The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #3, part 1: Jesus was Honorably Buried by Joseph of Arimathea

Here is where the intellectually vicious (just meaning the argumentation is powerful) critique of Christianity from Bart Ehrman's How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (the one I referred to in the introduction) begins. I currently have an amazing lack of being able to feel like I could write a good introduction, so I'll just start by saying that the burial of Jesus right after His death by crucifixion is recorded in all four Gospels, but I'm only going to be defending the earliest account (from Mark) because when zeroing in on the resurrection, you just have to show that at least one can be trusted. (And therefore it proves the core all the other Gospel parallels but that's not important.) Then I'll jump right in to the pool full of sharks, and try to be one myself.

Claim 1: Crucified Jews wouldn't get buried
"Evidence for this comes from a wide range of sources," Ehrman said and presents about the common Roman practice concerning crucified people(1). They could not receive an honorable burial. Instead, what the Romans viewed as fitting was things like leaving the corpses hanging for birds to pick at or throw it to the dogs. While Christians can argue that Jesus must have been removed from His cross on Friday before the sunset because Jewish law demanded that bodies couldn't hang during the Sabbath (or for that matter even overnight; Deuteronomy 21:22-23), the Romans didn't care. It is improbable that Jesus, as a man who was crucified, would have received an honorable burial, because "the historical record suggests just the opposite." (1)

Another possible Christian argument Ehrman shows the error in is from Philo, a first-century Jewish philosopher(2). He records that crucified corpses were allowed to be buried during a festival concerning the emperor. It had nothing to do with Judaism.

"It happened during a Jewish Passover feast--a Jewish festival widely recognized as fostering anti-Roman sentiments. It is just the opposite kind of occasion from that mentioned in Philo. And we have no records at all--none--of governors making exceptions in any case such as that." (3)

In a response to the book appropriately titled How God Became Jesus, recognized authority Craig Evans shows that this is not true, and he cites both Philo and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, along with some other sources. For all I know, there may have been no necessary reason for even a Bible scholar as controversial, sometimes attacked other times esteemed, as Ehrman to know this. He does say, "I have not run across any contrary indications in any ancient sources." (4) No matter the case, I'm saddened that his argument has to falsely paint Christian apologetics in poor light.

Philo claims that the Jews "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." (5) Josephus reports that the Roman procurators who came after Agrippa I "'by abstaining from interface with the customs of the country kept the nation at peace' (Jewish War 2.220), customs that included never leaving a 'corpse unburied' (Against Apion, 2.211). Had Roman governors--in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem itself--regularly crucified Jews and left their bodies hanging on crosses, it is unlikely they would have 'kept the peace.'" (6)

All this, the second example especially, reminds me of when a bunch of Jews got crucified by angry Romans who were INCITED by them(7). It seems to me that it would be so much easier to allow the Jews to keep their customs than to provoke them all the time. So at a festival festering with anti-Roman views (especially then even), the hated would be wise to try to keep their conquered somewhat appeased. 

Now my brain is nagging at me. Ehrman asked, "Was Pilate the sort of ruler who would break with tradition and policy when kindly asked by a member of the Jewish council to provide a decent burial for a crucified victim? Not from what we can tell." (8) I can't help but use this to object to myself and ask why it is reasonable to believe he would care for the Jewish customs and keeping peace with the Jews. 

Funny how the first incident Ehrman presents has Pilate back off from Jews who wouldn't back down, because "he could not murder such masses in cold blood," and even went so far as to order Roman standards go away. Even with the second incident, disguised soldiers mixed in with the crowds and killed them with clubs, not even swords(8). 

Also, while Pilate was the prefect of Jerusalem at one time, the examples from Philo and Josephus don't only speak of him. In my ignorance I could say it's improbable biased Romans (Pilate isn't alone, by far) who will strike down Jews anyway would bother to guard their customs. Wouldn't they practically filter out the relatively few number of Jews who would revolt because of it? But then I don't think it's probable that a group of Jewish people, being very religious, would cower in fear of the Romans. They probably would get a lot more revolts. How much trouble is it worth?

I feel slightly troubled because 1, my feelings can often unreasonably be significant, and 2, I can't really talk about Roman practices toward other Jewish customs. I say my feelings are unreasonable because the explicit evidence is the clincher here.

Furthermore, a number of bones have been uncovered and shown to have received proper burial, although they suffered Roman execution. Also, nails have been found in ossuaries, which were basically bone boxes used by Jews around the time of Jesus, waiting for the resurrection in Daniel 12:2. There is one popular example I found throughout Christian literature. It was a crucified man named Yohanan, still with a nail in his feet(9).

Claim 2: The earliest Biblical records deny Joseph of Arimathea

1 Corinthians 15:4, one of the earliest creeds of the Christian church (and vital to this argument, so it will appear later) states that Jesus "was buried," and then "was raised." 

"This [Joseph of Arimathea] datum was not included in the very early creed that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, and if the author of that creed had known such a thing, he surely would have included it, since without naming the person who buried Jesus, as we have seen, he created an imbalance with the second portion of the creed where he does name the person to whom Jesus appeared (Cephas). Thus, this early creed knows nothing about Joseph. And Paul also betrays no knowledge of him." (10)

Earlier, Ehrman observed that the creed is "brilliantly structured," because of parallels on both sides of it(11). However, I think it is to strict to demand that therefore, the author must put in Joseph. The point of creeds is to keep them short and sweet. Joseph of Arimathea, the man who supposedly buried Jesus is surely not as important as Cephas. As a matter of fact, Ehrman points out that the appearance to Peter shows "he really was raised." (12) "Who saw the risen Jesus is an important issue in 1 Corinthians 15, but, as Evans points out, 'Who buried Jesus was not.'" (13) 

Furthermore, as Christian apologists also point to, the creed is structured in such a way to be easily memorizable and get all the key points. It looks wonderful without Joseph. As for Paul, well, I don't think he modified the creed at all, even with the final part of verse 5 being "the twelve" (as I shall argue with fact #6). And even if he had reason to, that doesn't mean Joseph would be important. Habermas realized how it is "intriguing" that the only two people Paul mentions by name in verses 3-8 is James and Cephas, whom he probably got the creed from(14). This could completely be coincidence, of course, and I think it probably is. Cephas is an early form of Peter and so supports an early dating, and James was an unbeliever not in Christian culture before the appearance, so it makes sense that Jesus would appear to him separately. Still, Paul knows they are important as leaders of the church and true apostles, since they saw Jesus after the crucifixion, proving Him.

Moreover, "...there is no evidence that Joseph was a significant leader in early Christianity. Apart from a few other obscure references to him, he drops out of the picture." (15) One could say this is because he was an invention, but he could have been real, and no one would put his name in the creed because he is obscure, especially compared to people like, well, PETER.

I suppose one could argue that the inventor(s) of the creed might as well put Joseph in because people will be able to memorize and spread the creed anyway (they were an oral culture after all). But as we just saw, why bother? And while they are a culture which uses the word of mouth, that doesn't mean they want to make everything as complicated as it could. The poetic hymnal statement needs the burial (otherwise it would really be too lopsided), not who did it. I didn't even realize the difference until Ehrman pointed it out. It sounded very nice to me. Now I know I am not a first-century Jew, but I doubt they would be all that different (although ancient people could be) in detecting that, but even if they could that doesn't mean they'd care. The above evidence makes this seem like it is the case. When it comes to this creed, it certainly can't be demonstrated with any certainty that anyone should have mentioned Joseph. If Christians cared, they probably would have been taught such a detail in more formal interaction with their leaders.

(I must say, though, that I am impressed that Ehrman took into consideration how someone might have wanted the creed to appear and not just said like other skeptics, "Paul didn't mention it -- at least not explicitly -- so he didn't know about it.")

The second claim Ehrman makes against Joseph is Acts 13:28-29, which says: "Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb." 

This argument may seem strange, because Acts was written after Luke, which Mark was a source for. Ehrman rightfully sees that the speech in Acts 13 seems to "harmonize generally" with Luke and all the other accounts, "but here it is not a single member of the Sanhedrin, but the council as a whole." (16) He claims that it is logical that Luke later used an older tradition. 

Paul's speech here is comparable to the creed, though. Again, the context does not suggest he would be interested in the specific person who provided the tomb for Jesus's burial. In a debate titled Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? between Christian William Lane Craig and atheistic scholar Gerd Ludemann, one reason the latter was skeptical toward the Christian claim was because he interpreted the New Testament as being anti-Semitic. One "example" of "biblical" anti-Judaism is how in the early speeches of Peter, like this one from Paul, the Jews are presented as the ones who killed Jesus. Actually, Ludemann referred to exactly chapter 13, and like Ehrman, said that between it and the Gospels, "...it is not possible that the two come from one and the same source." (17) An obvious Christian response is that 1, Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, which was the capital city of Judaism and predominantly full of its followers, 2, Jesus died for the sins of the world, and 3, the context goes back to both. See, Peter preached the Gospel in Jerusalem and doesn't realize until 10:34 "how true it is that God... accepts from every nation the one who fears Him," and Paul was speaking in a church full of "children of Abraham" and "God-fearing Gentiles," about "the people of Jerusalem." (13:26-29) The point is Jesus died for Jews, the ones who demanded Pilate "Crucify Him!" (Mark 15:8-14), and was put in a Jewish tomb. Had it not been for the Jews demanding His death, nothing would have happened to lead up to a burial(18).

Citations/notes: 

1. Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (HarperOne: 2014), 156-158, 160-61.

2. Ibid., 158-59, emphasis his.

3. Ibid., 159-160.

4. Ibid., 160.

5. How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus' Divine Nature: A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 77. Cited in Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN. 2014), 169.

6. Ibid., 77-78. Cited in Kostenberger et al., Truth in a Culture of Doubt, 169.

7. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 48-49. 

8. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 162-63.

9. See, for example, Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2016), 217.

10. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 153, emphasis original.

11. Ibid., 139.

12. Ibid., 140.

13. Evans, How God Became Jesus, 91. Cited in Kostenberger et al., Truth in a Culture of Doubt, 168.

14. Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist in Dialogue, John F. Ankerberg edition (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc: 2005), 5.

15. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker Book: Grand Rapids, MI. 1987), 167.

16. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 154.

17. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 43.

18. This is because God planned it this way. In His sovereignty He knew exactly who would decide to reject Jesus, even though they had the option to not. I'm not saying what it sounds like when one says Jesus's salvific death and resurrection hung on the decision of some un-godly people.