dongiovanni1976x

"The evidence is indeed overwhelming! Jesus was buried in a rock tomb and he was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, with every turn of the archaeologists spade the skeptics increasingly are forced to grasp at straws." (http://www.equip.org/free/CP1210.htm)

Can anyone provide me with what this "overwhelming" evidence is?

What mentions are there of Joseph of Arimathea outside of the Gospels or later Christian embellishments (Gospel of Nicodemus or Hilary of Pottiers etc)?

Tomb burial's for criminals executed for sedition are the exception rather than the rule in Roman history, with notable exceptions (1), so what evidence is there for a "Tomb Burial" and not just thrown to the dogs or dumped in a pit etc?

(1) Philo, In Flaccum, 83; Josephus, Life, 420-421; Plutarch, Antonius, 2; Cicero, Orationes Phillippicae 2.7.17-18

dongiovanni1976x

If perhaps no Christians want/can offer evidence, are their any skeptics/atheists etc who could provide me with the basic argument from the Christian stand point. I want to flesh out my understanding. Especially why Crossan's view is said to be in the minority.

Paul 1 Cor 15:3-8 says "burial"; no tomb reference.
Peter's speech (Acts 2:23), which does mention a tomb, is attributable to the sarcicist author, Luke.
Rabbinic Law forbids tomb burial to criminals (Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7)

Kosh

In that page you link to, they told you the evidence in the preceding paragraph. Their evidence is that the four gospels agree on it! See, you know the Bible is true because the Bible says so. See any problems with this argument?

Also, they claim that the details of the burial are backed by archeological evidence, that is that people were buried in a way consistent with the description. So you see, when the details of a story are historically valid, that means the story is true. Do you see a problem with this reasoning? So, King Kong really existed, because there really is an empire state building in New York City.

None, in fact nobody has been able to identify a town call Arimathea IIRC.

dongiovanni1976x

:grin: :notworthy:
lol!
Well that site was a reference two Chrisitans gave me and I was wondering if it was worth investigating the book mentioned (Reasonable Faith (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William Lane Craig ($16) which has a brief discussion of the subject on pages 272-280)

Notsri

It was burial in a family tomb that was forbidden.

Incidentally, Byron McCane's book, Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), might be of interest to you.

Regards,
Notsri

Toto

You can search that book on Amazon

Diogenes the Cynic

The Romans would not have given over the body for burial, period. To do so would have been a tacit acknowledgement of innocence. This would be especially absurd if Jesus had indeed been crucified (as the Gospels claim) for claiming to be the Messiah (i.e. the "King of the Jews"). Relinquishing the bodies of insurgents simply didn't happen...especially insurgents who directly challenged the authority of Rome. Giving up Jesus' body for a proper burial would have been an insult to the Emperor himself.

In addition, there's also the complete lack of any Empty Tomb tradition in the Pauline corpus, in Q, in Thomas or anywhere before Mark, the lack of any veneration site in the first centuries of Christianity and the clearly fictional nature of Mark's entire Passion (including the name of "Arimathea").

There basically is no credible evidence in favor of the story and much about the story which is inherently implausible and/or completely uncorroborated independently of Mark's Gospel.

dongiovanni1976x

Thank you for the book reference.

In the eyes of Jewish tradition it was considered “proper” or “honorable” to be buried in the traditional manner- in the tomb of one’s fathers. The Tosefta however condemns persons who disobey God’s commands and says that “Your body shall not go into the tomb of your fathers,”-a dishonorable fate. A Biblical example would be in Jeremiah which God describes the dishonorable burial King Jehoiakim is to receive, “They shall not lament for him…with the burial of a donkey he shall be buried…” (22:18,19)
Josephus provides another example, when citing the story of Achan who he claimed was “straightway put to death and at nightfall was given the ignominious…burial proper to the condemned.” (Antiquities 5.1.14) Thus there is no clear distinction to say that Jesus could NOT have been buried in “a” tomb, but the evidence seems to support that he was to have a “dishonorable” or “ignominious” burial (one in which was unlikely to be similar to the Gospel tradition) and that his family and friends were to keep their lamentations to themselves.

Diogenes the Cynic

It isn't even Jewish tradition that matters. The Romans had all the say in the matter and the Romans didn't give away the bodies of insurgents.

dongiovanni1976x

What about the exceptions to this Roman practice (Philo, In Flaccum, 83; Josephus, Life, 420-421; Plutarch, Antonius, 2; Cicero, Orationes Phillippicae 2.7.17-18)?