Who buried Jesus?

[Teallaura]

Nope, they weren't.

New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th Ed commentary on Mark 15:47. It also makes the point that Joseph of Arithimea was not a disciple:

Were too. Matt 28:8 - unless you think that they ran all the way to the Galilee. By the way, the guys couldn't have reached the Galilee in that short a time frame - and since they were to be told to go there, it makes no sense that they would have already left.

Answer: disciples are still in the Jerusalem area immediately after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It's contradictory to the evidence to conclude that the disciples could not have known where Christ was laid. Also makes Mary Magdalene a heck of a sprinter.

[Teallaura]

What are you talking about? In Mark, Matthew, and Luke there is no "they." It's just Joseph of Arimathea. In Acts, it's Jesus' enemies which contradicts the Gospel depictions that it was the "disciple" Joseph.

In addition to the "they" in Acts, I gave four other data points which paint a different picture for the burial.

You might wanna rethink this - it's a hyper literal reading at best - and you're arguing a physical improbability - getting a body off a cross is not a one man job.

[Aractus]

Okay, so on JG Cook's "Crucifixion and Burial" and the question of whether Joseph of Arimathaea buried the body. It's a good article.

Cook makes a lot of good points, and merely puts forward the case that the account in Mark is plausible. He never suggests that Joseph might be a disciple as claimed in some of the other gospels. In fact he ignores the other gospels except for Peter, which is strange because the GoP is hardly an "early testament" to the Passion. Most notably of all though is that he leaves out the other accounts of it in Acts 2:22-24, 5:30, and 13:27-32. Paul also makes numerous references to Jesus being buried, and his body being destroyed (Romans 6:6, 8:9-11) as well as specifically to the fact that the earthly body dies and is left behind to decay (1 Cor 15:12-58). None of this important early theology is mentioned in Cook's article. Which is strange, because it demonstrates that Paul believed Jesus' body to have been buried, and left in the tomb when he was raised from the dead. He believes in a spiritual resurrection of the dead where the dead receive new bodies, not in a bodily resurrection.

He puts forward the view presenting it as undisputed in scholarly circles that Jesus was executed as a rebel. This is of course not at all what is claimed by the gospel, Mark claims that the chief priests were looking for a way to have Jesus arrested, and that Judas Iscariot betrayed him. It's certainly true that the early Apostles such as Peter and Paul blamed the Jews for the execution, I would put forward the view that after Jesus became violent and disruptive in the Temple that the Jews complained to the Roman authorities, and that Roman "justice" took its course. Cook also correctly (in my view) notes that the disciples were not pursued by Pilate for further persecution or punishment. Although he did not bring that point to its logical conclusion: Jesus' behaviour in the temple shocked his own disciples - perhaps some of them testified against him? That could be the source of the Judas Iscariot betrayal myth.

In his book Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World he notes that crucifixion was a "miserable and shameful" way to die. He rightly points out that Jesus displays his genuine misery and sorrow in the cry of dereliction uttered in Mk 15:34 (although one can't demonstrate that the phrase an authentic saying of Jesus). Interestingly he doesn't not bother to comment on how the apostles could have possibly known what Jesus was uttering, since they abandoned him when he was crucified. In both works he points out that bodies could be left to rot, or be buried, and points out in Crucifixion and Burial that "But one cannot deny the possibility that, against the evidence of the gospels, Pilate refused to permit any kind of burial for Jesus."

It seems at least from all this, that Jesus if he was buried was buried by the Jews. This is consistent with Pauline theology which is earlier than the gospel accounts, and I'm surprised it wasn't used very much at least in Crucifixion and Burial, as it provides those menial comments that lend credibility to the theory that the body was believed to have been buried. But there's no way to know how long it actually took Jesus to die - 6 hours seems to be quite unlikely, as the purpose of crucifixion was to draw out the death. And the disciples had no way of knowing how long it took since they abandoned their leader presumably for fear of being crucified themselves, which is perfectly understandable. Then one of them, probably Peter, had a vision of Jesus told the others and some of them had their own visions too.

Now what do they do? They go back to his cross and find that it is empty - the body has been moved. They would then have needed to ask the Jewish authorities where the body was laid since they're the ones that buried it. Maybe they never asked them because they blamed them for Jesus' execution. So they go and ask his brothers and they don't know either, but they tell them they've seen visions of Jesus, and maybe James had had his own independent vision and says "yeah me too". Or maybe it prompts him to have a vision later on. Eventually they ask Jesus' mother and she says "yeah I know where they put it, but it's not there any more", or something like that. The details are not important it's how the mythology surrounding the resurrection started, and however it did by the time the gospel writers were penning their works they believed that Jesus had been placed in a tomb that was then found to be empty.

[The Pixie]

The longer reading is older than the oldest Greek ms which omits it.

As far as I know, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the oldest manuscripts, and they do not include the extra verses.

Remember that in Mark Jesus specifically states he will see the disciple again in Galilee, and the man in the tomb confirms that that is where they will see him. The added ending directly contradicts that! Is it your position that Jesus got it wrong?

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...he-difference/

[The Pixie]

Um, the next day, yeah. You do realize you supported, not refuted, the point, right?

What do you mean?

What Jesus predicted was the disciples would flee Jerusalem (implicitly what he was arrested), but that he would then see them again in Galilee. Are you suggesting that Jesus predicted was the disciples would flee Jerusalem, and then they would go back to Jerusalem, that he would see them in Jerusalem, and then later in Galilee?

[The Pixie]

Were too. Matt 28:8 - unless you think that they ran all the way to the Galilee. By the way, the guys couldn't have reached the Galilee in that short a time frame - and since they were to be told to go there, it makes no sense that they would have already left.

What short time frame? There is no time frame in Mark. Jesus could have appeared to the disciples weeks, or even months later. The gospels of John and Peter suggest they had time to resume their old lives, and that Jesus appeared whilst some of them were fishing.

Answer: disciples are still in the Jerusalem area immediately after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It's contradictory to the evidence to conclude that the disciples could not have known where Christ was laid. Also makes Mary Magdalene a heck of a sprinter.

You are assuming the Jerusalem sighting and Empty Tomb really happened. Sure, that is what your faith tells you, but those outside Christianity find them both highly unlikely.

[The Pixie]

Cook makes a lot of good points, and merely puts forward the case that the account in Mark is plausible. He never suggests that Joseph might be a disciple as claimed in some of the other gospels. In fact he ignores the other gospels except for Peter, which is strange because the GoP is hardly an "early testament" to the Passion.

It is considered important in these matters as it is another independent source (while Luke and Matthew obviously are not).

He puts forward the view presenting it as undisputed in scholarly circles that Jesus was executed as a rebel. This is of course not at all what is claimed by the gospel, Mark claims that the chief priests were looking for a way to have Jesus arrested, and that Judas Iscariot betrayed him. It's certainly true that the early Apostles such as Peter and Paul blamed the Jews for the execution, I would put forward the view that after Jesus became violent and disruptive in the Temple that the Jews complained to the Roman authorities, and that Roman "justice" took its course. Cook also correctly (in my view) notes that the disciples were not pursued by Pilate for further persecution or punishment. Although he did not bring that point to its logical conclusion: Jesus' behaviour in the temple shocked his own disciples - perhaps some of them testified against him? That could be the source of the Judas Iscariot betrayal myth.

That Jesus was crucified by the Romans, rather than stoned, shows pretty conclusively his (supposed) crime was treason. Decades later when Christianity was trying to appeal to the Romans, the narrative changed to blame the Jews.

In his book Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World he notes that crucifixion was a "miserable and shameful" way to die. He rightly points out that Jesus displays his genuine misery and sorrow in the cry of dereliction uttered in Mk 15:34 (although one can't demonstrate that the phrase an authentic saying of Jesus).

The whole passion narrative was likely composed from known Roman practices and from scripture. This bit comes not from an eye witness, but from Psalm 22:1.

... Then one of them, probably Peter, had a vision of Jesus told the others and some of them had their own visions too.

The Gospel of Peter suggests this happened some time later, on the Sea of Galilee:

[55] And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: [56] 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' [57] Then the women fled frightened.

[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ter-brown.html

Unfortunately the rest of the gospel is lost, so we do not know what happened, but it is interesting to compare it to the last chapter of John.

Now what do they do? They go back to his cross and find that it is empty - the body has been moved. ...

I suggest the appearances were weeks or months later, long after Jesus would have been taken down, and a long way from Jerusalem. Note that Mark gives no indication of Jesus being seen within days (outside the additional verses 9-20).

[37818]

What are you talking about? In Mark, Matthew, and Luke there is no "they." It's just Joseph of Arimathea. In Acts, it's Jesus' enemies which contradicts the Gospel depictions that it was the "disciple" Joseph.

In addition to the "they" in Acts, I gave four other data points which paint a different picture for the burial.

You are reading into the texts what the texts do not say.

Joseph, without contradiction, was the one to receive Jesus' body to have it placed in that tomb.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You are reading into the texts what the texts do not say.

Joseph, without contradiction, was the one to receive Jesus' body to have it placed in that tomb.

Acts says it was the enemies of Jesus that buried him. Verse 13:27 says it was the leaders of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin) that did not recognize him or understand him when the Gospels say a member of the Sanhedrin (Joseph) was a sympathizer or even a "disciple" of Jesus. So which is it?

[37818]

Acts says it was the enemies of Jesus that buried him. Verse 13:27 says it was the leaders of Jerusalem (Sanhedrin) that did not recognize him or understand him when the Gospels say a member of the Sanhedrin (Joseph) was a sympathizer or even a "disciple" of Jesus. So which is it?

It does not say any such thing.

[psstein]

Okay, so on JG Cook's "Crucifixion and Burial" and the question of whether Joseph of Arimathaea buried the body. It's a good article.

Cook makes a lot of good points, and merely puts forward the case that the account in Mark is plausible. He never suggests that Joseph might be a disciple as claimed in some of the other gospels. In fact he ignores the other gospels except for Peter, which is strange because the GoP is hardly an "early testament" to the Passion. Most notably of all though is that he leaves out the other accounts of it in Acts 2:22-24, 5:30, and 13:27-32. Paul also makes numerous references to Jesus being buried, and his body being destroyed (Romans 6:6, 8:9-11) as well as specifically to the fact that the earthly body dies and is left behind to decay (1 Cor 15:12-58). None of this important early theology is mentioned in Cook's article. Which is strange, because it demonstrates that Paul believed Jesus' body to have been buried, and left in the tomb when he was raised from the dead. He believes in a spiritual resurrection of the dead where the dead receive new bodies, not in a bodily resurrection.

You seem to be slightly misreading Paul. Paul does deny a resuscitation of the corpse, that is certainly true. I don't think Paul is denying that the dead are raised physically; they're in a body that seems to be some sort of spiritual/fleshly composite, that is, a "transphysical body," as N.T. Wright puts it. The Greek of 1 Cor. 15:3-8 seems to make it apparent that Jesus was raised in a bodily form, though, as Paul goes on, it's not a simple resuscitation of the body. See James Ware's article "The Resurrection of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15.3-5," NTS 60, no. 4 (October 2014) for a further explanation.

He puts forward the view presenting it as undisputed in scholarly circles that Jesus was executed as a rebel. This is of course not at all what is claimed by the gospel, Mark claims that the chief priests were looking for a way to have Jesus arrested, and that Judas Iscariot betrayed him. It's certainly true that the early Apostles such as Peter and Paul blamed the Jews for the execution, I would put forward the view that after Jesus became violent and disruptive in the Temple that the Jews complained to the Roman authorities, and that Roman "justice" took its course. Cook also correctly (in my view) notes that the disciples were not pursued by Pilate for further persecution or punishment. Although he did not bring that point to its logical conclusion: Jesus' behaviour in the temple shocked his own disciples - perhaps some of them testified against him? That could be the source of the Judas Iscariot betrayal myth.

It is fairly agreed upon that Jesus was executed as some sort of rebel, though there are those who disagree (c.f. Crossan and Fredrikson most notably). In terms of Judas' betrayal, I think it's historical due to its multiple attestation and the fact that it suits the criterion of embarrassment. Beyond that, the fact that Luke-Acts tries to find another way to explain Judas' death hints that Judas had something to do with the death of Jesus. Following John Meier's A Marginal Jew, I tend to believe that Judas didn't betray where Jesus was, as that was known. I think he discussed the teachings of Jesus, which the Romans probably used as a pretext for his arrest.

In both works he points out that bodies could be left to rot, or be buried, and points out in Crucifixion and Burial that "But one cannot deny the possibility that, against the evidence of the gospels, Pilate refused to permit any kind of burial for Jesus."

Cook is taking the prudent approach, I think. History doesn't compel one conclusion over another. It is possible that Jesus wasn't buried at all (though very unlikely). It's also possible that Pilate had him buried in another way (Crossan sees an alternate tradition in John 19, see his contribution to Werner Kelber's The Passion in Mark). In view of both the gospel and Pauline evidence, it appears as though Jesus was buried.

Now what do they do? They go back to his cross and find that it is empty - the body has been moved. They would then have needed to ask the Jewish authorities where the body was laid since they're the ones that buried it. Maybe they never asked them because they blamed them for Jesus' execution. So they go and ask his brothers and they don't know either, but they tell them they've seen visions of Jesus, and maybe James had had his own independent vision and says "yeah me too". Or maybe it prompts him to have a vision later on. Eventually they ask Jesus' mother and she says "yeah I know where they put it, but it's not there any more", or something like that. The details are not important it's how the mythology surrounding the resurrection started, and however it did by the time the gospel writers were penning their works they believed that Jesus had been placed in a tomb that was then found to be empty.

The issue here is twofold. First, the kerygmatic proclamations in Acts are almost certainly from the early Jerusalem church, who probably would've experienced some opposition if they proclaimed Jesus was risen from the dead when the body had been moved to some other location. Second, there's no particular reason for James to have an experience; James is virtually unmentioned in the gospels except when he thinks his brother is delusional. It doesn't strike me as a good idea to go along with the group that just had its leader killed; Paul makes it clear how much of an issue the crucifixion is for the early church.

[Teallaura]

What do you mean?

What Jesus predicted was the disciples would flee Jerusalem (implicitly what he was arrested), but that he would then see them again in Galilee. Are you suggesting that Jesus predicted was the disciples would flee Jerusalem, and then they would go back to Jerusalem, that he would see them in Jerusalem, and then later in Galilee?

The question was whether the disciples could have known where the body was laid. The prophesy is fulfilled on the night of the arrest in part - they scattered. But they also hung around (Pete in the courtyard, Pete and John visiting the tomb) before leaving for the Galilee - which explains Jesus telling Mary to tell them He'd see them there.

[Teallaura]

What short time frame? There is no time frame in Mark. Jesus could have appeared to the disciples weeks, or even months later. The gospels of John and Peter suggest they had time to resume their old lives, and that Jesus appeared whilst some of them were fishing.

You are assuming the Jerusalem sighting and Empty Tomb really happened. Sure, that is what your faith tells you, but those outside Christianity find them both highly unlikely.

1) The question is could the disciples have known where the body was laid - so the time frame is really the few hours between the death and the entombment. The Scriptures clearly indicate that at least John and Peter knew where the tomb was and went there on the morning of the Resurrection - so a 3 day time frame by their reckoning. The conclusion that the disciples could not have known where the body was laid - or did not know - is simply unsustainable.

2) Your inability to correctly process evidence demonstrated here makes your argument little more than opinion and supposition. If you are going to argue against the Resurrection - or in this case, the specifics of the burial - based on the actual evidence (that means Scriptural as well as non-Scriptural documentary evidence) then you are going to have to prove the case WITH THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE. That's what Aractus is at least trying to do.

So, superfluous supposition aside, can you show from the documentary evidence that the disciples left the area immediately and did not or could not have known where the body was laid, or not?

[The Pixie]

The question was whether the disciples could have known where the body was laid. The prophesy is fulfilled on the night of the arrest in part - they scattered. But they also hung around (Pete in the courtyard, Pete and John visiting the tomb) before leaving for the Galilee - which explains Jesus telling Mary to tell them He'd see them there.

Peter in the courtyard was presumably before they scattered, and the questioning may have prompted it! I think it unlikely Peter and John visited the tomb, given that it is absent from Mark; it is more likely a later embellishment.

Most importantly, what Jesus said implied he would not see the disciples in Jerusalem (not before seeing them in Galilee anyway).

1) The question is could the disciples have known where the body was laid - so the time frame is really the few hours between the death and the entombment.

My position is that the disciples did not know where the body was laid, because they had fled Jerusalem (as Jesus prophesised), and it was weeks later that they saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee. Before you said:

"By the way, the guys couldn't have reached the Galilee in that short a time frame - and since they were to be told to go there, it makes no sense that they would have already left."

They did not have to reach Galilee in a short time frame, because they did not know where the body was laid.

The Scriptures clearly indicate that at least John and Peter knew where the tomb was and went there on the morning of the Resurrection - so a 3 day time frame by their reckoning. The conclusion that the disciples could not have known where the body was laid - or did not know - is simply unsustainable.

Only if we assume the scripture is true.

I think it more likely that John and Peter visiting the tomb was a later embellishment, made up after the Gospel of Mark was written. In reality they were half way to Galilee, fearing for their lives at this time.

2) Your inability to correctly process evidence demonstrated here makes your argument little more than opinion and supposition.

I think where we different is that you assume the gospel accounts are necessarily true, and I do not.

If you are going to argue against the Resurrection - or in this case, the specifics of the burial - based on the actual evidence (that means Scriptural as well as non-Scriptural documentary evidence) then you are going to have to prove the case WITH THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE. That's what Aractus is at least trying to do.

So, superfluous supposition aside, can you show from the documentary evidence that the disciples left the area immediately and did not or could not have known where the body was laid, or not?

Sure, if we look at what the original gospel, i.e., Mark's actually says, then that is the narrative that unfolds. Jesus predicting the disciples would flee, and he would see them in Galilee. The empty tomb seen only by two women afraid to tell anyone, and the announcement Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee.

If you want to assume the later stories must be true, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. If you assume the Bible is necessarily true, then of course Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, because that is what the Bible says. But why should I assume that that is so?

[Teallaura]

Peter in the courtyard was presumably before they scattered, and the questioning may have prompted it! I think it unlikely Peter and John visited the tomb, given that it is absent from Mark; it is more likely a later embellishment.

Nope, that is out of sequence - they scattered at the arrest.

Supposition duly noted and rejected. Prove it or show cause why I should accept your opinion over extant evidence.

Most importantly, what Jesus said implied he would not see the disciples in Jerusalem (not before seeing them in Galilee anyway).

And He didn't - non-issue.

My position is that the disciples did not know where the body was laid, because they had fled Jerusalem (as Jesus prophesised), and it was weeks later that they saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee.

Scripture does not support the conclusion and if fact refutes it. Ignoring evidence you don't like is a bad thing.

Before you said:

"By the way, the guys couldn't have reached the Galilee in that short a time frame - and since they were to be told to go there, it makes no sense that they would have already left."

They did not have to reach Galilee in a short time frame, because they did not know where the body was laid.

It takes longer than a day and a half to walk to Galilee - regardless of where the body was laid.

Only if we assume the scripture is true.

If it isn't true at all your argument is nonsense, you do know that, right? You're arguing that at least part of the account in Mark IS true.

I think it more likely that John and Peter visiting the tomb was a later embellishment, made up after the Gospel of Mark was written. In reality they were half way to Galilee, fearing for their lives at this time.

Nice - and pointless. I don't accept this irrational rejection of the evidence. Give cause other than 'it better fits my preconceptions' for me to take this seriously.

I think where we different is that you assume the gospel accounts are necessarily true, and I do not.

No, we differ in that I know how to interpret evidence better than you do. You are diving for the 'your religious so you must be wrong' cover every time you should actually be supporting your case for disregarding evidence. Case in point.

Sure, if we look at what the original gospel, i.e., Mark's actually says, then that is the narrative that unfolds. Jesus predicting the disciples would flee, and he would see them in Galilee. The empty tomb seen only by two women afraid to tell anyone, and the announcement Jesus would see the disciples in Galilee.

Which doesn't even start to refute the point that they remained in Jerusalem / area for a time after the Crucifixion.

If you want to assume the later stories must be true, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. If you assume the Bible is necessarily true, then of course Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, because that is what the Bible says. But why should I assume that that is so?

Translation: no, I can't support the point if you use all the evidence so I'll settle for shifting the burden.