Who buried Jesus?

[The Pixie]

You think the Jews would have venerated someone they handed over to the Romans to be crucified?

Yeah, because Jews at that time were known for being united in their feelings...

The reality was the the Jewish people were split into numerous factions, and it is highly likely that the Romans would believe that someone who rode into Jerusalem like this:

Matthew 21:8 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

... would be venerated, despite some segment of the Jews handing him over.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Dude, that's a lot of hand-waving (despite your protest otherwise). Read the book I referenced, which deals with, well, pretty much all of this. Your special pleading is showing.

I'll check out the book. Too bad there's no Google preview. But if it's the same stuff that you posted then that's already been sufficiently addressed in Ehrman's blog series which I think you're familiar with.

[One Bad Pig]

I'll check out the book. Too bad there's no Google preview. But if it's the same stuff that you posted then that's already been sufficiently addressed in Ehrman's blog series which I think you're familiar with.

I'm sure you'll find a way to wave it away, just like you do with any other evidence that doesn't support your narrative. You've already managed to wave away, sight unseen, material from a specialist in favor of material from someone operating outside of his field of expertise.

[One Bad Pig]

Yeah, because Jews at that time were known for being united in their feelings...

The reality was the the Jewish people were split into numerous factions, and it is highly likely that the Romans would believe that someone who rode into Jerusalem like this:

Matthew 21:8 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

... would be venerated, despite some segment of the Jews handing him over.

Yeah, they did that because they thought he was the messiah. Once he was dead, that was right out. Not too many dead people can lead uprisings against Rome.

[Doug Shaver]

I'm sure you'll find a way to wave it away, just like you do with any other evidence that doesn't support your narrative.

And, what do you do with evidence that doesn't support your narrative?

[The Pixie]

Yeah, they did that because they thought he was the messiah. Once he was dead, that was right out. Not too many dead people can lead uprisings against Rome.

Sure, but they can become venerated martyrs, and they can still become icons the Jewsa could rally behind, and they can still be role-models for the next wannabe messiah. This is why it was standard practice for the Romans to bury them dishonourably.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

I'm sure you'll find a way to wave it away, just like you do with any other evidence that doesn't support your narrative. You've already managed to wave away, sight unseen, material from a specialist in favor of material from someone operating outside of his field of expertise.

It's not my fault that the arguments you or Evans have presented do not meet the burden of proof for helping to establish the plausibility of Jesus' burial. If by "hand waving" it away you mean decisively refuting every single one of Evans' points then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

[Teallaura]

It's not my fault that the arguments you or Evans have presented do not meet the burden of proof for helping to establish the plausibility of Jesus' burial. If by "hand waving" it away you mean decisively refuting every single one of Evans' points then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

No, that one you're innocent of.

[One Bad Pig]

And, what do you do with evidence that doesn't support your narrative?

I reconsider my narrative.

[One Bad Pig]

Sure, but they can become venerated martyrs, and they can still become icons the Jewsa could rally behind, and they can still be role-models for the next wannabe messiah. This is why it was standard practice for the Romans to bury them dishonourably.

Not very likely, in all actuality. The Jews weren't really all that big on martyrs. There's the Maccabees, naturally, and then, um, ...the Maccabees.

[Doug Shaver]

And, what do you do with evidence that doesn't support your narrative?

I reconsider my narrative.

Does that always mean changing your narrative? Or does it sometimes mean finding a way to show that the evidence is actually consistent with your narrative?

[The Pixie]

Not very likely, in all actuality. The Jews weren't really all that big on martyrs. There's the Maccabees, naturally, and then, um, ...the Maccabees.

They were big on dead prophets, as Jesus himself said:

Mat 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

And Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem as a prophet:

Matthew 21:8 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

So it would haave been a very real possibility that Jesus tomb would be venerated. Would the Romans want the tomb of a man executed for treason to be venerated? Absolutely not! Crucifixion was the ultimate deterrent, and each part of it was designed to dishonour the victim - and that included disposal of the body.

Further, we have precedent for Roman's denying honourable burial in Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars:

For instance, to one man who begged humbly for burial, he is said to have replied: "The birds will soon settle that question."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...augustus*.html

Finally, this is from a site that describes itself as an "online evangelical encyclopedia of biblical Christianity":

The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonour the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honourable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonour for the victim.
http://www.theopedia.com/crucifixion

Your claim that they would not care what happened to the body once Jesus was dead looks more and more untenable.


ETA: Also consider the words of William Lane Craig (from here):

"During Jesus’s time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."

[One Bad Pig]

Does that always mean changing your narrative? Or does it sometimes mean finding a way to show that the evidence is actually consistent with your narrative?

The latter, but the context of the evidence is more important than the context of my narrative. If I have to take the evidence out of context in order to make it fit my narrative, that won't do.

[One Bad Pig]

They were big on dead prophets, as Jesus himself said:

Mat 23:29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

And Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem as a prophet:

Matthew 21:8 Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds said, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.”

So it would haave been a very real possibility that Jesus tomb would be venerated.

Well, perhaps. While some famous prophets were venerated, there were many prophets throughout Jewish history; not nearly all of them would have been so venerated. More importantly, I'm not sure that would ever have entered the minds of the Romans. Pilate doesn't seem to have been worried about any sort of excessive devotion of the crowds for Jesus; it was in fact the threat of riot which seems to have tipped his mind toward proceeding with the crucifixion, not away from it.

Would the Romans want the tomb of a man executed for treason to be venerated? Absolutely not!

I don't recall Jesus being executed for treason.

Crucifixion was the ultimate deterrent, and each part of it was designed to dishonour the victim - and that included disposal of the body.

Further, we have precedent for Roman's denying honourable burial in Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars:

For instance, to one man who begged humbly for burial, he is said to have replied: "The birds will soon settle that question."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...augustus*.html

What does that have to do with customs in Judea, where the overriding concern was defilement of the land by unburied bodies? As Dr. Evans noted in the book referred to above, the Sanhedrin had special tombs set aside for those executed. Since only the Romans at the time had the power of execution (except for those violating the temple precincts), surely they expected to routinely receive the bodies of those executed for burial in accordance with their custom.

Finally, this is from a site that describes itself as an "online evangelical encyclopedia of biblical Christianity":

The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonour the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honourable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonour for the victim.
http://www.theopedia.com/crucifixion

A wiki clone? They're correct, but you'll need to somehow show, in the face of contrary evidence, that bodies were always therefore left on the cross for some time after death.

Your claim that they would not care what happened to the body once Jesus was dead looks more and more untenable.

Well, no. Especially since you mostly didn't engage with my reason for stating so. A dead messiah isn't going to be leading any military conquests.

ETA: Also consider the words of William Lane Craig (from here):

"During Jesus’s time there was an extraordinary interest in the graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men and these were scrupulously cared for and honored."

Sure. On the other hand, every indication is that Jesus' popularity was nearly all derived from what people thought he could do for them - and that even his closest disciples forsook him when he was arrested, and there is no indication of unrest due to his arrest and execution.

[The Pixie]

Well, perhaps. While some famous prophets were venerated, there were many prophets throughout Jewish history; not nearly all of them would have been so venerated.

It seems to be something that was especially popular around Jesus' time, so maybe the older ones had already been forgotten. However, the point here is that the Romans would not want to risk Jesus becoming a symbol in death for others to rally round.

Nothing personal to Jesus; they would have a standard policy of dishonourable burial for all crucifixion victims.

More importantly, I'm not sure that would ever have entered the minds of the Romans. Pilate doesn't seem to have been worried about any sort of excessive devotion of the crowds for Jesus; it was in fact the threat of riot which seems to have tipped his mind toward proceeding with the crucifixion, not away from it.

Not sure I get you.

Yes, it was the threat of riot that resulted in the crucifixion, that is what I am saying. Jesus had to be utterly humiliated to crush all thought of riot, and that would have included dishonourable burial - which was standard for crucifixin victims.

I don't recall Jesus being executed for treason.

See here:

Matthew 27:37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is Jesus, the king of the Jews.

I appreciate later tellings tried to blame the Jews with charges of blasphemy, but we know the crucifixion happened, so it was a Roman charge of treason.

What does that have to do with customs in Judea, where the overriding concern was defilement of the land by unburied bodies? As Dr. Evans noted in the book referred to above, the Sanhedrin had special tombs set aside for those executed. Since only the Romans at the time had the power of execution (except for those violating the temple precincts), surely they expected to routinely receive the bodies of those executed for burial in accordance with their custom.

So what? I am arguing for Jesus going into a communal tomb for criminals; this fits with that.

A wiki clone? They're correct, but you'll need to somehow show, in the face of contrary evidence, that bodies were always therefore left on the cross for some time after death.

Are we talking at cross purposes here? I was assuming the body was indeed taken down, but then buried in a criminal grave.

Whether Jesus was taken down or not is certainly debatable, and I am unconvinced either way, but I appreciate there is good historical evidence for it, so I was giving it the benefit of the doubt for this discussion.

Well, no. Especially since you mostly didn't engage with my reason for stating so. A dead messiah isn't going to be leading any military conquests.

No, but he could be a potential symbol to rally behind (or so the Romans would think). And that becomes more likely if he is buried honourably, in a fine tomb, rather than buried dishonourably in an unknown tomb.

Sure. On the other hand, every indication is that Jesus' popularity was nearly all derived from what people thought he could do for them - and that even his closest disciples forsook him when he was arrested, and there is no indication of unrest due to his arrest and execution.

You think the Romans cared about that? Jesus was crucified for treason, so got treated like every other crucifixion victim, including a dishonourable death, because that is what the Romans did.

If you can find some precedent for a crucifixion victim getting an honourable burial, we can look at the circumstances around that and see if they could plausibly apply to Jesus.