Since there is no direct (textual) evidence for the elements of the relocation hypothesis, isn relocation just as speculative as proposing, say, that “space aliens healed Jesus”?
Not at all. The space alien hypothesis lacks support from a Jewish context. In contrast, in TET, I presented evidence regarding contemporary Jewish burial procedures for convincted criminals and showed the relevance to relocation. I also provided an argument to show that the relocation hypothesis has a non-negligible prior probability. Again, by ‘prior probability,’ I mean the probability that the relocation hypothesis is true at all, independent of its explanatory power. Joseph of Arimathea was not a secret disciple of Jesus, but a pious Jew acting in accordance with Jewish law. Therefore, it is much easier to suppose that Joseph used his own tomb to temporarily store Jesus’ body than it is to suppose that Joseph used his own tomb to bury Jesus. But if Joseph’s only motivation for burying Jesus were compliance with Jewish law, surely Joseph would have also complied with the Jewish regulation that condemned criminals must be buried in the graveyard of the condemned. Thus, the same hist
Related Questions
- Since there is no direct (textual) evidence for the elements of the relocation hypothesis, isn relocation just as speculative as proposing, say, that "space aliens healed Jesus"?
- I have vendors in place that support elements of the relocation process already – how can Coppergate add value?
- Is the relocation hypothesis a variant of the so-called "wrong tomb" theory?
