The Empty Tomb!

[POI]

When discussing/debating the 'facts' for a resurrection claim, theists often cite 'the empty tomb.' But we must first ask ourselves, why should doubters, skeptics, agnostic atheists, scoffers, etc., even consider that a crucified Jesus was placed into a tomb, guarded by Roman soldiers, in the first place?

For debate: Is it even plausible that Jesus's deemed "blasphemous" body was merely chucked into an unmarked hole or grave, along with others of various committed 'crimes'? Or maybe He was not really buried at all? Or maybe buried alone in the ground? Or maybe He was left for the buzzards? Or maybe many other options?

If not, why not? Why MUST He have been placed into a tomb, which was guarded by Roman soldiers, for arguably three days?

[POI]

(1) As to expecting non-Christians to write and save evidence of Jesus specifically being taken down, there is no reason to think there would be such interest. Thats too high of a standard. And its irrational bias to dismiss anything simply because it is written by Christians. What motivation would Christians have to make this up, when it wasnt a rare exception, but a regular exception in times of peace.

Taking down a body immediately after death was not the typical Roman practice for crucifixion victims, even during times of peace. Taking them down was the exception. Aside from the Gospel's say-so, which is exactly what the skeptic questions in the first place, why immediately just assume an exception was made here, simply because of the say-so of the very collection of Gospel(s) in question? Again, the onus is on the believer who argues for this exception. Thus far, this argument is (circular / question begging).

As to Christian motivation for making this up, this can only be speculative. While the Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial are central to Christian faith and tradition, historical and archaeological scholarship has raised questions about their precise historicity. Arguments suggest that some aspects of the burial narrative might have been shaped by theological considerations, developed over time, or adapted to address specific concerns within the early Christian community. It's important to recognize the different perspectives and interpretations that exist regarding this pivotal event in Christian history.

A) (2) Yes, Pilate was cruel and insensitive, but too much so for Romes liking at times. Philo records (Embassy to Gaius, 305, as well as Josephus) Tiberius reprimanding Pilate for bringing imperial shields into Jerusalem, orders him to take them down and put them up elsewhere. And Josephus (Anitiquities, 18) records that Vitellius sent Pilate to answer before Tiberius for violent actions against the Samaritans. So, there is plenty of basis to know that Pilate had to watch himself and try to keep the peace to maintain his political position.

B) On Pilate causing uproar, the most reliable story is that he was keeping the peace with Jewish leaders by crucifying Jesus (even Jewish sources show their view of Jesus as a blasphemer and worthy of death). And those Jewish leaders were adamant about burying their people, even if viewed as a criminal, not because they respected Jesus, but because they respected the land they felt leaving him unburied would defile. This is simply a continuation of Pilate keeping the peace with the Jewish leaders because it was easy to do so.

A) You are over-estimating and jumping to fare-fetched conclusions here. Just because Pilate was noted to be reprimanded, or to be informed to mind his "P's" and "Q's" does not then mean he was no longer deemed cruel and insensitive. Again, as stated in point (1), the onus is on the believer to demonstrate an exception for Jesus was allowed - to be yanked off the cross immediately after death. And so far, you are begging the question, as explained in point (1).

B) Did you just flip a coin here? In regard to the 'most reliable source', we only have the Gospels in question by skeptics. And the four Gospels do not present a unified view on Pilate's motivation for crucifying Jesus. While all Gospels indicate that Pilate was involved in the decision to execute Jesus, they also vary in their portrayal of Pilate, as well as the reasons behind it. And based upon your rational, then all crucified Jewish criminals were immediately taken off the cross, which would completely negate the purpose of a crucifixion.

(3) I meant that the above was still true when we consider the reason Jesus was crucified. That it was treason (and blasphemy to the Jews) doesnt make Jesus being taken down any less believable.

Yes, it does. The norm still stands, as blasphemy/treason/sedition are deemed some of the "worst" crimes of the day in Rome. The norm was to let them rot in front of all for a long time. The onus is on you to argue for the exception. And thus far, the burden of proof has nowhere near been met.

A) (4) Yes scholars say. Are you unaware of the scholars in the field and what they say? Dunn, Allison, Evans, Blinzler, Raymond Brown, others citing from the Mishnah, Tosefta, archaeological evidence, etc.

B) As to the timeline, I shared how we have every reason to believe it would have been hurried and truncated prior to burial, just that we dont have the exact timespan. To expect an exact timespan or anything goes is irrational.

A) You missed my point. I got 'lambasted' when I made such a similar statement to Otseng. Just stick to the evidence and logic. We can quote scholars of opposing positions. The key is to address what they argue and what evidence and logic they bring.

B) It's not irrational, as you are arguing for the exception. Again, the onus is on you. Again, was there time to complete the 'burial ritual' before he was entombed? Again, how long does it take to do so?

(5) If you thought you had good reasons against it, you wouldnt just "let it go." Jesus body would not have been naked if they were coming after the initial burial. This isn't debatable.

At the top of post 264, please note I stated "In no particular order". I would not rank this point one of the highest to explore, so I'll let sleeping dogs lie on this one, for now.... I know this one is a little more controversial, but it still merits consideration.

(6) I did answer it. I said it wasnt directly required or forbidden by a commandment in Torah. Torah commands a prompt burial. Later traditions arose that went beyond the narrow focus on the Torah. The further anointing with spices does make sense for hasty burials and to honor the dead and stave off decay as the ancient evidence Ive pointed to shows.

Then crucifying any Jew would be completely pointless, as we both already agreed prior that the purpose of crucifixion was for deterrence.

(7) Jewish people because that had become their tradition, built on the Torah telling them to take great care of their dead, in part, to not defile the land and so this included even the criminals.

My point here was missed. How believable is it to assume women went to address a 3-day-old rot-fest corpse? The stench in this enclosed area would be unbarible.

(8) I doubt Pilate knew all the ins and the outs, if much beyond the things the Jewish leaders complained to him about. The tomb could be opened. It was a temporary tomb, where other bodies would have also eventually been buried there for about a year and the bones collected and put into ossuaries. Pilate would not have wanted to do the Jews religious rituals for them.

My point here was missed. 'Matthew' claims Pilate and company were scared the body would be stolen. Why then allow the body out of direct line of sight? In times of peace, just allow the Jews in to finish the 'burial ritual' inside Rome's heavily guarded safe haven, and then release the temporarily entombed body to 'Joseph' three days later.

[1213]

Sorry, but the given historicity of Pilate indicates he would not be too concerned.

What historicity? And why do you think it is believable?

If Pilate was worrying about upsetting the Jews, then he likely would not have sentenced their leader to a 'false' crime of treason, and then executed him in the most humiliating way possible. Also, such 'burial rituals' was not written in Jewish 'law' as being mandatory.

According to the story, he asked from the people what to do and washed his hands of the case. So, in that way he avoided being blamed from the bad judgement.

Then why would the women even go there? And who was going to roll the big heavy stone aside?

It seems they had not thought it before they went there.

And they said to themselves, Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?
Mark 16:3

And why wouldn't Pilate just keep the body near him, in a secured local location for 3 days if he was so concerned of the body being stolen? Seems odd he would allow the body to leave his presence, only to be guarded by 2 soldiers in some remote location?

Maybe he thought it would be enough.

[POI]

Sorry, but the given historicity of Pilate indicates he would not be too concerned.

What historicity? And why do you think it is believable?

You know, the account(s) and reference(s) to Pilate, which is not that from the untrustworthy Bible.

According to the story, he asked from the people what to do and washed his hands of the case. So, in that way he avoided being blamed from the bad judgement.

The "story" only comes from the Gospels, and they do not align. Please plant your flag and pick one. Oh, that's right, you don't plant your flag, never mind.

It seems they had not thought it before they went there.

And they said to themselves, Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?
Mark 16:3

Hmm? I guess they were just completely inept. Maybe that's part of the reason the Bible provides the following insrtuction:

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." 1 Timothy 2:12-15

Maybe he thought it would be enough.

According to the Biblical account, Pilate would be just as inept as the described women going to the tomb to spice an already entombed body, with absolutely no game plan on how they were going to get passed the guards?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #271]

Taking down a body immediately after death was not the typical Roman practice for crucifixion victims, even during times of peace. Taking them down was the exception. Aside from the Gospel's say-so, which is exactly what the skeptic questions in the first place, why immediately just assume an exception was made here, simply because of the say-so of the very collection of Gospel(s) in question? Again, the onus is on the believer who argues for this exception. Thus far, this argument is (circular / question begging).

Based on non-Christian sources I've already shared, it was Roman practice to allow the Jews to take down the bodies of crucified individuals in times of peace to keep their religious traditions. This is based on non-Christian sources not the Gospels.

As to Christian motivation for making this up, this can only be speculative. While the Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial are central to Christian faith and tradition, historical and archaeological scholarship has raised questions about their precise historicity. Arguments suggest that some aspects of the burial narrative might have been shaped by theological considerations, developed over time, or adapted to address specific concerns within the early Christian community. It's important to recognize the different perspectives and interpretations that exist regarding this pivotal event in Christian history.

Christians would be silly to make up the idea that Rome and the Jewish leaders (who they claim put Jesus to death) worked together to break Roman law and take Jesus' body down, if such a thing was known to not be allowed. This just doesn't make any sense. That's because it didn't go against what Rome allowed and what Jewish religious tradition was, as non-Christian sources show.

A) Yes, Pilate was cruel and insensitive, but too much so for Romes liking at times. Philo records (Embassy to Gaius, 305, as well as Josephus) Tiberius reprimanding Pilate for bringing imperial shields into Jerusalem, orders him to take them down and put them up elsewhere. And Josephus (Anitiquities, 18) records that Vitellius sent Pilate to answer before Tiberius for violent actions against the Samaritans. So, there is plenty of basis to know that Pilate had to watch himself and try to keep the peace to maintain his political position.

A) You are over-estimating and jumping to fare-fetched conclusions here. Just because Pilate was noted to be reprimanded, or to be informed to mind his "P's" and "Q's" does not then mean he was no longer deemed cruel and insensitive. Again, as stated in point (1), the onus is on the believer to demonstrate an exception for Jesus was allowed - to be yanked off the cross immediately after death. And so far, you are begging the question, as explained in point (1).

Rome made this exception. Pilate's general cruelty and insensitivity would not override his political expediency to the point that he would go against Roman practice, which as I've shown, is based on non-Christian sources, not the Gospels.

B) On Pilate causing uproar, the most reliable story is that he was keeping the peace with Jewish leaders by crucifying Jesus (even Jewish sources show their view of Jesus as a blasphemer and worthy of death). And those Jewish leaders were adamant about burying their people, even if viewed as a criminal, not because they respected Jesus, but because they respected the land they felt leaving him unburied would defile. This is simply a continuation of Pilate keeping the peace with the Jewish leaders because it was easy to do so.

B) Did you just flip a coin here? In regard to the 'most reliable source', we only have the Gospels in question by skeptics. And the four Gospels do not present a unified view on Pilate's motivation for crucifying Jesus. While all Gospels indicate that Pilate was involved in the decision to execute Jesus, they also vary in their portrayal of Pilate, as well as the reasons behind it. And based upon your rational, then all crucified Jewish criminals were immediately taken off the cross, which would completely negate the purpose of a crucifixion.

Again, I've pointed to non-Christian sources regarding Pilate being in trouble and it makes perfect sense that he would choose political expediency over his distaste for foreigners. I've also pointed to non-Christian sources for the Roman practice of allowing the Jews their religious traditions in times of peace, which would include burial before the passover sabbath (but doesn't mean...and I never said it did...that all Jews were immediately taken down).

(3) I meant that the above was still true when we consider the reason Jesus was crucified. That it was treason (and blasphemy to the Jews) doesnt make Jesus being taken down any less believable.

Yes, it does. The norm still stands, as blasphemy/treason/sedition are deemed some of the "worst" crimes of the day in Rome. The norm was to let them rot in front of all for a long time. The onus is on you to argue for the exception. And thus far, the burden of proof has nowhere near been met.

I've given non-Christian sources that show it's not the norm when dealing with crucified Jews and Jewish religious practices in times of peace. You haven't commented on those or shared other sources that show that no exceptions were ever made.

A) (4) Yes scholars say. Are you unaware of the scholars in the field and what they say? Dunn, Allison, Evans, Blinzler, Raymond Brown, others citing from the Mishnah, Tosefta, archaeological evidence, etc.

A) You missed my point. I got 'lambasted' when I made such a similar statement to Otseng. Just stick to the evidence and logic. We can quote scholars of opposing positions. The key is to address what they argue and what evidence and logic they bring.

You aren't even sharing any references at all, so I took the approach of making general comments and sharing references when asked, if there is disagreement or unawareness, which I did in my last post by naming various scholars who have spoken to this that people can look into.

On top of all of that, if this was something that was never done, it would be absolutely ridiculous of the Christians to make it up. They would have made up some other story to get the women there rather than this anointing story.

B) As to the timeline, I shared how we have every reason to believe it would have been hurried and truncated prior to burial, just that we dont have the exact timespan. To expect an exact timespan or anything goes is irrational.

B) It's not irrational, as you are arguing for the exception. Again, the onus is on you. Again, was there time to complete the 'burial ritual' before he was entombed? Again, how long does it take to do so?

Why should we expect written sources back then to be concerned with mapping out the time cost like that? There is no reason for Christians to make up a hurried burial timeline if there wasn't one. Your requirement that not having an answer like 'it takes at least 4 hours and they only had 2, so... or we can reject the whole thing' is irrational.

(6) I did answer it. I said it wasnt directly required or forbidden by a commandment in Torah. Torah commands a prompt burial. Later traditions arose that went beyond the narrow focus on the Torah. The further anointing with spices does make sense for hasty burials and to honor the dead and stave off decay as the ancient evidence Ive pointed to shows.

Then crucifying any Jew would be completely pointless, as we both already agreed prior that the purpose of crucifixion was for deterrence.

Why would a Jew faced with committing treason, etc. think to himself "Well, I'd like to commit treason, but since they won't let my people take my body down afterwards, I'm not going to"? Crucifixion itself was enough. Rome liked not having to deal with rebellions and was fine giving Jews that concession, while keeping the deterrence that people wouldn't want to be crucified at all.

(7) Jewish people because that had become their tradition, built on the Torah telling them to take great care of their dead, in part, to not defile the land and so this included even the criminals.

My point here was missed. How believable is it to assume women went to address a 3-day-old rot-fest corpse? The stench in this enclosed area would be unbarible.

Burial rites are very important. Jesus, their leader for the past few years that they put all their hope in, would have had a hasty burial (that they weren't a part of), so they go to finish the honoring, taking spices to cover up the smell, out of love for Jesus, just like ancient Jews would do.

(8) I doubt Pilate knew all the ins and the outs, if much beyond the things the Jewish leaders complained to him about. The tomb could be opened. It was a temporary tomb, where other bodies would have also eventually been buried there for about a year and the bones collected and put into ossuaries. Pilate would not have wanted to do the Jews religious rituals for them.

My point here was missed. 'Matthew' claims Pilate and company were scared the body would be stolen. Why then allow the body out of direct line of sight? In times of peace, just allow the Jews in to finish the 'burial ritual' inside Rome's heavily guarded safe haven, and then release the temporarily entombed body to 'Joseph' three days later.

The Gospel of Matthew claims the Jewish leaders were concerned about the body being stolen. It doesn't suggest that Pilate and the Romans were concerned. Pilate says to them "you have a guard" which was probably the temple guard, who goes to secure the tomb. Pilate wasn't concerned about it.

[POI]

Based on non-Christian sources I've already shared, it was Roman practice to allow the Jews to take down the bodies of crucified individuals in times of peace to keep their religious traditions. This is based on non-Christian sources not the Gospels.

I haven't had any problem with this position yet. However, this is not where I'm pushing back yet. Why was Jesus one of these expressed exceptions? Is it because (the Gospels) say so? Again, you are arguing for the exception, rather than the norm.

Christians would be silly to make up the idea that Rome and the Jewish leaders (who they claim put Jesus to death) worked together to break Roman law and take Jesus' body down, if such a thing was known to not be allowed. This just doesn't make any sense. That's because it didn't go against what Rome allowed and what Jewish religious tradition was, as non-Christian sources show.

Yet again, not my current point of contention. See my question above.

Rome made this exception. Pilate's general cruelty and insensitivity would not override his political expediency to the point that he would go against Roman practice, which as I've shown, is based on non-Christian sources, not the Gospels.

Then your given rationale makes no sense. If Pilate was ordered to honor Jewish customs during peace time, then crucifying any Jew makes no logical sense. Why? In Judaism, there's a strong emphasis on burying the dead as quickly as possible, ideally within 24 hours of death. This practice is rooted in the Torah, specifically in Deuteronomy 21:23. (i.e.):

"23 you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under Gods curse. You must not desecrate the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance."

*************************************

Pilate and the rest would already know this, especially if they were to keep the peace.

Again, I've pointed to non-Christian sources regarding Pilate being in trouble and it makes perfect sense that he would choose political expediency over his distaste for foreigners. I've also pointed to non-Christian sources for the Roman practice of allowing the Jews their religious traditions in times of peace, which would include burial before the passover sabbath (but doesn't mean...and I never said it did...that all Jews were immediately taken down).

Again, this is not the topic I currently have an issue with... Maybe Pilate made (some) exceptions, and maybe he didn't? How do we know Jesus was one of those exceptions, besides the say-so from the Gospels? And, my point here is also that Jewish crucifixion(s) would not be a considered form of punishment while also, in the same breath, saying they respected or adhered to Jewish tradition(s) to keep the peace.

I've given non-Christian sources that show it's not the norm when dealing with crucified Jews and Jewish religious practices in times of peace. You haven't commented on those or shared other sources that show that no exceptions were ever made.

That's because this isn't why I'm pushing back. Yet again, the norm is to leave them rotting. The exception is to take them down. Again, aside from the Bible's say-so, why should anyone believe Jesus was one of these exceptions?

You aren't even sharing any references at all, so I took the approach of making general comments and sharing references when asked, if there is disagreement or unawareness, which I did in my last post by naming various scholars who have spoken to this that people can look into.

All I was saying is to be careful about appealing to authority. Mentioning names is in danger of this...

On top of all of that, if this was something that was never done, it would be absolutely ridiculous of the Christians to make it up. They would have made up some other story to get the women there rather than this anointing story.

Maybe the Gospels writers weren't that smart? But they did apparently find it important for women to have a reason to go back 2-3 days later to discover a missing physical body, as traditional Jews believed in a bodily resurrection.

Why should we expect written sources back then to be concerned with mapping out the time cost like that? There is no reason for Christians to make up a hurried burial timeline if there wasn't one. Your requirement that not having an answer like 'it takes at least 4 hours and they only had 2, so... or we can reject the whole thing' is irrational.

All I read here is an excuse as to why you have no answer(s). Further, what is irrational, is to assume these folks had enough time to wash and shroud the body, but not to spice and anoint it.

Why would a Jew faced with committing treason, etc. think to himself "Well, I'd like to commit treason, but since they won't let my people take my body down afterwards, I'm not going to"?

Can you elaborate here?

Crucifixion itself was enough. Rome liked not having to deal with rebellions and was fine giving Jews that concession, while keeping the deterrence that people wouldn't want to be crucified at all.

Since we both agree crucifixions were for deterrence, you cannot move the goalposts. The deterrence lies within elongated rotting humiliation. Otherwise, there would be plenty of slow and torturous mid-evil ways to kill him. Since treason/sedition was considered one of the worst crimes, the point of crucifixion was to provide as a long-time reminder of what is to become of the ones thinking of doing the same.

Burial rites are very important. Jesus, their leader for the past few years that they put all their hope in, would have had a hasty burial (that they weren't a part of), so they go to finish the honoring, taking spices to cover up the smell, out of love for Jesus, just like ancient Jews would do.

Well then, if "burial rights" are very important, which would then most certainly include immediate burial, then the Romans would then know not to crucify Jews during times of peace, to keep the peace. Further, "hasty" would mean they did not have time to wash/wrap it either. If they had time to do that, then they most certainly also would have time to spice the body to prevent any smell to begin with.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #275]

I haven't had any problem with this position yet. However, this is not where I'm pushing back yet. Why was Jesus one of these expressed exceptions? Is it because (the Gospels) say so? Again, you are arguing for the exception, rather than the norm.

Thank you for clarifying your point. So, although Scripture asked this of the Jews, they did not always ask for the body of criminals out of disdain, fear, etc. but we do know that this was allowed by the Romans, if requested, and at least sometimes asked for by the Jews. Then the question becomes why we think this would have been done in Jesus' case.

One reason in favor of this being allowed in Jesus' case is that this was during a festival, which is one of the special exceptions the Roman sources talk about that this was done (which makes sense as not doing so could more likely incite rebellion, whereas they may not feel that threat as highly at other times).

We also have multiple attestation that Joseph of Arimathea, who had some Jewish political clout, was the one requesting it which would give more reason to Rome allowing the request; it's not coming from some peasant. This is also an awkward detail, putting a Sanhedrin member in a favorable light. If this was all made up, we wouldn't expect Christians to make up this detail. We can't rationally discount the Gospels as historical records whole-cloth. Other writers wouldn't be interested in this detail, so we can't rationally fault it for not being in non-Christian sources. No one back then tries to counter Christian claims by saying Jesus' body wasn't taken off the cross. And it doesn't make sense for Christians to claim this happened if everyone around them knew it didn't; they would have likely devised some lie to try to get their story accepted in this case.

These reasons show that this situation isn't really an 'exception' but the norm of when Rome would make exceptions for crucified Jews' bodies being buried. That's why most mainstream scholars, Christian and non-Christian, accept that Jesus was both crucified and some kind of burial the same day took place. Now, don't confuse that as an argument from authority, I'm willing to listen to a counter case if you have one, but it should give one pause unless they have good reasons against the conclusion.

And, my point here is also that Jewish crucifixion(s) would not be a considered form of punishment while also, in the same breath, saying they respected or adhered to Jewish tradition(s) to keep the peace.

Are you saying it has to be all or nothing? If so, that isn't what ruling powers historically do. They pair threats with concessions when those are politically expedient, such as not rousing deeply religious Jews all gathered together for a festival against you for something that won't cost you your power. This doesn't weaken the general threats of punishment.

Maybe the Gospels writers weren't that smart? But they did apparently find it important for women to have a reason to go back 2-3 days later to discover a missing physical body, as traditional Jews believed in a bodily resurrection.

To dismiss an alternative view with "maybe they weren't that smart" is uncharitable and, surely, we should find better reasons to reject a claim than that. If this was just invented, they would have not made up a story that everyone knows wouldn't have happened.

Also, Jews believed in a bodily resurrection at the end of time. If the Christians were making things up, they would not have had Jesus crucified, much less make up a resurrection before the end of time.

Why should we expect written sources back then to be concerned with mapping out the time cost like that? There is no reason for Christians to make up a hurried burial timeline if there wasn't one. Your requirement that not having an answer like 'it takes at least 4 hours and they only had 2, so... or we can reject the whole thing' is irrational.

All I read here is an excuse as to why you have no answer(s). Further, what is irrational, is to assume these folks had enough time to wash and shroud the body, but not to spice and anoint it.

You were saying that we need proof of (a) how long burials took and (b) that, in Jesus' case, there was definitely not enough time to complete that process. Not general guidelines such as it takes a few hours for the burial process and how Jesus probably had 3 hours from death to sundown, but we'd need to include the time of Joseph's request, gathering materials with Nicodemus, etc.; you wanted a more specific timeline than that.

The general guidelines are enough to see that the burial could have been rushed and so, it makes perfect sense that women may need to return later to do a full honoring. If this was a lie to just get woman to the tomb, it's a completely stupid one to make up. There are any number of better reasons one could come up with that wouldn't stick out as obviously false.

So, how is this just an excuse for me not having an answer? Rather, I think it requires of you an answer to why this would have been the story Christians made up against any logical reason to do so as well as having an answer to the general picture or back up your principle that more specificity is required to be rational here.

Why would a Jew faced with committing treason, etc. think to himself "Well, I'd like to commit treason, but since they won't let my people take my body down afterwards, I'm not going to"?

Can you elaborate here?

Since we both agree crucifixions were for deterrence, you cannot move the goalposts. The deterrence lies within elongated rotting humiliation. Otherwise, there would be plenty of slow and torturous mid-evil ways to kill him. Since treason/sedition was considered one of the worst crimes, the point of crucifixion was to provide as a long-time reminder of what is to become of the ones thinking of doing the same.

How am I moving the goalpost? I never agreed that for crucifixions to be a deterrent, the body must remain up there for days rotting. Yes, that doesn't hurt the cause, but we have Roman evidence that they didn't believe this was required because they allowed exceptions without thinking it undermined crucifixion as a deterrent. I was saying that crucifixion alone is enough and, so, if exceptions were made during a religious festival for a Jew the Jewish leaders wanted dead anyway to be taken down, that this wouldn't hurt the aim of deterrence.

Well then, if "burial rights" are very important, which would then most certainly include immediate burial, then the Romans would then know not to crucify Jews during times of peace, to keep the peace. Further, "hasty" would mean they did not have time to wash/wrap it either. If they had time to do that, then they most certainly also would have time to spice the body to prevent any smell to begin with.

Jewish burial rites are important to the Jews, not the Romans. But social concessions that don't hurt their political power (and even help maintain it by avoiding rousing up a crowd towards rebellion in a time of peace) was seen as smart practice by Rome.

And "hasty" does not mean they wouldn't have time to wash or wrap the body as well (it's not all or nothing); it just means they might not have had time to do everything they wanted. Craig has even talked about how the Mishna speaks of Jews anointing the body after entombment for up to 3 days after a completed burial process, but I haven't been able to track that exact reference down.

[POI]

although Scripture asked this of the Jews, they did not always ask for the body of criminals out of disdain, fear, etc.

This statement above conflicts with what you stated in post 270 here:

"(Pilate) was keeping the peace with Jewish leaders by crucifying Jesus (even Jewish sources show their view of Jesus as a blasphemer and worthy of death). And those Jewish leaders were adamant about burying their people, even if viewed as a criminal, not because they respected Jesus, but because they respected the land they felt leaving him unburied would defile. This is simply a continuation of Pilate keeping the peace with the Jewish leaders because it was easy to do so"

Also, you argued that Pilate was ordered to cooperate during peace time. Hence, the Jews would have no fear.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

but we do know that this was allowed by the Romans, if requested, and at least sometimes asked for by the Jews. Then the question becomes why we think this would have been done in Jesus' case.

The Jews would always "request" it, both because of law, and also because of the reason you articulated in post 270. Which means it makes very little sense crucifying any Jew.

We also have multiple attestation that Joseph of Arimathea, who had some Jewish political clout, was the one requesting it which would give more reason to Rome allowing the request;

Well, if by multiple attestation, you mean the Gospels, then we are back to a circular argument, as it is the Gospels in which skeptics question. As stated prior, to my knowledge, the only other 'source', is the Gospel of Nicodemus. And this publication does not seem very trustworthy either?

These reasons show that this situation isn't really an 'exception' but the norm

Based upon your own prior answers, the norm would be to instead avoid crucifying any Jews.

Are you saying it has to be all or nothing?

That is what you are saying in post 270.

If this was just invented, they would have not made up a story that everyone knows wouldn't have happened.

We know a lot of things claimed from the Bible likely did not happen. This particular claim merely adds to the list. As I stated prior, without contest, it seems reasonable that an apocalyptic Jew was born, preached, and was executed due to ancient customs associated with extreme superstition. After this, the believer must make other concession(s), beyond the claims of the 'supernatural' alone, to retain faith in this given storyline, as told by the 'Gospels'.

You were saying that we need proof of (a) how long burials took and (b) that, in Jesus' case, there was definitely not enough time to complete that process. Not general guidelines such as it takes a few hours for the burial process and how Jesus probably had 3 hours from death to sundown, but we'd need to include the time of Joseph's request, gathering materials with Nicodemus, etc.; you wanted a more specific timeline than that.

The general guidelines are enough to see that the burial could have been rushed and so, it makes perfect sense that women may need to return later to do a full honoring. If this was a lie to just get woman to the tomb, it's a completely stupid one to make up.

Yes, it is a stupid one to make up. Which is why I stated what I stated prior. If the Jews had enough time to perform longer tasks, then they most certainly also had enough time to perform the much shorter ones. (i.e.) Washing and wrapping (vs) sprinkling. But it seems the story writers wanted/needed 'eyewitnesses' at the "empty tomb", so they told this story.

There are any number of better reasons one could come up with that wouldn't stick out as obviously false.

And yet, the authors chose to go with this lame choice.

How am I moving the goalpost? I never agreed that for crucifixions to be a deterrent, the body must remain up there for days rotting. Yes, that doesn't hurt the cause, but we have Roman evidence that they didn't believe this was required because they allowed exceptions without thinking it undermined crucifixion as a deterrent. I was saying that crucifixion alone is enough

The purpose of Roman crucifixion was to leave the rotting corpse on the spit for the birds to eat. Hence, this Biblical storyline is nonsensical. This storyline demands a good amount of Christian apologetics.

Jewish burial rites are important to the Jews, not the Romans. But....

Post 270 conflicts with this given "but".

And "hasty" does not mean they wouldn't have time to wash or wrap the body as well (it's not all or nothing); it just means they might not have had time to do everything they wanted. Craig has even talked about how the Mishna speaks of Jews anointing the body after entombment for up to 3 days after a completed burial process, but I haven't been able to track that exact reference down.

Yes, we can always concoct post hoc excuses to protect a given storyline we deem necessary to be true.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #277]

This statement above conflicts with what you stated in post 270 here:

"(Pilate) was keeping the peace with Jewish leaders by crucifying Jesus (even Jewish sources show their view of Jesus as a blasphemer and worthy of death). And those Jewish leaders were adamant about burying their people, even if viewed as a criminal, not because they respected Jesus, but because they respected the land they felt leaving him unburied would defile. This is simply a continuation of Pilate keeping the peace with the Jewish leaders because it was easy to do so"

Also, you argued that Pilate was ordered to cooperate during peace time. Hence, the Jews would have no fear.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I almost included both elements but then, with the principle of charity in mind, I decided to only address the stronger/tougher route that I thought you were going down, rather than addressing both. Let's go ahead and think through both. So, either:

1) The Jewish leaders were very exacting in following the command in Deuteronomy and, therefore, asked for the bodies of every crucified Jew from Roman authorities and, as non-Christian sources show, Rome was okay (at least during religious festivals) to allow the body to be buried. If this is true, then this gives certainty to Jesus' body being taken down (against your position).

But you say that this would mean "it makes very little sense crucifying any Jew." Why do you think that? Allowing the Jews to take down their crucified countrymen (in certain circumstances) does not take away the deterrence of crucifixion. The Jew would still be faced with torture and hanging on a cross, sometimes for days before suffocating. The fact that their body, after they were dead, was allowed to be taken down and buried doesn't make that an appealing option; it is still an effective deterrent.

Or

2) The Jewish leaders didn't always put the command from Deuteronomy into practice, for whatever reason, so even though we have non-Christian evidence that Rome would hand the bodies over in times of peace (at least during religious festivals) if requested, we need to ask if the Jewish leaders would have done so with Jesus' body during the Passover festival.

We have multiple attestation that a member of the Sanhedrin, which would have been an embarassing detail for those sources to make up, did ask and so, it gives us very good reason to think this was the case with Jesus even if the Jewish leaders didn't always request the body.

Well, if by multiple attestation, you mean the Gospels, then we are back to a circular argument, as it is the Gospels in which skeptics question. As stated prior, to my knowledge, the only other 'source', is the Gospel of Nicodemus. And this publication does not seem very trustworthy either?

Yes, I mean the Gospels. This isn't how good historians work. They don't accept texts in this all or nothing way. Claims within the text under scrutiny are looked at individually, for things like embarassing details because authors aren't in the business of making up embarassing details; rather, they are forced to include them because people know they happened.

This isn't a circular argument. It's not saying that what the text claims is true because the text says it is true. It's saying that because of features like the criterion of embarassment, what the text says in this particular case is trustworthy. Criterion of embarassment --> Textual claim is true is not a circular argument.

Are you saying it has to be all or nothing?

That is what you are saying in post 270.

What am I saying is all or nothing in post 270? The stuff about taking bodies down or did you move onto a different question here? If the former, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that Romans, at least during religious festivals in times of peace, would give the bodies of Jews to their people to bury if requested by someone of note for an easy, politically expedient move that doesn't destroy the deterrence of crucifixion.

We know a lot of things claimed from the Bible likely did not happen. This particular claim merely adds to the list. As I stated prior, without contest, it seems reasonable that an apocalyptic Jew was born, preached, and was executed due to ancient customs associated with extreme superstition. After this, the believer must make other concession(s), beyond the claims of the 'supernatural' alone, to retain faith in this given storyline, as told by the 'Gospels'.

If you could show that every single other thing the text under question claims was false, then you'd have a good reason to discount the one uncertain claim, but you don't have anything close to that. It is not rational to move from "a text has some proven falsehoods" (I'm here assuming your claim that we know a lot of things claimed in the Bible likely didn't happen) to "therefore, this next claim should be viewed as false". Rationally, one must take individual claims and look at the specific merits in each case. And pronouncements that a believer is simply making concessions to retain "faith" is not doing that.

Yes, it is a stupid one to make up. Which is why I stated what I stated prior. If the Jews had enough time to perform longer tasks, then they most certainly also had enough time to perform the much shorter ones. (i.e.) Washing and wrapping (vs) sprinkling. But it seems the story writers wanted/needed 'eyewitnesses' at the "empty tomb", so they told this story.

Saying the alternative view to yours is based on someone being stupid is not a good reason for anyone to hold a belief. Surely, we should give our opponents better credit than that and give ourselves better credit as to why we hold the beliefs we do.

The purpose of Roman crucifixion was to leave the rotting corpse on the spit for the birds to eat. Hence, this Biblical storyline is nonsensical. This storyline demands a good amount of Christian apologetics.

No, the purpose of Roman crucifixion was political control. If political control is better served in certain situations by allowing some minor concessions, then Rome would make those exceptions. And we have actual textual evidence that Rome did just that. Your understanding of Roman purposes simply doesn't match up with the textual sources and archaeological evidence.

Jewish burial rites are important to the Jews, not the Romans. But....

Post 270 conflicts with this given "but".

I don't see why it does. Political control is important to the Romans, and if it is served through allowing the Jews their burial rites under certain situations, then Rome is "smart" for doing so and we have evidence they did take this approach.

And "hasty" does not mean they wouldn't have time to wash or wrap the body as well (it's not all or nothing); it just means they might not have had time to do everything they wanted. Craig has even talked about how the Mishna speaks of Jews anointing the body after entombment for up to 3 days after a completed burial process, but I haven't been able to track that exact reference down.

Yes, we can always concoct post hoc excuses to protect a given storyline we deem necessary to be true.

Yes, confirmation bias is a real danger for everyone. That's why we need to have good reasoning to support our views. Accusing the one we disagree with of simply concocting post hoc excuses is not a rational reason to believe anything.

We should follow the evidence and where logical reasoning takes us. If what Craig says is true, it would only strengthen the case I've laid out, but I'm not going to believe it until I see it in the Mishna itself because I'm not just trying to find a way to uphold my belief; I'm interested in truth and will keep focusing on the actual reasons for and against and follow them to the best of my ability.

You use a principle of it being "all or nothing" without support given for doing so (here and also above as I've already covered). You have offered no reason to believe this as a good general principle and you have offered no reason here to believe that either they had time to do the whole burial or they didn't have time to do any of it. I've offered reasons, not excuses, that we could see the burial being too hasty and needed (or thought to be needed by the women) to be completed later.

[POI]

This entire argument looks to have funneled down to favoring exceptions over norms. Example:

- You are asking that I favor the (exception over the norm), in that Jesus would have been allowed to be pulled off the cross, despite the intent of crucifixions. And you are asking me to do so based upon dubious and/or long-shot reasoning.

- I'm instead arguing for the (norm over the exception). Which means a deemed non-Roman "blasphemer" was ordered to be crucified by Pilate, due to committing "high treason". And that it is very unlikely he would have been allowed to be pulled off the cross.

I almost included both elements but then, with the principle of charity in mind, I decided to only address the stronger/tougher route that I thought you were going down, rather than addressing both.

Riiiight....

Let's think this through....

- Deut 21:23 commands that all Jews are not to be left overnight on the 'spit'.
- Because of this command, you confirm Jews "were adamant in burying their people' swiftly - as to not defile the land.
- Regardless of the sentenced crime committed by the Jew, Jews still carried out this command.
- Pilate was also instructed to keep the peace with the Jews, which would mean he granted their Jewish customs to "keep the peace".
- Pilate would also have already known of the Jewish command to swiftly remove Jewish bodies off of these "meat spits".

Based upon the above, your prior argument of both 'disdain' and 'fear' would make absolutely no sense. Both of these provided terms are instead absolutely irrelevant. So, which one is it?

a) Were exceptions made for Jews only sometimes - (which means I get to completely ignore the observed bullet points above)? or...
b) Were these exceptions made for Jews at all times? - (which means I get to ignore the terms 'disdain' and 'fear')?

Moving forward, we also know the purpose of Roman crucifixion was to leave the bodies on the 'spit' to serve as a warning to others who might consider defying Roman rule. Treason was deemed the highest level of defiance. And Jesus was sentenced to such 'crime.'

My point here is it makes little sense to crucify him, if the objective of doing so is completely missed. It would be like hanging a deemed criminal from a crane, over the city, and then immediately removing the criminal from the crane - as the intent of deterrence would be completely missed. I also doubt Pilate was completely compliant to all Jewish sensibilities. Sure, maybe there were rare exceptions. But I doubt it was the norm, but instead, the extreme exception. Just like immediately removing dead bodies would be another extremely rare exception. And thus far, us skeptics are to consider this rare exception valid, simply because the 'Gospels' say so?

This is why I state Jesus was not buried, as told from the Gospels. Why? While crucifixion was indeed a common punishment for treason in ancient Rome, it was not the only punishment for that crime, nor was it exclusively reserved for treason. Since Pilate would already know the body was to be immediately removed, and since we know the intent of crucifixion was for deterrence, (by leaving the body hanging), it makes little sense to order a crucifixion. There are many ways to skin a cat. Meaning, if by (your) given definition of "deterrence", you merely mean while they are dying, then there exists an infinite number of ways to slowly torture/kill him.

Hence, something has to logically give here.

Either:

a) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and not immediately buried. - (a norm)
b) He was not hung on a "spit". - (an exception I could "feasibly" argue)
c) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and immediately buried. - (an exception you can "feasibly" argue)

Yes, I mean the Gospels. This isn't how good historians work. They don't accept texts in this all or nothing way.

That is not what I said. As stated, time and time again, it is reasonable to accept that a homeless Jewish preacher was born, preached, and was executed for crimes related to superstition, as told from the Bible. I question the claim of the 'empty tomb'. And the 'empty tomb' claim comes from the "Gospels', and nowhere else. Thus, if you are going to reference the claim to 'prove' the claim, then I'm sorry, but this is circular. This is why I keep mentioning the 'Gospel of Nicodemus." This is why I ask if this additional 'Gospel' is deemed trustworthy to support the claim?

Claims within the text under scrutiny are looked at individually,

Yes, which is why I'm simply okay or indifferent with the storyline, up until the point where it no longer makes sense. And the claim of an empty tomb makes little sense, if he was also claimed to have been crucified by Romans.

for things like embarassing details because authors aren't in the business of making up embarassing details; rather, they are forced to include them because people know they happened.

The Gospels were not considered authoritative and/or canonized until much later. So, your point above is irrelevant. See below.

This isn't a circular argument. It's not saying that what the text claims is true because the text says it is true. It's saying that because of features like the criterion of embarassment, what the text says in this particular case is trustworthy. Criterion of embarassment --> Textual claim is true is not a circular argument.

I'm afraid this claim is circular. Again, their would be no embarrassment, for the reason(s) I expressed directly above.

If you could show that every single other thing the text under question claims was false, then you'd have a good reason to discount the one uncertain claim, but you don't have anything close to that. It is not rational to move from "a text has some proven falsehoods" (I'm here assuming your claim that we know a lot of things claimed in the Bible likely didn't happen) to "therefore, this next claim should be viewed as false". Rationally, one must take individual claims and look at the specific merits in each case. And pronouncements that a believer is simply making concessions to retain "faith" is not doing that.

Seems you have kind of conceded my point, at least a bit? Meaning, I bet we are in agreement that the Bible is not 'correct' about all details. If the Bible is no better than any other written attestation, from ancient antiquity, then what makes it so special to begin with at all? Okay, back to exploring the claim as to why a deemed non-Roman peasant would be granted an immediately respectful burial, while opposing the main reason Romans would opt to order a crucifixion of a deemed peasant in the first place.

Saying the alternative view to yours is based on someone being stupid is not a good reason for anyone to hold a belief. Surely, we should give our opponents better credit than that and give ourselves better credit as to why we hold the beliefs we do.

Yes it is, if we are to assume these folks somehow had enough time to wash the body, wrap the body, transport the body to the other location, place the body in the tomb, and then place a heavy stone in front of the tomb --- but somehow did not also have enough time to sprinkle the body, so they had to come back????

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #279]

I almost included both elements but then, with the principle of charity in mind, I decided to only address the stronger/tougher route that I thought you were going down, rather than addressing both.

Riiiight....

Let's think this through....

- Deut 21:23 commands that all Jews are not to be left overnight on the 'spit'.
- Because of this command, you confirm Jews "were adamant in burying their people' swiftly - as to not defile the land.
- Regardless of the sentenced crime committed by the Jew, Jews still carried out this command.

No, I've confirmed that Jews faithful to the text (if allowed to by those in power) would ask for and bury the bodies, even of their Jewish enemies, so as not to defile the land.

- Pilate was also instructed to keep the peace with the Jews, which would mean he granted their Jewish customs to "keep the peace".

- Pilate would also have already know of the Jewish command to swiftly remove Jewish bodies off of these "meat spits".

Based upon the above, your prior argument of both 'disdain' and 'fear' would make absolutely no sense. Both of these provided terms are instead absolutely irrelevant.

I've also confirmed that Pilate would have felt under watch of Roman leadership and charged with keeping the peace in his area by allowing Jewish sensibilities at least during times like religious festivals when things would be more ripe for unrest. That is why Pilate would have been receptive in Jesus' case, not because he did whatever the Jews wanted at any time to keep the peace.

Obviously, if all the above is accepted, then Jews not asking because of disdain, fear, etc. is irrelevant. But if the skeptic wants to question if the Jews were always faithful to this text, they become relevant. So, I went down that route and said that even assuming the Jews weren't always faithful to the text for whatever reason, we should still trust that it happened in this specific case because of things like the criterion of embarassment.

Moving forward, we also know the purpose of Roman crucifixion was to leave the bodies on the 'spit' to serve as a warning to others who might consider defying Roman rule. Treason was deemed the highest level of defiance. And Jesus was sentenced to such 'crime.' Similar punishment happens more recently elsewhere, such as hanging dead bodies from a crane over the city center.

This is why I state Jesus was not buried, as told from the Gospels. Why? While crucifixion was indeed a common punishment for treason in ancient Rome, it was not the only punishment for that crime, nor was it exclusively reserved for treason. Since Pilate would already know the body was to be immediately removed, and since we know the intent of crucifixion was for deterrence, (by leaving the body hanging), it makes little sense to order a crucifixion. There are many ways to skin a cat. Meaning, if by (your) given definition of "deterrence", you merely mean while they are dying, then there exists an infinite number of ways to slowly torture/kill him.

Hence, something has to logically give here.

Either:

a) Jesus was hung on a "spit" and not immediately buried.
b) He was not hung on a "spit".

The purpose of crucifixion extended beyond just leaving the bodies hanging on a "spit" to warn others. If that was the only reason, why not always kill them other ways and then hang them up? No, crucifixion is also and even mainly about the amount of torture and humiliation while they are alive, that was worse than other methods they had come up with.

So, your either/or above just doesn't follow. We have actual evidence of Rome hanging Jews on a "spit" and then allowing Jews to take down and bury their bodies that night.

That is not what I said. As stated, time and time again, it is reasonable to accept that a homeless Jewish preacher was born, preached, and was executed for crimes related to superstition, as told from the Bible. I question the claim of the 'empty tomb'. And the 'empty tomb' claim comes from the "Gospels', and nowhere else. Thus, if you are going to reference the claim to 'prove' the claim, then I'm sorry, but this is circular. This is why I keep mentioning the 'Gospel of Nicodemus." This is why I ask if this additional 'Gospel' is deemed trustworthy to support the claim?

I haven't referenced (a) the claim to prove (b) the claim. I've referenced (a) the accepted historical principle of embarassment as to why we can trust (b) this claim. That isn't circular in any way.

As to the Gospel of Nicodemus, that is probably 4th century (possibly with slightly earlier sources), and just builds upon the Gospel details with elaboration and legendary elements, so it should not be deemed as trustworthy support to the claim.

for things like embarassing details because authors aren't in the business of making up embarassing details; rather, they are forced to include them because people know they happened.

The Gospels were not considered authoritative and/or canonized until much later. So, your point above is irrelevant. See below.

Again, their would be no embarrassment, for the reason(s) I expressed directly above.

I think you are connecting this as the "see below" from the previous quote, but correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I don't understand why you think this is a reasonable point. What does the authorization/canonization have to do with this? We are talking about the writing of the text itself. I'm saying that we should conclude that the body was asked for by a member of the Sanhedrin because that would be an embarassing detail for Christians when the text was written. Whether this would be embarassing to Christians centuries later is irrelevant.

If you could show that every single other thing the text under question claims was false, then you'd have a good reason to discount the one uncertain claim, but you don't have anything close to that. It is not rational to move from "a text has some proven falsehoods" (I'm here assuming your claim that we know a lot of things claimed in the Bible likely didn't happen) to "therefore, this next claim should be viewed as false". Rationally, one must take individual claims and look at the specific merits in each case. And pronouncements that a believer is simply making concessions to retain "faith" is not doing that.

Seems you have kind of conceded my point, at least a bit? Meaning, I bet we are in agreement that the Bible is not 'correct' about all details. If the Bible is no better than any other written attestation, from ancient antiquity, then what makes it so special to begin with at all?

I don't know why you think it seems like that. All I've said there is that some falsehoods in a text are not good enough reasons to reject a different claim in that text. I also don't think a belief that the text is correct in all sorts of claims would be a good reason to accept a different claim in that text as true either. That kind of reasoning looks really bad to me, but if you want to defend it, you could change my mind.

What we believe about whether some claims in the Bible are incorrect and whether this alone makes it nothing special are irrelevant to this conversation and I prefer to stay on track. If you want to have that discussion elsewhere, start a thread and invite me to hear my thoughts there.

Saying the alternative view to yours is based on someone being stupid is not a good reason for anyone to hold a belief. Surely, we should give our opponents better credit than that and give ourselves better credit as to why we hold the beliefs we do.

Yes it is, if we are to assume these folks somehow had enough time to wash the body, wrap the body, transport the body to the other location, place the body in the tomb, and then place a heavy stone in front of the tomb --- but somehow did not also have enough time to sprinkle the body, so they had to come back????

It's not just about sprinkling the body with a little oil or spices. Ancient societies took burials seriously and developed various elements to it and honored those. Joseph and Nicodemus used spices, so it's not like the women were like "we've got to do that last little bit that the guys just didn't have the extra 5 minutes to do." The author knows that his audience wouldn't be fooled (assuming for the sake of argument that it was how you say it was) by something so nonsensical and would have made something else up. Therefore, it makes the most sense that the women really did go to the tomb to anoint the body in some way, either to finish whatever part wasn't fully honored or that they thought wasn't fully honored.

To take one's surface understanding, without clear evidence that this absolutely would not have happened in a Jewish burial like in this scenario, that would make one's "opponent" to be a complete idiot, should give you great pause. "They were probably just idiots" seems like a horrible foundation to build one's conclusions on to me.