Loading...One of the most pressing historical questions surrounding the death of Jesus is whether Jesus really was given a decent burial, as the NT Gospels indicate in their story of Joseph of Arimathea. Even though the story that Joseph, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, received permission to bury Jesus is multiply attested in independent sources (see, e.g., Mark 15:43-47; John 19:38-42), scholars have long adduced reasons for suspecting that the account may have been invented by Christians who wanted to make sure that they could say with confidence that the tomb was empty on the third day. The logic is that if no one knew for sure where Jesus was buried, then no one could say that his tomb was empty; and if the tomb was not empty, then Jesus obviously was not physically raised from the dead. And so the story of the resurrection more or less required a story of a burial, in a known spot, by a known person. For some historians, that makes the story suspicious.
There are real grounds for the suspicion.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
What do you make of William Lane Craig’s point that;
‘As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention’
I don’t see the logic of it in the least!!
It’s William Lane Craig. The dude thinks that you can mathematically prove Jesus’ resurrection. Logic need not apply.
If this were some alternate universe, you could’ve written a book called “Did Apollonius Of Tyana Exist?” and Craig would’ve debated with you over the historicity of Apollonius’ virgin birth being greeted by dancing swans.
Regarding William Lane Craig,
i found a curious post on his website where he claims that Ehrman accepts the four historical facts that he uses for the argument for the resurrection of Jesus from the dead: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-scholarship-and-jesus-resurrection
Can anyone say anything about it?
I must say, I think it’s pretty funny that evangelical scholars constantly and consistently bash me for talking about what most critical scholars think and conclude, in light of the kind of rhetoric you find coming from William Craig! In any event, I’ve done a lot more research since I had my debate with him about the resurrection, and since I’ve written and published on the topic. I would say that now, based on my further research, I agree with about 1.5 of his 4 points that he thinks almost everyone agrees with. It is absolutely true that some of the disciples (I’m not sure it was all 11) had a radical turn around after the death of Jesus because they believed he was raised from the dead; and it is true, in my judgment, that this belief was inspired by the fact that one, two, or possibly more (but I doubt too many) of them had “visions” of Jesus after his death (his fourth “fact”). That is not at all the same thing as saying that Jesus appeared to them, of course (that’s why I only half agree with Craig’s third “fact.” They certainly *thought* Jesus had appeared to them; whether he did or not is another question. In fact it is *the* question Craig is trying to answer, so it can hardly be one of the “facts” used to answer it! (Otherwise he is simply assuming his conclusion)
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
if i well remember you explicitely told Craig during your debate in 2006 that you don’t think it’s possible to know whether his first two “facts”(the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb) are true and judging by this post i’ve just read you never changed that idea. So unless Craig has pretty much forgot everything you said to him during that debate he’s purposely falsifying your views on the matter. That is quite a severe act if dishonesty.
Well, I guess he’s jumping back to a view I held earlier. But you’re right, it’s probably not fair to present that as “my view.”
To be fair, your opinion was a bit hard to understand from that quote of yours which Craig posted, so, if it’s not of too disturb, could you tell me if in 2003(when you gave that famous lecture for the Teaching Company which Craig cites from) you accepted the historical reliability of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and the empty tomb and LATER you changed your mind, or if you have been having the same idea all along and Craig just misrepresented you?
Yes, I changed my mind. I think good scholars should do that! I wonder if Craig ever has. 🙂
Since i was working on a series of text videos in which i plan to cover many of the fallacious quotes which Dr. Craig uses in his books and essays, would you be displeased if i were to report your reply at me regarding your chnage of views? It would help me establish my case.
That’s fine.
Didn’t the Christians claim the Joseph of Arimathea was a Jesus sympathizer? So even if Joseph actually buried Jesus in his own tomb, it could be a Christian invention that he was actually on their side.
Some theories suggest that if Joseph of Arimathea was simply an esteemed member of the Sanhedrin, that he could have simply taken Jesus’ body to be initially entombed for the Sabbath, but then as soon as the Sabbath ended (after sunset on a Saturday), would have reburied Jesus in a criminals grave, as custom by Jewish law. So then early on Sunday, the tomb would be empty, but not for miraculous reasons.
This is just a theory. But if the empty tomb is historical, it would be a natural explanation.
I recently read an article that Craig Evans posted on the Jewish burial traditions and the resurrection of Jesus. He touched on the argument in your blog about the proper burial. Here is an excerpt from that article.
“The Digesta refers to requests to take down bodies of the crucified. Josephus himself
makes this request of Titus (Life 75 §420–421). Of course, Roman crucifixion often did
not permit burial, request or no request. Non-burial was part of the horror—and the
deterrent—of crucifixion. But crucifixion—during peacetime—just outside the walls of
Jerusalem was another matter. Burial would have been expected, even demanded.
The evidence thus far reviewed strongly encourages us to think that in all probability
Jesus was indeed buried and that his corpse and those of the two men crucified with him
would not have been left hanging overnight and perhaps indefinitely, or at most cast into
a ditch or shallow grave, exposed to animals. Quite apart from any concerns with the
deceased men or their families, the major concern would have had to do with the
defilement of the land and the holy city. Politically, too, it seems unlikely that on the eve
of Passover, a holiday that celebrates Israel’s liberation from foreign domination, Pilate
would have wanted to provoke the Jewish population. Moreover, it is equally improbable
that the ruling priests, who had called for Jesus’ death, would have wanted to appear
completely indifferent to Jewish sensitivities, either with respect to the dead or with
respect to corpse impurity and defilement of the land. It seems most probable that the
priests would have raised no objections to the burial of the three men. Indeed, they
probably would have arranged to have them buried, before nightfall, in tombs reserved
for executed criminals.”
Do you think that Jesus could have been an exception to custom Roman practices due to the fact of the timing of the crucifixion? If Romans respected the “peacetime” and “passover” why didn’t they just make a rule to not crucify during these times. Why not wait till the holiday was over?
(Here is the full article: http://craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf)
I think this opinion is built a *lot* on surmises and guesses. Pilate would not have cared a toss about the “defilement of the land.” And what we know about him does not suggest at *all* that he was disinclined to provoke the Jewish population. He’s basically just paraphrasing what the NT says, not engaging in a critical analysis of it, in my opinion.
Very interesting post and thoughts.
Essentially in the end the the decision to accept or not accept the historical reliability of the account Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea boils down to this: if the Christians who first told the account of Jesus being buried by Joseph of Arimathea were wrong (1) were they being dishonest, insincere, and/or fraudulent? Or (2) were they simply misguided, mistaken, and/or deluded?
I suspect that some will dismiss your argument (I don’t by the way!) because they think Christians couldn’t have lied about this because they are generally moral, honest, and ethical.
Well, there are hundreds of instances where we have traditions about Jesus that are not historically accurate (as everyone except for fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals agree). So the question about Joseph of A. has to be put in that wider context of inquiry, I think.
WELL SAID!!!
I take it this means you don’t buy James Tabor’s JESUS DISCOVERY, or the theory behind it about finding Joe’s estate with all those burial chambers.
I haven’t studied it at any length, but the professional archaeologists that I know claim that there aren’t any professional archaeologists who buy it.
Bart,
I’ve been reading your textbook on the NT over the last week or so, I’m now on Chapter 21 “Paul and His Apostolic Mission”. Your recent blogs, including this one, ties in with what I’ve been reading so far. Thanks for such a readable book. Looking forward to reading your upcoming textbook on the whole Bible.
Jerry
I don’t see the rationale for the Romans to crucify Jesus. It doesn’t appear that he verbalized any anti-Roman propaganda nor was anything anti-Roman alluded to in Josephus’s couple of lines on Jesus. Pilate probably didn’t even know who Jesus was (possibly the bouncing back and forth between Herod was legend).
It would seem to me that the Jewish religious authorities could have had reason to bring charges (i.e. “a no-name blasphemer”) and since the Romans had the barbeque fired up anyway (couple of other political activists), I’m sure Pilate wouldn’t say no to one more nomination (even if innocent). It might have added to the anti-insurrection ambiance.
I don’t know how many on crucifixion row were pre-scourged in those days, but this was apparently a nasty protocol. After a good ol’ Roman scourging Jesus didn’t last long on the cross. The Jewish religious authorities probably wanted the place tidied up of cursed items before the Passover festivities began (their main focus), and why would the Romans give a crap about the body? They got their “Rome always wins” point across prior to the Jewish festivities getting underway (good timing for supper conversations). Maybe they didn’t care if the crucifixion SOP (bird pecking etc.) wasn’t perfectly followed as Jesus might have been a freebee anyway. So to me, the Joseph of Arimathea tradition may not be that weird.
Christian oral traditions no doubt picked up embellishments along the way (there’s an apologist in every crowd). I suppose the real mystery begins with a number of Jesus followers confident that they experienced him in some way (with or without “bones”) after his obvious death. Tough to quantify this without resurrect-ometer readings.
I’ll deal with the first comment in a separate post.
What is the separate post called?
Sorry — my bad. I’m not sure which comment we are talking about (I don’t have a thread of our back and forth; remind me?)
A separate post on why the Romans crucified Jesus?
Here is one from long ago: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-crucified/
Wasn’t it because Jesus was trying to stir up trouble (or religious fervor) in Jerusalem, thereby endangering the peace and the order? The Romans, not wanting to allow an uprising or something similar to happen, decided to take him out and state an example: be quiet or get crucified like this guy!
It’s refreshing to see you referencing Crossan in a less critical context than he usually is mentioned by scholars outside The Jesus Seminar (not that I’m that interested in claims that Jesus wasn’t apocalyptic). Still, it takes some cajones for him to stick to his faith and yet claim that Jesus ended up as 1st century Alpo.
Dr. Ehrman,
It is in my understanding that it is of common scholarly opinion that the Gospel writers (at least Matthew, Luke, and John) were rather anti-Semitic in nature. Correct? How would you respond to that claim? After reading “The Origin of Satan” by Elaine Pagels, it is a subject that deeply interests me, and I would love to hear your professional opinion on the matter. Thank you!
They are clearly anti-Jewish — and the later Gospels (Matthew/Luke/and especially John) even more than the earliest (Mark). I’ll deal with this in a later post. (I don’t call them anti-semitic because the idea that there was a “race” of Semites — in fact, that there were any races at all, in our way of thinking — is an invention of 19th century anthropologists; ancient people didn’t think about it that way).
Thank you for your response! Looking forward to the post!
DenaKaAnn, you may want to check out: Terence Donaldson’s “Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament.”
The Gospels are critical of any non-Christian Jewish voices.
Are you, if you are going, doing any paper at the AAR/SBL?
And your words about burial raise more ?’s than answers and really do provide more conversations.
And too, I find it delightful that you, a ‘non believer’ have a deep friendship with Dale Martin at Yale, an Episcopalin. His Open Yale videos are great.
Dale and I have been close friends for thirty years. (And among other things, room together at SBL): yes I’m doing a short presentation on a collection of essays on textual criticism that Mike Holmes and I have edited, which is coming out next month from E. J. Brill (2nd edition of The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis.
Well both of you are something of a ‘hoot’. I will not be at the SBL/AAR. My wife will. I may send her.
Bill
Ok… I’m guessing SBL is Society of Biblical Literature. What is AAR? American Academy of Religion??
Sorry, yes American Academy of Religion. They hold their annual meetings simultaneously, the weekend before Thanksgiving, this year in Chicago.
About how much time, per given day, do you spend with this site? You do many a service in the offerings and the replys…and I guess you are a workaholic. Thanks for doing this.
I try to get it all done in 45 minutes a day; but people are making such long comments adn asking such long questions that it’s getting very hard!
The Jewish leadership convincing Pilate to allow a burial thus goes against the criterion of contextual credibility, right?
It strains against hte criterion, in any event.
Over and over again, we seem to reach the conclusion that early Christians just made stuff up to support theological views and it sure seems that way to me. Yet, if so, did they think making stuff up was okay? Moreover, why were they not more concerned about getting stuff historically accurate? Finally, how could they believe so strongly (strongly enough to die) in stuff that’s made up?
Great question, and probably impossible to know the answer! Stuff gets made up all the time that isn’t historically accurate, without malicious intent. I hear all sorts of stories about *me* that are absolutely not true….
Hi Ronald, I’m not writing because I have any useful answers, but because your question is similar to what I have been asking myself for the past while. I think that the gospels were basically “in house” correspondences where one Christian community wrote to another regarding their understanding of how things went down. This was based in part on the information they had heard from the oral traditions in their neck of the woods (some high quality information and some total BS). Many in this initial group may not have had deception in mind. It was a few centuries later when there was a big push toward “orthodoxy” that their documents were put together in one stack and “blessed as gospel truth” so that you could raise your right hand and swear over the pile. So I’m not sure that many in the early group (however there would have been a few) had deception in mind with their in house correspondence.
I want to get your opinion on this topic but in a different direction.
As you know, there are 3 tombs found in 1980’s in Talpiot south of Jerusalem. All damaged and opened by construction work and vandalized even to the extent of some children using skulls as soccer balls.
James Tabor and others have identified one tomb as The Jesus Family Tomb, another tomb about 200 feet away as that of Joseph of Aramithea’s family and the 3rd tomb totally destroyed. The Arimathea tomb is now sealed and access is by remote camera showing ossuaries with Sign of Jonah artwork designating early resurrection belief.
In the Jesus tomb, all bones were taken away by the Jewish ultra-orthodox rabbis for reburial, but fragments were let in the Jesus ossuary as were some left in the Mariamini (Mary of Magdaline) ossuary (pardon my spelling…doing this from memory) and DNA was tested to see if they did or did not match.
The story is that Joseph used a temporary tomb to bury Jesus before sundown Friday and then the body was removed to his own family tombs in Talpiot for permanent burial.
These tombs have been worked on recently and much media hype and TV documentaries and books made since 2007.
What are your thoughts on this with regard to your article above?
I”m afraid I haven’t investigated any of it fully. The archaeologists I know (I know three of the top archaeologists of Palestine in the world) don’t buy it, and tell me that the other archaeologists don’t buy it either. But as I’ve said, I haven’t gone deeply into it (mainly because no one seems to be buying it).
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Just out of curiosity…
Who are the “three of the top archaeologists of Palestine in the world” you were referring to?
Thanks
Sorry — I don’t have the whole string of comments so I’m not sure what I was referring to in my reply that you’re asking about! What is the “it” in “any of it”? Talpiot tomb? The three I’ve talked with about that in particular are Eric Meyers, Jodi Magness, and … and I forget who! (Carol Meyers?)
Yes, it was about the Talpiot tomb
Interesting idea, I think prof. Andries van Aarde of the University of Pretoria would answer the last question with something like, “Well, the Jesus followers had an alternative state of conciousness experience or hallucination.” Prof. what do you make of the story of Tobit and Shalmaneser’s killing of Israelites and leaving their bodies to rot outside after failing to take Jerusalem captive? I know it is fictional, but don’t you think it also addresses something on Jewish sympathies towards their overlords? (Does the question make sense?)
Yes, it shows that it was conceivable that some pious Jews would take offense at unburied bodies and would try to bury them. (One difference is that according to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin was partly *responsible* for the death of Jesus, so that one of their members wanting to bury the body seems a bit odd; but I may deal with that in a later post.
Maybe the Gospel writer wanted to show that Joseph of A wanted to give Jesus a proper burial as a demonstration of remorse and repentance?
Yup, that’s possible; I guess the counter-consideration is that none of the Gospels says anything about him feeling remorse and the need to repent (so if that was their point, you’d think they’d suggest/say it)
That’s also plausible.
Selections from Fergus Millar:
Nothing is described here, however, any more than in the other Gospels, which could count as a formal trial by Pilate. There is no formal accusation and defence; no opinions are asked of the governor’s council; and no formal verdict is pronounced. As with the other Gospels, in John the decision by Pilate to have Jesus executed is not represented as a verdict concluding a trial, but as a political decision taken as a concession to political pressure both from the Jewish authorities and from the crowd.
Philo’s Against Flaccus happens to provide a precisely contemporary analysis of the susceptibility to such pressure of a Roman governor who feels himself to be out of favour with the emperor (Flacc. 3–4/8–23).
It is the approach of Passover which dictates every aspect of how the story unfolds, just as, in John’s narrative, Jesus’ life as a Galilean holy man is structured by the need to go up repeatedly to Jerusalem to the annual cycle of festivals. This necessity should, I suggest, be seen as of crucial importance.
It was not Roman law but their own which made them say, at that moment, “It is not allowed to us to execute anyone.”
Fergus Millar’s Rome, the Greek World, and the East: The Landmark 3-Volume Set That Transformed The Study Of The Roman Empire University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.
At the time of his writing, in 1990, Millar did not discuss whether the Romans would or would not allow any Jews to recover the crucified corpse.
Who crucified Yehohanan, and who let his family or friends recover his corpse for burial in a tomb?
Thanks.
Yehohanan: We wish we knew. But we have no real clue.
Out of all the archaeologists, historians and biblical scholars who have commented on Yehohanan, no one that I can think of – until now – has suggested we have no clue who crucified Yehohanan. First century, pre-70 Jerusalem, iron nail, olive wood, oil, heel bone, tomb burial, and ossuary. How many options do we have? You really can’t just flick this boogar out of the room!
I’m not suggesting that!!! Not in the least! The question was whether we have any idea who buried him — and about that we don’t have a clue, at least one that I know of.
Ok, my misunderstanding, I was not paying careful attention to your original point, and then I was also thinking of your later post which seems to suggest Jesus was not buried. Let me clarify that I don’t care about the Joseph of Arimathea story. Above you are saying, if I am now following correctly, that no one could approach Pilate to request early removal of Jesus’ body due to the upcoming holy day. But, you also say the Romans would not allow Jesus to be buried properly, and the reported events (even after a critical scrubbing) fails contextual credibility (won’t this make you the first genuine scholar to assert this?).
I now understand you are not ignoring Yehohanan, a pre-70 Jew, who, after being crucified by Romans, was buried by family and friends in such a way as to allow his disarticulated bones to be gathered into an ossuary, which presumably means he was buried in a tomb. But you are saying that since only one crucified person has been found in a tomb it infers no crucified persons were buried in a tomb, and you are asserting that the same infinitesimal probability applies to Jesus’ burial in a tomb. You know, of course, it is the bent nail that discloses the crucifixion, and without some anomaly there is no standardized way to identify from bones those who were crucified. Almost certainly, the number of crucified Jews who were interred in a tomb was small, but your argument goes farther than that; you are rejecting a multiple-attested tradition because there is available evidence of only one crucified Jew In a tomb.
Please believe me, I am not trying to frustrate you, or myself, I just sense you are pursuing an innovative view of these events (although I’m sure some angry atheists have tried to plow this ground before, but without your talent and skills). I’m trying to pay attention to your thoughts but I feel you are blowing past important details (for eample, i’m still wondering how you can jettison the DSS and Philo, above). And, I’m puzzled why skilled Roman historians, fully informed about the relevant cultures and facts (Fergus Millar, for example, as I cited above) examined this issue but did not reject the basic burial story; he certainly understands critical reading of NT traditions!
Well, scholars differ on lots of things, and weigh evidence differently. If we all agreed on everything, there’d be no reason to write books! In the present case, a very strong case can be made against contextual credibility. I’m not jettisoning any evidence. I’m weighing all of it. You may weigh it differently from me. (But I haven’t yet laid out the full argument!)
Well, the buck stops with the Romans, and the man in charge was named Pontius Pilate, whether or not we mean crucifixion or burial.
I find it conceivable that the jewish leaders passed J. to Pilate in order to have him executed quickly, and so to avoid opposition from minority fractions among the leadership, anything that might prolong the process and in the meanwhile stir up parts of the population of Jerusalem. Pilate would have accepted this, as a way of getting rid of a possible sectarian religious instigator. But it is also conceivable that any jewish leadership fraction would have appreciated a burial for reasons of “defilation of land” during the holy moment of the passover. If such a request was raised to Pilate by anyone with sufficient authority, it would also probably have been accepted. If not, why would Pilate co-operate in the first instance? In any case, the result would have been a common, anonymous grave, indirectly attested by the fact that the alleged grave spotted by the women never became a holy shrine in any way.
I am a little confused about how you interpret attestations and would be interested to learn a little more about how it is used.
I ‘Did Jesus Exist’ you use the evidence of attestation frequently to show that Jesus must have used the words he used and done the things associated with them and decry the argument that these were were made up be Christians after the event.
However here, you show that the story of the tomb is also multiply attested but you then go on to demonstrate that it is probably false. It appears that attestation counts for little amongst other considerations.
Good point! The difference (it’s a BIG difference) is that unlike the multiply attested traditions that I think are probably historical, this one runs smack up against the criterion of contextual credibility. That’s the problem.
I’m wondering how you handle this view in light of 1 Cor 15 which says Jesus was buried. Some scholars date that creed to very early after Jesus’ death and if Paul had met with the disciples, and interviewed them, which you seem to have expressed a belief that he did, then he would have been in a position to know whether the creed was true or not.
Yes, Paul knows he was buried. But he gives no indication what that means: buried that day? Three days later? By Joseph of Arimathea? In a common grave? Something else? So it’s hard to use this line as evidence for one view or another: it could be evidence for just about *any* view!
If the story of Joseph of Arimathia was just a fictional story, would you say that the earliest this “story” could have been made up and circulated was at least after Joseph’s death? ( CE 45) It only make sense that this would be easier to spread a story as a fact if you can’t talk to the person that is incorporated in the story. Would this also give you a better insight on when the original gospels of mark and John probably were written or at least the when the tradition of the story started? Or would a story like this be likely told while Joseph was still alive?
If it is a fictional story, then Joseph himself is a made up figure and never really lived. We have no record of his existence outside these passages in the Gospels.
Bart, speaking about Joseph allegedly burying Jesus, what do you make of John 19:41-42:
“Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, *since the tomb was nearby*, they laid Jesus there.”
That makes it seem like that this tomb was then chosen not because it was Joseph’s tomb but simply because it was an empty one nearby (and because they had to move quickly because of the day of preparation). That would contradict Mt 27:60 because what where the odds that this nearby empty tomb happened to be Joseph’s?
The theory then is that Jesus’ corpse was only supposed to stay there until the Passover holidays were over, at which point Joseph (and his people) could move the body to Joseph’s actual tomb and give him a proper burial with all the usual rituals there. He supposedly made this immediately at the end of the Sabbath, in the night from Saturday to Sunday. And that’s why the women (who, on Friday afternoon, observed from a distance where the corpse was put) found an empty tomb on Sunday morning, starting that ’empty tomb’ story.
John also says that Peter and the other disciple, after having seen the empty tomb with their own eyes, then believed Mary Magdalene’s claim that ‘they’ had removed the body: “Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.”
The ‘and believed’ there can’t refer to the resurrection, John makes that clear with ‘for as yet they did not know the Scripture).
Yes, John’s version is different from the Synoptics, and obviously much later and so even more open to questoin, I would say.
Of course. But isn’t it interesting that John, unlike the others, does not claim that the tomb is JoA’s tomb but instead simply a tomb that happened to be nearby and empty? Couldn’t that be closer to the actual truth than the synoptics (IF there was a burial)? It seems to require less coincidences.
I’m curious though, Bart, and I don’t know if you have already addressed this: if Jesus didn’t get buried (and, for example, moved later unbeknownst to the others) then how do you think this ‘resurrection’ belief started? SOMETHING must have triggered it, no? I’m aware of some theories but I would be interested in knowing yours. Thank you.
Yup, it’s interesting. But it’s so much later than the other traditions, I’d say it’s hard to know. And yes, I definitely think something started the whole thing. I’ll be dealing with this in the next book. Short answer: I think some of the disciples actually had visions of Jesus after his death. Just as lots of people have lots of visions all the time (e.g., the bereaved). But it’s a long story!
Looking forward to your next book then! 🙂
Bart, had sent you an email about your thoughts about Joseph of Arimathea. The search button on the site works great!
So I question how you can think the whole thing was made up. So his early followers gathered around and decided to come up with a story, Okay, let’s pick a name, Joseph, Okay where’s he from, Arimathea. Okay we have Joseph of Arimathea let’s all run with it. I guess I’m saying there had to have been at least something (event/person) the story was generated from and possibly changed/tweaked as time went by. I just find it hard to accept it was “totally” made up.
Good point! But I think lots of things get made up all the time, with names attached. It doesn’t *have* to be a conspiracy of some kind. Just to pick an example out of a multitude: there are millions of people in our world who think that the Angel Maroni (named) appeared to Joseph Smith and revealed to him the golden tablets. I don’t believe that’s true. Then why is there a story about it (which started at the time of the main character). Someone made it up. In my opinion. I also don’t believe there really was a Robin Hood or a King Arthur. My view is that stories get changed, exaggerated, made up, etc. all the time!
Prof. Ehrman,
You gave several good reasons to doubt that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus and that Joseph even existed. There are, of course, many other reasons to doubt the story:
1.) It’s doubtful that Joseph of Arimathea monitored Jesus’ condition on the cross late at night and swung into action as soon as Jesus died.
2.) It’s doubtful that Joseph would have been willing to disturb the ruthless Pontius Pilate late at night to ask for the dead body of a crucified man.
3.) It’s doubtful that Joseph would have cared enough about Jesus’ body to perform such a gruesome, arduous task in the middle of the night,.
4.) It’s doubtful that Joseph would have forgone his ritual purity by handling a dead body, especially for the sake of a crucified stranger who meant nothing to him.
5.) No one could know what, if anything, Joseph said to Pilate. No one could know whether Pilate checked with a centurion to find out if Jesus was dead. Why would Pilate even bother to check on it, since the Romans normally left dead bodies on crosses?
6.) It’s doubtful that Joseph could have physically carried out the task, even if he had help from Nicodemus (who was allegedly carrying 75 pounds of spices) which is just another fiction.
And so on. The story doesn’t add up in any way. The story seems to be made up. Therefore….
Where does that leave the credibility of the story that Jesus was crucified? Who witnessed his crucifixion? What happened to his body? Supposedly, his disciples didn’t see Jesus on the cross, nor did they see his dead body at any time afterward.
Jesus’ disappearance from the cross is explained away by the mythical story about Joseph of Arimathea taking down the body after only six hours. If that story isn’t credible, then the women (if they really existed) didn’t see anything and there was no tomb. The women didn’t witness Jesus’ burial in a tomb, and they couldn’t have explained what happened to his body.
If Jesus’ disciples knew that he was crucified, they would also have known that his dead body remained on the cross, not put in a tomb. But if they didn’t witness the crucifixion, then they didn’t know for a fact that Jesus was crucified or what happened to him after he was arrested. Was Jesus really crucified or was he killed outright? Without any witnesses or sensible explanation for what happened to his body, the crucifixion itself is in doubt. Without Joseph, the women and the tomb, the whole story of the crucifixion falls apart.
Furthermore, there’s no evidence that Jesus’ disciples experienced his resurrection. Paul says that when he went back to Jerusalem the first time, he met only Peter and James. Paul couldn’t vouch for what the other disciples thought. Were they even around anymore? For all we know, the Jesus sect barely existed anymore by the time that Paul got there. Paul couldn’t have verified anything about the supposed resurrection appearances.
The whole story is very shaky. It’s time for radical rethinking.
Hi Bart, I’ve been comparing the burial stories in each gospel and was wondering what you thought of Mark’s view of Jospeh of Arimathea.
In 14:64 it says the entire council condemned Jesus which would include Joseph. But in the next chapter it says that Joseph was looking for the kingdom of God (which Jesus talks about a great deal) and bought a linen cloth to wrap Jesus in.
Do you think Mark presents Joseph as a follower of Jesus or someone who was responsible for condemning Jesus but wanted to have him buried properly?
It’s interesting to me that Luke goes out of his way to say that Joseph didn’t consent to Jesus’ death and In Matthew it looks like Joseph is a man from Armathea (if you just read Matthew I don’t think you wouldn’t come away thinking Joseph was on the council).
Yes, I think that is what Mark wanted his readers to think. My view is that Joseph was a made-up figure in early Christian legend. I talk about that a bit in my book Jesus Before the Gospels.
You think Joseph was someone who was a believer or unbeliever of Jesus in Mark? I wasn’t sure what you were saying yes to.
Unbeliever.
wait was he actually an unbeliever or a myth, also how far pre gospels do you think the burial story goes?
sorry, — I don’t have a full record of the back and forth (I just get your comment, not the whole string), so you’ll need to tell me who you are referring to.
Where then is the historical record of what actually occurred with the body of Jesus? Why is there silence on this matter other than the Gospels? If the body of Jesus was actually left on the cross for weeks to rot and be pecked at, this would be common knowledge known first hand by likely thousands of people. Jesus would have been a well known figure and his body left on a cross as a Roman display would have been something that most everyone in Jerusalem and beyond would have been aware of, first or second hand. Any claim by an individual that “he’d rose from the dead” would have been immediately shot down by the masses who clearly knew the actual facts. I would argue that those same facts would have made the rapid spread and growth of the Christian church impossible. Given any lack of record or indication of widespread knowledge of a body, I will argue that there wasn’t one.
I’m not sure it would have been. Did thousands of people know what happened to the bodies of the other two crucified that morning?
Christianities explosive growth could not have happened with any knowledge of a body. Bounty Hunter “Boba Fett Saul” wasn’t alone. So none of them would have known what really happened to the body of Jesus? The idea that “everyone forget or didn’t notice” that the Rabbi who performed miracles and preached to multitudes was left hanging to rot on a cross for months is just not plausible.
I’ve got to say I’m pretty troubled by what I see as a huge hole in your position. I would have expected some more thought out response from you. It’s my understanding that “body snatching” stories and other arguments didn’t start coming out till hundreds of years after the Gospels were written. I do feel that Jesus was “deified” by his followers, who made a religion all about him, rather than about what he preached. That’s why I’m interested in your work. But you do a pretty poor job on this particular part of your position.
FYI. I absolutely do feel that God was profoundly involved with the life and teaching and death of Jesus, and the growth of Christianity from nothing to the dominant religion of Rome is a result of that.
The body-snatching story is a rumor already by the time of Matthew 28:11-15. The disciples themselves didn’t know what happened to the body because they fled town.
“Body snatching” is about body’s disappearing, not body’s being left on display for months to rot.
how are we sure they fled? most of the stories of them flee are tied up with resurrection appearances, it easily could have been made up later, just a thought i had. And don’t some gospels mention they returned to check the tomb, in fact doesn’t acts mention they go back to Jerusalem. Definitely by the writings of paul they were in Jerusalem
Yes, they definitely were in jerusalem later. The reasons for thinking they fled are that Matthew reports they went back to Galilee right away and that it makes good sense. If their leader was crucified, they almost certainly were thinking they would be next. They had no reason to stay in Jerusalem since the Passover was over and so they probably headed home, with some speed. It’s an interesting qeustion why they came back. My guess is that already at this early stage they expected Jesus to return.
I understand that the gospel of Peter says that Jesus did not get a proper burial. Does this add to the evidence that the story of the empty tomb was made up?
No, Jesus gets a decent burial in the Gospel of Peter.
Thank you for you quick answer. I have found websites that suggest the phrase “buried by his enemies” was earlier than Mark’s writing suggesting that the tomb story was added later. Speaking for myself I and my wife saw the tomb in 2011 and within a month I had the disturbing experience of thinking, “What if Jesus just rotted on the cross?”
I’m not familiar with the phrased “buried by his enemies”
Bart,
Mk 15:43 describes Joseph of Arimathea as “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God.” Two questions:
1] Do you think the word “expectantly” should be in the above NRSV translation? It is in no other translation that I can find.
2] Do you think Mark intends to convey with the phrase above that Joseph is sympathetic to Jesus’ kingdom of God teachings, or is Mark just using kingdom of God language to convey that Joseph is a pious Jew who wants to bury Jesus before sunset and is willing to go the extra mile to “boldly” ask Pilate for Jesus’ body (in contrast to other Sanhedrists who might not have been willing to do so), or is there some other explanation for this phrase?
1. Yeah, it might be a little strong. The word is PROSDEXOMAI and it means to “await” or “expect” 2. It’s not clear, I’d say. POssibly both (since for Mark they would be intimately related)?
Bart,
If you think “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God” in Mk 15:43 could possibly intend that Joseph of Arimathea is sympathetic to Jesus’ kingdom of God teachings (in additional to being a pious Jews who desires to bury Jesus before sunset), what kind of burial do you think Mark is trying to convey for Jesus on the following two points: A) honorable or dishonorable, B) temporary or permanent?
A) honorable B) not clear: the proper rites were not performed because of time constraints. But I don’t think there’s anything to suggest the body itself was to be moved.
Bart,
Mark twice says the “whole council” condemned Jesus to death, which would include Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 14:55, 15:1). Why then would Joseph give Jesus an honorable burial? What do you think of R.E. Brown’s conclusion that “waiting for the kingdom of God” in Mk 15:43 is Mark’s way of describing Joseph “as a pious Jew who awaited the kingdom of God in the sense that he sought only to obey the commandments, much as the scribe of Mk 12:28” (“The Burial of Jesus (Mark 15:42-47),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50.2, pg. 240)?
Seems plausible to me.
Bart,
Just to be clear, R.E. Brown’s position above is that Mark’s Joseph of Arimathea who is “waiting for the kingdom of God” (Mk 15:43) is *not* sympathetic to Jesus at all; JoA was just doing his pious duty to bury this criminal before sunset (similar to the description of the scribe in Mk 12:34 who is “not far from the kingdom of God”). Can you please confirm that it is this viewpoint that you think is plausible? Also, besides the scribe in Mk 12:34, do you have any other insights into Mark’s depiction of “the kingdom of God” throughout his gospel that would further support Brown’s conclusion above about the phrase “waiting for the kingdom of God”?
Yes, I think that’s plausible. There’s nothing to suggest he was one of Jesus’ followers. And throughout the Gospel “the kingdom of God” is an event soon to happen here on earth as God overthrows this world and brings his people into a utopian state. Faithful Jews were waiting for it, for Mark and many other early Christians.
Bart,
Ok, so let’s say Mark’s JoA “who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God” (15:43) is not a follower or even sympathetic to Jesus in any way (he was part of the “whole council” who condemned Jesus to death) and is just doing his pious duty to bury this criminal before sunset. Then why does Mark include this KoG phrase at all? Why not just write, “Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus”? What is Mark trying to convey by adding the KoG phrase to his description of Joseph?
It’s probably to show that he was a highly pious Jew.
Bart,
Based on how Mark uses the kingdom of God language and concept throughout his gospel, when Mark says Joseph of Arimathea is “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God” (Mk 15:43), do you think A) Mark is just using *flowery language* to convey JoA’s piety or some minor sympathy for Jesus that led to his burial, or B) Mark intends that JoA is *actually* waiting for the same basic supernatural KoG that Jesus is waiting for (like many apocalypticists of that time even if they never followed Jesus), hence as a result JoA’s extra piety or sympathy leading to Jesus’ burial?
I think he’s just saying Joseph was a very pious Jew.
Bart,
You said Mark’s Joseph of Arimathea is not a disciple of Jesus (I agree) and that Mark may intend a permanent (as opposed to temporary) burial of Jesus. If so, whose rock-hewn tomb could a first-century audience possibly think Mark’s Joseph is putting a criminal permanently in? (I cannot think of a good answer to this question.)
His own family’s. And opponents of Rome were not necessarily considered bad….
Bart,
I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You think Mark could intend that Joseph of Arimathea, who helped convict Jesus to death (Mk 14:55, 64, 15:1), buried Jesus *permanently* in his own (i.e., Joseph’s) family tomb? If I understand you correctly, why would a Sanhedrin member permanently bury someone they considered a criminal in their own family tomb? At most, it seems a Sanhedrin member might bury a criminal *temporarily* in their (i.e., the Sanhedrin member’s) family tomb and then bury the criminal permanently in the ground after the Sabbath.
Yes, Mark wants us to understand it that way. I’m not saying it’s historically plausible. But there certainly were pious Jews who were willing to do pious acts (including proper burials) for their enemies (Jewish ones especially). Whether a permanent burial makes sense, I don’t know. But Mark may well mean to say something that doesn’t make much sense.
Bart,
Thanks for clarifying your view that Mark’s burial legend (not to be confused with the historical reality of a probable ground burial of Jesus) intends that Joseph, after condemning Jesus to death, buried Jesus *permanently* in his (i.e., Joseph’s) own family tomb in order to do a pious act for this criminal. However, I assume you are aware of *temporary* burials precisely for conditions such as Mark’s impending sunset (Semahot 10:8; 13:5; Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 102b: “People do not plant vines planning to pull them up, but a burial may sometimes take place at twilight, and the corpse is put down only for the time being”). It would be just as pious of Joseph to bury Jesus’ corpse *temporarily* in a rock-hewn tomb (anyone’s) with the intent to bury it in the ground at the next (I assume) daylight opportunity after the Sabbath (i.e., Sunday). If Mark’s audience knew that Jews sometimes buried people temporarily, wouldn’t they assume Mark is describing a *temporary*, not a permanent, burial? Asked another way, why would Mark’s audience think Joseph would leave Jesus’ corpse in his own family tomb *permanently* if Joseph could have just buried it in the ground on Sunday?
I”d say that none of the Gospels indicates whether he meant the burial to be temporary or permanent. But since Jesus had no familiy in Jerusalem or any connections to anyone in the city, it’s hard to imagine where he would be transported to. Even so, the Gospel writers aren’t thinking about those logistical problems, not for a second. They have to have Jesus buried in an actual tomb by *someone* since otherwise the tomb can’t be empty on the third day. They aren’t thinking about what Joseph has in mind for later.
Bart,
Three quick (I think) questions:
1] I know we don’t know either way, but on the theory that Mark intends a temporary burial due to the impending sunset, why did you write, “it’s hard to imagine where he would be transported to”? Wouldn’t Jesus after the Sabbath simply be transported to a ground grave somewhere in Jerusalem, perhaps the potter’s field, since Jesus was poor and would not have had a family rock-hewn tomb or ossuary anywhere to transport Jesus to?
2] In your view, is Mark *trying* to write a burial narrative that his audience would find plausible?
3] Are Mark and his audience generally familiar with Jewish burial customs (Mark seems familiar the Jewish sunset burial rule, wrapping the body in linen, and the mechanics of rock-hewn tombs)?
1. If he was to end up in a ditch, you would think they would have just put him there in the first place; 2. Yes, and in fact readers always have found it plausbile. 3. I don’t know — the practices were not that different from other places in most ways.
Bart,
On the theory that Mark intends a temporary burial in the rock-hewn tomb, Mark can’t put Jesus directly in a ditch (where the criminal was supposed to go, permanently) because there would be no way to proceed from there to a *discovered* empty burial location (can you think of a plausible story that would involve digging up Jesus’ gave?). The above ground and accessible temporary rock-hewn tomb makes Jesus’ missing body *discoverable*. And if Mark’s audience was familiar with Jewish burial customs, they would have expected Jesus, a poor criminal, to be buried in the *ground* and noticed from Mark’s account that the burial was rushed due to sunset, hence the temporary burial in a rock-hewn tomb. Now do you see the logic of a temporary burial in Mark? If you still think Mark intends a permanent burial, then why in your view did Mark rush his burial scene by indicating sunset was imminent (“when evening had come” after the 3pm time marker)?
I’d say we don’t know what was going on in Mark’s mind when he wrote the text.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you believe that Jesus predicted his death and resurrection while he was still living? According to the Gospels, he clearly did. But I was taught (in seminary) that the apostles would have NOT been looking for Jesus to be resurrected. But if he predicted it to them, then wouldn’t they have precisely been looking for Jesus to be resurrected? What’s your take?
I think he may have anticipated his arrest and possibly death at the end. But no, I don’t think there’s any way he expected or predicted he’d be raised. And even in the NT the disciples are completely surprised when he appears to them, so they certainly weren’t expectint it.
(no need to respond, I get it, I am just troubled)
I have a hard time dismissing the stories of the empty tomb on the premise that they are convenient to Gospel writers’ intent (or usual Roman practices). Surely some facts end up being convenient, and practices are sometimes violated. Yes, Romans wanted crucifixion to be a gruesome deterrent. But, surely rich Jews had sway. Jesus was insignificant after all. Couldn’t a rich follower (Mary Magdalene?) bribe guards to retrieve the corpse. Something made followers conclude resurrection happened. If it happened on the cross, wow, what a testimony, but there are no stories. It is conceivable that finding a tomb empty would have gotten disciples talking. Maybe Jewish leaders removed the body thinking it would thwart the tomb becoming a shrine and monumentally miscalculated. I just can’t dismiss the stories so easily as they obviously go back to an early time and create their own problems.
Dr. Ehrman,
You said: “For burials in a common grave, there are such sources as Plutarch’s Moralia 307C; Tacitus Annals 6.26, Suetonius Augustus 13, and others.”
I looked up these sources and none of these mention anything about common grave pits. Am I missing something?
sorry, I’m not around any of my books (am overseas) and can’t dig into the rerferences.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve heard William Lane Craig and others say that the author of Luke and Acts wouldn’t record traditions they believed were in competition with or antithetical with one another. For example, in Luke it says that Joseph buried Jesus. In Acts, it says that it was the council.
The common argument I hear is that the same author wouldn’t record traditions unless they believed they were in harmony with one another.
What are your thoughts? Do you think the author saw Luke 23:50 as being a different tradition than Acts 13:28-29? And, if so, why would he write them both down if he believed them to be antithetical or different traditions? And, do we have any examples of this happening in other writings of antiquity (where an author would record competing traditions)?
My thoughts are that William Lane Craig needs to read more authors. Now that I think about it, he and many others like him have argued repeadedly that *I myself* state contradictory views in different ones of my books. So how does that work, exactly. And yes, I do think they’re different, but that instance isn’t the most aggregious.