Crucifixion Burials

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

  At 11:51 AM 2/5/99 -0500, JAlw@aol.com wrote:
  
  >4.  The question of burial of those who were crucified seems to me to be a
  >very important one historically; it also bears directly on one of the most
  >important events in human history.  For that reason, I would think that if
  >there were strong evidence to support Ed Tyler's claim that Jesus was the
only
  >person crucified who was *ever* afforded burial by the Romans, then
  >archaeologists and historians would have jumped on it and published the
  >results of their research.  After several posts on this matter, Ed has not
yet
  >given the name of a refereed journal in which these conclusions were
reached.
  >He has not given the name of a single researcher who has published this
work.
  >Is Ed the only one in the world who knows that Jesus was the only executed
  >person afforded burial by the Romans?
  
  Ed
  
  Joe, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have never made any such
  harebrained claim; I have merely called attention to the fact that the
  gospels' claims that Jesus would have been afforded burial have no
  credibility.  There is no reason to believe that Jesus was buried, and
  there is no evidence that any victim of Roman crucifixion was buried.
  Period.  
  
  As far as names of researchers: Crossan, Borg, Meier, Vermes, Davies, Funk,
  Hoover, Mack, Wink, and Winter ought to get you started.  There's not a
  disinterested scholar on the planet who buys the gospels' yarn about Jesus
  being buried after crucifixion.
 =================
 Joe Alward:
 
 I'm more interested in why *you* think that the evidence shows that there is
no evidence that crucifixion victims were buried, and why you think absence of
evidence in this case justifies claiming evidence of absence.
 
 The only facts you have given the list so far are these, as best I can tell:
 
 (1)  Millions of skeletons have been unearthed.
 (2)  You know of one person who *may* have been crucified.
 
 I think it would be appropriate to give the specific references which you
rely on to conclude that burial of the remains of those crucified was an
extraordinarily unlikely occurrence in the 1st Century.  Since you are the one
who made the claim, don't you think you should at least give *one* quotation
from one of the researchers who supports your view?
 
 I hope you agree that *you* are the one making a rather unusual claim:
bodies were just cast aside for the animals to eat rather than buried.  So, if
yours is the extraordinary claim, do you think it is fair to demand that those
who question your claim go and do the research themselves, to find the
specific passages in the references that you recall reading?  Shouldn't you
provide these quotes yourself in defense of your claim?  It's not really
enough for you to say that every researcher you know agrees with you, is it?
Just go one step further and tell us what they said and where they said it,
and when, please.
  >>

• Previous message: Crucifixion Burials - References
• Next message: Crucifixion Burials
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]