Loading...We come now, at last, to the best argument in Craig Evans’ arsenal, in his attack on the views of Jesus’ burial that I set forth in in How Jesus Became God. Tomorrow I will deal with the second best – an argument from archaeology. Craig makes a somewhat bigger deal of the second best; in fact he throws off this, his best argument rather quickly. But it’s the most important point of the many (many!) issues he raises. The argument is this. In one passage of Josephus’s writings, in an extremely brief few words (it’s only half of one sentence) (this is the only half sentence in the entire corpus not only of Josephus’s 30 volumes of writing but in the entire corpus of pagan and Jewish literature of all of antiquity that makes this claim) he explicitly indicates that Jews buried victims of crucifixion before sunset. Craig’s commentary on the passage amounts only to two sentences.
At the end of the day I don’t find even this piece of evidence persuasive, and in this post I will explain why. This will be a long one.
First I quote the passage, also found in Craig’s essay (pp. 78-79). This is in reference to events transpiring in Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman War (forty years after Jesus’ death), and to violent cruelties happening within the city before the Romans arrived:
“They [this is referring to the Idumeaens, a group of foreigners that Josephus considers impious and evil] actually went so far in their impiety as to cast out their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews are so careful about burial rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset” (Jewish War, 4.317)
This would be a good time to review what I said several posts ago about the need to be consistently critical when we are dealing with our sources. At every point the historian – if she or he wants to be a historian and not an apologist for a particular point of view, ideology, or theology – has to subject the historical sources at our disposal to critical evaluation to determine if and how far they are historically trustworthy. And so here: is Josephus telling the truth when he says that Jews (sometimes? usually? always?) buried victims of crucifixion before sunset on the days of their deaths? If so, we have a very neat indeed tie-in to the Gospels of the New Testament, where the otherwise unknown Joseph of Arimathea does just that with the body of Jesus.
To evaluate Josephus’s comment, we should first consider its context. The quotation above occurs in a passage in the Jewish War when there was terrible infighting within Jerusalem, as the Romans were bearing down on the city, and the leaders of one of the conflicting parties invited the foreign Idumeans into the city. They came in and brought horrible slaughter and bloodshed with them. It’s a complicated historical situation and not easy to summarize neatly. You can read the account here: http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/war-4.htm
Josephus wants to stress that those whom the Idumeans killed were dishonored: they were not given decent burials. He contrasts this heinous behavior with that of “the Jews,” who allegedly buried even crucified victims in accordance with the Law of Moses, before sunset.
Several things to say here, each individual point being important, in my opinion, but they need to be considered as a whole:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Jews burying their dead,even crucified dead,is not a mark of ” moral superiority”.It’s their religion.They did not flaunt it.In fact,more often than not,they hid.
In spite of the fact that many tyrants of all stripes crucified,the Jews Josephus mentions could have been crucified only by the Romans. Why did they *had*to have been crucified ” by the Jews(!)” to have been buried by the Jews? This detour doesn’t seem necessary.Josephus speaks clearly about the Jews burying their dead (meaning, dead Jews),even the crucified by non-Jews.There was no reason for Josephus to go back to Alexander Yanay at the time of telling how things were when he himself lived.It is anachronistic to involve such earlier data in the specifics of Jesus’ crucifixion as told by Josephus.
Interesting about the Idumeans.The Herods were Idumeans.Though Herod Antipas was the Gallilean Tetrarch,he exhibited as much barbarity as Herod the Great.
As Luke tells it, it was Herod Antipas who had Jesus put on a purple robe,for his claim of being King of the Jews.Herod would have been a perfect candidate for informing Pilate,without incriminating the Jews,of Jesus’ pretenses.
The amount of evidence for Jesus’ burial way exceeds the claim that Romans always did the same, everywhere.
Had Jesus been left to rot on the cross,day after day,we would have heard about it.The ghoulish spectacle would have destroyed all faith and hope.
The Jews would have been undoubtedly blamed for the extra horror,now with the claim that their demonic powers surpassed the Devil himself.
We would *definitely*have heard about it.
Or:so shattering would have been the end of Jesus,that no apologetics could have neutralised the terror.There would have been no explanation.Not even the monstrous Israelite God the -Father- could have allowed that.Then,if God wasn’t there,the Messiah wasn’t there either.Christianity would not have been born.
If we are going to pronounce judgement on this matter based on a generic unproven immutable rule,we must follow the hypothesis through all its likely consequences.
Personally,not only I believe in Josephus’ testimony,however brief,but also in Arimathea’s intervention,and ultimately,that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.The only debatable issue is the sword thrust,for which, just as with Josephus,we have only the one non-observed testimony of John,and what it might or not have done, if it happened.
Eventually,there was no need for an empty tomb to propose the Resurrection,even as Arimathea’s actions,amounting to a Mitzvah-a deed of kindness-might have included relocating the body for other, more radical reasons.
One point that hasn’t been mentioned, unless I missed it, is that this was Passover and there would have been many farmers and herdsmen making their annual trip to Jerusalem to make an offering in the temple. Such people would probably not have understood the distinction between someone executed by the Jewish authorities and someone executed by the Roman authorities; they would have just seen unburied and unclean bodies on public display on a major Jewish holiday. The Romans had reluctantly taken down images of their emperor; could they have equally reluctantly taken down executed criminals for the holiday?
If Jesus was really convicted of claiming to be the king of the Jews (a view I’m inclined to but not convinced of), then this argument holds; Rome would definitely have left him there to rot. If he was convicted of some other crime, such as disturbing the peace (particularly at Passover, a very volatile time), then Pilate might have said, oh ok, you can have him – but that contradicts the gospels which say Pilate labeled Jesus “king of the Jews.”
But while you say it was a time of “relative peace,” I think it was more “relative” and less “peace.” Pilate, after all, was in Jerusalem precisely because it was a volatile time of year when things could easily get out of hand. He had already put down one potential insurrection. Nor did he care about soothing Jewish sensibilities except when necessary for the same reason: to keep things from getting out of hand. I find it much more reasonable to hold that, whatever Jesus was crucified for, Pilate was going to leave him and the others there to remind everyone: Do not mess with Rome.
Professor, the Testimonium Flavium … as we have it today, probably resulted from scribal corruption. But, that instance aside how “fraught” with alteration do we believe Josephus works were? Compared perhaps to the NT?
Unfortunately it’s very hard to say, since we don’t have multiple manuscripts in the same way. But what’s clear is that for most of the writings of Josephus, there wouldn’t be overpowering reasons for a scribe to alter his words. (For many parts of the NT, there were definitely reasons).
So either philo and josephus were both exaggerating and the 4 gospel writers made up a story that all their contemporaries would have known to be impossible or the romans allowed the jews (who they were allied with) to burying the dead in accordance with their own ancient laws .
I think the second option is more likely
On my long (eternal)plane ride to Israel I kept reading about the spear thrust,and,if it happened (only John tells),what it might have done to Jesus.
Reading scientific opinions,one cardiologist explained that if blood and water came out, then,first,the wound occurred in the pericardial cavity,and,secondly,if such flow occurred, Jesus was not dead yet when he was taken down.
Let’s assume,then,that he wasn’t dead when he was taken down.(I believe he was taken down,for many reasons)
Nevertheless,this doesn’t mean Jesus eventually survived the ordeal,even if Nicodemus,a physician,could have applied tons of healing salves and herbs.The unexpected spear could have caused his death after all.
Now,if the conspiracy theorists for once are right,he was smuggled out of the tomb,healed some,and many days later did appear to some of those that believed he appeared to them,excluding Paul😊.
Then,either hid wherever for the rest of his life,or still died of his wounds(maybe the scourging was more lethal than a rope-strung six hours of crucifixion,causing sepsis).To top this conspiratorial dream,the same kindness Arimathea showed could have also been granted to the entire family-even if they lived in Galilee-by interring their bones in Jerusalem,in that famous Talpiot tomb.
Sorry,couldn’t help it.I know how nuts all this sounds.
He’s with Elvis and Jim Morrison.
Even if the doubts you cast upon this excerpt are reasonable enough, this extraction from Josephus creates enough of an open wound that the supplement of faith will be able to lodge itself in. In other words, even if you do not believe the straightforward historical perspective should favor the assertion that Christ was buried, this has (for me at least) opened up a certain historical indeterminacy, in which it is plausible to believe that Christ was buried. Since we do possess an excerpt that, on a prima facie reading, coincides with the Gospel narrative, it is not unreasonable to believe that Christ was buried, looking at the historical evidence.
I don’t think Professor Ehrman is arguing that Jesus was not buried. He makes it pretty clear that he thinks Jesus may well have been buried (thrown in a mass grave with other criminals only after having been exposed on the cross for several days).
Professor Ehrman is arguing that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was taken down from the cross on the same day he died by a member of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea and buried in an expensive tomb designed to be closed with a great stone.
Buried? Probably. Buried on the same day with great honour, reversing the Roman penalty of exposing the crucified body for days? Extremely unlikely.
I find your arguments mostly convincing. But I think there is a relatively weak point. That is the claim that Jesus was crucified specifically for calling himself “King of the Jews”. I agree that that is a plausible explanation, perhaps the most plausible. But the sources are weak. We have the gospels, of course, but these paint a confusing picture (concerning the reason for the crucifixion). The following, for instance, is mostly consistent with both the gospels and what we know about Pilate: The Sadducees go to Pilate to complain that Jesus was a blasphemer (or some similar claim). Pilate does not care. The Sadducees insist. Pilate loses his patience and orders Jesus crucified just to get rid of the problem, he does not care about yet another Jew anyway. Pilate is known for executing people for no good reason.
Pilate is? Do you have some examples in mind?
The text from Philo which you quoted to us a few days ago:
“… and his [Pilate’s] continual murders of people untried and uncondemned … ”
Perhaps not quite the same, true. But pretty close.
From Philo we may imagine Pilate killing with his own hands, perhaps in a fit of rage (do we know?).
Jesus was condemned by Pilate, not actually killed.
My point is that Pilate did not need good reasons to condemn or kill, so perhaps he did not have a good reason to condemn Jesus. Perhaps it is a mistake to look for rational motives in someone like Pilate.
It seem to me that Rome had good reason to prevent people who had claimed to be the King of Israel from being taken down. At least half the point of a crucifixion was its propaganda value.
Were you there? This makes a lot of assumptions. Flimsy ones at that.
Were you there? This makes a lot of assumptions. Flimsy ones at that.
I wasn’t there. And either was anyone else who has written about it, starting with Mark!
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
Would the Roman authorities in the time of Jesus have been aware of the prophesy of the Messiah, and its importance to Jews? If so, it seems to me that the Romans would have been very sensisitive to a Jew claiming to be a King, and would have reponded in the harshest possible terms. It does not seem to me that they would be sympathetic to Jewish religious traditions, and consequently they would not surrender Jesus body for prompt burial.
It’s hard to know; we don’t have any records about anything like that.
Dr. Bart, what is the importance, and what are the implications
if we accept that Jesus was left to rot on the Cross?
Well, one thing that would matter would be that there was no tomb from which he emerged some 36 hours later. He would have still been on the cross at the time.
Dr.Bart, this will be my last comment on this topic. I am a monotheist agnostic, so I don’t have a dog in this fight. Two examples of retrieving executed bodies:
1. Josephus’ Life 76 –”I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”
2. The followers of John the Baptizer obtained permission to take his body and bury it.
And lastly, surely the anti-Jesus Jews would have loved to broadcast “the rotting corpse” far and wide to advance their narrative that Jesus was a fraud.
Thank you for being patient with me.
That’s right. In Josephus’s case the rescinded the punishment (not in Jesus’s — he was crucified to death, and the punishment included being left on the cross for days); John the Baptist was not crucified by Romans for crimes against the state (not crucified; not by Romans; not for insurrection). My discussions are all about Roman practices of crucifixion, which is a specific case with it’s own policies/practices
The claims that Pilate crucified Jesus only reluctantly and that he reacted sympathetically to an important person who was a follower of Jesus form parts of a coherent story, I think. Coherent isn’t necessarily credible, of course
1. Is arimathea to be identified with Ramathayim near modern day Jerusalem? The initial a- would be a Hebrew definite article which wouldn’t usually occur on place names, but apparently an early textual variant with initial rough breathing is attested, which would correspond well to the Hebrew article ha-
2. If the writer of Mark is known to have not known a lot about Palestinian geography, and Arimathea is to be identified with a known city (all of the candidate towns are very small and comparatively unimportant), why would he have chosen arimathea as a place of origin for a fictional character? How would he have known about Ramathayim or Ramlah?
1. I can’t recall if there was an anient town of that name there then or not. But a- is not the Hebrew article (it would be ha-) 2. I’m afraid there’s no way to know. Sometimes authors just come up with a name for the sake of verisimilitude.