(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...Back to Christian apologists for a minute (from my post a few days ago). One common argument that the resurrection stories must be historical is that no one would invent the idea that the first witnesses to the resurrection were women; therefore the tomb really was empty (i.e. since no one would have made up the story that way). I get asked about that probably once every four or five months. I dealt with it on the blog — in fact exactly eight years ago. Here is the question I was asked about it and my response — the same one I would have today!
QUESTION:
How do the stories of the women at the tomb found in the canonical gospels come to be told? As many scholars I’ve read have pointed out, having women, who were considered untrustworthy witnesses, as the first to see the risen Christ, was not exactly a way to get people to believe the stories. So why would the gospel writers tell the stories with the women in such a prominent place?
RESPONSE:
I have indeed heard this argument for many years. In fact, I used to make it myself. The argument is that since women were not considered reliable witnesses (since their testimony was not acceptable even in a court of law), then no one would have invented the idea that it was precisely women who discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty and that he was, therefore, raised from the dead.
I have lots of comments about that view – the one I used to hold – but will give them only in short order now.
Want to see my response? You’ll need to be a member of the blog. Joining is resurrected easy: and it doesn’t cost much. Even better, every penny you pay (about 50 cents a week!) goes to help those in need. So why not???
Mary Magdalene is specifically mentioned in all 4 Gospels. Do you think she’s an actual person, perhaps the 1st to claim a vision of a resurrected Jesus, or just an embellishment like the empty tomb, a detail to flesh out the story?
Yes, I do think there was such a person among Jesus’ followers. And recently I read they were married and had children! 🙂 But seriously, yes, I think she was one of his followers, adn that she actually did have some kind of vision after his death to make her think he was alive again. A bit more speculative there, but it makes sense of a lot that we know of her.
Dr. Ehrman,
Wouldn’t the story of the women finding the tomb empty actually play more into historical reliability? Basically, if the story was added for any reason it was to show verisimilitude to what was actually known to occur in reality. Women from my understanding were the one’s who often went to work with the dead, correct me if I’m wrong on that. Including the women finding the story seems to be par for the course. Or am I off track?
Thanks, Jay
The people who make the argument I referred to are specifically arguing for historical reliability. And I suppose it’s true women normally did that; but it’s striking that in the Gospels it’s first done by Joseph of Arimathea.
There are two reasons. One is that anointing the body for burial was work for women to do, and so of course it was women who went to the tomb. I agree that it was women who anointed the bodies for burial. But this is preparatory work done in advance before the burial. The empty tomb discovery, your subject post, was three days later. Help me understand how this is an important reason in your view ? I am reading, women are doing the preparations for the burial, so they must of been the first ones’ to see the empty tomb,three days later. Whose “option” authorized women to go? It seems a rather weak assumption/reason.
I have sort of the same line of thought…I thought Jesus was already “buried” and, according to one gospel*, heavily prepped with turmeric and other substances…why did the women need to go there on “Easter” morning in the first place? And according to one gospel*, a heavy stone was rolled in front of the tomb, seemingly precluding 3 women entering it.
* On vacation with no NT (not even Gideon’s Bible)…sorry
I think the idea is that he was quickly buried because Sabbath was starting (we don’t know anything about Turmeric etc.) and so still needed a proper bathing and anointing.
Whatever purpose the creedal formulation in 1 Cor 15 intended it did serve to validate the leadership of the early movement. Whatever the origin of the stories we have of the women at the tomb perhaps they hint that the Resurrection “experience” wasn’t quite so tidy, so top driven?
Yes indeed!
Dr. Ehrman, then what was normally supposed to happen after the preparation? I’ve heard a rabbi saying that the point of spicing the body was to neutralise the smell of the decomposing body for the purposes of eulogy, and that it doesn’t make sense to do it AFTER Jesus’ being already buried; for this reason alone, the empty tomb narrative is allegedly absurd, let alone reliable. This is a bit too much of a shocker even for a diehard atheist like me. Can this theory be taken seriously, is it discussed in the scholarly community? Thank you, professor. Jiri
In the narrative Joseph didn’t have time to anoint and fully prepare the body, ,since the sun was going down; so the only option was to wait for the Sabbath to end. Within the narrative I think we’re to assume they didn’t think the decomposition would have yet set in, or at least gone very far.
The operative word is “story”. So many stories. It’s too easy to make things up, to tell stories.
Thank you Dr. Ehrman for providing your reasonable arguments.
Just a clarification. You mentioned that Paul didn’t know any (true incident or stories in circulation) tradition of Jesus’s empty tomb. But if he certainly believed that Jesus was resurrected bodily why is that he couldn’t use/find any available and reliable information about what happened to Jesus’s body days after crucifixion? Isn’t it a natural curiosity that he should have had after his change of heart to follow Jesus? Can the reason be this? With research on the writings, it’s almost certain that Paul was the one who first wrote about Jesus. Even if the gospel of Mark is the oldest, it still appeared decades after Paul’s writings. Now can the reason be that most people who lived say within the first decade after Jesus’s death know without any doubt that it’s literally impossible to look for Jesus’s remains because Romans would do a mass dumping of the criminals bodies weeks or months after the bodies are brought down from crosses?
But when Mark writes about a legendary account of Jesus after 60 years, respectable stories like Joseph of armethia, proper burial, anointing etc appeared?
Kindly share your thoughts.
My sense is that he didn’t look for any evidence, precisely because he didn’t need any. He wasn’t interested in an empty tomb but in a resurrected Lord, and he had seen him. Literally not interested in finding “proof.” And yup, the later stories appear to have circulated long after there was any evidence to look for. My view is that Jesus would not have been buried in a tomb anyway, but almost certainly in some kind of pit, possibly a communal one. Six *days* later (let alone sixty years) there would have been no way to identify it.
“My view is that Jesus would not have been buried in a tomb anyway, but almost certainly in some kind of pit,”
You have repeatedly set out, on these pages, arguments against Jesus being buried in a tomb; but I have been unable to find any sources for the alternative assertion – Jesus being buried in a ‘common pit’.
Is there any evidence to support this second speculation?
How many common pits have been excavated in the region of Jerusalem; and how many contain common burials of the Roman period?
And do we have any common burials (in any circumstances) around Jerusalem where we can identify crucified victims of Roman justice?
Or; do we have any literary references to burial of crucified criminals in a ‘common pit’ in Jerusalem at this time? You have (rightly) critiqued appeals to Josephus, as supporting the Romans’ generally allowing prompt burial of crucified Jews. But does any text say that crucified Jews were not given burial?
Paul, twice, asserts that Jesus was ‘buried’; Romans 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 15:4. Which would not exclude his body being buried in a common pit, if we had evidence for burial in common pits. Do we?
The evidence is that very few people could afford to be buried in actual tombs; the most common mode of burial was simply to be put in the ground. And yes, archaeologists in various places have found burial pits, massive ones. They aren’t easy to find, as I understand it, because nothing marks them as places where archaeologists ought to dig.
Thank you Bart; If you know of archaeological evidence for communal burials anywhere around Roman Jerusalem, I would be very grateful of the reference.
Otherwise; my understanding is that burials in Jerusalem were either in family tombs (kokhim) for the rich, or individual trench graves (loculi) for everyone else. Both Kokhim and loculi may contain charnel bone pits – as an alternative to ossuaries for secondary interment – but that otherwise no graves contain more that two primary burials.
But as Jerusalem is built on limestone, even the poorest trench graves found – as at Beit Safafa – are rock-cut.
So it may be that Jesus was ‘put in the ground’ in the simplest of graves; but that loculus would have to have been hewn from rock. This is not that unlikely though, as outside of the city walls to the north (the most likely execution site) was at this time a mass of worked-out quarries from Herod’s constructions..
The easiest way to dispose of Jesus’s corpse; would have been to find a loculus in a nearby quarry wall. Ignoring the elaborations of later gospels, that could be what Mark describes.
No, I don’t know that they’ve found any. What is your source of information that every body who lived in jerusalem was buried in rock trenches? If they were, is that what you think about Jesus? Placed in some kind of rock trench? Are you thinking that Roman soldiers were involved in the arduous work of digging trenches out of rock for seditionists? And that this is what all the many thousands of poor folk in Jerusalem did, over the course of thousands of years? Seems implausible to me, but maybe! I’d like to know who thinks so though. And I’m happy to ask a couple of friends who do archaeology in ancient Israel. They would know!
Christianity has appeal through its universalism. It makes no difference between men and women, young and old, black and white, slave and free, rich or poor. Many women were in the itinerant ministry – can’t remember the name of the Roman governor who interrogated two women preachers early 2nd Century. He found that they were once slaves as well. Thus saying the women found the ’empty tomb’ was not remarkable to Christian doctrine.
Bart.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but did you not say that the motivation of the gospel writers to blame the Jews and dilute Pilate’s guilt in relation to Jesus’ death was, *to some degree*, due to their desire to win over Gentiles, Gentiles who may have been reluctant to join a movement that appeared hostile to Rome?
Yes, that’s right. (THough I don’t thnk the writers imagined their books would actually be read by gentile non-Christians)
Interesting !
Some time ago, you inspired me to read these narratives again, horistontally which I did and I had to think over those again, like a story from a more female perspectiv, and the fact that Mary Magdalen who is always mentioned first, had a praticular role (in particular in the Gospel of John) where she comes alone, and have a seemingly important dialog with Jesus (John 20, 11-18). Another rather interesting aspect of this story is for me verse 17 where Jesus says « I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”, I can’t avoid thinking about the at the time John was written (90s or so) the gnostic ideas, the Christ-Sofia ideas, was emerging (perhaps been there earlier like in Barbelo Gnosticism (part of the Sethian Gnosticism)
Well, I admit at least I have difficulties with the successions of ideas (even though the late scholar John D Turner claims that the Barbalo Serthian Gnosticism had its pre christian origin) I wonder if John was influenced by these ideas.
In Valentinian Gnosticism (read also Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses) , Christ and Sofia comes together in the devine bridal chamber, where Christ enters Jesus through his baptism, and in a similar way, Sofia enters Mary Magdalen , even though this is was not made explisit, but seems to be suggested in these Aphcrycons (i.e. the Gospel of Phillip where Mary Magdalen is called «the companion of the saviour (me reading: «Christ» who recognize his true consort from the the upper realm, and the one he was destined to be with from the beginning).
Also the last verses of the Valentinian Exposition (translated by John Turner ) «Moreover whenever Sophia receives her consort and Jesus receives the Christ and the seeds and the angels, then the Pleroma will receive Sophia joyfully, and the All will come to be in unity and reconciliation.»
Perhaps these gnosic thoughts around, about the woman at the tomb, at least in John,,,they evidently was around a few decades later.
And another thing, that I forgot, the similarities between the “weeping Sofia” and the weeping and mourning Mary Magdalene, besides also being an acknowledgment of revelatory messages in verses 11-18, in a surrender with two angles in white, sitting at the foot and the head of the body ,,, just like the symbol on the ark of the covenant.
Do I see some sybolism and similarities here?
Yes, you do appear to!
,,,ahh,,I mean the two angels sitting at the foot and head of Jesus,,,just like the two angels sitting on the top of the “Arc of the convenant”,,,,protecting both sides of the arc
I was curious about Jewish customs in this area. Did women prepare men’s bodies for burial? I had heard, although I can’t quote the source, that only men would prepare men’s bodies for burial, and visa versa.
Good question. I don’t know!
Ok, I guess I am surprised you don’t know if it is true that there was a tradition of only men preparing male bodies and women preparing female bodies for burial. If it were true, would it be of any interest or importance to you?
You’d be amazed what I don’t know. But yes, I would indeed like to know: my guess is that people will *say* such a thing, but I always want to know what *evidence* they have, and how *good* the evidence is. I’ve never heard of anything convincing.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think it’s a little odd that the women are going to anoint an already dead *and buried* body? Normally, you would anoint the body before burial like gJohn does. Notice how the motive to go to the tomb in Mark 16:1 was “to anoint the body.” Matthew omits this motive and changes it “to go see the tomb.” Doesn’t it look like a contrived plot device in order to get the women to “discover” the tomb? Also, notice the setup at the end of Mark 15 where the women are explicitly said to “have seen where the laid him” then in ch. 16 the angel invites them in to confirm he was missing from the spot where he was laid. This was obviously to show that there was no mistaking he was gone.
The idea is that Joseph had to do a quick job of it since Sabbath was starting; the women went back to bath and anoint the body.
Presently, I can only trace the Chevra Kadisha back to the 4th century. In the burial practices laid out by the Chevra Kadisha, men prepared men’s bodies for burier and vice versa. I don’t know but I might assume that burial customs prior to the 4th century were at least as conservative as this. Granted this is supposedly (if we believe the gospel account) a special situation, but then I think of opening a tomb to anoint a body that has already begun the putrefaction process and it all seems a bit out there to me.
Dr. Ehrman, since this post was taken from your views eight years earlier, have you modified it any regarding the Roman practice of crucifixion? In a subsequent book you postulated the unlikeliness that there was a tomb at all, that it was a later invention to “prove” the resurrection since Romans would have left Jesus’s body on the cross to rot like all other criminals. Does this affect the historical legitimacy of women, or anybody for that matter, finding an empty tomb?
That’s right, I don’t think there was an empty tomb to be discovered at all.
This examination brought actual joy to me. Thank you.
The women at the tomb may also have been a twist that gave the authors the opportunity to highlight some old prophecies, and give the event a deeper telogic understanding.
After Satan had tempted Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge, God had given Eve a prophecy of a Savior comming from her seed. Let us assume that Mary Magdalene, in one way or another, represents Eve in these events, and thus helps the writers to fulfill this old prophecy. Mary Magdalene was not allowed to touch the body of Jesus, just as Eve was not allowed to touch the Tree of Life. Eve was tempted by Satan and subsequently possessed by seven Demons, but now saved by Jesus. The prophecy is fulfilled, witnessed by the same person to whom the old prophecy was given.
Just think about the theological significance of the idea that she who introduced the original sin into the world, now is the one who gets the opportunity to meet the One who saved the same world from all sin.
Isn’t this madness? Jesus did never speak to either Adam or Eve. Then hear what is written in a scripture allegedly written by Theophilus to Autolycus (Book II, Chapter 22):
– “Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son?”
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm
To understand the meaning of what Theophilus says here, we must first understand that when he speaks of a God and Father who; “Cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest,” then he speaks of a transcendental God and not of the Jewish God. When Jesus says that no one knows the Father except the Son, he is talking about the Father as a transcendental God. This is the God of Plato! A God with no connection whatsoever to a world that is constantly changing and is imperfect.
The God, on the other hand, we find in the OT has a close connection to the people of Israel and He talks and gives advice to kings and prophets. This is a God who separates the Red Sea and walks in front of the people. We read that His WORD came to this and that prophet.
The Gospels are written in Greek. What if the evangelists wanted to keep the transcendental God of Plato, but also wanted the God of the Jews to be a true God – called His Son
If we keep this in mind, then it is easier to understand what is hinted at in the text.
Mary Magdalene has two encounters with the empty tomb in the Gospel of John. The first meeting takes place early in the morning on the first day of the week, while it was still dark. Perhaps it is a comparative image from the first day of creation the authors want to show the readers: – the earth is empty and still dark. A new creation is in the pipeline.
After alerting the other disciples, we find her once again at the tomb. This time she has a conversation with Jesus but thinks it’s the gardener. The only gardener in this context would be Adam! Is this what’s being hinted at? She thinks she’s talking to Adam, when in fact she’s talking to Jesus?
It is another prophecy that can be linked to Mary Magalene. This time the prophecy of Micah 4:8.
Scholars interpret Micah 4:8 as a prophecy indicating that the Messiah would be revealed from the “tower of the flock” (Migdal Eder) which is connected with the town of Bethlehem, southeast of Jerusalem.
«And you, O tower of the flock(Migdal Eder),
hill of daughter Zion, to you it shall come, the former dominion shall come,
the sovereignty of daughter Jerusalem.»
Where perhaps the name «Magdalene» is a result of the transliteration of the text from the Hebrew «Migdal Eder» into Greek?
When Mary Magdalene answered what she thought was the gardener, she called him Lord (Kyrie). Why does she call the gardener Lord? Maybe because when God showed them out of Paradise, He had told Eve that Adam would be her Lord (lxx) and rule over her from now on.
One more thing. After eating the fruit on the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and they found something to hide their nudity. But now, in the empty tomb, Mary found the linen clothes of Jesus. Jesus had undressed the old shame.
Kyrie, of course, was a term used as an honorific for all sorts of contexts. You could call your master that, your boss, your teacher, your husband, or … the Lord God Almighty.
When Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, God had stationed the Cherubim to protect the Tree of Life. This was one, or two, angels with flaming swords.
It is this angel, or these two angels, that Mary Magdalene now sees, with shining white clothes, in the empty tomb.
The way back to Paradise has been opened through Jesus’ suffering.
There is also another slightly different way of describing the meeting between Mary Magdalene and the two angels. That the angel at the head of Jesus represented the Cherubim who guarded the tree of life, and that the angel at his feet represented the old serpent who favored the tree of knowledge, which was now trodden on by Jesus.
There is also a symbolism in that Mary Magdalene after the first encounter with the open tomb hurries off to enlighten the disciples.
Just as Eve hurried away to enlighten Adam about the fruits of the tree of knowledge, after her encounter with the old serpent, she now hurries just as eagerly away to enlighten the disciples about the fruits of the tree of life.
Sorry for being off-topic here:
Bart, why don’t you buy the idea of heaven that there wouldn’t be any pain & suffering? Finally, God’s justice would be prevailed. For some, earthly suffering strengthen their faith.
There were Holocaust survivors who survived the war because of their faith in God. The optimist would believe the final redemption & the pessimist would lose his faith.
I certainly wish it were true. But I don’t think something is true because it helps people in their faith. It would help a lot of people believe or at least believe more strongly if there were no suffering of any kind in the world. But that doesn’t meant there isn’t any suffering in the world.
I realize this is just supposition on my part but I’ve often thought that the tomb was empty because the Jewish hierarchy had someone go to the tomb, take Jesus’ body, and throw it in Gehenna as a final insult to him. It explains the empty tomb. It is also plausible. The Jewish elite considered Jesus a blasphemer. He threatened them with the “fires” of Gehenna. I realize there is no evidence in the written record, but, it seems more believable to me that a resurrection.
So the gospel writers would not have known anything about the idea that Jesus likely ended up in a common burial pit?
I don’t know what they knew, but they certainly don’t let on that they’ve heard anything about it. They *have* heard people claim that the disciples stole the body. That’s why Matthew’s narrative works to show it could not be true.
Two additional thoughts on the matter.
I’ve wondered if the assumption about a woman’s testimony originated not so much from Josephus’ comment but from the mockery of Celsus about Christianity being a religion of women, slaves, and deplorables.
I’ve also wondered about the Messianic Secret in the last scene of Mark. Could it be that the writer is saying, Jesus really is vindicated and raised, and this is why so few people knew about it? The male disciples had deserted and the female disciples said nothing to anyone.
Thoughts?
Yup, that strikes me as completely plausible.
Dr. Ehrman,
Regarding the historicity of the empty tomb stories, I was thinking that if there was no empty tomb, the importance of Mary Magdalene seems to decrease as she is no longer apostle to the apostles. What can be said about her role? Was she just an exceptionally influential financial sponsor? Did she have visions of a resurrected Jesus?
I think you’re right. The whole idea (later found in church fathers) that she was the apostle to the apostles is based on the resurrectoin. The financial bit is found only Luke 8:1-3 and appears not to have made a big impact on later writers. I do think she probaly had a vision of Jesus, and it is *that* which led to someone coming up with the story of her discovering the empty tomb. One might suppose that she was known to be the *first* to have had a vision. If so, it’s pretty important. You could argue, then, that she in a sense is the founder of Christianity!
Hi Bart,
It seems that a lot of people had visions in those days. Is there a possible neurological explanation for this phenomenon? Is there any possibility of mind-altering substances being used? I read a few years ago that Saul’s visions were possibly related to epileptic seizures.
Neurological: absolutely. People continue, often, to have visions today. Mind-altering substances: no evidence really, though lots of speculation about it. Especially since the 60s….
Professor Ehrman, during the period the Gospels were written didn’t some women actually hold positions of authority in various Christian communities? And, can any of those communities be identified?
Based on passages such as Romans 16, almost certainly . We know of women deacons and even an apostle, for example, as well as women who had the church meetings in their own homes, making us wonder if they were leading the meetings.
Dr. Ehrman,
One thing that always struck me about the women going to anoint Jesus’ body was why would they go days later? Wouldn’t the body have been decomposing by then? What would have the purpose to anoint by then? Have you studied this by any chance? Just something I’ve always thought about and haven’t really gotten an answer. Thank you!
The idea is that he died Friday late afternoon; it becomes Sabbath at dark; Sunday morning they go to the tomb. So they went as soon as they were allowed.
Professor,
How do you think Paul’s likely view of the tomb, and other early views of the resurrection, comport with what is known of common disposal of crucified bodies post Mortem. That is first left to animals on the cross and then likely thrown in a common grave or refuse pit. Paul’s “spiritual perfect transformed body seems to work well with an incomplete corpse but resurrection no so much?
Everyone in antiquity knew that eventually bodies disintegrated. The scavengers simply made it happen more quickly. Resurrection assumes that the body is miraculously reconstituted, even if it is disintegrated.
You mention Paul having a “vision” of Jesus, as he indicated in 1 Cor 15:8 (“Last of all. . .he appeared to me.”) but in Galatians (1:12) he refers not to seeing Jesus, but to receiving his Gospel from a “revelation” from Jesus, which could have a variety of meanings. Have any scholars dug into the difference in words used in these two cases or into what it meant that he received his Gospel through a revelation? A simple hallucination (vision) would be unlikely to produce a theology as intricate as Paul’s.
Oh yes, lots of scholars. And scholars of hallucinations would disagree with you I think. There is no way the mind can differentiate between a hallucination and an actual sighting of someone. You may want to look at my book How jesus Became God where I discuss the matter nad explain it.
While the idea that Jesus was thrown into a common grave or pit makes intuitive sense to me, people like Craig Evans (and possibly Dale Allison) argue that, even for those who were dishonorably buried, Jewish custom was such that the Jewish authorities would keep track of the body–to allow for second burial (a year later) by the family.
Do you have thoughts on the likelihood that people would have kept track of the body (in order for 2nd burial)? Thanks.
That is certainly true for the wealthy elite. But in any event, Jewish custom has no bearing on what the Romans were doing. They didn’t give a damn about local conditions/traditions when it came to sedition.
Notice how the women aren’t actually witnesses because Mark has them leave and say nothing to anyone. So, in this sense, they actually are “unreliable.” This also would have had the convenient effect of explaining why none of Mark’s readers had heard the story before – “those frantic women just didn’t tell anyone about it!”
There’s still the issue that, because the women stuck around while the cowardly men skeedaddled, it doesn’t paint the male disciples in a particularly good light. So I find it difficult to understand why this wasn’t edited out later on when attempts were made, probably in the early 2nd century, to eradicate female leadership in the early church and shore up the patriarchy.
Prof Ehrman,
In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 as mentioned in your post, verses 3 and 4 both end with “according to Scriptures”.
My take is that this is in reference to the Jewish Scriptures. If so, will that mean Paul literally considered some of the passages in the OT as Messianic prophecies.
Q1. Were there any Jewish Messianic prophecies that foretold a dying and resurrected Messiah as Paul asserts?
Q2. Did Paul really seek to support his faith in Jesus with the Jewish Scriptures and why OR these were put on Paul’s lips?
(I have learnt from some of your lectures that 1 & 2 Corinthians is largely agreed as going back to Paul)
1. There aer not passages that explicitly talk about that, and none that any Jew before the followers of Jesus took that way. But passages like Isaiah 53 nad Hosea 6:3 were read that way by jesus’ followers after his death; 2. Yes, Paul certainly made this argument.
Cancel my previous query Bart; I have found the source I was looking for in Mark D Smith ‘Capital Punishment and Burial in the Roman Empire (2014)’. Smith notes that bones from 100 individuals were found in the grand Goliath tomb outside Jericho – which could be from a primary communal burial, or just the charnel pit for an exceptionally fecund family. But otherwise, no communal graves have been found in Roman Judea.
Also new to me, was that the famous crucified bones of Yehohannan are not unique. In the same tomb complex are a man and a woman whose remains indicate Roman capital punishment; both beheaded. All three received elite secondary burial in their family tomb; so they each must have had individual primary burial. So, the supposition that Roman governors routinely refused burial to those they executed, or threw them into a common pit, is plainly false.
As Smith comments, the identification of Yehohannan as crucified resulted uniquely from the preservation of the nail. ” …it is quite probable that the bodies of many such victims have in fact been discovered”
Interestnig. Thanks. Yes, there are pictures of the nail, still attached to the ankle. But I don’t think we have any material evidence of crucified victims — except for the nails themselves.
Further to the above on ‘Capital Punishment and Burial in the Roman Empire’; Smith provides a comprehensive survey of literary references (which are not many) to the disposal of the bodies of those executed under Roman authority (which were a lot). This confirms that the Romans did sometimes deny burial to those they killed in times of war, civil disorder or political crisis. But at other times, executed bodies – even of slaves – were given minimal proper burial. The mode of execution does not seem to be decisive; those crucified are sometimes buried; while those executed by other means, in a period of crisis or misrule, might not be.
“It took unusual circumstances, at least in the Imperial period, in particular war and violence, for the Romans to engage in corpse abuse or exposure”. Otherwise the core Roman principles of pietas and public sanitation supervened.
If Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:64), he would most likely have received a ‘shameful’ burial by a member of the Council; either in a rock-cut trench grave, or single-loculus tomb. See Acts 13:29.
’
Interesting. Does he give his evidence for that? I think I looked at every reference (at least that I could find) about crucified victims on crosses, and the common trope is, in short “food for the birds”
“Food for the crows” certainly. Or – from a epitaph inscription “crucified alive for the wild beasts and birds”. Clearly this was proverbial.
But are the crows threatened as dining on the crucified alive or dead? That epitaph could rather favour the former narrative. The gladiator shows at Cumae were advertised (in Pompei) as including ‘cruciarii’ as an interval entertainment. These must have been spiced-up somewhat; perhaps (as in the show witnessed by Martial a year or so later in Rome) in a ‘fatal charade’ where the crucified was cast in the role of Prometheus, to be savaged alive by beasts and raptors.
But another trope for crucifixion – in Plautus inevitably – is to ‘go to the bellringers’ (ad tintinnaculos); which ties in with the Puteoli inscription, where the operatives disposing of the remains of the crucified to the common pit, are required to ring bells while doing so.
The literary references do support a proverbial understanding of crucifixion as sometimes leading to continued exposure of the crucified on the cross after death; but also otherwise as crucified bodies being disposed without funeral rites in a burial pit.
Bart:
Looking at the archeological evidence for burial of the crucified, I am not sure whether you are yet aware of; ‘A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?’ Ennanella Gualdi et al. 2018. The authors substantiate their opinion, that the buried remains discovered in Gavello in 2007 had been buried following a Roman crucifixion. The key finding being a hole punched through the right calcaneus by a round nail or spike – an insult inflicted peri-mortem.
His being nailed through the heel links this victim to the other well-known finding of burial following crucifixion from Giv’at ha-Mivtar; but otherwise the Gavello burial was strikingly different, and the authors believe was most likely a slave.
– the burial was isolated from any settlement within a Bronze age embankment, suggesting a ‘deviant burial probably related to an execrable existence’.
– there were no grave goods or coffin; the deceased was laid out at the bottom of a trench.
– the nail had been driven through from the opposite direction than at Giv’at ha-Mivtar ; possibly indicating the knees being spread apart on the cross, with the feet together.
Interesting. Can you give me the full reference?
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences · April 2018.
‘A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?’
Emanuela Gualdi-Russo & Ursula Thun Hohenstein & Nicoletta Onisto & Elena Pilli & David Caramelli
you can download as PDF from Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 324496883_A_multidisciplinary_study_of_calcaneal_trauma_in_Roman_Italy_a_possible_case_of_crucifixion
The body was buried deeply and complete (though most of the skull was sheared off by the pipeline contractors). The bones are not well preserved though, and have been damaged by root and insect action. There may be signs of other peri-mortem injuries on the feet – perhaps flogging or torture – but not apparently any toothmarks (or peckmarks) from predating beasts or birds. There was no crucifragium of the legs.
The skeleton is of a male; likely aged 30-34, short and slightly built; consistent with poor lifetime nutrition. His genetic profile was typical of the local area.
So; the body was not exposed to the dogs and birds, nor was it buried in a family tomb, nor thrown into a common pit with other slaves, criminals and destitutes. The choice of isolated disposal site was clearly intentional; perhaps as (even when dead) his presence continued to represent a threat or hazard.
Interesting. I’ll take a look!
Dr Ehrman –
re: “Are you thinking that Roman soldiers were involved in the arduous work of digging trenches out of rock for seditionists? ” [from response to another members question]
Craig Evans writes “The process that led to the execution of Jesus, and perhaps also the two men crucified with him, was initiated by the Jewish Council. According to law and custom when the Jewish council (or Sanhedrin) condemned someone to death, by whatever means, it fell to the council to have that person buried.”
I don’t know what Evans bases this on – perhaps Mishnah Sanhedrin, which states “Rather the court must bury him [an executed person] that very day”? But, neither do I know what you base your implication on (that Romans would have been the ones digging trenches)?
Could you comment on this? It’s clear that you and Evans have distinctly different ideas…
Yes, we completely disagree on this. He’s right, if Jews executed someone they were responsible for burying him. But, uh, the Jews didn’t execute Jesus and the Romans didn’t give a damn about Jewish custom, when it came to taking care of rebels and insurgents (otherwise, of course, they let the Jews do pretty much waht they want.)
Why do you think that the gospels were for insiders not outsiders? Wouldn’t stories about Jesus be a good way to convert people to Christianity?
Lots of reasons. One is that we have no record of outsiders ever reading them until the end of the second century, and no reference by any converts that they had read them prior to converting. One way to look at it is like modern-day evangelical books on “Apologetics,” that “prove” the faith. These are rarely if ever given to outsiders; they are meant to inform insiders to give them arguments to use when trying to convert others. If they *are* given to outsiders it’s because we live in a largely literate and Xn world here, and we share books of various kinds all the time. In a world where 90% of teh population couldn’t read and 99% were non-Xn, that kid of book sharing appears not to have happened in early Xty.
One you may have overlooked then Bart; the Puteoli inscription (ca 10 BCE), stipulating the obligations and privileges associated with the monopoly funerary concession for the colonia.
In respect of public crucifixions:
“Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses (cruces), and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters. Also if he will be commanded to drag [the cadaver] out with a hook, he must drag the cadaver itself out, his workers dressed in red, with a bell ringing, to a place where many cadavers will be.”
Three points on the final sentence:
– the word ‘if’ is conditional. The magistrate retains the discretion not to command the burial of the crucified;
– the expectation, nevertheless, is that those crucified will normally be buried – and the term ‘hook’ (frequent in the literary texts) generally indicates such criminal burial;
– once dead; the remains of the crucified are considered highly polluting; to be disposed of rapidly by means that minimises continued public exposure.
When was the cadaver dragged out?
Also, notice “a place where many cadavers will be.” That’s a burial pit, no?
“What is your source of information that every body who lived in Jerusalem was buried in rock trenches? If they were, is that what you think about Jesus? Placed in some kind of rock trench? ”
Around 60 Roman-era burials in Jerusalem have been found in individual rock-hewn trenches – around 2 meters deep with a ‘slot’ at the bottom covered with stone slabs. This is how the majority were buried. Otherwise, there are some 900 rock-hewn tombs, as three types – commercial ‘catacombs’, selling individual grave spaces; family tombs, a central chamber with multiple ‘loculi’ extending from each wall; and single-loculus tombs, a short horizontal shaft with one loculus extending from the end. Tombs were mainly for the affluent.
I think that, knowing there would be three condemned persons to bury, the Sanhedrin arranged for three individual graves to be cut nearby for ‘shameful’ burial. In the softer limestone beds this could be done in a day. On this see Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5. After a year the families could remove the skeletal remains for reburial (Sanhedrin 6:6); but not before. Could have been trench graves, or single-loculus tombs.
Yes, I know well that such rock-hewn trenches were used for those who could afford them. My question is why we should think that *everyone* was buried in one? If they were, wouldn’t we find many tens of thousands of them?
Dr Ehrman –
re: “But, uh, the Jews didn’t execute Jesus”
I guess I need to read your whole “case” about this – is it in “How Jesus Became God”?
If the Jews could have executed Jesus, then, they had no need to take him to Pilate. If they *couldn’t* execute Jesus, then, it could be said that the Romans were merely carrying out a sentence for the Jews, like a hired executioner.
Anyway, I’ll check this out in “How Jesus….” *unless* you have another writing you’d like to point me to…
If you do a word search for Craig Evans you’ll see a series of posts I devoted to his claims about this. Where I first develop the argumnet (without, of coruse, responding to him) is in How jesus Became God. But no, Romans were not hired executioners. They did not allow Jews to perform capital punishment. They kept it for themselves, in part so they could do it when and how they wanted, with no influence or interference from others. They were a brutal lot, and when it came to sedition, they didn’t give a damn what the locals would say abuot it….
“When was the cadaver dragged out?
Also, notice “a place where many cadavers will be.” That’s a burial pit, no?”
The cadavar was dragged out at once, ‘if’ commanded. Note that it is not only the remains of the crucified that became dangerously polluted immediately death occurred; it was also the entire company of floggers, torturers, executioners, and labourers – plus all the specified kit of nails, beams, bells and clothing. They are forbidden from hanging around waiting, under the terms of the concession. These terms do not state what should happen ‘if’ the magistrate did not command immediate removal; except that the concessionaire’s slaves cannot remain in the colonia.
And yes; the destination would be a ‘puticulus’; a common pit for the disposal of those who are to be denied any funeral rites at all. Which (apart from those executed by crucifixion) are specified in the concession as comprising all suicides and slaves. These bodies too have to be removed fast – within an hour for suicides, and by two hours after sunset for slaves. Essentially for the same reason; when bodies are not given funeral rites, they are polluting and a public hazard.
Maybe I misread what you’ve quoted. But it doesn’t say anything about when “if” happened. As you know, insurrectionists who were crucified were precisely treated as slaves who were crucified — no rights at all. Where did it say they were taken down that day before sunset? Maybe I wasn’t reading the text you cited?
Had the concession been intended to accommodate the magistrate’s deferring disposal of the remains of the crucified; then the terms would have specified ‘when’, not ‘if’. Which does not mean that temporarily retaining crucified remains was not an option; only that subsequent disposal would not be provided gratis by the concession holder. Which in turn implies this was not expected to happen often.
Reading the full text, you will see that it is dominated by fear of pollution. Funerary services in Puteoli were not regulated to protect bereaved families from being over-charged; but rather to ensure that excess profits could be creamed-off to minimise the colonia from exposure to polluting bodies – specfically slaves, suicides and executed criminals – without cost to public funds. In normal circumstances, hygiene trumped severity.
In the case of Jesus’s crucifixion, this suggests you may be misreading the situation. Jewish Law would require Jesus’s body to be buried before sunset; but Pilate – albeit understanding pollution differently – would still favour that same outcome. So long as Jesus was dead, the quicker he was buried the better. The same principle; hygiene trumps severity.
“Yes, I know well that such rock-hewn trenches were used for those who could afford them. My question is why we should think that *everyone* was buried in one? If they were, wouldn’t we find many tens of thousands of them?”
1,200 trench graves have been found in the cemetery at Qumran – where they were the sole form of interment; even though the nearby cliffs are riddled with caves. There appears to have been a community policy for all their dead to be buried in the least costly manner, consistent with strict Torah observance.
Counterpart trench grave cemeteries have been found in other Judean locations. Hewing a trench out of rock may appear to be labour intensive; but they can be much closer together, which saves on land. The Jerusalem cemetery of Beit Safafa packs in fifty graves.
Unlike at Qumran, these cemeteries are not marked out by external heaped stones; and so are only discovered when a road or housing project cuts into one. And as none of those buried in them were rich, there are no grave-goods worth robbing. They were presumably dug from public funds.
Yes, but Qumran is a special community in all sorts of ways, and not representative of what happened in Jerusalem. what make syou think public funds were available for such things? It’s an interesting idea, but I’ve never heard of that in the ancient world. Quite the contrary, that’s why there were funeral associations throughout the empire. Is there some evidence it was different in Jerusalem? (It’s a genuine question: I’d love to know!)
The Nabatean cemetery at Khirbet Qazone, has over 5,000 shaft grave burials; all similar to those at Qumran, both in construction – a two-metre shaft, with a slot at the bottom covered by brick slabs; and also by having very few grave goods or wooden coffins. Most burials date to the 1st and 2nd centuries CE; and in the dry and saline conditions, their bodies and their clothing – wool, linen and cotten tunics and mantles – are well preserved.
Which suggests that burial in the Qumran cemetery was not reserved for members of the nearby community (though one burial in a zinc-walled coffin may have been for the founder of that community); but was rather a facility used by the general population of the area. This was where the poor were buried. Which prompts the question of who owned the land – here and in the counterpart cemetery in Jerusalem. In Jewish law, tombs are family property; but otherwise, there are ‘graveyards’ of individual plots.
However, the Mishnah does say that the Sanhedrin maintained and funded a burying place in Jerusalem for executed criminals..
Professor, could ancient Aramaic and Greek words for ‘burial’, ‘grave’, ‘tomb’ or similar have resulted in an innocent corruption of the resurrection story that made it into the gospels? I don’t know any ancient languages but Google Translate gives me exactly the same modern Greek word for both ‘grave’ and ‘tomb’.
It is easy to imagine someone along the chain of re-telling having a false memory about the nature of the burial place based on what they intuitively thought would have been appropriate for a great hero and saviour. And easy to imagine why this meme survived.
I appreciate that the empty tomb meme could have evolved in many ways but I’m just curious if the ancient words for tomb are ambiguous. As you might guess I have recently read your awesome work ‘Jesus Before the Gospels’.
I’m not quite sure what the scenario is you have in mind? But yes, grave and tomb are often used interchangeably (even in English).
I apologise for lack of clarity in my question. In modern Greek ‘grave’ and ‘tomb’ appear to translate as precisely the same word: τάφος. Even the words for ‘burial’ and ‘cemetery’ appear to have the same root: ταφή and ταφε respectively.
Therefore I wonder if the situation was similar for the relevant words in ancient Greek or Aramaic when the oral traditions about Jesus were still evolving, and if this could explain how Jesus’ corpse was unceremoniously tossed into a mass grave yet later we have the story of a grand tomb in the gospels.
I’m from olde England where I have only ever seen cemeteries of the protestant tradition where corpses are buried directly down in the ground; this is what I know as a grave. For us ‘tombs’ are an exotic concept related to a catholic tradition of laying loved ones to rest in cavernous monumental structures above ground. This same distinction is made in my English dictionary.
The importance is that I could never imagine speaking about a ‘mass tomb’, whereas ‘mass grave’ is common parlance for example in reference to the horrors of WWII… or the shared burial sites of victims of mass execution in ancient Roman times.
My sense is that many English speakers use the terms synonymously, though you’re right, I think *technically* a tomb is above ground and a grave is in the ground. There were a variety of burial options for ancient Jews; the rich folk could use rock-hewn tombs; the poor folk were tossed into a pit or a purpose-built ditch (= grave). The term TAPHOS could mean either. It meant something like “place the deceased was placed while or after having burial rites.”
Recently, I’ve started to wonder about the verbiage in Paul’s gospel. That Jesus was “buried”, and rose again the third day. Because that’s not exactly how the four gospels describe it. They describe Jesus as being “laid” in the tomb. I guess it’s not inconceivable that one would describe entombment as a burial, but it seems to me that’s not the most intuitive description. Am I overthinking it?
Yes, possibly! “Burial” in these contexts usually means “given a burial rite” of some kind.
Assuming an historical Jesus, there are many different explanations for an empty tomb, such as the body being stolen or going to the wrong tomb. Going through Jodi Magness’ TTC course Holy Land Revealed, I thought of an explanation that I could not find anywhere. Because of the terrain in Jerusalem, wealthy people would carve tombs in the rock. Extended from the central area of those tomb were loculi where the bodies were actually placed. Since Jesus’ followers did not come from Jerusalem, they were likely unaware of this practice. So, when they returned to the tomb, they got the right tomb, but going from the bright sunlight outside into a dark tomb, their eyes hadn’t adjusted yet, so they saw nothing in the central area of the tomb. Since they did not know about loculi, it did not occur to them to look any further and assumed the body was gone. This made them think that the tomb was empty, when Jesus’ body was actually there.
To me, using Occam’s razor, this sounds like the most reasonable explanation. However, as I said, I have not been able to find it anywhere. What am I missing?
Interesting idea. I suppose it’s possible, though usually if I’m in a strange place and can’t find something I’m eagerly looking for and desperate to find I look around a bit before drawing too many conclusions. My view, for what it’s worth, is that Jesus wasn’t placed in a loculus. In any event, it’s certainly worth thinking about, and if it seesm like a possible answer, the next question would be why it is more plausible than others that hav been suggested.
Dr. Ehrman,
Could you write about the idea that there was no tomb? Do you subscribe to the idea that there was an actual tomb? And why?
I don’t think so, and I have discussed it. Look up “empty tomb” and you’ll see. I had a number of posts dealing with whether Jesus would be given a proper burial (also look up Craig Evans and you’ll find them). I discuss it at fuller length in my book How Jesus Became God (which is what Craig was reacting to).
Bart,
In broad strokes, why do you conclude the discovered empty tomb story is a legend? Is it just Paul’s lack of mentioning it, or are there other reasons as well?
No, for me Paul’s not mentioning it is not a large part of the equation. For me it’s that what we know about Roman policies of not burying crucifixion victims until their corpses had decayed on the cross for days shows that the idea of Joseph of A. burying the body that afternoon in a known grave are implausible.
Sorry Bart, I meant with my question above to ask if there is anything other than Paul’s silence *in the literary record* that leads you to conclude the discovered empty tomb story is a legend (I assume your main reason is that Jesus was left on cross and then tossed by the Romans into a pit after a few days/weeks).
Bart,
Some scholars think the women’s fear-induced silence at the ending of Mark (16:8) was intended to answer why the discovered empty tomb story had remained unknown for so long. Do you find this a plausible explanation for Mark’s ending?
I think it’s possible, but I don’t know how to confirm or disconfirm it.
What do you think is the most plausible explanation(s) for Mark ending his Gospel with fear-induced silence?
It fits perfectly with one of his overarching motifs, that the disciples of Jesus never did understand that he had to die and be raised.
So if I understand you correctly, you think Mark’s audience already knows a story where the women, after fleeing in fear, went and told others about the discovered empty tomb, and Mark is just accentuating the fear part of the story. Do I got that right?
Also, do you know of anyone who has tried to make a comprehensive case that Mark’s ending is just a continuation of his overarching motif that the disciples never did understand that he would die and be raised?
No, I don’t think I said anything about Mark accentuating the fear; I’m afraid we don’t know what his audience previously knew. I don’t have a bibliography on the question off the top of my head, but I think it’s a relatively common idea.
I’m confused. How can you say Mark is not accentuating the fear of the women in the last verse of his gospel when that seems to be the main point: “So they went out and FLED from the tomb, for TERROR and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were AFRAID.” According to Mark, isn’t fear the reason why the women said nothing to anyone?
I’m afraid you keep misreading me. What I *said* was that I *didn’t say* that Mark was accentuating the fear (You said I said that but I don’t recall ever saying it). I not only didn’t say that, I also didn’t say what you here say I said. (!)
Yea, there was some massive confusion there! So just to make sure, am I correct that you DO think Mark is accentuating the fear of the women in vs. 16:8? If so, and if (on your view) the women’s fear fits in with Mark’s overarching motif that the disciples never understood that Jesus had to die and be raised, why does Mark say “they said nothing to anyone”?
The point of 16:8 is that the women were terrified and so didn’t tell anyone. It’s not their fear that fits Mark’s motif of the disciples not understanding, but the fact the disciples never did hear about the resurrection. (That’s of course just the *story*; hisotrically it would make no sense since Mark heard about it! but you can’t confuse his *story* with what *must have actually happened*; I’m interested in these comments in his story itself)
I too am only interested in what Mark’s *story* intends (like you, I don’t think there ever was an *actual* discovered empty tomb). And I agree with you that “the point of 16:8 is that the women were terrified and so didn’t tell anyone.” So the question is: Why would Mark end this story with fear-induced silence? One answer would be that Mark is trying to explain to his audience why this discovered empty tomb story had never been heard of before. You previously seemed to favor a different answer: “It fits perfectly with one of his overarching motifs, that the disciples of Jesus never did understand that he had to die and be raised.” And you just elaborated further: “It’s not their fear that fits Mark’s motif of the disciples not understanding, but the fact the disciples never did hear about the resurrection.” I am unclear on what you mean here. It seems like you are saying that Mark (in his story) intends the disciples never heard about the discovered empty tomb because the women didn’t tell them (or anyone else), which is close to what I initially suggested. Is this what you mean? Can you please elaborate.
I think you might be confusing what I’m saying with (what I think) you are saying. As I understand it, you’re giving a socio-historical explanation of WHY no one had mentioned an empty tomb before (that is, historically; why before Mark this wasn’t a tradition. Mark’s answer: the women didn’t tell anyone!). I’m decidedly not doing that. Your view *may* be right, but it’s not what I think. I think peole DID know about an empty tomb. My view is that Mark has the women not tell anyone for LITERARY (not socio-historical) reasons. In his accounts the disciples can never understand the essential message that the messiah has to die and be raised. AT the end, they still don’t understand. They never even learn that he has been raised.
So just to be clear, do you think Mark (in his story) intends the women *never* (not even after Jesus appeared to the male disciples in Galilee, and not even after decades had passed) told the male disciples or anyone else about the discovered empty tomb?
Yes. It wouldn’t make sense to say they didn’t tell anyone if he meant they just didn’t tell anyone right away. It’d be like a friend of yours saying that she never told anyone the secret you told her last week. You reply, but Barry said you told him! And she replies, Yes, but that was only three days ago.
…or do you think Mark intends his audience to infer from his story that the women told the male disciples about the discovered empty tomb sometime after Jesus appeared to them in Galilee?
No, I don’t see any suggestion of that.
On your view that Mark intends the women *never* told anyone about the discovered empty tomb, does Mark intend for his audience to infer (or already believe) that Jesus’ male disciples found about the discovered empty tomb from some else, like maybe Joseph of Arimathea, or does Mark intend for his audience to infer (or already believe) that Jesus’ male disciples *never* found out about the discovered empty tomb?
I think you’re maybe thinking of Mark’s account as a history so that it needs to allow for the posibility of the discipes hearing. It’s a story. In the story, the disciples never hear. The reader is left wondering… WHAT??? And that’s more or less the point. (i.e., the point is not to provide an answer )
Two questions:
1) I know Mark’s burial and discovered empty tomb story are not history, but do you agree that Mark is *trying* to present these stories as history to his audience?
2) On your view that Mark intends the women *never* told anyone about the discovered empty tomb and the male disciples *never* found out about it, is Mark assuming his audience already knows of the discovered empty tomb story? (My understanding is that you think the discovered empty tomb story had been around for decades before Mark to explain the word “buried” in 1 Cor 15:4.)
1. At the end of the day I’d say there is no way to know for sure, but wish there were. What we have are his words and not his intentions. but the words come to us in the form of a story. 2. I don’t know what he intended. What he said is they didn’t tell anyone. I assume he knows his readers know that Jesus was raised, and I’d assume that they think therefore the tomb must have been empty. But that’s not the point he’s trying to make, and I’m intersted in the point he’s making rather than placing emphasis (any emphasis at all) precisely on the point he’s not making.
I know there is no way to know for sure if Mark intended his burial and discovered empty tomb story to be taken by his audience as history or as a fictional story, but if you had to lay bets, which one would you choose?
I think I said that there’s no way to know! So that would be a 50-50 bet.
Ok, 50-50, so let’s consider both possibilities. Consider first the possibility that Mark intends his audience to take his burial and discovered empty tomb story as *history*.
We both agree that Mark intends the women *never* told anyone about the discovered empty tomb and the male disciples *never* found out about it.
Two questions:
1) If (on your view) Mark’s audience already knows of a discovered empty tomb story that had been circulating since at least the early 50s (to explain “buried” in 1 Cor 15:4), wouldn’t they find it bizarre that they know about this event and it is in wide circulation but none of Jesus’ male disciples ever knew about it even though some of them lived decades after the event?
2) Alternatively, if (on my view) Mark’s audience had never heard of a discovered empty tomb story before, wouldn’t Mark’s ending make perfect sense as an explanation for why this story had never been heard of before?
I think we’ve kicked this around the yard enough now. I’ve been trying to say that you have to differentiate between Mark as story and Mark as plausible history; my comments have been about the story — which we have — not about how its reception or intended reception by Mark’s actual historical audience, about which we have no information. So let’s move on to other, equally interesting things!
Wow, I didn’t expect that response. Given that Mark’s audience were humans, I figured asking how Mark’s audience might plausibly receive Mark’s story would help the historian whittle down the possibilities for Mark’s intent. Since that’s off limits, let me try coming at it from an entirely different perspective, but if this approach too is off limits just say so and I’ll drop this topic.
If I understand correctly, you think the discovered empty tomb is a legend but it existed early enough to lie behind “buried” in 1 Cor 15:4. If that’s true, then in your view (and correct me if I’m wrong), it must just be a coincidence that the *discovered* empty tomb is the only piece of major evidence that Paul does not explicitly remind the Corinthians about, and it is also a coincidence that the first ever written account of a discovered empty tomb ends in a way that could easily be understood as an explanation for why the discovered empty tomb had never been heard of before. In your view, these complementary evidences in Paul and Mark suggesting the discovered empty story emerged as a legend from Mark or his oral sources after Paul is simply a mirage…right?
A better way to say what I am trying to convey above is as follows. If one concludes (as you do) that Mark did *not* intend his ending to be an explanation for why the discovered empty tomb story had never been heard of before and that Paul knew of a discovered empty tomb story, then one must conclude it is just a coincidence that such an ending to the discovered empty tomb story occurred in the *first* account of this event ever written, enabling the *possibility* that Mark intended his ending to be an explanation for why the discovered empty tomb had never been heard of before and that Paul’s non-mention of such a discovery is consistent with the exact same conclusion. Beyond the various possible interpretations of what Paul and Mark intended in their individual texts (which is ultimately unresolvable), do historians consider these coincidental alignments to judge what most likely happened?
One last further refinement:
It’s just a coincidence that the fear-induced silence ending to Mark’s discovered empty tomb story occurs *only* in the *first* known version of this story, which can give the impression that Mark intends his ending to explain why the discovered empty tomb story had never been heard of before, a conclusion consistent with Paul never mentioning a discovered empty tomb.
Coincidences happen, so move on, nothing further to consider here.
What about passages like John 20:31 that say “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Couldn’t this be used to show that one of the purposes of the gospel of John was used to persuade people to believe?
It turns out it’s a complicated verse because the verb is in the present tense, and is probably to be translated “so that you can continue believing”
Dr. Ehrman,
In your recent debate with Licona, you purposed the idea that Jesus may have not even been buried in a tomb but was instead buried in a common grave pit. The evidence you gave seems compelling. Thus, I have several questions that have been ruminating in my mind.
First, as you pointed out, there doesn’t need to be an empty tomb in order for there to be a resurrection (as Paul doesn’t seem to have any knowledge of an empty tomb). So, why would anybody make up the story of an empty tomb if indeed it would have been common knowledge that crucified victims were not buried? Wouldn’t this story have been immediately rejected as false? Why make up a story that everybody knows is not true and is not even necessary for a resurrected savior?
I would like to hear you comment more on the implications of the empty tomb and why/how it came to be and how it came to be believed? Especially if everybody knew crucified victims did not get a proper burial. Plus, why do early antagonists engage the empty tomb theory instead of against how unhistorical this story is in the first place?
1. They would make it up as a “proof” that he was raised for those who doubted? 2. No one would have known it wasn’t true. No one had any clue what happened to the body. (And it’s not that everyone knew what romans did with crucified victims. The vast majority fo the Roman world had never *seen* a crucifixion wouldn’t have known the full scoop). 3. It came to be believed in Xn circles because it’s just what everyone said in the communities. 4. Unfortunately we don’t know what antoagonists against the Xns said in the early years. One question is whether the earliest Xns said the tomb was empty but didn’t say anything, until later, about it being on the third day…
Bart,
1) In your 2006 debate with William Craig you seemed to think that Paul did not know about a discovered empty tomb story: “The empty tomb also could be a later invention. We don’t have a reference to it in Paul; you only have it later in the Gospels” (https://www.apologetics315.com/media/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf). Is it now your opinion that Paul knew of a discovered empty tomb story and, if so, what made you change your mind?
2) In the same debate link above, you propose that Jesus’ followers inferred that Jesus was resurrected up to heaven after turning to their scriptures which spoke of a vindicated Righteous One and *then* they had visions of Jesus: “Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him.” Is it now your opinion that a vision of Jesus *preceded and gave birth to* the resurrection belief and, if so, what changed your mind about the sequence of the resurrection belief and visions of Jesus, i.e., why haven’t you stuck with your previous conclusion that the resurrection belief came *first* and then visions of Jesus?
1. I don’t think there’s anyu evidence that Paul had heard about an empty tomb story or the account of women visiting the tomb; but since he thought Jesus’ resurrection was a physical event, I htink he believed that the body was no longer *in* the tomb. That can’t be used as “evidence” for the resurrection, though, since he says nothing about it and it’s an assumption. 2. Did I say that? Hmmm, that’s odd. I don’t recall ever *thinking* that. I’ve always thoguht that something had to make them think Jesus had come to life again and I’ve always thought that was the visionary experiences they had.
Thanks for the clarification on #2 above.
If you “don’t think there’s any evidence that Paul had heard about an [discovered] empty tomb story,” what kind of “burial” do you think Paul thought Jesus received?
I don’t know.
Ok, more to the point, my question is: Do you think Paul could have thought Jesus was “buried” by the Romans? My understanding is that the Romans cast bodies into a common pit *without* burying them, so it seems like Paul had to have someone other than the Romans in mind when he said Jesus was “buried”.
I don’t know. My sense is that the vast majority of people in the Roman world had never seen a crucifixion or thought about traditional burial practices.
Are you saying an educated guy like Paul might have known so little about Roman crucifixion and burial practices that he could envision the Romans not only removing Jesus from the cross to dispose of his body (instead of just letting the elements and animals dispose of Jesus’ body on the cross), but also covering Jesus’ body with dirt after casting it into a pit?
I’m afraid we don’t know what he knew. His only references to crucifixion — apart from referring to its shame — involves his understanding of the view prsented in teh Torah.
1) Can you please provide one piece of evidence where Romans who removed a corpse from a cross and cast it into a pit covered it with any dirt at all.
2) If one presupposes that Pilate let the Jewish authorities bury Jesus’ corpse, what kind of burial would have ensued? Would it have been in a rock-hewn tomb or in the ground? Would it have been in a criminal’s cemetery or somewhere like the Potter’s field or on the outskirts of town? Would Jesus’ followers have been able to attend or would it have been a purposely obscure burial? Would the location have been marked with the Jesus’ identity or would they have left the grave unidentified? Other parameters?
1. Nope. As I’ver repeatedly said, we don’t have records for this kidnbd of thing. 2. probably just a pit that was dug for the purpose. If they are crucifying lots of peole, then obviously a communal grave would be a lot less work. Not a “cemetary” in any official sense. ANd no, no markers.
Ok Bart, thanks for the honesty. I have to say though that the Jewish burial above seems better able to explain Paul’s use of the word “buried” because I see no reason for the Romans to throw dirt on a corpse cast into a pit, or really any reason for the Romans to ever remove Jesus’ corpse from the cross (just let it decay and eventually fall off the cross and taken away by wild animals). Have you ever considered arguing that Jesus would still have been buried obscurely in the ground even if Pilate released the corpse to the Jewish authorities? Seems like your colleague Jodi Magness down the hall could fill in the details. It would also seem a great PhD project — what kind of burial would Jesus have received if he were buried by unsympathetic Jewish authorities?
Often bodies are covered to prevent stench and ugly aesthetics.
Thanks, that makes sense that they would want to keep the smell down.
You said earlier that we have no specific example of Romans removing a corpse from a cross, casting it into a pit, and covering it with dirt, but do we at least have one example of Romans removing a corpse from a cross and taking responsibility for its disposal (as opposed to giving the corpse to someone else to dispose of)?
I don’t know. I do know that there aren’t any Roman sources that say anything about giving the corpse to friends of family members.
If there is not a single example or even hint of Romans ever removing a corpse from a cross and taking responsibility for its disposal (except during times of mass rebellion where they needed to rapidly reuse crosses), and if it is true (as you say) that the Romans never would have let the Jewish authorities bury Jesus’ corpse to avoid a mass riot on a major Jewish holiday, then shouldn’t you be arguing that Jesus’ corpse was *never* removed from the cross, i.e., that Jesus’ corpse was eaten and decayed on the cross until its parts fell to the ground and were taken away by wild animals? Why are you arguing for a Roman procedure that seems to have never existed and in fact would have gone *against* their interest to use Jesus’ deteriorating corpse as a public billboard for as long as possible? Are you doing this because it is the only way you can explain “buried” in 1 Cor 15:4?
We know they removed the bodies after a time, because we have references to that. We don’t know how long they waited in general, how they actually did it, or how they generally disposed of the bodies. Most of the time when it comes to ancient history we have to simply say what we know and what we don’t. What we do know in this case is that Romans left bodies on teh crosses for a while tand that they were knowbn to be attacked by scvangin birds sometimes (always? often?). Beyond that we don’t have a lot of information.disabledupes{b08195252e473ab1b2f2a460d8a83f45}disabledupes
You wrote, “We know they [the Romans] removed the bodies [from the cross] after a time, because we have references to that.”
Can you please give one example of this where the Romans were not giving the corpse to *someone else* for disposal (like the family)? As I said before, I do not think there are any references to the Romans ever removing a corpse from a cross and *taking responsibility for its disposal* as you propose (except during times of mass rebellion where they needed to rapidly reuse crosses). You seem to be arguing for a Roman procedure that never existed and I cannot think of any reason for them to do.
I think we’re beating a dead horse here.
Dr. Ehrman,
The reason why the chief priests and Pharisees wanted guards for the tomb is that they were aware that Jesus predicted he would come back from the dead (Mt. 27:62-66). In fact, that Jesus predicted his death/resurrection is attested in all the gospels multiple times (Mk. 8:31; Mt. 17:22; Lk. 9:22; Jn. 2:19; Mk. 14:58; Mt. 26:61; Mt. 16:4, 21:42, etc.).
1. Why would the scribes/Pharisees have understood Jesus’ claim immediately while Jesus’ closest disciples were hopeless/defeated?
2. I realize a lot of scholars do not believe that Jesus ever predicted his own resurrection and that these were added in after the resurrection experiences came to be (making the empty tomb and guard story probably unlikely). However, is it the case Jesus MIGHT have predicted he would be raised and this is why Peter thought his visionary experience was of the resurrected Jesus? Maybe at first Peter and the disciples felt scared and defeated and went to Galilee, but then Peter remembers Jesus said he would be resurrected. Combine this with grief, guilt, and normal bereavement, and there you have what happened to Peter and why he thought he saw Jesus resurrected. Is this POSSIBLE? Perhaps even LIKELY?
1. Yes, historically it doesn’t make sense. This is simply Matthew’s way of telling the story. (He’s the only one with the guards) 2. It’s possible. That would presuppose, though, that Jesus was expecting to die. I think that too comes from later story=telling, not Jesus himself. Also, we don’t know of Jews expecting an individual to be raised apart from the later ersurrection of (all) the dead