What Do We Know For Sure About Jesus' Death?
WHAT DO WE KNOW FOR SURE
ABOUT JESUS' DEATH?
Craig A. Evans
There are at least five essential questions relating to Jesus' death. Although we cannot know every detail, we can answer these questions with reasonable probability. They are: What were the factors that resulted in Jesus' execution? Who killed Jesus? How was he killed? Was Jesus, after dying, taken down from the cross? Was he buried, and if so, how and by whom? I shall now address these questions in the order that they have been raised.
What Were the Factors That Resulted in Jesus' Execution?
One of the most hotly debated questions, perhaps the most hotly debated question, concerns the factors that resulted in the execution of Jesus. What did Jesus do to precipitate His death? One of the reasons this question is so controversial is that it is closely linked to Jesus' ministry—what Jesus proclaimed about God and what Jesus claimed about Himself.
According to the Gospels, Jesus was put to death for having claimed to be the “King of the Jews.” Accordingly, a titulus was fixed on or near his cross bearing this statement. We know from Roman sources that the titulus at the place of execution identified the victim of the execution and/or provided the grounds for punishment (causa poena). The titulus in the Gospels, therefore, indicates that Jesus must have claimed, or allowed others to make claims on His behalf, that He was the true ruler of the Jewish people, not Tiberius Caesar.
Most scholars accept the historicity of the titulus “King of the Jews” because this epithet does not fit well with either Jewish messianic expectation or with early Christian understanding of the person and work of Jesus. In the case of Judaism of the time of Jesus, the coming one was referred to as “Messiah,” “King” or “King Messiah,” “Son of David” or “Branch of David,” or even “Son of God.” These epithets are illustrated in the intertestamental literature, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and are rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. In the Gospels the ruling priests and scribes mock the dying Jesus as the “Messiah, the King of Israel” (Mark 15:32 HCSB). In the case of early Christianity, Jesus is called “Messiah” (or Christ), “Son of God,” “Lord,” and “Savior.” Christians and religious Jews do not refer to Jesus or the Messiah as “King of the Jews.” That was a Roman title, conferred upon Herod the Great by Marc Antony and the Roman Senate.
I am invoking here what I think is an appropriate use of the criterion of dissimilarity. That is, the most likely explanation of the appearance in the Gospels of the titulus, bearing the words, “King of the Jews,” is that it is historical, that it was public and therefore widely known, and—like it or not—that was what Rome said about Jesus of Nazareth. The language of the titulus does not derive from a Jewish commonplace or from Christian confession; it derives from history.
What may we infer from the words of the titulus? The epithet “King of the Jews” strongly implies that Jesus regarded Himself—or at least allowed His followers to regard Him—as Israel's anointed King. Accordingly, at the very least we have strong supporting evidence of a messianic self-understanding on the part of Jesus. Had He been no more than an agitator, calling for an end to Roman rule, or for an overthrow of the high priestly administration, it is improbable that Jesus would have been executed as “King of the Jews.” The titulus could just as easily read “malefactor” or “rebel.”
But there is another important factor at play that resulted in Jesus' execution. According to the Gospel accounts, the Jewish temple establishment initiated the action against Jesus. Jesus was not attacked or arrested by troops under the governor's orders; He was seized by officers who answered to the ruling priests.
Some critics have maintained that the role assigned to the ruling priests—from bribing Judas to the hearing before the Jewish court—is part of a largely fictional, anti-Jewish apologetic, perhaps encouraged by the growing anti-Semitism in the Roman Empire thanks to the Jewish revolt in AD 66.
The Gospels' portraits—one Synoptic and one Johannine—receive important corroboration in Josephus, the Jewish aristocrat, who survived the Jewish rebellion and wrote several important works describing Jewish history and especially Israel's relations with Rome. In his famous passage in Jewish Antiquities, in which he mentions Jesus, Josephus tells us that it was the “first men among us” that initially took action against Jesus (cf. Antiquities 18.3.3 §63—64). By “first men” it is almost certain that Josephus means the ruling priests. These first men present Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor, who then sentences Him to death. In his account of the Jewish War, Josephus tells us of another Jesus, one son of Ananias, who in the year 62 began to proclaim the doom of Jerusalem and her magnificent temple. Like Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Ananias appealed to Jeremiah 7 as the basis of his warning. And, as in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Ananias was violently opposed by the “first men,” who beat him and delivered him up to the Roman governor (this time Albinus), with calls for his execution. Albinus scourged and interrogated the son of Ananias but in the end decided to release him rather than put him to death. The parallels between the two Jesuses in the juridical process, a process involving both Jewish and Roman authorities, are numerous and close.
Why then did the Jewish authorities conspire against Jesus of Nazareth? A satisfying answer is not hard to find. Jesus entered the temple precincts amid shouts of the coming kingdom of David, quoted part of Isaiah 56—an oracle based on Solomon's prayer of dedication on behalf of the temple—implying that the ruling priests had not lived up to their God-given responsibilities, and then alluded to Jeremiah 7, an oracle foretelling the destruction of the temple. It is no surprise that the ruling priests reacted angrily to Jesus' teaching, not to mention His disruption of the temple trade.
When Jesus is confronted by the temple authorities, He utters a parable (Mark 12) in which He reshapes Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5), implying that the fault does not lie with a fruitless vineyard but a fruit-stealing, oppressive priesthood—a priesthood that will be swept away for having opposed the most important emissary that God sent to His people, His very own Son. The ruling priests clearly and accurately perceive the threat, fearing that Jesus' inflammatory words will incite the crowds against them.
The ruling priests seize Jesus by stealth—that is, late at night and nearly alone. An arrest in broad daylight, in the presence of dozens if not hundreds of supporters, and perhaps hundreds more who were critical of the temple authorities and their Roman overlords, would have precipitated the uprising the ruling priests feared. By taking Jesus into custody quietly and at night, his movement would likely falter and pose a much reduced threat.
The historicity of the betrayal and arrest of Jesus is virtually guaranteed, given the extreme improbability of inventing a story that revolves around a betrayal at the hands of one of the twelve. Here I invoke the criterion of embarrassment. Surely the story of the treachery of Judas is the stuff of history, as embarrassing as it is, and not the stuff of legend or misguided anti-Semitism.
The hearing before the ruling priests also has good grounds for historicity. Indeed, we should assume that the later Jesus, son of Ananias, was also brought before a priestly council for daring to utter prophecies of doom against the temple and city. Such a hearing forms the bridge between priestly reaction in the temple precincts and eventual presentation before the Roman governor.
Jewish law required a hearing that would establish grounds for presenting the accused to Roman authority. One thinks of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, before whom Paul was presented (Acts 18:12—17). Fellow Jews charged: “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law” (v. 13 ESV). But the proconsul is unimpressed. He retorts: “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things” (vv. 14—15 ESV). The proconsul then drove them away from the tribunal.
Accordingly, the ruling priests cannot simply bring a complaint to the Roman governor, a mere dispute over how God should be worshipped or how sacrifice should be offered, or how much to charge for sacrificial animals, or whatever. What was needed, in the words of Gallio, was evidence of “wrongdoing or vicious crime.”
High Priest Caiaphas knows that such evidence should not be too difficult to obtain. Jesus has been proclaiming the kingdom of God; He has been hailed as “Son of David”; some rumor Him to be Israel's Messiah; and He has acted with a messianic authority in the temple precincts. So, after some posturing and fencing, the high priest puts the question to Jesus directly: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mark 14:61 ESV). And with no equivocation, Jesus replies: “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (v. 62 ESV).
Jesus' bold reply links phrases from Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, two passages that envision judgment upon the enemies of God and of His Messiah. Not only that, but Jesus implies that He—as the mysterious “son of man” figure described in Daniel 7—will sit next to God Himself on His throne. The phrase “coming with the clouds” and the allusion to Daniel 7, where God's throne is said to have wheels of fire (v. 9), indicate that Jesus was speaking of God's chariot throne, the most sacred space in all the universe. That he would share this space and, indeed, share in the divine authority and judgment that issue forth from this space was more than Caiaphas the high priest could tolerate. His cry “blasphemy!” is fully expected. He now has all that he has sought—an utterance utterly offensive to the Jewish council and a charge of treason that the Roman governor must hear.
Who Killed Jesus?
Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ reignited the old controversy surrounding the question concerning those who were responsible for Jesus' death. Thanks to anti-Semitism, which embarrassingly reaches back in some forms as early as the second century, Christians thought that perhaps it was the Jews themselves who executed Jesus, hence the ugly epithet “Christ killers.”
But this malignant interpretation does not arise from the New Testament Gospels. While some of the ruling priests and a small number of aristocratic authorities opposed Jesus and called for His death, we should assume that the vast majority of Jews who knew anything of the matter did not.
The actual execution of Jesus was a Roman affair. To be sure, there is compelling evidence that in earlier times Jewish rulers did in fact crucify malefactors and political enemies (the most notorious example being Alexander Jannaeus, who crucified some eight hundred Pharisees). But during the Roman occupation of Judea, capital punishment was carried out by Roman authority, whether the form it took was crucifixion or some other form (such as beheading). Indeed, from the time of Pilate, we have the skeletal remains of one man who was crucified and possibly the skeletal remains of two people who were beheaded. More will be said about this evidence shortly.
The men who beat Jesus and mocked Him with a purple robe, a scepter, and a crown of thorns were Romans, the same men who later that morning scourged Jesus and nailed Him to a cross.
How Was Jesus Killed?
That Jesus was crucified is hardly disputed. The discovery in 1968 of an ossuary at Giv'at ha-Mivtar of one Yehohanan, who had been crucified, provides archaeological evidence and illumination on how Jesus Himself may have been crucified. The ossuary and its contents date to the late AD 20s, that is, during the administration of Pilate. The remains of an iron spike (11.5 cm in length) are plainly seen, piercing the right heel bone (or calcaneum). Those who took down the body of Yehohanan apparently were unable to remove the spike, with the result that wood (from an olive tree) remained affixed to the spike. Later the skeletal remains of the body—spike, fragments of wood, and all—were placed in the ossuary. Forensic examination of the rest of the skeletal remains supports the view that Yehohanan was crucified with arms apart, hung from a horizontal beam or tree branch. However, there is no evidence that his arms, or wrists, were nailed to this crossbeam. The lack of nails or spikes in the hands or wrists is consistent with a reference in Pliny Sr., who refers to rope used in crucifixion (cf. Nat. Hist. 28.4). However, doubtless many victims of crucifixion did have their hands or wrists nailed to the beam. A third century AD author describes it this way: “Punished with limbs outstretched … they are fastened (and) nailed to the stake in the most bitter torment, evil food for birds of prey and grim picking for dogs” (Apotelesmatica 4.198-200).
It is significant that in Philippians 2:7—8 Paul cites the ancient hymn that speaks of Jesus “taking the form of a slave” (NRSV) and “being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (RSV). The hymn probably reflects here the Roman view of death by crucifixion as servile supplicium, that is, “slave's punishment.”
There can be no doubt that Jesus died the death of a despised criminal, a death usually reserved for a slave. This is hardly the stuff of pious imagination. He was mocked, beaten, scourged, and then led to the place of crucifixion. Although He had warned His disciples to be prepared to take up the cross, when the time comes for Jesus to do so, He is unable, and Simon of Cyrene is compelled. Here again we have grim realism, not fiction.
Was Jesus Taken Down from the Cross?
Yehohanan's leg bones were broken, but there is disagreement over how and when they were broken (i.e., while still on the cross, or after being taken down). If Yehohanan's legs were broken before death, we then know not only that he was taken down and buried (as indicated by the discovery of his remains in an ossuary); we also know that his death was intentionally hastened so that his corpse could be taken down from the cross before nightfall.
In a popular book published a decade ago, John Dominic Crossan argued that Jesus in all probability was not taken down from the cross and given proper burial. He reasoned that because so many Jews who had been crucified had been left to rot in the sun, exposed to birds and animals, in all likelihood Jesus too had been left on the cross, or at best had been cast into a shallow ditch where His body may have been mauled by dogs.
Crossan's novel suggestion should be rejected for two important reasons. First, burial of the dead was a sacred duty in the Jewish world, and our sources tell us that it was accorded to executed criminals. This is an important theme in the book of Tobit. Second, burial of the dead is commanded in Scripture so as to avoid defiling the land (Deut 21:22—23). The Jewish authorities simply had no alternatives: every corpse had to be buried before sundown; the corpse of an executed criminal, as well as the corpse of an honored person.
The evidence suggests that the Romans, during peacetime, did in fact respect Jewish sensitivities in this matter. Indeed, both Philo and Josephus claim that Roman administration in fact did acquiesce to Jewish customs. In his appeal to Caesar, Philo draws attention to the Jews who “appealed to Pilate to redress the infringement of their traditions caused by the shields and not to disturb the customs which throughout all the preceding ages had been safeguarded without disturbance by kings and by emperors” (De Legatione ad Gaium 38 §300). A generation later Josephus asserts the same thing. The Romans, he says, do not require “their subjects to violate their national laws” (Contra Apionem 2.6 §73). Josephus adds that the Roman procurators who succeeded Agrippa I “by abstaining from all interference with the customs of the country kept the nation at peace” (J.W. 2.11.6 §220).
The actions of Herod Antipas, with respect to John the Baptist, are consistent with this policy. Although the Baptist is executed by the tetrarch, his disciples are nonetheless allowed to bury his body (Mark 6:14-29; Josephus, Ant. 18.5.2 §119).
Even Roman justice outside the Jewish setting sometimes permitted the crucified to be taken down and buried. We find in the summary of Roman law (a.k.a. Digesta) the following concessions:
The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book of his Life, said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; and sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason (48.24.1).
The bodies of persons who have been punished should be given to whoever requests them for the purpose of burial (48.24.3).
The Digesta refers to requests to take down bodies of the crucified. Josephus himself makes this request of Titus (Life 75 §420—21). Of course, Roman crucifixion often did not permit burial, request or no request. Nonburial was part of the horror, and the deterrent, of crucifixion. But crucifixion during peacetime, just outside the walls of Jerusalem, was another matter. Burial would have been expected, even demanded.
Was Jesus Buried, and If so, How and by Whom?
If the bodies of executed persons were almost certainly taken down from their crosses during peacetime, then it is equally certain that these bodies would have been properly buried. Of course, the bodies of criminals were not given honorable burial; no public lamentation was permitted. But their bodies were buried properly and were certainly not left exposed.
Again, archaeological evidence provides a measure of support. I have already mentioned the discovery of Yehohanan, the crucified man whose right heel is still transfixed by the iron spike. Also found in the tombs discovered at Giv'at Ha-Mivtar were the remains of a woman who had been decapitated. Although we cannot be sure, she may have been beheaded. If the decapitation of this woman was in fact the result of execution by beheading, then we have another important instance of the proper burial of an executed person.
We may have the skeletal remains of yet another person who, like Yehohanan, was executed and whose remains eventually were placed in the family tomb. These remains were found in a cluster of tombs on Mount Scopus, north of Jerusalem. In Tomb C the skeletal remains of a woman (aged 50—60) give clear evidence of having been attacked. Her right elbow suffered a deep cut that severed the end of the humerus. Because there is no sign of regrowth or infection, it is surmised that she died from the attack. In the adjacent Tomb D, which contains the remains of persons related to those interred in Tomb C, were the remains of a man (aged 50), who had been decapitated. It is plausible to speculate that this man too had been beheaded, quite possibly for having murdered the female relative in Tomb C. Physical anthropologist Joe Zias doubts that the man had been executed because his neck had been struck twice. Being struck twice, he reasons, suggests “an act of violence rather than a judicial execution.” Zias of course could be correct, but we should not assume that judicial beheadings were always neatly done. One only needs to be reminded of the several badly aimed strokes that finally took off the head of James, Duke of Monmouth, in 1685. (Apparently the executioner was intoxicated. His first stroke buried the axe in the Duke's shoulder!) Accordingly, the man in tomb D may well be another individual who suffered the death penalty—even if it took two strokes to finish the job—and whose skeletal remains, in due course, were placed in the family tomb.
The literary, historical, and archaeological evidence suggests that, contrary to Crossan, Jesus was probably buried. If so, how was He buried and by whom? After all, the body of Jesus might have been buried in a dug grave, or it might have been placed in common burial pit, perhaps along with the other two men who were crucified with Him. The Gospels speak of a rock-hewn tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea. Do we have a touch of apologetic here? Or do we have, once again, reliable history?
The story of Joseph of Arimathea, who otherwise is not known, is probably historical. There are apologetic touches, to be sure. In the telling of the story, Joseph grows in sympathy and allegiance to Jesus. But at its core is a story in which Joseph either volunteers or was assigned the task of seeing to the prompt and unceremonious burial of Jesus and, probably, the other two men.
Pilate is accused of accepting bribes, so it has been suggested that Joseph may have bribed the governor. Perhaps. It is more likely that Pilate only required confirmation that the crucified men were indeed dead. Having their bodies taken down and out of public view for the Passover holiday would have been desirable.
The story of the women who witness Jesus' burial and then return early Sunday to anoint his body smacks of historicity. It is hard to see why relatively unknown women would feature so prominently in such an important story if what we have here is fiction. But if the women's intention is to mourn privately, as Jewish law and custom allowed, and, even more importantly, to note the precise location of Jesus' tomb so that the later gathering of His remains for burial in His family tomb is possible, then we have a story that fits Jewish customs on the one hand and stands in tension with resurrection expectations and supporting apologetics on the other.
Carefully observing where Jesus is buried and then returning Sunday morning to confirm and even mark His corpse for identification is in keeping with Jewish burial customs. After all, m. Sanh. 6:5—6 implies that bodies are still identifiable long after decomposition of the flesh. How was this done? We don't know, but evidently the Jewish people knew how to mark or in some way identify a corpse so that it could be retrieved some time later. We should not allow our own ignorance of such customs or our condescension to lead us to discount such tradition as implausible.
With the problem of such ignorance in mind, let me digress briefly and review aspects of Jewish burial traditions. Burial normally took place on the day of death. If it occurred too late in the day or during the night, the body remained in the house until the following morning. The body was washed, perfumed, wrapped, and then taken to the family crypt, which could be a natural cave or hewn vault (or combination). Public wailing and lamentation took place during this process. Family and friends gathered at the tomb, weeping, reciting Scripture, and singing. The funeral lasted seven days. A large stone, approximately 80 percent of which were square and only 20 percent were round, would be placed over the opening to the crypt. The opening was usually about one meter square or slightly larger. One year after primary burial, the family reentered the crypt, gathered the bones of the deceased, and placed them in an ossuary, a limestone box slightly longer than the adult femur, slightly wider than the adult hip bones, and slightly deeper than the adult rib cage. The name of the deceased might be incised or written in charcoal on the ossuary, usually on one of the ends or on the back (i.e., the undecorated side). About one quarter of the ossuaries that have been catalogued bear inscriptions.
The skeletons also give us an idea of the size and weight of the people of Palestine in the days of Jesus. Few men were six feet in height. A few men in a family that lived in Jericho were six feet tall. The father was given a nickname. Not surprisingly he was called Goliath. However, most men were five feet five or six inches. Most women were four feet ten or eleven inches. Moreover, the people were lean. We deduce this not only from the coarseness of the bones but also from what we know of their diet. This sheds light on the story of the women who go to the tomb of Jesus, wondering who would assist them in rolling back the stone. Judging by the size of the stones that have been found, even a well-rounded stone in a flat, smooth groove would have been difficult for two women to roll aside if they stood shorter than five feet tall and weighed only about ninety-five pounds. The women would have needed assistance.
According to Jewish tradition, the spirit of the deceased hovered near the body for three days. On the third day the face of the deceased changed, and the spirit departed. In view of this, think of the story of the raising of Lazarus in John 11. He had been dead four days; his corpse now stunk of decay. Jews would have assumed that his spirit had departed and that there was no longer any hope of resuscitation. Lazarus would someday rise again, in the day of the resurrection, but not before. But to everyone's amazement, Jesus raised him up, as proof of His claim that He is indeed the “resurrection and the life.” Or think of the panic of the women who on the third day find the tomb of Jesus empty. This is the last day before His face changes and He is no longer recognizable. His body must be found soon, or there would be no hope of ever identifying it and therefore no hope of gathering His bones one year later and placing them in the family tomb. Finding the tomb empty provoked no thoughts of resurrection, only of a missing corpse and a great sense of urgency.
Outside of the Gospel tradition is Paul's statement that Jesus “was buried [etaph
]” (1 Cor 15:4). This pre-Pauline tradition clearly implies an early belief that Jesus was indeed buried in keeping with Jewish customs and that though he was crucified His burial was permitted out of respect for Jewish sensitivities. Elsewhere Paul presupposes the burial of Jesus when he speaks of being “buried with [sunetaphmen] Him” (Rom 6:4; cf. Col 2:12). Usage of forms of thaptein (“to bury”) can only refer to being properly buried, not left hanging on a cross or thrown into a ditch. To be left on the cross is to be unburied (ataphos).
I return to the question of the significance of the archaeological evidence of Yehohanan, the one man known to have been crucified whose properly buried remains have been discovered. It has been argued that in light of the thousands of Jews crucified in the first century in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the discovery of only one properly buried crucifixion victim is evidence that the normal Roman practice of not permitting burial must have obtained even in Jewish Palestine.
At least four objections must be raised against this inference. First, almost all of the bones recovered from the time of Jesus are poorly preserved, especially the smaller bones of the feet and hands, which will normally provide evidence, if any, of crucifixion. The presence of the nail in the right heel of Yehohanan made clear that he had been crucified. The presence of the nail was a fluke. It was due to the sharp end being bent back (like a fishhook), perhaps because the nail struck a knot in the beam. When Yehohanan was taken down from the cross, the nail could not be extracted. Accordingly, no statistics should be inferred from this unusual find.
Second, many crucifixion victims were scourged, beaten, and then tied to the cross, not nailed. Thus, skeletal remains would leave no trace of the trauma of crucifixion. Accordingly, we do not know that Yehohanan is the only crucifixion victim discovered in a tomb.
Third, the best-preserved skeletons are found in the better constructed tombs, within bone pits or in ossuaries. These tombs were mostly those of the rich, not the poor. The poor were usually buried in the ground or in smaller natural caves. Not many of their skeletons have been found. The significance of this point is that the poor are most likely to be crucified, not the wealthy and powerful. Accordingly, those skeletons most likely to provide evidence of crucifixion are the skeletons least likely to survive.
Fourth, the vast majority of the thousands of Jews crucified and left unburied in the first century, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, died during the rebellion of AD 66—70. They were not buried because Rome was at war with the Jewish people and had no wish to accommodate Jewish sensitivities, as Rome did during peacetime. During peacetime—indeed, during the administration of Pontius Pilate—Yehohanan and Jesus of Nazareth were crucified. That both were buried, according to Jewish customs, should hardly occasion surprise. Jewish priestly authorities were expected to defend the purity of Jerusalem (or at least give the appearance of doing so), while Roman authorities acquiesced to Jewish customs and sensitivities.
Conclusion
It is probable that Jesus was buried in keeping with Jewish customs and was not left hanging on his cross or cast into a ditch, exposed to animals. It is probable that some of Jesus' followers (such as the women mentioned in the Gospel accounts) knew where Jesus' body had been placed and intended to mark the location, perfume His body, and mourn, in keeping with Jewish customs. The intention was to take possession of Jesus' remains at some point in the future and transfer them to His family burial place. Discussion of the resurrection of Jesus should assume proper burial and knowledge of the location of the place of burial.