Loading...
So far in this thread I have been laying out the argument found in my book How Jesus Became God of why I do not think Jesus was given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea on the day he was crucified. This will be the last post on the question.
After this the fun begins. My friend, New Testament scholar Craig Evans, laid out a detailed argument for why he thinks I am very wrong, as one of the essays in the response-book, How God Became Jesus. Starting in the next post, in a new thread of a number of response-to-the-response posts, I will respond to Craig’s arguments one-by-one, to show in turn why I don’t find his arguments at all convincing.
In my post yesterday I talked about one specific reason for doubting the tradition of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Now I give two more reasons.
******************************
Greek and Roman Practices of Using Common Graves for Criminals
My second reason for doubting that Jesus received a decent burial is that – quite apart from the question of crucified persons – criminals of all sorts, executed in a variety of ways, were generally not given decent burials but were, as a rule, so far as we can tell, tossed into common graves.
Again there is a range of evidence available from many times and places. The Greek historian of the first century BCE, Diodorus Siculus, speaks of a war between Philip of Macedonia (he was the father of Alexander the Great) in which he lost twenty men to the enemy, the Locrians. When he asked for their bodies for a decent burial, the Locrians refused indicating that “it was the general law that temple-robbers should be cast forth without burial” (Library of History, 16.25.2). From around 100 CE, the Greek author Dio Chrystostom indicates that in Athens, anyone who suffered “at the hands of the state for a crime” was “denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace of a wicked man” (Discourses 31.85). Among the Romans, we learn that after a battle fought by Octavian (the later Caesar Augustus, emperor when Jesus was born), one of his captives begged for a burial, to which Octavian replied, “The birds will soon settle that question” (Suetonius, Augustus 13). And we are told by the Roman historian Tacitus of a man who committed suicide to avoid being executed by the state, since anyone who was legally condemned and executed “forfeited his estate and was debarred from burial” (Annals 6.29h).
Again, it is possible that Jesus was an exception; but our evidence that this was the case must be judged to be rather thin. Crucified victims were usually left on their crosses as food for scavengers, and part of the punishment for ignominious crimes was burial in a common grave, where very soon one decomposed body could not be distinguished from another. In the traditions about Jesus, of course, his body had to be distinguished from all others. Otherwise it could not be demonstrated to have been raised physically from the dead.
The Policies of Pontius Pilate in Particular
My third specific reason for doubting the burial tradition has to do with the Roman rule of Judea at the time. One of the chief regrets of any historian of early Christianity is that we do not have more – lots more – information about Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea from 26-36 CE, who, among many other things, condemned Jesus to be crucified. What we do know about him, however, all points in the same direction. He was a fierce, violent, mean-spirited ruler who displayed no interest at all in showing mercy and kindness to his subjects and showed no respect for Jewish sensitivities.
Pilate’s governorship is lightly documented in the surviving material record, as we have some coins that were issued during his reign and an inscription, discovered in modern times at Caesarea, that mentions him. The New Testament record is somewhat mixed, for reasons I earlier mentioned. As time wore on, Christian authors, including those of our Gospels, portrayed Pilate as more and more sympathetic toward Jesus and more and more opposed to the recalcitrant Jews who demand Jesus’ death. As I have suggested, this progressive exoneration of Pilate serves clear anti-Jewish purposes, so that the accounts of Jesus’ trial in the later Gospels – Matthew, Luke, and John –must be taken with a pound of salt. In an earlier tradition of Luke we get a clearer picture what the man was like, as we hear, very opaquely, of “the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices” (Luke 13:1). This sounds like Pilate had Jews murdered while they were performing their religious duties. It’s an unsettling picture.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I still can’t get over the sense that contemporary opponents of early Christianity (Celsus, e.g.) would have known the same general principles that you’re citing (leaving victims of crucifixion to be eaten by animals, common burial for criminals) and would presumably have made these same arguments to refute the resurrection story. Of course they wouldn’t have known the specifics of Jesus’ case and they likely wouldn’t have known much about Pilate’s policies, but they would have been familiar with the general practices of Roman punishment. So why didn’t they make these same arguments in attacking early Christianity?
I’m afraid I never know why people don’t make arguments that it would make sense for me for them to make. I do know it happens all the time!
I’m convinced by your arguments and evidence that Jesus was not buried. However, I am curious about Paul’s seeming belief that Jesus was buried. Paul was in contact with Peter and James, who we would expect to know the fate of Jesus’s body. Is this something we would expect to have been added to Paul’s letter by a later scribe, or does it reflect an actual belief of Paul? If it was his actual belief, wouldn’t Peter or James have set him straight on the matter? If one were to believe in a bodily resurrection, the tomb isn’t a necessity, since it wasn’t purported to be a magical tomb, he could have resurrected anywhere at any time, even from a cross.
I’m afraid we have no idea what Peter and James talked to Paul about. We naturally think that he went to find out about Jesus, but I don’t think that’s right. He went to convince Cephas of his interpretatoin of the relevance of Jesus’ death for gentiles; if he wanted to learn a lot about Jesus he surely would have stayed for more than two weeks and would have talked with the others. As it is, he shows almost incredibly little knowledge about Jesus in his writings — very odd if he knew more or was very inquisitive about it….
So, Bart, what would stop Jesus’ followers from watching where the Romans buried Jesus (if indeed it was some common grave) and simply digging him back up or bribing someone for his body? Surely such devoted disciples would have done everything in their power to give Jesus a proper burial.
They appear to have fled Jerusalem. But in any event, they could not see where the Romans buried Jesus; my point is they didn’t bury him for days.
Well, the gospels state that the 12 flee Jerusalem, right, not that ALL of Jesus’ disciples flee Jerusalem, right? So my point is that if Jesus had more than a few dozen avid followers (as most cult leaders do) then what would have stopped one or more of them from watching where Jesus was buried by the Romans, retrieving the body and then burying it decently?
I think the idea is that the close followers of Jesus would have hightailed it out of town, whether they were among the twelve or not. But that’s not really my ultimate point. My point is that no one could have robbed the tomb because there almost certainly, in my view, wasn’t a tomb. Romans didn’t allow burials of crucified victims on the day of their death.
Isn’t the tradition that Jesus was buried very old? If Paul recounts it, he must have learnt it during the thirties some time?
If Paul recounts it then he had to learn it before he recounted it, which is in the mid-50s (in 1 Corinthians), not necessarily two decades earlier. Unfortunately, he doesn’t say that Jesus was buried on the day of his death, or give us any other info about it. His words could just as well mean that they disposed of Jesus’ remains later.
I have a few questions from a historical perspective. Are their any other known cases where Jewish authorities turned a fellow Jew over to Roman authorities for execution? The Passion of Jesus seems improbable just from that perspective. And are trials for suspected seditionists the norm in the Roman world, or are they just sent off to be crucified without a trial? And do Roman Centurions stand guard over victims of crucifixions for days on end on a 24 hour watch, or do they rely on fear of reprisal to keep friends and family from taking down the victims instead of a constant watch? And, most difficult to answer based on historical evidence, could a kind-hearted Centurion decide on his own to allow Jesus to be taken down? It is extremely common in any military for individual soldiers to act of their own volition rather than just following orders all the time, I cannot see Roman legions acting any differently.
It is difficult to tease out the highly-unlikely aspects of the passion narrative from the unlikely but possible parts. And I find it extremely unlikely that the whole thing was just made up.
Nothing comes to mind. I’ve wondered whether the entire “Jewish trial” narrative is simply a later Christian inventoin. But no, a centurion would not have had authority to remove a body on his own.
Could a plausible case be made that Pilate dealt with the Jesus matter the way he did as described in the Gospels as simply another opportunity to stick it to the local religious authorities? Maybe John 19:19-22 could be seen in this light? (yeah, I know: it’s a late account). And maybe he allowed Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus with a dismissive “Yeah, whatever, sure. Now get out of here, I’m a busy man!” History provides multiple examples of a tyrant being unexpectedly merciful. Just a thought experiment to see if there are ways to fit the Gospel accounts with the other accounts of Pilate without over-straining credulity.
Looking at it in light of what we know of Roman practices, I’d say there’s no way someone went to Pilate to ask for the body and that Pilate simply said, sure, get ouuta here and take it. I’d say it’s even more implausible than the Barabbas incident.
When you say ”were generally not given decent burials”, does that mean there were some exceptions? If so, on what grounds might the exception be made?
Actually, I don’t know of any exceptions. I just didn’t want to sound dogmatic. 🙂
I am familiar with Dale Martin’s discussion of the resurrection “body” in his book, ‘The Corinthian Body’. Roughly, and likely oversimplified by me, but the view seems to be that the “sarx” and the “psyche” wither away and the “pneuma” is transfigured into the resurrection body. I’m not sure if you agree with your colleague but if so, given this view, would Paul have been overly concerned with the fate of Jesus’ fleshly corpus?
Dale does believe that the body (soma) was raised from the dead, and was glorified. He does not believe that Jesus was just raised spiritually.
Bart, I enjoyed reviewing these posts which I remember from their origins. I have often commented positively on your view that such a burial defies the historical record.
Which leaves the question of how did the tradition of a resurrection come about. It was clearly early on as it figures in Paul’s theology.
I spend a good deal trying to explain it in my book How Jesus Became God. Some of Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) believed they saw him alive again after his death.
I enjoyed that book very much. I use your example of how Christianity was able to grow at the expense of paganism often. And I can understand how a “vision” can come to be shared by others beyond the first “witness”.
What I can’t fathom, and what we may never know, is how the story grew from “he’s alive, he came to me last night” to “Mary found his empty tomb”. I can see why they would have wanted to see “resurrection in the flesh” which might be harder if the flesh had rotted away and been eaten by dogs. So maybe that drives the need to believe there was a burial.
Is there anyway to estimate when the resurrection myth came into being? It could have taken one or two decades for it to take root in time to be found in Paul and Q. Or not? Thoughts?
It’s hard to know the exact sequence of thought events that led to the idea of an empty tomb, but it’s not hard to imagine some options. A Xn says Jesus was raised from the dead, a non- Xn says, how do you know? Xn replies: thedisciples saw him afterward. Non-Xn suggests: maybe they were just seeing things. Xn replies: nope: the tomb was discovered empty.
i have an off topic question. do you think mark was written in an enviroment where war was going on ? could war be a reason for the invention of false narratives?
Some have thought he wsa writing during the Jewish war of 66-70 CE; most scholars today appear to date is wriing to just after that.
apologists say that jesus’ disciples would not die for a lie, but i have a question, say that some rich powerful converts to christianity gave up their money and handed it to the jewish christian churches . if these rich converts discovered that the disciples stole the body , then they would have been slaves to lies of the disciples. the question is, isn’t it logical for the disciples to keep hush about their lies, then see their religion get destroyed by powerful converts?
my question is:
could threat of seeing your religion destroyed before your eyes be a reason for keeping hush about your lies?
also: since not all disciples were WILLING to die some may have been afraid of what their followers would do to them if they discovered the fraud. After all, they had been telling all their followers to sell everything they owned and turn over the proceeds to jewish christian church
the “greater good” here is that lies help people increase your religion in numbers or a HOPE for increase.
Yup, I’m sure that is a reason some people lie.
We are living in the overlap of our superstitious past and our scientific future. The superstition that animal or human sacrifice to a god was ever beneficial is wrong and disgusting and will end someday. You may say I’m a dreamer.
Ah, but you’re not the only one. (To continue the Lennon allusion)
Dr Ehrman, How often did priestly murder plots happen in ancient Jerusalem? Is it plausible that priests entered into a conspiracy to murder Jesus, especially with there being no guarantee that both Pilate and the Romans would play the roles necessary so the plot resulted in Jesus’ death? Judas, priests, Pilate and Romans make an unwieldy plot.
Thanks,
Greg
I’m not sure if we hear of any other. That may suggest this one is part of the fiction.
Bart,
As you noted in your book, Governors had two major tasks: collect taxes for Rome and keep the peace. Your blasphemous images example (Antiquities 18.3.1) actually shows Pilate backing down to Jewish religious sensitivities, presumably to keep the peace since the Jewish populace would probably riot if Pilate killed the protesters in cold blood and left the images up. In the sacred temple treasury incident (Antiquities 18.3.2), it makes sense that Pilate doesn’t care about riots because there was a massive monetary payoff to pay for an aqueduct, i.e., his boss would approve of forcing the issue in this case because of the payoff involved. In each case, job security and pleasing his boss is Pilate’s primary concern. For the same reason, it would be in Pilate’s best interest not to leave a Jewish corpse on a cross overnight during Passover when there were several times the normal number of Jews in Jerusalem who could riot unnecessarily. Where have I gone wrong in my analysis? These two incidents don’t seem to support your position.
Because the Romans never did that out of fear of riots; the rioters didn’t riot for fear of ending up on crosses.
You seem to be just stating a conclusion. Let me try to be more specific. Looking only at Antiquities 18.3.1 where, after a tense back and forth and a displayed willingness of the Jewish protestors to die over the blasphemous images, Pilate ordered the standards removed. This doesn’t require that Pilate had mercy, kindness, or respect for Jewish sensitivities, it only requires a simple calculus by Pilate—if unarmed and surrounded Jews were willing to lay out their necks and die over this issue, other Jews might riot, especially after he killed the protesting Jews in cold blood, and risking a riot would have gone against one (of the two) main duties from Rome to *keep the peace*. So it looks to me like Pilate sometimes catered to Jewish sensitivities to keep the peace? Why else in your view did Pilate cave in to Jewish sensitivities in this case? Do you think Pilate was worried about some moral objection by his bosses in Rome?
Yes, in that case he did. Are you imagining that hundreds of Jews were protesting Jesus being left on the cross? And the other two that morning? And the others the days before and after? In any event, I’ll be dealing with Pilate in a few posts hence.
No, I’m not suggesting “hundreds of Jews were protesting Jesus being left on the cross.” I’m suggesting that even before it got to that point Pilate had learned from the blasphemous images incident much earlier, so he may have allowed the Jews to remove bodies from crosses in Jerusalem during a nationalistic festival like Passover when many times the normal number of Jews were present who might riot. Also, I have to ask, where are you getting your information that Pilate crucified Jews in Jerusalem every day in peacetime? It may have been more sporadic or rare.
A simple straightforward question: In the blasphemous images incident (Antiquities 18.3.1), how can you tell from the text if Pilate backed down from killing the protesting Jews in cold blood because he was worried about some moral objection by his bosses in Rome and not because he wanted to keep the peace?
I can look up the passage if I really need to (I’m out of the country), but first let me ask if you’ve read it carefully; if so, what is your alternative interpretation?
I gave you my alternative explanation in my question: In the blasphemous images incident (Antiquities 18.3.1), the text seems to just as easily support the conclusion that Pilate backed down from killing the protesting Jews in cold blood because he wanted to keep the peace (one of his main responsibilities from Rome).
Bart, you forgot to explain why my interpretation of Antiquities 18.3.1 that I gave you above (Pilate backed down from killing the protesting Jews in cold blood because he *wanted to keep the peace*) is less likely than your interpretation (Pilate backed down because he was worried about some moral objection by his bosses in Rome).
As I’ve indicated repeatedly, I’ll be dealing with that in a later post.
Bart,
All of your references in this post to non- crucified criminals say they were purposely left UNburied, i.e., at most apparently tossed onto the ground of a common pit. Assuming the Romans did remove skeletons from crosses, where do you get the idea that they would “bury” the skeleton?
Well, we’ve found two buried skeletons of crucified victims, so that’s a start.
I don’t see how that’s a start. The two buried skeletons of crucified victims you refer to weren’t buried by the *Roman authorities*; they were returned to and buried by their *family* (one was found in an ossuary and the other in a formal cemetery with his arms neatly folded across his chest). Where do you get the idea that the *Roman authorities* ever buried the corpse or skeletal remains of criminals? All of your own references say they were intentionally left UNburied, i.e., at most apparently tossed onto the open ground of a common pit, i.e., your own examples seem to contradict your own position.
I thought it was only a Zoroastrian practice to allow scavengers to ravage the flesh of the dead openly.
Th Zoroastrians did not leave bodies where everyone could see them. They were taken to mountain tops or left in open top towers. Look up “Sky Burial”.
Speaking of the shifting view of Pilate towards a kinder, gentler ruler and the Jews becoming more and more to blame, doesn’t one of the Christian sects (maybe Eastern Orthodox?) consider Pilate a Saint? When I first heard this, I was flabbergasted! They turned this cruel ruler who obviously had to be the one to condemn Jesus into a Saint?
It’s not Eastern Orthodox. I believe the Ethiopic and Coptic churches do.
Fascinating!
Isaiah 53:9 ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.’
For those who like to imagine Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus this verse must give some pause. Was his grave with the wicked or the rich or the wicked rich or what??? What does the original, as near as we have it, actually say?
Could Jesus’s body and that of other criminals been thrown into the rubbish dump Gehenna? (Note:As Easton’s Bible Dictionary illustrates, “Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were cast and consumed by fire kept always burning.”) Could this even be where the tradition that Jesus after his death descended into hell came from, as Gehenna began in time to be thought of as hell?
I”m not sure what evidence Easton (writing over 125 years ago) had that criminals were cast into Gehenna; I’ve never heard or seen of any evidence of it.
One question I have that came up in a discussion about the question of whether Jesus was buried. Was there something significant about the idea that Jesus had the central spot among a group of crucifixion victims? I’ve heard an idea that this would have singled him out as the “worst” of the criminals. Would this affect the likelihood that he would have been given a decent burial? Or was there no special significance here?
In the Gospels there is a criminal on either side of him. That is either to make him the center of attention in the story or to show a fulfillment of Isaiah 53 about him being killed in the midst of the wicked.
There is another reason to doubt the story. The “nails” used to fasten victims to their cross had to be roughly made castings about 6 to 8 inches long and 3/8 inches in diameter. A large hammer swung by strong men were needed to drive the nails a few inches into the wood. It would be necessary to first remove these nails to remove a body. How could this be done? Or, was it never done, bodies never removed, and the next victim was nailed to the other side of the cross.
Bill Steigelmann
Yes, nails were removed, so they could be reused. They’ve discovered a bunch of them in modern times, as I’ll be discussing in a later post.
After Hannibal’s death the Romans insisted that his body was thrown on the rubbish heap. Although this was a specific political gesture it demonstrates a mindset.
Dr. Ehrman,
Someone gave me “three sources” they believe show it was more common than we think for crucified criminals to be given a decent burial. Here is what they gave me:
1) The archaeological discovery of the skeletal remains of a first-century crucifixion victim in a family tomb just outside of Jerusalem (Giv’at ha-Mivtar) suggests that a Roman governor in Jerusalem had at least once released the body of a crucifixion victim for burial.
2) Cicero mentions in 70 B.C.E. a governor in Sicily who released bodies to family members in return for a fee (Verrem 2.5.45).
3) The Digest of Justinian (48.24) has Augustus in the early first century giving crucified bodies back to their families and Paulus in the third century saying that crucified bodies should be given to any who seek their burial.
I wanted to get your thoughts on these. I didn’t see in your book where you covered these specific examples and wasn’t sure how accurate/how to interpret the data? What do you think?
1. Yes, we have the remains. That shows the man was crucified. It does NOT show when he was buried (three weeks later?)
2. Possibly that is an incorrect reference to Cicero? Here is Ver. 2.5.45
What answer will you make to me now? Unless, perhaps, you say what, although it cannot possibly be admitted as an excuse, yet must be urged in a trial for extortion, that that ship was built with your own money. Dare, at least, to say this which is necessary. Do not be afraid, O Hortensius, of my asking how it became lawful for a senator to build a ship? Those are old and dead laws, as you are accustomed to call them, which forbid it. There was such a republic here, once, O judges; there was such strictness in the tribunals, that an accuser would have thought such a transaction worthy to be classed among the most serious crimes. For what did you want of a ship? when, if you were going anywhere on account of the state, ships were provided for you at the public expense, both to convey you, and to guard you? But it is not possible for you to go anywhere on your own private account, nor to send for articles across the sea from those countries in which it is not lawful for you to have any possessions, or any dealings.
3. I don’t believe the Digest of Justinian mentions crucified victims does it? Correct me if I’m wrong!
Dr. Ehrman,
This is what the person said who is using the Digest of Justinian (they appear to be using John Granger Cook’s work).
“The Digest continues with a quotation of Ps. Paulus’s Sententiae, a work written toward the end of the third century: Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet petentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt(The bodies of executed persons are to be granted to any who seek them for burial). Although Ps. Paulus is late, the tradition he hands on may be much earlier, and the gospels confirm his picture if they are correct in their claim that Joseph of Arimathaea asked for and was given the corpse of Jesus. Ulpian leaves the crime of high treason or maiestas as one of the major exceptions to the rule, but it is highly unlikely Jesus was tried for that crime. I will not belabor the point that this ‘exception’ Ulpian mentions is dated closer to his era than that of Augustus.”
What are your thoughts on this?
The Digest is recording regional laws / decrees for very specific times and palces, not empire wide laws. You’ll notice that this is a reference to a policy 250 years after Jesus (think of the different US policies toward most things 250 years ago!). In any event, if you’re quoting it correctly you’ll note that it is not speaking specifically of crucifixion victims. They were always the major exception to execution politics. Moreover, it would be very odd to think that crucified victims in the empire could be buried if anyone asked for their bodies. If that was the case, why, in the explicit descriptions of the punishment, are they left hanging on their crosses? No one asked for their bodies? And the many instances in which family or friends or loving others did ask for their bodies are never mentioned in our sources?
Dr. Ehrman,
Were grave robbers common in the ancient world? Also, was it common for grave robbers to steal bodies? Do we have any examples of this in the ancient world? And, if so, why would people steal whole bodies?
Certainly there were grave robbers, but they were normally going for the goods.
Dr. Ehrman,
Was it common, though, for grave robbers to steal whole bodies just to get some goods they may have been buried with? Are there any examples of this in ancient history we know about?
Graves were certainly plundered, but I can’t think of (m)any instances of bodies being stolen as well. There proabably are instances, but the only ones I can think of involve using a body to fake the death of someone else. If you run across some instances, let me know.
Dr. Ehrman,
Are there any sources outside of the Canonical Gospels that meantion Joseph of Arimathea or tell give us any informatio about him? Was Arimathea even a real place?
1. Nope, he’s never mentioned except in the Gospels and in authors referring to the Gospels. 2. And no, we don’t have any place identified as Arimathea at that time.
Isn’t it clear at least Peter and James thought something happened? It seems clear that at least to the year 62 there a “Jesus oriented” Jewish sect in Jerusalem, one where at least Steven was stoned to death for his belief. Taken as a whole this group would be contemporaneous to Jesus, first generation. I’d like to hear compelling reasons how this sect could be faithful to death based on what they knew was a lie (a grave, empty grave, resurrection?)
I don’t think there were any lies involved. A person “lies” when they say something that they know is not true. It is not a lie to say something that is not true but that you think *is* true. I don’t think the original disciples lied about Jesus being buried or having seen him. If you wonder how people living at the time could possibly say things emphatically that are not true, I’d say it happens all the time. It’s very difficult for me sometimes to read or watch the news. Most times, in fact.