Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Crucifixion, burial, PN, apologetics etc.

Expand Messages
  • bjtraff
    ... This statement simply ignores the evidence that I and Jack have already presented that this was most definitely *not* what happened to people cruficied at
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael Turton wrote:

      > Crossan is exactly right. Jesus' body rotted on the cross like that
      > of most people executed by the Romans.

      This statement simply ignores the evidence that I and Jack have
      already presented that this was most definitely *not* what happened
      to people cruficied at or around the time of Jesus. The rules for
      the Jews, and especially Palestinian Jews were different, and that
      difference came from decrees handed down by both Julius and Augustus
      Caesar. Until someone establishes *with evidence* (as opposed to
      conjecture) that the norm in peacetime was to let people rot on a
      cross outside Jerusalem (including overnight), the working assumption
      of the historian should remain that the examples of Jesus as given in
      the Gospel accounts *and* Paul that he was buried. This is supported
      by the lone piece of archaeological evidence available to us from the
      burial site of Yehohanan ben hgqul, who was crucified and most
      certainly buried, the report from Josephus that this was the norm for
      Jews (found in _Jewish Wars_), and the complaint of Philo against
      Flaccus when Flaccus *did* violate this practice on the occassion of
      the emperor's birthday.

      I must say, I am very dissappointed that against the evidence offered
      by me, Jack, and a number of others on this list, in support of the
      probable burial of Jesus, I have yet to see a single sceptic offer
      anything beyond assertions based on Roman practices during wartime
      (and specifically during the brutal suppression of the 66-74 CE
      Jewish rebellion). Obviously one may hold to any belief one so
      chooses, but when this is done against the evidence, and without
      supports of its own, the assertions border on polemics rather than
      sound historical methodology.

      Again I will ask, what evidence do we have that there was widespread
      use of crucifixion from 7 CE to 66 CE in Palestine, especially in
      Jerusalem? From that evidence, how much additional evidence do we
      have in support Crossan's assertion that the norm was to let corps'
      rot on the cross, even against Jewish religious laws, customs and
      norms? In fact, what evidence is there that the Romans flagrantly
      and regularly violated Jewish religious laws on *any matter* during
      this period of peacetime? The Sanhedrin was set up deliberately, and
      used by the Romans. When the mad Caligula decided to erect his statue
      in the Temple, it was the ROMAN generals on the spot who appealed to
      him not to do this thing, and they prevailed. When, earlier, Pilate
      had erected pagan shields within Jerusalem, it was the outrage of the
      local Jews that forced his hand, and caused him to remove them.
      Given the weight of all of this evidence, on what basis should we
      think that it was the custom of the Romans to then ignore the
      Sanhedrin, and Jewish sensibilities on a regular basis, especially
      without cause or provocation?

      If the evidence is out there, then I have yet to see it. I do not
      think that it is too much to ask for this evidence to be produced.

      Brian Trafford
      Calgary, AB, Canada
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.