Loading...I am going to take a brief break from my response to Craig Evans’s critique of my view of Jesus’ burial. There are more things that I need to say – and I have not yet gotten to what I think are his two best arguments. But my sense is that some people are getting a little tired of a steady dose of posts on the burial stories, so… I’m going to break to deal with something else of more general interest.
Over the years some people have responded to my argument that Jesus was not really buried by Joseph of Arimathea on the day of his crucifixion by asking me: Why are you trashing the Gospels?
It’s a fair question, and deserves a fair answer.
The short story is that I’m not intending or trying to trash the Gospels. In my view, what I’m doing is showing what the Gospels really are and what they really are not. And that is not a matter of trashing them. It’s a matter of revealing their true character, rather than foisting a false character on them.
To be sure, by arguing that the Gospels are not historically accurate I am contesting and challenging views of the Gospels that many Christians unreflectively have (and that some Christian scholars reflectively have). But urging a different understanding of the Gospels is not the same thing as trashing them. On the contrary if my views of the Gospels are right, then I’m illuminating the Gospels and showing both what kinds of books they are and how they ought to be read. That’s a good, positive thing, not a bad, negative one.
I should hasten to add that
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
But as most blog readers know, the view that the Gospels are not always historically accurate has been acknowledged by critical scholars of the New Testament as long as there have been critical scholars of the New Testament – for over 300 years. So it’s nothing new, even though I hear from people nearly every week who tell me that it’s news to them. It’s news to them because scholars can be among the worse communicators on earth, and biblical scholars in particular have done a truly dismal job of telling non-scholars what they have come to think and what they have tried to demonstrate in their research – for example about the accuracy of the Gospels.
Different scholars have different assessments of *just* how inaccurate the Gospels are. Some think they are reliable in most of the basics, with lots of details being unreliable; others think that major stories are not historically accurate (birth narratives, e.g.); others think that in fact very many of the stories need to be questioned. But for all of these scholars (that is, apart from those who have a personal religious commitment to the idea that the Bible *can’t* have mistakes in it and in fact *doesn’t*) there is a basic sense that, at the end of the day, the Gospels are not dispassionate, accurate accounts of the things Jesus said and did. Some things in them are accurate. Some things are not accurate. And one of the tasks is to figure out which is which: which stories actually describe something that happened (e.g., Jesus’ baptism, his proclamation of the coming kingdom, his crucifixion) and which stories describe things that, historically, did not actually happen (e.g., Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, or his Transfiguration, or his turning water into wine).
These decisions are not made simply on an ad hoc basis or by guessing. They are made by slow, deliberate, conscientious, rigorous application of historical criteria based on a very wide range of knowledge of the surviving texts and of lots of other things (history of Palestine; Roman world; Greek language; history of early Christianity – and more). It’s not a matter of picking and choosing what you like or don’t like.
But even with stories that are judged to be basically accurate, one needs to decide what parts of the story are accurate. Was Jesus baptized? Almost certainly yes. By John the Baptist? Yes. In the Jordan River? Yes. At the beginning of his ministry? Yes. Did a dove land on his head? Did the heavens split open? Did a voice come thundering from heaven? Well, probably not.
I should stress that the views critical scholars have of the Gospels do not simply involve the question of what is historically accurate. There are two other issues that are equally important. The first is this: if something is not accurate, how and why did that story or part of the story come into existence? For the dove and voice from heaven at the baptism, for example: even if those things didn’t happen, they are there for a reason: they show that at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he was declared to be the Son of God—a very important theological point. But probably not a historical reality in terms of what actually happened.
The second thing is closely related: studying the Gospels is not simply a matter of seeing what really happened and why the stories came to be altered into the form we now know them; it is also a matter of literary and theological interpretation. Whether or not a story “happened” – what does it *mean*? What is it saying about Jesus? What is the theological, ethical, or liturgical message that is being conveyed? And for people who are doing this who are Christian – how does or should this message affect one’s life, one’s beliefs, one’s practices, one’s ethics, one’s relationships, one’s understanding of the world, and so forth and so on.
Again, different scholars will have different evaluations of just how historical this or that story is, and about why this or that detail was added or omitted or changed, and about what the story is trying to teach. But all critical scholars will agree that studying the Gospels involves (at least) these basic tasks. Fundamentalists would say that the tasks involve trashing the Gospels. I say that the fundamentalists are wrong about that. Understanding what the Gospels really are – stories about Jesus intending to teach theological lessons rather than historically accurate narratives – celebrates the Gospels for what they really are, rather than falsely glorifies them for what they are not.
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
41 Comments
Leave A Comment
Thanks for putting this so well! It’s so difficult to discuss this topic with any fundamentalist mindset (which I used to have before I took my first college course, similar to what you teach). I find a sticking point for me (in discussing this topic) is that it seems that the earliest church writers and authorities take a view of historical validity of the texts. In other words, they seem to say that the reported words and deeds of Jesus were actually his words and deeds, no matter how fantastical. I don’t see much deviation from this stance when reading them. Am I seeing it correctly? Are there examples of early Christian authorities saying that the texts should not be taken literally?
There certainly were early Christians who insisted on the validity of non-literal readings, going back to proto-orthodox works such as the E[ost;e of Barnabas, on to such stalwarts as Tertullian, into …. Into all time until the Protestant Reformation. Some writers, such as Origen, argued for the superiority of the non-literal; BUT usually they thought the literal was true as well, especially in narratives. The argument of modern scholarship is that understanding texts is not a matter of figurative interest ion in the old style (from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Xn antiquity) but of historical interpretation as is used foor all other texts today, and that requires admitting they are not always historical. (But yes, Origen would argue that many passages must not be taken literally; Barnabass argued that at length about the law of Moses; etc.)
As fine a writing as I’ve ever seen you do!
It’s a low bar, but thanks!!
Bart,you don’t need to explain or justify yourself.I would have thought that the fire of indignation would have come more from opposing scholars than from believers. Scholars are notorious for throwing barbs at each other for minute points.The stakes are high:this is their profession.Papers will be written on those views and thesis.Books will be universally criticized.
But the criticism from believers is an altogether different world.The believer reads, remembers, reverences,is inspired,experiences holiness, a meaningful communion with the myriad generations preceding them,are reminded of many pearls of wisdom,their understanding increases with time,it literally growths on them….. should I go on?Their experience is emotional.
They read the texts indeed uncritically,but reading them critically might be an abyss and a dethronement of their faith they have no interest- or even would be aggrieved-to suffer.In fact, we are talking about two different versions of Scripture.I still read the HB this way today,since childhood, and after all the decades of study in all sorts of specialized organizations,all the way to NYU and the Jewish Theological Seminary.It has an aura,a harmonic resonance of its own,it speaks of my ancestors,it has been life and death for them,and at least for us, the secular folk,it is also literature.
My question does not involve today’s post and is directed to Dr E
OT scholars tell us that Moses and associated events are legendary and not historical.
To me that would mean Moses being given the Ten Commandants is legendary, not historical. How then did the 10C make it down to our historical, mortal ancestors w/o involving legendary people?
Your podcast on the Trinity released yest was superb and entirely too short. It was very interesting and very informative. The best to date.
Keep up the good work.
They are traditional materials passed that made it into a couple of the sources of the Pentateuch. I have an extended discussion of the matter in my online course Finding Moses (see bartehrman.com)
“But my sense is that some people are getting a little tired of a steady dose of posts on the burial stories”
Not way !!!
Eager to read the next post on your answer to Craig
btw … What about the posts on Morton Smith’s forgery ?
I thought I posted those! In fact, I remember doing so!
In the Gospels, we are told that Christ most often taught in parables. Through these, He made his messages about spiritual life understandable to the masses. I wonder whether anyone among His followers ever questioned whether the parables were historically accurate. Who was the real good samaritan? What was his name? Where did he live? Did he take that route often? But aren’t all of those questions beside the point if one is looking for the lesson behind the story? Sometimes I wonder whether the Gospels aren’t best viewed as parables themselves. The spiritual truth doesn’t lie in strictly historically verifiable facts; faith is always a leap beyond the ground underfoot. Dr. Ehrman is like a surveyor plotting out what the limits of the ground are. Redefining boundaries of Scripture doesn’t make faith-flight impossible; it just reshapes the perch. Any religious person must realize that what their faith is say collectively is, “We choose to believe this and not that.” It is by nature an adopted perspective.
We certainly don’t have any record of those kinds of discussion among Jesus’ followers.
Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong believed that they were collections of midrashic stories. It’s been a long time since I read this book, but I believe that he made a good case. https://www.amazon.com/Liberating-Gospels-Reading-Bible-Jewish/dp/0060675578#
Stories continue for a long time with ” lives of the saints” even though many were pagan, gods even. Its about teachings and ritual created for people who could not even read, till recent times. Also, most was told in Church Art, as few understood Latin.
Very good summary ! Thanks !!!. I’d like to add a bit from my personal past experience as an ‘esoteric gnostic evangelical ‘ (yes that weird mixture does exist in the Netherlands were I’m from) . I have heard ‘brothers and sister’ see, hear, smell, observe things far and beyond ‘voices from heaven’ and ‘doves above your head’. It was a self made reality that felt extremely ‘real’ at the time . In such cults the boundaries between reality and fantasy hardly exist . It was not like a rational person deliberately ‘inventing’ spiritual non events (virgin birth) to enhance an underlying theological message (Jesus has two natures holy Son of God and also born out of a woman in the flesh ) . No it was a new reality where the boundaries of the real world and selfmade fantasies were completely blurred. For rational biblical criticasters it’s hard to phantom how mind boggling strange this ‘spiritual’ reality inside certain cults can be.
Dr Ehrman, I’m so glad you do what you do! I think you are returning the Gospels to the standards of art and beautiful literature that they were originally meant to be, not “trashing” them at all.
I have a somewhat related comment and 1 question clearly related to my comment.
I think I’ve found the most glaring contradiction in the NT that I really can’t think of any possible way to reconcile it. It’s about Judas’s 30 pieces of silver: in Matthew we are told (that phrase, btw, is so vintage Bart Ehrman) that he returned them to the chief priests and elders (27:3); but Luke, in Acts, tells us that Judas kept the money and actually bought a field with them (1:18)!! This simply cannot be reconciled!
I have noticed that you have used many times the contradiction in the description of his death, but, in my view, this one, with the money, is just not possible to be resolved using any type of mental gymnastics, however genius or sophisticated.
So my question is how do apologists deal with this particular contradiction? I really am very curious. And a side question: why do you prefer to use the contradiction of Judas’s death instead of this?
Yup, it’s pretty glaring and rarely noted (except among scholars and that rare person playing close attention!). And it’s not the only contradiction. E.g.: who bought the field? And why is it called a “field of blood”?
If I were committed to the task, I could suggest several possible ways to reconcile teh passages: a) Judas “acquired” the field in a loose sense: the money that he was paid is what led to the purchase of the field; b) he “acquired” it in the sense that he “made it his own” by dying on it; c) he didn’t return *all* the money to the Jewish leaders, but only that which was left after he had bought hte field; d) Hey, make up your own story!
Why do I think it’s an actual contradiciton? Because such explanations either make no sense, or make the texts say something other than they do in order to avoid the discrepancy (i.e. claim the texts don’t mean what htey say, since what htey say is contradictory).
The first suggestion is really clever, but the others are too contrived even for a fundamentalist! In any case, thank you for trying, it was very interesting!
“Was Jesus baptized? Almost certainly yes. By John the Baptist? Yes. In the Jordan River? Yes. At the beginning of his ministry? Yes.”
Please explain why it is so certain by scholars that Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River.
To me, it seems so unlikely that a poor peasant from Nazareth could have the ways and means to travel to the Jordan River just to get baptized. How did he even know about John? Did he travel in a group to the Jordan River? If not, wouldn’t it have been extremely dangerous traveling alone? How did he know how to get to the Jordan River, specifically where John was located? Was Jesus a one-off in Nazareth to even be thinking about being baptized by John?
We don’t know. The Gospels, of course, indicate that many thousands of people were doing this, but that can’t be right. It probably helps to recall that jesus became an itinerate preacher who left home and traveled around to preach his message; this would be the start of it. So going to be baptized by John in a sense is not any stranger than begging for a living and preaching, and we do have records of others doing that kind of thing.
Dr Ehrman, it seems to me that a lot of the rejection of critical scholarship comes from people who are convinced of the inerrancy of scripture and a fear that admitting even a shred of doubt in Biblical narratives will undermine a faith that is too narrow to admit any investigation . A friend and colleague of mine, a devout Christian, told me (an agnostic ) that he, a former evangelical, too used to fear admitting anything that would contradict Biblical literalism. Later as he earned an advanced degree at a public university (his undergraduate degree was from Wheaton) he said he had to reconcile the truths that science and scholarship established with his faith. He told me that he realized that having faith did not mean he had to park his brain in the Middle Ages. Maybe if more Christian believers would just become less attached to a book written thousands of years ago by disparate hands and more about the message itself there would be less hostility to inquiry.
And the world would be a better place….
Bart:
You say that “Most Gospel scholars, for example, if asked, would say that they are reasonably (or really!) certain that Jesus was given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea.”
Just how unique is your viewpoint that Jesus was not buried? Are you all alone on this one? It makes perfect sense to me the way you explain your reasoning in context of what we know about the Roman practice of crucifixion, but I’d just like to know if there is any other support for this view before I espouse it to others.
Thanks,
Jeff
It’s a small minority view. I first heard it from John Dominic Crossan and thought it was nuts. But as I looked into the ancient sources on crucifixion, I became convinced. (I’m not saying Jesus was never buried. The Romans almost certainly disposed of his remains at some point. But not that day and probably ont for a few days, and not in a marked tomb)
The only relevant way to look at what might have happened to Jesus’ body isn’t found in what Rome generally liked to do,but in the unique specifics of Jesus’ popular status,in the heart of Judaism,the Passover crowd and Pilate’s job.
Deuteronomy sternly forbade leaving a corpse hanging from a tree (a cross qualifies).Doing so cursed the entire land,that very special Holy Land God had promised Abraham that was,finally,inhabited by the Israelites.The Land of Israel would be profaned by hanging corpses left to rot,an abomination as insufferable to Jews as heresy became to be to Christians.
It’s one of the deepest religious concerns of Judaism.Jews bury quickly and mourn abjectly.No celebrations of life for them.
No exhibitions of “beautified” corpses.
Priests and Levites were forbidden contact with corpses.This was ignored by Christians when the Jews were deemed heard-hearted in the story of the Good Samaritan.
Secondly,with 400,000 Israelites going up to Jerusalem,Romans were already in high alert.There were zealots with daggers and talk of revolt.
It’s why Pilate crucified Jesus.Better safe than sorry.For this reason,too,Pilate couldn’t afford a crucial affront to the Israelites,in itself a warrantee of riots,particularly when an influential(wealthy)Sanhedrin member was requesting the body.
Good politics brought streaming taxes.
Pax Romana.
How did historical criticism affect your theology when you were (in your words) a liberal Christian before you lost your faith? You have said/written that you were convinced Jesus as a historical man was an apocalyptic prophet who did not proclaim His own divinity as per the Gospel of St. John. Did this de-construct your theological belief in Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity? Perhaps you became a unitarian. Or did you merely have parallel series in your head, one theological and the other historical, which you did not attempt to merge into a single metanarrative?
Yes, I left my trinitarian beliefs behind and came to think of Jesus as a human who revealed the true nature of God. I got to a point where I no longer thought of the Virgin birth etc. or the incarnation as historical; I doubted the resurrection, and certainly knew that it could not be “proved.”
Bart,
You say ” …I came to think of Jesus as a human who revealed the true nature of God”.
At what chronological point did this thinking crystallize?
Was this thinking part of the process of de-Christianization or did it remain with you to this day?
If so,how are we to understand the “God” component,and,moreover,”the nature of God”?
Once you came to think that the God of this world,who allowed senseless,unspeakable suffering,could not possibly be a God of love,the only God acceptable to you,there would have been no God-idea left for Jesus to emulate or represent.
Is it still your thinking that Jesus revealed the true (meaning good,compassionate,forgiving,
wholy beneficent)nature of the God you would have continued to believe in if such had been that God’s nature?
Conversely,in those NT passages where Jesus appears less than fully charitable,how is “God’s nature” to be understood?
The God I believed in in my earlier life was Absolute.Quite impersonal,as a matter of fact, but no less awesome,majestic,immense,or capable of every kind of nature.Yeah,the “wrathful” “loving” God of the HB,if you wish.
The “Everything and Everybody”,”Whoever I May Be”God of Exodus 3:14 ,the God embraced unconditionally by my grandfather.
Or is the question moot for you by now?
It was probably during my last 3-4 years of still going to church and finding Christian worshipo meaningful. At that point I didn’t have firm opnions about the nature of God, beyond being some kind of force of ultimate good in the univese. So I guess I was pretty much on the edge of agnosticism, but with an emotional/pesonal attachment to the Christian traditionand worship.
THE END TIME: John the Baptizer, Jesus, Paul, Jesus’ followers, and 2nd Temple Jews believed that G-D’s Kingdom would arrive within their own generation. These authentic preachers/prophets were sincere and believed they had a close relationship with their G-D. But they were wrong about the most important non-event in human history. G-D’s Kingdom (per the Jewish concept) did not arrive. So I ask, how/why did they get it wrong? Were they betrayed by their G-D? (”My G-D, My G-D, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me”) Can we trust the rest of their theological teachings (including an eternal life after death)?
I suppose it’ s the same question for nearly every religious believe that the vast majority of humans have gooten wrong — i.e., the vast majority of religious believfs. They have to be wrong (since most are at odds with one another; all pagans throughout history, e.g., would be wrong at th eoutset). Why did they get it wrong Religion utimately is a human construct and humans have almost always gotten ultimate reality wrong. We still do, as they’ll be poiting out in 200 years.
JESUS NOT BURIED:
1-Cor.15.4: he was buried (AD.54).
Mt.Mk.Lk.Jn: Joseph A. placed the body in a tomb.
Acts 13.28-29: After the execution, the Temple leaders took him down from the Cross and placed him in a tomb.
Mt 27.62-66, 28.11-15: Pilate had the tomb guarded for three days so his followers would not steal the body and claim he had risen. Then the guards were paid to say his followers stole the body.
Mt.Mk.Lk.Jn: Women went to prepare the body and found an empty tomb.
JOSEPHUS wrote (1st century) that even bodies of crucified criminals would be taken down and buried before sunset.
Whether the body was taken down on Friday (bribing officials?) or after rotting on the cross, the unanimous consensus above is that the body was buried. Have you discarded all the above documents? If these authors conspired to lie about the burial, we might as well can the NT.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I do think Jesus’ remains wer disposed of somehow, probably in some kind of mass grave or just a sallow ditch. Thta would be his “burial.” “Burial in antiquity could involve nothng more than having some handfuls of dirt thrown on the body. What I’m arging is that Jesus wsa not buried on the afternoon of his death in an actual tomb, but wsamore probably left to deco,pose o the cross for a while.
Bart
Still on Jesus’ burial,a couple of facts still intrigue me:
We have all that Gospel testimony,but, granted,we process all Biblical testimony historically,so nixing the Gospels’ detailed accounts is within such methodology.Moreover,perhaps it’s possible to reduce the Gospels’ testimony to just two,not four corroborating testimonies,on account of the Synoptics.
But do we have any written source that states Jesus was left on the cross overnight-or longer-on that Passover Shabbat,refusing Jewish pleas?
If we don’t have any other source or hint that this brazen decision by Rome is what was ultimately imposed on the Jews,how can we give more credence to a non-recorded,speculative theory that seems to ignore the tricky,fragile realpolitik of Rome occupied Israel?
I do understand that Rome had widespread heinous practices which they imposed because they could,but they were shrewd enough to navigate the peculiarities of Jewish religious practice to avoid riots and loss of revenue.
I also wonder about the scarcity of wood available in Judea,on which account the stake of the cross would remain available and ready for the next victim,whilst the crossbar would be discarded(probably used for firewood?).They simply needed the spots cleared efficiently and quickly enough to continue with their crucifixions’ flow as needed. Wouldn’t this have counted ,too?
According to Josephus, when Titus finally overthrew Jerusalem they lined the roads with crosses, so there appear to have been enough wood and space for many, many crosses. I don’t know of any evidence to indicate what they did with the corss beams (reused them? Left them at the place of crucifixion? I also don’t know of any evidence that the criminals were required to carry them, though it’ what we always say….)
Interesting!.
Titus though needed all the wood he could get for his war machinery.So if he crucified 500 Jews a day outside the walls of Jerusalem,he most likely had them taken down as soon as they died and reused the crosses.He couldn’t afford to keep adding hundreds of crosses daily in order to allow the corpses to rot and be eaten by animals.
Josephus says nothing about this one way or the other- ie,leaving them or taking them down-,though he reminds of the huge machinery and the soldiers’exhaustion.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we have no evidence that Jesus was left on the cross but for the generic fact that the Romans would do that,and yet we do have significant Gospel evidence,not just the deposition of the body but the entire tomb saga,plus historic deduction re: the overlapping holidays,the verge of insurrection,the power of the Sanhedrin,possible bribery and more telling us that,most likely,Jesus’ body was taken down.
Perhaps others crucified next to him were taken down too.Weren’t their legs broken?
Perhaps Arimathea asked Pilate not just to take Jesus’ body down,but to bury him in his own tomb,something Pilate might or might not have automatically allowed.
Here, I found it, one of the places I read about Jerusalem’s deforestation in 70AD. Granted, the author, though a historian, could be mistaken, and the times of Pilate and
of Titus were different.
“ In the preceding months, Titus had ordered all prisoners or defectors to be crucified. Five hundred Jews were crucified each day. The Mount of Olives and the craggy hills around the city were so crowded with crucifixes that there was scarcely room for any more, nor trees to make them.”
Simon Sebag Montefiore, “ Jerusalem:the Biography”
I now rest my case. 😊Eventually, it’s the image of a crucified Jesus being eaten by dogs one that I cannot abide. I trust my intuition on this one, as much as I trust the history of Judea in this period,the believability of its characters and the data in the Gospels, including the entombment.
“If these authors conspired to lie ”
who were the authors?
Exactly!
then after all the transitions over close to 1970 years & editorial bias
just open the gospel of google or tik tok and faith is funnier than SNL, headlines say, science proves god real, god behind the Big Bang, artificial intelligence has personal relationships with jesus, evolution was gods plan, I guess it’s a step forward when they acknowledge science, but what does this say about faith, scripture and god. It’s kinda hard believe Genesis and say science is correct.