Meta => What makes you think that has any application?

. . . .
Meta => Where does it say don't burry him by sundown?
. . . .

Meta -=> Where does it say leave them up past sun down? "against the sun" just means with the sun shinning on them. This is must an emotive "I don't like the Bible" argument it's not relivant to the issue.
. . . .
Meta => This has no relivance at all.
. . . . .

Those verses and questions are totally relevant! Whether or not it was okay to leave the body up is not the point. The point you papermill Phud,

Meta => What is a papermill phud? I say you are a gawincknink. And your fog horn is above the tember line.

is that a real God would not be the homicidal, psychotic, fickle god that is portayed in the Bible! There is no majesty or holiness in that mythical god you worship. He is childish and selfish and creates evil.


Meta => First of all you don't know spit about my views on God, let alone what God I worship. You know nothing about him and I doubt that you would recognize Holiness or majesty if it kicked you in the rear. Secondly that is a purely emotive response that has nothing to do with the issue. We are discussing wheather or not Jesus was put dead in a tomb. It is totally irrelivant and of no interest to me that you do not know what holiness is or that you despire The Good! That is totally beside the point of wheather or not Jesus had a tomb. Please try to stay on topic, there is no reason why I should have to deal with slogans, ideology, one liners or badly concieved world views.

Meta=> CAn you respond to an argument with anything besides emotivism


(To believe in the Bible God one must believe emotionally to override the foolishness of it all. Can you respond and think with a little common sense and see that you are worshipping a deranged idea of what a God would actually be? Probably not.
big d


Mta => so you just respond to my call for a topoical argument with shlcok that has nothign to do with the issue. Why evne bother to respond on this thread? why not just put up threads of your own that just saying nothing more than "I hate Christianity! I hate the bible!" That is pue emotivism. I doubt that you have ever read the bible and I doubt that you would understand it if you did. You can't argue a logical ponit so don't lecture me about using common snese! your version of common sense is nothing more than inflicting your prejudices upon people and shouting.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Jesus body was probably left on the cross as a warning and probably torn down by dogs or carrion and dumped into a pit by the efficient drudgery of Roman soldiers.

The Christ was given a tomb in some of the gospel narratives, as part of a way to explain the age-old Jewish question "Why do the righteous suffer and die?" He wasn't "laid to rest" in a tomb, but subsequent biographers felt he should have been.

Of course, I am making a distinction between the Jesus of probable historical reality and Christianity's "Christ of faith."

Jesus body was probably left on the cross as a warning and probably torn down by dogs or carrion and dumped into a pit by the efficient drudgery of Roman soldiers.

The Christ was given a tomb in some of the gospel narratives, as part of a way to explain the age-old Jewish question "Why do the righteous suffer and die?" He wasn't "laid to rest" in a tomb, but subsequent biographers felt he should have been.

Of course, I am making a distinction between the Jesus of probable historical reality and Christianity's "Christ of faith."

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anyone reference the Jewish Mishnah as a source to explain why Jesus body would have been taken off the cross before sundown. I may be mistaken, I'll have to look again, but I think there's something in there. The Mishnah was put to paper around 200 A.D. in Sepphoris, but I believe most scholars think it accurately reflects the "supplemental oral traditions" that were in practice during the 1st century.

The Romans would more than likely have not attempted to leave the bodies on the crosses at least during the Jewish Sabbath for fear of revolt. If you are going to invade someone's land, you had better be willing to put up with some things they are willing to die for or you will be driven out or forced into killing all your new tax-paying subjects...

P.S. - As already mentioned by others, the tomb was provided by Joseph of Arimathea (as stated in the Bible) so the body could be quickly buried before sundown.

Ish

ok, I should not be doing this, I should be going to bed---

Jewish Law required that the sun not go down on the crucified victim--- Roman law required that the victim hang until dead (3 days, a brutal nasty aweful three days)

So the Romans compromised--- they would break the legs of the Jewish convicts to hasten their death to the one day.

Then the bodies were dumped in a pit, to be eaten by dogs.

Apparently, J of A made arrangements to have the body sealed in his tomb. He was a powerful man, and was granted Jesus' body...

However, Jesus 'died' before his legs were broken--- thus they weren't broken--- Jesus died after just a few hours of what normally took days, and wasn't made sure to be dead by breaking his legs, just by running the spear in his side. This supposedly fufills propecy, but the Jews question where the Christians got that idea...

Anyway, I put died in quotes up there becuase using modern science, some doctors have analysed the crucifiction tale and fave found it to be highly accurate--- as a crucifiction which sent the victim into a crucifiction coma. This would be fatal, had the body stayed up for the three days or if the legs had been broken. Otherwise, the victim had a 25% chance of dying if left untreated.

Jesus was left untreated.

Jess, couldn't have put it better. And you were sleepy, too...

Thanks,
Ish

NOMAD: Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary developement in the account by the Gospel authors themselves.

EARL: Hi Nomad. It's been a while.

"Remaining sensitive to local sensibilities"? Like by crucifying a relatively peaceful Jewish preacher such as Jesus in the first place? You're faced with a contradiction, since you must grant that the Romans were brutal enough to use crucifixion as one of their methods of execution, but you want to say the Romans were "sensitive" enough to grant a merciful burial. That's a contradiction on its face. Furthermore, any unusual mercy or brutality shown would have depended on the particular Roman official not any abstract Roman policy. In this case we have Pilate, and what do we know about him? Was he particularly sensitive to Jewish laws? No!

Josephus tells how Pilate brought Roman images into Jerusalem against Jewish customs. What was Pilate's purpose in doing this? In Josephus' own words, "Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, IN ORDER TO ABOLISH THE JEWISH LAWS" (Jewish War 18:55, my emphasis). When the Jews protested, Pilate threatened them with death, and Josephus states that Pilate was then impressed with their resolve and withdrew the images. But this last bit may simply have been an exaggeration on Josephus' part in making the Jews seem more heroic.

Josephus also tells how Pilate seized money from the Temple funds to build an aqueduct, causing a stir (Antiquities 18. 60-62).

Why was Pilate eventually dismissed from his post? According to Josephus, Pilate was recalled for excessive brutality shown to the Samaritans. "So they [the Samaritans] came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

"But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but TO ESCAPE THE VIOLENCE OF PILATE. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead" (Antiquities 18.85, 88, my emphasis)

Philo describes Pilate's character as "naturally inflexible, a blend of self-will and relentlessness," and refers to his conduct as procurator in terms of "briberies, insults, robberies, outrages and wanton injuries, executions without trial constantly repeated [!!!], ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty." (Legatio ad Gaium 301,302).

Granted, Philo had reason to exaggerate Pilate's offenses, to contrast him with Tiberius whom he favoured. But Philo's account is much closer to Josephus' than the gospels. The historical Pilate is somewhere between Philo and Josephus, and far from the gospels.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia itself sums up (at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12083c.htm), "The Jews hated him [Pilate] and his administration, for he was not only very severe, but showed little consideration for their susceptibilities."

So the Jewish customs were hardly automatically relevant to the question of whether Jesus was buried. But I wonder why, Nomad, you didn't quote Antiquities 4.202 in full. Perhaps because there Josephus says "He that blasphemeth God, let him be stoned; and let him hang upon a tree all that day, and then let him be buried IN AN IGNOMINIOUS AND OBSCURE MANNER" (my emphasis). Even Crossan grants that Jesus may have been thrown into a common grave, so nothing Josephus says here contradicts the view that the gospel account of Jesus' burial is deeply flawed. Burial in a brand new rich man's tomb in a garden with lavish spices and so forth is hardly the same as burial "in an ignominious and obscure manner."

We know for a fact that the gospels tell an outright falsehood in stating that the Romans had a custom of offering to let the crowd spare a condemned criminal. (The gospel authors may not have known this was false.) I raised this point with Nomad before. Here was our exchange (I'll hunt for the internet address if anyone requests it):

EARL: This sort of slander certainly has precedent in Matthew. Matthew shamelessly acquitted Pilate and demonized the Jews by inventing Pilate's Passover custom of sparing a prisoner.

NOMAD: Just to let you know, Philo of Alexandria, a Jew and contemporary of the period in question tells us that this was an actual custom.

EARL: Now this is false. Philo never talks about such a custom. As the "Oxford Companion to the Bible" states, for example, "Following a Passover custom unknown outside the Gospels, Pilate offered to free a Jewish prisoner and suggested Jesus" (74).

In addition, the character of Joseph of Arimathea is highly suspicious, because he undergoes a makeover in Matthew's and Luke's editing of Mark. Mark was faced with a contradictory task in that Joseph had to be important enough to be able to go straight up to Pilate and request the body of a condemned traitor, but righteous enough to have wanted to bury Jesus in the first place. Mark handles this as best he can: Joseph was a "prominent member of the council" and thus influential enough to have his request granted by Pilate, and he was "waiting for the kingdom of God" and thus, presumably, on Jesus' side. Unfortunately, Mark's effort was inconsistent in calling Joseph a member of the council and yet stating that the entire council sought to condemn Jesus and voted to turn him over to Pilate for execution (Mark 14:53, 55, 64; 15:1). Matthew and Luke saw the problem and changed Joseph's character to solve it. Matthew removes the reference to Joseph as a "prominent member of the council" and makes him merely a rich man and a disciple of Jesus, clarifying Mark's obscure statement that Joseph was merely "waiting for the kingdom of God" (Matt.27:57). Luke makes the switch in the other direction. Joseph is still a member of the council, but he's no longer an actual disciple of Jesus. Instead Joseph is merely a "good and righteous man." Luke clarifies the inconsistency directly by stating that Joseph "had not consented to their [the council's] decision and action" (23:50, 51). John as usual goes nuts and talks about a conspiracy. Joseph was a secret disciple of Jesus in fear of the Jews (19:38).

Another relevant fact is that of all the thousands of people crucified by the Romans, only one crucified skeleton has been found. What happened to all the others if burial in private tombs was commonplace?

As for "legendary development," how about the way Joseph's tomb and the burial get better and better from Mark to John, with the "young man" becoming first one angel and then two, an earthquake, the addition of Nicodemus, the growth of the amount of spices for Jesus' body, the addition to the setting of Joseph's tomb that it was placed in a "garden" and was brand new, the bribing of the guards conspiracy story in Matthew, the "Passover custom" of freeing a prisoner, the tearing of the Temple curtain, the darkness over the whole land, and all the resurrection appearances themselves which were absent in Mark?

Given these considerations, there's more than enough reason to be highly skeptical of the gospels' burial account.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited January 31, 2001).]

Hello Earl

A couple of points.

First, if you want to demonstrate that Jesus was NOT buried in a tomb, address the points raised by Raymond Brown please. The historicity is pretty much beyond scholarly debate now, beyond the interesting musings of Crossan and a small but very vocal group.

Second, you must already know that the vast majority of crucifixions took place in Palestine either before, or long after Jesus' death. In fact, in Josephus' writings we have no indications of crucifixions taking place in Jerusalem from the period 10AD to 60AD. So don't make the fallacy of wondering why the Romans would not treat a very rare crucifixion like that of Jesus very differently than they would those that took place during the great rebellions of the 1st Century BCE or during the seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Third, Brown himself notes that since the man found in the tomb WAS clearly crucified during this time of peace (i.e. circa 10AD) that this goes a very long way to disproving Crossan's theory that Jesus could not possibly have been buried in any more than a common grave.

Forth, Brown again notes that there was nothing unusually cruel about Pilote as compared to other governors of his time, and if we want to see just how sensative the Romans really were to the sensabilities of the Jews, consider the example of the Roman general who took the astonishing step of personally going to Rome in 41AD to convince the very mad Emperor Caligula not to put his statue inside the Temple in Jerusalem for fear of mass rioting in Palestine (the general was successful, and Caligula relented).

Fifth, when engaged in historical revisionism, like trying to demonstrate that all four Gospels lied in presenting the empty tomb as fact, the burden of proof falls to the naysayers. In other words, where is their proof beyond mere conjecture?

Let me finish up by quoting from yet another highly respected scholar on this subject:

"A straightforward reading of the Gospels' portrait of the burial has been
challenged by revisionist scholars, who theorize that Jesus died in a mass crucifixion: the body was thrown into a common, shallow trench, to become carrion for vultures and scavenging dogs. This makes for vivid drama but implausible history. Pilate, after all, had been forced in the face of Jewish opposition to withdraw his military shields from public view in the city when he first acceded to power. What likelihood was there, especially after Sejanus' death, that he would get away with flagrantly exposing the corpse of an executed Jew beyond the interval permitted by the Torah, and encouraging its mutilation by scavengers outside Jerusalem?

"Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point. It is worth explaining why I go along with much of the Gospel's account of Jesus' burial, because doing so will help us grapple with the vexed question of what happened three days after his crucifixion.

"Time and again, the Gospels reveal the tendancy of the first Christians to shift the blame for Jesus' death away from Pilate and onto the Sanhedrin. Yet when it comes to taking on the weighty responsibility of burying Jesus, we find members of that same council taking the lead, while most of Jesus' disciples had beaten a hasty and ignominious retreat. Joseph's and Nicodemus' public act cost them: they donated mortuary dressing and ointment as well as use of the cave. They also contracted uncleanness for seven days after the burial. On each of those seven days they would have had to explain to curious colleagues where and why they had come into contact with a corpse, a powerful source of impurity.

"Joseph's act went beyond mere display of ordinary decency. He ensured that Jesus was interred in one of the caves he had recently dug for himself and his family. The significance of this gesture is plain: there were those wihtin the council who had not agreed with Caiphas' condemnation of Jesus to Pilate."
[Chilton, Bruce. "Rabbi Jesus: The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity", (New York: Doubleday, 2000) p. 270-272.]

Last point now.

It is always possible to be sceptical about ANY historical event. Such is the nature of history. But excessive scepticism about even the very mundane and perfectly natural events speaks more of hyperscepticism as opposed to true critical thinking.

When it comes to the very basic question (as we find in this thread) "was Jesus buried in a tomb?", the most reasonable answer is yes. Any doubter must be expected to offer hard evidence to demonstrate why this could not have happened, and challenging some of the details of the burial do not do this. Thus far we have not seen anyone do this, and thus the opinion of Crossan remains very distinctly in the minority against Brown, Bultmann, Lane Fox, Grant and many others.

In my view, when a scholar of Brown's stature is prepared to say that the burial of Jesus is "historically certain", I think it is reasonable to demand some hard evidence from the sceptic to prove him wrong.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 31, 2001).]

Hi Jess

I just wanted to correct this last bit in your post. Even treated, and even after a relatively short period of time on the cross, the chances of survival of the victim was not good. In one report we have from Josephus, he successufully convinces Titus to remove three of his friends from their crosses. The general then ordered the best of medical care for these three men, and two of the three died in any event.

When I...saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart and came and told Titus with tears what I had seen. He gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the physician's hands; the third survived.
(Life of Flavius Josephus 420-21)

Crucifixion was a very nasty business, and the chances anyone was going to survive them was very slim under any circumstances. Untreated, those odds drop basically to zero.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 31, 2001).]

Peace yourself, Nomad.

You have no clue of the study I am talking about or if/how your 'example' relates to what I was saying.

You just contradicted me for the sake of saying 'you're wrong and I'm right--- nanny nanny goo goo!'.

Peace.