Godspell,
You say “They take him down a bit early, hand him over”, and I agree that someone took possession of Jesus’s body after it was removed from the cross. It was not left for scavengers as he had sufficient followers apart from the disciples that his fate would have become known if this was the case.
You also say “They don’t know how it happened or who did it”. What do you mean by “it”?
What, in your opinion, is the most probable thing that happened after someone took possession of Jesus’s body?
I mean they had very little information about what happened after they left town in a hurry, and what they had would have been all over the place. “It” in this instance means what happened to Jesus’ mortal remains, and why. So they were free to concoct their own narratives, based on what little intel they had, and probably there was more than one story, just as there were many stories about the resurrection–Paul says hundreds of people saw Jesus risen. That clearly got edited down some.
I disagree with your suggestion that the disciples were free to concoct their own narratives about the fate of Jesus’s body.
Their stories had to correspond to the experience of followers who remained in Jerusalem or they would not have been believed. For example, the disciples could not claim that Jesus had been resurrected if his followers (and enemies) knew that his body had been abandoned to scavengers. Likewise, they could not claim that his body had just risen up to heaven if followers had seen it being buried and they could not claim that it had been buried if this contradicted followers’s experiences.
The disciples did claim that Jesus had been buried, so what actual experience occurred to his followers which justified this claim?
If I may, one seemingly needs to be careful to distinguish (not exhaustive):
– the experience of the disciples themselves
– the stories they told to others
– the stories as then transmitted along to new hearers
– the stories as written down in the gospels
Not that there’s a necessary information disconnect across or at each point above, but it’s also equally not necessary that there was NOT some form of disconnect or alteration across each.
Just to take two examples from Matthew:
– did the resurrection of the saints in Jerusalem happen but no one else in history seems to have taken notice? If not historical, then it is something that early followers (by the time of 80-90 CE) came to believe and write down without an actual basis in fact
– similarly, did the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem occur without other record? If not historical, then it is something that early followers came to believe and write down without an actual basis in fact
Not necessarily, but quite plausibly some form of a burial story could easily have been retrojected by early followers when they were challenged by skeptical hearers who then asked for some greater assurance of death. I don’t at all mean to imply that plausibility means probability, but this kind of retrojection scenario is hard to rule out given what evidence we do / don’t have from the gospels themselves. Especially in light of the fact that we have major counterfactual claims that were believed.
Thus, we know that the writers of the gospels (and Paul) believed/wrote there was a burial, but we don’t know why they believed it or how they came by the tradition. We can also likely infer that Peter didn’t refute said claim to Paul, but not whether Peter affirmatively confirmed it (nor how he would have known, being he was no longer in Jerusalem).
As always, we have to draw a line between material events and supernatural ones in the New Testament (which is not to say that we should believe all non-supernatural events described there happened as described, or at all). We have to remember that basically everyone then believed in the supernatural in some sense, but that stories about supernatural events were not necessarily meant to be taken literally in the same way stories about material events were. This was true of pagans as well as monotheists. You have an entire empire where you can be executed for refusing to sacrifice to gods you don’t believe in, because that was supposed to bring ill fortune (and because it was a form of civil disobedience). It’s not rational vs. irrational–it’s one vision vs. another, both of them a mixture of real and unreal.
Let’s just be careful we don’t engage in retrojection. We have to understand these people on their own terms. I absolutely do believe the stories we have are all invented to some extent–but not all to the same extent. It is impossible for me to believe everybody saw the disciples walking around speaking in every language of the Roman world, as if they had Star Trek universal translators. But it’s very easy for me to believe Jesus’ mortal remains may have been treated differently than those of the average crucifixion victim, simply because he was not the average crucifixion victim. And that memory could have been distorted over time, but we must acknowledge, it was a pretty much universally held memory among early Christians. And it might help explain why they were able to convince themselves he’d risen from the dead.
See, what Bart and other scholars of his bent have had a hard time explaining is how, if Jesus had just rotted on the cross, and been thrown on a garbage pile weeks or months later is, how did that turn into the story we have now? It’s one hell of a stretch. I’d prefer not to stretch that far, if I can avoid it. I’m really out of shape. 😉
No problems with any of that, but I’d say the loophole is that our collective knowledge of crucifixion isn’t that great. We know that we mainly can’t find the remains of people who were crucified, but one of the few instances we have, he was buried (or part of him was–maybe somebody retrieved him from a garbage heap?)
I’ve read enough history–of many different times and places–to know that much of what really happened reads like outlandish fiction, and that people often behave in ways that go against the norm (that’s happening right now, as I’m sure you’ve noticed). It’s reassuring to say “This is what they did, so that’s what happened” but the story of Christianity is inherently improbable, even if we eliminate every last trace of the supernatural. Jesus went from an obscure man crucified by Rome and forgotten, to someone every emperor of Rome (except Julian) worshipped as the only true God–in three centuries.
I keep saying we’ve gone as far with this as we can with the information available.
Then somebody posts here again, and I respond.
Let’s try it again–I think we’ve gone as far as with this as we can with the information available.
::waits::
Robert wrote-
Stephen said
The Joseph of Arimathea story is probably very early originating at least partly in Christian revulsion at the actual fate of Jesus’ body, perhaps? It probably also reflects a move from what appears to be the earliest form of Resurrection belief, an apotheosis, to a bodily resuscitation. It would be interesting to ask Paul what he thought happened to Jesus’ earthly body and if it mattered.
Perhaps. I even think likely. But there are also scholars who interpret Mark as relating something like an Enoch/Elijah translation into heavenly realms or the imminent future coming of the apocalyptic and eschatological Christ without necessarily thinking of a past resuscitation of a corpse. Even later additions to Mark’s narrative such as the gospel of Matthew also do not merely recite the resuscitation of a corpse without retaining or introducing other, more mysterious elements into the story. (I can illustrate if necessity.) Thus yours may be an unnecessarily derogatory characterization of the earliest gospels, in my opinion.
By the way, glad to see you back!
Thanks my two months away was refreshing.
I’m not sure what I said that was “unnecessarily derogatory”. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that the earliest believers were disturbed by what they knew to be the fate of Jesus’ body. There is no reason at all to think Jesus was treated any differently than any other victim of Roman jurisprudence. It also seems clear that, like all Christian doctrines, there was a development in the conception of the Resurrection. By the time of Mark you were working on 40 years of speculation about the appearances of Jesus after the Resurrection. However I do think Mark itself reflects a transitional view. I have my own hypothesis about the significance of the Empty Tomb and I plan to post on this. I just finished a big project at work which was sucking all my energies and with the weather keeping me indoors I should have more time to write about it. I would appreciate your response.
Finally when I use the word “resuscitation” I’m just trying to distinguish between the view that after his death Jesus was immediately “translated” to the right hand of God the Father and the view that something transformed Jesus’ earthly body in the tomb. I think Mark’s view was a transitional one between these two views and in fact, roughly, he held the former view while his use of the ET helped create the latter. More to follow…
The Jewish idea of resurrection of the dead did not require decent burial. It’s debatable whether there had to be any surviving remains at all. Yes, it’s horrible what happened to crucifixion victims, but that horror, that torture and degradation Jesus went through, is precisely what distinguishes the Passion story that underlies Christianity. Later artistic representations actually went to some pains to make it worse than it really was.
So while we can agree the story we have did not happen as described, revulsion doesn’t strike me as a sufficient explanation. If anything, the story got worse over time, not better. Culminating with Mr. Gibson’s Magnum Opus (based on the ravings of a deranged nun).
More likely to me that something unusual happened with the body, but Jesus’ followers had only sketchy details, and filled in the blanks themselves. Given how unusual the entire story is, even when stripped of all later embellishment, what’s so hard to believe about that?
If we’re going to say it was so revolting to Jewish sensibilities for a rabbi’s body to rot in the sun, then we do have to at least consider the possibility that Jews who were not Christians might have found it revolting as well, and pulled a few strings to get him out of sight. Pilate would have lost all interest once it was over, and of course he would have left Jerusalem as soon as Passover was done.
There is no reason to think the Romans would have considered Jesus to be any different than any other doomed Messianic pretender. The humiliation of not being allowed a decent burial was part of the punishment, not an afterthought. Executing Messiahs was practically a cottage industry for the Romans. Jesus’ followers though would have had a vested interest in considering Jesus to be special. So it’s not unreasonable to extrapolate that any tradition predicated on Jesus being special originated with his followers.
I’ve always suspected that the confrontation between Pilate and Jesus was fanciful. It makes good drama, as does the trial before the Sanhedrin, but seems unlikely. Had the Romans no legal bureaucracy? I think the closest the historical Pilate ever came to the historical Jesus was to pencil whip a death warrant. And he might have even had a flunky who did that.
I agree they probably either never met, or only briefly, and they didn’t share a language–I have a hard time imagining Pilate going to the trouble of finding a translator. That is pure invention, and would have to be, since no Christians or Jews were present to witness it.
Meaning that Pilate never did ask about the body–and probably didn’t care what happened to it. It is entirely possible that Anatole France’s story, The Procurator of Judea, where Pilate is reminiscing about his career, asked about Jesus towards the end, and has no recollection of any such person, is the literal truth. But that being the case, would he have gone to any special pains to make sure the body rotted on the cross? Flunkies are easily bribed, in all times and places. Again, Pilate would have returned to Caesarea as soon as Passover was finished, along with most of the military contingent. There was no civic uprising, there’s not even any record of a small riot. Jesus’ followers fled the city, and it might have been noted after the fact how very few of them there were, how little genuine popular support he had. So who was left for them to intimidate/humiliate?
The Romans certainly crucified many would-be liberators of Palestine from Roman rule–remind me again how much solid data we have about them crucifying men for just claiming to be Messiah, without doing anything to back it up? (This is assuming Jesus made that precise claim, and I have some doubts, but a separate matter).
Jesus was referred to Pilate’s attention by the Temple authorities–they were not primarily concerned with Jesus’ messianic claims, since as you say, there were many such claimants (probably he wasn’t even the only one in Jerusalem that Passover). His attack on their authority (made manifest in his actions at the Temple courtyard) would have been the principal offense. But translation problems would also have existed in how they conveyed the charges to Pilate and/or his subordinates. Not merely of language, but culture.
I’m not saying there was any attempt at conciliation, or admission of wrongdoing. Pilate had executed many Jews for no real reason at all (meaning that Jesus being executed isn’t proof of anything much). I’m saying that if a faction on the Sanhedrin felt there had been an overreaction, they might have quietly intervened to get his body off the cross, respectably disposed of by the standards of the poor man he was (hardly anyone got a tomb cut out of rock), and that story was enlarged upon over time. He wasn’t an ordinary criminal, and neither was he a zealot militant.
Look at the world we live in. Are the rules always followed to the letter now? Are punishments always carried out to the letter now?
Why then?
Many more things are possible than are likely. This argument tends towards circularity and even question begging. The only reason you would think Jesus was treated special by the Romans is if you already thought he was special. To the Romans he would have been just another dead Jew caught in a virtual assembly line of gore. Those who thought he was special to begin with would certainly have expected his fate to be special.
So that would be your admission you don’t actually have any information about nonviolent messianic pretenders being crucified on a regular basis? You made it sound like some kind of disassembly line. Crucifixion was commonplace, but it wasn’t mainly on the basis of somebody making a little noise in the public square. It wasn’t even mainly political. You could be crucified for ordinary crimes. Most crucifixion victims were, in fact, nothing special. But Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhedrin, then referred to the attention of Pontius Pilate, during Passover, after making a scene at the temple courtyard. The pretext was that he was a serious threat to civic order, Roman rule–but that wasn’t true.
(Also, if this was the common fate of street preachers with Apocalyptic ideas, in Jerusalem, at Passover–wouldn’t that prove Jesus had every reason to believe he’d be crucified? Bart’s opinion is that he never intended or expected for that to happen–I’m less sure. But the problem is, every time you plug a hole in the story, you create another hole. Nobody has a fully satisfying explanation for what happened, and any scenario is problematic, though obviously the worst is that it’s all made up.)
It wouldn’t be about treating him as privileged (some privilege). It might be about hushing up an embarrassing overreaction to a barefooted rabbi who (had he not been crucified) probably wouldn’t even be remembered today. He didn’t have a strong following, but he had admirers, sympathizers, and it would have been common knowledge he opposed violence (overturning tables doesn’t count). So get him down, get him out of sight, stop the whispers. He’s dead, his people scattered. It’s over. Is what they’d think.
You’re the one making him special here–you really think Pilate would have noticed or cared if the body got taken down later, after he was home safe in the administrative capital? It would have been in his rearview mirror the day after it happened. Possibly the same day it happened. There is in fact a history of Jews in Jerusalem protesting this kind of treatment of the bodies of other Jews. If it was somebody who had actually committed a serious crime, led an uprising, I agree there would be no chance of any exception being made. But again–with every member of Jesus’ tiny following in hiding, not even in the city (except maybe some of the women)–who are they trying to impress?
Your argument makes no sense, because the entire event was revolting, horrifying. The story is intentionally made revolting and horrifying. Do you believe Peter was actually there, risking his life to find out Jesus’ fate, then denying him? Sounds pretty special to me–it also sounds like an exaggerated story, reflecting survivor’s guilt. But whether it happened or not, they did tell that story, it got into the gospels. Why couldn’t they just tell a story about his body rotting, then being magically resurrected–which is in fact what Apocalyptic Jews believed would happen to a just man crucified by foreign conquerers, when God’s Kingdom came to earth. No burial required.
To know what’s likely, we’d need to know a lot more about crucifixion in that period than we do. We do, in fact, know that at least one crucifixion victim’s remains were taken down and buried. And it wasn’t Jesus. And there’s no historical record of that happening. Josephus doesn’t write about it. Nobody ever did, far as we know. Because probably it was a case of somebody quietly intervening, to give what was left of him a decent burial. If it could happen once, it could happen again.
You get I’m not arguing for a literal reading of the gospel story, right? What offends you so much about the notion Jesus didn’t rot on the cross? Wouldn’t bother me one bit if he was eaten by dogs. Wouldn’t bother me if that was my ultimate fate. I like dogs. Maybe he did too. 🙂
If he was crucified just for talking and turning over a few tables, that would be pretty different, no? Again, we don’t really know that much about crucifixion. But we do know there were instances where remains of crucifixion victims were buried–we can’t really know how rare that was, given that if the victim’s hands and feet were tied to the cross, instead of nailed, there would be no evidence the person in question was crucified.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
We don’t have the remains of most people who weren’t crucified, either, you know.
Is the problem here that we disagree over how ‘special’ the Romans thought Jesus was? I’m saying they barely thought about him at all when he was alive, and stopped thinking about him entirely after he was dead–until much later, when they had no choice.
No, the problem here is that you want to think he was nothing special.
And your use of the word ‘bluster’ is pretty funny, given your typical posts here, but I know my penchant for snark can irritate at times. Apologies. 🙂
If he was crucified just for talking and turning over a few tables, that would be pretty different, no?
No. Any incident in the Temple would have been interpreted implicitly as an attack on the Temple system. The Temple guard would have been on the look-out for just this kind of episode during Passover when tensions were especially high. I suspect Jesus was hauled off and immediately turned over to the Romans. (It just doesn’t seem reasonable to think Jesus could initiate an incident in the Temple and walk off the Temple grounds unmolested during Passover.) The Romans were unsubtle and unimaginative. They wouldn’t care what Jesus’ motives were. And they would have been oblivious to distinctions between politics and religion.
Again, we don’t really know that much about crucifixion.
True, but what we do know has been nicely compiled and what I think are appropriate conclusions drawn in Prof Ehrman’s 2015 book How Jesus Became God. Truthfully I used to think the way you do. But it’s hard to argue with logic and expertise.
Is the problem here that we disagree over how ‘special’ the Romans thought Jesus was? I’m saying they barely thought about him at all when he was alive, and stopped thinking about him entirely after he was dead–until much later, when they had no choice.
But for some reason you want to draw the line at the probable disposition of Jesus’ body. In the face of a lack of definitive evidence it is most logical to suppose that Jesus was treated in the normal fashion.
No, the problem here is that you want to think he was nothing special.
No, the problem is you imagine you have some special access to my inner motivations. Why not just ask me what my thought processes are? If you’re not interested then why pretend we’re having a conversation? Of course it’s always easier to just make something up. It allows you to dismiss other people without really listening to what they’re saying.
And your use of the word ‘bluster’ is pretty funny, given your typical posts here, but I know my penchant for snark can irritate at times. Apologies
No need. I hope it doesn’t disappoint you to find out your posts can have very little emotional affect on me. I’ve been reamed by experts. Of course we can characterize each other’s posts. I’ll submit to the judgement of the other folks active on this blog to read your posts and mine and come to their own conclusions.
You suspect? Can you point to a single credible scholar who says Jesus was arrested in the Temple courtyard? People cause disturbances all the time without getting arrested, in our far more highly policed world. No sale. And how many other crucifixions do we have a record of that were caused by overturning tables? None, I’m guessing.
I’ve read How Jesus Became God, it’s a fine book, it doesn’t support anything you’re saying here.
Again, if he was eaten by dogs, or scavenger birds, it’s fine by me. But your ‘revulsion’ argument still doesn’t make any sense. I’ve read a lot of martyrdom stories, from different traditions. It’s not unusual for them to end with the body being disrespected after death. It is unusual for people to say the body rose up and talked to them. Since I don’t believe that happened, I need an explanation for how they came to believe that. Visions, hallucinations, fine–how was that triggered? Why wasn’t it triggered with other messianic pretenders who were executed? Something had to be special about this case, or we wouldn’t be endlessly discussing it.
You are very sensitive about these inner motivations of yours. Not so sensitive towards those of others. Everybody has them. You can perfectly understand people who lived two thousand years ago, left us no direct records, but I can’t make a few educated guesses from reading your posts? As to the ’emotional impact’–no comment. 🙂
You suspect?
Of course. I feel an obligation to label my speculations as just that. Don’t you? just because an idea seizes your imagination doesn’t mean it’s true. You must discipline your imagination with the available evidence. And the hardest thing of all to avoid is anachronism. We swim in a sea of concepts and it’s very difficult to recognize our deeply held assumptions much less transcend them. And this is my problem with your comments about the Temple incident. If I kick over the bingo tables down at the American Legion Hall in the 21st century, sure my chances of getting executed are pretty slim. But if I was a First Century ecstatic prophet who created a disturbance that interfered with the day to day activities of the Temple during Passover, given what we know about the Temple system, and the attitudes and practices of the Romans, I would have a pretty good chance of being hauled off and crucified. You’re judging them by your own standards and I think this is a mistake.
I’ve read How Jesus Became God, it’s a fine book, it doesn’t support anything you’re saying here.
Then read it again because Prof Ehrman has a lengthy section of what we know about crucifixion and Jesus’ probable fate.
But your ‘revulsion’ argument still doesn’t make any sense.
All I was saying is that the knowledge of the probable fate of Jesus’ body might have had some influence on the rise of stories about Joseph of Arimethea and the Empty Tomb. If you can be patient I will expand on this in a separate thread I was planning to create.
…but I can’t make a few educated guesses…
But why guess at all, educated or otherwise?. Whence cometh this impulse to guess what I’m thinking? Why not just ask? I am amongst you all but for a short time. Drink from the cup of my wisdom while you have the chance! (In case you’re still wondering, yes, that was meant to be funny.)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)