crucifixion burials (bounce)
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 16:56:25 -0600 (00918276985, 4.1.19990205165540.00afcc10@pop.truman.edu)
>At 04:13 PM 2/5/99 -0500, JAlw@aol.com wrote:
>>In a message dated 99-02-05 16:01:36 EST, you write:
>>Ed Tyler:
>>
>><< 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. >>
>>===============
>>Joe Alward:
>>
>>You earlier said that you thought the notion of Jesus' burial was incredible
>>to you. Pehaps what I need to make clear is that one of the fallacies I
think
>>I find in your claim is the absence of evidence argument.
>
>Ed
>
>Why? It's perfectly sound. People died of rotten teeth, and we have the
>skeletal remains to prove it; they died of accidents, and we have the
>skeletal remains to prove it; they were murdered and we have the skeletal
>remains to prove it; they died when their kitchens collapsed in
>earthquakes, and we have the skeletal remains to prove it.
>
>They died from crucifixion too, in alarming numbers, but we have no
>skeletal remains of victims of crucifixion. (Remember I dispute that the
>one set we do have was a victim of Roman crucifixion.) Why? Because they
>were not afforded burial as a matter of Roman policy.
>
>Joe
>>
>>Can you spell out what kind of evidence of crucifixion you think would exist
>>today *if* there had been any burial of crucified remains 2000 years ago?
>
>Ed
>
>Precisely the evidence that we have of people dying from rotten teeth:
>skeletal remains.
>
>Joe
>
>>If
>>you can do this, then can you give the name of a researcher who addresses
this
>>point and has agreed with your claim in a published, refereed journal?
Please
>>name the researcher, and the page number and journal name, and date, if you
>>know it. I don't mind looking it up if you can help narrow it down for me a
>>little bit.
>
>Ed
>
>Done in another post, with the exception of page numbers. All the books
>cited are well indexed.