(12 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading...[Note: this post originally appeared in 2014; since then the skeletal remains of another victim of crucifixion have appeared in England; to my knowledge, the new discovery does not affect either Craig’s argument or my response here]
******************************
I plan to make this the last post responding to Craig Evans’s article, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right,” in which he attempts to refute my argument in How Jesus Became God, that Jesus was probably not given a decent burial on the day of his crucifixion.
I have dealt with a wide range of Craig’s arguments, and have saved his two strongest arguments for last. In my last post I dealt with the claim of Josephus that Jews (always? usually? sometimes?) buried crucifixion victims before sunset, and I showed that as a general statement it simply isn’t true, and argued that in any event it would not have applied to a case such as that of Jesus, one who was crucified as an enemy of the state. Today I deal with the second argument that had been seen by some readers to have a good deal force: an archaeological discovery of a crucified man. Once again, I do not think this provides Craig with the evidence that he wants and needs in order to make his case.
Let me first introduce what this evidence is. What follows is a very brief description of the discovery of the skeletal remains of Yehohanan, the crucified man.
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!
It still comes to mind that the influence of Joseph of Arimatria as a member of the Sanhedrin may have helped to have Jesus’ body properly buried earlier when the Roman soldiers were present when one of them stabbed Jesus in the side with a spear. The story can’t be proven, of course, but it expresses a possibility.
“Craig tries to anticipate this problem in his comments by arguing that the skeletal remains of Yehohanan show that his legs were broken. And why broken? Ah ha! It must have been to speed his death! Why would someone do that? Because he had to be buried before sunset!”
Pardon my confusion here, but why the rush to get him buried before sunset? He wasn’t dead yet.
Jesus was dead already. The others were not, and so had their legs broken. Like Yehohanan. In Craig’s opinion.
I find the burial story somewhat believable:
1. If Joseph of Arimathea, mentioned in all four Gospels, was indeed a rich man and/or a member of the council, might he have been able to gain an audience with Pilate? Even brutal Pilate might have wanted to keep his finger on the pulse of Jewish activity in the region and who better to apprise him of it than one of their leaders?
2. Could Pilate have released the body just to get rid of Joseph if for no other reason? According to Mark he didn’t seem overly concerned about this apparent peasant claiming to be King of the Jews. Maybe he thought Jesus was just some kind of nut. It was evening when Joseph showed up according to Mark so it might have been dark before the body was taken down and possibly few people would have been aware of it. Anyway, Pilate still had 2 bodies hanging on crosses to serve as a warning to the populace.
Bart,
I think you’ve made a good argument that Jesus *could* have been left on the cross, but I have two open questions:
1) You write, “Part of the [Roman] punishment for ignominious crimes was burial in a common grave,” but your cited references say criminals were “cast forth without burial,” “denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace of a wicked man,” and “debarred from burial” (https://ehrmanblog.org/36276-2/). How do you reconcile your position that the Romans “buried” Jesus with your cited references?
2) If the Romans didn’t bury Jesus, how do you account for some Jews thinking Jesus was “buried” (1 Cor 15:3-5)? You responded to others with, “I”d say *every* Christian “knew” Jesus was buried; otherwise they couldn’t believe he’d been raised (since being raised presupposes he’s in the ground somewhere)” (https://ehrmanblog.org/the-life-of-brian-and-jesus-was-jesus-really-buried-on-the-day-of-the-crucifixion), but this can’t be right because as you also point out, “God raised everyone. Including, say, people eaten by fish” (https://ehrmanblog.org/did-romans-allow-decent-burials-for-crucified-criminals/), and “Jesus could have come back to life on the cross three days later” (https://ehrmanblog.org/bogus-arguments-for-disbelief/). So why did some early Jews think Jesus was “buried” if the Roman didn’t bury criminals?
Does anyone else here know how to answer the above two questions?
I was watching a TV show last week about the historical Jesus and they had a historian who claimed that Yehohanan’s nailed ankle was proof that crucifixion victims were allowed to be buried as in the Gospels. My first thought was that you put bones into an ossuary AFTER the body has decomposed! For all we know his body rotted and his bones fell to the ground weeks after the crucifixion. Such grasping at straws.
I agree. Good grief.
Is this something that devout Christian historians have to simply not accept? The idea that Jesus was likely treated as everyone else and buried in a common grave?
It cuts strongly against Christian views, so it would be hard to accept.
How do the historic method and the balance of probabilities work?
There are very many stories in the Gospels. Some we accept and some we don’t.
By which criteria is Arimathea’s story, present in all Gospels,rejected?
Wouldn’t the unsupported rejection of a reasonable,understandable,historically well placed tale such as the Arimathea story signify an impossible standard under which most Gospel episodes might be eliminated?
So much of Jesus’ deposition chapter has historic background:the corpse had to be solicited,indeed;a wealthy influential follower of Jesus being perfectly possible;a reasonable exception granted in Jesus’ case,as there were other cases, Josephus himself telling us about three crucified taken down at Josephus’ own request; Pilate’s surprise;and more,regarding every aspect of this story.
As for probabilities,the only argument cast in the mix of many serious possibilities is the unproven assertion that Romans allowed Jesus’ body to rot and be mutilated because that’s what they usually- always??- did.
I don’t know if there’s a mathematician who could draft a formula allowing a large portion of the Gospels to be historical,and yet,for no good reason,nix an eminently possible alternative- considering all the info we derive from the Gospels-in favor of an exclusivist certainty of what was,after all,an occasionally mutable rule.
The presence of a story in all four Gospels does not mean there are four indepdendent witnesses to it. Matthew and Luke got the story from Mark, so we have two witnesses (and if the current trend of scholarship is right, then John also knew the others, so there would then be only one witness to it). Acts recounts the burial and doesn’t mention Joseph; so does Paul; he’s not mentioned in any other ancient source except those referring to the Gospel accounts; and the story of him burying Jesus that afternoon cuts against everything we know about Roman practices with crucified victims. Moreover, it allows Christians to “prove” the resurrection by saying that the tomb was empty on the third day (an impossible claim if there was no tomb and he was not buried right away). So there are plenty of reasons to doubt the story, especially since so many other parts of the same story are so doubtful (we can’ have any idea what Jesus said at his trial; or on the cross, or … etc.)
I know that generally we say that all we can know with certainty is that Jesus existed and that he was crucified.
But there are other things we can say with certainty,ie,historical facts,and those are (also) contained in the Gospels:
Jesus had followers. Don’t know if 5 or 12 or 13, but he did have them.
He preached ethics,moral standards,HB novel interpretations.Or were these *all* made up?
He was an itinerant teacher/rabbi living a hand-to-mouth existence.
He lived in a historic period of great revolutionary turmoil that culminated in tremendous tragedy between 66AD-135AD.
He lived under an oppressive Roman occupation.
He was thought to be a/the Messiah.
He was perceived as divine by many,including a belief in his Resurrection.
He performed cures of various kinds,(“miracles or signs”),very common at that time.
He is associated with many towns in Israel,quite a few still existing.(this is where I guess Jesus and Apollonio of Tyana part ways.Chronologically,Apollonio would be a copycat.)
You see my drift. There is much that,once we agree that Jesus existed,we must agree to in tandem.
I therefore ask,are we to eliminate all other information-at the very least “possible”stories-if they are not attested,say,archaeologically?
I personally place Moses and the Exodus at a similar level,as there is overwhelming evidence for his existence,or the existence of one like him,even an Egyptian “son of”(Mose).from many historic sciences apart from archaeology.
No, we don’t eliminate any story at the outset. We examine all the stories and apply rigorous historical criteria to them to see if they are likely to have happened or not, just as we do with George Washington, the Besht, and Alexander the Great.
“ I wish we had archaeological evidence that could help us know more about the crucifixion of Jesus. It would be of utmost significance even if we had any archaeological evidence to help us know, in general, whether it is likely that Romans overlooked their normal practice of leaving crucified victims on their crosses when it came to Jews in Judea. “
Yes, sometimes archaeological evidence can change what we think about crucifixion.
Take for instance :
https://arkeonews.net/first-example-of-roman-crucifixion-in-uk-discovered-in-cambridgeshire-village/
The author of the article made this reflection:
“This shows that the inhabitants of even this small settlement at the edge of empire could not avoid Rome’s most barbaric punishment.”
Apparently the idea that crucifixion only happened in major cities could be wrong.
Maybe the Romans did overlook their normal practice of leaving crucified victims on their crosses when it came to Jews in Judea.
Hi Bart – I believe I can ask this here. To what extent in your view is The Gospel of Mary for real? Can it be completely ruled out or completely accepted? Those who doubt it see it as a despicable hoax yes?
I’m not sure what you mean by the terms “real” and “accepted.” It is a genuine Gospel probalby from teh second century that embodies a gnostic understanding of Jesus and was accepted by some Christians at the time. It’s a terrific piece. If you haven’t read it, you can find it in the book I published wiht Zlatko Plese, The Other Gospels.
It is terrific. SO Jesus probably did say those things to Mary yes?
Absolutely not!
Follow-ups if I may and I will leave it at this for now I done want to take to much of your time – thank you most kindly for your wonderful blog Professor.
Because some of her claims are too wild and remain completely uncorroborated I take it? That is why we don’t accept Mary’s claims as “gospel”?
If it were modern times that Jesus had appeared in do you think Mary would likely have been listed as a core apostle – ie it was simply that a woman could not really be credited thus in those days?
Finally, Was Mary Jesus’s girlfriend?
The Gospel is embodying a Gnostic understanding of the world that cannot be documented till the second century, about a hundred years or slightly more after Jesus’ death. It’s a terrific Gospel that is extremely valuable for understanding early Christian views, but not for knowin about the historical Jesus. And no, they were not romantically involved. If you do a word search for Magdalene, you’ll see soe posts where I discuss this.
I don’t understand how crucifixion kills you in an afternoon, unless I’m mistaken, you don’t bleed out due to the nails (or maybe you do and I’m wrong about that) so then what is it that kills you so quickly? Just having it described to me I’d assume it would take days to die and potentially that being of starvation/thirst
I’m clearly missing something here so could someone please explain to me what is the part of crucifixion that leads to death on that day if it is normal to die on the day you’re nailed to the cross?
The normal view is that Jesus was flogged within an inch of his death before the crucifixion (as in Mel Gibson…) and therefore died relatively quickly.
Oh I see, then yeah that makes more sense
Appreciate the answer, you’re a good man Dr Ehrman
I believe there is also a theory that in hanging from your arms (somehow, we don’t know the exact configuration), puts great pressure on the lungs, adding slow suffocation forces to the flogging injuries as a possible cause.
This would explain why breaking legs, if done, would be thought to hasten death — removing support that helped relieve the lungs from the hanging-pressure.
https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2022/02/25/evidence-of-crucifixion/
They think he was a slave.
Do we got any clue of how many people was crucified during Pilates time in that area?
Nope.
I’ve noticed that the Shroud of Turin is not part of this discussion, I can understand why. I’m convinced it predates the year 1000, and can understand how a shroud leaving a faint image which was possibly due to the maillard effect, would be kept secret and later reverenced and treasured. I won’t go into forensic findings but many discount it being painted, so my question is, if it is not Jesus of Naz, who is it?
Having said that, I can see the difficulties in this for historians on this topic, how was Jesus’s body treated after death? I’d be interested in knowing if experts ever consider this question, or is it too remote for serious speculation.
It is a medieval forgery. The science is pretty clear on the dating. (Though, of course, people write books arguing otherwise, just as they write books on all kinds of things.)
Even if it were a cloth from the days of Jesus, since there were thousands and thousands of crucified victims, it would be impossible to say whose cloth it was.
What of the possibility that a significant Roman, perhaps Pilate himself, was bribed to let Jesus have a proper burial? They weren’t above that, or were they? The story doesn’t suggest this, but then why would it if it were so?
I don’t know of any instances of this, but in theory very little is impossible. Jesus’ followers wouldn’t have been abel to bribe him, though, since they were unemployed beggars; and if Jewish authorities did, that would surely mean they did they same for every crucified Jew which seems rather, well, implausible…
Sure, most of his followers were paupers, but a key few were people of means, The story is that Joseph of Arimathea was the principle actor, a man of means. Pilate getting bribed does seem implausible, but the night watchman? Maybe there was a little side enterprise, granting bodies if the families had enough cash.
If so, it doesn’t change anything on the bigger picture, does it?
Yes, if the Bible is accurate the Joseph of Arimathea existed, was wealthy, and was involved, then yes, there’s no questoin about it. That would mean taking the Bible at face value as literally accurate without questioning its authority (which historians don’t do). But if you DO take that approach, that rules out the optoin of bribery, because the Bible that is being taken as literally accurate says that he asked Pilate, not that he bribed him. See the problem?
Professor Ehrman,
I noticed someone else asked this question, but I did not happen to see a response from you, so I will ask it also: Paul seems to know of a tradition that Jesus was buried. I believe that is recorded in 1 Cor. 15. I’m reasonably sure that this tradition is something Paul is quoting, so that would place it as being older than Paul’s letter to Corinth, meaning there is an early, Pre-Markan AND Pre-Pauline Tradition of the burial. I don’t personally believe there is any solid reason to assume Jesus was buried. However, why did some Jews, including Paul, seem to believe he had been if it was common practice for executed rebels to rot on the cross?
Yes, others have asked this. My view is that Jesus *was* buried. That is, his remains were disposed of in some way, as crucified victims were always eventually disposed of, for example in shallow trench, some days/weeks after they died.