Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-12-2008, 02:41 PM

Peake's Commentary on the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 798 in the 2001 paperback edition

Solo · 05-12-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedeist

Hi Solo, can you provide the year and page number of your quote from the Peake's Commentary Bible. Also an Amazon link.
Thanks

No problem:

Peake's Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk), Routledge, 1999, p.798

Jiri

thedeist · 05-12-2008, 05:23 PM

Toto wrote:

Quote:

Quoting Deuteronomy does not show that the Jews were allowed by Romans to take down the body of a convicted criminal from a cross.

My bad. Here is a passage from Dr. Byron McCane

Quote:

Roman prefects like Pilate, in fact, often allowed crucifixion victims to be buried. Cicero, for example, mentions a governor in Sicily who released bodies to family members in return for a fee (In Verrem 2.5.45), and Philo writes that on the eve of Roman holidays in Egypt, crucified bodies were taken down and given to their families, "because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them ordinary rites" (In Flaccum 10.83-84). In addition, as Crossan has pointed out, the famous case of Yehohanan, the crucified man whose skeletal remains were found in a family tomb at Giv'at ha-Mivtar, proves that a Roman governor in Jerusalem had released the body of a crucifixion victim for burial.

[6] Finally, the Gospels' assertion that Pilate "used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked" (Mark 15:6 par.) is also relevant here, for it shows that during the first century CE one could plausibly tell stories of Roman judicial clemency, especially around religious holidays. Thus the fate of Jesus' body in Roman hands should not be regarded as automatic. The occasion of Jesus' death was a Jewish holiday, and Pilate was not in the process of suppressing a revolt, but rather simply trying to protect public order.

On balance, then, the Romans involved with the death of Jesus naturally would have expected that the body would remain on the cross, unless Pilate ordered otherwise. It was something of a commonplace in the Empire that victims of crucifixion would become food for carrion-birds, unless the clemency of a governor intervened. Certainly Rome had its reasons for leaving its victims on public display. This fact can help to explain an interesting detail in Mark's account of the burial of Jesus: Mark 15:43 says that Joseph of Arimathea "dared"…to approach Pilate and request the body of Jesus. Why "dared?" Because such a request would indeed have been daring in light of the fact that victims often remained hanging on crosses as symbols of Roman will. [7]

On the other hand, a request by a Jewish leader for the body of Jesus would not have been out of place, either, since Roman prefects--including at least one that we know if in first-century Jerusalem--did allow the burial of crucifixion victims. In the case of Jesus, such an allowance was likely, since Jesus was not caught up in a mass crucifixion, and his death did not come at a time of revolt against Rome. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' day generally cooperated with Pilate in preserving public order in Jerusalem, and the occasion of Jesus' death was a Jewish religious holiday. It may have taken a little nerve, then, but someone like Joseph of Arimathea could have reasonably expected that Pilate would grant his request for the body of Jesus.

http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm

To add to Dr. McCane's argument, the reason why the Jews took down the bodies of those who were hanging is due to a mitzvot [commandment] in Deut. 21:22-23 -22 “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Thus I wouldn't disregard Jesus actually being taken down and buried.

thedeist · 05-12-2008, 05:38 PM

Here are some more reasons why Jesus would have been buried from Dr. Craig Evans Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus

Quote:

The Necessity of Burial in Jewish Thinking In the Mediterranean world of late antiquity proper burial of the dead was regarded as sacred duty, especially so in the culture and religion of the Jewish people. The first reason for providing proper burial was for the sake of the dead themselves. The importance of care for the dead and their proper burial is well attested in Scripture, from the amount of attention given to the story of Abraham’s purchase of a cave for the burial of Sarah (Gen 23:4–19), to the burial accounts of the patriarchs and monarchs of Israel.

Of special interest is the story of Jacob’s body taken to the land of Canaan, to be buried in a tomb that he had hewn (Gen 50:4–14). So also Joseph; though buried in Egypt, his bones are exhumed taken with the Israelites at the time of the exodus and are eventually buried in Canaan (Gen 50:22–26; Josh 24:32). The bones of the slain Saul and sons are buried in Jabesh (1 Sam 31:12–13). David later commends the men who did this (2 Sam 2:4–5: “May you be blessed by the Lord, because you showed this loyalty to Saul your lord, and buried him!”). Saul’s bones are later taken to the land of Benjamin (2 Sam 21:12–14).

Even the wicked and divinely judged are buried, too, such as those in the wilderness who were greedy for meat (Num 11:33–34), or individual criminals who are executed (Deut 21:22–23). Israel’s enemies, slain in battle, are buried (1 Kgs 11:15), including the eschatological enemy hosts of Gog (Ezek 39:11–16).

A second reason for burying the dead is to avoid defilement of the land of Israel. This requirement is grounded in the Mosaic law: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is accursed by God; you shall not defile your land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance” (Deut 21:22–23). It is also expressed in Ezekiel: “They will set apart men to pass through the land continually and bury those remaining upon the face of the land, so as to cleanse it . . . Thus shall they cleanse the land” (Ezek 39:14, 16).

It is far more probable that arrangements would have been made to have Jesus and the other men interred. The story of Joseph of Arimathea, who otherwise is not known, is probably historical. There are apologetic touches, to be sure. In the telling of the story, Joseph grows in sympathy and allegiance to Jesus.22But at its core is a story, in which Joseph either volunteers or was assigned the task of seeing to the prompt and
unceremonious burial of Jesus and, probably, the other two men
http://www.craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf.

Chili · 05-12-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedeist

Joseph grows in sympathy and allegiance to Jesus.22But at its core is a story, in which Joseph either volunteers or was assigned the task of seeing to the prompt and
unceremonious burial of Jesus and, probably, the other two men[/B]

It was his ego that they crucified and the tomb he had hewn as if with his own hands is the flip side of buiding the ark that got him thusfar. Take note that once a man gets to the other side of life a tomb will be needed to bury temporal life so that eternal life can be a reality.

This kind of makes the second death possible and we can now say that Joseph had a testamony because he was raised after the first death. The difference between temporal and eternal life is no longer a matter of 'time' but more like a matter of 'no-time' since both the concept of darkness and time were buried with the illusory ego that created darkness and time (you may look at Gen.1 to confirm this but on the seventh day evening does not follow (by inference) and thus time will be no more).

aa5874 · 05-12-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedeist

Here are some more reasons why Jesus would have been buried from Dr. Craig Evans Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus

The excerpts from Dr. Evans only tries to establish the plausibility of the burial of Jesus as stated in the NT.

These excerpts do not establish that Jesus was actually buried. To establish that Jesus of the NT was buried, it is essential that there be some external non-apologetic source to corroborate either that Jesus actually lived, that he was really crucified or that he was indeed buried.

Plausibilty is not history as there are many fiction novels with plausible events.

Chili · 05-13-2008, 05:18 AM

. . . which then is why darkness prevailed in the TOK for Mary Magdalene when Jesus died until Mary of the TOL arrived to bring daylight about.

aa5874 · 05-13-2008, 06:42 AM

One must never forget that the Jesus of the NT was called the Son of a God and no matter how plausible the burial may appear, this entity called the Son of a God is almost virtually impossible to have been conceived and could not have existed as described in the NT and by the early christian writers.

There is an absolute necessity for those who propose that this Son of a God, [born of the Holy Ghost ] was buried, to produce some documented proof or credible information external of apologetics to show that at least Jesus of Nazareth was really dead or that he lived.

Even if it is agreed that all the accounts of the burial by each author were reported by so-called witnesses, there would still be a major flaw or problem. There is no external corroboration of a burial of the Son of the God of the Jews.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-12-2008, 02:41 PM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Peake's Commentary on the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) p. 798 in the 2001 paperback edition

05-13-2008, 05:18 AM	#37
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . which then is why darkness prevailed in the TOK for Mary Magdalene when Jesus died until Mary of the TOL arrived to bring daylight about.

05-13-2008, 06:42 AM	#38
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	One must never forget that the Jesus of the NT was called the Son of a God and no matter how plausible the burial may appear, this entity called the Son of a God is almost virtually impossible to have been conceived and could not have existed as described in the NT and by the early christian writers. There is an absolute necessity for those who propose that this Son of a God, [born of the Holy Ghost ] was buried, to produce some documented proof or credible information external of apologetics to show that at least Jesus of Nazareth was really dead or that he lived. Even if it is agreed that all the accounts of the burial by each author were reported by so-called witnesses, there would still be a major flaw or problem. There is no external corroboration of a burial of the Son of the God of the Jews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.