Re: Crucifixion, burial, PN, apologetics etc.
- Michael Turton wrote:
> Crossan is exactly right. Jesus' body rotted on the cross like thatThis statement simply ignores the evidence that I and Jack have
> of most people executed by the Romans.
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.
Calgary, AB, Canada