at Amazon<\/a>)
\n_____________________
\n
\nBruce\u2019s suggestion that the Greek in Luke 2:2 is equally translatable as \u201cThis enrollment (census) was before that made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.\u201d^6 This would mean that Luke was dating the taxation-census before Quirinius took over the governorship of Syria. Either possibility answers the question raised above.<\/p>\nTherefore, while some questions have been raised concerning the events recorded in Luke 2:1\u20135, archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1)A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2)Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3)These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC\u2013AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus\u2019 birth. (4)The date of the specific taxation recounted by Luke could very possibly have been 6\u20135 BC, which would also be of service in attempting to find a more exact date for Jesus\u2019 death. Yohanan\u2014Crucifixion Victim<\/p>\n
Most of this chapter pertains to archaeological evidence that bears on the issues of Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection. The first example of this concerns an important discovery made in June, 1968, that provides some important information about the nature of crucifixion as it was exercised in first century AD Palestine. While a portion of Jerusalem was being prepared for the erection of new apartment buildings, an ancient Jewish burial site was uncovered. Located about one mile north of the Old Damascus Gate, this site yielded the remains of some thirty-five Jews that were buried in fifteen stone ossuaries, used for the reburial of human skeletons some time after the original interment.<\/p>\n
Upon investigation, archaeologist Vasilius Tzaferis found that these Jews had probably died about AD 70 in the Jewish uprising against Rome. Several of the skeletons gave evidence of having suffered violent deaths, such as being burned, starved, or beaten to death. One person had been killed by an arrow.^8<\/p>\n
In terms of our study, the most important discovery at this site was the skeleton of a man named Yohanan Ben Ha\u2019galgol, whose name was written in Aramaic on the stone ossuary. Further study by Hebrew University pathologist Dr. N. Haas revealed some preliminary data regarding Yohanan\u2019s skeleton. Yohanan was about five feet seven inches in height, was about twenty-four to twenty-eight years old, had a cleft palate and was a victim of crucifixion. <\/p>\n
6 Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 192.<\/p>\n
7 While ruling out the two-date approach to the governorship of Quirinius, Sherwin-White basically vindicates Luke\u2019s account, while still finding more problems than does Bruce (pp. 162\u2013171).<\/p>\n
8 Vasilius Tzaferis, \u201cJewish Tombs At and Near Giv\u2018at ha-Mivtar,\u201d Israel Exploration Journal20 (1970), pp. 38\u201359.
\n
\nStill piercing his feet was a large nail about seven inches long that had been driven sideways through his heel bones, which indicates the direction in which the feet and legs were twisted in order to be attached to the cross. The nail pierced an acacia beam on the cross, which was anchored in the ground. Small pieces of wood still attached to the spike indicated that the beam itself was olive wood. The end of the nail was bent backwards toward the head due either to a knot in the wood or to purposeful bending.<\/p>\n
An examination disclosed the fact that nails had also been driven between the radius and ulna bones in the lower arm. The radius bone was both scratched and actually worn smooth. This latter result was apparently due to repeated friction caused by the crucifixion victim pulling himself upward in order to breathe, followed by sinking back down again. As the weight of the body was repeatedly moved in order to free the pectoral and intercostal muscles, which inhibit breathing in the \u201cdown\u201d position, the radius was worn.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Haas discovered that Yohanan\u2019s lower leg bones were broken. The left tibia and fibula bones and the right tibia bone were apparently crushed by a common blow, with the legs being sawed off at a later time. This is quite consistent with the dreaded Roman crucifragiumspoken of in John 19:31\u201332 as being normal procedure for crucifixion victims. Death was hastened because the victim was not able to push himself up on the cross in order to breathe, which brought death in a comparatively short period of time.^9<\/p>\n
However, Haas\u2019 study has been seriously criticized by some researchers, who dispute his findings at a number of points. J. Zias and E. Sekeles published their study that argues, among other findings, that there was insufficient evidence to indicate either a cleft palate, that nails pierced the forearms, or that the ankles were broken during the process of crucifixion.^10<\/p>\n
The crucifixion process recorded in the Gospels has been at least partially corroborated by this discovery, with the extent of confirmation depending on the correct view of the data. Archaeology provides us with at least some facts that have a bearing on the death of Jesus. (1)Victims were often nailed to crosses through the feet or heels and through the wrist or lower arm area. Whether or not the latter was the case with Yohanan, it is the normal way of Roman crucifixion.^11 (2)The vast majority of medical researchers agree that the positioning of the body required the<\/p>\n
9 N. Haas, \u201cAnthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv\u2018at ha-Mivtar,\u201d Israel Exploration Journal20 (1970), pp. 38\u201359.<\/p>\n
10 J. Zias and E. Sekeles, \u201cThe Crucified Man from Giv\u2018at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal,\u201d Israel Exploration Journal, 35 (1985), pp. 22\u201327; cf. the list of objections in Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, \u201cCrucifixion: Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,\u201d in Charlesworth, ed., Dead Sea Scrolls, pp. 279\u2013280.<\/p>\n
11 See especially Martin Hengel, Crucifixion(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 25, 31\u2013 32 in particular.
\n
\nvictim to move upward and downward in order to alternatively breathe and rest.^12<\/p>\n
(3)Smashing the leg bones was used in cases where a hasty death was desired.^13<\/p>\n
The Nazareth Decree<\/p>\n
In 1878 a marble slab measuring approximately fifteen by twenty-four inches was discovered at Nazareth, describing itself as an \u201cordinance of Caesar.\u201d The message was a strict prohibition against the disturbing of graves. Scholars generally agree that it was issued by Claudius between AD 41\u201354. The inscription was written in Greek, translated as follows: Ordinance of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain perpetually undisturbed for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If, however, anyone charges that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing on other stones, against such a one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them. In case of violation I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepulchre.^14<\/p>\n
As noted by Maier, all previous Roman indictments of this nature prescribe only a fine for the offender, but this order demands capital punishment. Why should such a strong penalty be levied in Palestine?^15<\/p>\n
Although the exact reasoning is not known for sure, scholars have frequently suggested that such an order straight from the emperor can best be explained by the likelihood that Claudius investigated some of the beliefs of Christians after the riots that erupted around the Roman Empire during his reign, events associated with the spread of Christianity (see Acts 17:1\u20139, for example). Such an investigation would be especially likely in the case of Claudius because of these riots in Rome in AD 49, which caused the emperor to expel the Jews from the city. Suetonius remarks that the troubles were instigated by Christ.^16<\/p>\n
Upon examination, Claudius could well have discovered the Christian teaching that Jesus had risen from the dead and may also have heard the Jewish report that the disciples stole the body. This possibility is made more significant due to the Nazareth Decree\u2019s mention of those who would disturb tombs that had been sealed. This is certainly reminiscent of Matthew 27:66, where we are told that the Jews were careful to seal the tomb of Jesus after permission was secured from Pilate. The<\/p>\n
12 See the discussion of the Swoon Theory (along with the listed sources) in Chapter 4.<\/p>\n
13 On the administering of the coup de gracein these executions, see Hengel, The Atonement, p. 70.<\/p>\n
14 See P. Maier, First Easter, p. 119.<\/p>\n
15 Ibid., pp. 119\u2013120.<\/p>\n
16 Suetonius, Claudius, 25; cf. Acts 18:2.
\n
\nNazareth Decree could be a reaction both to the Christian teaching that Jesus was raised and the Jewish contention that the body was stolen.^17<\/p>\n
From this decree we may glean certain historical facts, irrespective of the exact occasion for the indictment. (1)Apparently there were reports in Palestine that caused the emperor (probably Claudius) to issue this stern warning against disturbing or robbing graves. (2)Jewish burial sometimes included sealing the sepulchre, as well as the use of stones. (3)The offense of grave robbing had now become a capital offense and was punishable by death. Shroud of Turin<\/p>\n
The Shroud of Turin, Italy, is a linen cloth measuring 14\u00b43\u00b4\u00b4 long by 3\u00b47\u00b4\u00b4 wide. Historically proclaimed to be the actual burial garment of Jesus, the linen contains a double, head-to-head image of a crucified man reposed in death, that reveals both the obverse and reverse of the body.<\/p>\n
With a known history stretching back to at least the fourteenth century, there are a number of important factors that indicate that the shroud is much more ancient, including a number of historical references that extend back several centuries. In the definitive work on the possible history of the shroud, Ian Wilson postulates that the cloth left Palestine about AD 30 and proceeded to the ancient kingdom of Edessa, to Constantinople, to France, to Switzerland, and finally to Italy.^18<\/p>\n
In addition to the historical data, there are also a number of scientific reasons indicating that the shroud could be dated very early. Samples of pollen discovered on the cloth point to an origin in Palestine possibly as far back as the first century, while analyses of the cloth and weave discovered that the shroud is compatible with first century cloth.<\/p>\n
However, more important indicators of the age of the shroud have also emerged. Some researchers have asserted that sophisticated methods such as photographic enhancement and computer analysis are able to identify one of the coins placed over the eyes of the man in the shroud as a lepton of Pontius Pilate, minted between AD 29\u201332. Such an identification would be a crucial determination of age.^19<\/p>\n
Biblical questions concerning the type of burial depicted on the shroud have failed to discover any discrepancies with the New Testament texts. Wrapping a body lengthwise and positioning it as shown on the shroud is corroborated by both recently discovered Qumran burial practices and by the Code of Jewish Law(\u201cLaws of Mourning\u201d). Further studies have revealed that the head napkin was first rolled up and then wrapped around the head, as reported by the Gospel of John (11:44; 20:5\u2013 7), the Jewish Mishnah (Shabbath23:5) and the \u201cLaws of Mourning.\u201d<\/p>\n
17 See Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 196; Maier, First Easter, pp. 119\u2013120; Boyd, Tells, p. 185. <\/p>\n
18 See Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin(New York: Doubleday, 1978). <\/p>\n
19 For these details, see Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud(Ann Arbor: Servant, 1981), especially chapter 2.
\n
\nWhile some believe that the body of the man wrapped in the shroud was not washed, the \u201cLaws of Mourning\u201d point out that there are conditions when washing is not appropriate, such as when a person suffered capital punishment or a violent death. The use of several strips of linen in John is also confirmed on the shroud, since pieces of linen were apparently used there, as well.<\/p>\n
One additional point concerns Jesus\u2019 burial, as it is recorded in the Gospels. Since it is related that Jesus underwent a hasty burial with the women planning to return later to finish the process (Luke 23:54\u201324:4; Mark 15:42; 16:1\u20133), we have another explanation of possible \u201coddities\u201d in his burial procedure.^20<\/p>\n
One characteristic of the Shroud of Turin that separates it from other such religious remains is that it was the subject of an intense (and ongoing) scientific investigation. In October, 1978, a team of well-qualified scientists applied a large battery of non-destructive tests to the shroud.^21 The three most important issues to be answered concerned the nature of the apparent bloodstains, the composition of the image, and its cause. In particular, it was determined that the bloodstains were real blood and that the shroud was probably not a fake. The image was not caused by paint, dye, powder, or any other foreign substance being added to the cloth. The image on the shroud is composed of oxidized, dehydrated, and conjugated fibrils of cloth, similar to the effects of a scorch, but an exact cause of the image was not proven. Additional characteristics of the image, such as its three-dimensional, superficial and non-directional nature, have become quite an enigma to the scientists.^22<\/p>\n
The description of the man who was apparently buried in the shroud has also been enlightening. The scientific team pathologist and other medical doctors determined that the man was crucified and was dead, with his body in a state of rigor mortis. The man\u2019s injuries were the same as the Gospel reports of Jesus\u2019 crucifixion. The most interesting facet of this study is that many unnatural things were done to Jesus and these same types of things appeared on the shroud.<\/p>\n
Both men suffered a series of punctures throughout the scalp from many sharp objects, a seriously bruised face, a horrible whipping (over 100 wounds from this beating have been counted on the shroud), abrasions on both shoulders from a rough, heavy object, and contusions on both knees. Both men had the more normal wounds associated with crucifixion; namely, punctured feet and wrists. Strangely, both men escaped having their ankles broken, as was normal, but both had post<\/p>\n
20 Ibid., Chapter 4.<\/p>\n
21 For an authoritative description of some of the proposed tests to be performed on the shroud, see Kenneth E. Stevenson, Editor, Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference on the Shroud of Turin(Bronx: Holy Shroud Guild, 1977).<\/p>\n
22 See Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapters 5\u20136 and Appendix A. See also John Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983), especially chapters 12\u201314.
\n
\nmortem chest wounds instead, from which blood and watery fluid flowed. Both men were buried hastily in fine linen and were buried individually.^23<\/p>\n
Indications that the man buried in the shroud could be Jesus come from the correspondence between the two. They agree even down to the small details in about one dozen areas that were not normal crucifixion procedures. The chances are seemingly minimal that two men would have so many agreements, especially in points of abnormal circumstances. Also, no areas of contradiction apparently exist. It should additionally be remembered that the shroud has been kept for hundreds of years as the actual burial garment of Jesus, long before such scientific testing could be done. While this last point by no means demonstrates the shroud\u2019s authenticity in any sense, it does show further a possible relationship between Jesus and the man buried in the shroud.^24<\/p>\n
Naturalistic attempts to account for such phenomena as the three-dimensional, superficial and non-directional image, plus additional details such as its resolute and unsaturated nature, have failed to produce a viable alternative theory that explains all of the data. The scientists reported that they were unable to discover any known natural causes that could account for the shroud\u2019s image. In scientific terms, the image is a \u201cmystery.\u201d^25<\/p>\n
Perhaps even more amazing, the shroud contains no bodily decomposition, indicating that the body exited the cloth after a comparatively short interment. Furthermore, according to the scientific team pathologist, the body was probably not unwrapped, as indicated by the fact that many of the bloodstains were intact (including the blood clots), since such action would have disturbed the bloodstains. Even more interesting is the possibility that the image was caused by some sort of light or heat scorch that emanated from a dead body in the state of rigor mortis.^26 In short, the converging scientific facts show that the body left the cloth by some as yet unknown means. Since the man buried in the shroud is possibly Jesus, we also have some possible empirical evidence for his resurrection.^27<\/p>\n
23 Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapters 3, 10.<\/p>\n
24 For details concerning this correspondence that cannot be presented in this book, see ibid., chapter 9.<\/p>\n
25 Heller, Report, p. 218.<\/p>\n
26 These conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of any other researchers. See Stevenson and Habermas, Verdict, chapter 11. For a more detailed and intricate argument concerning the shroud as evidence for the resurrection, see also Gary R. Habermas, \u201cThe Shroud of Turin: A Rejoinder to Basinger and Basinger,\u201d Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society25 (1982), pp. 219\u2013227.<\/p>\n
27 A stern disclaimer is definitely in order here. Whether the shroud is or is not the true burial sheet of Jesus, it is absolutely crucial that we not be involved with any sort of worship or veneration of this cloth. God\u2019s warning against worshiping anyobject still stands, along with the serious judgment pronounced against those who disobey (Exod. 20:4\u20136, for example). We need to totally oppose any such activities.
\n
\nBut all of these conclusions were seriously challenged in the fall of 1988. Small portions taken from the shroud material were sent to three different laboratories in England, Switzerland and the United States. After the tests were concluded, it was claimed that the shroud had been carbon dated to the late Middle Ages.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, this was a serious objection to the possibility that the shroud was the burial garment of Jesus. If the material did, in fact, originate in the Middle Ages, it could be some kind of fake or perhaps even an actual burial cloth that belonged to another crucifixion victim besides Jesus. In the latter case, it could still provide excellent information about death by crucifixion, but other claims that rely on this being Jesus\u2019 cloth would, obviously, be mistaken.<\/p>\n
However, many scholars challenged the 1988 tests, strictly on scientific grounds, charging that serious problems occurred. For example, various cloth samples with known dates were pretested by a number of major laboratories, but achieved incorrect dates of up to many centuries! With regard to the shroud sampling itself, the material was not taken from three different locations, but came from the same portion of the material, known as \u201cRaes Corner.\u201d Although this is the most contaminated section of the famous cloth, there was an absence of controlled recognition and removal of contaminants.<\/p>\n
Further, the lack of peer review before the testing began bothered some researchers. Additionally, there was evidently no blind testing as reports indicated would be the case. For one thing, the non-shroud control specimens were reportedly marked with their dates, further distinguishing them from the shroud samples.<\/p>\n
But perhaps most damaging of all to the carbon dating tests, a secret dating of shroud fibers in 1982 differed from the 1988 tests by centuries, and even suggested a date that could, with the plus-minus factor, date the cloth to the first century AD! Last, a few scientists have even remarked that if the shroud image was caused by Jesus\u2019 resurrection, the sort of molecular change that results from scorch could actually have made the cloth appear younger, due to neutron flux.<\/p>\n
As a result, the 1988 carbon testing appears to be less authoritative than one might originally think. At least it is not a closed case. This is especially so when all three cloth samples were taken from a single area on the shroud, which may have been affected in any of several ways.<\/p>\n
Even beyond all of this, it is also crucial to realize that virtually all of the other shroud data stand in opposition to the medieval dating. Contrary results come from studies such as the pollen research, the possibility of the Pontius Pilate coins over the eyes, textile evaluations, and the historical trail the shroud may have taken across Europe. So here we have one body of scientific results clashing with another. Which should be favored over the other? More than one opinion has been expressed, to be sure. Further testing and peer review will hopefully follow and may be helpful. We can only conclude that a medieval date has not, at present, been proven.^28<\/p>\n
28 For many of these objections to the 1988 carbon dating, see, for example, Paul C. Maloney, \u201cIs the Shroud of Turin Really Medieval?\u201d and \u201cThe Carbon Date for the Shroud of Turin: The Position Statement of the Association of Scientists and Scholars International for the Shroud of Turin, Ltd.,\u201d in The Assist Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 1 (1989), pp. 1, 5\u20138. Cf. Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, The Shroud and the Controversy: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for Authenticity(Nashville: Nelson, 1990), chapters 3\u20134, Appendix A.
\n
\nIn spite of the questions we have lodged, it must be admitted that the 1988 carbon dating is still a serious objection to the shroud being the burial garment of Jesus. Yet, the testing problems, plus other considerations like those above, tend to offset the force of the results. Still, we must be clear that, even if the shroud did not belong to Jesus, nothing in Christianity is affected. Even though it reports the discovery of Jesus\u2019 graveclothes, the New Testament never claims that the shroud is genuine.<\/p>\n
If the Shroud of Turin is Jesus\u2019 garment, we have highly evidential data for the death and probably even the resurrection of Jesus. Since there is strong evidence against the shroud being a fake, even if it wrapped the body of another victim of crucifixion, it can still provide important and reliable details concerning Jesus\u2019 demise. As such, several facts can be learned, most of which, it should be carefully noted, do not depend on the identification of the man buried in the shroud.<\/p>\n
(1) Once again we learn of the normal wounds associated with crucifixion such as the pre-cross beating, the pierced wrists and feet, as well as lesser details like the knee contusions (presumably from falling) and the shoulder abrasions (perhaps from carrying part of the cross). (2) We also learn of several abnormal points of crucifixion procedure that the man in the shroud had in common with Jesus. Such include: the scalp wounds caused by sharp objects, the absence of broken ankles, the post-mortem chest wound, and the flow of blood plus watery fluid. (3) Afterward, an individual but hasty burial in fine linen for one convicted as a \u201ccriminal\u201d is also rather odd. (4) There is strong evidence that the man in the shroud had to move up and down in order to breathe. The blood from each wrist proceeded down each arm and formed a V-shaped blood flow, which is one evidence that suggests that two major bodily positions were taken on the cross. <\/p>\n
(5)There is evidence that the man buried in the shroud was very possibly raised from the dead, such as the absence of decomposition, an apparent lack of unwrapping the body, and a probable scorch from a dead body. If the man in the shroud is Jesus, as indicated by the similarities in dissimilar areas pointed out in (2), then (4) becomes possible evidence for Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Other Archaeological Data<\/p>\n
A few additional finds bear on the historicity of Jesus, if only indirectly. The existence of the pools of Bethesda and Siloam \u201ccan be identified with certainty\u201d due to archaeological discoveries.^29 Although the very existence of these two pools does not prove anything in Jesus\u2019 life, it is still interesting that the Gospel of John associates one of Jesus\u2019 healing miracles with each site (John 5:1\u20139; 9:1\u201341).<\/p>\n
29 Bruce, Christian Origins, p. 188.<\/p>\n
\nOne other note concerns the historical existence of Pontius Pilate. Coins have been discovered, minted to honor Pilate\u2019s rule, dated AD 30\u201331.^30 Additionally, an inscription containing his name was discovered at Caesarea.^31 Again, this does not prove anything specifically concerning Jesus. However, the historical connection between Pilate and the crucifixion of Jesus is well established by such ancient historians as Tacitus and Josephus.^32 Synopsis of Archaeological Sources<\/p>\n
From these archaeological sources we learn numerous facts that are beneficial in a study of Christ\u2019s life, especially with regard to his death and possibly his resurrection. But unless the shroud is Jesus\u2019 burial cloth, the sources chiefly provide background information that helps verify the Gospel accounts.<\/p>\n
Concerning the taxation-census reported in Luke 2, data from archaeological discoveries reveal several facts. Such processes were fairly common in the ancient Roman Empire, involving persons traveling to their own cities. This taxation-census began during Augustus\u2019 reign (37 BC\u2013AD 14) and continued to the third century AD, often at fourteen year intervals. One such taxation-census was apparently enacted at approximately the same time as Jesus\u2019 birth.<\/p>\n
With regard to crucifixion, much depends on one\u2019s conclusions concerning Yohanan and the Shroud of Turin. If they can be taken at face value, we learn that victims had their wrists and feet nailed to the cross (shroud; cf. Yohanan), and were apparently made to carry part of the cross to the crucifixion site, which often resulted in falls (shroud). Normal crucifixion procedure usually involved breaking the victim\u2019s legs (Yohanan). The shroud corresponds to Jesus\u2019 death by numerous agreements in points of abnormal crucifixion procedure, such as the crown of thorns, the severe whipping, the absence of broken ankles, the post-mortem chest wound and the flow of blood and watery fluid. Other \u201codd\u201d similarities in the burial include an individual burial for a crucified person, yet a hasty burial in fine linen. We also learn much about medical factors, such as the cause of death being closely related to asphyxiation, as the victim pushed up and down in order to breathe (shroud; cf. Yohanan).<\/p>\n
The Jewish burial process sometimes involved a sealed tomb, and usually the presence of a large stone. There were apparently reports in Palestine that caused the emperor to issue an exceptionally strong warning against grave robbing, which was punishable by death (Nazareth Decree).<\/p>\n
If the Shroud of Turin is Jesus\u2019 burial garment, then we have strong evidence for the resurrection, derived from the information on the cloth. In particular, the lack of bodily decomposition, indicative of a rather hasty bodily departure, the apparent lack of unwrapping, and the probable presence of an image caused by a scorch from a dead body, all reveal the probability of Jesus\u2019 resurrection.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
While archaeological evidence numerically includes only a comparatively few examples, we still find some helpful items that can provide insight into several aspects of the life of Jesus. As France points out, this subject contributes indirect material, usually of a background nature, that helps to confirm what we know about him.^32<\/p>\n
The skeleton of Yohanan is quite valuale in relating some of the details of crucifixion, including both mechanical and medical factors. The Nazareth Decree provides some insight into Jewish burial. As long as it is not a fake, the Shroud of Turin is an excellent witness to most of the details involved in the processes of crucifixion and burial. If it is the burial garment of Jesus, these facts of crucifixion and burial apply directly to him. Additionally, the shroud would then supply some strong evidence for the resurrection.<\/p>\n
30 Boyd, Tells, p. 183.^31 31 _Ibid.<\/p>\n
32 Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As pointed out […] historical methodology includes the use of non-written as well as written sources. Archaeology is able to provide much information about the past, in that it can both confirm and shed new light on known data, as well as establish evidence on its own. In this chapter we will attempt to point […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6702,6709,6708,6707],"tags":[6710,6711,6712],"class_list":["post-3296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thechrist","category-habermas-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-studies-thechristcontents","tag-habermas","tag-jesus-historical-facts","tag-life-of-jesus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3296","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3296"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3296\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3296"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3296"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3296"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}