Occam's Razor and the Tomb

[liamconnor]

Once again, Occam's Razor demands that the simplest theory is to be preferred over those theories which multiply hypotheses (i.e., spawn the most "well maybe x"). This principle reigns supreme behind all historical beliefs, those about events from five minutes ago to those of 500 years ago. To deny the validity of this principle when the topic is polemical is, of course, to be intellectually inconsistent

Here are the facts of the problem of the tomb. Please note what I mean by a "fact". No supernatural conclusions will be made in this OP, nor are they invited. No presuppositions about "the authority of scripture" are held.

First we have the facts of the gospels. The gospels all record that Jesus was buried in a tomb by a Jewish Aristocrat named Joseph, whose ascribed origins are Arimathea. All four gospels record that women were the first to the tomb early after Sabbath, and that they discovered the tomb was empty. All four gospels attribute doubt and confusion to the disciples, male and female, as their first reaction.

Moving outside the texts and into the historical/cultural background, we may also state that women were marginalized. They were not considered valid witnesses in court and even their popular "testimony" was scoffed at.

Names are also important for our reconstruction; the time and place in question had fewer names to differentiate people; Joseph was a very common name. To differentiate identical names, other descriptions were tacked on: parentage, origins, reputation/occupation.

The next most pertinent text is 1 Cor. 15. "and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1Co 15:4 NAS)".

The Greek is καὶ ὅτι �τάφη καὶ ὅτι �γήγε�ται τῇ ἡμέ�ᾳ τῇ τ�ίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γ�αφὰς (1Co 15:4 BGT).

As it has been noted, the term �τάφη does not by itself carry the notion of a tomb. It simply means that part of the earliest kerygma about Jesus was that he was buried. I find the language here difficult to accommodate the notion that the earliest proclamation had Jesus thrown to the dogs; but a common burial, in the dirt, is not precluded by this term.

However, I should add that the the silence is not nearly as conspicuous as skeptics like to make out. 1 Cor. 15 is a creed reiterated for the converted; it is highly probable (beyond reasonable doubt) that this creed was expanded quite a bit at the original delivery. Creeds for the initiate are bound to be suppressed in details, and the location of the burial is precisely one detail we could expect would not make the cut. The creeds of the church father's do not mention the tomb, and they postdate the gospels. Every Easter Sunday I say, "he is risen" but I don't feel the need to specify "from a tomb".

I am not here arguing that because the silence is not conspicuous, therefore "tomb" is implied. I am simply saying that the silence is not conspicuous.

Those then are the facts as I see them; it is the historian's job to find a theory to account for them that multiplies the least "maybes".

If we start with a non-traditional theory (no tomb; thrown to dogs or buried in the earth) we need to account for the trajectory. How do we get from a kerygma that did not require a tomb to instill belief (the disciples, Paul, the Corinthians and presumably all the churches established before them, believed (on this theory) without the story of the tomb); to an invented story about a tomb, which also invented three very strange details: it ascribed a kindness to a member of the party responsible for the death of Jesus, giving him not only a name but specifying his identity by adding a geographical designation; it placed as first witnesses to the tomb women, and cast the disciples in disparaging colors.

Can an imaginative mind, working without the restrictions of rudimentary historical controls, and uninformed of 1st c. Palestinian culture, come up with a thousand maybes???

Of course, and that is just the problem. He will be multiplying hypotheses, spawning 'maybe's' left and right.

Occam states that the simpler explanation is to be preferred. In this case it is the traditional theory; it entails some bumps, but nothing like the torturous route required by an alternative explanation.

Of course, this says nothing about whether Jesus was raised or not. It simply means that part and parcel of the original Christian proclamation involved an empty tomb.

And Technically speaking, this does not even mean that there was an empty tomb; one who subscribes to a "conspiracy/lie" theory of Christian origins can try and make his case; but very few atheists here have defended that theory and it would be suspicious if they started to now.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Good job demolishing the Empty Tomb legend Yahwhat and alwayson

Have you guys heard the argument that 'Arimathea' means 'Best Disciple Town' ?

Here is what Peter Kirby says :

Richard Carrier speculates, "Is the word a pun on 'best disciple,' ari[stos] mathe[tes]? Matheia means 'disciple town' in Greek; Ari- is a common prefix for superiority." Since commentators have seen the burial by the outsider Joseph of Arimathea as a contrast to the failure of the disciples and intimates of Jesus, the coincidence that Arimathea can be read as "best disciple town" is staggering. Indeed, it is good evidence that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character and that the tomb burial story in the Gospel of Mark is also fictional.

(Peter Kirby runs the BC&H forum : http://earlywritings.com/forum/)

Kapyong

[Divine Insight]

you are wrong. I analyze the gospels like any other ancient document.

I have come to the conclusion that there was a Yeshua of Nazarea; that he was crucified; that he was buried in a tomb; and that that tomb was discovered empty.

Don't you think there's a huge problem with this?

Even if this account had been recorded by a qualified historian it could still be in error.

Did the historian recording these vents personally verify that Jesus had actually died and was indeed placed in a tomb?

You aren't even taking into account that the historian himself could have been mistaken or have simply recorded hearsay rumors that were floating around.

I regard the entire Bible as independent documents; like the documents of Herodotus and Livy and Plutarch.

Well, there's your first mistake right there. The authors of the Gospels don't even claim to be qualified historians. So if you are regarding their documents as having the same credibility as actual historians you've already made a grave mistake.

Note that the authors of the New Testament Gospels were obsessed with preaching that Jesus was the son of God. They were definitely not just reporting historical records in general. Their bias toward preaching about Jesus was crystal clear.

When you ignore that you are rejecting any and all historical credibility. No historian worth his or her salt is going to give much credibility to rumors that focus on proclaiming supernatural claims about a single individual while ignoring history in general.

In fact, you also fail to realize that while you might not give a hoot about all the supernatural baloney that is contained in the Gospels, any real historian would not let that go unnoticed.

So just because you dismiss the supernatural claims doesn't mean they aren't part of the Gospel narrative.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too by only addressing the non-miracle claims of these documents while pretending that they don't matter.

Sorry, but if you're going to hold the Gospels up as a historical document, then you need to address everything that they have to say. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious baloney contained within them shows that even you don't take them seriously.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The Empty Tomb legend does not appear in the Christian record until over a century after the alleged event. Here is a list of early Christian writings by decade :

<50s>
Paul - NO empty tomb

<60s>
Hebrews - NO empty tomb

<80s>
Colossians, 1 John, James - NO empty tomb

<90s>
Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation - NO empty tomb

<100s>
The Didakhe, Jude - NO empty tomb

<110s>
Barnabas - NO empty tomb

<120s>
2 John, 3 John, G.Thomas - NO empty tomb

<130s>
Papias, 2 Peter, The Pastorals, G.Peter - NO empty tomb

<140s>
to Diognetus, Ep.Apostles, 2 Clement, Aristides - NO empty tomb

The Empty Tomb legend does not appear in the Christian writings until Justin Martyr in the 150s - well over a CENTURY after the alleged event.

Sure, the Gospels mention the Empty Tomb legend - but the Gospels themselves do not appear in the Christian writings until the same late time - Justin Martyr (possibly excepting Papias, also Aristides.)

<50s>
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

<60s>
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

<80s>
Colossians, 1 John, James - NO Gospel mentions

<90s>
Ephesians, 2 Thess., 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

<100s>
The Didakhe, Jude - NO Gospel mentions

<110s>
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

<120s>
2 John, 3 John, G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

<130s>
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter, The Pastorals, G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions

<140s>
to Diognetus, Ep.Apostles, 2 Clement, Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached in 138-161CE

<150s>
Justin refers to "memoirs of the apostles" which are "also called Gospels". But he gives no names, and his quotes are not identical to modern Gospels.


The conclusions are clear :

No early Christian writer shows any knowledge of the Empty Tomb legend until Justin Martyr in the 150s.

No early Christian writer shows any knowledge of the Gospels until Justin Martyr in the 150s, or slightly earlier.

The Empty Tomb legend came only from the Gospels, which only became known to Christians a century or so after the alleged events - Gospels which are mythical literature, based on previous books e.g. the Tanakh and Greek works.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

So,
Occam's Razor tells us to :
"Chop off what's not needed."

Here is what we can chop off, as not needed to explain Christianity's origins :

* the Empty Tomb
* the crucifixion of Jesus
* the resurrection of Jesus
* the very existence of a historical Jesus
* the Twelve Apostles
* any disciples/followers of Jesus
* Mary, Joseph, Lazarus, Joseph of Best-Disciple-Town (Arimathea) etc. etc.

All myths / legends / fictions.

Kapyong

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Occam states that the simpler explanation is to be preferred. In this case it is the traditional theory; it entails some bumps, but nothing like the torturous route required by an alternative explanation.

By traditional theory, I'm assuming you mean Paul's account, no?

Of course, this says nothing about whether Jesus was raised or not. It simply means that part and parcel of the original Christian proclamation involved an empty tomb.

I disagree. The original proclamation said nothing about an empty tomb. Paul just refers to Christ being buried and risen. The stories contained in the gospel narratives came later.

And Technically speaking, this does not even mean that there was an empty tomb; one who subscribes to a "conspiracy/lie" theory of Christian origins can try and make his case; but very few atheists here have defended that theory and it would be suspicious if they started to now.

The empty tomb seems to be an allegory illustrating Christ's teachings. Christ taught to deny yourself. When one denies themselves they begin to see that they are not their body. Their body is something they have. When someone dies we say that they are gone, but their body remains. We call what remains, "their remains". The body was never who they were. Your body is not who you are. it is merely a referent for identification. Looking beyond the body is to look beyond identification or identity. The empty tomb is an illustration of what is left when one has discarded identity and denied themselves.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 81 by liamconnor]

Admit what?
You submit the Gospels as facts.
You submit the tombs as facts.
It is a premise of your OP. We can't discuss your topic by undermining it.
So yes, for the sake of having a reasonable discussion about your op, we must grant its assumptions.

But it isn't admitting anything.

Do you admit that thousands of empty tombs prove the same thing as your submission?

you are wrong. I analyze the gospels like any other ancient document.

I have come to the conclusion that there was a Yeshua of Nazarea; that he was crucified; that he was buried in a tomb; and that that tomb was discovered empty.

I have made no claim about the inspiration of anything.

Perhaps you should make a note of me as one who aspires to real history...?

I regard the entire Bible as independent documents; like the documents of Herodotus and Livy and Plutarch.

Are you able to understand this? Or should I ignore your posts in the future because you are incapable or refused to understand my position?

I appreciate your aspirations to real history, but suspect you haven't looked closely at the origins of these gospel narratives which emerged from within the synagogue's liturgical calendar. This is history that can be verified from the Acts of the Apostles. We know that the early church was quite vocal and proactive in converting gentiles who were then brought into the synagogues. Eventually there was a schism and this new sect was cast out of the synagogues, and their commentaries that follow the liturgical calendar (i.e. the gospels) were cast out with them.

The Jewish culture is a story telling culture. This is how they convey timeless truths. One doesn't need to be inspired to convey history. When one becomes familiar with the Jewish liturgical calendar the gospel narratives follow each feast like a hand into a glove. Just a coincidence? Occam's razor becomes a potent tool to cut away the nonsense. What remains isn't history, but the truth.

[Goose]

Yet, the fact that the evidence is ambiguous doesn't keep you from making the unambiguous claim that the guy's legs were broken specifically in order to speed up death and receive an immediate burial. Weird...

Why is that weird? All archaeological finds must be interpreted. Which inevitably brings at least some disagreement between scholars. Paleontologists disagree over the interpretation of the fossil record all the time. So simply counter arguing that two scholars disagree over the interpretation of when Yehohanan’s legs were broken doesn’t really accomplish much.

Go ahead and offer another explanation for why and when Yehonanan’s legs were broken. Provide your supporting evidence. As it stands the evidence of Yehohanan is consistent with the evidence found in the NT. Even non-Christian archaeologists like Magness agree.

If his only evidence is Josephus Against Apion 2.73 then Ehrman's already dealt with that.

Missing the point again (a common theme I’ve noticed). You appealed to the authority of Zias in regards to his conclusions about Yehohanan’s legs being broken. But regardless of what Zias may have concluded about Yehohanan he has concluded that crucified Jews were granted burial by the Romans. Now, if you are counter arguing that Zias’ conclusions are unsound regarding the latter conclusion then why should we think his conclusions are sound regarding the former?

But since you mentioned Ehrman here. Did he compellingly deal with the passage in Against Apion 2? I don’t think he did.

a. Josephus is not talking about burial laws or customs. You can read the passage on line for yourself. Josephus is referring to the national law of the Jews that did not allow them to make images, let alone images of foreign rulers. If Jews were required to make images, it would be a violation of their religious tradition – as in, e.g., the Ten Commandments. Josephus is saying something specific here: when the Romans conquered Judea, they did not force them to break their national laws against idolatry and so they exempted them from requiring images of the emperor, allowing them, instead, to pray for the emperor and sacrifice on his behalf in order to show all due honor to him. Josephus is not talking about *all* Jewish practices; only about their customs with respect to idolatry.

Indeed, Josephus is talking about all practices of all subjects, including the Jews, under the Romans...

�Whereas [Apion] ought rather to have admired the magnanimity and modesty of the Romans; whereby [the Romans] do not compel those that are subject to them to transgress the laws of their countries.� - Josephus, Against Apion 2.6

Now let’s think logically about what Ehrman is suggesting here. He is arguing that the Romans were sympathetic enough to Jewish customs to “not force [the Jews] to break their national laws against idolatry.� But, on the other hand, would not be sympathetic to Jewish customs when it came to allowing them to keep to their laws regarding the burial of the dead before sunset to avoid defiling the land. The argument isn’t even coherent. Why on earth would the Romans allow the former and not allow the latter? Either the Romans were sympathetic to the laws of their subjected nations or they weren’t. And it seems Josephus is saying the Romans were. There’s no reason to think the Romans would be sympathetic to only the Jewish laws regarding idolatry. Especially when we consider the Jewish laws regarding idolatry lead to the grave situation of being thought to not be worshiping the gods and/or the Emperor. As opposed to say the more mundane law of bury a dead person before the sun goes down.

The broken leg bones are not connected to the ankle with the nail in it.

That’s not what is being suggested in the image. It’s showing the left tibia and fibula were broken. The author has concluded these breaks happened after death. Again, where are you getting this idea that the broken leg bones are not Yehonanan’s implying that his legs may not have been broken? Because, as far as I can see, that’s not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the talus bone belongs to Yehonanan and when his leg bones were broken.

But you don't know how long he was on the cross for! If he was left up to rot and picked apart by birds (per the sources) before he was allowed to be buried then, no, that wouldn't be consistent with the same day burial Jesus receives in the gospels now would it?

I don’t need to know how long he was on the cross for to know that Yehohanan was buried in a Jewish family tomb thereby establishing the implied claim in the Gospels that crucified victims were buried in Jewish family tombs.

The point is we don't know. This is your argument. You need to show the evidence of how Yehohanan received an immediate burial. Now that I've shown that the broken leg evidence is disputed and cannot be used to support an immediate burial it looks like you're out of luck.

Until you can provide an alternate explanation that better explains the evidence (or falsify the explanation that Yehonanan was buried in his family tomb following his death) then we have no good reason to reject this explanation as it explains all the data.

I was talking about the legs being broken prior to and in a completely unrelated way to crucifixion. He could have been beaten or had a accident where he broke his legs.

Yeah cuz he could’ve fallen down a flight stairs right before he got crucified. I think we can safely rule that out as pure unsupported speculation the idea that he had an “accident� which happened to break his left tibia and fibula just moments beofre crucifixion.

As for being beaten before he was crucified. That’s a real possibility. But where is the evidence that crucified victims were beaten so badly before crucifixion that their legs were broken? Breaking the legs before crucifixion would have prevented the victim from being able to carry his cross to the crucifixion location. That seems counterproductive.

�And as every malefactor who suffers in his body bears his own cross to the place of his execution� – Plutarch, Moralia, On the Delays of Divine Vengeance 9.

�O riddle for the executioner, as I guess it will turn out; they’ll be so pinking with you goads, as you carry your cross along the streets one day...� – Plautus, The Charcoal Woman 2.

�I think that in that self-same position you will have to die outside the gates, when, with hands outstretched, you will be carrying your cross.� - Plautus, Miles Gloriosus2.8

�They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in [j]Hebrew, Golgotha.� – John 19:17

I think we can safely rule out intentional leg breaking by the Romans prior to crucifixion.

The assumption that the legs were broken "in order to speed up death on the cross" is not actually supported by any conclusive evidence and Zias actually concludes that the breaking happened post mortem.

Sure but why does he conclude that? And let’s not forget Zias also concludes that “aside from the Jews, most victims crucified by the Romans were not allotted a proper burial.�

And so that means his interment in the ossuary most likely wasn't his initial burial.

And? Jesus’ initial burial wouldn’t have been his final resting place either.

Was he placed in a criminal's graveyard beforehand? Was he buried in the ground first?

And what is the evidence that Yehohanan was?

Was his corpse stolen when the Romans weren't looking?

Grasping at straws here.

Had the Romans disposed of him in a pit and his relatives retrieved his body later?

Now why would the Romans let his family retrieve the body from a pit for burial if they wouldn’t let his family take down the dead body from the cross for burial? Think about that. If they could retrieve the dead body of Yehohanan from a pit they could retrieve it from the cross.

Had his body already decayed due prolonged exposure to the elements and being eaten by animals prior to the initial burial?

And what if he had?

So many questions left unanswered.

None of your questions have any relevance to the main point being made. Further, the tomb Yehohanan was discovered in contained multiple loculi intended for initial burial. He was probably put there initially. That’s the simplest explanation.

It's consistent insofar as it opens up the mere possibility that Jesus might have eventually received a burial. Congratulations.

A burial in a Jewish family tomb.

However, that doesn't necessarily make the same day burial of Jesus, the convicted blasphemer and crucified "King of the Jews," as recorded in the Gospels, probable.

Hold on. Have you decided whether or not Jesus was guilty of blasphemy or not? Did he or did he not violate the Mishnah?

But go ahead and affirm for me once again that the Gospels reliably record Jesus’ trial, charge of blasphemy, and title “King of the Jews� given by the Romans. Go ahead and do that for me again. It’s always a pleasure watching you fall on your own sword.

Your "arguments" all presupposed Roman citizenship which just supports what I've been saying! Losing "Roman citizenship" requires having it in the first place which is further confirmation that the Digesta dealt specifically with Roman citizens! You need to provide evidence that the capital punishment clauses in the 6th century Digesta necessarily applied to "non-Roman" criminals in foreign countries during the 1st century. Good luck with that when all the evidence we have actually contradicts that hypothesis.

Losing Roman citizenship meant they were no longer considered Roman citizens. That meant they no longer had the rights of a Roman citizen and were on par with Jesus at that point in terms of rights to burial. And yet they could still be granted burial according to the Digesta.

Do we see the Digesta principle in practice in regards to crucifixion victims? Since the Digesta supposedly goes back to the days of Augustus let's see what he had to say!

Suetonius, Augustus 13:
For instance, to one man who begged humbly for burial, he is said to have replied: "The carrion birds will soon settle that question."

But this supports the Digesta law! Suetonius presupposes the possibility of burial here. That’s why the man begged for burial. Why beg for burial if there is no chance for it?

And besides, this isn’t really the same context as the Digesta law where it applies to those who ask for the body of the victim post mortem. This quote from Suetonius has the victim himself asking for burial. And how do you know the response from Augustus to the man wasn’t just a pithy reply to cause further tormenting? How do you know he wasn’t actually given a burial? You don’t. You’re assuming he wasn’t.

And just a few verses later we read this about Marc Antony who had been “declared a public enemy.�

�[Augustus] allowed [Marc Antony and Cleopatra] the honour of burial, and in the same tomb, giving orders that the mausoleum which they had begun should be finished.� – Suetonius, Augustus 17.

But since Augustus wasn't actually emperor when Jesus was crucified let's see what Tacitus says about what happened when Tiberius was in power. He says suicide was preferable to avoid being executed by the state, since anyone who was legally condemned and executed “forfeited his estate and was deprived of burial� (Annals 6.29h).

Tacitus also wrote...

�Even an enemy grudges not burial.� - Annals 1.22

And...

�[Otho] suffered the bodies to be given up for burial, and to be burnt. For Piso, the last rites were performed by his wife Verania and his brother Scribonianus; for Vinius, by his daughter Crispina, their heads having been discovered and purchased from the murderers, who had reserved them for sale.� – Histories 1.47

But coming back to Annals 6.29. This appears to be a reference to the type of politically motivated proscription-like acts of Tiberius (Dio, Roman History 58.24) in which burial rites, along with inheritance rights, etc could be lost. Here’s the quote:

�Rome meanwhile being a scene of ceaseless bloodshed, Pomponius Labeo, who was, as I have related, governor of Mœsia, severed his veins and let his life ebb from him. His wife, Paxæa, emulated her husband. What made such deaths eagerly sought was dread of the executioner, and the fact too that the condemned, besides forfeiture of their property, were deprived of burial, while those who decided their fate themselves, had their bodies interred, and their wills re- mained valid, a recompense this for their despatch. “

So it doesn't really fit the context of Jesus. However, even in these proscription-like cases burial could be granted.

“To [Dolabella and Marcus Octavius] burial was conceded by Cassius, although they had cast out Trebonius unburied; and the men who had participated in the campaign with them and survived obtained both safety and pardon, in spite of their having been regarded as enemies by the Romans at home.� - Cassius Dio, Roman History 47.30

“[Brutus’] body received burial at Antony's hands — all but his head, which was sent to Rome� – Cassius Dio, 47.49

So we have plenty of cases where burial was granted. Sometimes it was granted, sometimes it wasn’t. Consistent with the Digesta law.

Were the martyrs at Lyons granted a requested burial? Nope.

Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62): The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, "We could not bury the bodies in the earth...neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain."

The context here is a brutal Roman persecution of Christianity in 177 AD under Marcus Aurelius. Of course we would expect crucified Christians to be left on display and refused burial.

Look, you can cite all the anecdotal cases of being denied burial you can find but they don’t overturn the Digesta law. We already know that burial could be denied. The Digesta law itself implies that. The point is, there was no law preventing burial and Digesta law suggests burial could be granted upon request.

Let's look at some Rabbinic sources to see if the treatment of Jews faired any better, shall we?

Semahot II.11[44b]
[A wife] whose husband was crucified in her city, [a man] whose wife is crucified in his city, [a person] whose father and his mother are crucified [in] his [city] - [such a person] should not dwell in that city, unless a city as large as Antioch. He [whose family member was crucified] should not dwell within this border; rather, [such a] mourner should dwell within another border. Until when is this forbidden? Until the flesh was consumed, and there is not the form [of the person] remembered in the bones.

This doesn’t mean the body was left on the cross to rot. It’s referring to the time between initial burial and secondary burial after the flesh had decomposed. In this case, the mourner had to live elsewhere until the flesh had completely decomposed and the bones were ready for second burial.

Semahot II.9[44b]
[Concerning] those executed by a government - there shall not be a withholding from them of any matter [i.e., of any funeral rite]. When do they begin to count their death? From the time they give up hope from asking [for the corpse], but not from stealing [the corpse]. Everyone who steals [the corpse], such a person is [like] one who sheds blood - and not only like one who sheds blood, but also as like one who serves foreign idols, and one who uncovers naked¬ness, and one who profanes Sabbaths.

What on earth? If it is the Roman government which is meant here, this supports the Digesta. First, notice how it suggests that there shall be no withholding of funeral rites? Secondly, it says they begin counting death from the time when they give up hope of asking for the corpse. So it in fact this supports the Digesta in as much as it implies they would ask for the body with the hope of it being granted. It doesn’t say bodies were never granted for burial. Indeed, it implies there was hope for burial.

In these passages it's just taken for granted that the bodies will remain up to rot and it's hopeless to request they be taken down. How can this be the case if the Digesta law was in practice? Obviously, it wasn't.

Because the Digesta law wasn’t a guarantee the body would be granted for burial. It was an ought law, not an absolute. The final decision to grant burial always fell to the Roman authorities.

I already gave the evidence from Raymond Brown saying the Digesta was juxta ordinem - i.e. dealt with Roman citizens in Rome. You just hand waved that away.

How can I be hand waiving away evidence that supports the Gospel accounts?

Exactly. Where are the sources that say what happened to crucifixion victims during peacetime?

Josephus, Philo, Yehohanan, and all four Gospel accounts.

Again, Jesus was crucified for sedition or treason so even if it was peacetime we can't assume he would be given a proper burial.

No he wasn’t crucified for sedition or treason and I provided numerous arguments as to why. Stop making this unsupported assertion unless you can prove it without appealing the historical reliability of the Gospels to record events.

The Digesta actually says granting the body for burial didn't apply for those convicted of treason.

Wrong.

�The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book of his Life, said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason.�- Digesta (48.24.1)

Sometimes permission is not granted, especially in a case of treason. But not always refused. It could be granted, even in the case of treason. Again, it was up to the Roman authority.

The word καταδίκης contains the word δίκη dike which can also refer to punishment.

1) custom, usage
2) right, just
3) a suit at law
4) a judicial hearing, judicial decision, esp. sentence of condemnation
5) execution of a sentence, punishment
5a) to suffer punishment
6) the goddess Justice, avenging justice
http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1349.html

So that word can imply both the judgement and punishment.

But that’s not the word Josephus uses. If he had meant δίκη he could have just used it. But he doesn’t. He uses καταδίκης.

The prefix κατά rules this out as a reference to the actual punishment itself which is why it is translated as “condemned.� How can an actual punishment be “according to� or “down�? And besides where else is καταδίκης ever used to refer to the actual punishment itself?

If that's the case then he could still be referring to a Jewish judiciary death sentence and a post mortem suspension.

You don’t get to assert this was a reference to post mortem suspension until you overturn the arguments I made (here), which you ignored entirely, that this was a reference to death by crucifixion and not post mortem suspension.

Some of the translations render the word καταδίκης as "malefactors" which would imply they were already considered guilty and may have already been executed.

A malefactor is a criminal, the condemned. A malefactor is not an executed person.

In any case, there's no reason to restrict the word to meaning the "condemnation" only as the wording is completely consistent with a condemned criminal being executed by Jews then suspended post-mortem.

Nope. The wording of Wars 4.317 specifically implies judgment -> death by crucifixion -> burial.

It actually makes perfect sense in the context too since Josephus is citing Deut 21 and contrasting that with the behavior of the Idumeans who were not practicing what Deut 21 teaches.

The contrast Josephus is making is in relation to the burial of the dead, not the form of death. Josephus says the Idumeans, “cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.� The idea being that Jews were so careful about burial that they buried crucified victims before sunset whereas the Idumeans just threw dead bodies away without burial

As I mentioned earlier there is evidence in the Qumran literature 4QPNahum and 11QTemple that some Jews in the BCE period may have practiced crucifixion. There is no contradiction if it was no longer practiced by Jews in the 1st century, and thus, not mentioned as a formal type of punishment in the Mishnah.

That undermines your whole counter argument then. In Wars 4.317 Josephus is specifically referring to events in the second half of the first century. So if by your own admission Jews no longer practised crucifixion in the first century your evidence for the practice in the B.C. era is irrelevant. And we then have, by your own admission, another implied contextural Roman qualifier. At the very least, using your reasoning here, Wars 4.317 cannot be a reference to Jews crucifying Jews.

4QPNahum
"the Lion of Wrath [...] death in the Seekers-after-Smooth-Things, whom he hangs as live men [...] in Israel from of old, for of one hanged alive on the tree [it] reads, Behold I am against you..."

"The crucial crucifixion passage appears in lines six to eight. That the phrase in line seven ("who will hang up living men") refers to crucifixion, while initially debated, has now long been the scholarly consensus." - David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, pg. 60.

But this doesn’t say Jews crucified.

11QTemple is relevant because the author interprets Deut 21:22-23 differently and reverses the order of the punishment for certain crimes.

"If a man will be a slanderer against my people and surrenders my people to a foreign nation and does evil against my people then you [plural] shall hang him on the tree and he shall die on the mouth of two witnesses and on the mouth of three witnesses he shall be put to death, and they shall hang him [on] the tree. If there is in a man a sin bearing a judgment of death and he has fled to the midst of the nations and he has cursed my people [and] the sons of Israel then you [pl.] shall also hang him on the tree, and he shall die. And their corpse shall not spend the night on the tree, but you shall surely bury them in that day, for those who are hung on the tree have been cursed of God and men, and you shall not defile the land, which give to you as an inheritance."

It also gets the order correct. Is this simply a mistake by the writer? Hardly evidence the Jews practised crucifixion.

This latter text would seem to show that crucifixion was an official punishment by Jews and, thus, would also fill the criteria for what Josephus is talking about in JW 4.317.

So you agree that Wars 4.317 is in reference to an offical punishment then. That’s good. Too bad you also argued that Jews no longer used crucifixion as an offical punishment by the first century AD. You can’t even keep your argument internally consistent.

Josephus could have been familiar with crucifixion being used by some Jews in ancient Israel's history, he could have simply been mistaken, or he was referring to post mortem suspensions. You still don't have the "Roman" qualifier you need, implicit or otherwise.

�Could have been� isn’t an argument. And I don’t need a Roman qualifier anyway to make the argument.

I just showed that to not necessarily be the case and Josephus was writing at a time period about the War which was when the Romans would not have been granting burial.

Which is a contextural reason to think Josephus was referring to Roman crucifixion. And your point here is irrelevant to the argument being made anyway. The point of the argument isn’t that Wars 4.317 showed Romans always granted burial to Jews even during a time of conflict. We already know they didn’t. The point is that Jews buried crucificed victims before sunset. It’s implied that this was obisously only done when Romans did grant crucified bodied to the Jews for burial.

So there's even more reason to believe he's not talking about Roman crucifixion in JW 4.317.

It wouldn’t matter even if he wasn’t. That’s not the main point. Your demand for a Roman qualifier is irrelevant to that point which is that Jews were careful to bury crucified victims before sunset.

Most of your counter arguments are Red Herrings and amount to little more than attempts to block inferences. You aren’t arguing for an a better explanation of the evidence.

Just to clarify, here’s a summary of what’s being argued in reference to the three pieces of evidence you cited in post 86.

1. Yehohanan – evidence that Jews buried crucified victims in family tombs.

2. The Digesta – evidence that the body of an executed person could be granted for burial. Even if that person was executed for treason.

3. Josephus Wars 4.317 – evidence that Jews were careful to bury crucified victims before sunset.

These arguments and lines of evidence are all consistent with the Gospels. After several pages and a lot of words you haven't been able to overturn these three arguments or show how they are inconsistent with the Gospels. Indeed, if you could you would have done it by now.

[YahWhat]

1. Yehohanan – evidence that Jews buried crucified victims in family tombs.

That's not the main issue of what's being debated. What is being debated is if the Romans granted permission for a burial of a foreign crucifixion victim convicted of sedition/treason the same day the death occurs - as in the case of Jesus in the gospel depictions. You can't use Yehohanan as evidence for that due to the uncertainty of how long his body was on the cross for and without knowing exactly how or when it was acquired by the family. Secondly, as I've already mentioned, the gospels say Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and was, hence, a Jewish criminal who would have received a criminal's burial i.e. most likely would not have been buried in a family tomb. We do not have evidence Yehohanan was considered a Jewish criminal.

2. The Digesta – evidence that the body of an executed person could be granted for burial. Even if that person was executed for treason.

And did this necessarily apply in the 1st century to a Jewish political enemy who was crucified? Does the Digesta even mention crucifixion? The Romans typically didn't crucify their own citizens so the burial rules in the Digesta didn't necessarily apply in the case of crucifixion where denial of burial was part of the punishment. If the Roman Digesta only applied to Roman citizens in Rome, then losing citizenship would mean the rules would no longer apply to those individuals. Moreover, the Romans were notorious for not always following the rules. So even if there was a law in place in the first century, it doesn't necessarily mean that Pilate followed it. In fact, he was eventually removed from his post for not keeping good relations with the Jews. That's not what we would expect if he was respecting their sensitivities. It's anachronistic to assume that this 6th century document (which applied only to Roman citizens in Rome at the time) necessarily applied to crucified foreigners in other lands convicted of a political crime in the 1st century whose fate would have been left up to the local magistrate. Lastly, the Digesta also states "the corpses of executed people are buried as if permission had been asked for and granted, with some exceptions, especially when the charge was high treason." You don't just get to cherry pick the first part and ignore the possibility that Jesus might have been one of these exceptions, especially when you still haven't met your burden of proof in demonstrating that the Digesta would even apply to a non-Roman citizen like Jesus.

You yourself say:

"Sometimes it was granted, sometimes it wasn’t."

Which makes your use of the Digesta as evidence in concluding "therefore, a burial would have been granted to Jesus" all the more dubious.

This doesn’t mean the body was left on the cross to rot. It’s referring to the time between initial burial and secondary burial after the flesh had decomposed. In this case, the mourner had to live elsewhere until the flesh had completely decomposed and the bones were ready for second burial.

Uh, no. The text doesn't say the person was granted to be buried. It says if a person is crucified then the family members should leave the city until the body is no longer recognizable. You're just misrepresenting what the text actually says.

What on earth? If it is the Roman government which is meant here, this supports the Digesta. First, notice how it suggests that there shall be no withholding of funeral rites? Secondly, it says they begin counting death from the time when they give up hope of asking for the corpse. So it in fact this supports the Digesta in as much as it implies they would ask for the body with the hope of it being granted. It doesn’t say bodies were never granted for burial. Indeed, it implies there was hope for burial.

The point is that, if a body was granted to be buried, then considerable time had already passed. Why else would it say they "gave up hope for asking?" Why would it mention "stealing the body" unless the body was withheld from them? Obviously, it's implied that the corpse may be difficult to obtain. In regards to "funeral rites," it means that "the family should engage in the typical public mourning-rites for a person executed by the Romans (even without access to the corpse)" - David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perception of Crucifixion, pg. 202.

In addition to all the other aforementioned texts describing crucifixion which you either wish to ignore or desperately try to explain away, I've found some more written by Roman contemporaries of Jesus:

"Nature has given forms of burial for all: the wave which flings shipwrecked mar- iners into the sea also buried them; the bodies of those fastened to crosses decompose into their own burial; the punishment buries those who are burned alive." - Seneca the Elder, Controversies 8.4.1

"She breaks with her teeth the fatal noose, and mangles the carcass that hangs on the gallows, and scrapes the cross of the criminal; she tears away the rain- beaten flesh and the bones calcined by exposure to the sun. She purloins the nails that pierced the hands, the clotted filth, and the black humor of corruption that oozes over all the limbs; and when a muscle resists her teeth, she hangs her weight upon it." - Lucan, 6.543-9.

"Orontes the prefect of king Darius fixed him to a cross on the highest peak of mount Mycale. There Samos, with rejoicing eyes, observed his decaying limbs and members dripping with putrefying blood and his decayed left hand..." - Plutarch, Valerius Maximus 6.9

That makes about 15 sources so far, all of which, paint a consistent picture in that crucifixion victims were left up to rot. This is overwhelming evidence that contradicts the Digesta.

No he wasn’t crucified for sedition or treason and I provided numerous arguments as to why.

While execution for treason is debatable, the scholarly consensus maintains that Jesus was executed for sedition. Your arguments are not convincing.

3. Josephus Wars 4.317 – evidence that Jews were careful to bury crucified victims before sunset.

This is too ambiguous to necessarily refer to Roman crucifixion since Josephus uses the same word for Jewish post-mortem suspensions. Your interpretation of καταδίκης in the passage is not a necessary one, yet, you're acting as if it is.

And besides where else is καταδίκης ever used to refer to the actual punishment itself?

In Antiquities 17.338 Josephus uses καταδίκη to refer to people who were punished.

"for as for the people of Melos, he thought them sufficiently punished, in having thrown away so much of their money upon this spurious Alexander. And such was the ignominious conclusion of this bold contrivance about the spurious Alexander."

When speaking of a Roman judicial charge in regards to crucifixion, Josephus employs the specific term αἰτίαν which is the same term used of Jesus in Mark 15:26 - "The inscription of the charge (αἰτίαν) against him read, “The King of the Jews.�

"Varus sent part of the army throughout the land seeking the instigators of the sedition. And when they were discovered, some he punished as the guiltiest, but others he released. He crucified 2000 on this charge (αἰτίαν)." - Antiquities 17.295

In regards to JW 4.317 we don't have an explicit Roman judicial charge and claiming "it's implied" isn't necessarily the case. An executed malefactor is still a "condemned criminal," only now he's a dead one! The fact that Josephus cites Deut 21:22-23 is more support that he has the execution first and post-mortem suspension in mind here. But even if he doesn't, along with the previous evidence I gave for crucifixion formerly being an official form of Jewish punishment, Philo indicates something similar on his exposition of Deut 21.

Philo, On the Special Laws 3.151-152:

'the lawgiver (if indeed it was possible) would on the one hand appoint myriads of deaths against them; but, since this was not possible, He ordained besides another punishment, commanding those who took human life to be crucified (άνασκολοπίζω). And, after ordering this, He hastens again to his philanthropy, being subdued toward those who had worked savage acts; and He says, "Do not let the sun set upon those who have been crucified, but let them be concealed in the earth, having been taken down before sunset." For it was necessary to raise up the enemies with respect to all the parts of the cosmos, in order that they on the one hand be displayed publicly to sun and heaven and air and water and earth as pun­ished, and again to drag [them] down to the place of the dead and also to bury [them], in order that they not defile the things above the earth.'

I've mentioned this already but since Josephus and Philo were both writing during a time of Roman crucifixion, that is what they would have been familiar with. Therefore, they could have simply been mistaken in assuming that the Jews practiced the same type of crucifixion that the Romans did and that's why we see them applying crucifixion language to their writings which expound on Deut 21:22-23. Since I've discovered no less than 3 other possibilities in regards to what Josephus actually means (post-mortem suspension, formal punishment by Jews, mistaken in assuming Jews practiced Roman crucifixion) that entails your conclusion "Josephus was referring to Roman crucifixion in JW 4.317" is not a necessary one nor a probable one since each of the other conclusions can be argued to be more probable given the total evidence in regards to what we know about Roman crucifixion practice and their refusal of burial. Without it actually saying crucifixion "by the Romans" you're necessarily having to read that assumption in.

These arguments and lines of evidence are all consistent with the Gospels. After several pages and a lot of words you haven't been able to overturn these three arguments or show how they are inconsistent with the Gospels. Indeed, if you could you would have done it by now.

The only "evidence" you have for Jesus' burial is Mark. All the other gospel authors copied it or inherited the story from him. Your "evidence," therefore, is propped upon stilts.

[The Nice Centurion]

.

Occam states that the simpler explanation is to be preferred.

Occam is overrated.

Those who seek truth and accuracy prefer a CORRECT explanation, regardless of its complexity or simplicity.

The simpler 'explanation' for lightening and thunder is 'God(s) did it'. A much more complex explanation involves knowledge and consideration of atmospheric processes. Shall we go with the simpler one?

In this case it is the traditional theory; it entails some bumps,

Would 'some bumps' include
1. No assurance a body was placed in a tomb (no actual witness accounts)
2. No assurance said tomb was found empty (no actual witness accounts)
3. No assurance that even if there was an empty tomb, that indicates the deceased came back to life and left. (no actual witness accounts)
4. No assurance that claims of seeing the deceased alive and well (no actual witness accounts)

Unverifiable tales about an empty tomb, assumptions that deceased came back to life and left, tales about the deceased being seen . . . VERY solid stuff -- Right?

but nothing like the torturous route required by an alternative explanation.

The 'torturous route' -- people are known to make up stories claiming to know about events that never happened -- people are known to exaggerate stories in folklore.

"A god did it !" is no simple explanation for lightning and thunder. It only sounds simpler if you are not thinking!
Too many complications come with this explanation; like how came that god to be or how and why(now) does he produce lightning and thunder? How does he avoid getting struck by lightning and deaf from thunder?
"A god did it!" is despised today more because of its complications and not for simplicity.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to liamconnor in post #1]

Occam's razor wittles it down to penmanship. A guy wrote a story that included an empty tomb scene. That was easy.