In nearly all discussions of Jesus’s life and death, including “How Jesus Became God” (Great Courses lecture version), there seems to be an automatic assertion that Jesus died on the cross. But I question this assertion. This goes back to the very basic assumption that if someone was thought to be dead but is later found to be alive (“resurrected” in Jesus’s case), then the most logical conclusion is that the person was not actually dead. So why is this very simple and logical line of reasoning not applied to Jesus?
People being prematurely labeled as dead undoubtedly happened innumerable times in the past. It can still happen in our modern times with heart monitors and all that. I’m sure in the past it was considered not that remarkable to have someone alive who was previously thought dead. Why so remarkable with Jesus?
I’ve had discussions on this topic before. The “he must have been dead” arguments typically involve John 19:34, but the whole spear-piercing shows up only in one Gospel making it rather dubious. Or the assertion that “the Romans would never allow someone to be taken down from the cross unless they were sure he was dead”. Really? The Romans had better knowledge of when someone was dead than we do today? They would never mistake someone passing out for death? I don’t think Roman centurions were quite that perfect. Besides, historical records seem to indicate that Romans would not take someone down from a cross at all after just a few hours, certainly not to honor the Jewish Sabbath. If the one were true, that Jesus was taken down from the cross in honor of the Sabbath, the other assertion, that Jesus was still alive, could also be true.
And I doubt that Roman soldiers were completely efficient either. Did they really have a 24/7 watch on all crucifixions they ever performed? Sounds like a poor use of manpower. Besides, even if orders were for a continuous watch, how many soldiers would be derelict in their duty? Prison guards of today are not supposed to let any drugs or other contraband into their prisons, but how much contraband does get in? Quite a bit. I doubt that the Roman soldiers were a more disciplined bunch than modern prison guards.
I expect that quite a few crucified prisoners survived the ordeal, Jesus being one of them. He, and any others, would be carried away by loved ones, cared for but kept in hiding and in disguise as long as necessary, eventually moved out of the area to someplace safe. Survival may not be very long though with trauma and infections resulting from the crucifixion. Contact with former friends or followers would necessarily kept to a minimum in a necessary attempt to avoid the authorities.
Anyway, the possible scenarios of what happened to Jesus after crucifixion are quite numerous, but only a matter for speculation. That gets back to my original point. Why is it accepted by just about everyone that Jesus died on the day of his crucifixion? Am I missing some important piece of historical information?
Well. It is reasonable to accept the Gospel stories about Jesus being severely tortured before being fixed to the cross. He could only have survived by means of helpers as well as very skilled physicians, brought in before the nightfall of the first day and most likely much earlier. The latter would not be at the disposal of the possible few disciples left . If the crucifixion took place at the beginning of the festival, the Roman troops would be present in town for quite a few more days, and this makes it very unlikely that he survived, however much one doubts the details supplied by the gospel writers. Further, if he survived, why don’t we have any early sources relating to it? All the early sources are relating to the inconvenient idea of a dying and suffering Messiah.
A Roman execution squad failing to execute the orders of Pilate would be in immediate danger of suffering the same destiny. That’s one of the huge differences compared to modern prison regimes.
The above answer is not very satisfying. History is full of stories of people being terribly beaten and tortured and surviving, and typically without “very skilled physicians” around to help them. It is not too hard to believe that some followers would be around to help Jesus given his number of followers. And these helpers, along with Jesus, would have remained low profile for awhile for fear of capture by the Romans. It’s not too surprising that the helpers stories have not survived; much better to go with the myth of Jesus rising from the dead rather than him surviving a near-death experience through help from some followers.
Roman soldiers being present in town for a few more days does not mean much. Unless some soldiers guard the crucifixion site all night long there would likely be time to take a person down from the cross without being caught. Of course there would be some risk involved with that type of action, but a risk some people would be willing to take.
But most importantly, there are sources stating that Jesus survived the crucifixion. They are the Gospels. Matthew 28:9 states “…Jesus met them saying…”. If you believe this is historical (that the 2 Mary’s met Jesus in the flesh after the crucifixion), then either Jesus survived the crucifixion, or he was raised from the dead. Which is more likely? My money is on surviving the crucifixion, the other option can in no way be considered historical.
Further, if he survived, why don’t we have any early sources relating to it? All the early sources are relating to the inconvenient idea of a dying and suffering Messiah.
i have a few questions
do the earliest sources say that jesus knew all along that he was going to be handed over and crucified?
what was pontius pilates reaction to the belief that jesus was still alive and leading the movement?
we have a lot of lost history . what was the reaction of jewish senhedrin when they heard that jesus the criminal was still telling the disciples what to do?
could a survival easily be interpreted as a resurrection back in those days?
The first source to have Jesus predicting his death is Mark [8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34], which was written soon after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, roughly 40 years after the crucifixion.
There is no mention of a dying and rising savior in the Q source, which predates the gospels and provides many of their sayings of Jesus (See the authoritative book by John S Kloppenborg: Q, the earliest Gospel: an introduction to the original stories and sayings of Jesus [John Knox Press, 2008]). Nor is there any mention of the resurrection in the letter of James, whose content is a striking match to the themes of Q, and which some scholars regard as the authentic writings of the brother of Jesus, James the Just, the leader of the Jerusalem Christians. Other scholars regard the letter of James as a late first century forgery (an odd view since by that time Paul’s writings on the significance of the resurrection were the dominant theme in Christianity, so why would a letter be composed without any reference to the theme?).
The earliest source describing the beliefs of the Jesus movement is the creed buried in Paul’s 1 Corinthians [15:3…], which prominently features burial and rising on the third day. Scholarship is virtually unanimous in dating this creed to a very few years after the crucifixion, only a few robust skeptics (such as Robert M Price, the Jesus mythicist) arguing for its being a late interpolation.
On balance, it is likely that Mark’s focus on the prediction of dying and resurrection was his way of making sense of the story, using the theme of the suffering servant from the Old Testament [Isaiah 52:13-53:12]. The disciples did not anticipate a glorious resurrection. They ran away in fear and disarray. The resurrection came as a surprise, a shock, a life-changing event which transformed them from disillusioned cowards into confident evangelists.
Of course, the presence or absence of a prediction has a profound influence on how “improbable” we consider the resurrection. If Jesus became famous only because of his resurrection, the statistical question is NOT the usual formulation of “How likely is it that a victim of crucifixion could survive?” Instead it becomes, “What is the probability that among 10,000 or more victims of crucifixion there would be one survivor rather than none?” This tremendously important distinction is seldom mentioned in the scholarly literature, though the fallacy of “post-hoc analysis” is well known among statisticians and medical scientists.
Thanks to mreichert for starting this blog thread, raising the issue of a survival. As a medico myself, I find the scholarly literature on the resurrection very frustrating. Neither the skeptics nor the apologists seem to have any grasp on modern medical biology, or even be aware that our understanding of death underwent a revolution about 50 years ago with the development of life-support and resuscitation technologies.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the resurrection story makes much more sense as a resuscitation or Near Death Experience than as an impossible miracle or a manifestation of over-active imaginations among the followers. The urgent burial in a tomb makes sense once we realize that Pilate and the Sanhedrin were united in a single purpose: the disruptive Jesus of Nazareth should be crucified, dead and out of sight before the sunset marking the beginning of the Festival of the Passover. Instead of Joseph of Arimathea having an afterthought and asking for the body, it is much more plausible that representatives of the Sanhedrin were waiting for the death, to promptly whip the body away, out of sight, putting an end to the affair and eliminating a threat to the fragile peace during the inflammatory Passover.
mreichert said
The above answer is not very satisfying. History is full of stories of people being terribly beaten and tortured and surviving, and typically without “very skilled physicians” around to help them. It is not too hard to believe that some followers would be around to help Jesus given his number of followers. And these helpers, along with Jesus, would have remained low profile for awhile for fear of capture by the Romans. It’s not too surprising that the helpers stories have not survived; much better to go with the myth of Jesus rising from the dead rather than him surviving a near-death experience through help from some followers.Roman soldiers being present in town for a few more days does not mean much. Unless some soldiers guard the crucifixion site all night long there would likely be time to take a person down from the cross without being caught. Of course there would be some risk involved with that type of action, but a risk some people would be willing to take.
But most importantly, there are sources stating that Jesus survived the crucifixion. They are the Gospels. Matthew 28:9 states “…Jesus met them saying…”. If you believe this is historical (that the 2 Mary’s met Jesus in the flesh after the crucifixion), then either Jesus survived the crucifixion, or he was raised from the dead. Which is more likely? My money is on surviving the crucifixion, the other option can in no way be considered historical.
Probably, when the Roman guards left an execution place, they would kill or mutilate the surviving victims, so that no hope would remain to possible relatives waiting for an opportunity to rescue. Jesus surviving after many hours of torture with at least the heel bones pierced? No way. The theory further requires that there was a conspiracy, hiding the survival with the myth of the crucified messiah, a story which was commonly rejected by most Jews. It is exactly this myth, the embarrassment of the fact that the Galilean fishermen’s Messiah died, that makes it overwhelmingly probable that Jesus died and did not survive. It would not have been invented had he not died. Then we should have found some other myth, strengthening the view that Jesus was the Messiah. The theory requires that Jesus for the rest of his life went into hiding. Is it likely? There would be plenty of people knowing it, and the truth would seep out sooner or later. That’s the problem with most conspiracy theories. They require a substantial lot of people to keep the mouth shut, and to be very skilled liars. In real life conspiracies are short-lived.
There are several other reasons for considering that Jesus may have been alive when removed from the cross, apart from the records of people surviving terrible injuries:
1. Josephus mentions cases of survival of crucifixion.
2. Death by crucifixion sometimes took several days.
3. When Jesus was taken down from the cross, the two people crucified alongside him had their legs broken to hasten death, so they were still alive.
4. Mark reports that Pilate was surprised to hear that Jesus was already dead when Joseph of Arimathaea asked for the body, so Mark considered that survival was possible or he would not have included this line in his gospel.
5. The disciples claimed that they saw Jesus alive after crucifixion. If this is true then he did not die on the cross, but he may well have succumbed to his injuries a few days later.
As for Jesus predicting his own death and resurrection, there is no way to know what he actually said. The gospels just record what the authors, with hindsight, thought he might have said.
Similarly for his treatment before crucifixion. It is reasonable to suppose that he was beaten but there are many accounts in the gospels which seem to be exaggerated.
If Jesus did not die on the cross, then what happened to him?
The gospels all say that his body was put in a nearby tomb by Joseph of Arimathaea, a wealthy member of the Temple Council, and that it then disappeared. There are several oddities about Joseph’s reported actions:
1. Why would a respected member of society have anything to do with someone executed as a criminal (On the pretext that he claimed to be king, no less!)?
2. Why place the body in such a vulnerable location, with public access? Only an idiot would consider this to be a suitable permanent resting place.
3. When the body disappeared, why did he not complain?
4. Why did he not contact the disciples or pursue them? Why does he completely disappear from the record?
One possibility is that Joseph of Arimathaea took custody of Jesus’s body knowing that he was still alive and put it in a temporary shelter until he could be moved a few hours later after dark to a secure and secret location where care could be provided.
The real question then is not who took the body, but why did Joseph of Arimathaea take it?
First I should say that I am new to this web site and previously neglected to read through older postings. I had to do a lot of reading of other topics to get caught up with previous discussions on this topic, which I have done now. Most important was the “How did belief in the Resurrection Originate?” topic under the Historical Jesus section. I really liked the point – counterpoint between Trevelan and spiker. I think Trevelan makes a lot of really good points, and I really like that as a physician he is qualified to talk about medical conditions much more authoritatively than most of us. And I like that he has joined in on this discussion.
Spiker is harder to figure out, mostly that he seems hostile to even the possibility of Jesus surviving the crucifixion. At one point spiker mentions “Jesus endured scourging, beatings, all sorts of tortures…”. Where does that come from? Matthew mentions scourging and “smote him with the palms of their hands” but nothing about “all sorts of tortures”. Since when has anyone died from a slap in the face? The people who write to discredit the “swoon” theory also tend to embellish the pre-crucifixion torture, but I know what their agenda is; anything that may undermine faith in the resurrection could undermine faith in orthodox Christian teachings. But on this site I assume we are trying to get at what is most likely historical, or at least place events on some level of possibility. The fact is we really don’t know how badly Jesus was abused before the crucifixion, or how many outward signs of this abuse there may have been. Therefore we don’t know how likely it was for him to survive crucifixion, or how difficult it may have been for him to hide signs of abuse after the crucifixion.
I agree (mostly) with Trevelan’s assessment of probability of surviving a crucifixion, low probability but not non-existent. I would say we have at least one documented case besides Jesus, the friend of Josephus who survived crucifixion. I would guess that surviving crucifixion happened about one case out of a thousand. You could say that the friend of Josephus was a special case, that the Roman centurion in charge allowed the prisoners to be cut down early. But when is something unusual not a “special case”? How likely is it for a centurion to express sympathy over a crucified prisoner (if Mark is to be believed)? How likely to allow someone to be taken down from the cross after a relatively short time? What parts of the synoptic Gospel account should we believe and what should we not believe? I have my list of believable passages, don’t know what other people think.
With regard to some of gavriel’s points, we don’t know that the heel bones were pierced. We don’t know much about crucifixions at all, and even less about this crucifixion in particular. I get gavriel’s point about conspiracies although conspiracies do occasionally happen successfully. Where are the prisoners who escaped from Alcatraz? What happened to airplane hijacker D.B. Cooper? Two thousand years ago it would have been much easier for a few people to hide someone, Jesus, than it would be in the modern era, especially if Jesus died within a few days as suspected by Trevelan.
In gavriel’s message I cannot figure out what “it” makes it overwhelmingly probable that Jesus died and did not survive. I guess I’m not understanding the message in its entirety.
My thinking is that it is likely that Jesus survived, mainly because I have a hard time believing so many people believed in the resurrection just by visions or made-up stories. Contrary to what Prof. Ehrman says about “visions”, that visionaries accept them as real, my experience is a little more ambiguous. Stories I’ve heard, including the stories related by Lawyerskeptic and Stephen in the “How did belief in the Resurrection Originate” topic, people are often skeptical of their own visions or dreams, or outright dismiss then as an event of their psyches.
I think that some actual appearance most likely occurred, maybe just to the two Mary’s, maybe to some others, and this got the ball rolling. Other appearances, especially to Paul, were either visions or made up stories. I also think Jesus had help, Joseph of Arimathaea (if that is someones real name or not) for one, a couple others maybe as well (though not many), who nursed Jesus along from the moment they took him down from the cross. Jesus probably died soon after and his caretakers kept the actual death secret. Not too hard to keep that secret with few people actually involved, a strong reason to keep the secret (keep the resurrection myth alive), and not people around asking a bunch of questions. As it is, the Joseph of Arimathaea character never appears again in any story. Wouldn’t you think Jesus’s followers would have hounded him about about what may have happened to the body of Jesus? I guess that didn’t happen.
Anyway, I am open to other thoughts and critiques.
The motivations of Pilate and Sanhedrin become quite clear if we think about the political and religious environment of the time.
Jesus was disruptive and polarizing. His preaching about a coming Kingdom of God implied the overthrow of religious and military authority. Pilate and the Sanhedrin were united in the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Anything that threatened the fragile peace of the province had to be suppressed.
From Pilate’s perspective, an outright rebellion would require an expensive military campaign and the resultant destruction could reduce the economic productivity of the province, on which the flow of tax monies to Rome depended, for years to come. It would be a major failing for a military governor.
The Sanhedrin were fully aware that any uprising would be crushed at enormous cost in Jewish lives, possibly including their own. Worse, the Jesus affair was coming to a head at the time of the inflammatory Feast of the Passover, which celebrated liberation from oppression.
The solution was self-evident. We can imagine Pilate’s instructions to his centurion: “The Nazarene is to be crucified, dead, and out of sight by sundown.”
The action succeeded. The followers of Jesus fled in fear and disarray. The angry crowd had been placated and could begin their observances of the Sabbath and the Passover at sunset, without the distraction of disruptive preaching.
Roman soldiers were practiced at crucifixion. They knew how to shorten, or extend, the sufferings of the victim. To bring about a quick death (in only six hours, according to Mark), they nailed Jesus to the cross only through the wrists, leaving his feet unsupported. Hanging by the arms, a victim struggled to breathe, soon becoming exhausted. If we give any credit to the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances, it is clear Jesus could walk reasonably well. He did not have compound fractures in his feet. Suspension by the arms makes his prompt collapse all the more plausible.
The gospels imply that Joseph’s request for the body was an afterthought, as if the Festival of the Passover came as a surprise. It is much more likely that representatives of the Sanhedrin were standing by, waiting for the death, to get the body down and out of sight as quickly as possible. This would be the reason for choosing a nearby tomb, to bring the unfortunate affair to a conclusion as soon before sunset as possible.
We can imagine the horror of the Sanhedrin representatives if they saw Jesus beginning to recover as they cleaned and dressed his body in the tomb. It would have been their ultimate nightmare. Surviving crucifixion could be seen as validation of messianic status. If Jesus were seen in public, his fame would spread and a full-scale uprising might result. As Jews observing the Torah, they could not simply murder him themselves. Nor could they hand him over to the Romans.
The pragmatic solution would be to smuggle him out of Jerusalem, back to his homeland of Galilee, a hundred kilometers away.
The fast pace of the gospel stories implies some of the resurrection appearances occurred in Jerusalem, but Galilee is much more plausible. The broiled fish incident certainly could not have been in Jerusalem, 50 kilometers from the sea, but is reasonable in Galilee, where the disciples were fishermen on Lake Tiberias (the Sea of Galilee).
Put together in this way, the resurrection story actually makes sense. The problem, however, is that any rational discussion of a survival tends to be lumped in with the 19th century Swoon Theory and dismissed. Often the critique is no more that an invocation of Strauss’ famous comment about the impossibility of a “half-dead” survivor who “crept about weak and ill” being able to impress the disciples as a conqueror of death.
But Strauss’ phrases “half-dead” and “weak and ill” simply don’t fit the picture. They are apt descriptions of a sufferer with a terminal disease, such as cancer, or of cellular poisoning with chemotherapy drugs. But they do not fit the picture of trauma victims, or of those resuscitated after a cardiac arrest. As emergency medics know from everyday experience, such people are often remarkably chipper.
Many good points again Trevelan, though I have a different point of view on a couple topics. First, I think we generally give Roman centurions too much credit. I am sure they were not all experts at the practice of crucifixion, experts in death (how many even knew how to take a pulse?), or always followed orders exactly. Show me an army today where all the soldiers are perfect killing machines also well versed at being a field medic and always following orders. I see Roman soldiers as more human, making human mistakes, disobeying orders when it suits them and they think they can get away with it, but also having some basic human compassion (some of them anyway).
Another point has to do with Joseph and the Sanhedrin. Why should we think that all the Sanhedrin wanted to put Jesus to death? Since when does our own Congress 100% agree on anything? I see Joseph, as portrayed, very troubled by the fact that the majority of the Sanhedrin (or at least the power players) wanting to put Jesus to death. Watching the crucifixion and wanting to deal properly with the body would be his way of easing his own conscience. Finding Jesus still alive (if that is what happened) would have been a surprise and one heck of a blessing. Having Jesus visit with any of his disciples would be much more likely with a sympathetic caretaker rather than a hostile one, though keeping Jesus relatively hidden would have been a big concern for Joseph, for both their sakes. I cannot imagine a hostile Sanhedrin allowing Jesus to live much less allowing anyone to know that Jesus was still alive.
The political and religious environment at the time of Jesus’s crucifixion was somewhat more complicated than suggested by Trevelyan. Pilate was governor of Judea from about 26CE until 37CE and during that time he provoked massive protests by the Sanhedrin and general population by taking temple funds to bring water to Jerusalem. He also sent his forces against Samaritans who had assembled to follow a charismatic preacher, resulting in protests to Vitellius, the Roman commander in Syria, that Pilate had killed innocent people. Jesus was most likely crucified at the Passover in 36CE, after the death of John the Baptist in 35CE. The previous year, 34CE, was a census year for the detested Roman poll tax which was levied every fourteen years.
So Jesus was far from being the only disruptive and polarizing influence at that time. There was general expectation of an impending apocalypse, with numerous factions organizing to deal with it (The Essenes were one). There was conflict between Pharisees, who promoted strict observance of Torah rules, and Sadducees who controlled the temple and were widely seen as corrupt. From Pilate’s perspective, Jesus may have been a pawn in an ongoing dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees, just another one of these nuisance prophets, drawing him into an internal dispute between Jews. He had every reason to be wary as he had already been admonished for overreacting in previous situations so if he executed an innocent man who had significant public support he might get blamed if this provoked an uprising. On the other hand, the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed because he threatened their lucrative hold over temple business and also to retaliate against Pilate’s previous seizure of temple funds. Also, if Jesus was guilty of the charge that he claimed to be king, releasing him would be condoning treason. So Pilate eventually sided with the Sanhedrin but it may be noted that both he and the High Priest Caiaphas were removed from power shortly afterwards.
Regarding the soldiers carrying out the crucifixions, they received instructions from Pilate to allow Joseph of Arimathaea to take custody of Jesus’s body, so I don’t see why this should have caused them any concern. It is also unlikely that someone in Joseph’s position would make an impromptu decision to ask for the body. He is described as a secret supporter of Jesus and appears to have had accomplices.
Possible dates for the crucifixion can be identified from the workings of the Jewish Lunar calendar. Passover began on 15 Nisan, and that date fell on a Friday only three times during the tenure of Pilate as Prefect (governor) of Judea: on April 11 of AD 27, April 7 of AD 30 and April 3 of AD 33.
If we accept the evidence of Luke, who tells us John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar [Luke 3: 1-2], which is AD 29, we can rule out the AD 27 Passover. Thus we are left with AD 30 or 33 as the year of the crucifixion.
The gospels contain confusing references to astronomical phenomena. An eclipse of the Sun is impossible, but an eclipse of the Moon may occur at full Moon. The Passover, of course, is a Full Moon festival. There was, in fact, an eclipse of the Moon in the evening of April 3, AD 33.
The orbit of the Moon is known with extreme precision, aided by laser ranging measurements using reflectors left by the Apollo astronauts. The NASA eclipse website gives calculated data on historical eclipses [eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov]. Maximum coverage of the Moon by the Earth’s shadow during the eclipse in April, AD 33, occurred at 17:38 Greenwich time, which was 7:56 PM local time in Jerusalem, located 2 hours 18 minutes East of the prime meridian [time zones, rounding offsets to whole numbers of hours, were not used in the ancient world, being introduced only in the 19th century]. Sunset, and Moon-rise, was at 6:18 PM local time. The duration of the visible event was just under 3 hours, commencing at 6:31 PM and ending at 9:21 PM.
The eclipse was only partial, with the Earth’s shadow [umbra] covering a little over half of the diameter [0.5764]. The event was undoubtedly a dramatic sight, with the Moon reduced to less than half of its diameter and the curvature of the Earth’s shadow clearly visible. It was not, however, a blood moon, as suggested by the biblical texts, but must have had a great impact on an ancient culture which regarded astronomical phenomena as signs from God (or the gods).
By April of AD 33, Pilate would have been acutely aware of his precarious position after the disgrace and execution of his sponsor, Sejanus, in Rome in October of AD 31. Tiberius had resumed control of affairs in Rome and the provinces, and was, according to Philo’s Embassy to Gaius, demanding a softer line in the handling of Jews.
Of course, our picture of Pilate as a blundering, insensitive bully, prone to over-reaction, comes from two highly-biassed sources. Philo, a Roman-hating Jew, was an in-law of the Herod dynasty. And Josephus had hardly a good word to say about any of the provincial governors. We do know that Pilate formed a working relationship with Caiaphas, and held tenure for an uncommonly long time in Judea.
The slaughter of the Samaritans may have been an over-reaction, but the followers of the Moses pretender were not expecting a peaceful prophet. They were expecting a warrior, who would lead them in glorious victory over the oppressing Romans. The Roman military, of course, did not tolerate citizens bearing arms. Josephus tells us that many of the Samaritans fled, many were killed in the battle, and the leaders were captured and executed [Antiquities, 18.4.1 (85)]. Vitellius, legate of Syrian and Pilate’s superior in the chain of command, placated the Samaritans by sending Pilate back to Rome and dispatching Marcellus to take over administration in Judea.
mreichert said
(…)
In gavriel’s message I cannot figure out what “it” makes it overwhelmingly probable that Jesus died and did not survive. I guess I’m not understanding the message in its entirety.My thinking is that it is likely that Jesus survived, mainly because I have a hard time believing so many people believed in the resurrection just by visions or made-up stories. Contrary to what Prof. Ehrman says about “visions”, that visionaries accept them as real, my experience is a little more ambiguous. Stories I’ve heard, including the stories related by Lawyerskeptic and Stephen in the “How did belief in the Resurrection Originate” topic, people are often skeptical of their own visions or dreams, or outright dismiss then as an event of their psyches.
(…)
It is overwhelmingly possible because death almost always occurred. Assume that the Roman guards (yes , the execution was guarded to prevent possible rescue operations) left after some few hours without killing the victims (why?) , and that the disciples were eagerly ** you do not have permission to see this link ** to take the opportunity. Let say he was still alive, badly scourged and with at least two limbs pierced by nails for hours, how long would it take before he could walk? In the much-quoted report by Josephus, only one out of three survived, being victims of a mass-execution in which we do not know for how long they had been strapped. In the case of Jesus and the robbers, the execution squad had time to do the job properly.
Now confront this possible scenario with the gospel appearances. Matthew’s appearance would require that the patient moved to Galilee with astonishing speed. Luke requires that the patient was well alive and eating two days later. Of course these stories are highly legendary, and therefor reflect the same thing as stated by Paul: The disciples had visions, not encounters with solid flesh.
do the synoptics mention anything about jesus being hammered or nailed to the cross?
would a few hours on the cross, without being nailed to it, cause instant death?
how come in the gospel of luke the post resurrected jesus does not show the marks in his hands and feet but just identifies himself as real person?
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
any clues from the synoptics about the highlighted detail in the quote above?
Astronomical information from Trevelyan is interesting but does not affect the possibility of Jesus surviving crucifixion. The 36CE date is generally assumed in order to follow the death of John the Baptist, and was on a day before a Sabbath, but not necessarily on the day before Passover. (What day of the week was Passover in 36CE?)
The scenario described by gavriel is speculative to say the least. According to the gospels, the guards were instructed by Pilate to give Joseph of Arimathaea custody of Jesus’s body; they did not just leave after some hours. The disciples were not involved at all in his removal. We cannot be sure how much he was beaten but accounts say that nails pierced his hands, not his wrists or his feet so he may well have been able to walk and eat two days later if he had been taken into care in the evening after crucifixion.
I would be interested to hear from mreichert on his thoughts about what might have happened after Jesus was reportedly buried by Joseph of Arimathaea.
Blackwell said
Astronomical information from Trevelyan is interesting but does not affect the possibility of Jesus surviving crucifixion. The 36CE date is generally assumed in order to follow the death of John the Baptist, and was on a day before a Sabbath, but not necessarily on the day before Passover. (What day of the week was Passover in 36CE?)The scenario described by gavriel is speculative to say the least. According to the gospels, the guards were instructed by Pilate to give Joseph of Arimathaea custody of Jesus’s body; they did not just leave after some hours. The disciples were not involved at all in his removal. We cannot be sure how much he was beaten but accounts say that nails pierced his hands, not his wrists or his feet so he may well have been able to walk and eat two days later if he had been taken into care in the evening after crucifixion.
I would be interested to hear from mreichert on his thoughts about what might have happened after Jesus was reportedly buried by Joseph of Arimathaea.
The problem with the gospel passion stories is that they are filled with legendary details. There were no disciples or adherents witnessing the interrogation by Caiaphas or Pilate. There may have been servants at the high priest’s court spreading rumors. The details of the crucifixion are reconstructed from the Gospel writer’s knowledge of crucifixion practices in their own age. The only possible witnesses would be some female followers who could move around without fear of suffering a similar fate. Maybe they watched the dead body done away with , from a distance, and later searched for a burial place unsuccessfully. Maybe Caiaphas requested from Pilate a quick burial in order to respect the sanctity of the festival, and in order to not stir up more unrest. Maybe Pilate accepted this. Many maybes.
As to the minority position of 36CE as the year of execution, it rests heavily on the correctness of Josephus’ order of events in Antiquities , an order that is known to be shaky for this period (first half of first century). A good exposition of this is the chapter on Chronology in E.P.Sanders “The historical figure of Jesus”.
It is certainly true that the gospel passion stories are filled with contradictory details, but the general story seems to be fairly consistent. The trick is deciding which passages describe what actually happened in more-or-less accurate terms, and which details to discard as legendary.
I think that Jesus was taken down from the cross in about 6 hours as described. Who was the actual witness to this? I don’t know, but since that part of the story is fairly consistent I tend to believe it. Why the Romans would allow for such a thing can only be guessed at but here is my guess. The Romans, by necessity, cooperated with Jewish authorities in domestic matters, not unlike Nazi Germany and Vichy France, or American soldiers on American Indian reservations. The one group has overall power but the subservient group has a certain amount of leeway provided they don’t go against the dominant group’s wishes. So if a member of the Sanhedrin asks Pilate for a body of a crucified man, he may just say yes because giving up the body would matter less to him than keeping good relations with the Jewish authorities.
Then again I don’t think Pilate was ever actually consulted. Joseph may have just told the centurion that he got the okay from Pilate, then pleaded or bribed him to take down the body. What would the Roman centurion care? He did his job. Jesus appeared dead to him. And if the accounts are correct he had sympathy for Jesus anyway. Besides, according to Matthew the guards could be bribed as they apparently were in order to say that disciples took Jesus’s body away.
One quick thought about John’s passion account. According to John the soldiers came to Jesus, saw he was dead, did not break his legs but pierced his side with a spear. Out came blood and water. This seems like a reasonable account; only problem is it is not consisted with the synoptic gospels. Is it more likely to have happened or not happened? Given the 3 accounts with no spear compared to one with, I tend to go with the 3. The add-on in John appears to be a conflation with another crucifixion episode witnessed by the author or some other involved party. The way I see the Gospel of John is as a rambling account of someone who may have actually been a disciple of Jesus some 60 years earlier, story-telling to the actual author who had a specific theological point of view to get across. Everything in that book would need to be read with the idea that many things would be either mis-remembered or just plain made up.
Anyway, assume Jesus was thought dead, taken down from the cross (without spear stabbing or leg breaking) and given to Joseph. Joseph, and a servant or two, notice fairly quickly that Jesus is not dead. They take Jesus away and are soon far enough away to be no longer watched by Roman soldiers. They may, however, be followed by some of Jesus’s female disciples while carrying Jesus to the tomb. I cannot imagine the Marys leaving Jesus’s side unless they had to. Joseph would have wanted to keep Jesus’s non-death secret; no point in having too many witnesses of Jesus still alive in case word gets back to the Romans or Sanhedrin. The women eventually leave and Joseph does what he can to mend injuries, provide water, etc. They likely would have stayed at the tomb rather than moving Jesus and risking exposure.
A day and a half later the Marys show up as described in Matthew, barring the earthquake and other fantastic events. I really doubt there were keepers there either. Jesus and Joseph were out of the tomb but not far away as the women came up. A servant (or two) would have been left by Joseph, folks not known by the Marys, and he/they became the “angel(s)” at the tomb. Jesus by this time would be hurting but fully in his right mind. He would want to meet the Marys but still would be quite cautious about it. He would not have needed to really hide for the Marys not to notice him right away, just hide in plain sight, maybe dressing like a gardener or something. According to Matthew there was no problem of everyone recognizing him once face to face. I tend to discount the lack of recognition in John’s account, but there may be something to his “touch me not” remark. A Jesus with many slowly healing wounds would be wary of someone’s touches.
Joseph could have helped Jesus get to Galilee. Could Jesus have walked that far? I don’t know. Did they have carts in those days he could have ridden in? I don’t know enough about contextual history of that time to know how people traveled. Though gavriel in a previous reply mentions getting the patient to Galilee “with astonishing speed”, I don’t know why there is a need for speed. Matthew mentions no time frames. They got there when they got there. And in Galilee there could have been more Jesus sightings. How many actual sightings verses visions or made-up stories? I don’t know, but enough to keep the story of the resurrection alive. Jesus would have kept contact to a minimum, I assume, to hide his real condition before succumbing to his injuries. Very few people would have known about it, Joseph and a servant or two, perhaps the Marys since they disappear from the record after the first sighting. Unsatisfying ending I know, but not any less unsatisfying than Acts 1:9, “…and a cloud received him out of their sight”.
Part of the reason I think there were actual, physical sightings of Jesus after his crucifixion rather than just visions or made up stories has to do with the death of Elvis Presley. There were hundreds of Elvis sightings after his death, mis-identifications, visions, made-up stories, whatever, but I don’t see many, if any, people thinking that Elvis was raised from the dead. Sure we live in different times than 2000 years ago Judea but are people really that different? Of course there would have been doubters and skeptics in Jesus’s time, and it would have taken a lot of effort by people truly convinced that Jesus was resurrected to convince the doubters. I think it would have taken actual sightings of a physical body Jesus to convince the first group of believers.
Many good points there, mreichert!
One of the aspects of John’s story which is consistently misinterpreted is the spear wound “in the side.” Most authors assume this will be a chest wound, and debate whether separated blood, a pericardial effusion, or pleural fluid could account for the “blood and water” which came out.
This is complete nonsense. As every emergency medic knows, deep wounds to the side of the chest do NOT bleed. They suck air, inwards. The pressure in the chest is negative (suction), due to the elastic recoil of the lungs. If the heart were penetrated, blood would accumulate in the pleural cavity, between lung and chest wall, not spurt out of the wound. We have been misled by the nonsense from Hollywood. I have seen many life-threatening chest wounds. They suck in air, collapsing the lungs. The do not gush blood. Neither do corpses bleed, by the way.
Where then could “blood and water” come from? Obviously the compartment of the body which has positive pressure in it: the abdomen. The stomach is the one organ likely to contain clear fluid. If the spear missed the colon and spleen, the wound may have been survivable. Before the modern treatments for peptic ulcer became available, we used to see perforated ulcers quite often. Only very rarely did this lead to bacterial peritonitis. Stomach contents are fairly sterile, from the action of gastric acid in killing off the bugs.
Another misleading aspect of the picture in devotional art is the direction of the spear wound. Roman soldiers used the spear above their shoulder, thrusting down over their shield in battle, not upwards from the waist, which would expose their body to attack. And the soldiers did not use ladders to lift the crucifixion crossbar high, but simply held it up, sufficiently to keep the victim’s feet clear of the ground. The spear would have passed horizontally, or down, not up.
The lower border of the heart is much higher in the chest than most laypeople believe, lying about the fifth left intercostal space (11 spaces between our 12 ribs). A wound through the lower ribs at the side will enter the abdomen.
Of course, the whole story of a spear wound could be fiction. John goes on to mention scriptural fulfillment [John 19:36-37]. Perhaps, like the synoptic gospels mention of the torn curtain, it is intended symbolically.
I agree with mreichert that Jesus was most probably unconscious when removed from the cross after about 6 hours. All the gospels report that his body was given to Joseph of Arimathaea, a member of the Temple Council, who placed it in a nearby tomb. Pilate probably knew all members of the council personally, since they were important people.
The incident with the spear only occurs in John’s gospel and the others did not consider it significant enough to mention, so the account is probably greatly exaggerated. Maybe one of the soldiers poked Jesus, causing a cut which bled for a while.
It is not realistic to suppose that Joseph of Arimathaea stayed at the tomb for a day and a half. Few people ventured out of dark so a few servants could have safely carried Jesus to his house or that of an accomplice. When the women went to the tomb and met someone, it was probably a servant or two sent to tidy up but in hindsight they decided that one of them must have been Jesus. The men may have told the women that he would be taken back to Galilee as this idea occurs later. The meeting with two men on the road to Emmaus is another obvious case of hindsight, with the original story later embellished with false memories. Luke also mentions that Jesus appeared to Simon (Peter) but without any details. This may refer to the visit to the tomb mentioned in John: 20. At the end of Luke’s gospel, Jesus leads his disciples out to Bethany and then departs from them and in Matthew he meets them in Galilee but these appear to be simply literary devices to end the story. John recounts another appearance some time later when the disciples were fishing. Someone on the beach told them where to cast their net and as a result they caught a lot of fish. At the time, the disciples did not recognize Jesus so this is clearly another case of hindsight. The story continues with Jesus having a meal and conversing with the disciples, which may have happened on a previous occasion but, by the time this gospel was written, the two memories were combined.
The most problematic report is when Jesus appears and speaks to all the disciples together and there is no doubt about whether they recognize him. It has been suggested that this was a case of mass hallucination, but this is unlikely since the disciples don’t seem to remember where they were when it happened. Alternatively, it is hard to imagine that they would all have agreed on the details if the story was invented. However, if Jesus had been taken into care by Joseph of Arimathaea, he would naturally have asked to see the disciples after regaining consciousness. Joseph did not trust the disciples as he avoided contact with them but he could have had a servant lead them to the house in an unfamiliar wealthy part of the city. One can hardly imagine their astonishment to meet Jesus, obviously wounded but equally obviously alive, and he assured them that he would return to them when he had recovered. Why did they not take Jesus with them when they left? Because they had no safe place to take him, because they had no equipment to carry him, because they were not quite sure where they were, because he seemed to be in good care, and because they would not have been allowed to take him even if they had wanted to do so. Jesus probably died of his injuries a few days later and Joseph of Arimathaea hastily buried him and got out of the country as fast as possible. The disciples had lost contact but were sure of two things: They had seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion and he had promised to return to them. This is the amazing message which is at the origin of the resurrection story.
The problem with these sorts of speculations is that they rely on taking specific parts of the accounts literally and hedging on other parts while not really dealing with what criteria you’re using to determine the difference.
What we can say with some confidence is that Jesus was crucified and that later his disciples came to believe that he had been raised from the dead. The details of the easter stories are probably completely legendary.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert