Loading...Now that I have restated my views about the burial of Jesus by citing passages from How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2014) and emphasized one particular general point – that it is of utmost importance to remember why Romans crucified people, and in particular why they crucified those who were guilty of insurrection, the threat of insurrection, or high treason (a point that I cannot stress enough: Jesus was executed for calling himself the King of the Jews – a political charge of treason against the state) – I can now begin to summarize the counter-arguments that Craig Evans has made in his relatively long response, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right.” Despite this title, and despite the respect I have for Craig as a scholar, I have to say that in my judgment he gets virtually all the evidence precisely wrong.
He focuses his counter-argument on two of my main points: the Roman practices of crucifixion and the character of Pontius Pilate in particular. I will respond to all of his major claims – but if anyone wants me to respond to yet anything else in his essay when I’m done, just let me know and I’ll be happy to oblige.
When reading Craig’s response, I have to say that I was taken aback by the fact that he started to counter my views by quoting a passage from the Jewish philosopher from Alexandria,Egypt, Philo, in order to show that Romans had a “practice” (his term) of allowing bodies of crucified people to be given burials under “various circumstances.” I was surprised because
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 have come to agree with Bart, but the question continues to bother me: Why was it so important in the minds of early Christians that Jesus be buried, in a tomb or otherwise?
It seems the idea of Jesus being buried was even thought by Paul.
Couldn’t Jesus simply have died in the stories and been resurrected on the third day (if that is what they expected)?
Admittedly, the tomb story is a good one, but still, to invent a narrative out of whole cloth about an event (the resurrection) that was so important to them? And so early in the tradition that it may have been one or more disciple that came up with it?
I don’t think we should imagine that a story like that was invented in the sense that someone just decided to make it up; it developed over time: followers of Jesus came to believe he wsa raised from the dead; they insisted on it; some imagined there wsa actual proof; the empty tomb story just came into being, like so much other rumor and gossip does, almost inadvertently, as a way of saying, He really WAS raised from the dead. The women found the tomb empty!
Nailed it! 😉
Do you think most people questioned that Jesus had an actual tomb? If they did, why ‘make up’ the fact that they found it empty as proof?
Do you mean soon after he died? The vast majority of people at the time even in Jerusalem, would never have heard of him. The only ones who would have had any interest in him having a tomb were his followers, and none of them questioned it. At the time, none of them would have wondered about it. Later, those who heard that there had been a tomb and that it was found empty would simply have believed it.
“on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down” In my understanding, the bodies were removed before the holiday, on its eve. The crucifixion could have happened on the same day, there is nothing to indicate that could not have been the case. The only indication is that the bodies had to be removed in time, there is nothing about the time of the crucifixion. The quote might be relevant by showing that such a practice was possible, in principle, but it also might be irrelevant in terms of the specific reason, if “different political and religious factors were in play”.
My read is that every thing we theorize about Jesus’s burial is extrapolation. Of course, we’re talking about probabilities, so it makes sense to look for historical evidence that is most directly applicable. Please correct me if there is evidence that I’ve missed for any of these:
• Non-Biblical anecdotes about crucifixion in Jerusalem in the time of Pilate ? I don’t think so.
• Descriptions of Pilate’s personality and approach to rule? Yep, ruthless.
• Descriptions of Romans honoring requests for burial of executed Jews
(except in the New Testament)?
Nope.
•.Description of Romans honoring requests for burial of any executed
oppressed population? Nope.
• Description of Romans being criticized for both executing and/or
leaving corpses of executed Roman criminals on display during
emperor’s birthday if the family was available to receive the body? Yes.
So to paraphrase the historical source we do have, “There is some evidence that Roman officials neither executed criminals nor displayed corpses of executed Romans during the emperor’s birthday. Those corpses would be returned to family members if possible. The custom, however, seems not to have been universally honored.” Does it apply to Jesus? Nope.
My question marks denote rhetorical questions. I don’t think Craig’s argument has any merit. Christians may as well depend on the idea that the Gospels are as reliable as any other historical writing of the first century. Why go further? Have any of the arguments such as Craig depends upon convinced a skeptical scholar? They preach to the choir, they ought to just stay consistent with their confidence in the Gospel narratives, harmonizing the discrepancies as they have done for millennia. None of us skeptics, much less scholars, are ever convinced by them, are they? Certainly not me, a skeptic if not a scholar. I have to say, I was sad when I came to accept that Bart is right. I really like the tomb narratives. They are the basis of so much church pageantry. At the Baptist church in which I grew up, there was a tomb reenactment every Easter Sunday. Cheezy as it was, the staging had an effect. Perhaps that is why early followers came up with it, almost as if some of the disciples sat together and figured out the best way of telling the resurrection story.
Bart,
1] The Flaccus passage shows crucifixion victims could *sometimes* be removed from crosses and given to someone else for burial when there was a *benefit* to the Romans, in this case honoring the emperor’s birthday. It’s hard to come up with any other example where it would have been beneficial to the Romans to allow a body off the cross; however, the potential risk of a riot with several times the normal Jews in Jerusalem during a nationalistic Jewish holiday would seem to be one such scenario. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude that Pilate could have been concerned about a possible riot had he left crucifixion victims on the cross overnight during Passover?
2] Your point that bodies in Alexandria were only given to relatives doesn’t seem relevant because Jesus’ family/friends almost certainly lacked the resources to bury Jesus, and the Jewish authorities would gladly have taken control of the body to make sure it was buried before sunset. IF there was some benefit to Pilate to remove Jesus’ body from the cross (e.g., to avoid a possible riot), don’t you agree he would have given the body to the Jewish authorities, not to the family like in Alexandria?
Bart,
One other question on the Flaccus passage. Where does Philo say that crucifixion victims were, as you say, “taken down on the *day* of the holiday”? It seems just as likely that Philo intends crucifixion victims were taken down “on the eve of” the holiday (or “when this festival and holiday was at hand”), in which case this passage could include crucifixion victims taken down from the cross on the same day they died. The grammar (at least in English) doesn’t seem to favor your interpretation of either of your two translations.
The Philo quotation does suggest the celebration of birthdays of members of the Imperial family, not just the Emperor. That could amount to a dozen or so people, maybe more, including people we know little about now. Just saying.
You’ll notice that Craig doesn’t mention whose birthday this was, or, rather more pointedly, why they would crucify Jesus and two others on that day if Philo indicates that Roman officials were not to crucify persons on that day!
Although I normally agree with you on everything, Dr Ehrman, I have to say that I think there is a (very) slight case to be made that Jesus’s body could have been taken down in honour of the birthday of perhaps even an obscure member of the Imperial Family, living or dead. Many of the dead ones, eg. Marcellus, Germanicus, Tiberius’ own son, Drusus, were probably still being honoured. Even given Pilate’s brutal reputation, he was still a very junior governor (an equestrian not a member of the senatorial class) and he would, I am sure, not have wanted to get on the wrong side of Tiberius by seeming to disrespect his family. Tiberius was not someone you would want to annoy. A slight case admittedly, but still a case.
Why did he crucify him on the birthday, if he wasn’t supposed to crucify him on the birthday?
Maybe the Saturday (the day after Jesus was crucified) was the birthday of a member of the Imperial family (we don’t in fact know the exact birthdays of some minor princelings) and perhaps that was the day on which Pilate allowed Jesus’s corpse to be taken down and buried. Okay, I know it’s a long shot, (and is at odds with the Gospel accounts) but it is possible (well, maybe 🤔)
I don’t think there’s anything in the passage to say this only occurred in Alexandria, the implication seems to be that it was throughout the empire.
Also in Flaccus Philo says “we, in conformity with our own laws which Augustus himself is in the habit of confirming” and ” it does not contribute to the honour of the emperor to abrogate the laws, to disturb the national customs of a people, to insult those who live in the same country”.
Why not take it from the gospels and from Paul that a similar practice of respecting special days by removing bodies from the cross was allowed in Judea in conformity with Jewish customs there – after all the sanhedrin still had legitimate authority there.
Has Craig ever responded to this tebuttal of his argument,
If so, I haven’t heard of it. Maybe someone else has?
In the book, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE by E.P. Sanders, he estimates the population of Jerusalem grew from 200,000 to 300,000 for Passover. On the Day of Preparation there would have been hundreds of thousands of people at the Temple with sheep and goats to be slaughtered for Passover, arguably the busiest day of the year for the Temple. The writers of the gospels would have us believe that while all of this was going on, Ca′iaphas the high priest who had overall charge of the Temple, the scribes and elders took the time on this busiest day to conspire with Judas, go out and arrest this little known man from Galilee to have him put to death for blasphemy, Matthew 26:59. To top it off you have Pontius Pilate who would have been on heightened alert because of the large crowds decide to have a trial on the feast of Passover in front of these crowds. Do you think the gentiles of that era who would have been reading or hearing these gospels were just ignorant to what life was like in Israel at that time?
Yup. Just as people are today, even though we, unlike they, have entire books written about it!
Did any other Roman governor or prefect remove Roman Standards (with the image of the Emperor) from the local Temple because the local population protested as Pilate did in Jerusalem? To me that action by Pilate opens the door to the possibility that he could make exceptions for other circumstances including for crucifixions.
There were no other temples in the Roman world that would have found the presence of Roman standards offensive. (The standards Pilate brought into town were not placed iinthe Temple, btw)
“When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.”
Seeneca on the Jews.
Apparently Seneca did not like the exceptions Jews enjoyed under Roman rule.
Looking at the two English translations you cited, I can see one instance in which Craig might be right that an executed criminal could be removed from the cross on the same day that he died. I don’t know about the koine Greek, however. Is the Greek clear that the bodies were removed ON the emperor’s birthday rather than just BEFORE the day’s start in order not to have the hanging bodies ruin the sanctity of the festival? If they were removed the day before, then someone executed the day before, “when this festival and holiday were at hand” WOULD have been removed on the day of death. Does the Greek make clear that this is not a possible scenario? Even if this loophole exists, I think all the other points argue against Craig’s stand.
I wish I could answer your questoin! I did look at the Greek when I wrote my post, but I’m out of the country just now with no Philo to hand! Sorry.
Bart,
Can you please answer Douglas’ question when you are back in the country with access to Philo: “Is the Greek clear that the bodies were removed ON the emperor’s birthday rather than just BEFORE the day’s start in order not to have the hanging bodies ruin the sanctity of the festival?” I also asked the same question and I think you missed it.
I’m planning to, but you may need to remind me. I get back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime: I can’t recall if I discuss the question in my book How Jesus Became God where I talk about the passage.
Bart,
Just leave this question unanswered until you are back in the states with access to your books (it will act as a place marker for you and I don’t have to guess when is the right time to ask the question again):
From Douglas above on the Flaccus 83 passage: “Is the Greek clear that the bodies were removed ON the emperor’s birthday rather than just BEFORE the day’s start in order not to have the hanging bodies ruin the sanctity of the festival?” I also asked the same question and I think you missed it.
Bart,
It’s been a couple weeks so I’m getting back to you. For Douglas above as well for myself on the Flaccus 83 passage:
Where does Philo say that crucifixion victims were, as you say, “taken down on the *day* of the holiday”? It seems just as likely that Philo intends crucifixion victims were taken down “on the eve of” the holiday (or “when this festival and holiday was at hand”), in which case this passage could include crucifixion victims taken down from the cross on the same day they died. The grammar (at least in English) doesn’t seem to favor your interpretation of either of your own two translations. Is the Greek clear that the bodies were removed ON the emperor’s birthday rather than just BEFORE the day’s start in order not to have the hanging bodies ruin the sanctity of the festival?
I can’t remember what we’re disagreeing about, but this is the English translation of the Loeb, speaking of the persecution of Jews in Alexandria under the governor Flaccus.
*******
Surely then it was the height of harshness that when80 commoners among the Alexandrian Jews, if they appeared to have done things worthy of stripes, were beaten with whips more suggestive of freemen and citizens, the magistrates, the Senate, whose very name implies age and honour, in this respect fared worse than their inferiors and were treated like Egyptians of the meanest rank and guilty of the greatest iniquities. I leave out of account81 the point that if they had committed a host of crimes he ought to have postponed the punishments in respect for the season,a for rulers who conduct their government as they should and do not pretend to honour but do really honour their benefactors make a practice of not punishing any condemned person until these notable celebrations in honour of the birthdays of the illustrious Augustan house are over. Instead he made them an occasion for illegality and82 for punishing those who had done no wrong, whom he could have punished at a later time if he wished. But he hurried and pressed on the matter to conciliate the mob, who were opposed to the Jews, thinking that this would help to bring them to make his policy their own.
I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites. For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of an emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained. But84 Flaccus gave no orders to take down those who had died on the cross. Instead he ordered the crucifixion of the living, to whom the season offered a short-lived though not permanent reprieve in order to postpone the punishment though not to remit it altogether. And he did this after maltreating them with the lash in the middle of the theatre and torturing them with fire and the sword. The show had been arranged85 in parts. The first spectacle lasting from dawn till the third or fourth hour consisted of Jews being scourged, hung up, bound to the wheel, brutally mauled and haled for their death marcha through the middle of the orchestra. After this splendid exhibition came dancers and mimes and flute players and all the other amusements of theatrical competitions.
******
Philo is saying that it was sometimes the case that to honor the emperor’s birthday some ruling officials would allow corpses hanging on crosses to be removed and given to family members the evening before and to be given burial rites, to demonstrate the emperor’s generosity. Flaccus however did not do that in the case of these Jewish “offenders.” He did just the opposite.
Philo does not say how long the corpses had been hanging on the cross when they were taken down, the evening before the holiday started, how long they had been decomposing He also, obviously, does not mention any other occasion when such a thing happened – only for the day of the Emperor’s birthday. And he does not indicate that this was a widespread, let alone typical (or required!) practice. He does say that this one governor Flaccus, didn’t do it and shows that in fact the governor didn’t give a damn about Jewish sensibilities in the matter, but used the day as an occasion for even more than usual cruelty.
I believe that’s what I said in the post: that some other goerners “would occasionally allow (already) crucified people to be removed from their crosses, ahead of schedule, on that day.” The were removed from the cross ahead of the scheduled celebrations. Maybe you’re confused by my use of the word “on.” If it would help, change it to “for.”
I don’t see how this is evidence that Pilate allowed Jesus to be removed. As I point out, Philo says it is to “family members.” That’s not the case here.: Joseph was as stranger to the family. He says it was in honor of an emperor’s birthday. That’s not the case here: the emperor’s birthday never comes into the story. He is referring to what Philo says sometimes happened in Egypt. That’s not the case here: Pilate is in a different part of the world
You’re free of course, to think that Jesus was taken off the cross that afternoon. But I don’t see how anyone could possibly get that from this passage unless they want it to apply to a situation that is different in almost every way from the one it is describing.
Yep, changing your word “on” to “for” fixes the problem in your sentence saying that some governors “would occasionally allow (already) crucified people to be removed from their crosses, ahead of schedule, FOR that day [i.e., the governor’s birthday].” As you now clarify, “Philo is saying that it was sometimes the case that to honor the emperor’s birthday some ruling officials would allow corpses hanging on crosses to be removed and given to family members THE EVENING BEFORE.” So even though Philo does not give a specific instance of it happening, a person both crucified and his corpse removed the day before the emperors birthday would be consistent with everything in the Philo passage…right? Doesn’t mean it happened, but one can’t use this passage to say it couldn’t happen…agreed?
Your second translation (by Charles Duke Yonge) goes on to say, “even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded. (84) But this man did not order men who had already perished on crosses to be taken down, but he commanded living men to be crucified, men to whom the very time itself gave, if not entire forgiveness, still, at all events, a brief and temporary respite from punishment; and he did this after they had been beaten by scourgings in the middle of the theatre; and after he had tortured them with fire and sword;”
Philo definitely accuses Flaccus of making the punishment and execution part of the “festivities.” I wonder if he is sarcastic in speaking of honoring Caligula as “a good emperor?” Or was Caligula’s short reign over at that point?
Philo despised Caligula anbd went on a diplomatic mission to counter his policies.
The practice of the governor granting executed victims a modicum of decency in honor of the emperor’s birthday is a bit like the opening scene in The Godfather where Don Corleone is holding court in his office and dispensing favors and “justice” on his daughter’s wedding day — celebrations are an occasion for deal-making and clemency. And as the Roman Empire was basically one huge, autocratic mob operation run from Rome, you got this kind of stuff. To argue that these ad-hoc gestures constituted an official “policy” is to fundamentally misunderstand how the empire was run.
The question is: when was this skeleton buried? On the day of his crucifixion?
Didn’t the Roman General Titus allow three crucified victims to taken down on request by Josephus? One would assume the two that died were buried. “and when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealious, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hand, while the third recovered.”
The Life of Flavius Josephus 420-421
Yes, they were removed while living from their crosses. That’s precisely what didn’t happen in the case of Jesus. In the case of the three, Titus decided *not* to kill them and subject them to the humiliation of having their corpses defiled.
Bart, I emailed Craig Evans to let him know of your current posts rebutting his argument that Jesus was buried in a tomb. I suggested he might want to respond to them. His reply:
“Friend Bart needs to stop embarrassing himself and listen to his colleague archaeologist Jody Magness. Most biblical scholars and archaeologists are confident that Jesus was buried in a known tomb. It is the resurrection that is controversial. The NT Gospels exhibit too much verisimilitude for their detailed passion and burial accounts to be nothing more than fiction. Even Paul—writing before the Gospels were written—speaks of Jesus “buried” (cf. 1 Cor 15). I attach a chapter that appeared a few years ago [Professor Evans attached chapter 9 of that book]:
1. What is/are Jodi Magness’ main argument(s) for the burial?
2. Does Evans’ chapter 9 of Beck and Licona’s book have any new arguments that merit a response?
1. I’ve had long discussoins with her about it, and she’ never given any archaeological evidence that this ever happened. Is Craig arguig that if someone else says this that it is therefore more likely true?(or that “everyone” does that it’s embarassing to say something else? Does he think it was embarassing when Darwin argued that humans evolved from lower forms of primate, because most experts said otherwise?) Why wouldn’t he point to evidence instead. My sense is that Jodi says this because that’s what everyone says and assumes. that’s the reason I always said it and why Craig still says it. 2. I haven’t looked at it yet. I’ve been out of the ocuntyr all summer and wasn’t aware of it before now.
Tiberius was born in November. That rules his birthday out. I can’t believe that the entire royal family enjoyed a birthday observance, let alone a holiday.
I have always had trouble understanding why Jesus was taken down from the cross and taken to a tomb when the practice of crucifixion was to let the bodies rot where they hung. The only thing I could come up with is that Joseph of Arimathea had a lot of stroke (and/or a lot of money). To say that Pilate feared riots by the Passover crowds, makes no sense. If that were the case, Pilate/Herod would have held Jesus in prison until everyone went home. On the contrary, Jesus’ crucifixion would have gotten more bang for the buck with more people to observe the sentence.