(Ron) Burial of Crucifixion Victims

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>>RON

>>  The point is Edwards, that the ONLY crucified victim found by

>>archaeologists DID receive proper Jewish burial.

>

>EDWARDS

>Well, we have only a slight chicken-and-egg problem here.  Of course,

the

>only one found received a proper burial - that's why he was found.  And

my

>point is, only one has been found - given that there were many, many

other

>crucifixion victims,  one would expect to find more victims if the

>historians are incorrect and proper burials after crucifixion were not

>uncommon.

>

>

>

RON
  There's no problem here. We have a case of a crucifixion victim who
received proper burial.

EDWARDS
Agreed.

RON
Therefore the hypothesis that the Gospels could
not be accurate because they indicate that Jesus received a proper
burial is clearly disproven.

EDWARDS
This sounds like a straw man argument.  I don't know of any informed student
of the issue who would say that *no* crucifixion victims received proper
burial, because they recognize that they're dealing with the balance of
probabilities rather than a black-and-white issue.  This exception does not
tilt the balance of probabilities in favor Jesus' receiving a proper burial.

RON
Or did some divine spirit tell you that Jesus didn't recieve proper burial?

EDWARDS
I have no idea what you mean here.  Whatever could be your motivation for
asking such an unusual question?

RON
You are the guys who always want archaeological evidence!

EDWARDS
Yes, evidence has its advantages.

RON
Now that you have some you'd rather hold onto your cherished misconception.

EDWARDS
What do you mean by "cherished"?  As to misconception, I don't think it has
been established that the hypothesis that Jesus did not receive a proper
burial is incorrect.  Now, if we found Jesus' bones in a tomb in Jerusalem,
that would be pretty powerful evidence ;-)  You know, folks on this group
have been aware of these bones for quite some time, just as they've been
aware of Josephus' account of getting permission to have his friends removed
from their respective crosses.  The religious writers and historians who
think it most likely that Jesus was either left to rot or buried in a
shallow, common grave are aware of these bones and the Josephus account (who
knows - maybe the bones belong to one of Josephus' friends).  This is not a
new story.  The bones themselves prove nothing - they only validate what we
knew before they were discovered, which was that there were exceptions.

RON
Don't you have enough other "theories" that you can afford to give up just
one?

EDWARDS
I don't understand how the term "afford" is relevant here, but I'd be happy
to subscribe to an alternate hypothesis given evidence that shifts the
current balance of probabilities.

• Previous message: (Ron) Burial of Crucifixion Victims
• Next message: Fwd: Tilly censoring
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]