Corpse of crucified consigned to relatives/friends?

[ficino]

Over here I referred to an article that cites the Pauly-Wissowa article on crux (vol. IV.2, 1901). The contributor, H.F. Hitzig, on column 1731 gives some citations about various features of crucifixions.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1178&hilit=pauly#p25749

Hitzig cites two ancient authorities other than the NT for release of the corpse of a crucified person to the relations:

Philo, In Flaccum 10.83 "I have known instances before now of men who had been crucified when this festival and holiday was at hand, being taken down and given up to their relations, in order to receive the honours of sepulture, and to enjoy such observances as are due to the dead; for it used to be considered, that even the dead ought to derive some enjoyment from the natal festival of a good emperor, and also that the sacred character of the festival ought to be regarded."

source here: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ook36.html

The other is Ulpian in the Digest 48.24.1

Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book IX.

"The bodies of those who are condemned to death should not be refused their relatives; and the Divine Augustus, in the Tenth Book on 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. Even the bodies of those who have been sentenced to be burned can be claimed, in order that their bones and ashes, after having been collected, may be buried."

source here: http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Ang ... t.htm#XXIV


It does not appear from these two citations that the Romans preserved a general custom of releasing bodies of the crucified to their relations or friends.

1. Philo refers to those crucified during the festival of the emperor's birthday. His language suggests that even then, such a custom was not universally observed. (But how many crucifixions during emperors' birthdays did Philo observe? This is rhetoric... )

2. The Digest does not refer explicitly to crucifixion. (see here if you want to check the Latin:
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/justinian/digest48.shtml ) It makes clear that in the late empire, the bodies of those punished for high treason (on the lex maiestatis) were not released.

What's the implication for the story of Pilate's release of Jesus' body to Joseph of Arimathea?

Well, maybe, because it was Passover in Jerusalem. But maybe not, because Jesus was supposedly crucified as "King of the Jews," i.e. for high sedition.

So I'm inclined to think that Hitzig's two citations do not securely support the story that Pilate released Jesus' body.

[ericbwonder]

Don't forget the burial of Yehohanan as well. I'll look further at this claim regarding the relevance of high treason though.

[ericbwonder]

I remember that Craig Evans made a decent case for Jesus's burial, particularly during a period of peace time in the following article:

Craig A. Evans. 2005. 'Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus', JSHJ 3/2, 233–248. (online free pdf)

[ficino]

^^^^^^

Diogenes the Cynic posted on Bart Ehrman's rebuttal to Evans on this point. See this and subsequent posts in the same thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1194&start=140#p26649

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All,

Here are the four gospels' informatoin on Joseph of Arimathea:

Mark
And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, 15.43Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 15.44And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. 15.45And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.5.46And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

Matthew
27.57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathe'a, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus
27.58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 27.59 And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, 27.60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed.

Luke
23.50 Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe'a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, 23.51 who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God. 23.52 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 23.53 Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock-hewn tomb, where no one had ever yet been laid. 23.54 It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.

John
19.38 After this Joseph of Arimathe'a, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. 19.39 Nicode'mus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight. 19.40 They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. 19.41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. 19.42 So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Notice the discrepancies in Joseph of Arimathea and the tomb:
Joseph of Arimathea - Member of council looking for Kingdom of Heaven (Mark), rich disciple of Jesus (Matthew), member of council, good and righteous man against the council, looking for Kingdom of God (Luke), secret disciple of Jesus (John).
tomb - rock tomb ( Mark), Josephus' own new rock tomb (Matthew), new rock-tomb (Luke), new tomb in a garden (John)

The changes in the character Of Joseph of Arimathea and the tomb seem fairly trivial. All the differences in the works can be explained if we see Mark and John working from an earlier text that said, "Joseph of Arimathea, a secret disciple of Jesus, went to Pilate and asked for the body. He got leave to take away the body of Jesus and bound it in linen and placed it in a tomb."

This information is the bare minimum necessary to explain how Jesus' body got from the stake to a tomb. The name of Joseph tells us nothing and since Arimathea is probably a made-up city, we learn nothing about him from that. He has to have some kind of relationship to Jesus to explain why he would take the body. Obviously, if Pilate crucified Jesus, he would be the man to go to in order to get possession of the body. Putting the body in linen would be the normal practice I assume with the dead body of a priest or holy man and placng it in a tomb would be necessary for honoring any important dead person.

Joseph of Arimathea is just an invented character who is necessary to move the body from the stake to the tomb. That is his story function.

It does seem likely that if Jesus' family had been invented before this, a family member would have been used to reclaim the body. This tells us that Jesus' family was a later invention than his resurrection story.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[ficino]

Notice the discrepancies in Joseph of Arimathea and the tomb:
Joseph of Arimathea - Member of council looking for Kingdom of Heaven (Mark), rich disciple of Jesus (Matthew), member of council, good and righteous man against the council, looking for Kingdom of God (Luke), secret disciple of Jesus (John).
tomb - rock tomb ( Mark), Josephus' own new rock tomb (Matthew), new rock-tomb (Luke), new tomb in a garden (John)

I'm supposing that Matthew adds "rich" so that this item will hearken back to "and with the rich in his death," fulfilling Isaiah 53:9 according to the LXX.

[Stephan Huller]

The formula "ὁ ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας" is unusual. It seems to come from a later layer of redaction. Notice that Peter is not 'of anywhere' nor any of the disciples in the synoptics.

Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲθ [Matt 21:11]

also

Philip of Bethsaida ὁ Φίλιππος ἀπὸ Βηθσαιδά [John 1:44]
Jesus the son of Joseph Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ [John 1:45]
αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας [Luk3 23:51]

[ericbwonder]

I'm not convinced by Ehrman's response, or the summary of that response, rather. The evidence, textual and archeological, seems to show that releasing a crucified body for burial is not really that fantastic of an idea. There's little significant evidence to the contrary. There is also the plausible motivation of the Jewish leaders not to have had Jesus's body go unburied during the volatile festival period, and in conformity with cultural sentiments regarding burial and Jewish law.

Even if this didn't normally happen, it's still the weakest kind of argument one can make, like arguing most people were not named 'Jesus'.

What's interesting to me, however, is why the gospels would have to supply as a motivation for the burial the fact that Joseph was a righteous man, a secret disciple, and so forth. That implies, against Evans, that the Sanhedrin were so shameless that they had no problem leaving Jesus's body to rot. It would have, had it not been for the noble Joseph among them. Evans' evidence for burial undermines the reasons stated by the gospels for Jesus's burial.

[ficino]

The evidence, textual and archeological, seems to show that releasing a crucified body for burial is not really that fantastic of an idea. There's little significant evidence to the contrary.

Ulpian supplies evidence to the contrary; cf. above.

What's interesting to me, however, is why the gospels would have to supply as a motivation for the burial the fact that Joseph was a righteous man, a secret disciple, and so forth. That implies, against Evans, that the Sanhedrin were so shameless that they had no problem leaving Jesus's body to rot. It would have, had it not been for the noble Joseph among them. Evans' evidence for burial undermines the reasons stated by the gospels for Jesus's burial.

Good point.

[Stephan Huller]

Let's suppose for a moment that Joseph wasn't there and that the reference was added later. Can anyone imagine another plausible scenario? Could Pilate have buried him? The Sanhedrin? The disciples? What are the other likely possibilities. Origen seems to imply that Pilate was surprised by the speed with which Jesus expires on the Cross. The body wouldn't have been rotting. So the likeliest scenario I see is that Pilate buries the body, or what would the Roman authorities have done with an unclaimed (because Jesus was a stranger) body?