(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous post I tried to show why Craig’s argument that Roman governors on (widely!) isolated occasions showed clemency to prisoners (those not sentenced to death) has no relevance to the question of whether Jesus, condemned to crucifixion for treason against the Roman state, would have been allowed a decent burial, contrary to Roman practice. The “clemency” argument – even in the sources that Craig himself cites, only seems to show that in cases that were completely unlike that of Jesus himself, Roman governors could on rare occasions be merciful and/or bribed.
Craig goes on to say that this clemency was extended to the burial of executed criminals. Now in theory, this should be relevant to the question of whether Pilate showed mercy on Jesus by allowing his body to be buried on the day of his execution. But when you actually look at the evidence, once again it is not just irrelevant to Craig’s argument, it actually supports the *opposite* view that is opposite to the one Craig wants to argue. See for yourself:
Craig claims “that Roman justice not only allowed for the executed to be buried, but it even encouraged it in some instances.” That sounds promising for his own, traditional, view (so when I first read this, I was holding my breath! What did I miss when doing my research?!?). But then comes the “evidence” that he cites. It is drawn from the summary of Roman law known as the Digesta. Craig doesn’t tell his readers that this is the compilation of legal opinions made under the emperor Justinian in the sixth century CE – that is, five hundred years (!) after the death of Jesus. But it may not matter: the Digest is citing earlier rulings (in this particular case, a third century author who claims to be quoting a first century source – again Craig doesn’t tell us this somewhat complicated history of transmission). And so there’s a good chance that in fact this ruling did apply in the first century. Here’s what the ruling says, as Craig quotes it:
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!
Hi Dr Ehrman,
I would like to ask a question regarding Jesus Mythicism. Did Justin Martyr actually deal with mythicism in the Dialogue with Trypho? Mythicists commonly refer to chapter 8, “And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves…” to claim that Jesus was an invention of Christians. Towards the ‘invent a Christ for yourselves’ part, it seems clear that the surrounding context mentions that the Jewish interpretation was that the Messiah is only revealed at the coming of Elijah. And since that did not happen during Jesus’ time – the Christians therefore are inventing a Messiah based on their own view. This does not really show that Justin was dealing with mythicism.
My problem however, is in the earlier part of Trypho’s accusation – that Justin accepted a ‘groundless report’. Did ‘report’ mean the Gospel accounts (chapter 18 where Justin says Trypho had read the doctrines of the Saviour)? And did ‘groundless’ mean that Trypho was saying that the Gospels were just crafted stories that could not be proven? Lastly, if ‘groundless report’ does not refer to mythicism, how can it be interpreted to match the rest of the context of the Dialogue with Trypho?
Thank you in advance!
Damien
“Inventing a Christ” in Justin does not mean “Inventing a man named Jesus.” It means “inventing the idea that the man Jesus was acually the Christ” Trypho is arguing that the Xns are just makin’ stuff up to convince themselves and others that Jesus was the messiah.
Thanks Dr Ehrman!
“and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason”. Your read on this is that it means those convicted of high treason were never allowed a burial, but at least in English that is not the only way to read it. Unless the English translation of the original is faulty or vague, it would seem to allow that even those convicted of treason were sometimes allowed a burial. Is the text in the original language clearer than the English? I can see how this COULD mean that those convicted of treason would never be given a burial, but this wording doesn’t say ‘never’.
Yup, it could be read either way (though I need to relook at the Greek); but it would mean that it’s a highly unusual event, if read the other way, and then you would have to look into what circumstances would make it possible. My sense is that there is nothing about Jesus that was unusual enough for anything strange to happen. Pilate knew he called himself the future king; he knew all the Jewish leaders were opposed to him; and so he had him crucified. Like the other two guys that morning, for whom there do not appear to have been special circumstances.
Many of these arguments – that Jesus was buried because of a Roman or Jewish holiday – would also seem to imply that the two thieves would also have necessarily been granted the same. At least, if they were dead by then. Is there any record or tradition, either Christian or Roman, that they were removed? Does Craig Evans mention this?
On the other hand, if the Roman soldiers broke the legs of the thieves to hasten their deaths, that would seem to arguably have been so they would die and could be removed before the holiday.
No there’s not. And no he does not. I suppose he’d say they were buried. He appears to think Jews always buried crucified victims on the day of hteir deaths. And yes, the breaking of the legs would be to allow them to die to enable burial. I believe that occurs only in John’s account, and is not mentioned in other writings from antiquity.
If i understand you correctly then john was not comfortable with the belief that jesus was crucified HOURS before the sabbath and none of his sources were showing concern for the sabbath approaching? so he invented the story that the romans had the criminals legs broken for speedy death so that they could receive burial before sabbath?
The text says that the Jewish leaders thought it would be a sacrilege to leave the bodies on the cross during a sabbath day and so asked that the legs be broken. My view is that John wants to explain why they died so quickly since often it took days. But he needs Jesus buried that day in order for him to be raised on the third day later (Sunday). He also wanted Jesus’ death to fulfil scripture, though, so he couldn’t have his bones broken. (vv. 36-37)
The Roman Law Digest probably didn’t mentioned crucifixion because that form of execution had been abolished 200 years earlier. I think that there was enough inconsistency and capriciousness in the way Roman governors operated during Imperial times for Craig to argue the way he does, ie exceptions could have been made. For instance, the Emperor Claudius showed clemency to the British king, Caratacus, who should have been garotted following a triumph, according to normal practice. But I agree, on the balance of probabilities, it is extremely unlikely.
How do we know that Jesus was executed for planning to supplant the Roman governorship of Judea in order to set himself up as king?
What evidence is there for this apart from what is written in the gospels?
How reliable is this evidence?
How could Jesus have threatened Roman rule without any military resources?
Is it likely that Jesus was crucified to satisfy the Sanhedrin rather than because he threatened Roman rule?
There isn’t any evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion at all apart from the writings of the NT. There are very good reasons for thinking that the charge against hinm really was tthat he called himself king of the Jews. It is multiply attested throughout all our sources; it is not the charge Christains would problably come up with, since the title “king of the jews” is NEVER used of Jesus outside these accounts (i.e. it’s not an early Christian “favorite”); it explains why they killed him at all (Romans wouldn’t give a damn about Jesus committing blasphemy or breaking the Jewish Law); and it explains why Jesus “last name” became “Christ” (i.e., the “messiah,” the future king)
Did Jesus say that he WAS the king of the Jews or did he say that, after an imminent apocalypse, he would BECOME the king of the Jews?
Is there not a big difference between these two positions?
The first case was a matter of insurrection, worthy of crucifixion.
In the second case, would the Romans have really considered that the Jewish god could overturn their rule rather than the raving of a lunatic was only of concern because of reaction from the Sanhedrin?
Was the accusation that Jesus said he WAS king made up by the Sanhedrin in order to get Pilate to kill him?
The Romans were not concerned about theological niceties, so far as we can tell. The question was whether he thought he was the one who was going to be the future ruler, and he said yes (Even if they meant it in the political sense, it would still be *future* — no one would ask him if he was sitting on a throne ruling Israel now!)
I don’t want to be mean, but they way you humble Evans is in an ironic fashion similar to how Romans used to humiliate crucified criminals: they kept the humiliation going on long after the body (in this case, the poor counter-argument) was killed.
Ha! I’m not sure everyone finds it that way!
Your discussion of Christ’s burial has left me pondering how it is that historians typically contend with the problem of anomalies in history. So, for example, that Hannibal crossed the Alps with war elephants appears to be an historical anomaly. What are the general historical signposts for wrestling with such problems that are not wholly implausible but break with general probability?
It’s a balancing act of weighinb probabilities. Just HOW improbable is something? Is it improbable to the point that it absolutely could not have happened? That if it did happen we would need some unusually good evidence to show that it *did* happen? (I’d say the Hannibal case is highly remarkable, but not impossible and sufficiently well attested, that, well, he pulled it off!)
Bart,
Regarding Digest48.24.1:
1) You wrote, “It applies “even” [to] people who were burned, suggesting that it is that level of culpability – but no more – that is in view.” However, how do you know this doesn’t mean burned bodies were allowed burial “even” when there was very little of the body left, with no intent to convey the highest level of culpability? This seems a better interpretation given the otherwise unneeded elaboration “bones and ashes.”
2) The passage says “sometimes” the return of bodies to families isn’t permitted, “especially” where persons have been convicted of high treason, from which you conclude, “The release of bodies to be buried DOES NOT APPLY to those who have been convicted of high treason.” However, why do the words “sometimes” and “especially” mean *never* instead of just *extremely rare*, like rare nationalistic Jewish holidays in Jerusalem with many more Jews than normal who might riot if a body was left unburied overnight?
3) Jesus’ body would’ve gone to the Jewish authorities who had the means to bury Jesus, not his “relatives,” and Jewish authorities might have assured Pilate that Jesus would be buried in obscurity and shame. Might this change how you use the Digest passage?
Why did the Jewish authorities who wanted him to be crucified ask for his body? Do you think they asked for every body they condemned, or just Jesus? If just Jesus, is that because he was special in the eyes of the jewish authorities and Romans? Is there something that would make us think so?
Bart, my response to your questions keeps getting lost for some reason. In answer to your questions — the Jewish authorities would have wanted any corpse buried before sunset; that’s why they would have asked for the bodies. But can you please answer my first two questions above?
Good morning, Bart.
I have long thought that the specific capital crime for which Jesus of Nazareth was executed was running a gang of anti-Roman Zealots, which according to the Gospel accounts, he was doing—
and, therefore, he was guilty (to the degree that the Gospel accounts can be believed).
I think the great likelihood was the body of Jesus was left to rot and, once it had fallen off the cross, got tossed into a pile of offal. HOWEVER… is it conceivable that a wealth supporter of The Way offered the guards a little cash to look the other way while grieving Jesus followers carted off the remains? Money, motive and opportunity surely had its place.
What I find odd about this discussion is that it’s pitted as an either-or proposition, Jesus’ body either was or wasn’t buried. I reread Crossan, you, and Evans on this. Yes, Crossan writes about dogs eating bodies, but he also writes about a shallow common grave barely covered with dirt and stones. In other words, it’s not so much a question if any of Jesus’ remains were ever buried but when and how and by whom, with Evans arguing it was immediate, in a proper grave, by supporter(s) and Crossan arguing it would’ve been delayed, in disregard, and by whomever, presumably the executioners. We have no sources from the time of Jesus in Palestine describing Roman procedures, but soon thereafter, Josephus describes Roman leniency far more surprising than burial for the crucified. During the revolt, the road from Tekoa was lined with crucified victims. And Josephus was so distraught to find 3 of his friends crucified that he begged Titus to allow him to take them down and nurse them back to life! And Titus allowed this! And one of them survived! So yeah, it’s hard to say what any Roman official would or wouldn’t allow in different situations.
Josephus (J.W. 4.317)
… the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset.
This was stated by Josephus during the Jewish Revolt when the Jews were in active treason against Rome, but Josephus doesn’t suggest that there was any exception of burial for treason.
When Jesus was taken into custody there was no indication that there was any serious attempt to arrest his disciples, yet Jesus told them they would rule over the tribes in his kingdom making them co-conspirators. It doesn’t seem like Pilate considered Jesus and his disciples as a threat to be taken seriously. Could Jesus have been executed for reason other than treason? A malefactor because of indiscreet talk and they made an example of him?
It’s certainly possible. I’ve decided to post on the question of why I think the charge against Jesus was that he called himself the King of the jews (a treasonous claim). Later in this thread I’ll be dealing with the passage in Josephus. It’s a tricky one!
The Romans might have let the body of Jesus be taken down right after he died because there could have been several guys waiting in line to be crucified and they needed the cross.
Romans were rather well known for providing all the timber that was needed. When they destroyed Jerusalem years later the streets coming into town were lined with corsses.
Easter weekend every year I sing the role of Pontius Pilate in St. Johns passion. Jesus is sung by a close friend. So this question of burial strikes close to my heart. I can´t help putting myself in Pilots place. Its the start of a holiday weekend, the city is mobbed. If I understand the military power in Jerusalem it was not a major garrison with thousands of soldiers. Were I to guess maybe five hundred that rode with Pilot to keep the holiday peace. The Gospel of John specifically tells us (John 18:3) that Judas came with the Priests to arrest Jesus and had with them a “σπεῖρα”, “speira” or “cohort” 420 men. My Pontius Pilate ain’t a happy camper sending a cohort of soldiers out of the city.
Regardless of warm regard for the singing Jesus I am struck by my own gut reaction to this arrogant upstart king of the Jews. With the grief he´s caused I’m not inclined to show special mercy. With the work gone into nailing this guy to a cross my Pilot will make sure the corps rots on it’s cross. No comfy grave on my shift.
Why do say all the accounts attest he was crucified for calling himself king of the jews when none of them do? They all say he was crucified for blasphemy.
Au contraire. Romans condemned him to death. And the “trial” and the charge involved his cliam of being “King of the Jews” (read the accounts!). The Jewish leaders may have said he deserved death for blasphemy (or they may not have), but that wasn’t the charge that led to his death.
The charge before Pilate was for high treason but Pilate didn’t think he was guilty of it. He only condemned him to death to appease the crowd. Who wanted him put to death for blasphemy.
So while the historical truth might be that Jesus was killed for treason the actual attestation of the gospels is that he was killed for blasphemy.
WHat is the charge he crucified him for?
“this is Jesus king of the jews” was written on the cross but it doesn’t say this is what he was guilty of claiming.
In the gospels Pilate only orders the execution to appease the crowds, who want him killed for blasphemy.
Dear Bart,
Q1. Has Craig ever responded to your rebuttal? What did he say/write?
Q2. You wrote: “He was crucified for calling himself the King of the Jews, as all the accounts attest and as Craig surely agrees. This was a claim, on Jesus’ part (from the Roman perspective), to be about to replace the Roman governorship of Judea with his own kingdom in which he would rule. That was high treason.” Are there any historians who argue on historical grounds that Jesus was not sentenced for high treason? (For example, that to Romans ears the phrase “king of the Jews” didn’t automatically sound as someone fighting for an uprising?)
A couple of people have told me that he did, in a chapter of a book edited by Mike Licona, but I haven’t read it.
There probably are, but no one comes to mind. I’ll be explainig why its a widely held view in a post next week or so.
Did the initial disciples of Jesus, such as the 12 (along with whoever was with Jesus) or Paul, believe that Jesus was born of a virgin woman? Is there any indication of this belief in Paul’s writings?
Paul says nothing about it (his only explicit reference to Jesus’ birth is Gal. 4:4, where he says that he was “born of a woman” — a not entirely helpful statement for historians!). The others left us no indication of what htey thought or said. (In the New Testament the virgin birth is only mentioned by Matthew and Luke)
Dear Bart,
May I ask an off-topic question? In your view, who are the most respected Koine Greek specialists/grammarians? I’m told Stanley E. Porter is up there – but I’m curious to know if you think there are others I should be looking at. I’m trying to tackle a technical grammatical question on the use of Greek in the NT period.
Many thanks in advance.
Well, there are hundreds of real experts. Some people dive DEEPLY into NT Greek (as if it were it’s own language! Kind of like Harry Potter English…). Stanley would be one. Another would be Dan Wallace. Many, many classicists of course are deeply expert, with a broader understanding of how Koine fits into the other kinds/periods of Greek from antiquity. I assume you have access to the standard Greek grammars (Smyth is still the best for ancient Greek in general)
Don’t you think the Romans understood that Jesus never intended a military rebellion , but as someone holding a weird superstition about God intervening in history? After all they must have regarded him as some kind of lunatic who at most could cause some type of popular unrest during the festival. Could this have given reason for clemency in the burial matter?
I don’t think they gave it a thought. They heard he was calling himself the king so they executed him. They didn’t crucify crazy people though. I’ll be posting in a week or so on the reason why it’s almost certain that he was executed for political reasons (calling himself the future king).
Plain critical reading of the Joseph of Arimathea periscope, and the entire burial story, sure look like literary devices to counter well known 1st Century knowledge about crucifixion and provide a basis for “He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,”. But, if as I understand, the 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 creed is indeed dated to the 30’s CE; where did the “third day” resurrection come from? A requirement to match verse from the
OT?
There’s nothing to suggest that the 1 Cor. 15:3-5 creed goes back to the 30s. Maybe I need to post on this. (I thought I had, but I can’t find it now.) Some people get confused because scholars call this a “pre-Pauline tradition” and they think that must mean that it was a tradition around before Paul became a Christian. That’s not at ALL what it means. It means that it was a statement floating around prior to the time Paul used it in his letter. If 1 Corinthians was written, say, in 55 (we aren’t sure what the actual date was, but it was somewhere in the early or mid 50s), then if the creed wsa “prePauline” then it had to be before that. But Paul suggests he had given the Corinthians this news before the writing of the letter, so presumably when he had earlier been with them — possibly around 52 CE or so. The creed must have been around before then. Saying it came from the 30s is just guesswork based on … nothing (so far as I know) (thought people say it a lot)
I’m with DR.Bart the romans would care less if Jesus had proper burial, did the Roman’s fear Jewish gods, no. I’m pretty sure the jews who thought jesus a blasphemy would also not care if Jesus had a proper burial.
I would be shocked if pilate didn’t hear rumors of Jesus and his miracles from what the Jewish leaders said about Jesus, but yet pilate didn’t fear killing him. So there is no logical reason why anyone with power would give Jesus special treatment.
How many ancient sources mention crucifixions, other than Jesus’s crucifixion?
Tons of them. It’s a common theme.