There are many that are good, but I'll highlight a few that get less attention than they should. Each one will include a link to a post that discusses the argument further:
- The acknowledgement of the empty tomb by both early Jewish and early pagan sources.
- Internal and external evidence for the resurrection appearance to Paul in Acts.
- The cumulative case for the appearance to the women in Matthew 28:9-10.
- The number and variety of Peter's resurrection experiences.
I should also point out that one good piece of evidence against the 'non-burial' hypothesis is evidence of crucifixion victims being buried not just in Judea, but also Britain and Rome (I also heard of an example in Egypt). Regardless of what Roman writers claimed, it seems clear that crucifixion victims were buried at a rate that was not insignificant, across regions that had no preference for burial as in Judea (the Jewish laws of burial and so on so forth). The only substantive argument against this archaeological evidence I've heard is that it doesn't mean immediate burial occurred - theoretically, someone was on the cross for two weeks before being buried. But that concedes the point. The body was locatable, accounted for, not discarded, and buried in a dignified, locatable, and community-recognized manner. It ought to be noted that Jesus was buried on the same day, according to the gospels, because of customs on the Passover, the Sabbath, and Jewish Law (so extenuating circumstances), and not because Pilate simply shrugged and had Jesus buried on a whim. If it were Passover and a Sabbath Passover at that, a decaying body hanging for days was the last thing Jews wanted.
ReplyDelete