16: Jesus’s Burial

16 Jesus’s Burial

What facts exist that help us to determine what happened to Jesus’s body after his death? To be sure, if Jesus died by crucifixion, then something necessarily happened to his body. Sometimes options are aired, like Jesus’s corpse being eaten by birds and wild animals as it hung on the cross in the aftermath of his crucifixion, or its being flung into the community garbage dump in Jerusalem. Normally, dead bodies in the Jerusalem area would most likely be placed either in a cave utilized expressly for burial or placed in a rectangular dirt trench in the ground, which was the most common scenario in Israel at that time. However, a victim of capital punishment was not a normal, everyday resident. So our chief question in this chapter concerns whether Jesus was buried as portrayed in the Gospel accounts or by some other means.

Though Jesus’s burial is not one of the events from our shorter list of minimal facts,1 this occurrence still includes several intriguing features and purposes that fill out the overall picture rather nicely, as narrated in the Gospel texts. Several interesting features are involved in these accounts.2 In all four Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea seeks permission of Pilate to obtain the deceased body of Jesus, who grants the request.3 In Mark, Pilate checks first with the centurion,4 who affirms that Jesus has already died (15:44–45). In John, Nicodemus also assists Joseph by supplying the spices (19:39). In the Synoptic Gospels, several women are also present at the tomb.5

Some Alternate Approaches

Nineteenth-century German liberalism gave rise to a plethora of alternate hypotheses and reinterpretations as well as different and even new angles on events in Jesus’s life, especially the supernatural occurrences at the end. A century later, at the close of the twenty-first century, there have been certainly fewer such suggestions from scholars. Fewer still have been aimed at Jesus’s burial. After all, as a sort of isthmus that connected the grand events of Jesus’s death and his ensuing resurrection appearances, seemingly few scholars have focused upon the burial scenario depicted in the Gospels.

John Dominic Crossan and Other Similar Views

Somewhat reminiscent of nineteenth-century thought in more ways than one, a very few scholars in the last quarter of the century, such as John Dominic Crossan, take a rather irregular approach to the Gospel story of Jesus’s burial. Crossan surmises that, in keeping with first-century crucifixion customs, Jesus was either left on the cross after his death to be torn apart by wild beasts, or he was buried in a shallow grave where dogs would still have discovered his remains. At any rate, Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb and his body was most likely consumed by wild animals. In an essay titled “The Dogs Beneath the Cross,” Crossan asserts concerning Jesus’s dead body that “by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?”6

Both before and after Crossan, several other scholars have proposed a similar scenario that Jesus’s body was either eaten by birds and wild dogs or simply thrown into a common grave, like the garbage pit in Jerusalem, where it quickly became covered and decayed rapidly so that nothing identifiable was left. As prominent philosopher John Hick states, “In all probability Jesus’ body was thrown into a common criminals’ grave.”7 For critic John Shelby Spong, no one knew how Jesus was buried, because his followers had fled. But Jesus “probably received the typical treatment given to those so unfortunate” as to be killed as a criminal; his body was probably “placed into a common grave, and covered over.”8

Jack Kent also states succinctly that “more than likely, . . . Jesus’ body was thrown into the place of ‘the skull’ which would have been common practice at that time,” followed by another comment that he was referring to the body being placed in a common grave.9 For the members of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus’s body rotted just like all dead bodies, without identifying where it might have been placed.10 Some of the other scholars who either subscribe to or are at least open to alternate burial scenarios beyond the traditional one include Dale Allison,11 Gerd Lüdemann,12 Michael Goulder,13 Thomas Sheehan,14 Richard Carrier,15 and Keith Parsons,16 along with a few others,17 even going back to nineteenth-century German liberals and those who were influenced by them.18 Quite often, these critical comments are stated briefly in passing and are accompanied by very little detail. Several alternate hypotheses sometimes appear in a single sentence. Given the overall number of scholars who have commented on these questions, however, these are a comparatively small number of the researchers who have taken alternate views.19

Bart Ehrman

One of the latest to make a move away from his former position is atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, who explains that he once accepted the historicity of the traditional burial and empty tomb.20 However, he has since changed his mind and made a number of different moves.

Ehrman may be more of an agnostic on the specific questions of Jesus’s burial than is Crossan. Ehrman does not provide any exact or explicit natural explanations of the supernatural elements of the crucifixion weekend and states that critics need not feel compelled to give such responses either. While it is true that individual hypotheses such as someone innocently moving Jesus’s body or the disciples stealing the body and then lying about their actions are unlikely, Ehrman proclaims that they are all still more likely than are any supernatural events. He also considers the empty tomb reports to be relatively late traditions. Through this new process, Ehrman certainly provides more details on his present approach than do most other skeptical scholars.21

Ehrman describes his recent shift on Jesus’s burial this way: “My view now is that we do not know, and cannot know, what actually happened to Jesus’s body.” But it was still more commonly the case that criminals were usually left to decompose or be eaten.22 In his concluding comments in the section on Jesus’s burial, Ehrman has this to say regarding the possibility that Jesus was buried traditionally, either by the Sanhedrin or by Joseph: “As a historian, I do not think we can say definitively that this tradition is false, although I think it is too much to say definitively that Jesus was eaten by dogs.” So while leaving open the traditional interpretation, Ehrman states that “there are, in fact, some very compelling reasons to doubt it. I personally doubt it.”23

Nevertheless, whatever his bottom line, Ehrman frankly seems to produce insufficient reasons for the change to his recent position. His shift in position on the empty tomb appears to subsequently have made him backtrack on the traditional burial of Jesus, both of which he had previously accepted. Ehrman provides three arguments against the traditional burial of Jesus’s body as depicted in the Gospels, which will be treated here in order. First, Ehrman states it is “hard to make historical sense of this tradition just within the context of Mark’s narrative.”24 For example, how come we do not know about Joseph of Arimathea until so late in Mark’s story?25 Second, it also appears to be difficult to work Joseph’s name into other New Testament texts. Neither Paul nor the major creed he cites in 1 Corinthians 15 mentions Joseph.26 Third, neither does Joseph fit into the passage in Acts 13:28–29, which actually seems to say that the entire Sanhedrin buried (ethēkan) Jesus.27

Overall, to count “numerous reasons” out of some closely aligned thoughts about Joseph not fitting into various New Testament situations really seems forced. Ehrman’s first objection does not appear to present a very difficult set of problems, and there are a number of responses. Initially, no major breach of proper reporting has been committed if an almost entirely unknown person’s name is omitted from a story except in relation to the very specific role where he or she played the major part, particularly when the individual arguably served no real purpose before that time. Jesus’s burial indeed takes a backseat as it is situated in the middle of the crucifixion and resurrection—the dominant overall story in Mark’s Gospel. Yet, the burial story with Joseph of Arimathea still constitutes an attention-getting scenario positioned among the world’s tallest and most scenic mountains. Joseph is named because he played a very special role due to his position among the Jewish leaders and his strengths were apropos to the task. What is the problem with that?

As for the pre-Pauline creed in 1 Cor 15:3–7, only Peter and James are mentioned by name, and for good reason: they are the major and most influential persons in the earliest Jerusalem church. For that matter, John, Andrew, Matthew and many others are missing too!28 Where would Joseph fare next to them in this exceptionally brief summary?

Lastly, it seems to be a real stretch to assert that the sermon summary attributed to Paul in Acts 13 depicts the view in verse 29, that the Jewish Sanhedrin members as a whole were the ones who buried Jesus with it all resting on the crucial referent for the plural pronoun “they” (ethēkan), as Ehrman does. Consider the following points: verses 27–29 concern the Jewish leaders, while the verses immediately following, from 13:30 onward, concern Jesus’s followers. To start with, commenting on the text here, Evans calls Ehrman’s moves “vague.”29 For example, Ehrman asks if referring to the Sanhedrin in Acts 13:29 could possibly even constitute the earliest tradition that we possess on this subject. But without any evidence per se, Ehrman proceeds on the very next page and jumps to the conclusion: “So that is the oldest tradition we have.”30 He just drew an unwarranted conclusion on an important topic without the necessary factual backing.

Moreover, Ehrman agrees that Acts and Luke were written by the same author.31 As such, the same book that records the early tradition in Acts 13:28–29 also records and affirms both the better-known burial scenarios just a few verses later (13:34–37) as well as earlier includes the testimony of Acts 2:29–32. In both of these additional texts, Jesus’s body is said to have never experienced corruption, as opposed to the position that Ehrman thinks is most likely being taught, namely, that Jesus’s body was probably left to the wild creatures or thrown into a common grave to decay.32 Most incredibly, the author of Acts was likely the same author who specifically told the detailed, traditional story of Joseph of Arimathea’s burial of Jesus’s body in Luke 23:50–56. So, the author of Luke-Acts seemingly either does not hold Ehrman’s “Sanhedrin interpretation” of Acts 13:28–29 or, at the very least, does not consider this interpretation to be at odds with the general interpretation of his two books. There are other such examples in the Luke-Acts tandem as well.

Lastly, even if the text in Acts 13:28–29 does affirm a burial by the Jewish leaders, this could simply be a rather generic way to identity that one of their own members, Joseph of Arimathea, did the actual burying. In this case, the plural could well indicate that Joseph (possibly including Nicodemus) was acting on behalf of the Sanhedrin (as in Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50), or even that the use of the plural was due to having the Sanhedrin’s permission or acknowledgment to act in this manner.33 This would also appear to be the more likely way to explain the previous point about there being no problem with Luke as the author of both texts.

Ehrman’s second objection is that the bodies of deceased criminals and those considered to be criminals were regularly eaten by wild beasts and birds or thrown into common graves, whether by the Romans or by others. Ehrman knows ancient exceptions to this rule. But he thinks that Philo is usually read improperly. Ehrman cites Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, first century BC), Dio Chrysostom (Discourses, about AD 100), Octavian (in Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars, written about AD 120), and Tacitus (Ann. 6.29, also written about 120) here. In fact, Ehrman concludes the entire matter with the words, “I have not run across any contrary indications in any ancient source.”34

However, New Testament scholar and specialist on Jesus’s burial Craig A. Evans shows firmly that Ehrman’s overall diagnosis is quite incorrect at many points. Initially though, Evans agrees with Ehrman’s charge that the Romans were indeed ruthless and could often speak of leaving crucifixion victims as scavenger food. And to Ehrman’s list Evans additionally cites Horace (Ep. 1.16.48; about 25 BC), Juvenal (Sat. 14.77–78; about AD 125), the anonymous third-century Apotelesmatica (4.200), a second-century epitaph (Amyzon, cave I), Livy (History of Rome 29.9.10; 18.14), and Josephus (J.W. 5.289, 449) as simply reporting these data or supporting the leaving of victims’ dead bodies on the cross after death.35

But Evans also argues convincingly that Ehrman is seriously mistaken in this second point that the Romans virtually always denied burial to crucifixion victims. For Evans, “The evidence is more variegated than Ehrman and others have assumed.”36 For starters, the Romans granted clemency on many occasions, and Roman sources often speak in favor of clemency for the jailed or the condemned.37

Specifically for crucifixion victims, Evans argues that the very text chosen by Ehrman to illustrate his point against removal from the cross for the purposes of burial takes Philo out of context. Evans contends that Philo is actually arguing in the exact instance in question that the Roman governor of Egypt in about AD 32 was wrong to deny burial to crucifixion victims (Flacc. 83).38 Further, Evans argues that there are a number of both Roman and Jewish sources that allow burial in circumstances involving crucifixion. These Roman sources include the Digesta, a summary of Roman law, which specifically gives permission to turn over the bodies of crucifixion victims to the family members (48.24.1, 3), Josephus (Life 75), and the crucifixion victim Jehohanan, whose bones were found in Israel reburied in an ossuary after decomposition.39 Likewise, Jewish law required a proper burial even to victims of capital punishment (Deut 21:22–23; 11Q19 64:7–13a).

Ehrman’s third reason for doubting the traditional burial account of Jesus is the historical information regarding Pontius Pilate that “he was a fierce, violent, mean-spirited ruler who displayed no interest at all in showing mercy and kindness to his subjects and showed no respect for Jewish sensitivities.”40 So while the traditional burial for Jesus was a possible result, it was not the most likely outcome.

Further for Ehrman, Jewish law in general made no difference to how the Romans behaved, including the respect that the Jews had for burying the dead. Ehrman states, “The Romans who did crucify [Jesus] had no concern to obey Jewish law and virtually no interest in Jewish sensitivities.”41 Yet, Ehrman himself mentions a case where offensive Roman standards bearing the emperor’s image were removed (Josephus, Ant. 18.3.1).42 While this was not always the case of course, as with a second violent case Ehrman describes, the Romans did change on this occasion when they realized that they were offending the Jewish beliefs. Evans notes Josephus’s report that previous Roman governors likewise did not bring the Roman images into Jerusalem (Ant. 18.3.2–3).

Another massive consideration here is that Josephus mentions another very similar occasion when the Jews opposed the Romans in AD 66 and many were crucified. Yet even on this occasion, even after an insurrection, the crucified were still allowed to be “taken down and buried before sunset” (J. W., 4.317).43 It should be mentioned that Pilate let Barabbas go free, as well (Mark 15:6–15 and parallels).

Another factor is that Pilate also could have responded differently to Jesus due to the fact that Jesus’s answers to his questions may have actually intrigued him. We are told that Pilate was amazed at Jesus—and scared by him too.44 Or perhaps Pilate’s own wife scared him even more (Matt 27:19). Who knows? Jesus was not anything like Pilate’s normal interviewees!

At any rate, it is therefore very difficult to agree with Ehrman and conclude that Pilate never or almost never acceded to the Jews enough to show his “kinder side” and “gentler behavior” toward Jesus. Sure, Ehrman always allows himself an exit, and he does say that Jesus may have been an exception to Roman actions,45 yet he considers it to be very unlikely.46 While Ehrman knows of these cases too, Evans particularly indicates some situations here where Pilate and the Romans did make major exceptions. Then there were Jesus’s brief talks with Pilate as well. Evans’s reasons also carry much weight, especially given his specialist studies in the area of Jewish burial.

In sum, Ehrman’s overall religious stance and change of mind on facts surrounding Jesus’s burial has led to a fascinating study of Jesus’s world. However, Ehrman’s new reasons do not tip the scales in his favor. Additionally, the thirteen reasons provided below that clearly favor the traditional Jewish burial of Jesus’s body in a tomb clearly outweigh Ehrman’s efforts.

Reburial of Jesus’s Body?

One other outside-the-box suggestion might be mentioned. What if the evidence for the traditional burial view were indeed simply too strong to ignore, and, at least up to a point, it was largely correct?47 On this view, Joseph of Arimathea did indeed lead Jesus’s burial, placing the body in his own previously unoccupied tomb. But instead of the majority view that Joseph never intended to move Jesus, what if Joseph simply meant this arrangement to be a temporary resting place due to the Friday afternoon rush to get Jesus interred before the Sabbath? In this case, Joseph then reburied Jesus’s body before Sunday morning, appearing to have inadvertently left an empty tomb in his wake. But then, in all of his haste, Joseph neglected to tell any other believers or Jesus’s family members, at least initially.48

Before moving on, it should be added carefully that this scenario would in absolutely no sense constitute a “stolen body” thesis, whether by friend or foe, or a “wrong tomb” thesis of any sort, as Lowder makes quite clear himself in some detail.49 By comparison to those other views, this would have been a fairly simple and innocuous move by the tomb’s owner, in spite of the potentially momentous results.50

For starters, both Tabor and Lowder make a number of concessions, which might be taken as indicating some weaknesses in their positions. Both admit that the majority of scholars disagree with their position or even largely ignore it. Lowder thinks that this lack of acceptance even by critics is strange.51 But is the reason for this neglect simply that so few scholars care about doing good research, or that the argument for the two-burial thesis is judged to be very unlikely? If the scholarly conclusions in the above footnote are any indication, then it is quite clearly that, at least regarding the case of the Talpiot Tomb version of the double-burial thesis, scholars are not shy in expressing their conclusions that it is the poor data and reasoning processes that bother them!

Also, both of these authors admit that at least some of the naturalistic theses that traditionally oppose the burial, empty tomb, and resurrection appearance narratives in the Gospels are mistaken.52 This narrows considerably many of the critical options.

Lastly and perhaps most crucially, both authors admit that some of the key tenets that they need for the double-burial thesis are devoid of any evidence, and, presumably, they must therefore fill in the cracks or make what they probably consider to be educated guesses. Lowder comments that there is “no evidence the Jews responded to the Christian proclamation of the empty tomb by pointing to the location of the second tomb.” On the other hand, Lowder admits that there is evidence that at least some Jews retorted to the Christians by blaming the disciples with stealing Jesus’s deceased body!53 Gerd Lüdemann agrees here: “The rumour of the theft of the corpse of Jesus is certainly historical, but not the theft itself.”54 Thus, the data we have is contrary to Lowder’s hypothesis.

Tabor likewise claims there is no real evidence for the actual machinations of the second burial. But he explains this conundrum by saying that this “is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character.”55 In other words, for Lowder the traditional view taught by Matthew (with backup from Justin Martyr and Tertullian) that Jesus’s disciples stole his body has some evidence in its favor. Hence as far as we know, it was the preferred view of the Jewish authorities, while the double-burial idea has no Jewish backup or data at all and, so far as we know, it was not their preferred view.

However, when the going gets tough for Tabor, he takes refuge behind theological and apologetic tendencies in the Gospels, so he therefore chooses to move the attention away from the lack of evidence favoring his thesis to claimed Gospel problems. But for Lowder as well as for Tabor, the place where they must rely on some species of filling in the blanks precisely where the rubber meets the road for their position, is where they admit that there is no evidence for what they hold.

But carefully note that, in both cases, Tabor and Lowder still prefer the double-burial option, choosing it without evidence over the traditional burial option, which has far more data in its favor. The two arguments are not even close in terms of where the evidence lies. Thus, it sounds like worldview and even emotional preferences are being exercised here in both cases too, taking precedence over what are clearly the better reasons!

Moving beyond the concessions made by both of these authors in assembling their different versions of the double-burial hypothesis, what other weaknesses are observed in the overall discussion? Both authors actually assume and even require that a good portion of the traditional Gospel burial thesis is true, yet both of them also freely make comments that the Gospel texts are unreliable.56 So which is it? How do these seemingly contrary positions—the general unreliability of the text versus the particularly helpful portions that they wish to use here—work out?

Somewhat similarly, there are stretches in the writings of Tabor and Lowder that are riddled with “ifs”—but how sure should the reader be when the authors seem like they are picking-and-choosing as they move along, especially when the question concerns precisely the most vital points of their argument? Time and again, it sometimes seems that the critics’ internal predisposition might go something like this: when something in the Gospels is needed to help a thesis, or when a text fits with one of their ideas, then it usually turns out that portion is called historical. Then that Gospel author may be pronounced as being correct at that point. But when a text would hurt their case, especially when it would take a major toll on their ideas, then that passage is almost always rejected, sometimes with the passing comment that we know that there are myriads of problems in the Gospels anyway, and this is one of them.57

Since the Gospel texts are viewed both by Tabor and Lowder as being generally unreliable, it does appear to be rather convenient when the points they need for their theses are all of a sudden precisely the ones that are considered to be quite reliable. Conversely, when heavy considerations in the texts oppose our view, we should reject those options rather than prefer another route, unless the reasons in its favor are stronger.58

Other problematic issues show up in these arguments too. There are two more serious problems that arise from the admitted lack of evidence at key junctures in the double-burial scenarios, along with what appears to be some picking and choosing from the “unreliable” Gospel texts, as just mentioned. Equally serious to the above two issues are the following question: Why were the empty tomb accounts as related in all four Gospels concerned only with Jesus’s first burial, but not the second one? After all, Jesus’s final resting place would have been more important than an intermediate one.59 But then, why is the clear impression in each of the Gospels that Joseph’s tomb was both Jesus’s first and his final place of interment as well as the place from which Jesus rose? Clearly, that’s what the angelic messengers stationed at the wrong tomb proclaimed too! Another huge issue here is this one: since these Gospels were apparently not written until thirty to sixty-five years later, they had far more than enough time to get the matter straightened out during those decades. This is an absolutely huge matter, for it indicates that neither the Gospel writers nor their earlier sources (such as the pre-Markan text)60 accepted a double-burial thesis or attempted to explain it away.61

We also mentioned above the recognition of the Jewish story of Jesus’s disciples stealing his body.62 This account seems to represent the Jewish side of the issue, as we will argue below, and the Jews likewise are not knowledgeable of a later, second burial.

Though a much smaller issue than the more momentous ones that we have raised above, according to Tabor and Lowder, it is also curious why Joseph might have felt the need to move the body again. Tabor thinks the tomb was not that of Joseph but that it was a convenient nearby tomb, meaning that Jesus’s body would have to be moved again,63 while Lowder thinks Joseph moved Jesus’s body to another place more fitting for one killed as a criminal!64 Probably the more common suggestion in the literature is that Joseph wished to save the tomb for his own family. On the last thesis, though, why would this be the motivation for another move when ossuaries were small and the tombs usually contained several places for burial?65

So overall, the evidence stands heavily against a second burial for Jesus’s body. The weightiest reasons include the lack of any evidence for the reburial position and the picking and choosing of Gospel texts to weave an account around the known data to avoid pitfalls. Additionally, the Gospels and their sources unanimously only know of a first burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb and the women’s trip to that tomb, and none of these traditions apparently reflect any knowledge of the final one from which Jesus also rose and appeared, as announced in the angelic proclamation. In any of these scenarios, Jesus still could have been raised from the dead.66

Against these sorts of doubt and challenges, can the traditional burial of Jesus, as depicted in the canonical Gospels, be established as the strongest, most likely historical position? Peter Stuhlmacher is representative of the majority of scholars who consider alternate options and then reject them.67 What does a matchup of the various charges and countercharges indicate? Before analyzing the chief question of the traditional burial, we turn initially to another biblical question from the Gospel of Matthew.

The Guard at the Tomb in Matthew

The story of the Jewish leaders visiting Pilate and requesting that a guard be positioned in front of Jesus’s tomb in the Gospel of Matthew will be treated in more than one place in this study—in both this chapter and elsewhere.68 According to the majority of scholars, Matthew indicates that the conversation with Pilate and the posting of the guard occurred on the Sabbath—Saturday (Matt 27:62). The comments in the Gospel of Peter are much more confusing, depending on whether or not the author is employing Jewish time practices with regard to the arrival of the guard on Friday or Saturday.69 This scene could be an important puzzle piece in the overall burial and empty tomb accounts.

We will assume here that, according to Matthew, the guard was most likely stationed in front of the tomb on Saturday, the day after the crucifixion. These initial moves preceded the tomb being found empty the next day, hence pertaining best to our treatment here of the burial accounts, even though there may be some overlap with our empty tomb treatment (27:62). The further part played by the guards on “the first day of the week” following the descent of an angel definitely belongs to the account of the empty tomb (28:4, 11–15) and thus is discussed in that chapter. Some initial questions concern us here with the posting of the guard.

The historicity of this entire account of the guard is rejected by virtually all critical scholars, minus the most conservative members of this research community, and not simply by those on the skeptical side. It seems like myriads of reasons to deny the reality of this story emanate from a host of different directions. Some of the more popular complaints involve the entire account having a fictional character, flavor, or “feel” to it. That it only appears in Matthew is a significant factor. Then there is the overly obvious attempt to introduce apologetic motifs to buttress the tomb against grave robbers such as Jesus’s own disciples, as well as this scenario being the precursor to a grand supernatural set of events the next day that included the guards. Moreover, why would the Jewish leaders understand the intent of Jesus’s resurrection predictions when they visited Pilate, while Jesus’s disciples just did not get it?

Additionally, what if Matthew introduced the incident to make the Jewish leaders look evil? Or, if the guards were present at the tomb when the women arrived, could not they have stopped them on Sunday morning as well? Further, could Jesus’s own predictions of his resurrection have framed the reasoning behind this entire scenario?70 Also, if the theft of the body were not already taken as a possibility, the scene would not have been described in the first place.71

Though further down the list of questions regarding Matthew’s guard account, both Christians and non-Christians alike may be displeased with what they deem to be distasteful notions like the idea that unbelievers might share in witnessing the upcoming miraculous scenarios, or Matthew’s implication that faith is incapable of standing on its own, thus requiring some objective evidence to buttress it. Did this account inspire the later, incredibly detailed Gospel of Peter account of the Roman guards? Hybrid positions involving mixes and amalgams of such critical views are also possible.

One of the reasons just mentioned for rejecting Matthew’s account was the perceived extravagance of the supernatural events. On Sunday morning a shining angel descends, rolls back the stone, and sits on it, revealing an empty tomb. Shortly thereafter the bewildered guard leave the scene in quite a hurry to report back to those who hired them. While this moves us beyond an initial overview of events at the tomb, it opens an entire host of various other responses to the supernatural elements involved. However, many commentators do not proceed very far beyond an initial, brief comment that this entire episode is simply a legendary report.

The Potential Identity of the Guards

Whether the guards were Roman or Jewish is doubtless an intriguing question for some. However, it generally occupies comparatively little time from recent scholars. Although lists of those who hold this or that view still can be found in the literature, there is a basic problem with launching such an inquiry in the first place. Since the historicity of the entire pericope is doubted so widely by researchers, it seems to be the view that pausing to ask this question has very little meaning. One can almost imagine this response: “Frankly, who cares; it does not make any real difference whichever view one holds!”

On the other hand, though it is a minority position, those who think that there is reason to hold (or at least to be open to) the historicity of this passage may think that the case for the burial and empty tomb is enhanced depending on the identity of the guards. Even among these scholars, both views are taken.

General reasons in favor of either a Roman or a Jewish guard can be insightful, though we will be brief in our summation here. Favoring a Roman guard is that the Jewish priests and elders went to Pilate to ask for the permission in the first place (Matt 27:62). Since the Jewish leaders had their own temple guards, seeking Pilate’s permission would hardly seem to be necessary. We are told that, just the day before, Joseph of Arimathea also went to Pilate for the purpose of requesting Jesus’s dead body for burial, and the request was granted (Matt 27:57–58). Since that appeal was due to the Romans having sentenced and crucified Jesus, with Roman soldiers having carried out the execution, it was their decision. Besides, asking for the Roman soldiers to guard the tomb would seem to make the most sense, because it would constitute the strongest position for the Jews, who wanted to be rid once and for all of any more shenanigans with Jesus’s body.

Further, securing the soldiers’ well-being with Pilate after the incident, just in case the word got to him that the men were sleeping on the job (Matt 28:14), hardly makes sense if the men were essentially a private temple institution unconnected to any Roman jurisdiction. To persuade Pilate on behalf of temple guards would seem to be totally unnecessary if the guard consisted of only private guards.

Arguing for the Jewish temple guards is more difficult. One fair question for this position, however, is why the guards reported to the Jewish elders instead of going straight to Pilate (Matt 27:11).72 But if Pilate had given his permission for a Roman guard, it would have been quite normal to report to those to whom they were then assigned.

Some take the comment in Matt 27:65 as Pilate telling the high priests that they already have their own (Jewish) guard, so they should just make use of them. But most exegetical commentators, past and present, seem not to interpret the Greek text that way. For example, New Testament scholar Robert Mounce argues, “The Greek echete is probably imperative . . . rather than indicative.” The meaning, then, is that Pilate was granting their request to place a Roman guard at the tomb entrance.73

All things considered, then, the presence of Roman guards at the tomb make the most sense of Matthew’s account. The force of seeking Pilate’s otherwise unneeded permission in the first place, as well as protecting the guards from any potential fury should Pilate hear the story of their having fallen asleep, are powerful signals as to what happened. On the other hand, the points in favor of the temple guard are much weaker in comparison. But as we have said, this does not contribute much to the overall question of the historicity of the account itself.

Addressing Objections to the Historicity of Matthew’s Guard Scenario

The complaint that only Matthew reports this story is still voiced quite frequently, but the objection may be mitigated somewhat more at present. True enough, it does seem odd that if Matthew’s guard at the tomb were a historical report, at least one other canonical Gospel author would have contained the same or a similar account to buttress their own case by including hostile witnesses. But attempting to judge whether or not another of the three Gospel authors would necessarily have known of an account can be a risky thing and should not detain us overly long in an ancient world where communication and the recording of stories were seldom done in a precise manner. Not knowing or having heard a story that appeared elsewhere, perhaps written and published halfway across the Mediterranean world and at a different time, should not constitute a surprising or pejorative verdict. First-century folk did not listen to the daily news!

Further, what is to be done with the myriads of important stories in the ancient world, as well as some of those in the Gospels themselves, that are also attested by only a single source? Another author including the account would have been especially helpful when the event in question—Jesus raising the dead—would also have bolstered the credibility of the other sources too.

For example, of the three times where the Gospel authors record the rather major claim that Jesus raised some person from the dead, only the account of Jairus’s daughter appears in more than one Gospel. Still, this does not impede Graham Twelftree from judging that all three instances (including the widow of Nain’s son in Luke and the story of Lazarus in John) are to be rated among the very best in terms of their likelihood of historicity.74 John Meier agrees with that judgment regarding Jairus’s daughter, which he thinks “goes back to some event in Jesus’ ministry.” Though he judges that the other two cases are “more tenuous” in nature, Meier thinks that they too probably go back to historical incidents.75 Yet, any of these three highly supernatural reports of raising the dead are far more bombastic than Matthew’s burial account of the guards alone, which then certainly may look more likely, at least on the surface.

One other matter needs to be mentioned here. Matthew is not the only ancient source that mentions the guards at the tomb. The noncanonical Gospel of Peter also dramatically affirms the presence of the guard at Jesus’s tomb.76 But the largest change in the discussion at this point is not due to the actual discovery of this noncanonical work, which occurred in the late nineteenth century, or even to its much earlier rejection as a canonical writing in the early church.77 Rather, the changing perspective on this discussion at present is due to the perceived date of the Gospel of Peter being moved earlier than in the past, closer to the first century.78 James Charlesworth points out that, while a few scholars like John Dominic Crossan may exempt a key text here and there, “all scholars agree” that the Gospel of Peter “appeared as a work in the second century CE.”79

Though not tipping the scales in favor of the historicity of the guards in Matthew alone among the canonical Gospels, or for sure not affirming the historicity of the Gospel of Peter either, studies in the Gospel of Peter have brought a new perspective to the subject of late. The time span between the canonical and the noncanonical Gospels here has grown closer.

So there are a few potential responses to the question of why the guards at the tomb (or, for that matter, two of the three stories of Jesus raising the dead) were only reported in a single canonical Gospel account. Whatever the potential answers—such as the physical distance between the authors, or the lack of mutual familiarity with every aspect of each other’s writings, or there indeed being another ancient source or two that mentions the guard, and so on—we may assume that the presence of important accounts in only one Gospel source is not due to the lack of interest or respect for the other accounts, or the judgment that the other Gospel was automatically reporting legends. It could well be said, then, that despite Matthew alone telling the story of the guards at Jesus’s tomb, this does not necessarily entail that this account was rejected by the other Gospel writers. After all, though the subject of historical confirmation has been the chief thrust throughout this study, even events that are supported by less or no evidence at all could still have occurred.

Nonetheless, an issue or two here does seem to cause somewhat more consternation for scholars. For example, if the text is taken in a straightforward manner, why should it be the case that the Jewish leaders appear to have listened and understood Jesus’s predictions of his resurrection both better than as well as earlier than the disciples? Different answers have been suggested.

One thought surrounds the grief and sudden angst caused by Jesus’s absolutely shocking announcements as they came crashing down against his followers. They just could not process this teaching of Jesus’s imminent death, even if accompanied by his resurrection.80 It was just too much of a complete shock—too much, too fast! Such turmoil would naturally conflict with Jesus’s students’ most cherished beliefs, militating against their own hopes and dreams for the future of Israel as well as the place of Jesus himself in the kingdom (cf. especially the words in Luke 24:19–21a before the realization that Jesus had been raised from the dead).

One only needs to remember the disciples’ repeated lack of understanding of Jesus’s resurrection teachings (Mark 9:32), their subsequent and perhaps stultifying fear (cf. Mark 10:32), unbelief (Mark 8:32), and resistance against these ideas to the extent that they responded to the upsetting comments by asserting that they would be prepared to fight and even to die for Jesus if need be (Mark 10:29–31). Such responses may indicate the presence of just such sheer psychological apprehension and terror. Besides, recording these incidents is also quite embarrassing in itself.

Beyond the disciples’ numbing fear warping their ideas and hopes on these topics, perhaps the trained theological leaders of the people had an advantage and would indeed have understood Jesus’s words better. On the other hand, this was probably a simple precautionary move by the leaders that necessitated neither belief in Jesus’s words nor understanding of Jesus’s meaning in the first place, given that an individual rising again from the dead would be a difficult concept regardless. They only knew that they had to stop any potential “resurrection” precisely then and there (Matt 27:63, “that imposter,” NRSV; “that deceiver,” NIV).

The point, then, could well have been to merely make absolutely sure that the book had been closed on this matter by ensuring the finality of Jesus’s irreversible death—sort of a “just in case” afterthought. On this notion, though they rejected the idea of either Jesus’s resurrection or sometimes even that of other individuals, as with the Sadducees in Acts 23:8, they still did not want to miss or overlook some possibility. They may have deemed that they were too close to victory here to fail.

Further, this may actually be the best surmisal for explaining why the Jewish leaders did not go to Pilate until Saturday, which is anything but the best option if they really were worried about a resurrection! Precisely as the passage attests, the leaders apparently realized, almost as an afterthought, that not coming to grips with this issue could spell disaster for them. This is expressed well in the words that then “the last deception would be worse than the first” (Matt 27:64 NRSV). That appears like it could well be the real issue for the Jewish leaders, a sort of scenario where they simply wanted to be prepared for any situation. This was a crucial time for them and they wanted to finish the task.81 Of course, while this proposed explanation may fit well with some aspects of Matthew’s account, it remains somewhat conjectural and many scholars still conclude that they are simply unsatisfied with the possibility that the Jewish leaders understood Jesus’s words better than his own disciples.82

Brown appears to be even more bothered by what the account of the guards in Matthew would do to the other empty tomb accounts, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. If the women knew of the guard, how could they simply walk to the tomb and wonder who was going to move away the stone for them, thinking that they would be there alone? Their much larger problem, of course, was what to do about the guards. So why would the women think that the guards, whoever they were, would even allow them inside the tomb in the first place?83

But Brown’s concern here hardly seems to be a huge obstacle, because it could conceivably (or even quite likely) be the case that the women just plain would have had no knowledge whatsoever of the guards being there in the first place. Whatever we conclude about Matthew’s account, the idea certainly seems to be that the meeting between the Jewish leaders and Pilate was a private one, and the women, without knowing of this Sabbath collaboration, would just have been heading to the tomb to finish the anointing process that had not been completed a couple of days earlier (Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1).

While there are doubtless some tough questions for any defense of Matthew’s text regarding the guards at the tomb, nonetheless, there are also some thoughtful rejoinders—difficulties that work against the most common critical stance that this Gospel records a legend chiefly to enhance the empty tomb and resurrection tales.84 For example, if the critics are right about Matthew’s report of the guards being unhistorical and fabricated to enhance his overall story, the author of Matthew does an absolutely horrible job (and more than once) of weaving a legendary story.

Consider the following issues. As we have seen, the Jewish leaders did not even make their plea to Pilate for a guard until the next day. That leaves hours for the perpetration of the fraud that they claimed they were so worried about!85 So how serious and concerned were the Jewish leaders after all? As atheistic skeptic Richard Carrier makes the point, there was plenty of time here for the deed to have been both hatched and accomplished within a day.86 The guard presumably would have checked to make sure the body was still interred there, otherwise there would have been very little need to even stand out in front of the entrance to an empty sepulcher. But still, why the delay at all?

Yet, on the charge of Matthew inventing a narrative to charge Jewish fraud in order to establish the empty tomb, how do we explain the lateness of the Saturday request? Or if the guard had faithfully checked the tomb beforehand and ascertained that Jesus dead body was indeed still there, as would make the most sense, at least the fact that the reader is never told that morsel of information would have left yet another serious lacuna at a vital juncture. Either way, there is a marked lack of any careful effort to cover all the possible critical scenarios in Matthew’s account.

These “lapses” in the story subtract many or perhaps even most of the supposed benefits that Matthew purportedly hoped to gain in concocting the story to add apologetic value to his Gospel. While sealing the tomb may have provided some minor prod in the apologetic direction (Matt 27:66), it would provide little assurance unless the body was inside. So why mention the seal at all while neglecting to tell the reader that Jesus’s dead body was securely stashed away inside the rock beforehand?

One other item here: when the angel appeared, he shone “like lightning” (Matt 28:3). But when Jesus appeared, it was simply as a normal man who could be touched and even held by the feet (28:9). So was the angel somehow loftier than Jesus? Who is the hero of the story here after all? Why is there not a halo or sunbeam to adorn at least Jesus’s head when the women see him (28:9–10), or later when Jesus appears in Galilee? If these are apologetic stories, after all, they need to clearly reveal their apologetic purposes or they serve very little value.

Did the women have to be concerned about the guards stopping them from entering the tomb to complete their burial work on Jesus’s body? As we have argued in this chapter, the women almost certainly had no prior knowledge of the guard’s presence, since the Jewish leaders’ arrangement with Pilate was private, plus the deal was negotiated on the Sabbath, which the women would presumably have been observing. Further, once the angel descended, the text makes it clear that the guards were groveling in the dirt, thus in no condition to stop anyone (28:4).

So the “overly obvious legend” that critics so often find in the guard story in Matthew begins not to look quite so obvious anymore, as some critics would have us think. On these grounds, it sounds more like a botched job followed by a bungled message. The Christian reader is just forced to ask too many tough questions here, and, as an argument, there are far too many loose ends. The role of the guards in the ongoing story of the empty tomb remains.87

Joseph of Arimathea and a Case for a Traditional, Private Burial

The accounts of Jesus’s dead body being buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb remain intriguing. The following items are among the ones that are mentioned in more than one Gospel: The request to take Jesus’s remains came in the evening, as Joseph approached Pilate. Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, a member of the Jewish Council, and he came from the town of Arimathea. After Pilate granted Joseph the body of Jesus, the latter took it down from the cross, prepared it, and placed it in his new tomb. Is this a reasonable historical scenario? What reasons favor its historicity?

After a detailed study, Raymond Brown points out the general historical certainty that Jesus was buried in one way or another and before the Sabbath as well. Then Brown also points out: “That the burial was done by Joseph from Arimathea is very probable.” Brown thinks that such a likelihood emerges from details such as these: A fictional creation by a Christian writer where a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin was the hero “is almost inexplicable” due to the exceptional hostility between Christians and Jews at this time, owing largely to the way Jesus’s death sentence came about. Further, the identification of Joseph being from the obscure town of Arimathea is also quite difficult to understand, especially given the difficulty of even identifying this place.108 Brown also discusses the issue of pre-Gospel burial traditions behind the Gospel accounts and finds them to be likely, favoring an oral over a written tradition and pointing to an earlier date for this report.109

In a debate on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection, William Lane Craig also makes a strong case on multiple grounds for the burial by Joseph of Arimathea. The burial of Jesus’s dead body is clearly attested in perhaps our earliest pre-Pauline creedal text in 1 Cor 15:3–5. Further, the proper burial in Joseph’s tomb is part of the pre-Markan material recognized and accepted by most critical scholars.110 Further, Joseph of Arimathea is an unlikely character to have been invented by the Gospel authors, without any apparent traces of legendary growth in the narratives. Other competing burial stories may be suggested, but which ones are better evidenced? After citing the importance of multiple attestation, Craig summarizes his argument by pointing out that Jesus’s burial is attested by “Paul’s formula, Mark’s passion source, the sermons in Acts, Matthew’s and Luke’s sources and John.”111

Gerald O’Collins and Daniel Kendall also defend the existence of Joseph of Arimathea, though largely through producing four rejoinders directed to John Dominic Crossan’s thesis that Jesus was buried in a common grave as well as the other idea that “much of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter antedated Mark.” Crossan also argues that Mark is most likely the one who created the empty tomb account.

First, O’Collins and Kendall begin by contrasting Crossan with Rudolf Bultmann, the exceptionally influential though quite skeptical New Testament scholar of the past century who accepted the historicity of the burial narrative in Mark 15. They argue further that Raymond Brown and a host of other recent specialists like John Meier, Reginald Fuller, Walter Wink, J. B. Green, and especially Martin Hengel, “were little less than devastating in demolishing Crossan’s case” in their reviews.112

Second, O’Collins and Kendall argue against Crossan’s theme that the Gospel accounts are largely based on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy rather than historical reports. Again, they produce several major commentators who disagree, including Green’s charge that the direction of Crossan’s thesis runs contrary to the very latest studies of the Qumran pesharim texts, which suggest more of a historical interest that moves from actual events to biblical meanings rather than beginning with the latter.113

O’Collins’ and Kendall’s third critique questions Crossan’s theme concerning Mark’s creativity and considers it an overemphasis. Their fourth and last criticism utilizes the ideas in Mark that are better attested on historical grounds, in contrast to Crossan’s approach that would favor Mark’s creating these aspects from scratch by inventing the overall theme itself, including Joseph and his obscure hometown among other details.114

Hans Küng summarizes briefly his critique of the common-pit view or similar views as such: “The Crucified was not left to be covered over with earth as executed Jews usually were. Roman custom permitted the body to be handed over to friends or relatives.”115

In what follows below, we will summarize a case for a private burial of Jesus’s crucified body, incorporating some of the above positive arguments plus adding several additional considerations.116 These points below will consist chiefly of affirmative reasons in support of burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s own tomb, while some of these also function as critiques of various suggestions involved in the common burial thesis of Crossan and others.

(1) The traditional accounts involving burial in a tomb are multiply attested. At least three and possibly four Gospel sources agree on the basic burial scenario.117 Further, at least two of the very early Acts sermon summaries—the Petrine sermon (Acts 2:29–32, drawn from Acts 2:14–39 minus the comment in verse 37) and the Pauline sermon (Acts 13:34–37 from the speech in Acts 13:16–41)—clearly also teach a traditional burial.118 This is especially the case in Acts 2:29, where David is specifically said to have been buried in a tomb in which his body corrupted. In contrast, Jesus was buried but his body never decayed (2:31). Clearly, Jesus remaining on the cross while being ravaged by various sorts of creatures or being buried in a trench grave in the ground are simply not apt comparisons to David’s case here.

Though very brief, 1 Cor 15:4 packs a lot of punch and is probably the best attested of all the comments regarding Jesus’s traditional burial as well as probably the earliest (see the treatment immediately below). Lastly, with unfortunate tendencies to exhibit some rather heavy fantasies, the Gospel of Peter is at least another source for a traditional burial in a rock tomb.

Altogether, these seven sources provide an abundance of major texts that favor the traditional burial of Jesus.119 While nonscholars may suspect a conspiracy on the part of the authors of these texts, it must be recalled that these sources are independent and largely originate from difference places in the eastern Mediterranean world. There is truly an abundance of textual evidence for Jesus’s traditional burial.

(2) The sources for a traditional burial are also dated exceptionally early. Atheist New Testament scholar Ehrman even dates these specific Acts 2 and 13 sermon summaries at just one to two years after the crucifixion.120 An even stronger argument comes from the consensus New Testament position regarding 1 Cor 15:3–4, which records the burial of Jesus’s body and is also dated to about one to two years after the crucifixion.121 The burial account in Mark is dated by most New Testament scholars before AD 70, at only about thirty to forty years after the cross,122 with Matthew and Luke written just a couple of decades later at most, followed by John approximately another decade later. Though the Gospel of Peter is less valuable in a study of this nature, Ehrman still includes it as being dated within his 100-year window after the crucifixion.123 So all seven sources in the previous point above date within this same time frame. These early, traditional reports confirm the ancient belief that Jesus was buried in a tomb rather than in some unknown grave.

(3) Little is often said about eyewitness testimony for the burial, perhaps because only a few persons in New Testament times could provide it. But Richard Bauckham states:

In the Synoptic Gospels the role of the women as eyewitnesses is crucial: they see Jesus die, they see his body being laid in the tomb, they find the tomb empty. The fact that some of the women were at all three events means that they can testify that Jesus was dead when laid in the tomb and that it was the tomb in which he was buried that they subsequently found empty.124

Then Bauckham adds: “The way that all three Synoptic Gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing (Mt. 27.55; Mk 15.40; Lk. 23.49, 55) shows that the Gospels are appealing to their role as eyewitnesses.”125

(4) More specifically, not only is Jesus’s burial supported strongly by the exceptionally early and critically well-respected confessional statement in 1 Cor 15:3–4, but the Greek term for “bury” (thaptō) in the text (15:4) indicates careful burial in a tomb rather than a dug-out space in the ground. The term in this ancient tradition is associated with the Greek word taphos, which actually indicates a tomb. As skeptical New Testament scholar Dale Allison points out, “According to the primitive confession in 1 Cor. 15:4, Jesus was ‘buried.’ . . . The verb . . . would hardly be used of the unceremonious dumping of a criminal into an unmarked trench as dog food: that was not burial but its denial.” Nor is the verbiage consistent with not knowing where the body was placed.126 Some scholars apparently think that the careful analysis of the Greek in this very ancient traditional text here goes a long way toward refuting the common grave or “left on the cross” critical views. Allison mentions this reason as his first consideration in his eleven-point critique of Crossan and Spong and their denial of Jesus’s burial in a private rock tomb.127

(5) The pre-Markan passion account discussed above likely teaches the burial of Jesus’s body in Joseph’s new tomb as well and was probably Mark’s chief source at this point (and perhaps for the other two Synoptic Gospels as well). If it can be dated to ten or so years after the cross, as some think,128 and certainly before the appearance of Mark’s Gospel, then it is potentially yet another exceptionally early indication of the traditional burial account in a new, private tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, as it teaches.

(6) Besides the first point above of multiple attestation of sources, another historical criterion is that of multiple forms. The idea is that the presence of an event or teaching across different genres increases the likelihood that the incident is early and independent. In the case of Jesus, there are the Gospel narratives of the burial, the exceptionally early creedal mention in 1 Cor 15:4 along with the sermon summaries in Acts 2:29–32 and 13:34–37, and a metaphor for baptism in the formula of Rom 6:3–4.

(7) Sometimes, particular arguments for the empty tomb also argue backwards for the traditional burial of Jesus’s body by Joseph, as well as vice versa. The embarrassing detail found unanimously in all four Gospels is that the women were the initial witnesses to the empty tomb, especially with the men being nowhere to be seen. But this would also argue in favor of this location being the traditional burial tomb account. Given the accuracy of the women indeed being the initial witnesses to the tomb on that first day of the week, then this additionally favors that the tomb they went to was probably the correct place of burial. Of course the women could have been mistaken on the whereabouts of the body, but that would require an additional theory, while the account of them heading to this particular tomb argues more easily and directly that Joseph’s tomb was the correct one. Since the multiply attested data favor Joseph leading the burial detail with the women watching the procedures, this once again favors the traditional scenario that the women accurately knew the proper location.

(8) Another argument for the empty tomb is that the city of Jerusalem would absolutely be the very last place to proclaim as the actual location for Jesus’s empty tomb and resurrection appearances if that were not true, since some careful snooping might show that the early Christian message was false. But this reasoning works in reverse for the burial as well. For in the latter case, any amount of interviewing, inquisitiveness, or just plain prying on the part of Christianity’s enemies may have uncovered the real place of Jesus’s interment. The enemies of the early message would then have a ready-made catalyst to disprove the message! Again, Jerusalem is a bad place to make these sorts of burial or empty tomb claims if they are false. True, if Jesus’s body had been buried in the earth, then the available time element would have been briefer. But still, that the body was never located is an argument for the traditional burial and the emptiness of the tomb.

(9) As was noted above by Evans in his response to Ehrman, it was important for the Jews to bury the deceased according to Deut 21:22–23.129 Josephus indicates that the Jews were careful to perform burial rites even for crucifixion victims (J.W. 4.317; cf. 3.377). Given that Jesus was crucified during Passover, the religious sensibilities would have been heightened during this time, and it is likely that Pontius Pilate would not have prevented the Jews from burying Jesus. Allison rightly notes, “With Jesus executed, there was no reason to compound the public upset by keeping his body up on its cross and so offending either his followers or those anxious about the observance of Deuteronomy 21:22–23.”130

This would especially be the case during Passover since the number of people present in Jerusalem would have been much greater than normal, with some of them having praised Jesus just days before. Indeed, even Carrier notes that the Romans would have been sensitive to Jewish cultural practices here when he writes, “It is probable that Jewish law was applicable to the burial of Jesus even under Roman Government.”131 A further point to support these considerations is the discovery of the burial remains of the crucified victim Jehohanan, who was both crucified and buried individually.132

(10) Are we to conclude that the Jewish leaders who had tried for so long and so meticulously to silence Jesus’s voice, would have paid no attention whatever to his death and burial?133 To be so doubly sure that he was dead, only to lose track of his body afterward and be ignorant of the details of the burial, probably could well have been absolutely disastrous for them. They knew that too. And even though Joseph of Arimathea was described variously as a secret disciple of Jesus (Matt 27:57; John 19:38) or a righteous man (Luke 23:50), he was still a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the leaders could have checked with him on the burial information regarding where and how Jesus was buried. Allison even portrays Joseph burying the body here as a type of enemy attestation since Sanhedrin members would be unlikely to do this.134

So there is also very little likelihood that the Jewish leaders would have lost track of Jesus’s dead body. Leaving his body on the cross was not an option for them given their religious beliefs, and burying him in a shallow grave would have invited disaster and compromised the leaders’ ability to keep control of the situation.

Crossan’s suggestion that even the Roman soldiers would merely have forgotten the location of the burial just a few days before is likewise preposterous. They would have remembered where they buried anyone, let alone someone with such a momentous past as Jesus. Contrary to Crossan’s contention that Jesus was a “nobody,” the interest occasioned by his quite-public preaching, popularity, trial, and death would have ensured both the nature of their work as well as their memory. After all, they may have been called upon later to give evidence of the death and burial of this famous insurrectionist, just as Pilate had already summoned their own centurion (Mark 15:44–45). As Allison adds, Jesus’s crucifixion was quite public, and it is exceptionally likely that there would be many witnesses to his burial too. To Crossan’s comment that no one cared where Jesus was buried, Allison responds with a one-liner of his own: “My guess is that most everyone knew whether they cared or not.”135

(11) What about the earliest followers of Jesus? They had totally different reasons than the Jewish leaders and the soldiers for wanting to know precisely where Jesus had been buried. After all, they believed him to be their Savior and Lord. Also multiply attested is the affirmation that the women were present at both Jesus’s crucifixion and his burial,136 not to mention their returning to the same location again on Sunday morning because they believed that it was the exact spot where Jesus was buried just shortly before.137 Like the Jewish leaders, they did not know of any account other than Jesus’s body being buried in Joseph’s private tomb.

(12) Though perhaps a bit more tenuously (see the evaluation below), both the burial and the empty tomb are actually admitted by the Jewish polemic aimed at the Christian message. The response of the Jewish leaders in Matt 28:11–15 was reportedly that Jesus’s disciples came and stole his dead body, and that this report had continued to circulate at the time of the writing of this Gospel (28:15b), probably between AD 65 and 85.138 Curiously, both Justin Martyr (Dial. 108) and Tertullian (Spect. 30) report that the Jewish story of the disciples stealing Jesus’s dead body continued to be spread until at least the end of the second century. It would be incredible if this might have been the Jewish report instead of Crossan’s scenario. But if we are correct here, even the early Christians’ opponents admitted the traditional burial and empty tomb messages though disputing their causes.139 The only explanation we know about from the Jewish leaders, then, is that they blamed Jesus’s disciples with stealing his body from a tomb—they knew nothing about any burial in the dirt.

(13) On the other hand, no early documents dispute the traditional reports of where Jesus’s body was buried or that the tomb was empty. One might request that Crossan, Ehrman, Spong, or Carrier produce the specific data that support their theses. It is not surmisals that we request here—as in opaque meanings and (barely) possible interpretations, especially those that virtually the entire cadre of scholars both left and right challenge for good reasons. But several sorts of data and other responses would be needed to seriously challenge the thirteen arguments put forth here. Comebacks of this nature cannot rest on guesswork, unevidenced assumptions, or even on generalized practices among the Jews.

In sum, the multiply attested agreement of many early sources; the exceptional earliness of these accounts; the meaning of the Greek thaptō; the pre-Markan burial narrative; multiple source attestation; the testimony of the women; the Jerusalem proclamation of the apostles; the desires and memories of the Jews, Roman soldiers, and Christians alike; the Jewish polemic that admitted the traditional accounts of the burial and empty tomb accounts as well as the lack of straightforward challenges to the traditional burial of Jesus140 are an amazing mass of strong data—a formidable wall—in support of the traditional view of Jesus’s burial by Joseph of Arimathea.

On the other hand, the nontraditional burial views are held by comparatively few scholars, probably because their alternate claims are all frankly so weak. Each of the thirteen reasons we just gave above in favor of Joseph’s traditional burial counts against the rival positions such as Crossan’s. In particular, six of them hit the hardest: the multiple attestation of at least six sources; the exceptional earliness of the message about Joseph’s burial in a tomb, with a few of these sources possibly going back to just a year or two after the cross; the meaning of the Greek term thaptō, which specifies burial in a tomb; the likelihood of a pre-Markan burial source; and the Jewish countermessage that the disciples stole Jesus’s body. All these support a tomb burial and oppose a trench burial in the ground. Lastly, especially given the many evidences for the traditional view, the lack of any historical or other evidence for Crossan’s common burial view or the like is simply devastating to these positions. In short, it is not surprising that these other suppositions are quite simply unconvincing. Nothing even approaching strong evidence favors these rival hypotheses, where the chief, unstated conviction seems to be “anything but the traditional view taught in the Gospels.” Thus, this is apparently a worldview conviction or perhaps a preference, but definitely not one that is based in the least upon the clear data that we possess.141

As we have seen already and will see further below, the strength of the case that can be mounted for Joseph of Arimathea and his traditional burial has accrued a tremendous amount of testimony on behalf of this dominant, historical position. For instance, as James D. G. Dunn asserts rather decisively: “The tradition is firm that Jesus was given a proper burial (Mark 15.42–47 pars.), and there are good reasons why its testimony should be respected.”142 Dale Allison attests likewise, “Beyond Paul’s early witness, not only do all four canonical Gospels tell a story about Jesus’ burial, but each contains additional traditions presupposing that Jesus was not thrown onto a pile for criminals but rather interred.”143 Stephen T. Davis states, “The story of Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement in the burial of Jesus seems so strongly supported and inherently trustworthy that it renders the argument for an unknown tomb quite implausible.”144

The sort of data that has been assembled above is truly impressive, especially since it occupies what we have pictured as the valley that lies between the glorious mountains of Jesus’s crucifixion, resurrection, and appearances! The witness provided by this caliber of scholars should really cause one to wonder why there are serious doubts at all about Jesus’s traditional burial.

Conclusion

It has been noted frequently, here and elsewhere, that the Romans were quite efficient in their crucifixion methods, very often leaving the victims’ bodies on the crosses as carrion for the wild animals and birds as an example to others.145 But it is generally agreed by scholars that even crucifixion victims, especially in Israel but sometimes elsewhere as well, were allowed to be buried rather than having their bodies being left out in public, especially when the bodies were claimed by the victims’ families.146 This is almost always agreed to by skeptical scholars too.147

Taken together, the position that Jesus’s dead body was buried in the tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea makes the most historical sense, and by a wide evidential margin. Few critical scholars take the alternate views on these issues,148 though of this number, the grave scenario held by Crossan and preferred by Ehrman is doubtless the most common. While the reburial thesis preferred by Tabor and Lowder is less popular, a few scholars have taken this option as well.

This lineup probably points most to Crossan’s popularity and may also provide an indication of where the best evidence lies. With a few exceptions like those of these four critical scholars, relatively few have even provided many details as to why they preferred the common grave, double burial, or other related conclusions. The majority of the time, only terse one-liners denoting the critical positions are provided. Allison makes the pithy as well as amusing comment: “But why is Joseph of Arimathea at Jesus’ burial? One levelheaded explanation is that he was remembered as having been there.”149

Whether agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions in this chapter, the few researchers who take these alternate positions regarding Jesus’s burial may shed some light on the weaknesses involved in these other positions. The views we surveyed often provided very little detail regarding their positions, including either why they rejected the traditional burial view or why they decided in favor of their substitute positions. Those scholars who did provide more details were highlighted here. With others, it sometimes seems as if any view at all is an open option except for the traditional view taught in the Gospels. While this is not always the case, these few scholars here who preferred these alternatives may have allowed us to gain just a glimpse of why they were largely alone: the evidential support for their positions was meager and not very strong.

Though we cannot of course be positive and are unable to read minds, this absence of strong reasons to hold these other positions signals the preferences and weaknesses just mentioned, hence allowing the insights that we have made. The traditional burial position of Jesus’s body as described in the Gospels is rather amazingly well evidenced, certainly the best supported of these views. Combined with the lack of virtually any evidence for the other side, it is difficult to avoid the earlier conclusion that the nontraditional choices that oppose the Gospel renditions seem to be due to personal and worldview preferences rather than resulting from any solid arguments.

Notes

1 Earlier we distinguished between a longer listing of a dozen or so known or accepted historical facts that were recognized by the majority of recent critical scholars. This list was followed by a shorter, pared-down number of “minimal facts” that we cut down to approximately half the length of the longer list of accepted data. This second, shorter list is still capable of demonstrating the strength of the historical case for Jesus’s death and resurrection, even though it is based on just a very few well-evidenced historical facts plus the accredited, individual data that confirm these few facts. From that earlier study here, Jesus’s burial belongs in the initial, longer list only.

2 By way of careful clarification, much of the material in this and the forthcoming chapters is not intended to be commentaries or expositions of the original languages, nor treatises on hermeneutics. Hopefully some good insights will be presented from each of these areas, building quite regularly upon the works of both liberal and conservative specialists. Though the author is trained in a few of these areas, this is simply not the angle taken here, where additional scholarship is readily obtainable. This is also not a straightforward historical survey such as might be the case with an introductory New Testament volume, or even a consecutive accounting of the historical events in the early church, filling in the gaps in other studies, though this gets us somewhat closer to our concerns in these volumes. Rather, in keeping with the entire thrust of this study, our chief emphasis rests centrally on what may be ascertained most securely regarding what have been termed “the minimal facts,” as well as the slightly longer list of accepted historical facts. Even with the latter list, we will emphasize most the strongest historical evidence and other confirmation for these events, even though the latter list perhaps will not possess the same evidential prowess as will the short list of minimal facts. Tangential areas of lesser import to our chief concerns—such as scholarly views, interesting comments, and other aspects—do show up but are often left to the background. Therefore, readers should expect that we will be frequently passing over some questions that interest them, but that are not in our line of fire, so to speak, or which may show up in another location of these texts. These caveats must be borne in mind throughout, for they will most likely not be repeated often.

3 Mark 15:43–46; Matt 27:57–60; Luke 23:50–53; John 19:38.

4 As pointed out earlier, Pilate’s request of the centurion in Mark raises its own questions, including why a nonmedical person would even be able to answer this question in the first place.

5 Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56.

6 Crossan, Jesus, 152–58, quotation on 158 (see chap. 6, n. 44); also Crossan, Historical Jesus, 391–94 with the same quotation on 394 (see chap. 6, n. 44). A later expression by Crossan is found in his volume Who Killed Jesus?, chap. 6, esp. the summary on 187–88 (see chap. 6, n. 151).

7 John Hick, The Center of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 25.

8 Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, 241 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

9 Kent, Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth, 88 (see excursus 2, n. 106).

10 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 533, 568 (see chap. 4, n. 84).

11 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 334 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

12 Gerd Lüdemann, “Opening Statement,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 43.

13 Goulder, “Empty Tomb,” 98–100 (see chap. 15, n. 6).

14 Sheehan, First Coming, 101 (see excursus 1, n. 16).

15 Richard C. Carrier, “The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005), 380. Carrier states that “the law probably required Joseph to bury Jesus Saturday night in a special public graveyard reserved for blasphemers and other criminals of comparable ignominy” (371). Later, Carrier repeats similarly, “Jesus, as a blasphemer, would be earmarked for stoning and thus for the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.” On 390n31, Carrier lists a range of possible charges worthy of stoning.

16 Keith Parsons, “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, states, “The Gospel narratives give many hints that the burial of Jesus was dishonorable and that this was a source of shame for the early Christian community” (446). Because of the alleged development of the “charming” story of Joseph of Arimathea, the hints of the women anointing Jesus’s deceased body, and the lack of tomb veneration, Parsons believes these are indications that Jesus was dishonorably buried: “It seems to me that the Gospel writers have created an elaborate legend of Jesus’ honorable burial to mitigate early Christians’ shame at what was probably the dishonorable fate of Jesus’ corpse” (447). What is the bottom line of Parson’s surmisals here? A crucial question might be this: in Parsons’s estimation, was Jesus’s alleged dishonorable burial a larger shame for the Christian community than was the crucifixion itself, especially when being hung on a tree was a curse (Deut 21:23)? Since the “stumbling block” of the cross was redeemed, becoming an indispensable portion of the centermost message of the gospel itself, how much less would the burial be a problem? Perhaps this is an indication that too long has been spent on weaving these possibilities regarding the burial.

17 Some of these would include Barry W. Henault, “Empty Tomb or Empty Argument: A Failure of Nerve in Recent Studies of Mark 16?,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 15, no. 2 (1986): 184; Thrall, “Resurrection Traditions and Christian Apologetic,” 199, 215 (see chap. 15, n. 89); Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 263–66. Lowder agrees with Craig in rejecting the hypothesis that Jesus was never buried, but he disagrees in holding that Jesus received a dishonorable burial. When discussing the implausibility of nonburial, Lowder writes that since the Romans crucified Jesus because of a political crime, “and if the Jews believed that Jesus had been crucified for an act that did not violate divine law, then there is historical precedent for believing they would have given Jesus an honorable burial. This is all moot, however, given that the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy” (265). On Lowder’s view, simply being executed and apparently even being crucified was not enough in itself to receive a dishonorable burial.

18 For instance, almost foreshadowing various options in the twentieth century and later, French liberal scholar Alfred Loisy thought that Jesus died by crucifixion. However, the Roman soldiers most likely simply tossed Jesus’s dead body into a trench or common grave that was designated for criminals and the like, “perhaps after giving a finishing blow to the half-dead sufferer.” For Loisy, Joseph of Arimathea’s alleged burial was a “legend,” and the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb were all just “a fiction.” Alfred Loisy, The Birth of the Christian Religion, trans. L. P. Jacks (London: Allen and Unwin, 1948), 90.

19 One wonders when studying the literature on this subject if a fair amount of interest, and this slight upturn in those who now take the common burial of Jesus and related positions in recent years, is due to the influence of John Dominic Crossan’s writings.

20 As Ehrman acknowledges concerning Jesus’s burial as well as the empty tomb: “There are a couple of things that we can say for certain about Jesus after his death. We can say with relative certainty, for example, that he was buried. . . . The accounts are fairly unanimous in saying (the earliest accounts we have are unanimous in saying) that Jesus was in fact buried by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and so it’s relatively reliable that that’s what happened. We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. And so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb.” Bart Ehrman, “Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus,” in From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity, Audio Lecture, The Teaching Company, 2003.

21 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 164–65, 184–86 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

22 Ehrman, 157.

23 Ehrman, 163. Ehrman’s comments on the question of the empty tomb will be addressed in that chapter.

24 Ehrman, 152.

25 Ehrman, 152.

26 Ehrman, 153.

27 Ehrman, 154–55. Allison mentions this text in Acts 13 in his discussion too, though saying very little about it; see Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 362–63. Ehrman’s first point here will be addressed below.

28 Of course, Paul added his own name to the formula in 15:8. Yet in the same verse, Paul also acknowledges that he was late to the celebration, and he specifically notes that himself. It remains that we are speaking about the original creedal text here, where both the names of Paul and John are absent in spite of both of them being present in that second formative meeting in Gal 2:1–10. Again, there is no way Joseph of Arimathea should be included in this austere company. This is not a large issue whatsoever.

29 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 72 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

30 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 154–55. Ehrman makes several assertions, concluding: “That leaves only one choice . . . the Jewish authorities themselves.” But Joseph of Arimathea is never mentioned once in the intervening discussion. Why is he not a candidate? Hence, Ehrman’s tenuous question is turned into an assertion in favor of his position.

31 Ehrman, New Testament, 8 (see chap. 4, n. 34).

32 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, esp. 141–42, 156–64.

33 As G. H. C. Macgregor thinks in “Exegesis of Acts,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 9:179. Ehrman is at least open to this interpretation too; see How Jesus Became God, 161, 163.

34 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 156–61; the quotation is found on 160.

35 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 73.

36 Evans, 74.

37 Examples include Livy’s History, written about 24 BC (5.13.8); Egyptian prefect Septimius Vegetus, writing approximately AD 85 (Papyrus Florence 61, lines 59–60, 61); Pliny the Younger, approximately AD 118 (Ep. 10.31); Josephus around AD 94 (Life 75), the Judean procurator Albinus (r. 62–64) plus other examples from Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.73, 211; J.W. 2.220; Ant. 18.55–59, 20.215); and Philo about AD 40–45 (Embassy 300).

38 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 74.

39 Josephus and Jehohanan are both listed under Roman sources because the former became a Roman court historian and the latter, as a victim of crucifixion, would point best to a Roman death with Jewish permission to bury, as seen in the Roman law Digesta. This would also be confirmed if the death came in AD 6–66, since the Jews did not have permission and were not allowed to administer capital punishment during the rulership of the Roman governors. See Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 82.

40 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 161–63.

41 Ehrman, 157.

42 Ehrman, 162.

43 Evans, “Burial Traditions,” 78–79.

44 Mark 15:2–5; cf. John 18:35–38; 19:8–11, esp. v. 8.

45 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 161, 163.

46 Ehrman, 163–64.

47 Rather incredibly, as with Alfred Loisy above, there were also some nineteenth-century German liberal forerunners of the reburial views too. Oskar Holtzmann in his Das Leben Jesu (1901) thought it was possible that Jesus’s disciples carried his dead body back to Galilee, but then thought better of this option. Holtzmann then concludes that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus, then moved Jesus’s body after the Sabbath ended due to it being inappropriate for a crucified man’s body to be buried along with other family members. Holtzmann, The Life of Jesus, trans. J. T. Bealby and Maurice A. Canney (London: Black, 1904), 499. Arnold Meyer similarly thought that Joseph used his tomb as a temporary burial location, always intending for Jesus to be moved soon afterwards. The initial move was made out of respect for Jewish burial laws, but Joseph was not a disciple of Jesus according to Meyer. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi: Die Berichte über Auferstehung, Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten (Tübingen: Mohr, 1905), 118. The distinguished Jewish critical scholar Joseph Klausner held a position very similar to Holtzmann’s, even featuring similar wording. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 357 (see chap. 6, n. 60). Though a little further removed from these more closely related ideas, David Strauss still envisioned an alternate burial story. The wording (translation?) is somewhat difficult, but Jesus’s body was not interred in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, but rather in a tomb somewhat close by and it was probably not moved after that. However, Strauss still appears to allow a little room for the traditional view, concluding that it is impossible to know for certain. Strauss, Life of Jesus, 704–5 (see chap. 10, n. 181).

48 James Tabor is certainly among those who have written much about the possibility of such a set of events. See Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” Society of Biblical Literature Forum 6, no. 1, March 2007, https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=651. Lowder has argued for this scenario as well, though in a way quite removed from Tabor’s approach (at least by not employing the Talpiot Tomb), while concluding, “I believe that the relocation hypothesis has a high final probability”! Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 268–70, 272–74.

49 Lowder, 274.

50 We will be responding here briefly to Lowder’s angle plus the “non-Talpiot Tomb” portion of Tabor’s thesis, the latter of which is being treated elsewhere. For now, I will note that James Tabor is a friend of mine. But at times he seems nearly to be alone as a scholar who supports the Talpiot Tomb hypothesis in a story that has seemed, on the part of others, to be accompanied by a made-for-television sort of hoopla (in spite of James’s attempts to keep the ship upright). The response from across the scholarly spectrum has been almost totally negative. Jewish burial expert Jodi Magness proclaims that the Talpiot thesis “contradicts” the New Testament data and “the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus” and is “also inconsistent with all the available information—historical and archaeological”—that we have concerning Jewish burial. She concludes even more strongly, “It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.” Magness, “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?,” Biblical Archaeology Society, March 5, 2007, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/has-the-tomb-of-jesus-been-discovered/. Steven Fine, Jewish history professor at Yeshiva University, referring to the bombastic blast in the news regarding the possible discovery of Jesus’s burial tomb, commented, “The scholarly world . . . is being plummeted on an almost monthly basis . . . by either non-academics or lone academics that fly in the face of the kinds of careful scholarly research for which our discipline prides itself.” Fine, “Concerning the Jesus Family Tomb,” SBL Forum (March 2007): n.p., https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=655. Responding to questions regarding the television depiction of the Talpiot Tomb for a Jerusalem Post online interview, Amos Kloner retorted, “Give me scientific evidence, and I’ll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.” Kloner, quoted in David Horovitz, “Kloner: A Great Story, but Nonsense,” Jerusalem Post, February 27, 2007, https://www.jpost.com/israel/kloner-a-great-story-but-nonsense. Regarding the “Princeton Symposium” in Jerusalem, held the year after much of the original Talpiot Tomb news, prominent Jewish scholar and professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University Geza Vermes reported briefly for the Biblical Archaeology Review, saying that the Talpiot Tomb matter turned out to be “not just unconvincing but insignificant” and that it “must remain closed.” See Vermes, “No Deep Divisions: ‘Jesus Tomb’ Controversy Erupts—Again,” Biblical Archaeology Review (January 25, 2008), https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/no-deep-divisions/. For more details, synopses, and dozens of critiques, see Habermas, Secret of the Talpiot Tomb (see chap. 13, n. 79). It is absolutely crucial to observe here that the Talpiot Tomb conclusions are not mistaken just because major authorities think they are, for authorities can clearly be mistaken. But the key is because the facts dictate that the Talpiot Tomb views are wrong, as the comments above by Magness and Fine make clear.

51 Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274.

52 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 218–23, 228–30, 310 (see chap. 1, n. 18); cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274.

53 Lowder, 273. Leslie Houlden states that the stolen body theory “must have dominated the scene” in Matthew’s area in order for him to spend so much time refuting it; see Houlden, “The Resurrection and Christianity,” Theology 99 (1996): 203. Even Morton Smith admits the Jews indeed claimed that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus; Jesus the Magician, esp. 66, also 54–55, 61 (see chap. 15, n. 73).

54 Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 52 (see chap. 1, n. 41).

55 Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth.”

56 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 228, 233–35, for examples; also Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 270, 274, for instances.

57 At this point, it would be entirely fair for the critical scholar to remark that conservatives must be wearing blinders, for they do exactly the same thing in the same situations. But there often tends to be an incredible difference in the overall way these cases proceed on each side, and it is far too often overlooked. Having participated in these situations dozens of times and written about them many more times than that over several decades, I am always amazed how many clear and concise reasons are usually produced by these conservative scholars in favor of their theses, while far fewer, if any, reasons are usually produced by the liberal scholar. Further, many of the reasons given by the latter are often of a much “softer” nature, relying on far more subjective arguments. This is arguably my own perception, but reviews of dialogues are available as well.

Of course, this is not always the case, and liberals win debates too. But I have little doubt that this situation just described above would be borne out by a careful investigation. In fact, instead of quoting theists, prominent atheist philosopher Quentin Smith makes the point quite well on behalf of Christian philosophers, as already remarked. After making several relevant comments for our discussion (though on a different topic and from a different angle), he explains the current situation in philosophy (in 2001). After addressing a recent “coup” in the philosophical world involving surging theistic philosophers, Smith states: “If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that ‘no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,’ although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate. God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.” Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo 4, no. 2 (2001): 195–215.

Smith explains further in this same article that many naturalists (possibly even the majority?) have fallen behind and are simply not keeping up with the best theistic arguments. He even comments that the major naturalists are continuing to research their own philosophical interests without recognizing that their arguments may already have been defeated!

In this chapter on the burial of Jesus it may appear that this is a comparable phenomenon in action from critical scholars. At the end of the day, many independent arguments for the traditional burial of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels could be given, as done below. So when skeptics come back with their own responses, are they of similar weight and number? Or are there possibly other reasons here, especially when views change on crucial matters?

Granted, liberals also respond that conservatives are likewise prejudiced in their preference for overall writings and individual texts that agree with them. And this is admittedly human on all sides. But if a major atheist scholar such as Quentin Smith is correct that theists are producing the most and the best responses on the existence of God, for example, this should be a concern to unbelieving scholars.

58 Even when addressing the mythicists on the subject of the historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman can be rather ruthless and hilarious on occasion, as when he refers to those critics who like to sidestep evidence. Ehrman points out on several occasions that some of these critics seem to have a tendency to sweep away or ignore inconvenient data. He refers to this practice as the “principle of convenience” (118) or the “scholarship of convenience” (133). Ehrman explains it this way: “If historical evidence proves inconvenient to one’s views, then simply claim that the evidence does not exist, and suddenly you’re right.” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, also 55, 59, 118, 132–33, 191, 253 (see chap. 2, n. 15). We wish to be very clear that this does not actually apply directly to either Tabor and Lowder here, who are much more respectful of the evidence. However, we wish to point out that constant avoiding of a much more heavily evidenced position in favor of one with little or no evidence fails to refute the other position.

59 The objection that Jesus’s followers did not know the body had been moved will be treated below.

60 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354; cf. Johnson, Living Jesus, 132 (see chap. 1, n. 19).

61 Tabor and Lowder are both in agreement that Joseph and whoever helped him rebury Jesus’s dead body did not keep the secret to themselves. So Jesus’s disciples, as well as his family and others, knew his body had been moved; they may even have done the moving themselves. See Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 234–35; cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 272–73. Even if there had been an initial effort to keep the second burial a secret, the number of people involved and their spouses, plus those to whom the news leaked out, would ensure a very short silence, especially in the case of such a momentous personage. But this simply intensifies the problem above. After some thirty to sixty-five years, at any rate, it would hardly be a secret! So how do the Gospel writers and their sources still portray only the first burial by Joseph with no knowledge of a subsequent burial after all these decades?

62 Which once again need not be at all synonymous with the guard posted in front of the tomb in Matthew.

63 Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 224.

64 Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 271.

65 Tabor presents a photo with a cutaway of such a tomb in Jesus Dynasty, 9.

66 Jesus could have been raised from any tomb, be it first or second, open or closed, or located anywhere else for this matter. Thus, the issue of his burial does not impede his resurrection appearances one way or another.

67 Stuhlmacher, Was geschah auf Golgatha? Zur Heilsbedeutung von Kreuz, Tod und Auferweckung Jesu (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1998), 46–64; Stuhlmacher, “Resurrection of Jesus,” 45–48 (see chap. 13, n. 41).

68 Interestingly enough, Brown also mentions briefly how Matthew divides the guard account similarly into two sections in Death of the Messiah, 2:1287 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Later, Brown considers the pros and cons of this material originally having been a single account of the guards without being interspersed around the women coming to the tomb. Here is one of those interesting sidelights, but on which very little stands or falls: Brown’s thoughts also involve and depend on a somewhat questionable and frankly rather subjective reasoning structure for the makeup of Matthew’s Gospel (2:1301–4). But as we just mentioned above, this will be one of many questions that are left for others to decide and solve.

69 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1288–89, including note 6 as an example of the confusion in the Gospel of Peter.

70 Mark 14:28 (cf. Matt 26:32) is just one of several of Jesus’s resurrection predictions. According to Matthew, these previous predictions by Jesus were certainly tied into requesting the guard of Pilate (Matt 27:63–64) and hence to this entire guard story.

71 For example, Richard Carrier mentions a number of these objections (but not all of them) to the account of the guards. See Carrier, “The Plausibility of Theft,” in Price and Lowder, Empty Tomb, 358.

72 This is the chief reason given for William Lane Craig’s favoring Jewish guards; see “Guard at the Tomb,” 277 (see chap. 9, n. 51). Yet, it would seem fairly straightforward to explain why Roman guards might go back to the Jewish leaders since, after all, these men were “on loan” to them. They did not wish to face Pilate right then! It would seem far more difficult and out of place to explain why the Jewish leaders would need to ask Pilate’s permission to use their own temple guards! Further, why would these leaders have to “satisfy” Pilate later?

73 Robert Mounce, Matthew, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 262. Greek specialist A. T. Robertson agrees with Mounce: “present imperative, a guard of Roman soldiers, not mere temple police.” See “The Gospel according to Matthew,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 1:239; cf. Craig S. Keener, Matthew, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 1:396n398. Another New Testament scholar, Sherman E. Johnson, remarks that the guard at the tomb “might be Jewish, but is probably Roman, as in the Gospel of Peter.” See Johnson, “Exegesis of Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1951), 7:614.

74 Twelftree places all three of the episodes of Jesus raising the dead in his category of “stories [that] can be judged with high confidence to reflect an event or events most likely in the life of the historical Jesus.” Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 328 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

75 Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:970 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

76 Gos. Pet. 8:29–34, text from The Apocryphal New Testament (see chap. 9, n. 101).

77 See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12, though there is some question on the quoted texts themselves as to whether they were from the same source as what is identified as the Gospel of Peter today.

78 Some sample dating of the Gospel of Peter and its potential sources indicates wide variation, usually (but not always) based along liberal-conservative lines: John Dominic Crossan takes one of the more radical views in linking at least portions of the Gospel of Peter to the first century even before the Gospels. See Crossan, Historical Jesus, esp. 462–65, also 433–34 (see chap. 6, n. 44). Helmut Koester makes some similar moves to Crossan in his Introduction to the New Testament, 2:161–62 (see chap. 4, n. 47). Though very skeptical himself, Bart D. Ehrman prefers a date of AD 120 for the Gospel of Peter in Did Jesus Exist?, 163, and in New Testament, 44. Brown extends the dating somewhat, finding justification for a time somewhere within the first half of the second century; see Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1343. A few of the most prominent New Testament scholars hold the more common date of the mid-second century and conclude that this source most likely knew or even used the canonical Gospels. These scholars include John P. Meier in Marginal Jew, 3:79, 121; Luke Timothy Johnson, Real Jesus, 47–48, 138 (see chap. 5, n. 49); and Darrell L. Bock, Missing Gospels, 78–79, 218 (see chap. 6, n. 151). Mincing no words, Johnson critiques the ultra-early view for the Gospel of Peter, addressing Crossan specifically: “The reader begins to suspect that such textual prestidigitation must stem from a commitment to consider any source outside the canon as more reliable than a source inside the canon, and that something more than a desire for sober historical reconstruction is at work” (47–48).

79 James Charlesworth, “Series Editor’s Preface,” in Jeremiah J. Johnston, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Tradition-Historical Study of the Akhmîm Gospel Fragment (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), xvii. Charlesworth adds that “many scholars do not agree” with Crossan’s view that one or more passages in the Gospel of Peter are independent of the canonical Gospels (xvii). Charlesworth notes further that at least Gos. Pet. 14:59–60 is dependent on John 21 (xviii). N. T. Wright also mentions that Crossan is virtually alone (with a few exceptions) in many of his views on the Gospel of Peter; see Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 593, 594n13, 634 (see chap. 6, n. 44). For a brief survey on some of these views on Peter, see 592–96.

80 The historical, textual, and other issues involved in Jesus’s predictions, both pro and con, will be treated in a later chapter.

81 William Lane Craig suggests that this objection regarding the different stances in Matthew between the knowledge and outlook of the Jewish elders and Pharisees versus that of the disciples amounts to an argument from silence, since there is no explanation how or where the Jewish leaders had learned of Jesus’s resurrection predictions. See Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 274. However, while it may be difficult to determine precisely when, where, and how many times the leaders may have heard Jesus’s teaching on this subject, it would seem that Matt 12:38–42 and 16:1–4 (from the Q source, though the extent of the saying varies) could certainly provide enough information for the discussion here, even if it only served to make the Jewish leaders angry. After all, anger alone could do as much or even more than belief could in motivating the leaders to make doubly sure that this Jesus was dead in the first place to ensure nothing would happen to Jesus’s deceased body that could be proclaimed in any sense as a resurrection. (Incidentally, Marcus Borg and others list the Q saying here as Q41 in Borg, Powelson, and Riegert, Lost Gospel Q, 75 [see chap. 8, n. 25]).

82 For instance, Brown still seems to be uncomfortable with this objection in Death of the Messiah, 2:1311–12.

83 Brown, 2:1311.

84 Even if it were conceded that, from the very beginning, Matthew had an apologetic interest in telling the story of the guards at the tomb, does that necessarily falsify any portion of the story? Rather, it is simply the case that people often relate stories and data with which they have a vested interest. That interest could even make their search all the more careful, detailed, and fruitful, as when Paul took a trip to Jerusalem just a very few years after his conversion (Gal 1:18–20), then again fourteen years after that (Gal 2:1–10) to meet, check out, and research (historēsai, Gal 1:18) the truth of the gospel message with those who had been apostolic eyewitnesses before him. The point is not only that such interest does not necessarily destroy either the research or the message itself, but that it often enhances the study, as in Paul’s careful research on the very center of the Christian message (cf. 1 Cor 15:11).

85 This is yet another hint in the direction of our thesis developed above, that the Matthean motivation for the Jewish elders to approach Pilate was more than their clearly understanding Jesus’s prophecy that he would rise again from the dead after his crucifixion. Waiting until the next day to ask their question argues that it was neither the first concern on their minds nor their greatest fear that Jesus would indeed actually rise from the dead.

86 Carrier, “Plausibility of Theft,” 353 (see chap. 16, n. 71).

87 For critics, as regularly charged, Matthew was rather free to roam, both to invent and develop a really juicy tale. So why did he not precisely do that? Sure, the young man inside the tomb in Mark 16:5 is now clearly identified as an angel in Matt 28:2, 5. But even critical scholars regularly concede that Mark’s young man is meant by the author to be an angel, so that hardly expresses much freedom, even keeping just the lone supernatural “invader from heaven.” Could Matthew not have done a much better job here in telling his story? Why not employ five or more angels (or perhaps even an entire cohort), all holding swords, with menacing demeanors? Why did the guards not remain anyway after the angel appeared—perhaps hiding nearby—watching until the women arrived? Then they could have provided very valuable testimony from unbelievers. True, critics may contend that authors have different ideas about how to spin a tale, but that suggestion cuts both ways. There is just no clear aspect to Matthew’s overall spinning, along with some rather obvious loopholes in the process. Sure, Jesus does appear, but as a regular man who is held by the feet (Matt 28:9). There’s simply not much of a tall tale to be seen here. The claimed apologetic element, plus any semblance of tall tales akin to the Gospel of Peter, appears to fizzle at least a bit!

88 For one such recent critique, see Jeremiah J. Johnston, “The Gospel of Peter: The Importance of a North African Discovery,” Sapientia Logos 3, no. 2 (2010): 183–215. Cf. Johnston’s much more detailed volume Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, esp. chaps. 6–7.

89 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163; cf. 290–91.

90 Depending on which time references the Gospel of Peter is using, as noted above by Brown. But if it is deemed to be the case on historical and textual grounds that these men came to Pilate on Friday evening according to Peter, then it might be said that this allows them to improve on the timing of Matthew’s Saturday visit.

91 Johnston finds the Gospel of Peter’s reference to the “exceedingly tall” Jesus who emerges (with help) from the tomb as rather typical of the second-century prevalence of polymorphic Christology, including tall figures of Jesus such as found in the Shepard of Hermas and elsewhere; see Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 188–89.

92 In commenting on the passages in Matt 27:62–66 and 28:11–15, Johnston asserts that the key New Testament writings exhibit “modest” apologetic interest when compared to extracanonical works from the second century, such as the Gospel of the Nazarenes (AD 120–140?) and other writings which also sometimes rather wildly embellish the account of the guards at the tomb, such as in multiplying the number and prowess of the soldiers. See Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 184–87.

93 Of course, finding reliable data that Jesus predicted his resurrection ahead of time would be a huge boon to resurrection studies rather than a stumbling block. On the historicity of these predictions, see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 284–302 (see chap. 2, n. 13).

94 Maier, In the Fullness of Time, 197 (see chap. 1, n. 24).

95 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 324, 328–29 (see chap. 1, n. 30).

96 This last point seems particularly to bear additional evaluation in light of the clear and repeated practices of some additional, nondating considerations placed prominently on the table in current discussions, such as the obvious and repeated efforts of more radical scholars to date later writings decades and even more to much earlier dates than their colleagues seemingly to provide alternative portraits of Jesus, to compete with the orthodox descriptions in the earliest texts. For example, Luke Timothy Johnson especially charges Jesus Seminar members with early dating almost any writing in an attempt to compete with canonical ones; see Johnson, Real Jesus, e.g., 22. Skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman also charges that it is not contextually credible to place radical gnostic sayings on the lips of Jesus. Further, later gnostic compositions almost certainly do not go back to these first-century settings. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 288–90.

97 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637, cf. 403–4, 637, also 633–36, 638–39 (see chap. 6, n. 44).

98 Wright, 636–40.

99 Kankaanniemi, Guards of the Tomb (see chap. 9, n. 51) for a list of the nonhistorical arguments against Matthew’s account (6–19) along with indications that Matthew was not the original source of the account (95–106).

100 Kankaanniemi, 255–56, 261, for a list of these conclusions.

101 Kankaanniemi, 259–62, for the list.

102 Kankaanniemi, 99, cf. also 97. Other potential Greek terms in the story of the guards that may also be from an earlier account are assessed on 98–105.

103 Interestingly enough, by far the most common objection raised against Christianity down through the centuries, even in ancient times, is that there are many contradictions and other discrepancies in the canonical Gospel accounts and often in the resurrection narratives themselves. Johnston shows this even in the writings of the early antagonists of Christianity, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and Trypho, where objections concerned issues such as the ones being discussed here with regard to the tomb guards in Matthew’s Gospel. See the many details in Johnston, Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of Peter, 137–53. See also Jeremy Johnston, “How Early Critics and Objectors Confirm the Truth of the Easter Story,” The City 9, no. 1 (2016): 95–108; and Russ Dudrey, “What the Writers Should Have Done Better: A Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Based on Ancient Criticisms of the Resurrection Reports,” Stone-Campbell Journal 3 (2000): 55–78.

It even seems as if in some of these dialogues, such as the ones with Trypho or Celsus in particular, Christian apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen respectively, craft their polemics to counter the exact discrepancies that the skeptics were leveling.

104 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, 290–91.

105 While viewing the issue from a slightly different perspective, Craig opts to leave the matter as “an open question” rather than favoring either account. Acknowledging the existence of decent arguments for both views, Craig seems to give the impression that the matter is basically a draw, so we should remain open; see Craig, “Guard at the Tomb,” 279. In addition to the likelihood of Matthew’s early source behind the guard story, we also relied largely on the loose ends that Matthew left, such as the Saturday approach to Pilate, without informing his readers as to whether Jesus’s body was still inside the tomb, thus militating against Matthew having ulterior apologetic motives.

106 Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 637.

107 Wright, 710.

108 Brown, Death of the Messiah, 2:1240.

109 Brown, 2:1229, 1238–40. Brown points to several indications of a potential pre-Gospel burial account with regard to Joseph, such as the time element of the burial suggesting a pre-Markan tradition, including an earlier “Semitic-speaking stage in Gospel formation,” as well as the Gospels using terms like paraskeuē a little differently in the same book, suggesting that the differences are due to the possible specifications and emphases that were employed by more than one prior source.

110 Brown includes a very helpful appendix containing the exceptionally detailed, previously published report of New Testament scholar Marion L. Soards on the nature of a pre-Markan tradition that Mark apparently utilized in the composition of his Gospel. Soards indicates the close critical scholarly agreement regarding the likelihood that there was such a source behind Mark 15:42–47 with respect to Joseph of Arimathea’s burial. See Soards, “Premarcan Passion Narrative,” 2:1516–17 (see chap. 4, n. 40). Soards states, “We may safely conclude that Mark uses a source in writing his PN [Passion Narrative]” (2:1523).

111 William Lane Craig, “Closing Response,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 163–74. The quotation is on 167n7. A similar though more recent response can be found in William Lane Craig’s text Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 361–64. In this volume, Craig argues that the pre-Markan source probably extends beyond Jesus’s burial to the account of the empty tomb due to similar “grammatical and linguistic ties” (364). Of course, this may very well have been the case, but the question ought also be considered as to whether Mark could have been writing carefully to preserve continuity as much as possible between his source(s) and his own words. Also in the later text here, Craig mentions the Gospel of Peter as another independent source for Jesus’s burial, presumably without considering this second-century writing to be a real valuable addition to the equation, though it is worth mentioning nonetheless (363).

112 O’Collins and Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” Biblica 75 (1994): 236–38.

113 O’Collins and Kendall, 238–39. Allison comments helpfully: “To biblicize is not necessarily to invent.” Allison, Resurrection of Jesus, 124 (see chap. 2, n. 15)

114 O’Collins and Kendall, “Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?,” 239–41.

115 Küng, Eternal Life?, 95 (see excursus 2, n. 123).

116 It should be noted that although there is a debate regarding whether or not Jesus received an “honorable” or “dishonorable” burial, we will not be attempting to settle that issue in this chapter.

117 This would include at least Mark, John, and either M or L (possibly even both).

118 Max Wilcox provides a list of some of the Semitisms in the Acts sermon summaries in Semitisms of Acts, 171–77, esp. 171 and 177 (see chap. 9, n. 12). Similarly, many relevant comments are made by C. H. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–31 (see chap. 2, n. 22), esp. verse 22. Cf. also Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 29 (see chap. 8, n. 70), among many other relevant texts and discussions.

119 In volume 2, which examines the various possibilities of Jesus’s dead body being stolen by perpetrators other than his own disciples (what we term “Fraud 2”), we will provide even more details on this topic of Jesus Christ’s traditional burial.

120 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, who specifies these particular texts in 109–13, esp. 112–13, 232, 261–63, cf. similarly 140–41, 172.

121 Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47).

122 In a private, thus far unpublished study of dozens of New Testament scholars evenly divided between “left-” and “right-” leaning researchers, Licona found that over 70 percent preferred a composition date for the Gospel of Mark of earlier than AD 70.

123 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 163, cf. 56, 140–41, 171, 290–91.

124 Richard Bauckham, “The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2003): 51.

125 Bauckham, 51; cf. 52. Dunn adds, “Similarly the presence of women at the cross and their involvement in Jesus’ burial can be attributed more plausibly to early oral memory than to creative story telling.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782–83 (see chap. 1, n. 3).

126 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 353.

127 Allison, 352–63.

128 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 243 (see chap. 1, n. 25); William Lane Craig dates this pre-Markan testimony, at the latest, to AD 37. See his essay “Empty Tomb of Jesus,” 182–83, 190–91 (see chap. 15, n. 28).

129 Allison provides a helpful list of Jewish sources that refer to Deut 21:22–23 as instructive, such as Philo (Spec. 3.151–152; Flacc. 82–85); (Josephus, J.W. 4.317; Ant. 4.265); 11Q19 64:10–13; m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6; Semahot 2:11; Tob. 1:17–18. See Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 360–61. For some of the Roman sources, see the discussion in the beginning of this chapter regarding Evans’s response to Ehrman.

130 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 361.

131 Carrier, “Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” 371. Others have similarly recognized that the Romans would have allowed the Jews to bury the dead, even crucified victims: Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 110–13, 124, 130–35; Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–49 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 219.

132 Dunn writes, “There are some reports of permission being given for a victim to be taken down ahead of normal practice [citing Josephus]; and the skeletal remains of a crucified man discovered at Giv’at ha-Mivtar were buried in a family tomb.” See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 782.

133 There are also multiply attested reports of various levels of involvement from the Jewish leadership both before (Mark 15:3, 11; Matt 27:12, 20; Luke 23:4, 10, 13; John 18:28–31, 38–40; 19:6–7, 12, 15–16), during (Mark 15:31; Matt 27:41; Luke 23:35; John 19:21–22; 31), and even after Jesus’s crucifixion (Matt 27:62–66), even in their relation with Joseph of Arimathea and his burial, as depicted in all four Gospels (Mark 15:42–46; Matt 27:57–60; Luke 23:50–54; John 19:38–42).

134 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354.

135 Allison, 362.

136 The women were reportedly present at the crucifixion: Mark 15:40–41; Matt 27:55–56; Luke 23:53; John 19:25–27 (plus John) and at the burial: Mark 15:47; Matt 27:61; Luke 23:55–56.

137 Mark 16:1–8; Matt 28:1–7; Luke 24:1–8; John 20:1–17.

138 Quite notably, Matthew’s secondary comment here that the Jewish leaders spread the story that Jesus’s disciples stole his body is independent of the story (largely dismissed by critical scholars) that guards were posted in front of Jesus’s tomb. In fact, in a strange reversal, those critical scholars who think the guard account was invented presumably could well conclude that a true and prior rumor spread by the Jews regarding the disciples stealing Jesus’s body potentially could have developed into the guard account in this Gospel!

139 Of course, some may think that the report of the empty tomb here is simply an invention of the early Christians. We will address this below. Further, the assertion is question begging if it merely bases such a notion on possibilities without being demonstrated.

140 Another potential indication in favor of the traditional burial of Jesus is the Nazareth Decree, which is possibly a first-century marble slab that warns that grave robbing is punishable by death, which may be a response both to the Jewish charges as well as the reports of Jesus’s resurrection. Note that recent research may indicate that this artifact could actually have originated in the first-century BC during the reign of Augustus. Regardless, this inscription mentions the sealing of burial tombs during Roman times, which is a rare reference to a similar practice in Matt 27:66. Some also think that the Shroud of Turin is at least evidence of an individual burial for a crucifixion victim, even if it is not Jesus’s burial cloth.

141 Of Allison’s eleven responses to Crossan’s common grave theses, seven of them were not mentioned above: Allison thinks it unlikely that Mark would have merely invented the person of Joseph of Arimathea, since this does “not seem to be standard fare either in Mark or his tradition” (355). Mark’s story of Joseph contains no obvious legendary motifs or what Crossan terms “prophecy historicized” (356). Luke sees no tension between the comment in Acts 13:29 that some say hints of a burial of Jesus by the Jewish leaders (356–57). Allison thinks Crossan’s case for dating portions of the Gospel of Peter before Mark’s Gospel “is not compelling” (358). There is no serious evidence to speak of that Jesus’s body was left on the cross or denied a burial such as Joseph’s (359). To the contrary, there is every reason to think Jesus would have been buried, as is normal among Jews (359–60). The fact that the crucifixion victim Jehohanan was buried privately attests to this last point (361). Allison also finds Gerd Lüdemann’s comment favoring Jesus’s burial in a common cemetery for criminals to be mistaken (363). Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 352–63.

142 See Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 781. Dunn then provides five reasons in favor of this conclusion (782–83).

143 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 354; cf. 250.

144 Davis, Risen Indeed, 82 (see chap. 1, n. 16).

145 Cf. Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 87–88; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 156–64; Evans, “Burial Traditions,” esp. 173–74.

146 In addition to some of the texts already mentioned above, especially those from Roman sources, many ancient texts from a very wide variety of traditions are usually cited to confirm this point, such as Deut 21:22–23; Tob. 1:17–18; Herodotus 7.194; Josephus, J.W. 4.1317 (Niese numbers) and Ant. 4.265; m. Yevamot 14:4c; 16:3; m. Sanhedrin 6:5–6; Semahot 2:1; Palestinian Talmud 5; Iamblichus, Bab. 2, 21; Philo, Flacc. 83–85; as well as the privately reburied bones from a first-century ossuary of a crucifixion victim named Jehohanan.

147 Such as Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, 448–50 (see chap. 13, n. 35); Carrier, “Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law,” 376–77; Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 264; Derrett, “Financial Aspects of the Resurrection,” 394 (see chap. 9, n. 155).

148 We saw above that this was acknowledged freely even by Tabor, Jesus Dynasty, 218–23, 228–30, 310; cf. Tabor, “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth”; and Lowder, “Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story,” 274. My 2001 article that presented an overview of the majority of naturalistic alternative theses on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as held by skeptical scholars at that time listed only a very few others not mentioned in this essay who supported alternate notions of Jesus’s burial. See Habermas, “Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses,” 179–96, esp. 191–92 (see chap. 4, n. 17).

149 Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 356.

↑ Back to top