People have different solutions to the question of what happened to Yeshua´s body after he died. Was he eaten by birds and wild animals? Was he buried in a mass grave? Was he properly buried? If we assume that Mary went back to look for the grave, she probably passed by Golgotha. And since she didn´t see him hanging there, could we not then believe that he at least was taken down?
🌷Greetings from Norway
Esmeralda said
People have different solutions to the question of what happened to Yeshua´s body after he died. Was he eaten by birds and wild animals? Was he buried in a mass grave? Was he properly buried? If we assume that Mary went back to look for the grave, she probably passed by Golgotha. And since she didn´t see him hanging there, could we not then believe that he at least was taken down?🌷Greetings from Norway
Greetings, Esmeralda.
I think Crossen’s solution is the most probable; it was left to the wild critters.
Esmeralda said
People have different solutions to the question of what happened to Yeshua´s body after he died. Was he eaten by birds and wild animals? Was he buried in a mass grave? Was he properly buried? If we assume that Mary went back to look for the grave, she probably passed by Golgotha. And since she didn´t see him hanging there, could we not then believe that he at least was taken down?🌷Greetings from Norway
Greetings from Nashville, TN
If you assume Mary did that, you then can conclude and believe anything consistent with that assumption. I would point out, though, that Mary’s presence in Jerusalem at the time is not confirmed by any non-scriptural evidence, so there may be even bigger assumptions at work here.
Esmeralda said
Thanks TTHorne56 and CEJ 🙏You question if Mary ever found the grave empty. Which I agree, we could never be sure of.
But how then did the concept of the empty grave emerge? Without the empty grave, no tales of resurrection.
🌷Esmeralda
You’re welcome. But I disagree with your premise.
Is it not more likely that visions of Jesus after his death led to the empty tomb story?
Dr. Ehrman writes about how common it is for folks to experience visions of loved ones shortly after their death in one of his books.
I might maybe could dig up a cite for you, if you’re interested.
Thanks for answering me. 🙏
I totally agree that the resurrection-idea come from visions.
But I red an article by Tom Sheehan, and he wrote that since Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the gospels, maybe she actually was present at the cross, and then when she came back looking for the grave, she had a vision.
And that Peter probably had a vision too – in Galilee.
I wish I could go back in time and set this straight.
This is a point where I think Dr. Ehrman is misled by historical documentation and his assumptions of their validity. Yes, the official policy for the Romans appears to be that the bodies of those crucified were left to hang on the crosses for some time, and then essentially discarded in a mass burial. This official practice would indeed argue against the idea that his followers were allowed to bury Jesus . . . but do we really know how faithfully the policy was adhered to, especially for someone of no great importance, and at that time Jesus would have been a very minor figure. Official policies for common procedures seem to be the ones that are most often violated, and, of course, the violations tend not to be what gets captured in the official record.
I see.
So you believe that maybe he was buried? By whom?
Now I bought John Dominic Crossans book «Jesus a revolutionary biography». It must be book number 8 on this topic. 🤣 I think I have an understanding of the first days in the Easter-week, but from when he was crucified and out, I don’t have a clue.
🌷Esmeralda
I think the idea is plausible that his followers were allowed to bury him, which would presumably be in accord with the tomb story. That does not necessarily have to confirm the resurrection. People seem to have been quick to adopt the idea that they would not have been allowed to bury him primarily as a way to easily discard the idea of the resurrection. If we allow the idea of the burial in the tomb, it does become messy because the question remains what became of the body. And the answer probably has to be that we cannot be sure because we do not have sufficient information.
Well, if we go with Dominic Crossan, he was eaten by dogs. And that was the end of it. ☹️
And if there was no burial, and his disciples never saw him again after his arrest, he must have been a very charismatic man, since they «kept him alive» in their minds, and continued to follow his words. Until more educated men came along and wrote the gospels.
Esmeralda said
Well, if we go with Dominic Crossan, he was eaten by dogs. And that was the end of it. ☹️And if there was no burial, and his disciples never saw him again after his arrest, he must have been a very charismatic man, since they «kept him alive» in their minds, and continued to follow his words. Until more educated men came along and wrote the gospels.
It’s anyone’s guess.
Esmeralda said
People have different solutions to the question of what happened to Yeshua´s body after he died. Was he eaten by birds and wild animals? Was he buried in a mass grave? Was he properly buried? If we assume that Mary went back to look for the grave, she probably passed by Golgotha. And since she didn´t see him hanging there, could we not then believe that he at least was taken down?🌷Greetings from Norway
We do not know. There is some evidence that the bodies of the crucified were given permission for burial but we have to ask ourselves would the body of yet another Jewish peasant rebel have been granted that right?
Some two thousand Jews had been crucified by Varus after the death of Herod the Great and the uprisings that arose from that, and Jews continued to be crucified throughout the first century CE. Were they all granted burials? I suspect not. I think the most likely scenario was that the body was dumped in a communal grave/pit. We need to remember that those delightful tales of the tomb, young men/angels, and earthquakes, all arose later.
Flosshilda said
We do not know. There is some evidence that the bodies of the crucified were given permission for burial but we have to ask ourselves would the body of yet another Jewish peasant rebel have been granted that right?
Some two thousand Jews had been crucified by Varus after the death of Herod the Great and the uprisings that arose from that, and Jews continued to be crucified throughout the first century CE. Were they all granted burials? I suspect not. I think the most likely scenario was that the body was dumped in a communal grave/pit. We need to remember that those delightful tales of the tomb, young men/angels, and earthquakes, all arose later.
A bigger question may be how many of those bodies would have been claimed by anyone anyway, with the attendant risk of being identified with the victim. In the case of Jesus, there may have been people who would make such a claim. We can make no real judgement about a “most likely scenario.” (Our sense of a “most likely scenario” is most likely to reflect our personal biases.) For the specific case of Jesus, we really have only the evidence of the gospels. The writers of the gospels presumably were also aware of the official treatment of the victims of crucifixion, and there was no real reason to diverge from customary disposal of bodies unless there was at least a plausible tradition that there was such an exception granted in this case. The empty tomb story is dramatic, but it isn’t really necessary for the narrative. We are just accustomed to it because it is part of the story as it has been transmitted.
JAS said
Flosshilda said
We do not know. There is some evidence that the bodies of the crucified were given permission for burial but we have to ask ourselves would the body of yet another Jewish peasant rebel have been granted that right?
Some two thousand Jews had been crucified by Varus after the death of Herod the Great and the uprisings that arose from that, and Jews continued to be crucified throughout the first century CE. Were they all granted burials? I suspect not. I think the most likely scenario was that the body was dumped in a communal grave/pit. We need to remember that those delightful tales of the tomb, young men/angels, and earthquakes, all arose later.
A bigger question may be how many of those bodies would have been claimed by anyone anyway, with the attendant risk of being identified with the victim. In the case of Jesus, there may have been people who would make such a claim. We can make no real judgement about a “most likely scenario.” (Our sense of a “most likely scenario” is most likely to reflect our personal biases.) For the specific case of Jesus, we really have only the evidence of the gospels. The writers of the gospels presumably were also aware of the official treatment of the victims of crucifixion, and there was no real reason to diverge from customary disposal of bodies unless there was at least a plausible tradition that there was such an exception granted in this case. The empty tomb story is dramatic, but it isn’t really necessary for the narrative. We are just accustomed to it because it is part of the story as it has been transmitted.
And what we know of the contemporary situation and practise of dealing with crucified criminals. The later gospel accounts of the tomb etc are all narrative embellishments and having a tomb that is later found empty served in further promoting the belief that a resurrection had indeed taken place.
Not forgetting of course, that then, as now, people enjoy a good story!
Flosshilda said
JAS said
Flosshilda said
We do not know. There is some evidence that the bodies of the crucified were given permission for burial but we have to ask ourselves would the body of yet another Jewish peasant rebel have been granted that right?
Some two thousand Jews had been crucified by Varus after the death of Herod the Great and the uprisings that arose from that, and Jews continued to be crucified throughout the first century CE. Were they all granted burials? I suspect not. I think the most likely scenario was that the body was dumped in a communal grave/pit. We need to remember that those delightful tales of the tomb, young men/angels, and earthquakes, all arose later.
A bigger question may be how many of those bodies would have been claimed by anyone anyway, with the attendant risk of being identified with the victim. In the case of Jesus, there may have been people who would make such a claim. We can make no real judgement about a “most likely scenario.” (Our sense of a “most likely scenario” is most likely to reflect our personal biases.) For the specific case of Jesus, we really have only the evidence of the gospels. The writers of the gospels presumably were also aware of the official treatment of the victims of crucifixion, and there was no real reason to diverge from customary disposal of bodies unless there was at least a plausible tradition that there was such an exception granted in this case. The empty tomb story is dramatic, but it isn’t really necessary for the narrative. We are just accustomed to it because it is part of the story as it has been transmitted.
And what we know of the contemporary situation and practise of dealing with crucified criminals. The later gospel accounts of the tomb etc are all narrative embellishments and having a tomb that is later found empty served in further promoting the belief that a resurrection had indeed taken place.
Not forgetting of course, that then, as now, people enjoy a good story!
A bodily resurrection was important to some; hence the empty tomb narrative.
CEJ said
A bodily resurrection was important to some; hence the empty tomb narrative.
But the tomb is not necessary for the bodily resurrection part. One just needs not to have two bodies. I think too many are just looking for a means to dismiss the whole story out of hand, with some special claim of credibility. The “official” practice does not negate the possibility of burial as the story has it. (I will freely admit that for a high-profile case, where everyone was watching, the official protocols would more assuredly be followed.)
Well, I have been wondering a lot about Mary Magdalene. She went to the tomb, found it empty, had a vision of Jesus and went and told the others.
And then she was never heard off again. 
After all – both Peter and James became leaders of the community in Jerusalem, she could have stayed on there too.
But if she never went to the tomb and never had a vision, then it makes sense that she didn’t have a prominent role in the early church.
Off topic: but still: Do we belive that there ever was a historical Mary of Magdalene?
JAS said
CEJ said
A bodily resurrection was important to some; hence the empty tomb narrative.
But the tomb is not necessary for the bodily resurrection part. One just needs not to have two bodies. I think too many are just looking for a means to dismiss the whole story out of hand, with some special claim of credibility. The “official” practice does not negate the possibility of burial as the story has it. (I will freely admit that for a high-profile case, where everyone was watching, the official protocols would more assuredly be followed.)
Scholars have paid a lot of attention to this story and have come to diverse conclusions. An excellent review of the scholarship is available here:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As for my thoughts, I’m one who likes to keep it simple and probably therefore side with Crossan.
Esmeralda said
Well, I have been wondering a lot about Mary Magdalene. She went to the tomb, found it empty, had a vision of Jesus and went and told the others.And then she was never heard off again.
After all – both Peter and James became leaders of the community in Jerusalem, she could have stayed on there too.
But if she never went to the tomb and never had a vision, then it makes sense that she didn’t have a prominent role in the early church.
Off topic: but still: Do we belive that there ever was a historical Mary of Magdalene?
Yup. Mary pulls a disappearing act, if she actually ever existed.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert