Loading...
Here is a section from my book How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2014) that deals with the question of whether Jesus was actually given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea. At this point of my discussion I am not looking into the question of whether it is plausible that Jesus would be buried on the day of his execution given what we know from other historical sources, about Roman practices, but at general problems with the reporting in the Gospels.
******************************
According to our earliest account, the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was buried by a previously unnamed and unknown figure, Joseph of Arimathea, “a respected member of the council” (Mark 15:43) – that is, a Jewish aristocrat who belonged to the Sanhedrin, which was the ruling body made up of “chief priests, elders, and scribes” (Mark 14:53). According to Mark 15:43, Joseph summoned up his courage and asked Pilate for Jesus’ body. When Pilate learned that Jesus was already dead, he granted Joseph his wish, and he took the body from cross, wrapped it in a linen shroud, “laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock,” and then rolled a stone in front of it (15:44-47). Mary Magdalene and another woman named Mary saw where this happened (15:48).
Let me stress that all of this – or something very much like it – needs to happen within Mark’s narrative in order to make sense of what happens next, namely that on the day after the Sabbath Mary Magdalene and two other women come to the tomb and find it empty. If there were no tomb for Jesus, or if no one knew where the tomb was, the bodily resurrection could not viably be proclaimed. You have to have a known tomb.
But was there one? Did Joseph of Arimathea really bury Jesus?
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!
This book should have been declared “The Ultimate Masterpiece” by Federal Law upon its release, and it should be taught in every school in the world. To put it in chess terms, it is Bart Ehrman’s “Immortal”.
Bart,
1) Why couldn’t Mark’s JoA, who condemned Jesus to death, be courageously asking Pilate for Jesus’ body, not out of mercy, but simply to make sure the body was buried before sunset as required by Jewish law? If this is not Mark’s intent, why in your view does Mark preface JoA courageously asking Pilate for Jesus’ body with this statement: “When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,…” (Mk 15:42)? Mark seems to be conveying the idea that Pilate doesn’t normally grant such requests for a crucified body, so it required some courage by the respected JoA to ask in light of the special occasion.
2) What do you roughly put the odds at that the burial story in Acts 13:28-29 *and* an accompanying discovered empty tomb story lies behind the creedal tradition in 1 Cor 15:4? You say it’s a “possibility” in your writeup, but I’m just curious how likely you think it is that Paul knows of *discovered* empty tomb story.
1. Yes, that is what Mark has in mind probably. 2. I don’t really know. The story in Acts 13 was written decades after 1 Cor. 15, if that matters. I don’t know if Paul knows about an empty tomb.
Why “Arimathea?” Nobody seems to know where that is.
I’ve toyed with the idea that it comes from its etymological roots (“good disciple”). Some years after I proposed that to some fellow scholars, I saw that Richard Carrier, of all people, was arguing for it. I’m sure he came up with it on his own though. I wasn’t convinced of it at the time, but it’s true no one really quite knows what to make of it.
PoeAI
Some theories suggest that Arimathea may have been located in the Judean hills, possibly near Jerusalem, while others propose that it may have been located in Galilee or even outside of Palestine. The Gospel of Luke describes Arimathea as a “city of the Jews,” which suggests that it was a Jewish settlement, but beyond that, there are no clear indications of its location. Ultimately, the exact location of Arimathea remains unknown.
While the location of Arimathea remains uncertain, there have been several theories and speculations as to where it might have been located. Some scholars believe that the name “Arimathea” may be a corruption of the Hebrew phrase “ha-ramataim,” meaning “the two heights,” which could suggest that the town was located in a hilly region.
One theory proposes that Arimathea may have been located near Ramallah in the West Bank, which was historically a center of Jewish population. Others have suggested that it may have been located in the southern region of Judea, near Hebron or Bethlehem.
Despite the uncertainty around its location, the story of Joseph of Arimathea and his role in Jesus’ burial has had a significant impact on Christian tradition and the development of the Christian faith.
I think some allowance for hyperbole needs to be given when reading “the whole of the sanhedrin”.
When Jesus heals the sick in ch1 Mark says “the whole town gathered at his door”. Or in ch15 “the whole cohort was called” to mock and beat him. It needn’t be taken to literally mean every last single member.
Also in Matthew after the entry into Jerusalem the herodians/pharisees/scribes and sadducees all try but fail to trap jesus in his words. In Mark’s version of this account however there is one scribe at the end who has a pleasant conversation and Jesus says to him “you are not far from the kingdom of god”.
If there is clear evidence that as time goes on there is a “tendency to find ‘good guys’ among the ‘bad guys’ of the stories”, isn’t the above clear evidence that Mark is an edited version of Matthew?
It’s possible. But one has to look at the preponderance of the evidence, not isolated bits here and there.
Did the ancient Hebrews ever speak of a new day “dawning” at sunset? Surely the Greeks wouldn’t. This word is used by Luke to describe the time of day that Joseph of Arimathea supposedly buried Jesus’s corpse. He says, “It was the day of preparation and the sabbath was beginning.” Luke 23:54 In my NRSV, the note for “was beginning” says “Gk (was dawning)”. The NRSV fixed this odd wording. Was Luke maybe ignorant of the Hebrew day starting at sunset?? Luke is retelling the story from Mark in which Mark 15:40 says, “When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,” Joseph asked for the body and buried it. Or is “dawning” an example of a possible scribal copying error?
Ah, that’s a good question. I don’t know. I’ve never thought about it before, but it’s a weird way of putting it (I think). In the context, though, I don’t think it can mean that it happened just before dawn — unless Luke thought it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to show up at Pilate’s palace to bang on his door with a request at 4:00 in the morning. (And that the women were following Joseph around in the dark.) So I think it really must mean something like the NRSV translates it.
Yes, I agree. None of this would be happening after dark. Luke (if he knew Jewish customs) must have understood all this action to have happened on Friday before the sun went down. No Jews should have been burying bodies (or following others who were) after the sabbath started at sun set. The story is apparently to be understood as saying that on the day after Passover — in the few hours between 3 pm, when Jesus died, and sundown — Joseph went to Pilate, persuaded him, then went and had his people physically get the body, transport it to his new tomb, hastily wrap the body in burial cloths, roll the stone, etc. Rush, rush, rush. If any of this truly happened at all, it would have had to be done before the sabbath deadline.
Then there would be 24 hrs of no action, until very early Sunday, when the women could re-emerge and gather to go tend to the body. The “three days” between death and discovery of resurrection is described as being only 40 hours or so.
Excellent post. I think your understanding of “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, *then* he was raised on the third day” to mean he was raised on the third day after his burial, not necessarily after his death. My apologies if wrong. You also posted that Jesus followers fled to Galilee immediately after Jesus was crucified and that seems plausible to me. But they would have to have returned to Jerusalem shortly thereafter to establish the Jerusalem church so that Paul’s persecution of that church occurred during first years after Jesus’ crucifixion. Question1: why would they establish their church in Jerusalem? and Question2: why would James, the brother of Jesus, be allowed to rule that church since he wasn’t involved in Jesus’ ministry? One possibility is they wanted out of a life of back breaking labor in the Galilee and, being elders in a religious movement so they wouldn’t have to work, they could enjoy the good life in cosmopolitan Jerusalem free from the slums of Galilee. That raises the disturbing possibility that they invented the resurrection story (to keep their religious movement going) out of their own self-interests.
1. Right! Paul converted about three years later, so I wouldn’t take that as evidence that they returned to Jerusalem right away. A standard explanatoin for the return is that they thought Jesus had been taken up to heaven and was to come back in judgment, and in the Old Testament the expectation is that God would return to Zion. So they wanted to be there. 2. It’s usually assumed that he had a leg-up on everyone else, including Peter, because of his sibling relationship. But it is a bit odd. Paul indicates that James had a post-resurrectoin appearance, and so presumably that was when he converted. I’d love to have a conversation with th eguy some time. But my sense is that the urban areas were much harder to survive in than rural for poor folk, since there was no way to forage for food, etc.
Thanks for the standard explanation on the Jerusalem return. I think scholars need another possibility. The apostles of Jesus wanted to keep the movement going so they wouldn’t have to return to a life of hard labor. And they wanted the good life in Jerusalem. To do that they had to invent a reason to gain new converts and keep the donors committed to the movement. So, they said Jesus was the Davidic messiah and, to counter critics, they said he was resurrected. Critics would ask, where is he? so they said he was taken up to heaven. Then he could return shortly and that’s consistent with the imminent apocalypse. Critics would ask why he was crucified so they came up with the idea he was a sacrifice for the sins of the world. In this theory, the Jerusalem church invented `Christianity’ for their own financial benefit. It’s kind of a `follow the money’ theory but we know the doctrines of the resurrection, ascension, and atonement did not come from Jesus nor Paul but from Jesus top apostles. It cannot be assumed Peter, James, John, etc., were moral people. They did create `Christianity’ but their motives should be suspect.
Yes, that other possibility has been around since the first critical study of the historical Jesus appeared, by Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 1770s!
I am following the logic of your argument, but if the burial of those crucified was an anomaly in the Roman Empire, why do you imagine it would be invented within the oral tradition in the first place? Would it not be more efficacious to construct another story of the resurrection that is apropos to the realities of Roman crucifixion?
My apologies for jumping ahead in the sequence of the argument, but the two parts are interconnected.
I’d say it’s always hard to know why one kind of story was invented instead of another — just as today, why *this* rumor instead of some other? And why does anyone find this particular reason plausible? In the ancient context, my sense is that the vast majority of the Roman population would not have known how Roman crucifixion worked. 80-90% of the empire was rural, and crucifixions only happened in some cities. I wish we knew more about who knew what where….
Professor, does not the story line of Joseph of Arimathea asking the Prefect for the body demonstrate background knowledges that no one took down a Roman crucifixion victim without permission?
Not necessarily, I’d say. It may presuppose, for example, that if you asked nicely they’d let you. (In the context of the story, it may well simply be assumed that as Son of God Jesus would be given special treatment? That’s certainly how people have read it over the years, as implausible as it would be on some reflection…)
Bart, you raise a valid point in that in earlier traditions, it was fine to state that the Council arranged for Jesus to be buried but as time went on, it might appear as if the Council were capable of doing good and perhaps it is better to single out one person out of the many rather than give credit to the whole bunch of them.
Great post Bart! Can I ask also: I know you recommend NRSV but do you recommend NRSVue? Or the classic one you worked on? Dr Henry Bond.
I haven’t examined the NRSVue closely, but it was done by fine scholars so I’m sure they’ve worked hard to make it better. My sense is that it was mainly tweaks, but there are doubtless some changes that matter. In those cases they almost certainly were basing their judgments on scholarship — so I’d say go for it.
Gospel crucifixion accounts were written over forty years after the events described. The authors likely knew the gist of the story but not the details. What evidence is there in Paul’s epistles that the story was embellished during his lifetime? How could he fail to mention such fundamental changes as resurrection appearance locations?
All gospels put initial appearances in Jerusalem. Luke does not mention any in Galilee and Mark just reports that someone at the tomb said that Jesus was going there. Matthew says that, after Jesus’s appearance at the tomb, the disciples “made their way to Galilee” and John says that Jesus appeared there “some time later”.
Although Sanhedrin condemnation was officially unanimous, how could dissident supporters have safely objected at Jesus’s trial? Why trust the disciples when one of them had just betrayed Jesus? How would the disciples know who buried Jesus other than that it was some Temple official?
Why suppose that Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate alone rather than the High Priest asked permission to remove all three bodies? If Joseph got permission to bury Jesus from the High Priest, how would the disciples have known this detail?
Are there not reasonable explanations for gospel accounts?
Paul wasn’t telling the stories, and so probably didn’t mention the differences, or possibly know about them. There are no appearances in Jerusalem in either Mark or Matthew, which is explicit they all happened in Galilee. (Luke is explicit that they were NOT there, and that the disciples never went there afterward).
I remember watching a debate you had with Mike Licona years ago about the resurrection appearances. He said they were not contradictory because of time compression. That was one reason he gave.
“Compression” can explain why there is a contradiction, but it doesn’t show that there is *not* a contradiction.
“Compression” can explain why there is a contradiction, but it doesn’t show that there is *not* a contradiction.
Given that oral traditions spread the word for decades, and as you often point out, even the telephone game is too simplistic an analogy. How is it even possible that so many stories in the Gospels are similar, even if details are changed? Is Mark the key because even if there were other narratives, Mark is the one that wrote down what he heard? (If so why would John’s gospel have so many similarities in narrative.)
It’s mainly because Matthew and Luke acquired their stories from Mark) John’s Gospel is similar in content only broadly (Jesus teaches and does miracles) until the Passion narrative; and there the sequence is probably the same, in my judgment, because taking them out of the normal sequence wouldn’t make a lot of sense (he can’t have the last meal until after being in Jerusalem; he can’t be betrayed until after the last meal; he can’t go on trial until… etc.)
I have a question about the criteria of dissimilarity you’ve written about thats sort of the same vein as this. What’s the thinking behind why details such as Jesus speaking to the 12 disciples about the future kingdom and them ruling in it were left intact, since Mark knew and wrote about Judas’ betrayal. Was it simply overlooked? Thanks!
My sense is that those who were passing on the traditions were not deeply analyzing them and scrutinizing them the way scholars have done over the past three centuries, so a lot of things were left that were no consistent. That may seem weird, but it’s no weirder, I think, than today, when people tell the stories of Jesus’ birth from both matthew and luke and not realize they are at odds with each other.
Technically, Mark never says the tomb was new or empty. Mark only says it was hewn from rock and big enough for 4 people to enter at once. Matthew, Luke, and John only later say it was new and unused, implying it was empty of any other corpse. Mark Goodacre has a good article on this.
Yes, that’s right. If I wrote otherwise, I mis-wrote. Oh boy does that happen sometimes…
Same here. The expression “empty tomb” is so commonly used for this scene, it’s hard not to use the expression and it’s easy to overlook that technically Mark doesn’t say that. I didn’t point this out to pick nits. It’s a very significant “minor agreement” of Luke to Matt. It’s in the Passion Narrative, so we shouldn’t attribute such a minor agreement to Q as Q overlap. It doesn’t look like it was caused by textual corruption of a later scribe harmonizing Luke to Matt (or vice versa). It’s unlikely to be coincidence that Matt and Luke independently came up with such a detail. And I doubt it can be attributed to oral traditions about the scene because it’s such a helpful detail yet Mark doesn’t mention it. I think the easiest explanation is simply that Luke knew Matt when he wrote. And that John knows the Synoptics. If this was the only place we find such a minor agreement, sure, maybe it was oral tradition or coincidence or textual corruption. But there are hundreds of such places. Curious to hear your thoughts on the minor agreements. I don’t recall you addressing these on the blog.
I think minor agreements arise for a number of reasons: 1. Sometimes Matthew and Luke simply edited Mark the same way (as when they leave out a statement that is weird or embarassing; 2. Sometimes they are because of ealry scribal harmonizations of the texts; 3. Sometimes they are because we don’t have the version of Mark available to either Matthew or Luke, and it may be that the versions they used had agreements that our version of Mark does not.
In your book “how jesus became god” do you discuss the title “the ressurection” ?
“i am the ressurection” is “the ressurection” a title in john? is it used for any roman emperor?
I don’t talk aobut it’s usage in John as a title, no. Roman emperors were never spoken of that way because they were not thought to have been resurrected. They stayed dead and their spirits ascended to heaven. “Resurrection” refers to the body coming back to life and being made immortal.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think “blaming the Jews” is more a function of exonerating the ruling Romans so as not to incur their wrath and to make the religion more palatable to Roman citizens rather than antisemitism for no obvious reasons? Jesus was thoroughly Jewish as were his disciples and early followers – there doesn’t appear to be any reason to blame the Jews other than their proximity to the crucifixion being a convenient way to let the Romans off the hook.
I think in that context the two went hand in hand: blaming (those wicked) Jews and exonerating (those threatening) Romans. They worked together in tandem. Jews came to be blamed primarily, though, because they rejected the claim that Jesus was the messiah and the followers of Jesus lashed out at them for their ignorance and hard-heartedness.
Could it be that Isaiah 53 is responsible for quite some ‘reversed engineering’ in the NT ?
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”
Many christians explain it like ‘grave with the wicked = crucified with two murderers’ and ‘with the rich in his death = tomb from the rich Joseph from Arimathaea’ or something along those lines. It seems so ‘one dimensional’ to fit within a certain narrative.
Isaiah 53 is very explicit that the ‘servant’ was undergoing his trial without saying anything (in his own defense).
“yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”
Strangely when one reads the gospels Jesus DOES speak out both before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. Sometimes a sentence or a few words , but in John a pretty meaningful conversation with Pilate .
I think Isaiah 53 is responsible for some of the ‘literal’ inserted events in the gospel, since the writers wanted to create a fulfilled prophecy
Yes, that is widely and often argued, for just the points you’re making. The truly weird thing is that Isaiah 53 is never once *quoted* in the New Testament to show the messiah had to die. Odd, since that’s how it was used throughout the ages…. In the NT, it is used as a source of allusion for thinking about the crucifixion, not as cited prophetic proof.
Hi Bart,
You are using the meaning of ‘all’ in your arguments, but there is an issue here:
“All” in logic and law means literally “all”. But does “all” in stories mean literally “all”?
In Arabic, “all” in law does mean “all”. But in stories and rhetoric speeches it doesn’t necessary mean literally “all”, but it might mean “the majority” or even other meanings indicated by the context. I think the Aramaic language is the same, and I assume that this apply to almost every language. So, for example, in English, the newspaper might report that the national hero has entered the hall, and “all” cheered him and was happy to see him.
The word “all” (and “everyone”) here doesn’t really mean “all” and “everyone” but it would mean the majority.
The Gospel of Mark wasn’t a book of law, and Mark wasn’t a professional historian, but he was almost a street storyteller, and that need to be added in the interpretation parameters.
I”m not sure which of my statements using the term “all” you’re referring to.
In the post here:
# “the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them – all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death”.
# “they all condemned him as deserving death.”
# “In other words, according to Mark himself, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’ death just the night before he was crucified”.
###
My arguments here is that in stories and rhetoric speeches, “all” (everyone, the whole, the people, the soldiers, etc.) might not necessary mean the literal, but it might mean the majority, or it can be an exaggeration for the event, and this would depend on the context and the author’s style.
I can argue the same for Mark 14:50: “Then everyone deserted him and fled”. I don’t think Mark put this line with an intention of the literal meaning. This line might be related to many of the twelve, but not necessary to the general followers and fans. Also, Mark after this line spoke about Peter disowning Jesus [for an obvious reason] but Peter here didn’t flee.
As I said, Mark wasn’t a professional historian, but he was almost like a street storyteller.
It’s certainly possible to say that an author doesn’t mean what he says, sure. But normally we have to find some indications of it in his text rather than think that me must have done so for reasons of our own. To say that we know an author’s intentions (i.e. what was going on in his head) is obviously highly problematic.
27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters; for it is written,
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’
29 Peter said to him, “Even though all fall away,[h] I will not.” 30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same.
“and they all LEFT him AND FLED”
isnt that fulfilling what was predicted ? peter fell away like the rest of them.
the sheppard is struck and the sheep scattered.
peter says all will fall away , but he will not. highlighting peters failure seems to be an important theme of mark.
isnt it not suprising that none of them die with jesus?
so all must mean all, right?
all said
“even thought i must die WITH u….”
so All said this, but no one could argue that even one from them died with jesus.
“Also, Mark after this line spoke about Peter disowning Jesus [for an obvious reason] but Peter here didn’t flee.”
////
16And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy.
17But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.
////
But he denied it, saying, “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” And he went out into the forecourt.[a] Then the cock crowed.[b] 69 And the female servant, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and you talk like one.”[c] 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, “I do not know this man you are talking about.”
when peter is in danger he becomes an apostate. so he did fall away.
Yes, Peter saved himself from the noose by uttering words against Jesus. But I don’t think that this impact the argument above: Mark was almost like a street storyteller, therefore, exaggerations should be expected and they shouldn’t be taken literally. As an example, Peter did save himself by uttering these words, but he didn’t flee.
peace bro
“As an example, Peter did save himself by uttering these words, but he didn’t flee.”
but isnt mark having his jesus predict that peter does not risk his life? so most likely from marks perspective, peter wouldnt have been near burial cite or crucifixion. with all these disassociations from jesus it probably means that peter is fleeing from putting his life at risk?
31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same.
unless this is all markan exaggeration to paint bad picture of peter?
Peace bro,
Now … I probably didn’t explain the meaning of “normal exaggeration” properly. What I meant by “normal exaggeration” is the normal speech that normal people use in normal social gathering that all do understand that it shouldn’t be taken literally. Maybe a better terminology is “figures of speech” or even “hyperbole”.
For example, a mother talking about her son and says: he is really loved by “everyone”. “Everyone” here is just a figure of speech that we understand that it doesn’t mean the literal. But if the police were making an investigation regarding her son then the police will not accept these figures of speech, but the police will insist on the mother to explain exactly the meaning of “everyone” here.
My argument here is that Mark wasn’t a professional historian but almost like a street storyteller, and I think you are able to see the street storytellers and their style of speech and probably you would recognize that many of their words are just figures of speech that are clearly understood that it shouldn’t be taken literally.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
According to Mark’s narrative, Joseph of Arimathea was one of the members of the Sanhedrin who had called for Jesus’s death but then he went to Pilate and asked him for Jesus’s body in order to bury him.
Why doesn’t Mark realize the *contradiction*?
Why doesn’t he try to *harmonize* it?
Thanks
I wish we knew. (It’s also interesting that 99.9% of Mark’s readers haven’t noticed the contradiction either!)
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I have read that Joseph of Arimathea may be an invented character and that the word Arimathea could be a botched etymological derivation from “best desciple”.
Why would the Gospels authors have invented his town of origin?
Why not give him the name of a city that already existed, in order to give credibility to the story?
In order to provide verisimilitude for the account, precisely so readers won’t question it.
What’s your take on this?
Thanks
I”ve wondered about the best disciple view too. I almost put it in one of my books but then decided I wasn’t cnvinced.. One reason to invent the name of a town is to provide a concrete detail that makes it all the more believable. It’s a literary device called “verisimilitude”
Why not give Joseph the name of a city that *already existed* instead of a *pun* on the phrase “best disciple”?
Thanks
I’d say it is almost always hard to know why an author chooses to do what she or he does. They make a decision. In this case, it was a very effective one, since virtually every reader of the accounts since then has been convinced that the man really existed.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
According to Luke 23:51 Arimathea was “a town of Judea”.
What about the identification with either Ramleh or Ramathaim-Zophim, where David came to Samuel in the First Book of Samuel, 1 Sam. 1:1, 19?
Thanks
Yes, there have been various proposals along this line. The problem is that these town apparently no longer existed in Jesus’ day (a thousand years after David).