I was discussing the crucifixion with a Christian on a Facebook group and trying to explain that most historians didn’t think that the Romans allowed bodies to be taken down from the cross upon death but left them rotting/being scavenged for awhile.
I was particularly confident about this so I challenged him to contact the History and Religion departments of his nearest prestigious University (which happened to be U of Illinois) and I suggested two professors which looked to have the right specialities. Here’s his email (not the question I’d agreed to):
To: Mathisen, Ralph W
Subject: A history questionProfessor — Can you do me a favor? A friend claims that it is the consensus view of historians of the time that Jesus was left on the cross and never buried. He suggest that you were the person to ask about this. Can you corroborate that, and what would you point me to in order to establish that it is in fact the consensus? Thank you
and Prof Mathisen’s reply;
Nope theres no “consensus” on any of this….
It was not typical to leave the bodies of crucified/executed persons out in the weather… that’s more of an early modern tradition..
cheerio
Of course my opponent was very magnanimous (not!). I followed up with the good professor:
Dear Professor,
Yesterday a friend “Tom” asked you about the consensus amongst Historians of the fate of the body of Christ after he was crucified.I regret imposing and this is my first and last question on the matter, but I would just like a slight clarification.My initial conjecture wasn’t specific to Jesus but that the Romans didn’t allow the removal of any bodies from a cross. This was based upon the lack of buried crucified remains found from the Roman period (there’s just one as far as I am aware “Jehohanan”). In addition the letters that talk about crucifixion (Horace, Juvenal et al) and finally the exception as described by Philo on the birthday of the Emperor.Please could you give your opinion on this.Again, apologies for imposing.Best wishes and regardsJon McAlroyReferences:Horace: “You shall not therefore feed the carrion crows on the cross” (Epistle 1.16.46–48)Juvenal: “the vulture [that] hurries from the dead cattle and dogs and corpses, to bring some of the carrion to her offspring” (Satires 14.77–78).Artemidorus: “a crucified man is raised high and his substance is sufficient to keep many birds” (Dream Book 2.53)Philo (quoted by Crossan 159): “I have known cases when on the eve of a holiday of this kind, people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites. For it was meet that the dead also should have the advantage of some kind treatment upon the birthday of the emperor and also that the sanctity of the festival should be maintained”
Hi Jon…
Irrespective of how long a crucified person was kept up (and remember they were often tied up as opposed to nailed, and that the *crux* was often in the shape of the letter X as opposed to the crosses in Spartacus), they had to come down *sometime*, so the observation about lack of remains is really irrelevant
the remains had to go somewhere eventually.
Cheerio Ralph M.
p.s. your juvenal passage says nothing about crucifixion… that just leaves horace and artemidorus (a writer on dreams!)… rather slim pickings, one might say! you wouldn’t have to be up long to attract some birds!
There is a lot that is unknown about crucifixion. Over the past few years I’ve read a number of papers on crucifixion from scholarly journals and the unknowns about crucifixion are far more prevalent than the knowns. One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is the setting for any crucifixion. I don’t want to make a blanket statement about what religious scholars believe and teach (as opposed to non-religious scholars like Prof Ehrman), but I suspect at least some think of crucifixion in a vacuum. By that I mean that I believe they only think about crucifixion in terms of Jesus crucified on Golgotha and that crucifixion anywhere else and in any other setting is just not something to worry about or think about. But, in fact, crucifixion was very popular as spectacle. Perhaps the most familiar form of Roman spectacle to us today is the gladiatorial events in which crucifixions were performed to execute various criminals: either petty (eg., Nero’s well-known crucifixion of Christian “arsons” or slaves guilty of violence against their master) or grand (one example of a grand enemy was a governor of Sicily who was crucified as a spy for one of the armies during the wars caused by Spartacus’ revolt). These crucifixions which were carried out in the arena surely must have had the bodies removed quickly there, doubly so since I think they were also burned after being crucified or perhaps burned WHILE being crucified.
At any rate, my point is that the place of crucifixion had some bearing on whether or not the bodies were taken down (or rather whether they NEEDED to be taken down as was most likely the case in the arena).
I think we must always keep the unforgiving violence of the Romans foremost in our minds. Perhaps the gospels, at least in regards to the crucifixion, were far more fanciful than we imagine. If Jesus was crucified solely for being treasonous, ie. claiming to be king of the Jews, then I have to wonder why the Romans would be so beneficent in allowing Jesus’ family or followers to take his body down and bury him. When you really think about that I find it troubling. Although, perhaps the Romans did have some tradition on allowing bodies to be taken down or outright requiring them to be taken down after death (and who is to say death would occur as quickly as a single day?).
I have no idea about the veracity of the folks whose works you quoted, but I think Philo is trusted(?), but Juvenal was a satirist so how historical can his statements be?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert