Bart says none of them witnessed the crucifixion, so why didn’t they airbrush that out of their memories as well?
They all believed he’d been crucified.
They mainly believed he’d cried out in agony and despair on the cross.
And they all believed he’d been buried.
IF Josephus could get three violent rebels taken off the cross, given medical attention, THEN anybody with the least bit of influence in Jerusalem could have gotten Jesus’ dead body taken down and buried.
Wow. That doesn’t follow at all. Josephus was favored of Vespasian. Josephus comments in another passage that Vespasian’s son Titus (the actual individual J appealed to) expressed sympathy for the victims of crucifixion (although this sympathy didn’t prevent him from letting his soldiers crucify up to 500 Jewish rebels per day). Josephus relied on Titus’ sympathy to save three people he knew. Josephus wasn’t “anybody” by a long shot. And his effort was predicated on his personal relationship with Vespasian! Wow.
The point, that you don’t want to see (because you want to believe Jesus rotted on the cross and the early Christians lied about that) is that Roman mercy could be as arbitrary and confusing as Roman punishment. So, there is zero reason to assume Jesus rotted on the cross, when we have absolutely no evidence he did, other than the fact that this was sometimes done.
You’ve consistently mischaracterized the position being argued here even though I’ve corrected you at least three times. I have no way of knowing if you are doing this deliberately or simply don’t understand but I’m willing to repeat it as many times as it takes.
No one is assuming Jesus’ body rotted on the cross. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED TO JESUS’ BODY. (Got it? Are you sure?) However, it appears from the evidence that what normally happened to people in Jesus’ situation was that the body was left on the cross to rot because that was part of the punishment. In the situation we are in where we have no definitive evidence one way or another the logical conclusion is that what normally happened is what happened. So, the argument here is not what happened to Jesus’ body (about which we can say nothing) but what normally happened to people in the same situation Jesus was in (about which we can say quite a few things).
There’s really no evidence that it was all that commonplace to leave the body up there a long time.
Really? None? Well contrary to your opinion I don’t take Prof Ehrman’s word as gospel, so I spent a few enjoyable hours yesterday tracing the references he gave in his book in the resources available to me both online and off. I found more than he listed so the references I am about to give include the ones Prof Ehrman included and ones he did not.
- From an inscription found on the tombstone of a man murdered by his slave in the ancient city of Kaunos (in modern day Turkey). The murderer was “hung…alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey.”
- Roman author Horace says in one of his letters that a slave when accused of a crime was proclaiming his innocence to which Horace replied, “You shall not therefore feed the carrion crows on the cross.”
- Roman satirist Juvenal writes that “the vulture hurries from dead cattle and dogs and corpses, to bring carrion to her offspring.”
- The famous ancient interpreter of dreams Artemidorus wrote that it is auspicious(!) for a poor man to dream of crucifixion since “a crucified man is raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds.”
- In Petronius’ Satyricon he specifically mentions a crucified person being left on the cross for days.
- From an anonymous didactic poem translated by classicist Gerard Sloyan, “Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes, an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs.”
- Sloyan reports that in Latin vernacular “Crux!” was a swear word. He also notes that there was a slang term used by the lower classes to refer to victims of crucifixion, “Food for Crows”, (Corvorum Cibaria). These terms are independently attested in Roman writers Plautus, Terence, and Petronius.
- Tacitus reports that Tiberius conducted a reign of terror in AD 31 after the fall of Sejanus. “People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial.”
- Petronius again in his Satyricon writes about a soldier in Ephesus who was given the job of preventing people from removing corpses from crosses. When the soldier slipped off to take his ease with a local widow the family of a poor unfortunate came in and removed the body from his cross and buried him. The soldier was arrested and crucified himself for failing in his duty.
- A bit later Eusebius writes about the so-called “Martyrs of Lyon”. The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, “We could not bury the bodies in the earth…neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain.”
No evidence, godspell? None?
All the sources I read came to a few conclusions. Crucifixion was reserved for certain designated groups who were considered the scum of the earth by the Romans. This class of the doomed included two main categories: rebellious slaves and traitors/political rebels. We know from the inscription on Jesus’ cross that political treason was the charge against him. The Romans cared nothing for motives or Jewish theology. A disturbance of any sort in the Temple would have been taken as an implicit attack on the Temple system (which survived by collaboration with the Romans). Turning over tables was enough, yes.
Another conclusion was that there were exceptions. Of course there were exceptions! But in every case I saw they were just that, exceptions. And they involved circumstances much different than the one Jesus found himself in.
All refer to Augustine’s comments, but they also note that this would have obtained in Rome itself which was much more domesticated than a frontier province like Palestine. They also note that Augustus himself did not allow Brutus or his followers to be buried. Why? Because Augustine himself refuses to make an exception for political rebels. Like Jesus!
There’s also the famous quote from Philo where he knows about the bodies of victims being given to families for burial. But this was done so as not to offend on the days celebrating Augustine’s birthday. Philo mentions it precisely because it is an exception to normal practice. It was considered “kind treatment!”
I’ll let Prof Ehrman end it because he stated it so well-
My view now is that we do not know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’ body. But it is absolutely true as far as we can tell from all the surviving evidence, what normally happened to a criminal’s body is that it was left to decompose and serve as food for scavenging animals. (p157, HJBG)
Ps I invite critique but whatever your response at least get the goddamn argument correct.
Obviously Josephus had special status–but he was asking for a lot more than a dead body of a guy who turned over a few tables. These were violent rebels, and he got them taken down alive–their sentences effectively commuted, though two of them died anyway.
Your notions of how ‘reserved’ crucifixion was do not remotely match up with the historical record. There’s one story in Cook’s book about a master who sentenced a slave to be crucified for tasting a dish he was bringing to the table. Now this was considered a bit excessive, to be sure–but understand that slaves could be crucified for basically nothing. They did not have to rise up in gladiatorial splendor, like Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, to get nailed to a piece of wood. Roman slavery may not have been as racist and hypocritical as American slavery (since the Romans didn’t profess to believe all men are created equal), but in many ways it was even more brutal, and without even the slightest tincture of guilt attached. A favored few might win their freedom, and enjoy certain privileges, but as a class, they had basically no rights.
Crucifixion, as you’d know if you’d read a bit of Cook’s opus (that Bart has not read as of now), was used for a wide variety of offenses. And leaving people up on the cross was actually not as common as you think. Nor was it ever required. The person who passed the sentence of death, could just as arbitrarily release the body for burial. As Josephus’ story proves.
Jesus died on the cross–this was itself considered a major disgrace, and something Christians had a hard time explaining, to Jews and pagans alike. Martin Hengel’s book is mainly about trying to make modern people understand just how ridiculous it would have sounded even to Non-Jews that the most important man in the world, the Son of God, was crucified. But they never flinched from doing so. They never tried to pretend it had been some other penalty. So why then did they say he’d been buried, if he was known to have rotted on the cross for treason? And why was that never flung in their faces? Obviously because burial of the crucified was not considered surprising. Even in cases where the charge was claiming to be a king (they did try to make it sound like he’d been misunderstood, which he probably was).
The motto on the cross (which we only know about from the gospels) is evidence that Jesus was accused of calling himself king, but also that the charge was not taken seriously–it’s being treated as a joke. We’re told–again, by the gospels–that the Jewish authorities objected to that sign being up there. Pilate seems to have wanted to humiliate them too. Shouldn’t he be grateful they pointed out a traitor to him?
Jesus hadn’t risen up against Rome. It’s debatable how much attention Pilate paid to the case, but if he wasn’t interested, that proves he knew there was no threat to Roman rule (can’t have it both ways–can’t say Jesus wasn’t a big deal, if he was charged with high treason, and Pilate was dead set on drawing out the punishment).
No band of zealots plotting rebellion. A handful of largely unarmed followers, who ran away. Nothing left but a man talking about some supernatural event. Meaning that Pilate would quite likely have considered Jesus a harmless madman. But he’s under some pressure to have better relations with the Jewish authorities. Some of them want Jesus gotten out of the way (others may have dissented). He doesn’t need proof that Jesus called himself king–but if he did talk to Jesus, or have someone else talk to him, it would be pretty obvious there’s no threat here. I don’t think he felt guilty. I think he felt used. Hence the sarcastic motto above the cross, which seems more aimed at embarrassing the Jewish authorities (who again, are reported to have objected to it).
So all that being the case, how long does he want the body up there, reminding everyone he crucified a madman because of political pressure from people he’s supposed to be in control of? And how long do the Jewish authorities want it up there, with that mocking motto, reminding everyone they had a fellow Jew with a reputation for holiness put to death? And there is absolutely no rule that says it has to stay up there–it’s optional. That’s a fact, like it or not.
Bart is not an expert on every aspect of the Roman Empire. Nobody is. It’s an enormous subject, with innumerable areas of specialization–Bart’s main area of expertise is textual analysis of the New Testament. He did a lot of research for this mass market book, obviously Roman history is something he needs to be knowledeable about–but there just wasn’t a lot to read about crucifixion, and he didn’t have enough time to exhaustively cover every aspect of Roman society related to his subject. Cook’s book came out the same year as HJBG, in any event–not available. Bart read Martin Hengel’s very short book on the subject, which emphasized non-burial, as did Crossan–but Cook did a great deal more research, and what he found casts much doubt on what previous writers have said. He is the #1 authority on this subject, and I’ve given you the sources he quotes from.
And what do you have to say in response?
“All the sources I read”–you mean googled, right? Exhaustive research, I’m sure. Did you look at even ONE book, other than a mass market offering from a fine textual analyist, who is not an expert on crucifixion or Roman law?
Hngerhman said
But basically, if they didn’t try to pretend he wasn’t crucified (when that was a really serious problem for them), why pretend he wasn’t left to rot on the cross?
Bart says none of them witnessed the crucifixion, so why didn’t they airbrush that out of their memories as well?
They all believed he’d been crucified.
They mainly believed he’d cried out in agony and despair on the cross.And they all believed he’d been buried.
Godspell, thanks a ton for unpacking this – you make an interesting and subtle point. I now grasp, I think, your underlying argument, and it hinges on (a) embarrassment and (b) general knowledge of the situation.Given that:X) crucifixion is embarrassing, but that stayed in the story, andY) the cry out is embarrassing, but that also stayed in the story,then:Z) why not nonburial, since that too would have been embarrassing?If I am misstating or missing something vital, please correct.I have a couple reactions:i) Captain Obvious here, so forgive – some form of a death story is narratively required for a resurrection story, whereas Y and Z are not (they do some work in the explanation backstory for resurrection, but are not nearly as crucial). Why crucifixion and not something else? I’m getting to that…ii) I might argue that the number of relevant observers (Jesus followers and/or others) present likely declines as the hours pass. There were likely more people around for the crucifixion than the cry out than the outcome of the body – number of observers (X>Y>Z). So there’s a systemic bias such that the transmission mechanism for the ex-post stories weakens for each node. And therefore the then-current purchase on what happened historically declined as the hours of agony ground on. Tying it together, I’d grant that crucifixion was closer to neon-sign known, but that at the other end of the spectrum it was likely not really known what happened to the body. And this problem got worse in the wake of Jerusalem’s destruction.iii) I don’t want to over-interpret the word ‘pretend’, but that verb connotes that people knew fact A but willingly replaced it with fact B. I’d argue that probably there were not sufficient observers (nor meaningful interactions with them post) such that “everyone knew” what happened to the body.As best I can tell, I think ii & iii are where we’re slipping past each other on the silence argument.To level-set, after this conversation on this thread I’m no longer convinced that nonburial should be assumed either the default or most probable. On the other hand, I’m similarly not convinced yet that the silence of alternative accounts is a sufficiently strong argument to warrant that burial should be assumed most probable. And, I’m still working through it.
There is a lot of back and forth between Christians and pagans preserved. And Christians over and over have to explain Jesus being crucified. Crucifixion was considered an utter disgrace, at least by educated Roman citizens (who had very little chance of being crucified themselves). There was no silence there. Every educated pagan told about Jesus would hear about his being crucified, and get an incredulous (if not outright pitying) look in his eyes. (Slaves and the poor felt differently about it).
So we have that. We don’t have any evidence at all that anyone questioned he’d been buried. And in fact, nobody suggested he hadn’t been buried until the late 20th century. Based largely on an incomplete understanding of Roman practice with regards to crucifixion. The sources were very scattered, and it took a lot of work to put them together. Nobody really did this before Cook, who Bart acknowledges has written the definitive work (which he may someday read). And Cook does not in any way confirm that somebody in Jesus’ situation would definitely rot on the cross. Even Jews who openly rose against Rome, and were crucified, often received burial afterwards.
And there is actually no record I’ve found of Pilate ever leaving a body up there to rot. Even from Jewish sources deeply hostile to him.
From his POV, it’s a bad idea–gets him nothing but trouble. The province is largely peaceful. He has to show his authority, but he’s gotten into trouble early on, by offending Jewish religious sensibilities. (Philo and Josephus agree on this, though their stories conflict to some extent). He was removed from his post later on, for being too harsh on Samaritans. It’s a fine balance–can’t be too lax, or too harsh. Enough to scare them, not enough to enrage them. Whatever he may think about these people, they have a history of getting upset about things that he (like most pagans) doesn’t understand.
There was nothing more offensive to Jewish religious sensibilities than watching a fellow Jew rot in the sun. And in this case, an exceptionally devout Jew who had committed no public offense more serious than overturning some tables in a courtyard, because their presence offended his own religious sensibilities. See? They’re all crazy! But that’s why Pilate can’t just do whatever he likes, as Bart seems to think (because he’s trying to discredit aspects of the gospel story). That’s why even with a large contingent of soldiers, he can’t just order them to kill a lot of people, much as he might want to at times. Because he’s the one held responsible if Rome has to send a lot more soldiers to put down a rebellion.
If Pilate was still alive when the first Jewish War broke out (he’d have been quite old), I can imagine him looking very smug. Wasn’t on his watch.
Overall, I think HJBG is a terrific book, but on this specific issue, Bart heavily overstates his point, in part because it’s such a weak one. We don’t know nearly enough about the politics or the people to know how much of the gospel story (told much later on) is accurate. Undoubtedly some of it is wrong. Just as undoubtedly, some of what Philo and Josephus wrote (also much later) is wrong. But the overall impression we get from all three sources is that Pilate was anything but an absolute dictator who could do whatever he wanted. The Jews were wary of his wrath–and he of theirs.
Let’s cut to the chase shall we?
Do you dispute any of the references I listed? Most of them were from figures who are well known to historians and classicists. Not obscurities mostly. Did these folks not say these things? Easy enough to check like I did. Does Scott address any of these references? They clearly imply that non-burial was associated with crucifixion. They clearly constitute evidence of this association.
ps: When I wrote Augustine I obviously meant Augustus. Whoops.
No, I think you’ve just misapplied them.
Josephus is an obscurity? Let’s forget for the moment that he saw three men crucified for treason, during a time when the Romans were brutally putting down a bloody uprising, and with relatively little effort, had them taken off their crosses, and given medical attention. Because that’s not all he has to offer on this subject.
I think you skimmed over my quotes a bit–did you miss this one?
Page 239: (a quote from Josephus, relating to the Jewish war)
They actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out the corpses without burial, although the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset.
To which Cook adds:
The text indicates that crucified individuals in Palestine were buried, at least in Josephus’ estimation. I will not include the testimonium Flavianum here, because the passage about Jesus in Josephus’s text has been worked over by Christian scribes. At the least one may conclude that Josephus knew about Jesus’ crucifixion.
I don’t think you are nearly well-versed enough in this area of history to know who is obscure and who isn’t (neither am I, but I’m willing to learn). But seeing as one reference is to the now-lost memoirs of Augustus Caesar–who said the crucified should receive burial–is that an obscure reference as well? (Oh right–you confused him with Augustine. Well, everyone does that at some point.)
As to Quintilian–maybe not so obscure as all that.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Burial of the crucified–yes, in many cases, even those charged with treason–was considered normal. Not inevitable, no. But in this time period, and certainly in Palestine (because of Jewish sensibilities about burial of their dead) it was probably much more common for the crucified to receive burial, and how dignified that burial would be would depend largely on whether anyone cared to meet the expenses of proper burial. Even the burial pits were less about punishment than public sanitation. (And again, since we know most crucified bodies ended up in the ground, one way or the other, the failure to find any of those pits casts doubt on what Crossan said to substantiate his case–we don’t have many crucified bodies, because most of the crucified were poor, or enslaved).
I google stuff too. No shame in that. But books still matter more. And not just popular overviews of history, like HJBG, which is a book I greatly admire, but isn’t going to be used by any professional historian as source material.
I certainly think very highly of Bart Ehrman as an historian. I could get all his books for free at my workplace, and I go out of my way to buy and read them on my kindle. I am sticking around here long enough to discuss his latest offering. And what is he going to say in that book? That heaven and hell are pagan ideas, and Jesus didn’t believe in an otherworldly afterlife.
Do you agree with this? On the whole, I do, having seen his arguments on the blog. I think there’s room for doubt, but it makes a great deal of sense to me. And this is well within Bart’s area of expertise, since it involves analyzing the text of the gospels, filtering out what was added later on, identifying what elements there are likely to be directly from Jesus himself, and where words are being put in his mouth (misquoting him, you might say). And because he is increasingly fascinated by pagan religious ideas, and doing a great deal of reading in that area, he is well-qualified to opine on how pagan ideas influenced Christianity.
However, in this case, Bart is further out of his field than usual. How the Romans administered what they were so good as to call justice is only indirectly related to his main area of study. There are undoubtedly hundreds (thousands?) of scholars more qualified than him in that area. He freely admits he hasn’t read the one book that sheds the most light on crucifixion practices. The books he has read are sadly out of date. And Bart would be the first to say he has often changed his mind, as new information and new interpretations of that information, become available.
So do you consider Bart an infallible source? Or only when he tells you what you want to hear?
No, I think you’ve just misapplied them.
What does that even mean? How should they be applied? You can dismiss them of course but no one will take that seriously as a response to historical evidence. But more importantly what does Scott think? He should be aware of these references, right? You have his book in front of you, right? Weeeell?
Josephus is an obscurity?
All your comments about “obscurity” are a direct result of your poor reading skills. Go back and reread what I actually said.
The actual quote from Josephus is very interesting no doubt about it. In case you don’t know the “They” he refers to were the Idumeans who were considered foreigners by the Jews. So one thing Josephus is doing is contrasting the activities of foreigners (Idumeans here but also Romans perhaps?) with the piety of the Jews. Note also that this reference to Jewish practice is the only mention in Josephus or all of pagan literature that refers to Jewish victims of crucifixion being taken down and buried before sunset. Contrast that with the multiple independent references I gave describing Roman attitudes towards their own practice. Very provocative indeed but surely Scott doesn’t just rely on this one quote? Keep reading.
I already commented about Augustus. Nothing to add.
…since we know most crucified bodies ended up in the ground…
How do we know this again?
Do you agree with this [heaven and hell etc]?
I try to look at all the evidence before I make up my mind. Yeah it takes longer but you tend not to make a fool out of yourself.
So do you consider Bart an infallible source? Or only when he tells you what you want to hear?
Don’t be an ass. Between the two of us you’re the one with a fixed position that seems impervious to argument.
Godspell,
I agree with so much of what you’ve written in comment #225 (and elsewhere), that I’m hesitant to respond. However, there are a very few issues where I think you lay out very interesting arguments, but I currently cannot subscribe to. I want to isolate one here.
Argument: The thesis point that, since we have no evidence at all of alternate accounts/objections to the burial story, burial (properly defined) is historically probable.
I agree completely that this explanation is both plausibleand consistent with the data. I, unfortunately, stop short of agreeing yet that it’s sufficiently probable. Why?
I’ve previously given the outline of a stalking horse view, which turns on (a) size of the witnessing audience to where the body went, (b) the meaningfulness of the interactivity between these witnesses and (c) the destruction of Jerusalem. Robert has expressed a scenario (R – please correct me if I misstate), which has some similarity but is nonetheless distinct (and probably better). A person with sufficient time and mental ingenuity (more than I!) could generate many many further plausible scenarios that are also consistent with the data and not wildly improbable.
Even granting the burial view as the single most probable, it’s really hard to see how to justify it being sufficiently probable (>50%? >2/3? >90%?) because of the alternatives. And, I agree that framed one way, burial (properly defined) is the simplest. Though, when framed other ways, it’s not. The supporting arguments (most especially the parallel embarrassment argument) are very intriguing, but I cannot currently see them chewing through the sufficient probability problem.
That does not mean, therefore, that nonburial as explanation is sufficiently probable. I currently think the issue is indeterminable.
Stephen said
No, I think you’ve just misapplied them.What does that even mean? How should they be applied? You can dismiss them of course but no one will take that seriously as a response to historical evidence. But more importantly what does Scott think? He should be aware of these references, right? You have his book in front of you, right? Weeeell?
Josephus is an obscurity?
All your comments about “obscurity” are a direct result of your poor reading skills. Go back and reread what I actually said.
The actual quote from Josephus is very interesting no doubt about it. In case you don’t know the “They” he refers to were the Idumeans who were considered foreigners by the Jews. So one thing Josephus is doing is contrasting the activities of foreigners (Idumeans here but also Romans perhaps?) with the piety of the Jews. Note also that this reference to Jewish practice is the only mention in Josephus or all of pagan literature that refers to Jewish victims of crucifixion being taken down and buried before sunset. Contrast that with the multiple independent references I gave describing Roman attitudes towards their own practice. Very provocative indeed but surely Scott doesn’t just rely on this one quote? Keep reading.
I already commented about Augustus. Nothing to add.
…since we know most crucified bodies ended up in the ground…
How do we know this again?
Do you agree with this [heaven and hell etc]?
I try to look at all the evidence before I make up my mind. Yeah it takes longer but you tend not to make a fool out of yourself.
So do you consider Bart an infallible source? Or only when he tells you what you want to hear?
Don’t be an ass. Between the two of us you’re the one with a fixed position that seems impervious to argument.
Petronius was writing history? Which of his plays were set in Palestine? He was writing during Nero’s reign. You get the rules under Nero, in Rome itself, were a little bit different, right? To the extent that there were any, other than “Keep your head down, or lose it.” So no, that is not necessarily representative of crucifixion in Palestine, during the reign of Tiberius.
Josephus is writing about Palestine. He is our best possible source. And he affirms that Jews crucified for rebelling against Rome were still given burial. This is still after Pilate’s administration, of course. But it’s a much more violent and chaotic time period, when things would be much stricter with regards to punishments.
I don’t have to prove the crucified were always buried, because I don’t have to, and I don’t want to. Because we have sources that say Jesus was buried, and none that he wasn’t, any significant doubt about the universality of this practice of letting the bodies rot on the cross is fatal to the argument that Jesus did. There is very very significant doubt this was the case in Palestine, and we know the Romans did make a number of exceptions to general practice in the case of the Jews (like, for example, they didn’t have to sacrifice to the gods of the polis). Josephus and Philo are both highly critical of Plato, but they don’t say he did this. Why not?
I didn’t reproduce the entire quote from Cook’s book (was I supposed to type out entire pages, footnotes included?), which does mention the Idumeans, and so what? It’s still Roman territory, Roman laws, Roman crucifixion. Josephus is saying that the Jews in that region don’t allow crucified co-religionists to rot on the cross. That’s a lot more relevant than fiction set in the city of Rome, under the reign of Nero, who I definitely believe would have wanted his victims to rot.
My poor reading skills didn’t have me writing Augustine in place of Augustus. You could have just edited, you know. Maybe with my poor reading skills and all, I wouldn’t have noticed. (or cared)
Hngerhman said
Godspell,I agree with so much of what you’ve written in comment #225 (and elsewhere), that I’m hesitant to respond. However, there are a very few issues where I think you lay out very interesting arguments, but I currently cannot subscribe to. I want to isolate one here.
Argument: The thesis point that, since we have no evidence at all of alternate accounts/objections to the burial story, burial (properly defined) is historically probable.
I agree completely that this explanation is both plausibleand consistent with the data. I, unfortunately, stop short of agreeing yet that it’s sufficiently probable. Why?
I’ve previously given the outline of a stalking horse view, which turns on (a) size of the witnessing audience to where the body went, (b) the meaningfulness of the interactivity between these witnesses and (c) the destruction of Jerusalem. Robert has expressed a scenario (R – please correct me if I misstate), which has some similarity but is nonetheless distinct (and probably better). A person with sufficient time and mental ingenuity (more than I!) could generate many many further plausible scenarios that are also consistent with the data and not wildly improbable.
Even granting the burial view as the single most probable, it’s really hard to see how to justify it being sufficiently probable (>50%? >2/3? >90%?) because of the alternatives. And, I agree that framed one way, burial (properly defined) is the simplest. Though, when framed other ways, it’s not. The supporting arguments (most especially the parallel embarrassment argument) are very intriguing, but I cannot currently see them chewing through the sufficient probability problem.
That does not mean, therefore, that nonburial as explanation is sufficiently probable. I currently think the issue is indeterminable.
Okay, I respect that you believe there is room for doubting both burial and non-burial.
And to think it only took 225 comments. (232 now.)
godspell said
Okay, I respect that you believe there is room for doubting both burial and non-burial.
And to think it only took 225 comments. (232 now.)
Made me laugh aloud.
Remember, you, Robert and JG Cook walked me from nonburial as default, so I’ve come a ways. But on a per comment basis, perhaps the Zeno’s paradox of position shifts…
Stephen, remember, if you can, that we’re talking about Palestine under the administration of Pilate, and that nobody is saying nobody ever got left on the cross to rot. Also remember that you have done a tiny bit of research compared to Cook, who says there is substantial evidence the crucified were often buried. Still, I freely admit–your quotes are entertaining. (And, frequently, entertainment.)
From an inscription found on the tombstone of a man murdered by his slave in the ancient city of Kaunos (in modern day Turkey). The murderer was “hung…alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey.”
Murder is high treason? And does ‘hung’ automatically mean crucified? A long long way from Palestine.
Roman author Horace says in one of his letters that a slave when accused of a crime was proclaiming his innocence to which Horace replied, “You shall not therefore feed the carrion crows on the cross.”
Slaves were treated worse than free men, even Jews.
Roman satirist Juvenal writes that “the vulture hurries from dead cattle and dogs and corpses, to bring carrion to her offspring.”
I don’t see any reference to crucifixion here.
The famous ancient interpreter of dreams Artemidorus wrote that it is auspicious(!) for a poor man to dream of crucifixion since “a crucified man is raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds.”
2nd century AD, not in Palestine, and seriously? You compare this to a quote from Josephus?
In Petronius’ Satyricon he specifically mentions a crucified person being left on the cross for days.
Which nobody is arguing never happened, and definitely not under Nero.
From an anonymous didactic poem translated by classicist Gerard Sloyan, “Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fasted, nailed to it with sharpest spikes, an ugly meal for birds of prey and grim scraps for dogs.”
Okay, so your reference to obscure quotes was directed at yourself. Sorry, misunderstood. Do we have a date and place of origin for this anomymous quote?
Sloyan reports that in Latin vernacular “Crux!” was a swear word. He also notes that there was a slang term used by the lower classes to refer to victims of crucifixion, “Food for Crows”, (Corvorum Cibaria). These terms are independently attested in Roman writers Plautus, Terence, and Petronius.
I don’t see anybody here from Palestine.
Tacitus reports that Tiberius conducted a reign of terror in AD 31 after the fall of Sejanus. “People sentenced to death forfeited their property and were forbidden burial.”
Because Tiberius feared for his life, due to Sejanus’ attempt to usurp the throne. What equivalent situation existed in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified?
Petronius again in his Satyricon writes about a soldier in Ephesus who was given the job of preventing people from removing corpses from crosses. When the soldier slipped off to take his ease with a local widow the family of a poor unfortunate came in and removed the body from his cross and buried him. The soldier was arrested and crucified himself for failing in his duty.
I’d say that’s at least as much evidence for my side of the argument, no? Even without formal permission, bodies would often be removed from the cross and buried. That there was a formal penalty for allowing this only proves how often it happened.
A bit later Eusebius writes about the so-called “Martyrs of Lyon”. The bodies of the crucified Christians were displayed for six days and then burned so that the ashes might be scattered in the Rhone. Christian fellow-disciples complained, “We could not bury the bodies in the earth…neither did money or prayers move them, for in every possible way they kept guard as if the prevention of burial would give them great gain.”
So-called Martyrs of Lyon”? What are you saying here? That they weren’t really crucified, left on the cross for most of a week, then burned to ashes for worshiping as they saw fit? Or that that doesn’t constitute martyrdom? (Man, tough crowd.) In any event, this is almost two centuries later, not in Palestine, not related to Jews, and clearly during one of those periodic crackdowns on Christianity that Bart says were really not so common. Though I have to say, one expects better of Marcus Aurelius. Under Constantine, of course, crucifixion was banned, so there’ll be no examples from that time period.
And if I might be so bold as to mention, the mere fact that they felt obliged to turn the bodies to ashes so they couldn’t be buried, proves (once again) that burial of the crucified was still commonplace.
You have been most helpful. 😐
Actually, we have testimony from both Philo and Josephus that very early in his tenure, Pilate was forced to back down in the face of a massive demonstration by Jews offended by pagan standards in Jerusalem. He threatened them with troops, and they held out their necks for the chop–he withdrew the offending standards. Josephus’ story is different, but agrees Pilate backed down. So Bart’s claim that any Jewish protest would be met with overwhelming military force from Pilate must be called into question.
Do we accept their stories (which contradict each other on some points) without qualification? No, in fact we don’t do that with any ancient source material–correct? Philo was notably hostile to Pilate, but Philo was not only not from Palestine, he lived far away from it, in Alexandria. So when we read his claims about Pilate’s hostile relationship with the people in Jerusalem, we’re not getting first-hand information. (We’re possibly getting old gossip from the Herodian court.)
This is all so adversarial–as if only one side can be right or wrong. Burial and non-burial both happened after crucifixion. Roman governors in Palestine could be ruthless at times, accommodating at others. But again, to state Jesus was not buried, on the basis of what was anything but an inflexible policy–in a territory where the majority population was deeply opposed to letting fellow Jews be left for scavengers, even if they had been involved in insurrectionary activity–nope. The arguments aren’t there. And quoting plays written in the time of Nero (or sources much later than that) doesn’t resolve anything.
Anyway, I’ve always preferred Plautus. Here is his historical testimony as to the atrocities committed by the infamous general, Miles Gloriosus. (translation by Stephen Sondheim). Enjoy Frisco.
Robert wrote
Pilate also was not from Palestine, nor do we have reason to believe that he was especially solicitous to accommodate Jewish burial customs for victims of his justice. Josephus, on the other hand, was very much inclined to flatter his Roman benefactors as very respectful of Jewish customs. Much of this material being cited or facilely dismissed has limited probative value.
Good points. We do have other instances where Josephus seems to exaggerate Jewish piety to impress his Roman masters. I seem to remember a passage where he claims Jews routinely execute unruly children? As far as the material being cited having limited probative value, let’s refresh ourselves as to what the argument is. (godspell forgets from post to post.)
We have no idea what happened to Jesus’ body. (Judging from his last post godspell still seems to think I’m arguing that Jesus wasn’t buried.)
But again, to state Jesus was not buried, on the basis of what was anything but an inflexible policy–in a territory where the majority population was deeply opposed to letting fellow Jews be left for scavengers, even if they had been involved in insurrectionary activity–nope. The arguments aren’t there.
The arguments aren’t there because nobody is making this frikkin’ argument!!! (godspell if you ever have cause to wonder at what point in the conversation I gave up all pretense of taking you seriously this here is it.)
However we do have multiple references from Roman sources associating non-burial with crucifixion. (godspell claimed there were none.) It seems to haver been characteristic enough that it gets references from non-historians (godspell thinks this is a weakness) and to have generated colloquial slang.
I’m not the one making sweeping definitive claims here.
Now, I think I’ve shown due diligence. I don’t see the point in repeating myself. So, unless anyone has anything new to add to the conversation, I take my leave of this thread.
Okay, so nobody was arguing anything. For well over 200 posts, and I forget how many months. Whatever. It’s not like we’re all going to get buried ourselves someday. (Or maybe rot in the sun, who knows? In some cultures, being eaten by scavengers is the preferred option.)
Let’s just agree to disagree, even if we actually agree that there’s more than one possible fate for the mortal remains of The Most Influential Human Who Ever Lived.
All the same, without any real evidence that he wasn’t buried (indeed, very little evidence that rotting on the cross was the standard procedure in Palestine back then) there seems no reason to assume the gospel accounts (which are used as primary sources by scholars of Roman history) are entirely wrong. Anymore than we should assume Philo and Josephus (or Petronius, for Christ’s sake) wrote unvarnished factual accounts. Even if they had wanted to do that, it would have been inadvisable, to say the least.
I consider this my final word on the subject. But I’ve tried that before, so this time I’m just not going to read the responses. If any. I’m reasonably content that my points were made, and even considered. And enough is enough already. Let the thread die. And I’ll see if my dog wants to eat it, but somehow I don’t think so.
Okay, so nobody was arguing anything.
godspell still doesn’t get it. After all these posts, he still doesn’t get it. I’m just mystified by this. Hence this response.
Well I was arguing something. I was arguing that there is evidence that in the Roman mind there was an association between crucifixion and body desecration on the cross. That they were considered part of the same punishment, not two separate punishments. I cited several references in Roman literature that made this association. (Note: godspell mistakenly believes that a mention of a historical factoid in ancient genre literature (like plays) weakens the case when in fact it actually strengthens it. Why? Because it means the factoid has moved beyond the restricted category of historical writing into the popular mind. Scholars live for these kinds of “off hand” remarks from which they can learn a lot. This is why I think the creation of slang associated with crucifixion is so compelling. People don’t make up slang about an occasional situation but about a familiar one.)
Concluding unscientific postscript:
There’s definitely a major force field to be detected around this issue. Even Prof Ehrman in his book seems to feel the need to kind of creep up on it. The idea that Jesus might have met such a horrible fate is very disturbing. At least his death on the cross is supposed to have a salvific significance to the believer. But of course that’s an interpretation in retrospect. The earliest believers probably put more stock in their resurrection experience than in the appalling fact of the cross anyway. Given Paul’s views of the resurrection “body” it’s interesting to speculate just how interested he would have been in the actual fate of Jesus’ fleshly body. And that’s where I came in…
And which then interleaves well with Dr Tabor’s views put forward in his recent The Jesus Discovery that could be read to be minimally consistent with Paul’s views of resurrection but not the gospels Empty Tomb.
If he’s found Jesus’s bones (I’m taking no stand on that herein), (Tabor’s interpretation of) Paul’s view could withstand it, but it doesn’t seem those of Mark et al could.
Godspell, you may already know, but NT Wright, in the audiolecture of his new tome the NT in Its World (I’m listening to it presently on Audible), gives voice to his embarrassment argument that asserts stories of body stealing were early and he conjoins that view with the thought that no one would have made up body stealing if there were not already an understanding that there was an empty tomb to account for. My issues with this explanation notwithstanding, I thought you might like that a relative of your parallel embarrassment argument is being wielded, recently, by not a small person in the field.
If you have it on Audible, it’s Vol 1, Chapter 15, 13:00 in. I’ve not checked the book itself yet.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)