JAS said
Stephen said
No there is no ancient source claiming specifically that Jesus’ body was left on the cross to rot but that is only because all of our ancient sources about Jesus’ fate were written by Christians. There is a clear association in the classical tradition between crucifixion and bodily desecration. It was part of the punishment. I can cite multiple sources from the classical world testifying to this association. We have no idea what happened to Jesus’ body. But we know what usually happened to victims of crucifixion. And in a case where we have no hard and fast evidence either way it is best to assume what actually happened is what usually happened.
Some general objections to the historicity of the Empty Tomb.
As I hinted above the story of Empty Tomb requires that the fate of Jesus’ body be privileged. It is expected that Christians would privilege the fate of their master but what reason would the Romans have for doing so? From what we know about the historical Pilate he was brutal and showed absolutely no interest in Jewish sensibilities.
[…]
The fate of Jesus was terrible. But there is real reason to question the historicity of the Empty Tomb. Actually I’ve always thought that one of the reasons for the origin of the Empty Tomb tradition is horror at the actual fate of Jesus’ body.
I am not going to argue that I have the real answer to the question, but part of this smacks uncomfortably of a recent political argument that a certain individual won his re-election in a landslide, if only you ignore those who voted against him. (Yes, the totality of the numbers makes it substantively different, but it a disconcertingly similar sense that the case for one argument inherently gets stronger if you start eliminating the evidence that is inconveniently against it. In this case, we have no equivalent historical statement that directly contradicts the ones that are part of the Christian tradition. Instead, what we may have is a typical pattern, and an exception, even if a fairly rare one, that diverts from that pattern. Surely the early writers would have known the Roman custom in this regard, and addressed it if it were such an anomaly.)
It is most likely true that the Romans frequently left the bodies of those crucified to rot in public, much as English royalty of later times would leave the heads of those executed on pikes. The usual idea was to discourage followers of the one executed, but at that point in time, there really was no movement of Christianity, as such. Who would they be discouraging? If the Biblical accounts are to be given any credence at all, Jesus was crucified somewhat reluctantly by the officials, almost at the demand of a mob. The officials might just as reasonably considered the matter dealt with, and wanted it forgotten as quickly as possible so that things in general would settle down.
If we are going to argue that the early Christian traditions of the story give a “privileged” account of Jesus’s death, it seems odd that such “privilege” did not extend to reducing a rather humiliating treatment. If the humiliation was part of the point, then leaving the body to rot would have added to that, but that is not how the story is related. If we are going to start arguing that the story was accurate in some major parts, and manipulated in others of equal importance, that argument begins to be one of purely personal interpretation. Such a view might or might not be correct, but it begins to look like cherry-picking, which is usually a bad tactic.
It seems quite reasonable to say that the Romans usually left the bodies to rot in situ after crucifixion, and that to allow the body of Jesus to be removed would have been an unusual act. But it is also reasonable to suggest that at the time of his death, Jesus was hardly seen as a serious threat to the empire, and was mostly a minor nuisance. There is a tendency on all sides to interpret Biblical accounts as if the writers knew how their efforts were going to end up over the course of time. Since, as I think it has persuasively been argued, it appears that the New Testament writers thought the end of times was close at hand, I think we can safely discount the idea of such future gazing.
Another excellent post.
JAS
Part of this smacks uncomfortably of a recent political argument that a certain individual won his re-election in a landslide.
Steefen
How?
JAS
Only ignore those who voted against him.
Yes, the totality of the numbers makes it substantively different, but it is a disconcertingly similar sense that the case for one argument inherently gets stronger if you start eliminating the evidence that is inconveniently against it.
In this case, we have no equivalent historical statement that directly contradicts the ones that are part of the Christian tradition.
Instead, what we may have is a typical pattern, and an exception, even if a fairly rare one, that diverts from that pattern. Surely the early writers would have known the Roman custom in this regard, and addressed it if it were such an anomaly.
Vergari
Excellent post.
Steefen
An exception was made for a composite character of historical fiction in a narrative of historical fiction.
Robert said
Steefen said
The Biblical Jesus, with his healings, feedings, teachings, attracted people with means. Jesus was not an unsympathetic character.
We’re not merely talking about the biblical Jesus; more precisely we’re talking about whether or not the historical Jesus, who was also crucified around 30 CE by Pontius Pilate (a disputed fact for you), was actually buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. By the way, there’s no need to use such a large bolded font. Are you perhaps trying to create the impression that you are shouting?
When you read a textbook and see a heading in larger font size and bold, you have the impression the textbook author is shouting?
A signaled important change in direction is not shouting.
When you drive on a highway and see a signs, is that shouting? No it is not.
In your opinion, this website should not offer different font sizes to show importance of matters that need to be addressed, on-ramps to edification.
I disagree.
Second, there is no need to trash Easter with pseudo scholarship that makes the Gospel incomplete.
Crossan made an erroneous turn in scholarship. Not all critical thinkers are going to follow him off the cliff.
I am sure there are some people who would love the bragging rights that their Christianity was rejected for fallibility of the Bible, suffering, evolution, rejection of spirits after incarnation, Jesus did not have many followers, Jesus was not as important as the Bible claims, etc. and then finish with desecrating his death.
What a brag to go around vandalizing his grave with disrespectful graffitti:
“Jesus had no grave.”
“The women had no grave to visit
to prepare his body for burial
because Jesus was rotting in a ravine
or being eaten by wild animals.”
Go on: desecrate faith in Jesus and call it scholarship. I disagree with that type of poorly veiled major attack.
Again, did Crossan, Ehrman, or you build any case that Jesus with his healings, feedings, teachings was an unsympathetic character to all people with means?
Tell us about the verses that say the women named Mary, including his mother, stood by the ravine where Jesus was thrown.
Tell us about the verses that say Romans imprisoned the women named Mary for chasing off wild animals from disturbing a decomposing Jesus.
Tell us about the verses where Jesus was supposed to be decomposing on a cross but the women named Mary went to that cross and found an empty cross.
Tell us about the verses where Jesus was supposed to be in a ravine but the women named Mary went to the ravine and the ravine was empty of Jesus.
Tell us about how General Titus told Josephus, no, the three former acquaintances of yours cannot be taken down from their crosses.
Rewriting the gospels when the gospels clearly do not antagonize Rome is erroneous. The gospels do not show a Pilate unhesitant about sentencing Jesus to crucifixion and decomposition on a cross or a ravine.
My point of view seems straightforward.
We have no real idea what happened to Jesus’ body.
We have reasons to suspect the historicity of the accounts preserved in the NT.
We have a fairly good idea what happened to the bodies of victims of crucifixion. In the face of a lack of definitive evidence it is not unreasonable to suppose that what happened to Jesus’ body is what happened to most victims of crucifixion.
Those who claim that Jesus’ body was treated in some special way have the onus to demonstrate some compelling reason to suppose that the Romans would have treated him differently. All the NT accounts of Jesus’ burial were written by folks who assumed Jesus was special. The issue is why the Romans would have considered him special.
One of my own pet hypotheses is that it was the contemplation of Jesus’ probable fate that provided at least part of the inspiration that resulted in the stories of the burial by Joseph.
Robert said
Surely, historians must read ancient or even modern sources critically, right?
And, usually, cherry-pick, although that is always problematic. My only point is that it should be admitted as such, and not offered as conclusive. Like so many matters, the issue of the empty tomb is unlikely to be “solved” in any really convincing sense, except for the already convinced who have found the answer that they like.
Robert said
Steefen said
When you read a textbook and see a heading in larger font size and bold, you have the impression the textbook author is shouting?
When you drive on a highway and see a signs, is that shouting?
Silly questions in that this forum is neither a textbook nor a highway. It’s also rather silly that you think you are offering an on-ramp to edification as opposed to my alleged trashing of Easter with pseudo-scholarship or desecrating belief in Jesus. You do not believe in Easter any more than me. You do not even believe in the historical Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Go chase down Stephen and JAS in the
Stephen said
Ignore me at your own peril. I am the VOICE OF REASON.
You might need to be louder. It is not clear to me that he can hear reason.
Robert
my alleged trashing of Easter with pseudo-scholarship or desecrating belief in Jesus. You do not believe in Easter any more than me. You do not even believe in the historical Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
Steefen
I can believe in
Superman
Batman
Santa Claus
Captain America, and
Jesus–Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate as told by the gospels which are not 100% historical. Understand?
Robert said
Steefen said
You are in error asserting I do not even believe in Jesus who was crucified by Pilate.
So now you believe that there existed an historical person named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate?
Or are you merely saying that there was some grace in the faith and religion of some earlier Christian generations, for example, as expressed in the singing of Aretha Franklin?
Steefen
I can believe in
Superman
Batman
Santa Claus
Captain America, and
Jesus–Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate as told by the gospels which are not 100% historical. Understand?
= = =
No, you do not understand since you asked the first part of your question.
= = =
Steefen
I believe in parts of the faith of some of the generation/s before the the Baby Boom Generation.
There was some grace in their faith and in their religion.
Robert
You are saying there was some grace in the faith and religion of some earlier Christian generations.
Steefen
Yes.
Robert said
You do not believe in an historical person named Jesus who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. You do not believe the historical Jesus was raised from the dead.
Wrong again.
You have trouble understanding.
I know there is the New Testament which is historical fiction. In that historical fiction, Jesus was crucified by Pilate and was raised from the dead.
I believe in this historical fiction for its grace, not its historical accuracy.
I follow the Israel Finkelstein reconciliation: believe in tradition and know the facts. Traditions can evolve.
Robert said
Pilate’s reluctance to find Jesus guilty should not be given much credence. This is very likely part of a trend to portray Jesus and the Christian movement as no threat to the Roman government and culture.JAS said
If we are going to start arguing that the story was accurate in some major parts, and manipulated in others of equal importance, that argument begins to be one of purely personal interpretation. Such a view might or might not be correct, but it begins to look like cherry-picking, which is usually a bad tactic.
Surely, historians must read ancient or even modern sources critically, right?
Why shouldn’t Pilate’s reluctance to find Jesus guilty be given much credence? Because Josephus and Philo thought Pilate was an a-hole? If villainizing Pilate would have so easily been interpreted as criticism of the Roman Empire (and culture), why do Philo and Josephus seem to have no trouble doing just that? It’s not just the synoptics that depict Pilate’s reluctance; John, which certainly seems to have an independent, close source, and written decades after Mark, also portrays Pilate as ambivalent. I’m not sure why this invention is so necessary, not only at the time of the writing of Mark, but also at the time of writing of Luke, and also of John. These are three distinct time periods. Indeed, even Josephus hints at Pilate’s ambivalence by referencing the accusations of the “men of highest standing.”
Is it possible that Mark and Luke and John were all looking to portray the Christian movement as no threat to the Roman government and culture? Sure. It’s possible. But I’m not sure why that is more likely than there being a gist of historical fact here that Pilate wasn’t interested in executing Jesus.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)