The discovery of Jesus’s empty tomb is multiply attested. Nevertheless, Dr. Ehrman argues against it. Crucifixion was meant to be humiliating: a “decent burial” was highly unlikely. The “empty tomb” story has multiple versions. And early Christians might have had reasons for making it up.
His strongest argument is that Paul doesn’t mention it in 1 Corinthians. Paul had met with Peter, but the only “proofs of the resurrection” he cites are Jesus’s “appearances” to living people.
I’m inclined to believe the basic story, with a non-miraculous explanation: Joseph of Arimathea had never intended interment in that tomb to be permanent, and he had the body moved. (All he’d had to do to obtain it was bribe some Roman underling.)
Why didn’t Paul mention the empty tomb? Peter hadn’t mentioned it to him – or he’d decided not to tell the Corinthians – for either or both of two reasons. The disciples might have been mortified because they’d fled, and others had found the empty tomb. And/or nonbelievers might have sneered at hearing the story – taking for granted that the disciples had moved the body, to fake a resurrection!
What do others think?
Wilusa said
The discovery of Jesus’s empty tomb is multiply attested. Nevertheless, Dr. Ehrman argues against it. Crucifixion was meant to be humiliating: a “decent burial” was highly unlikely. The “empty tomb” story has multiple versions. And early Christians might have had reasons for making it up.His strongest argument is that Paul doesn’t mention it in 1 Corinthians. Paul had met with Peter, but the only “proofs of the resurrection” he cites are Jesus’s “appearances” to living people.
I’m inclined to believe the basic story, with a non-miraculous explanation: Joseph of Arimathea had never intended interment in that tomb to be permanent, and he had the body moved. (All he’d had to do to obtain it was bribe some Roman underling.)
Why didn’t Paul mention the empty tomb? Peter hadn’t mentioned it to him – or he’d decided not to tell the Corinthians – for either or both of two reasons. The disciples might have been mortified because they’d fled, and others had found the empty tomb. And/or nonbelievers might have sneered at hearing the story – taking for granted that the disciples had moved the body, to fake a resurrection!
What do others think?
I think most of it is legendary. If we accept that there were female disciples watching the crucifixion from afar I think they would have spent the time on the site until death arrived. They saw the bodies be taken down and done away with, probably in a dishonorable way, although they couldn’t see exactly how. If that did not happen, we will have to discard the female witnesses as legendary, too. The bodies would have been disposed of close to the execution place. It is conceivable that the temple priesthood made a deal with Pilate including the removal of the body in order to not desecrate the festival. After the Sabbath the women may have searched for a possible grave , in vain. It is hard to think that they continued searching if his remains were still hanging on the pole, close to the possible grave locations. They did not find anything and the rest is legendary growth.
The narrative in the gospels is too full of legend and symbolism to be taken seriously, but whether or not there was some kind of ’empty tomb’ incident that may have caused some hysteria and commotion among his followers that sparked the gospel legend is a coin-toss from my view. I don’t find either the case for the empty tomb, nor Ehrman’s case against it all that persuasive.
Hi,
I thought the consensus was that the Roman’s left the bodies on the crosses until they needed them again?
Plus there’s a lack of buried bodies that were crucified (just one; Jehohanan).
Professor Ehrman quoted the below as examples of bodies being left up. I recently fell fowl of over confidence on how other Historians view this question.
Regards
Jon
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)
I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is (or can be) any consensus as to how long “the Romans” left bodies on crosses. It must have varied from place to place, depending in part on how often crucifixions were performed at the various locations. In the case of Jesus’s crucifixion, Pilate and the Guard accompanying him would presumably have left Jerusalem almost immediately after Passover; it’s unclear whether any actual Romans would still have been in charge of the crucifixion site.
I know Dr. Ehrman believes crucifixion victims were eventually buried – in unmarked graves, with multiple bodies being dumped into a common grave if more than one crucifixion had taken place.
What I’ve guessed is that Jesus did have a well-to-do secret follower (whether or not the man’s name was really Joseph) who wanted to have him put in a decent-but-temporary grave before the Sabbath. Pilate had no personal interest in Jesus – probably “rubber-stamped” the priests’ request to have him executed, and never thought of him again. Also, Pilate would have had “one foot out the door.” So all Joseph would have needed to do was give some underling a bribe.
Several of Jesus’s female followers would have followed Joseph – without his knowledge – and seen him put the body in the tomb. They woud have assumed the interment was meant to be permanent: hence their shock when the body was later gone.
But I do think that to have guessed “resurrection,” they must already have been toying with the idea that God might bring Jesus back to life. Jesus’s followers did believe in a coming “general resurrection,” despite its never having been meant to include a dead Messiah.
Unless there is a time machine built or something more unearthed about the matter, we will NEVER know. It is fun to speculate though. Now my question is, who was there to hear Jesus say, “Father forgive them… .” and or, “Why have you forsaken me?” Seems like the apostles turned tail and ran for cover so they were not there. Were the woman folk close enough to hear? Why the two discrepant statements? Does someone being crucified have the energy to talk? Did Jesus at the last moment realize that this entire fiasco was for naught?
Well, I suppose it is possible that the Romans were paid off and Jesus was hauled away to a tomb, but resurrection!!! NO way, this we know for sure.
I’ve always love the stories about Joseph of Arimathea and the Empty Tomb. A very moving account and of course the subject of much great art. Sad to have to give it up but based on what we do know about Roman crucifixion practices and the character of Pontius Pilate it is most likely legendary. (And how likely is it that Jesus would have had a follower on the Sanhedrin?)
One factor that many scholars think mitigates against the historicity of the ET is the lack of any evidence of tomb veneration by the early church. Tomb veneration was a very common practice in the ancient world (as it is in many places today) and even though the tomb was empty it’s hard to believe there wouldn’t have been at least some surviving tradition. The first interest in such veneration doesn’t show up until the fourth century.
As far as what Paul knew and didn’t know we have to reserve judgment. It’s a good guess he wrote considerably more letters than survive. Even if there could have been a verbatim transcript of Paul’s conversations with Peter and James it doesn’t matter because we don’t have it. In this the writers of the New Testament are not special. The famous Greek playwright Sophocles reputedly wrote over 120 plays but only 7 survive. If we apply this ratio of surviving works to Paul you see we don’t know what we don’t know. It’s like trying to put together a puzzle when the most of the pieces are missing. The fascinating thing is that a major world religion with billions of followers has lasted 2 millennia based on a puzzle with most of the pieces missing!
I would start with the idea that Roman governors had a great deal of discretion; thus in theory Plate certainly could have released the body. The question remains whether a Roman governor would release the body of someone accused of treason and risk Caesar’s ire. Combine that with what we know about Pilate’s character and dealings with local sensitivities and ask would Pilate really act the way he is portrayed as acting in the NT? These two points are key to Ehrman’s conclusion. The rest, why Paul doesn’t mention it, is expanding on those key points.
You can talk all you want about whether we need to reserve judgement about what Paul knew etc, but it is curious that he does not mention this when he is careful to mention everything else. In sum, it is likely that Pilate would not have released the body. Paul doesn’t mention it because there was no empty tomb. That the key part of the ressurection story is the “appearances”.
Note to that the kind of enthusiasm that should come from seeing their ressurected master, doesn’t appear until Pentecost; about 7 weeks later.
Suppose for the sake of argument, that Pentecost is the real aha moment, a proper burial, the empty tomb, the short period of time on the cross are all details added later. How could you recognize Jesus if he had been left on the cross to be eaten by scavangers? Ah well Jesus died only a few hours after he was crucified and was properly buried.
But how do you know the disciples didn’t just steal the body? Well Pilate placed guards at the tomb etc
The idea, btw, that Joseph would have moved the body and that other Jews wouldn’t have had a good idea
about why he did it (that is in observance of jewish customs) seems highly unlikely: That is if the body was temporarily put in a family plot because the Sabbath was approaching, that one of his followers upon hearing the empty tomb story might have been like Guys don’t forget, Jesus died on the day of preparation, it might be that he was temporarily placed in a tomb because the Sabbath was approaching. Maybe he properly buried afterwards.
It occurred to me to ask Dr. Ehrman whether Paul had met Peter before he founded the church in Corinth; Dr. Ehrman said he had. So in the relevant passage of 1 Corinthians, Paul wasn’t telling the Corinthians things they didn’t – presumably – already know. With that being the case, I don’t think his not mentioning the “empty tomb” implies anything, one way or the other.
If there really had been a discovery of an empty tomb, it would have been considered less significant than the subsequent appearances of a living Jesus. Even if those appearances were actually “visions” – that had initially been inspired by talk about the empty tomb!
4 (and even more if we count non-canonical gospels) very different tale- (and tail) ending ET versions wreaking of mid- to end-stream development show even more fabrication effort than the birth accounts (getting the supporting cast to where the messiah is supposed to come from), but to less purpose (no payout in my mind). If the good news is the risen saviour’s appearance to some, then how we usher him off stage and through the clouds seems irrelevant. Problem is, if Dr. Ehrman’s guess is right, then that would fit just as well in Mark with the totally disgraced, never recognized, unexpected messiah, so why not just tell about his further humiliation and undignified disposal in the mass grave several days later? Because the disciples likely fled to Galilee, which takes at least a week to reach, and Peter may not have had his vision of Jesus for several days or weeks, and nobody ever heard or told such ET stories while alive. The ET was not the good news. This left the field wide open 40-60 years later after Peter and Pauls’ deaths for too-clever “authors” like Matthew ,Luke and John to really go to town on strands drawn together getting him off stage with less ignominy, more dignity, already trying to “dress things up” to make them presentable.
But Mark remains a stumbling block to me. This mass grave added disgrace doesn’t disagree with his portrayal of the unexpected, unrecognized messiah if Paul had been crucified there in Rome where maybe Mark writes just 5 years later (if he knew about a mass grave instead of the ET tales, or ever knew Paul; and is he really Peter’s companion, or not?). If Dr. Ehrman is correct, I don’t see Peter not telling Mark how it was if he knew about the earthly corpse and mass grave, especially if he and Paul were crucified in the 60’s in Rome (all tradition, who knows). The inclusion of the ET story in Mark separates him from Peter (in my mind) if the mass grave ending is true and Peter knew about it. So maybe that traditional relationship isn’t true (if the ET is not true).
Before the empty tomb can be discussed it must be first understood that this is not an historic account. It is not that there is a true event at the foundation and there has been legendary accretions to the story but rather this story never happened. It is a symbolic story not an historic story.
The empty tomb is an example of how Mark writes and how he tells stories. At strategic points he includes symbolic stories that are not based in history. At the beginning of Mark, for example, there is the baptism and temptation of Jesus. Heaven was not really torn open. The voice of God did not come down from the sky and Satan did not come and tempt Jesus.
The midpoint of Mark is the transfiguration, symbolic of the disciples’ understanding of Jesus which Mark disagrees with. Jesus did not really go up on a mountain, meet Elijah and Moses and the voice of God did not come from the clouds.
At the end of Mark is the story of the empty tomb. Jesus’ heart did not really start to beat. His eyes did not open and he did not walk from the grave. The women did not really go to the tomb, find the stone had been rolled away and meet a young man dressed in a white robe inside. This is the completion of Mark’s reinterpretation of Jesus’ life and death.
At the beginning of Mark, God’s voice proclaims Jesus “my Son, whom I love.” In the middle of Mark, God’s voice declares, “This is my Son whom I love.” After the crucifixion a human declares that surely Jesus is the Son of God. It is not however the disciples but rather a Roman centurion. Now to complete Mark’s reinterpretation, he ends his story with the symbolic not historic story of the empty tomb where a believer, probably a baptismal candidate dressed in his white robe, declares Jesus is not here, he has risen. One can imagine the listeners repeating the words “He has risen.”
This reinterpretation is in contrast to the disciples who according to Mark never understood Jesus. They failed him, betrayed him and finally deserted him. Mark’s reinterpretation is meant to be in contrast to those who believed Jesus to be a great prophet, equal to Moses and Elijah, and the coming Messiah. These are the beliefs of the Jerusalem messianic community. Mark says that Jesus was far greater than this. He was the Son of God which in the time of the emperor cult meant something very different than traditional Jewish usage of son of God.
Greg: If I understand your take, you’re saying that if Mark wrote in 70 (in Rome or wherever), then he was a highly creative writer with little or no access to Peter or Paul before their deaths, or any eyewitnesses to facts, who barely felt tethered to the details of what had actually happened? So do you think there was an ET or a mass grave (or something else, if you cared to be pinned down)? The ET as just one more literary creation out of whole cloth (to support theological claims to contest the emperor’s) works for me-thanks.
There was no empty tomb in the sense of the NT narratives. Most people including many critical scholars still think you can reason what happened by comparing verses in the NT. Some of the more daring include texts outside the NT. The synoptic gospels are products of the gentile churches and the narrative is framed by how they think it must have happened. So there are great miracles, huge crowds, Jesus as a threat to both the Jews and the Romans, dramatic scenes, the Passion narrative and resurrection appearances.
The first third or so of Acts does the same thing. Luke takes how he believes it must have been in the beginning of the gentile church and transplants it back into the era of the apostles. An inside joke is the knowledge that Pentecost actually happened in Syria. That is, the church that puts its emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the living Jesus has transplanted these beliefs back into Jerusalem.
To understand how much access the gentile church had to details about Jesus’ life, just read Paul’s letters. The only actual story with details is the story of the Lord’s supper with the drinking of his blood and the eating of his body. The story clearly begins with “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you.” Not what I received from James, Peter or John. He is talking about his visionary experiences with the risen Lord. Though such things cannot be proven in a definitive sense, it can be confidently stated that James and the church in Jerusalem were not teaching the drinking of Jesus’ blood and the eating of his body while they were going to the temple for 30 years. In other words, the only story of Jesus from Paul is not historic but a teaching from a visionary experience.
It finally comes down to the way stories develop. You can’t really peel stories like an onion and find an historic core finally revealed. You can find various layers of story development but not a true beginning from which everything else developed. The messianic sect in Jerusalem and the gentile church were two very different belief systems and both of these were very different from how the people of Galilee remembered Jesus as he moved from town to town as an itinerant healer.
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!
Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
Isaiah’s prophecy may have been “historiced” in this way.
Genesis 50:24: “Then Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die. But God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” 25 And Joseph made the Israelites swear an oath and said, “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place.”
Joseph’s prophecy was fulfilled in the Exodus.
Exodus 13:19: “Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place.”
This was the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
The more likely case is that the New Testament writer did a pesher of the passage you mention from Isaiah in order to invent the story of the empty tomb in order to deceive people into thinking that Jesus was fulfilling scripture. Nice try though lol.
john76 said
moose said
Was there an empty tomb?
Of course.
The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!Isaiah 53:9 :
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,The more likely case is that the New Testament writer did a pesher of the passage you mention from Isaiah in order to invent the story of the empty tomb in order to deceive people into thinking that Jesus was fulfilling scripture. Nice try though lol.
Robert M. Price makes some interesting suggestions about how the empty tomb story in Mark is a result of haggadic midrash. He writes that:
The Empty Tomb (Mark 16:1-8):
Crossan (p. 274) and Miller and Miller (pp. 219, 377) note that the empty tomb narrative requires no source beyond Joshua (=Jesus, remember!) chapter 10. The five kings have fled from Joshua, taking refuge in the cave at Makkedah. When they are discovered, Joshua orders his men to “Roll great stones against the mouth of the cave and set men by it to guard them” (10:18). Once the mopping-up operation of the kings’ troops is finished, Joshua directs: “Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave” (10:22). “And afterward Joshua smote them and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung upon the trees until evening; but at the time of the going down of the sun, Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees, and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves, and they set great stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day” (10:26-27). Observe that here it is “Jesus” who plays the role of Pilate, and that Mark needed only to reverse the order of the main narrative moments of this story. Joshua 10: first, stone rolled away and kings emerge alive; second, kings die; third, kings are crucified until sundown. Mark: Jesus as King of the Jews is crucified, where his body will hang till sundown; second, he dies; third, he emerges alive (Mark implies) from the tomb once the stone is rolled away.
The vigil of the mourning women likely reflects the women’s mourning cult of the dying and rising god, long familiar in Israel (Ezekiel 8:14, “Behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz;” Zechariah 12:11, “On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo;” Canticles 3:1-4, “I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him but found him not; I called him but he gave no answer,” etc.).
This article originally appeared in “The Encyclopedia of Midrash (ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan Avery Peck). The whole article is online here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Of the whole article, Dr. Alan Avery Peck says that, on the whole, Price is mostly right about the instances of haggadic midrash that he argues for, and that the recently published “Jewish Annotated New Testament (detailed here: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** )” takes the New Testament haggadic midrash argument forward in a fruitful manner. Ehrman examines an expanded version of the article in his book “Did Jesus Exist?”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)