AoSS said

Well, it isn’t that Paul directly says it was a common grave, but simply that no tomb is mentioned at all. As it was Roman and Jewish Law (found in the Talmud and Josephus’s Antiquities) to not allow for a crucified person (Roman) or blasphemer (Jewish) person be buried honorably but in a common grave, Paul would have to have mentioned something beyond just saying Jesus was buried for it to make sense as a Tomb/honorable burial.

And which Roman law source are you citing?  Roman governors were known to have wide discretion in carrying out their duties. If the Bible is to be believed, it was Passover a potentially volatile time. It’s likely the Roman’s were on high alert for any trouble. We don’t know enough about these events to say for sure what happened.  In a previous post Greg outlined reasons for doubting a Jewish trial even took place.  So, that makes a blasphemy charge unlikely as well.It may very well be that “the cleansing of the temple” is what got Jesus in trouble with Jewish authorities. 

Now we know of at least one case of the burial of a crucified man, Yehonan. It’s hard to think that bones drawn from a common grave would be identifiable. How would you figure out which bones belonged to whom? Would families be satisfied with just any set of bones? Still the Roman charge makes it difficult to think Jesus would get anything other than the full treatment. Hanging on the cross and tossed in a common grave. However, just for the sake of argument suppose the Romans did expect a lot of trouble and anticipated numerous crucifixions, could that have sped things along in terms of disposing of the bodies ( That is giving them to ppl who requested them?) Since we know very little about these circumstances, I would think we would have to reserve judgement.

Since Paul is silent on the issue, and anyone given a burial that was not in a common grave was rare, it is safe to assume that Paul had thought that Jesus was buried in such a manner. Pretty much, as any burial of an executed criminal is more likely to have been in a common grave than not, if it is not specified that a particular burial is an exception, it is probably not. It is an argument from silence, but not one I would say is weak.

Yet your argument is based precisely on Paul being, to use your word,  “silent”.  I don’t see how you could say he was silent after citing his claim of burial. Paul said Jesus was buried, but said nothing?  Further, what Paul “Would have needed to do is, at best, speculative. First, judging by his speech in First Corinthians, he specifically prefaced his statement with “For what I received I passed on to you…” That is, he is passing along something he got from someone else. It’s unclear whether Paul would know anything about the circumstances of Jesus burial. Likewise, it’s unclear whether he would have had to specify a tomb to communicate proper burial.

Further, according to  Archaeologist, Jodi Magness,

“Unlike Crossan, who “cannot find any detailed historical information about the crucifixion of Jesus,” I believe that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus’ body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus’ removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law.”

** you do not have permission to see this link **