Steven Avery

Thank you , Andrew.

This demonstrates an interesting phenomenon. In my experience, the Jewish writers and historians are often (possible exceptions, Vermes and Maccoby) less skeptical of NT accounts, and more understanding of the cultural milieu, than the skeptics are when they make their many accusations of improbability or impossibility in the NT (as in this one, or the round stone, or many others). Jewish writer examples are the writings of the late David Flusser or Raphael Patei or Pinchas Lapide.

Even Professor Lawrence Schiffman, very much opposed to any claims of the Messiah-ship of Jesus, speaks very carefully and accurately on these historical issues. When Schiffman spoke on the Passion of the Christ movie issues, he specifically defended the possbility of a night-time Sanhedrin trial, pointing out that using Talmudic legal summaries against that possibility was very limited, even dubious, evidence, considering Talmudic historical anomalies.

Yet on a forum like this we continually have overarching and dubious claims like the one, just referenced and countered, propounded as some sort of factual analysis, just off the top of folks heads. (Or in Carrier's case, based on an almost absurd statistica/probabilisitic analysis without even doing the most rudimentary empirical analysis.)

Shavuah Tov,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

andrewcriddle

John 19:31-33 implies that the imminence of Passover sabbath required anyone on the cross to be finished off if necessary and then taken away.

(Obvoiusly there are problems with this being only recounted in John)

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

Is there historical corroboration for the Romans hurrying up with crucifixions on the Passover?

Amaleq13

I agree with regard to the apparent problems. We have extra-biblical evidence that the Romans, at least sometimes, allow crucifixion victims to be buried out of respect for the birthday of the emperor but we also have evidence they might choose to postpone the execution:

It does not make sense to me that they would have a similar respect for the Passover sabbath but it does seem reasonable to suggest they might want to avoid angering the Jews into a riot by blatantly disrespecting what they held sacred. However, that doesn't necessarily suggest we should embrace this aspect of the Gospel stories as historical because we have evidence for two sorts of exceptions: burial and postponement. Given the timing of the alleged trial, it seems to me just as possible, if not more so, that the Roman authorities would have held off executing any rebels until after Passover to specifically avoid a riot. How much more likely does this possibility seem if we add the Gospel claim that Pilate actually considered Jesus innocent?

Seekeraftertruth

Hope I'm not repeating links, but ran across these....
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/skepti..._of_jesus.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundam...esus_rise.html
"Do I hear some Christian say that the Roman soldiers guarded Jesus' tomb, and that, therefore, his disciples could not have stolen his body? Matthew is the only writer who mentions the Roman guard; and he assures us that the guard was not placed at the tomb until the second night. During the whole of the first night, there was no guard at the grave. What was there, then, to prevent Christ's escape, if he were alive, or his body from being taken away, if he were dead? Nothing! Admitting, therefore, that soldiers were stationed at Jesus' grave on the second night, as Matthew says; admitting also that they sealed the tomb, and stood guard until they were officially relieved of their watch, the story of the resurrection gains nothing, for he may have escaped, or been stolen away, during the first night, when, as yet, there was no guard about. In such a situation, we might reasonably suppose that the soldiers arrived a day too late, and that they guarded an empty tomb.

But there is something else to be said in connection with the guard. Who went to Pilate and asked him to set a guard at the sepulcher? The Chief priests and Pharisees--the Jewish Sanhedrin. Why did they ask for a guard? Matthew says they said to Pilate: "Lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead." Mark well this fact--the day after the crucifixion of Christ, the idea of his being stolen from the grave was, according to Matthew, in the minds of the Jewish leaders. Is not that significant? In assuring us that the Jews feared that the body of Jesus would be stolen, the "inspired" writer unwittingly suggests the solution of the empty tomb!

But was there really a guard at the sepulcher? Matthew alone says there was. The testimony of the other Gospels proves that there was not. That testimony is negative, positive and conclusive;-- negative, in that neither Mark, nor Luke, nor John knows anything whatever of the guard -- positive, in that according to Mark and Luke the women brought spices to anoint the body of Jesus, which they would not have done had they known that Roman soldiers stood sentinel at his grave, -- conclusive, in that the women on reaching the tomb, said among themselves: "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?" The women saw no soldiers at the tomb, either to guard it or to roll from its portal the closing stone, because there were none there.

That the story of the watch is a myth is further proved by Matthew's statement that the Jewish priests bribed the soldiers to say that, "His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." The Roman soldier's devotion to duty has never been surpassed in the military annals of the world. Moreover, under the inflexible discipline of Roman militarism, the soldier who slept on duty was unceremoniously executed. But Matthew would have us believe that for a bribe, Roman soldiers not only sold out their honor, but exposed themselves to the certainty of immediate and ignominious death! This is not only a libel alike on the integrity and sanity of the martial character of Rome: it is an insult to the common sense of the world.

If yet further testimony be required to prove that there was no watch at the tomb, it is found in the fact that, according to the Gospels, nobody felt the need of one. Why? Because the disciples believed that Christ was dead, and that he would remain dead -- because they knew nothing of his resurrection, and were not looking for it. Luke says that when the women told the disciples of the resurrection, "their words seemed to them (the disciples) as idle tales, and they believed them not." Why did the disciples refuse to believe? Let John answer: "For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead." To whom is John referring particularly? To Peter and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and with them all the disciples."
--------------------------------------------
And by the way, the Bible DOES NOT say that Pilate gave them a Roman Guard....the text says "you have your guard," which, in fact, the Jews did, if they wanted to use them - - the Temple Guard. The "guard story" in Matthew is, I believe, pure fabrication, probably made up in reaction to the later Jewish claim the body had been stolen by the Disciples.

And all of this assumes Jesus existed in the first place, which is problematical.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html