier that I think some of Mark comes from Peter, but other parts are from pre-existing traditions.

[Gary]

A significant minority deny the empty tomb, yes. I don't think the evidence they adduce is sufficient to deny something we have significant independent attestation of.

Independent attestation? Such as what? The four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Peter?

These are not fully independent sources. It is very possible that the first author invented the story and the other four simply added embellishments to the story in their books.

[Gary]

There aren't any extant Christian writings from earlier than AD 150, Gary. I suppose one could point to the anti-Jewish polemic in Matthew 28:13-15, but there are some problems with arguing like that...

Exactly. We have no proof that anyone in the first century knew anything of an empty tomb story prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark in circa 70 AD.

[Gary]

The issue is that Mark is probably using earlier material (i.e. the pre-Marcan passion narrative) in order to create at least part of his gospel. That's why I said earlier that I think some of Mark comes from Peter, but other parts are from pre-existing traditions.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I very would very much like to hear your response to Erhman's refutation of Evans' claim that the Romans, prior to the Jewish-Roman Wars, routinely gave the bodies of persons crucified in Palestine to their families, in particular, the bodies of persons executed for high treason. Ehrman says that no such evidence exists for this practice being the norm in peace-time Palestine prior to the Wars and that Evans is conflating the few exceptional cases of this occurring in Alexandria when crucifixions there happened to occurr on the Emperor's birthday.

[psstein]

Independent attestation? Such as what? The four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Peter?

These are not fully independent sources. It is very possible that the first author invented the story and the other four simply added embellishments to the story in their books.

I was referring to Mark, John, and Paul. If M and L exist, then they qualify as well.

Paul refers to the empty tomb rather clearly; the point was made quite forcefully last year in James Ware's article on 1 Cor. 15:13-8.

[psstein]

Exactly. We have no proof that anyone in the first century knew anything of an empty tomb story prior to the writing of the Gospel of Mark in circa 70 AD.

I should've been more clear: there aren't any extant non-Biblical Christian writings from before AD 150.

I would argue that Paul's tradition knew about the empty tomb.

[psstein]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I very would very much like to hear your response to Erhman's refutation of Evans' claim that the Romans, prior to the Jewish-Roman Wars, routinely gave the bodies of persons crucified in Palestine to their families, in particular, the bodies of persons executed for high treason. Ehrman says that no such evidence exists for this practice being the norm in peace-time Palestine prior to the Wars and that Evans is conflating the few exceptional cases of this occurring in Alexandria when crucifixions there happened to occurr on the Emperor's birthday.

I would have to read the entirety of Ehrman's argument... it seems from what you've told me that Ehrman is overstating the case, and not understanding that Jesus' case had special circumstances (i.e. it's near Passover and offending the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem is a bad idea). That being said, I think that Evans may be leaning too heavily on Philo's report. Roman colonial administration was rather different in Egypt than in Palestine. Palestine was where careers went to die.