(12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...Was Jesus actually given a decent burial the afternoon he was crucified? Almost every Christian in the known universe, and almost all New Testament scholars, don’t ask the question and if they do they don’t ask it seriously: of *course* he was. Just read the Gospels! Why wouldn’t he be?
For years now I’ve taken a different stand, as pointed out in my recent post on Monty Python’s Life of Brian (see: The Life of Brian and Jesus: Was Jesus Really Buried on the Day of the Crucifixion? – The Bart Ehrman Blog) After that post, and for years before that, blog readers have asked for a fuller explanation of my views, and for my responses to scholarly rejections of it. Most everything I talk about on the blog comprises views held either by a majority of scholars or by a respectable minority. Not this one. So why do I find it convincing?
My fullest discussion of the matter came not in a scholarly publication but here on the blog, nine years ago. I’ve decided to re-post the entire thread. It came in a detailed response to New Testament scholar Craig Evans, who provided the most thorough attempt to discredit my view, in an essay found in a book of essays written by evangelical scholars to refute the wider claims of my book How Jesus Became God.
Here is the first of the series of posts I devoted to the matter back then, slightly edited for now.. And so, from 2014….
******************************
As many of you know, when my book How Jesus Became God appeared in March [2014], a response book appeared, simultaneously, in which a group of evangelical Christian scholars provided their contrary views on many of the topics that I dealt with. They called their book – to no one’s real surprise! – How God Became Jesus.
The five scholars who produced the response each wrote an essay or two on various aspects of my discussion – e.g., Michael Bird on whether Jesus thought that he was God; Simon Gathercole on what the earliest Christians thought about Jesus; Charles Hill on issues related to later debates over Christology on the church. Also contributing were Chris Tilling (the one of them I don’t know) and Craig Evans.
I thought some of the essays were learned and interesting, though not entirely relevant to the claims or arguments of my book; others I thought were a bit turgid and less than compelling; others were a bit infuriatingly full of rhetoric and short of substance.
I decided long ago not to do a point-by-point response – in part because most people reading the blog haven’t read the book, and in part because I’m not sure there is really much reason to do so. The weak essays can be seen as weak by anyone who reads them and point-by-point refutations are rarely interesting. I should remind readers, though, that I did have a two-hour debate with Simon Gathercole, who, as I just indicated, contributed one of the essays, on the Unbelievable radio program here (where I currently am) in the UK. I posted the two episodes of the show, in case you want to listen to them, here on the blog, back in April [to find the posts just search on “Gathercole”]. They were helpful and friendly discussions, I thought; he’s a smart fellow and a good scholar.
The one essay from the response book that people have repeatedly asked me about is “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right” by Craig Evans. It deals with an important issue in my book, the question of whether we can trust the traditions of Jesus’ burial as found in the New Testament, or whether these are legendary.
For my entire life, until about two years ago, I was convinced (even as a solid agnostic) that
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 watched your debates with Craig Evans (as also as every debate of yours on YouTube 😂) and it was one these ones that got me a bit ticked off. The reason was his glaring intellectual dishonesty. I mean, he would not respond to even the simplest question out of fear of deviating from the official evangelical narrative. He would weasel out of elementary stuff to not give a straight answer. It was really embarassing, to be honest. Lacking this level of intellectual integrity automatically disqualifies your arguments (even though I have read them and you have refuted them quite convincingly).
This was interesting in 2014 and will be interesting now.
Ah, *you’re* the one who was around then. 🙂
Speaking of Life of Brian, another point that struck me as I watched it was that the victims of crucifixion were shown tied, not nailed, to their respective crosses. I thought this must have been a money-saving device for the producers, but then I began to wonder if they might have been right — perhaps the Romans’ common practice was to use ropes instead of nails or spikes.
Checking the gospels, I’ve found that neither Mark nor Matthew gives any indication of nails. Luke, though, seems to imply that nails were used when Jesus proves his identity to the disciples by telling them to look at his hands and feet (Luke 24:39 — but were they looking at nail holes or at rope burns?) John is explicit: when Thomas doubts the resurrection, he declares his need for proof (John 20:25); he wants to put his finger in the mark of the nails & his hand in his pierced side (the soldier piercing Jesus’s side is an added detail that appears only in John).
Is there any literary evidence outside the NT that tells us how exactly the Romans carried out crucifixion?
There’s actually a lot of evidence (none for ropes, that I know of, but it’s commonly thought they were used too) — including archaeological. They’ve found a bunch of crucifixion nails! (And at least two skeletons with ankle holes, one of them with the nail still in it!)
Prof. Ehrman,
In the post appearance story in Luke 24:36-43, Jesus tells his disciples, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Do the earliest Greek manuscripts give clues as to what Jesus is doing here (i.e., showing them wounds from the cross in his hands and feet, or showing parts of his body not covered by clothing to prove he is not a ghost)? In the Revised Standard Version (RSV), Jesus goes on to ask for something to eat, as if continuing to prove he is not a ghost. Luke 24:37 says the disciples were “startled and frightened, and supposed they saw a spirit.” The RSV does not seem to imply or mention any wounds, and I read the story as Jesus trying to calm their surprise and fear when they first see him. Is that a reasonable interpretation relative to Greek manuscripts?
The implicatoin of Jesus saying “See my hands and feet” is that he’s showing them to him, I believe. The passage is meant to show that Jesus was not raised simply in the spirit, but in the body, still with wounds and, apparently, a digestive tract!
I disagree with your implied inclusion of “with wounds” regarding the story in Luke. At the time Luke was written, if the circulating post-appearance story included details of Jesus showing wounds to the disciples, I think the writer would have specifically stated this, or even emphasized the point. Luke does not say, “See the wounds in my hands and feet,” or “Put your hands in the spear wound in my side.” Such details would have been too tempting for religious writers to leave out. I think Luke’s story is strong evidence that crucifixion wounds were not in circulation at that time it was written.
It is not conclusive among historians whether the use of nails to fasten crucifixion victims to crosses was common practice or not. Archeologists mention nails found at grave sites and ossuaries could have been used for many reasons, from engraving or scratching information on stone/wood, to fastening lids on wooden coffins/ossuaries, and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions regarding crucifixion. A hole that was discovered in the right heal bone only, of a poorly preserved skeleton in Italy is not conclusive for crucifixion. The single hole is not straight and could have been from a root.
Why was he telling them to look at his hands and feet then? If it wasn’t to see his wounds, why have readers always assumed it was for the sake of his wounds? I should think that would be the natural assumption (since why else?), and if so, then the author assumed it would be the natural assuption as well. In any event, I don’t think there is any debate about whether nails were used, is there? One skeleton was found with the nail still in the ankle.
Jesus is showing his hands and feet to demonstrate he has a solid physical body (flesh and bones) and is not a spirit. Jesus demonstrates exposed parts of his body not covered by clothing. Presumably Jesus was wearing a full-length tunic of some kind? If he would have been wearing something more casual, like shorts and a short-sleeve tunic top, he could have said, “See my arms and my legs…” Jesus could have also added, “See my face,” since presumably his face wasn’t covered. However, I can imagine Jesus was referring to parts of his body that he himself could see as he was demonstrating them to his disciples. I think the dominant point of the story is to calm the disciples sudden startlement and fear when they thought they were seeing a ghost. Doesn’t that seem like the tone of the story? Jesus never makes a reference to wounds, which I think would have been specifically stated if that was the main point. I was wondering if the original Greek text offered clues regarding indication of wounds. If not, then I think the tone of the English translation stands – demonstrating he has a physical body.
There is one instance of archeological evidence indicating nails used in a crucifixion – the case of ossuary of Jehohanan the son of Hagkol, containing a heel bone with a nail still intact. In this single case, the victim’s bones were in an ossuary, which indicates burial. In a 1985 article regarding this case entitled “The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mitvar: A Reappraisal” in the Israel Exploration Journal by Joseph Zias and Dr. Eliezer Sekeles of the Hebrew University: “the arms of the condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross. There is ample literary and artistic evidence for the use of ropes rather than nails to secure the condemned to the cross. Moreover, in Egypt, where according to one source crucifixion originated, the victim was not nailed but tied.”
Right about Jehohanan. I’ll be talking more about his case in a later post. Can you tell me what ample literary and archaeological evidence the article you cite is referring to? I can’t think of any off hand. (They, by the way, are referring to his hands; his ankle still had the nail in it.) And why would a practice in Egypt centuries earlier have any relevance to what we’re talking about here? Assyrians, e.g., used to impale victims, but I don’t think that’s evidence that Jesus was impaled
The “ample literary and artistic evidence” are the words of Joseph Zias and Dr Eliezer Sekeles in their paper. I will attempt to find their references of support. I am not sure whether they are still alive, but Joseph Zias is an anthropologist with the Israel Department of Antiquities and is one of the world’s leading experts on crucifixion. Dr. Eliezer Sekeles is a professor of medicine at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
A paper entitled “Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ” by Dr. Andrea Berlin and Dr. Jodi Magness states, “…many victims were tied by ropes to the cross, not nailed. In cases where victims were nailed, the nails were placed through the wrists, not the palms of the hands.” In the post-appearance story, Jesus does not say look at my wrists. If he was implying wounds, he would have said look at my wrists – not my hands. Dr. Andrea Berlin is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Jodi Magness is a Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Yes, Jodi’s office is across from mine. That is also my understanding, but I don’t know what kind of archaeological evidence there is (or could be) for it. Nails went through the wrists, which were considered part of the hands, because they would rip out if in the hands.
I sited two independent references from distinguished archeologists (“condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross” and “many victims were tied by ropes to the cross, not nailed”), but you continue to add implied reference to nail wounds in the post-appearance story in Luke. I have attempted to explain that Jesus is simply showing parts of his body not covered by clothing in demonstration that he is real and physical.
By the time that the Gospel of John was written, religious sensationalism added Jesus being stabbed in the side with a spear while on the cross, and the concept of nail wounds to the post appearance story first appeared. Josephus has the only historical reference of victims (thousands of innocent Judeans in the siege on Jerusalem) being nailed to crosses by Roman soldiers filled with “rage and hatred… by way of jest.” This setting is drastically different from the Gospels.
During the siege, were Roman soldiers (in sadistic sarcasm) reacting to sensationalized Christian rumors that would have surfaced around this time that Romans had nailed the Jewish messiah to a cross nearly 40 years before? Innocent Jews may have suffered the consequences of a sensationalized Christian rumor.
If a person was merely tied to a cross, would you really expect them to die in three hours? That seems completely unreasonable. What would be the manner of death? A person in decent health would have to die from thirst in such a situation, which would take days.
On the other hand(no pun intended), a person bleeding from hands and feet and stabbed in the side would expire much more quickly.
Thank you for responding Diane. I agree with your points 100%. The Gospels, Paul’s letters, and even a questionable quote from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3) state that Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion. The combination of your points (a very short time on the cross and no mention of nails or a spear wound in the Synoptic Gospels) and written accounts that Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion, strongly suggest that Jesus did not die on the cross. If Jesus appeared live after the crucifixion, that also suggests he was not nailed to the cross.
All four Gospels suggest Pilate had a hidden interest in Jesus (granting Jesus a personal trial, emphatic defense against a Judean mob, Roman guards – including a centurion at the crucifixion site, Pilate directly involved with directing who to took possession of Jesus’ body, Pilate directing the assignment of guards at the tomb, etc.). If Pilate did not have a hidden interest, none of the above would have happened or been documented. The Sanhedrin likely detected this “special” interest, otherwise they would have just stoned Jesus.
I’ve suggested you look at the evidence they cite. And? The fact they *say* this is not itself a reason to think they are right. I used to say that the Synoptic authors did not think of Jesus as God. I was an expert. The fact I said it doesn’t mean I was right. (Ad what makes you think he was clothed at the resurrection? Do you think he was clothed at the crucifixion?)
Jesus would have been clothed when he made appearances to his disciples after the crucifixion. It’s not reasonable to think he went around naked continuously after his supposed “resurrection”. I believe the post appearance story in Luke has Jesus appearing to the disciples at some elapsed time after the supposed “resurrection”.
Maybe you are misunderstanding my train of thought. I am not taking the position that Jesus resurrected from death on the cross, and that his post appearances were some type of mystical apparition of a spiritual being in some type of physical form (naked or clothed). I’m suggesting Jesus did not die on the cross (no physical wounds and a short time on the cross according to written accounts in the Synoptic Gospels), and the post appearances may have been the reason Christianity didn’t die with the death of a crucified, apocalyptic Judean peasant. That type of real death occurred many times over (thousands of times according to Josephus in the siege of Jerusalem) and wouldn’t have been a blip in history in the single case of Jesus.
Josephus documented cases of victims taken down from crosses before death – one of those surviving. Why not Jesus?
Are you saying you think Jesus was taken down from the cross without dying? We do have those three cases mentioned by Jospehus (well, one case with three people). I don’t know of any others from antiquity. But deciding not to carry out the death sentence is not the same as providing a burial for someone who has died. I don’t know of any documented case of the latter (and only one of the former, involving an eminent member of the Jewish aristocracy and the Roman emperor))
Yes, Jesus could have been taken down alive, purposely upon Pilate’s direction. As written, Pilate was directly involved in who took Jesus from the cross, Joseph of Arimathea – a “secret” disciple (interesting description), Roman guards, and even a centurion at the crucifixion site (again, interesting), according to the Synoptics, all Jesus’ followers and the women watched things from a distance (again, curious), Pilate was directly involved with the assignment of guards at the tomb (a place to allow a living Jesus to recover after hanging – by ropes – on the cross for six hours). The burial “tomb” would have been a ruse for Jesus’ recovery. It makes perfect sense why Pilate would have been involved with guarding a recovery tomb. In addition, considering Pilate may have had a temporary decree forbidding the Sanhedrin to carry out capital punishment (written account, but I am supposing “temporary” since it did not seem to be common practice), Pilate granting Jesus a personal trial, and then emphatically defending Jesus in front of a Judean mob, further increases the curiosity of the story.
A Roman in high power, Vespasian, and a Jew, Josephus, is another example of a Roman-Jew relationship (i.e., not unprecedented).
(continuation of reply above) You might suggest the situations of victims surviving crucifixions in Josephus involved pleas from someone in power. The Gospels indicate Pontius Pilate had some level of interest in Jesus (see my reply to Diane above). Pontius Pilate was in a position of power. The only written accounts from that time indicate he didn’t want to crucify Jesus. There’s any number of human reasons why Pilate would not have wanted to crucify Jesus – I can think of five, independent good reasons right off the top of my head. It’s not an impossible human endeavor to think Pilate had some type of interest in Jesus – and it’s supported by additional documents from that time besides just the New Testament. Pilate was governor of Judea, but he was not some type of special superhuman god man. He could have been a normal person, like you and me – reacting to human events.
As a side note, I have not yet investigated the evidence sited in the archeologist’s papers. I still hope to do so.
Let me know what you find. I bet it won’t take long for you to read. :-)disabledupes{2ce1bd49c5830a8641733e15e16d2019}disabledupes
Also, “flesh and bones” in the RSV seems to be a colloquialism for “physical body,” as opposed to actually seeing parts of his skeleton with flesh hanging off of it. Do the manuscripts give clues as to whether this was also a colloquialism in the Greek language, or is Jesus referring to seeing parts of his skeleton?
Yes, “flesh and bones” is a phrase meant to mean “a real human being” (just as we say, “flesh and blood”)
I better watch the two debates then! 🙂
“The choice of the rock-cut tomb facilitated this climax to the narrative because unlike the trench grave it is a space into which one could enter and view an empty loculus. And thus Joseph of Arimathea is needed by the narrative to provide such a tomb to Jesus, who was not a native of Jerusalem and lacked family to provide him such a tomb….Jodi Magness in “Archaeologically Invisible Burials in Late Second Temple Period Judea” (in All the Wisdom of the East; Academic Press, 2012) discusses trench burials in the first century CE and notes that they were probably the dominant form of burial for the common class (with rock-cut tombs used more by the well-to-do), foreigners, as well as probably criminals, and so one possible scenario is that Jesus was buried by the Romans who crucified him in a trench grave alongside other malefactors, with the disciples not being party to the exact location of where he was buried” – zanillamilla, Reddit Academic Biblical