Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Abigail]

I think it is reasonable that Pilate would execute a Jewish peasant that Jewish authorities claimed was stirring up the people. If that is what you claim happened, I think it is then much more probable that Pilate wouldn't care what was done with Jesus' body. But the Gospels specifically state the issue at Jesus' trial, for Pilate, was the issue of whether or not Jesus was claiming to be the King of the Jews. He doesn't seem to care about anything else.

If therefore Jesus was crucified for the crime of claiming to be the King of the Jews, Pilate would be risking his own neck to allow the body of Jesus to be given a proper burial. It would be a slap in the face of Caesar, and more importantly, a capital offense of...treason by Pilate. Pilate wouldn't dare allow the body of someone who was claiming to be the King of the Jews to be given a rich man's burial.

If you want to deny that Jesus ever claimed to be or never denied that he had claimed to be the King of the Jews, then you have a good argument. But as long as you hold to the "King of the Jews" claim, the burial of Jesus in a rich man's tomb is very implausible, regardless of whether Pilate believed Jesus was a serious threat or not.

Gary the Jews had laws about disposal of corpses because of defilement issues and during peacetime it is more reasonable to think the Romans would allow burial on account of these laws in order to appease Jewish sentiment. I am sure even outright enemies of Rome were probably allowed burial since the Romans were not stupid and knew that going too far could become a catalyst for uprising. People who feel they have nothing to lose are more likely to revolt. Pilate did not believe Jesus was an enemy of Rome, this much is clear from the gospels where he is shown as being outmanouvered by those wanting rid of Jesus. It also seems like Joseph got in first to ask for the body so Pilate may not have seen anything amiss there since if Joseph hadn't gone when he did the elders themselves might have disposed of the body. It is also likely that Pilate was not interested in the burial details.

[Adrift]

I also don't think you can use the Digesta in the way that it's being used. It dates from the time of Justininan, and in order to use it at all, you have to carefully sift through it for first century material.

Vita Sua.

[One Bad Pig]

1 Thess. 2:14-16 is possibly a later interpolation, as many scholars have argued. I think 1 Cor. 2:8 is actually a reference to Pilate.

Given how quickly Paul's letters appear to have circulated as a unit, I find interpolation unlikely. IMO it is more a case of those scholars reading a priori beliefs into the text.

The early church, as it became more disconnected from its Jewish roots, became more anti-Jewish. This is especially on display in the Gospel of John, where it's often described as "Jesus, the Disciples, and the Jews."

That may be, but there was clearly significant conflict with the Jewish leadership from the beginning.

[Gary]

No, it doesn't. The majority of scholars accept the empty tomb tradition.

The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the crime for which Jesus was crucified was for claiming, or at least refusing to deny that he had claimed, to be the King of the Jews, a capital crime. Treason. If this is the case, the historical evidence indicates, contrary to Evans protestations, that it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have given the body of Jesus to Arimathea, the Sanhedrin, or the family.

It is true that the majority of NT scholars believe that Jesus' was buried in the tomb, but a significant minority of scholars say the majority is wrong on this issue.

So if the overwhelming majority on NT scholars is right about the crime for which Jesus was executed, this indicates that the majority is wrong about the historicity of the Empty Tomb story. On this issue, the majority is most likely wrong.

[Gary]

Evans is obviously referring to the period of time between the two major events. The point being made is that precedent had not radically changed within that period.

Baseless assumption.

[Gary]

The mass of textual (and archeological) evidence speaks against this. As Dale Allison points out in his Resurrecting Jesus, it's astounding that we've a crucified body with the nails in it. The fact is that the nails were thought to provide some type of protection and were often removed to be used as amulets of a type.

Sorry, I don't see your point.

[Gary]

I'm not convinced that treason is the answer. Treason is also a bit of loaded term, because there were several messianic claimants in 1st century Palestine (I'm using Palestine deliberately here; the area is larger than simply Israel).

I also don't think you can use the Digesta in the way that it's being used. It dates from the time of Justininan, and in order to use it at all, you have to carefully sift through it for first century material.

Do you believe that the crime for which Jesus was condemned by Pilate was claiming to be the King of the Jews? Do you believe that most NT scholars believe that Jesus was condemned for this crime?

[Gary]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Even in Mark 15, the responsibility is clearly placed on the Jews. Developments prior to this rest pretty much wholly on speculation. 1 Cor. 2:8 is too vague to determine either way. 1 Thes. 2:15 places the blame squarely on the Jews.

The whole story of Pilate wringing his hands over whether or not to execute a poor Galilean peasant flies in the face of the historical record about this man. I think the entire story about Pilate's offer to free Jesus in exchange for Barabbas is a Markian invention for the very purpose of showing the Romans in a good light and putting all the blame on the Jews. The author of Mark was living under Roman rule. He could have been executed if the Romans believed that his writings were anti-Roman. Imagine a Polish writer in occupied Poland writing a story in 1940 that blames the Nazis for some evil deed against a Polish religious figure. It would be suicidal. All we can say is that Jesus was condemned by Pilate to be crucified. We can only speculate on any further details.

It is only IF Christians want to claim that the trial details, as told in Mark, are historical, do we skeptics then demand that you accept that the Empty Tomb story is then very unlikely as a man executed for claiming to be a usurper to the power of Rome in Palestine (the King of the Jews) would be allowed to have a proper Jewish burial.

[Gary]

Josephus had access to earlier sources... just like a modern historian can write about World War II or the Weimar Republic.

True, but since Josephus does not specify the time period, Evans should not jump to conclusions. But even if true, as Ehrman states in the link above, it still wouldn't mean that the Romans allowed persons executed for high treason to be taken down and buried by the Jews, only "malefactors". Jesus is never referred to in the trial passages in the Gospels with the Greek word translated "malefactor".

[psstein]

Do you believe that the crime for which Jesus was condemned by Pilate was claiming to be the King of the Jews? Do you believe that most NT scholars believe that Jesus was condemned for this crime?

Possibly. I'm not quite sure, honestly. I don't think Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews, and outside of John, none of the evangelists have him making that direct claim.

The event at the Temple probably resulted in Jesus' death; the charge I'm not sure of.

As for what NT scholars believe, I don't know. Crossan's Jesus gets crucified as a seeming accident...

[Gary]

Gary the Jews had laws about disposal of corpses because of defilement issues and during peacetime it is more reasonable to think the Romans would allow burial on account of these laws in order to appease Jewish sentiment. I am sure even outright enemies of Rome were probably allowed burial since the Romans were not stupid and knew that going too far could become a catalyst for uprising. People who feel they have nothing to lose are more likely to revolt. Pilate did not believe Jesus was an enemy of Rome, this much is clear from the gospels where he is shown as being outmanouvered by those wanting rid of Jesus. It also seems like Joseph got in first to ask for the body so Pilate may not have seen anything amiss there since if Joseph hadn't gone when he did the elders themselves might have disposed of the body. It is also likely that Pilate was not interested in the burial details.

You are assuming that the Gospels are historically accurate. You are also assuming that Pilate worried about offending Jewish religious sensitivities. You are also assuming that Pilate did not consider Jesus to be a threat to Rome.

You have no evidence other than the Gospels to back any of this up.

[Gary]

Vita Sua.

The Digesta clearly states that the bodies of persons crucified for high treason typically were not handed over for proper burial. The onus is on you to prove that Jesus was...

...not executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews

and that,

...claiming to be the King of the Jews was not a form of treason.

Most NT scholars say you are wrong.

[Gary]

Possibly. I'm not quite sure, honestly. I don't think Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews, and outside of John, none of the evangelists have him making that direct claim.

The event at the Temple probably resulted in Jesus' death; the charge I'm not sure of.

As for what NT scholars believe, I don't know. Crossan's Jesus gets crucified as a seeming accident...

Do you believe that the passages regarding the trial before Pilate in the Gospel of Mark are historically reliable? If so, Pilate only questions Jesus regarding the Jews' charge of having claimed to be the King of the Jews. Jesus refuses to deny that he had ever claimed this. Why would Pilate spend so much time interrogating Jesus about the claim of being the true ruler of the Jews (and not Caesar) and then execute him for violating some Jewish religious law about which the text is silent??

Based on what we know from historical records, do you think Pilate would wring his hands over the life of one Jew?

[DesertBerean]

The Digesta clearly states that the bodies of persons crucified for high treason typically were not handed over for proper burial. The onus is on you to prove that Jesus was...

...not executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews

and that,

...claiming to be the King of the Jews was not a form of treason.

Most NT scholars say you are wrong.

let's do this:

List the NT scholars you agree with. Then list the NT scholars you DON'T agree with. Then we, your readers, can verify if said scholars' statements are consist with your premise.

[37818]

". . . Then said Pilate to the chief priests and [to] the people, I find no fault in this man. . . ." -- Luke 23:4.
". . . Take ye him, and crucify [him]: for I find no fault in him. . . ." -- John 19:6.

". . . title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. . . ." -- John 19:20-23.

Arguably what Pontius Pilate wrote was politically expedient to justify crucifying Him.