Mark:
42 When evening had come…. 43 Joseph of Arimathea…. went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
john:
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath…. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead…..
adding mark to john :
38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus….. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead…. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
so even after pilate had the legs broken and even after joseph of a requests the body, he still wonders if jesus is already dead. then he needs confirmation from centurion with no indication when he (centurion) informed back.
if apologists reconcile these stories, then it means pilate WONDERS if the person is dead even after he gives order
to have the legs broken .
pilates wondering makes perfect sense?
Iskander Robertson said
Mark:42 When evening had come…. 43 Joseph of Arimathea…. went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. 45 When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
john:
31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath…. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. 32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead…..adding mark to john :
38 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus….. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead…. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
so even after pilate had the legs broken and even after joseph of a requests the body, he still wonders if jesus is already dead. then he needs confirmation from centurion with no indication when he (centurion) informed back.
if apologists reconcile these stories, then it means pilate WONDERS if the person is dead even after he gives order
to have the legs broken .
pilates wondering makes perfect sense?
I believe you are quoting the passage from Mark in the form it appears in the NRSV and I agree vv 44 and 45 there read very oddly and not as I would expect. In the Revised New English Bible published in 1989 and widely used in Anglican Churches in England they read:
44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he [Jesus] had died so soon and sent for the centurion to make sure that he was already dead. 45 And when he heard the centurion’s report, he gave Joseph leave to take the body.
To me the latter makes much more sense. Perhaps the former is a literal translation of the Greek and the latter a dynamic one. I cannot tell as, unfortunately, I do not read Greek. Perhaps those on the Forum who do could assist.
Well, that’s right. Victims of crucifixion could last for three or more days before they died,(see e g the article on crucifixion in Wikipedia.) Pilate would therefore have been very surprised to hear that Jesus had died within a matter of hours of being put up on the cross, hence his request to the centurion for confirmation. Perhaps the author of Mark’s Gospel included(invented?) this exchange to drive home the point to his readers that Jesus really had died and to quash any suggestion that he had been taken down from the cross alive and nursed back to health by his followers, which would mean that there had been no resurrection .
It seems very unlikely that there’d be any way for Christians to know how Pilate reacted to that news.
It is possible they knew Jesus had died quickly on the cross (I think some of his female followers were witnesses to the cruxifixion). Pilate’s reaction would just be inferred.
The reason you lived so long–why it was such a horrible way to die–is that you could prop yourself up to relieve the pressure. And the will to live is so strong, men would keep trying, hoping for some reprieve that never came, until their strength gave out.
But Jesus wasn’t an ordinary man, and it may have been his intention to die (if you can believe Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in Vietnam, why not? There’s film of that.)
If he’d simply stopped fighting, he’d have gone quite quickly. Hoping for a different kind of reprieve.
It’s just a story. Perhaps having Jesus die so quickly in the story betrays a certain squeamishness at the idea of how Jesus probably really died. Long, slow, agonizing. As for Pilate, well it’s hard to believe the Romans had no legal bureaucracy whatsoever. Every condemned criminal got a personal interview with the Governor? Really? Makes good drama and validates Jesus’ status, but really?
Pilate would therefore have been very surprised to hear that Jesus had died within a matter of hours of being put up on the cross, hence his request to the centurion for confirmation
if we combine johns accounts with mark, then pilate is surprised even after the soldiers break the legs. breaking the legs would obviously quicken the death, but pilate did not infer from that “he is obviously dead” he inferred from that “he’s already dead ” ?
Stephen said
It’s just a story. Perhaps having Jesus die so quickly in the story betrays a certain squeamishness at the idea of how Jesus probably really died. Long, slow, agonizing. As for Pilate, well it’s hard to believe the Romans had no legal bureaucracy whatsoever. Every condemned criminal got a personal interview with the Governor? Really? Makes good drama and validates Jesus’ status, but really?
In later Christianity, the suffering was dwelt upon and magnified to an often morbid degree in religious art and literature, which saw its commercial apotheosis in a Mel Gibson snuff film. I don’t know that they were all that much more squeamish in the early days, and there are arguable benefits from the POV of proselytization to magnify his suffering. Some victims might take days to die, but many others probably went pretty quickly. Jesus lived an ascetic life, and may not have had the physical resources to last that long.
It was long and slow and agonizing even if it was just lasted part of a day. And arguably worse for someone who was waiting for a transformation that never came.
The question here is about Pilate, and I don’t believe he saw Jesus’ crucifixion as anything out of the ordinary. Nor do I think there was any data available to early Christians about how he dealt with Jesus, other than the crucifixion itself. They had to fill the gaps in the story, and they did.
Why wouldn’t Joseph of Arimathea be able to tell them?
“After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus….. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead…. When he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.”
godspell said
It seems very unlikely that there’d be any way for Christians to know how Pilate reacted to that news.
For one thing, there doesn’t seem to have been any such place as Arimathea for Joseph to come from.
For another, do you have some alternate gospel where Joseph of Arimathea–or any other Jew–is named as a witness to Jesus’ encounter with Pilate or any later reactions by Pilate? All we’re told about him is that he’s a member of the Sanhedrin, and not entirely unsympathetic to Jesus’ Apocalyptic Judaism. He provides a burial place. I don’t rule out that some version of this might have happened, but I have to conclude Joseph himself is a legend created after the fact. And if such a person had shared information with the disciples, had sustained contact with them, why would they need to invent a place of origin for him?
So it’s a lot of assuming we have to do, complicated by the undeniable fact that the stories told later by Christians don’t match up with each other very well on this and other points relating to Jesus’ final moments and their aftermath. Meaning that in fact that there was considerable confusion about what had happened, and who said what. There are a lot of genuine elements in the gospels, but nowhere are they less reliable than when dealing with Jesus’ birth and death. All we can be sure of is that both those events did happen, and the latter was a great deal more dramatic than the former.
godspell said
For one thing, there doesn’t seem to have been any such place as Arimathea for Joseph to come from.For another, do you have some alternate gospel where Joseph of Arimathea–or any other Jew–is named as a witness to Jesus’ encounter with Pilate or any later reactions by Pilate? All we’re told about him is that he’s a member of the Sanhedrin, and not entirely unsympathetic to Jesus’ Apocalyptic Judaism. He provides a burial place. I don’t rule out that some version of this might have happened, but I have to conclude Joseph himself is a legend created after the fact. And if such a person had shared information with the disciples, had sustained contact with them, why would they need to invent a place of origin for him?
So it’s a lot of assuming we have to do, complicated by the undeniable fact that the stories told later by Christians don’t match up with each other very well on this and other points relating to Jesus’ final moments and their aftermath. Meaning that in fact that there was considerable confusion about what had happened, and who said what. There are a lot of genuine elements in the gospels, but nowhere are they less reliable than when dealing with Jesus’ birth and death. All we can be sure of is that both those events did happen, and the latter was a great deal more dramatic than the former.
You think everyone made up the story because people can’t identify the town/region or whatever it was meant to be with certainty now? That’s pretty weak.
The quote relates Joseph of Arimathea’s encounter with Pilate not Jesus encounter with Pilate.
Alternate gospel? That this person wanted to take the body is attested in all 4 gospels.
It doesn’t say anything about Joseph’s views of “Jesus’ Apocalyptic Judaism.” The text says he was a disciple of Jesus.
You asked how early Christians would know of Pilates reaction to news of Jesus dying quickly. I am just pointing out that all four gospels tell us. Did you read the texts?
There is no evidence outside the gospels Joseph OR Arimathea ever existed. And only one gospel–Mark’s–mentions Pilate’s reaction to Jesus’ death. It’s an interesting detail, but it seems to be geared towards the general theme of Mark–that no one understands Jesus. Meaning that it may be Mark’s addition to the story.
What’s particularly interesting is that Joseph becomes more Christian with each new telling–it’s pretty clear from Mark that he isn’t a follower of Jesus, but simply someone whose Judaism resembles that of Jesus in some ways, who has in no way abandoned the faith he was raised in (of course, neither had Jesus, who died a Jew, and had no desire to create a new religion). He does what he does out of decency and sympathy–not because he believes Jesus is the Christ.
I don’t rule out, as I said, that some version of this story occurred, but I don’t think Christians had anything more than rumors and second and third hand stories to start with. If there was an influential man who in some way intervened on behalf of Jesus, as a fellow Jew with Apocalyptic leanings, it’s very unlikely he had any direct dealings with the new cult after the events described. It would have been some time before they could openly show themselves in Jerusalem. By the time they were able to ask questions, there were no credible witnesses they could speak to.
I don’t dismiss the entire gospel story–quite the contrary. I just understand how stories grow with the telling. And since I actually care what happened, and am not trying to bolster a dogmatic understanding of Jesus–which obscures his true meaning and greatness–I don’t see the point in looking for some way to believe every conflicting element, to make them all mesh. To me, that’s not what faith is.
Maybe the Gospel traditions present the scourging, crucifixion and resurrection as a kind of narrative unit. Audiences may likely have known that death by crucifixion usually occurred only after some days, and that the bodily remains of the executed would have been deposited in mass graves of some sort. The audience might have approached the claim that there were wittiness to Jesus’ resurrection with some initial skepticism on the basis of this general knowledge. So, since the Evangelists needed a story of followers finding an empty tomb to bolster the resurrection, they needed a narrative about burial in a tomb—and to tell the story of a burial, they needed an explanation for why Jesus’ body was taken down from the cross so quickly. The scourging story therefore also helps here, because it would show how Jesus was already greatly weakened by the time he was put on the cross. The whole series of events has to appear to be a plausible explanation, and so the entire narrative from scourging to resurrection has to, as it were, answer all the natural questions. Well, they had several decades to piece together the narrative, so it was carefully constructed–with disagreements of detail between the authors, of course.
Nicely summarized. Of course, they may not have known how long it took Jesus to die on the cross. It took longer in many cases because the crucified man would try to stay alive as long as possible, propping himself up to relieve the strain. So since Jesus wasn’t trying to stay alive, since he has to die in order to rise again…..
But I’m sure many victims did die relatively quickly. If there was any hidden physical weakness, crucifixion would bring it out. Tasers aren’t supposed to kill people, neither are police choke holds, or plastic bullets–but they often do.
The fact that there are so many variant stories within the crucifixion story does tend to indicate that hard information was not available, which makes sense, because his followers were terrified, on the run, in hiding. The notion that they could just ask around later, find credible unbiased witnesses with a clear memory of events–doesn’t pass the smell test. Maybe they should have filed under the Freedom of Information Act? Oh right, Rome didn’t have one of those.
The Passion Story wasn’t written as a documentary, and shouldn’t be judged as such.
godspell said
There is no evidence outside the gospels Joseph OR Arimathea ever existed. And only one gospel–Mark’s–mentions Pilate’s reaction to Jesus’ death. It’s an interesting detail, but it seems to be geared towards the general theme of Mark–that no one understands Jesus. Meaning that it may be Mark’s addition to the story.What’s particularly interesting is that Joseph becomes more Christian with each new telling–it’s pretty clear from Mark that he isn’t a follower of Jesus, but simply someone whose Judaism resembles that of Jesus in some ways, who has in no way abandoned the faith he was raised in (of course, neither had Jesus, who died a Jew, and had no desire to create a new religion). He does what he does out of decency and sympathy–not because he believes Jesus is the Christ.
I don’t rule out, as I said, that some version of this story occurred, but I don’t think Christians had anything more than rumors and second and third hand stories to start with. If there was an influential man who in some way intervened on behalf of Jesus, as a fellow Jew with Apocalyptic leanings, it’s very unlikely he had any direct dealings with the new cult after the events described. It would have been some time before they could openly show themselves in Jerusalem. By the time they were able to ask questions, there were no credible witnesses they could speak to.
I don’t dismiss the entire gospel story–quite the contrary. I just understand how stories grow with the telling. And since I actually care what happened, and am not trying to bolster a dogmatic understanding of Jesus–which obscures his true meaning and greatness–I don’t see the point in looking for some way to believe every conflicting element, to make them all mesh. To me, that’s not what faith is.
As Mark said it was “bold” to ask for Jesus’s body. Who (especially someone with high standing) would want to associate with someone who was just crucified? Peter certainly denied any association with Jesus for good reason. The bold move suggests a closer association. So I don’t really buy your analysis that it was very unlikely he had any direct dealings with the other Christians. It would be surprising if such a person would never have any direct dealings with Christians.
Are you saying there was no evidence of a Joseph living in Jerusalem at the time? Or are you saying we have no evidence that there was a Joseph on the council? Do we have the roster of names of those one the councils around the time Jesus died?
As for your last paragraph I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Do you think I am saying it is pretty obvious how Chrisitans would know of Pilates reaction in this interaction because I am trying to preserve some dogma? If so what dogma?
anvikshiki said
Maybe the Gospel traditions present the scourging, crucifixion and resurrection as a kind of narrative unit. Audiences may likely have known that death by crucifixion usually occurred only after some days, and that the bodily remains of the executed would have been deposited in mass graves of some sort. The audience might have approached the claim that there were wittiness to Jesus’ resurrection with some initial skepticism on the basis of this general knowledge. So, since the Evangelists needed a story of followers finding an empty tomb to bolster the resurrection, they needed a narrative about burial in a tomb—and to tell the story of a burial, they needed an explanation for why Jesus’ body was taken down from the cross so quickly. The scourging story therefore also helps here, because it would show how Jesus was already greatly weakened by the time he was put on the cross. The whole series of events has to appear to be a plausible explanation, and so the entire narrative from scourging to resurrection has to, as it were, answer all the natural questions. Well, they had several decades to piece together the narrative, so it was carefully constructed–with disagreements of detail between the authors, of course.
This makes sense if you think John had access to Mark. But if you do not think that, then it would seem quite a coincidence that they would both happen to completely make up a person to do the burying who was on the council.
In contrast to the birth narrative where seemingly both Matthew and Luke have to come up with a reason why Jesus born in Bethlehem the fact that they come up with different reasons does fit the hypothesis that they may have made that up.
joemccarron said
As Mark said it was “bold” to ask for Jesus’s body. Who (especially someone with high standing) would want to associate with someone who was just crucified? Peter certainly denied any association with Jesus for good reason. The bold move suggests a closer association. So I don’t really buy your analysis that it was very unlikely he had any direct dealings with the other Christians. It would be surprising if such a person would never have any direct dealings with Christians.
Are you saying there was no evidence of a Joseph living in Jerusalem at the time? Or are you saying we have no evidence that there was a Joseph on the council? Do we have the roster of names of those one the councils around the time Jesus died?
As for your last paragraph I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. Do you think I am saying it is pretty obvious how Chrisitans would know of Pilates reaction in this interaction because I am trying to preserve some dogma? If so what dogma?
Perhaps no one interceded. There was no Joseph, and no tomb, and the body of Jesus was thrown on a trash heap to be eaten by scavengers. And this was unbearable to early Christians, and made it hard to explain how his body could rise again (their visions of him risen notwithstanding, and of course those visions didn’t happen in Jerusalem itself, which they had fled in terror), so they invented Joseph. And Arimathea. (Scholars have looked and looked–it simply wasn’t there. Maybe it’s a misunderstanding, by Mark or an earlier source. But that just proves nobody really knew. The genuine details had been forgotten. Replaced by a story that made more sense from a devotional standpoint.)
See, you try to make the story as told work, and it doesn’t. You don’t really care what happened, you don’t really care who Jesus was, or what he said. You just want to believe the dogma. It’s a good substitute for faith. Like saccharine for sugar.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)