hallq

In debates about the historicity of the empty tomb, a major concern is whether a tomb or grave burial has a high prior probability. All the evidence seems to favor a grave burial, but I've come across a couple of skeptical essays that still indicate tomb burial is more likely. Most recently, I came across Richard Carrier's critique of W. L. Craig, which says "and tomb burial was the usual method in Palestine at the time, even for condemned criminals, as I explain in my article Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day." The referenced article, though, says Jesus "had to be placed in the atoning graveyard of the unrighteous criminals."

I'm confused. The evidence seems to point to the second conclusion, but somehow Carrier managed to reach the first in one casae.

Peter Kirby

It reads to me that Carrier is saying that tomb burial is the usual deposition for the bones of even a criminal, i.e., after the flesh had decomposed and the bones were exposed, they could (or even should) be placed in the family's tomb. Evidence for this includes the archaeological discovery of a crucified in a tomb, in addition to the Mishnaic laws cited by Carrier.

You might want to alert Carrier to this thread for his own clarification.

regards,
Peter Kirby

hallq

Okay, that makes sense, and is consistent with other things I've heard.

Chili

When in doubt you can always lean on the mythical interpretation that demands a burial in a tomb that Joseph had managed to prepare with all the effort and devotion he could affort while he was an upright Jew. It was therefore located in his own backyard where he spend his free time contemplating his destiny as ark builder to reach a new convenant and therefore would need a place to bury the old.