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

[One Bad Pig]

And why couldn't it have been a tomb that had been hewn in 134 AD, one year prior to Emperor Hadrian's filling in of the site?

That you even ask this question exposes your complete ignorance, despite the fact that it was referenced in the article I cited and I brought it to your attention earlier. To repeat, it could not have been hewn after c. AD 44 because after that point it was within the walls of the city, and Jewish burials cannot happen inside a city. And they knew it was a newly hewn tomb because it had only one cavity; finished tombs had 3.

ETA: and you even KNOW this, since you bring up the Jewish custom in a subsequent post!

[Gary]

I'm not really following this thread much anymore, and I have no idea why you're using me as a shield for whatever argument you're proposing, but OBP is correct that crucifixion was always a dishonorable form of execution. It was typically associated with severe crimes to the state like treason and rebellion, not theft (see Berger's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law). The archaeologist who discovered Yehohanan, Vassilios Tzaferis, believed he was likely crucified for political crimes or seditious activities directed against the Roman authorities based on Roman law, his family's wealth, and his family's political, religious and social connections.

I would think that any form of execution would be "dishonorable". I am not questioning whether Jesus' crucifixion was dishonorable. The question is: Would the Romans have allowed someone crucified for treason to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb or would they have tossed his remains into a trench grave with the bodies of other executed criminals. You and Evans believe that Jesus was not crucified for "high" treason and therefore it is probable that he was buried in a tomb. I and Ehrman believe that Jesus was executed for high treason and therefore it is very unlikely that the Romans would have allowed his body to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb. Since none of us were at the trial, we will never know, will we?

To address your next point: if persons were not crucified for being thieves, what does that say about the historicity of the account of Jesus being crucified between two thieves? To say that they were crucified for anything more than theft is reading into the passage.

"The archaeologist who discovered Yehohanan, Vassilios Tzaferis, believed he was likely crucified for political crimes or seditious activities directed against the Roman authorities based on Roman law, his family's wealth, and his family's political, religious and social connections"

So what? I never said that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anyone who was crucified for treason would be given a proper burial only that it would be a rare exception to the normal Roman practice. I have never said it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus' body was allowed a proper burial in a rock tomb only that it would be very unusual to the Roman practice. So, possible, but not probable. And as has been pointed out, if it was the usual custom to release the bodies of persons executed by crucifixion back to their families, why have we only found ONE skeleton of such a person??? You mention that the archeologist assumed that Yohohanan was from a wealthy, aristocratic family. Well, that might be the reason he was allowed a proper burial. Jesus was NOT from a wealthy, aristocratic family.

Now, maybe you can answer this question: Why is there zero evidence from the first, second, or third centuries (outside the Gospels) that early Christians venerated or even remembered the location of the "Empty Tomb"?

[DesertBerean]

I would think that any form of execution would be "dishonorable". I am not questioning whether Jesus' crucifixion was dishonorable. The question is: Would the Romans have allowed someone crucified for treason to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb or would they have tossed his remains into a trench grave with the bodies of other executed criminals. You and Evans believe that Jesus was not crucified for "high" treason and therefore it is probable that he was buried in a tomb. I and Ehrman believe that Jesus was executed for high treason and therefore it is very unlikely that the Romans would have allowed his body to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb. Since none of us were at the trial, we will never know, will we?

To address your next point: if persons were not crucified for being thieves, what does that say about the historicity of the account of Jesus being crucified between two thieves? To say that they were crucified for anything more than theft is reading into the passage.

"The archaeologist who discovered Yehohanan, Vassilios Tzaferis, believed he was likely crucified for political crimes or seditious activities directed against the Roman authorities based on Roman law, his family's wealth, and his family's political, religious and social connections"

So what? I never said that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anyone who was crucified for treason would be given a proper burial only that it would be a rare exception to the normal Roman practice. I have never said it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus' body was allowed a proper burial in a rock tomb only that it would be very unusual to the Roman practice. So, possible, but not probable. And as has been pointed out, if it was the usual custom to release the bodies of persons executed by crucifixion back to their families, why have we only found ONE skeleton of such a person??? You mention that the archeologist assumed that Yohohanan was from a wealthy, aristocratic family. Well, that might be the reason he was allowed a proper burial. Jesus was NOT from a wealthy, aristocratic family.

Now, maybe you can answer this question: Why is there zero evidence from the first, second, or third centuries (outside the Gospels) that early Christians venerated or even remembered the location of the "Empty Tomb"?

[Gary]

That you even ask this question exposes your complete ignorance, despite the fact that it was referenced in the article I cited and I brought it to your attention earlier. To repeat, it could not have been hewn after c. AD 44 because after that point it was within the walls of the city, and Jewish burials cannot happen inside a city. And they knew it was a newly hewn tomb because it had only one cavity; finished tombs had 3.

ETA: and you even KNOW this, since you bring up the Jewish custom in a subsequent post!

Are you saying that during the siege of Jerusalem during the late 60's no Jews were buried inside the city?

But, let's say that all your claims are true: The location under the pagan temple, now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, meets the requirement of being outside the walls, and, the tomb was newly hewn. How does this prove that the tomb identified by Macarius is really the tomb of Jesus? There was more than just one tomb found under the pagan temple. And there were several quarries outside the city walls at the time of Jesus, often used for tombs after the stones had been removed. So how do we know that this particular quarry contained Jesus' tomb. We have no proof that the pagan temple really had been the "traditional site" of the Empty Tomb prior to 135 AD during the second and third centuries. We only learn of this tradition from Macarius in the fourth century. Are we to really believe that Christians had maintained and venerated the location of the Tomb of Jesus continually since the 30's AD and several prominent Church Fathers had visited the "holy sites" in Palestine during the second and third century...but in the fourth century, Eusebius doubts the tradition??

Sure sounds like Macarius "invented" this "tradition".

What convinced Eusebius to change his mind is anyone's guess. He nor anyone else ever says.

[Adrift]

I would think that any form of execution would be "dishonorable". I am not questioning whether Jesus' crucifixion was dishonorable. The question is: Would the Romans have allowed someone crucified for treason to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb or would they have tossed his remains into a trench grave with the bodies of other executed criminals. You and Evans believe that Jesus was not crucified for "high" treason and therefore it is probable that he was buried in a tomb. I and Ehrman believe that Jesus was executed for high treason and therefore it is very unlikely that the Romans would have allowed his body to be given a proper burial in a rock tomb. Since none of us were at the trial, we will never know, will we?

No, we know.

if persons were not crucified for being thieves, what does that say about the historicity of the account of Jesus being crucified between two thieves? To say that they were crucified for anything more than theft is reading into the passage.

You don't know Greek, so I'm not too worried about your assertion that we would be reading into the passage to say that there's anything more implied in the word "lēstai/lēstas" or "kakourgoi" than theft. I covered this all the way back in post #317,

Source: Pondering the Passion by Philip A. Cunningham

Crucifixion was public terror used by the Romans to maintain control of subject populations...They reserved this barbaric treatment for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." The fact that Jesus was sent by the Romans to such a death, along with two other violent men, with a charge of kingship attached to his cross, all suggest that, to the Romans, the three men crucified were in the same category...The Romans were concerned with public order. To them, Jesus and the rebels had disturbed it. We have no way of knowing whether Pilate made much of a distinction between Jesus and the other two. We have no report from him. We have only the memory of the three men killed by a means reserved for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." Neither Jesus nor the others were soldiers or high-ranking officials, so to the Romans they were some kind of rebels.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, see William Lane's commentary on Mark,

Source: The Gospel of Mark by William L. Lane

Roman law distinguished between theft (furtum) and robbery (rapina, theft combined with violence), but neither of these crimes was regarded as a capital offense. The term used by Mark to describe them can legitimately be translated "robbers" (see on Ch. 14:48), but it is more probable that it designates men guilty of insurrection (as in Jn. 18:40). In Josephus it is constantly used for the Zealots, who committed themselves to armed conflict against Roman rule on the principle that God alone was sovereign in Israel. Josephus' intention was to brand the Zealots as an illegal movement composed of a criminal constituency. He reports that the Romans crucified the Zealots they captured, which indicates that they were treated as serious political offenders.

© Copyright Original Source

Or Ben Witherington III,

Source: The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington

V. 27 says Jesus was crucified with two "robbers." . . . Theft, however, was apparently not a capital offense, in which case "bandits" would probably be a better translation, suggesting insurrectionists (cf. v. 7 and John 18:40). The word λῃστάς, can be legitimately used of robbers (cf. 14:48), but in Josephus it refers to zealots.

© Copyright Original Source

So what?

What do you mean "so what"? You just got done arguing in posts #776 and #780 that Yehohanan was probably crucified for something minor like theft. That's not the sort of thing the Romans in 1st century peacetime used crucifixion for. I told you what Vassilios Tzaferis believes Yehohanan was likely crucified for so that you don't have to guess.

I never said that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anyone who was crucified for treason would be given a proper burial only that it would be a rare exception to the normal Roman practice. I have never said it is IMPOSSIBLE that Jesus' body was allowed a proper burial in a rock tomb only that it would be very unusual to the Roman practice. So, possible, but not probable.

This whole "it's possible/probable" way of arguing your point has got to be one the lamest debate techniques I've seen on this forum.

And as has been pointed out, if it was the usual custom to release the bodies of persons executed by crucifixion back to their families, why have we only found ONE skeleton of such a person???

This was already covered back in post #738 by the same expert you earlier relied on,

Source: The Burial of Jesus: What Did Jesus� Tomb Look Like? by Jodi Magness

The most dramatic evidence that this young man was crucified was the nail which penetrated his heel bones. But for this nail, we might never have discovered that the young man had died in this way. The nail was preserved only because it hit a hard knot when it was pounded into the olive wood upright of the cross. The olive wood knot was so hard that, as the blows on the nail became heavier, the end of the nail bent and curled. We found a bit of the olive wood (between 1 and 2 cm) on the tip of the nail. This wood had probably been forced out of the knot where the curled nail hooked into it. When it came time for the dead victim to be removed from the cross, the executioners could not pull out this nail, bent as it was within the cross. The only way to remove the body was to take an ax or hatchet and amputate the feet.

© Copyright Original Source

You mention that the archeologist assumed that Yohohanan was from a wealthy, aristocratic family. Well, that might be the reason he was allowed a proper burial. Jesus was NOT from a wealthy, aristocratic family.

What are you talking about? No one ever made the argument that Jesus came from a wealthy aristocratic family. Presumably that's where Joseph of Arimathea comes into the picture...did that not occur to you? Are you on that herbal therapy again?

Now, maybe you can answer this question: Why is there zero evidence from the first, second, or third centuries (outside the Gospels) that early Christians venerated or even remembered the location of the "Empty Tomb"?

I gave you an answer to why there was no veneration all the way back in post #368. As for remembering the location, early Christian tradition demonstrates that it was remembered. Israeli archaeologist, Amos Kloner, has stated "". NT scholars and archaeologists like John McRay, Clinton E. Arnold, Ben Witherington, Dan Bahat, Craig Evans, Martin Biddle and the like all agree that the Holy Sepulchre most likely marks the spot. Craig Evans and Steven Feldman write

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I gave you an answer to why there was no veneration all the way back in post #368.

Which is a pretty bad excuse. How many other tombs could lay claim to where a resurrection by God happened? Why did the Church of the Holy Sepulchre come to be venerated without Jesus' body? Obviously, his remains were not a requirement for veneration.

As for remembering the location, early Christian tradition demonstrates that it was remembered. Israeli archaeologist, Amos Kloner, has stated "".

http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/man...l_of_jesus.pdf

[RhinestoneCowboy]

In regards to the aorist passive ōphthē, 18 out of its 19 uses in the NT are of supernatural appearances.

Screen shot 2016-05-29 at 7.58.29 AM.jpg
Screen shot 2016-05-29 at 7.59.02 AM.jpg
https://books.google.com/books?id=r1...page&q&f=false

The "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were spiritual visions, not physical encounters like the later gospels describe. This conclusion is as obvious as a dead canary in a coal mine by now.

[Juice]

In regards to the aorist passive ōphthē, 18 out of its 19 uses in the NT are of [1]supernatural appearances.

The "appearances" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were [2]spiritual visions, not physical encounters like the later gospels describe. This conclusion is as obvious as a dead canary in a coal mine by now.

Classic Equivocation fallacy

[1] Appearance = a supernatural event
[2] Appearance = spiritual vision

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm sorry Juice but judging by your and everyone else's failure to provide a valid distinction between Paul's own heavenly vision and the other appearances, we have no choice but to conclude that these were understood as spiritual visions as well.

[Juice]

I'm sorry Juice but judging by your and everyone else's failure to provide a valid distinction between Paul's own heavenly vision and the other appearances, we have no choice but to conclude that these were understood as spiritual visions as well.

You failed to address the following valid distinction working within your suggestion of staying strictly with Paul. No appeals to the Gospels. No appeals to Josephus, church fathers, 1 Enoch, book of Jubilee, the LXX, etc.

Just Paul.

Romansraised Jesus our Lord from the deadraised from the deadraised from the deadraised from the deadraised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the deadraised Him from the dead1 CorinthiansHe was raisedraised from the deaddead are not raisedChrist has been raised from the dead2 Corinthiansdied and rose againGalatiansraised Him from the deadEphesiansraised Him from the deadColossiansraised Him from the dead1 Thessaloniansraised from the deadegeirōprima facie

[Gary]

No, we know.



You don't know Greek, so I'm not too worried about your assertion that we would be reading into the passage to say that there's anything more implied in the word "lēstai/lēstas" or "kakourgoi" than theft. I covered this all the way back in post #317,

Source: Pondering the Passion by Philip A. Cunningham

Crucifixion was public terror used by the Romans to maintain control of subject populations...They reserved this barbaric treatment for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." The fact that Jesus was sent by the Romans to such a death, along with two other violent men, with a charge of kingship attached to his cross, all suggest that, to the Romans, the three men crucified were in the same category...The Romans were concerned with public order. To them, Jesus and the rebels had disturbed it. We have no way of knowing whether Pilate made much of a distinction between Jesus and the other two. We have no report from him. We have only the memory of the three men killed by a means reserved for "deserters, rebels, and those guilty of high treason." Neither Jesus nor the others were soldiers or high-ranking officials, so to the Romans they were some kind of rebels.

© Copyright Original Source

Also, see William Lane's commentary on Mark,

Source: The Gospel of Mark by William L. Lane

Roman law distinguished between theft (furtum) and robbery (rapina, theft combined with violence), but neither of these crimes was regarded as a capital offense. The term used by Mark to describe them can legitimately be translated "robbers" (see on Ch. 14:48), but it is more probable that it designates men guilty of insurrection (as in Jn. 18:40). In Josephus it is constantly used for the Zealots, who committed themselves to armed conflict against Roman rule on the principle that God alone was sovereign in Israel. Josephus' intention was to brand the Zealots as an illegal movement composed of a criminal constituency. He reports that the Romans crucified the Zealots they captured, which indicates that they were treated as serious political offenders.

© Copyright Original Source

Or Ben Witherington III,

Source: The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington

V. 27 says Jesus was crucified with two "robbers." . . . Theft, however, was apparently not a capital offense, in which case "bandits" would probably be a better translation, suggesting insurrectionists (cf. v. 7 and John 18:40). The word λῃστάς, can be legitimately used of robbers (cf. 14:48), but in Josephus it refers to zealots.

© Copyright Original Source

What do you mean "so what"? You just got done arguing in posts #776 and #780 that Yehohanan was probably crucified for something minor like theft. That's not the sort of thing the Romans in 1st century peacetime used crucifixion for. I told you what Vassilios Tzaferis believes Yehohanan was likely crucified for so that you don't have to guess.



This whole "it's possible/probable" way of arguing your point has got to be one the lamest debate techniques I've seen on this forum.



This was already covered back in post #738 by the same expert you earlier relied on,

Source: The Burial of Jesus: What Did Jesus� Tomb Look Like? by Jodi Magness

The most dramatic evidence that this young man was crucified was the nail which penetrated his heel bones. But for this nail, we might never have discovered that the young man had died in this way. The nail was preserved only because it hit a hard knot when it was pounded into the olive wood upright of the cross. The olive wood knot was so hard that, as the blows on the nail became heavier, the end of the nail bent and curled. We found a bit of the olive wood (between 1 and 2 cm) on the tip of the nail. This wood had probably been forced out of the knot where the curled nail hooked into it. When it came time for the dead victim to be removed from the cross, the executioners could not pull out this nail, bent as it was within the cross. The only way to remove the body was to take an ax or hatchet and amputate the feet.

© Copyright Original Source

What are you talking about? No one ever made the argument that Jesus came from a wealthy aristocratic family. Presumably that's where Joseph of Arimathea comes into the picture...did that not occur to you? Are you on that herbal therapy again?



I gave you an answer to why there was no veneration all the way back in post #368. As for remembering the location, early Christian tradition demonstrates that it was remembered. Israeli archaeologist, Amos Kloner, has stated "". NT scholars and archaeologists like John McRay, Clinton E. Arnold, Ben Witherington, Dan Bahat, Craig Evans, Martin Biddle and the like all agree that the Holy Sepulchre most likely marks the spot. Craig Evans and Steven Feldman write

"Possibly, possibly, possibly..."

What a house of cards! Jesus was executed for high treason: claiming to be the King when Caesar was the king. Period. I don't buy any of your Christian spin.

Looks like you are following OBP's lead in claiming the existence of a "tradition" regarding the location of an Empty Tomb but not providing any evidence to back it up. Put up or...

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm sorry, where does Paul make a distinction between the appearances in what seems to be an irrelevant red herring above?

[Juice]

I'm sorry, where does Paul make a distinction between the appearances in what seems to be an irrelevant red herring above?

Apparently you don't know what a Red Herring is either. The above is not irrelevant. I've provided evidence and argumentation that directly rebuts your entire argument and it's done working within the parameters you have suggested of working within just Paul.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You're switching topics and using a desperate red herring. I've asked for a reason from Paul to assume the appearances were different. Do you finally concede that Paul gives no reason to think the appearances were different?

[Juice]

You're switching topics and using a desperate red herring.

Is this just something you say when you don't know what else to say? Which topic have I switched exactly? I've provided evidence from just Paul as you suggested. Evidence and argument which establish Paul envisioned a physical earthly resurrection for Jesus.

I've asked for a reason from Paul to assume the appearances were different.

I've given you one. Actually I've given you many.

Do you finally concede that Paul gives no reason to think the appearances were different?

Let me help you gather up your arms and legs. Oh look there's a leg over there.