(16 votes, average: 4.44 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I have devoted a few posts to presenting my argument for why I think Jesus was probably not given a decent burial – the posts were portions of a chapter lifted from How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2014)– I am in a position to begin to respond to the counter-arguments of Craig Evans, my evangelical friend and naysayer, whose essay “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right” is widely seen – at least by people who have said anything to me about the matter – as the best contribution in the response book How God Became Jesus. In my replies to his arguments, I will call him “Craig,” hoping that this does not smack too much of over-familiarity. But, well, we’ve known each other for thirty years, have worked together on various film projects (documentaries that we have both in), and have had a number of cordial public debates. Referring to him as “Evans” might seem a bit contemptuous.
And truth be told, I’m not at all contemptuous of his scholarship or of this particular contribution to the discussion of whether or not Jesus was given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea. As I have said a couple of times already, his essay evokes considerable historical knowledge and demonstrates a wide-ranging familiarity with all of the literary and archaeological evidence, every piece of which is brought to bear on the problem. And so I mean no disrespect when I say that I think that Craig is completely wrong to intimate that the historicity of the burial tradition is a slam-dunk case. In my view his arguments are not convincing and time after time the evidence he adduces does not appear to say what he claims it says.
I will not discuss each and every point, sentence, and word in Craig’s rather long essay but will take on the arguments that strike me as the strongest and most important. If anyone thinks there is yet some other point that he raises that I need to address, when I’m done with these posts, just let me know and I’ll be happy to do so.
Before giving a summary of the key points and my response to them, I want, in this post and the next, to make two general points. The first is of a personal nature and is of almost no relevance to much of anything. But it’s one that I want to make because I think it only fair that everyone’s cards are clearly on the table for all to see. It’s also one that may be somewhat surprising to readers – even to Craig – to the extent that some may think that I’m not telling the truth. But I am, and here it is. In terms of what I personally believe and of what really matters to me, on the personal level,
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!
There’s an interesting change in sense in the gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The crucifixion itself, whatever embellishments may have been added, is the cold, hard and incontrovertible truth at the heart of the gospels’ passion narrative. The accounts of Jesus’ burial change tempo and embellishments (perhaps half-forgotten reflections of events, or other misrememberings) give way to the less stark, more literary accounts of Joseph of Arimathea (whom legend teaches came to England).
That reverts to that stark, confused tone with the accounts of the resurrection sightings. All is confusion and chaos, as it surely was after the crucifixion. Personally, I am happy to believe that Jesus’ followers believed they had seen him. People believe, quite sincerely, that they have seen dead relatives fairly often. Given this, even a sincere account of seeing Christ would not be proof of his resurrection or godhood, given Aunt Mabel might turn up tomorrow.
The accounts of the burial, to me, suggest that the disciples had to shoehorn the experience of seeing Jesus into the theological categories of their time. The risen Jesus had to have a body rather than just being an ethereal ghost.
Great thread, Doc. Really interesting.
“…Jesus must have been buried decently as described in the Bible. Otherwise – if the Bible was wrong about THAT, it could have been wrong about most anything…”
It seems that not just evangelical scholars like Craig Evans rely on multiple attestation for confirmation of biblical events but also agnostic/atheist scholars as well. I would guess this might be the main reason you say you are in the minority with the no decent burial for Jesus.
Do you think that some scholars are concerned that if they agree that Jesus did not receive a decent burial that could lead to other events with multiple attestation being challenged?
I don’t think that would be a problem for most historical scholars, who know full well that multiply attested events are not necessarily authentic, just because they are multiply atttested. Most critical scholars agree that many of these can’t be historical. (The fact that the walking on the water is multiply attested doesn’t mean it’s historical…)
If you think you might be interested in discussing Dr. Ehrman’s newest book, Armageddon, with like-minded readers, please consider joining What Christians Should Know book club at https://bookclubs.com/clubs/5999571/join/7a2484/ It’s free to join and the first meeting will be held by Zoom on August 6th. Hope to see you there!
I get your general conception of the almightiness of God rendering anything possible, even resurrecting a half-eaten body, which was left on the cross for a week, to be transformed into the glorious Jesus, Son of God, who then was raised up in heaven to sit next to God the Father etc., but I think, if Jesus was left up on the cross as a meal for the scavengers, everyone instinctively deduces that the thought of him getting resurrected becomes glaringly ridiculous. I think, intuitively, most people assume that a pile of meat and some random bones found in a mass grave (with other piles of meat and half eaten bones all mixed up together) is not exactly the prime candidate material to undergo the most astonishing transformation ever recorded in the history of man.
And, as a subpoint to this point (copyright alert), I think this proposition also runs counter to what anybody would expect from God to allow to happen to Jesus’s body. I mean, it’s one thing to let your son be tortured in the utmost brutal fashion while being alive, but to allow to continue this ultimate humiliation and brutality further, even after his death?
Dr. Ehrman, I interpret your posts about the burial issue as, “It is unlikely that Jesus would have been given a proper burial on the day of his death.” I don’t see it as a faith question (though it would have that impact on some), but as matter of historical probability. I myself am an agnostic; I was before I read these posts, and I think I’ll continue to be after I read the series. As you say, it is not a crucial issue to my belief. I love to use food analogies (and my waistline shows it), so for me it’s like this: proper burial is like an ingredient in the coating of a chicken nugget. If I’m a vegetarian, what meat is coated in is not deal-breaker. Likewise, my core spiritual beliefs do not depend upon one detail.
Dr. Ehrman,
Which portions of the passion stories in the Gospels do you think are, in the words of John Crossan, “history remembered” or “prophecy historicized?”
There seem to be a lot: Jesus being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; rejected by the jewish leaders; silent the entire time; being crucified with two other criminals; buried in the tomb of a rich man, etc.
I’ve always thought that historically, there is another detail that brings the entire proper burial issue into question. If we assume that Roman authority had Jesus executed as punishment for posing a threat to the order of the empire, wouldn’t it have been in their interest to ensure that he was really dead… and stayed that way? Here was a public figure who could have stirred up real Jewish resistance to Imperial rule, yet there is no Roman reaction to the empty-tomb sequel. Surely they would have been aware of how dangerous a martyr to a cause can be in coalescing support for a revolt. Yet it is Temple officials who tip Pilate off to post a guard. Would Romans have just dropped the issue after three days? No guard ever strolled past the tomb again, especially after rumors circulated that Jesus had been seen alive? Had the stone been rolled back into place. If the Romans had permitted an unaccustomed criminal burial, would their interest have ended there?
Good points.
Whether Jesus received a proper burial is not crucial to resurrection belief but it is important from a historical perspective. Quite simply, Jesus could not have received a proper burial if he was just an unknown Galilean peasant who arrived in Jerusalem with a handful of followers.
In those circumstances, the only plausible reason for his burial on the day of crucifixion would be to conform with Jewish customs.
If Joseph of Arimathea acted with Sanhedrin approval and Jesus’s body subsequently disappeared, there should have been no penalty or hesitation in him accusing others of theft. Since there is no further mention
Is there evidence that Jesus was a nonentity or is this a default supposition?
I’d say there is a ton of evidence that Jesus was a relative non-entity. He’s not mentioned in any Jewish or Roman source for 70 years after his death, and then he’s mentioned only because of his (later) followers)
People can be famous in their own society but unknown in neighbouring regions with a different language so it would be unreasonable to expect anyone outside of Israel to have noticed Jesus.
No one even noticed Paul, who travelled widely and wrote extensively.
Also, people like Olympic athletes can be famous one year and forgotten a few years later.
There may well have been Jewish records lost when Jerusalem was destroyed.
I don’t see ANY positive evidence that Jesus was a relative non-entity.
Could it be that the early Christians wanted Jesus to have a decent burial simply as a matter of honor? That makes a lot more sense than them wanting an empty tomb as alleged evidence of a resurrection. An empty tomb is not evidence of a resurrection; as we all know there are lots of ways a dead body can be removed from a tomb.
Yup, that would make sense to me.