As I recall in one of Dr. Ehrman’s lectures he said he thought that Jesus was probably just left on the cross after his death like other victims of crucifixion. I find the story of his removal from the cross and burial believable somehow. For one thing the person said to have taken him down and placed him in a tomb, Joseph of Arimathea was identified by name in all four gospels. For another, according to all four gospels Pilate appeared to believe that Jesus was not really guilty of any crime and was no threat to the empire. So it seems reasonable to me that he might have okayed his removal from the cross and burial.
Thanks. I did review that thread and it is long. Not much consensus as you say. Another thought is that if there was a Joseph of Arimathea who was indeed a rich man or prominent member of the council or both, maybe he would have been able to gain access to Pilate. If so, even if Pilate was unconcerned about Jesus’ guilt or innocence or politics perhaps he would have granted Joseph’s bold request just to get rid of him. Who knows. Wishful thinking on my part maybe.
Slawomir Poloczek from the Faculty of History at the University of Warsaw wrote the book “Pagan resurrections. A study of ideas about return to life in the Greco-Roman literature of the Empire period”.
The book is currently being prepared for publication
His book is a query of all ancient sources and their modern studies on apparent death, the departure of the spirit from the body and its return, resurrection, necromancy, revivals, crucifixions, empty tombs, robbing tombs, magicians and sorcerers.
It seems that ancient writers and their readers had a healthy distance from miracles, which they tried to explain rationally, first of all, with a misdiagnosis, unknown but natural causes, an incorrect assessment of the condition of the allegedly deceased sick person. Rational answers were sought.
On the other hand, all these puzzling stories have been used in popular romances and other entertainment literature in every possible way. Nothing unusual. Secrets, miracles and so-called mythic hero archetypes are the favorite pastime of the general audience in every era.
Empty Tomb is not a Gospel invention. Chariton’s of Aphrodisias story about the empty tomb of Callirhoe (Chaereas and Callirhoe 3.3.1−7) was widely known in ancient world before.
I have read many sources regarding Roman crucifixion particular regarding whether Romans allowed those crucified to be removed from their cross. Support for removing I see as a self-serving bias for those who think the gospels are historically accurate and reliable.
Arguments in favor of the Pontius Pilate allowing Jesus’ body to be removed stress Roman law in regions and times of peace, i.e. not in a state of open conflict in that particular region. This logic leads to the conclusion that Pilate was required by Roman law to release Jesus’ body. Also, Pilate would have wanted to pacify the contentious Jews during the Passover celebration, rather than risk increased tension and possible hostility.
I find this argument a self-serving bias for several reasons:
- Pilate allowed the Jews to crucify Jesus, someone the Jewish leaders did not want promoting himself as “King of the Jews”. Thus crucifixion customs apply, i.e. the crucified remain on the post as a warning to others.
- By figuratively and verbally “washing his hands of Jesus”, Pilate shows that he no longer cares to be involved. Thus logically, Pilate would not want to be bothered with such a request. Thus, historical accuracy of the request in the Gospels seems illogical at best. But, none of us were there so we just really do not know.
- Interestingly, the request is mentioned briefly without any inclusion of any statement by Pilate, e.g. “I must obey Roman law…” Any such statement does not exist. Nor does any explanation by the gospel authors that granting the request conforms to Roman law.
- Crucifying Jesus during Passover pacified the Jewish leaders, which did not increase tension and hostilities among the local population. Why should leaving Jesus’ body on the cross increase hostilities more than actually crucifying him? Why should these same Jewish leaders change their sentiments just because Jesus’ body is left to rot versus removed and buried?
- Thus only those who have an interest in justifying the account that Jesus was removed and buried, can reach that conclusion based on gospel accounts, roman custom and law, and crucifixion purpose.
Paul, in 1 Cor 3-5, says that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected on the third day.
The belief that Jesus was buried therefore came long before any gospels were written.
According to John 19: 31-33, the Jews asked for all three crucified bodies to be taken down, in which case Jesus was not an exception.
It would have been generally known if the bodies had been left on their crosses, so Paul should not have been mistaken as he was in Jerusalem at the time.
Most probably, all three bodies were quickly buried. If Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Temple Council as described, he was likely known personally by Pilate, so could have been given special permission to bury Jesus himself.
The gospel accounts do not suppose extraordinary behaviour or prior influence from Joshua or Genesis.
It would have been generally known if the bodies had been left on their crosses…
And so it was. While we have no explicit description of the logistics of crucifixion from the ancient world, there is a definite association in the literature between crucifixion and bodily desecration. Leaving the body on the cross was part of the punishment. The gore would then be disposed of in a mass grave. The problem with claiming that Jesus was treated differently is that we know his followers considered him special and worthy of a special fate, but what reason do we have to think the Romans would have treated Jesus any differently?
Paul’s comments in 1 Cor have caused a lot of discussion but notice what he omits. Paul says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea (or the woman at the tomb for that matter). Hadn’t he heard those stories? Or hadn’t they been invented yet? What did he mean by “buried”? Jesus’ body being thrown into a shallow grave would certainly qualify. I’ve always wondered, given the nature of Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body, if he would have had much interest in the fate of Jesus’ corpse.
Stephen said
It would have been generally known if the bodies had been left on their crosses…And so it was. While we have no explicit description of the logistics of crucifixion from the ancient world, there is a definite association in the literature between crucifixion and bodily desecration. Leaving the body on the cross was part of the punishment. The gore would then be disposed of in a mass grave. The problem with claiming that Jesus was treated differently is that we know his followers considered him special and worthy of a special fate, but what reason do we have to think the Romans would have treated Jesus any differently?
Paul’s comments in 1 Cor have caused a lot of discussion but notice what he omits. Paul says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea (or the woman at the tomb for that matter). Hadn’t he heard those stories? Or hadn’t they been invented yet? What did he mean by “buried”? Jesus’ body being thrown into a shallow grave would certainly qualify. I’ve always wondered, given the nature of Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body, if he would have had much interest in the fate of Jesus’ corpse.
Spartacus may have been a high-profile crucifixion, but Jesus was a minor annoyance. There was not much of a message to be made, nor, presumably, a sense that one was needed. (They might have thought differently had they known how things would turn out.)
Blackwell said
The gospel accounts do not suppose extraordinary behaviour or prior influence from Joshua or Genesis.
Stephen said
It would have been generally known if the bodies had been left on their crosses…And so it was. While we have no explicit description of the logistics of crucifixion from the ancient world, there is a definite association in the literature between crucifixion and bodily desecration. Leaving the body on the cross was part of the punishment. The gore would then be disposed of in a mass grave. The problem with claiming that Jesus was treated differently is that we know his followers considered him special and worthy of a special fate, but what reason do we have to think the Romans would have treated Jesus any differently?
Paul’s comments in 1 Cor have caused a lot of discussion but notice what he omits. Paul says nothing about Joseph of Arimathea (or the woman at the tomb for that matter). Hadn’t he heard those stories? Or hadn’t they been invented yet? What did he mean by “buried”? Jesus’ body being thrown into a shallow grave would certainly qualify. I’ve always wondered, given the nature of Paul’s understanding of the resurrection body, if he would have had much interest in the fate of Jesus’ corpse.
We do not know that the Romans treated Jesus differently from the two others, apart from not breaking his legs, just that they were in a hurry to dispose of the bodies. To save time, they might have given Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea and the two others to their own friends for burial.
If so, it is remarkable that Paul does not mention Joseph of Arimathea, which suggests that his identity was not generally known at the time. After all, it would probably have been servants and not Joseph himself who did the work so people only knew that some Temple official was involved and his identity was not revealed until years later.
Another question is: How much did the disciples tell Paul about what they knew? It is unlikely that they told him much while he was persecuting them and he was not welcomed when he returned to Jerusalem from Damascus. In any case, as you say, Paul may not have had much interest in the fate of Jesus’ corpse.
Another question is: How much did the disciples tell Paul about what they knew? It is unlikely that they told him much while he was persecuting them and he was not welcomed when he returned to Jerusalem from Damascus. In any case, as you say, Paul may not have had much interest in the fate of Jesus’ corpse.
Well it’s generally agreed that the account in 1 Cor 15 is a form of an early credo which Paul inherited. So very early on there was no mention of the women or the Empty Tomb. Many scholars think that the earliest resurrection belief was a form of apotheosis and that the subsequent appearances of Jesus were visions. Paul claims to have had just such a vision and he equates his experience with that of the disciples. It’s also interesting to consider that an especially vivid dream of Jesus by one of his followers could have easily counted as a resurrection appearance!
danceswithwombats said
It comes down to plausibility: did the events as described regarding Jesus actually happen and the mirroring of earlier events/stories was mere coincidence? Or is it more likely that one story drew on another? A single similarity might be coincidental but is that plausible in an account wherein most incidents have OT prototypes and Jesus frequently quotes the OT? The tomb in Joshua is part of a narrative including the sound of rams’ horns bringing down the walls of Jericho and God stopping the sun from moving through the sky so authenticity is perhaps not that important.An additional comparison at the end of genesis would be Joseph (!) the patriarch requesting pharaoh’s approval to bury his father at the cave of macpelah (Hebron).
The objective of Paul and the gospel writers was to prove that Jesus was the genuine Messiah by showing that he had fullfilled ancient prophesies. It is hardly coincidental then that their narratives contain references to similar past events. Whatever Jesus may have actually done, there is probably some prototype to be found somewhere in the OT. As for what Jesus actually said, they had no record. It is likely that Jesus did quote the OT, but the passages in the narratives were chosen to suit their objective.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)