Головна Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened

Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened

What do history and archaeology have to say about Jesus death, burial, and resurrection? In this superb book, two of the world's most celebrated writers on the historical Jesus share their greatest findings. Together, Craig A. Evans and N. T. Wright concisely and compellingly dubunk popular myths about the historical Jesus and convey the true, world-shattering significance of Jesus' final days on earth.
Westminster John Knox
ISBN 10:
ISBN 13:
PDF, 2.71 MB
Скачати (pdf, 2.71 MB)

You may be interested in Powered by Rec2Me


New Testament For Everyone (18 Vols)

ZIP, 34.62 MB

Paul A Biography

EPUB, 1.58 MB

Most frequently terms





What Really Happened
Edited by Troy A. Miller



Chapters I and 2 © 2009 Craig A. Evans
Chapter 3 © 2009 Nicholas Thomas Wright
All other material© 2009 Westminster John Knox Press
Published in the United States of America by Westminster John Knox Press in 2009 as

Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened
Published in Great Britain in 2008 as Jesus, the Final Days by the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 36 Causton Street, London, SWlP 4ST

First edition
Westminster John Knox Press
Louisville, Kentucky
09 10 ll 12 1.'3 14 15 16 17 18-IO 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

All rights 1--eserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any fonn or
infonnation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, I 00 Witherspoon Str~et, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Or contact us online at www.wjkbooks.com.
Scripture quotations from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible are copyright
of Christ in the U.S.A. and are used by permission.

Book desi10 by Drew Stevens
Cover design by Jennifer K. Cox
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Evans, Craig A.
Jesus, the final days: what really happened/ Craig A. Evans & N. T. Wright; edited
by Troy A. Miller.- I st ed.
Includes index.

ISBN 978-0-664-23359-4 (•lk. P'P")
!.Jesus Ch1ist-Passion. 2.Jesus Christ-Resurrection.
Thomas) II. Miller, Troy A. III. Title.

I. Wright, N. T. (Nicholas

BT431.3.E93 2008



@> The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements
of the American National Standard for Information Scie; nces-Permanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI 239.48-1992
Westminster John Knox Press advocates the responsible use of our natural resources,
The text paper of this book is made from 30% post-consumer waste.


Preface vn
Abbreviations xz
Chapter 1
Craig A. Evans
Chapter 2
Craig A. Evans

Chapter 3
N. T. Wright

Index of Ancient Sources I 09
Index of Subjects, Names, and Places



Often in matters of Scripture and theology, the gap between
the academy on one side and the church on the other is
wide-often, regretfully, too wide. The academy is deemed
to be only about the business of thought, argument, and
mental reflection-the proverbial ivory tower. In contrast,
the church is held to be the locale of praxis or the doing of
the Christian faith, as seen in worship, evangelism, faith formation, and prayer. This separation and dichotomy, though
real in how it is reinforced by some parties in each of these
entities, is artificial. It does not reflect the rich and diverse
contributions that have emerged from the church and the
academy through the ages; nor does it echo how they both
have been vital to promoting and sustaining an orthodox
and incarnational Christian faith. What is needed in today's
age is for Christians to continue to create arenas in which
mutual edification can occur-arenas in which the best of
what the church and the academy have to offer can be
brought together in conversation, learning, and mission for
the glory of God.
The three chapters that make up this brief book first
took shape as lectures in the Symposium for Church and
Academy lecture series at Crichton College. As the director
of the larger Symposium for Church and Academy initiative, I created and developed this lecture series to begin to



redress the gap or separation noted above and to establish
covenantal relationships between the Department of Bible
and Theology at Crichton and local area churches for the
purpose of mutual edification and shared ministry. Those
sought as speakers for this series were persons who
brought a first-rate, international reputation for scholarship
in matters of Scripture or theology, as well as a. demonstrable commitment to and participation in the gospel mission
of the Christian church. Auspiciously, N. T. Wright (2003)
and Craig A. Evans (2004) accepted the invitation to come
as the first two lecturers in this new series. They have been
followed in subsequent years by others, such as Gordon
Fee, Maxie Dunnam, and Dennis Hollinger.
The present book comprises two of Craig's lectures
(one each on Jesus' death and burial) and one of Tom's lectures (on Jesus' resurrection) that have been revised for
publication for a wider audience. As both of their lecture
topics focused on the life ofJesus, the selected lectures fell
neatly into place. Beyond the subject matter of Jesus' life,
the essays in the book also share a common focus or intent.
Both of the authors examine events in Jesus' life from a historical perspective with the aim of reviewing the pertinent
evidence so as to surmise what really did (or in some cases
most likely did) happen. Craig and Tom, along with most
Christians, recognize that determining what actually happened is vitally important to the validity of the Christian
faith. Though not equal to each other, history is of vital
importance for faith. What really happened does matter!
Finally, in attempting to discern historical matters
related to Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, the chapters also share, almost by necessity, an apologetic edge.
While engaging in apologetics is not at the forefront of the



authors' intent, any thorough evaluation of historical issues
related to a given event necessitates the examination of
other historical theories or claims already out there, and
this book is no exception. Therefore, in their effort to present as historically accurate a recounting as possible for
these events injesus' life, the authors also at times lend confirmation to current theories that reinforce their findings
and at other times expose hypotheses or claims that lack
historical credibility.
This book, though not entirely uninformative for the
scholar of the New Testament,Jesus, or late Second Temple
Judaism, is intended for a wider readership-for the interested layperson, for clergy, for the undergraduate or graduate student, as well as for those who have academic
specialties outside of one of these areas. We hope that the
book will be read in the academy and the church, and that it
will provoke thought, reflection, learning, and a thoroughgoing life of faith.
Projects such as this do not come about without a
great deal of support and guidance. I would first like to say
thank you to the leadership of Crichton College for supporting my vision for the Symposium for Church and Academy.
I would also like to thank the Episcopal Diocese of West
Tennessee, the Wilberforce Education Foundation, Trinity
Baptist Church (Cordova, Tennessee), and Crichton College
for the monetary support they provided for the lecture series
in which Tom and Craig participated. I would like to thank
our editor at Westminster John Knox Press, Philip Law,
for helping field and shepherd along the book. Thanks is
also due to my student Nathan Brasfield, who helped prepare the indexes. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to
N. T. Wright and Craig Evans, not only for their participation



in this project as lecturers and authors, but also for their
accompanying kindness, humility, and friendship. Your faith
in Jesus needs no words to be seen and heard.
Troy A. Miller
Easter 2008
Memphis, Tennessee


1 Mace
b. Megillah
b. Qiddushin

Hist. Alex.
Hist. Eccl.

Lev. Rab.
m. Pesahim
m. Sanhedrin
Nat. Hist.

1 Maccabees
2 Baruch
2 Maccabees
Josephus's Jewish Antiquities
Suetonius 's Lifo ofAugustus
Babylonian Talmud, Megillah
Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin
Suetonius's Lifo ofCalig;ula
Corpus lnscriptionum Latinarum
Curtius Rufus's History of Alexander
Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History
Philo's Against Flaccus
Josephus's Jewish War
Leviticus Rabbah
Mishnah, Pesahim
Mishnah, Sanhedrin
Plutarch's Moralia
Pliny the Elder's Natural History
Florence Papyri
Louvre Papyri
Plutarch's Lifo ofPompey


Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant.
Qoh. Rab.
t. Menah.
T. Moses
y. Moe'ed Qatan


Pseudo-Mane tho
Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities .
Qoheleth Rabbah
Sifre, Numbers
Tosefta, Menahot
Testament of Moses
Cicero's In Verrem
Jerusalem Talmud,Moe'ed Qatan

Chapter One

Craig A. Evans

The earliest formal creed, or confession of faith, of the
Christian church is the Aposdes' Creed, which probably
came to expression in the third century. The familiar creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord;
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary;
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried;
He descended into Hades;
The third day he rose from the dead;
He ascended into heaven;
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the living
and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit;
the holy catholic Church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting. Amen.



The heart of the creed is found in its middle,
where of Jesus it is said: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hades;
The third day he rose from the dead." This part of the
creed draws upon and summarizes much earlier statements of Christian faith, many of which are found in the
New Testament writings themselves. One example from
the middle of the first century is found in a letter by
the apostle Paul. Speaking of the gospel Paul affirms, "For
had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance
(1 Cor. 15:3-5).
The present book is concerned with the three essential elements of this creed: the death, burial, and resurrection ofJesus. It should hardly surprise anyone that the most
often doubted and attacked element is the third one, the
belief in the resurrection ofJesus. But in recent years it also
has become quite fashionable to raise objections against the
first two elements, against the historical reality of his death
and burial.
The firm conviction of the authors of this book is
that behind the creed, behind the faith claims of the
Christian movement, is history. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus are not merely theological ideas but
actual events-actual events that awakened faith and later
prompted theological inquiry. In this first chapter we
begin by taking a closer look at the death of Jesus, an
event, ironically enough, that initially did anything but
awaken faith.




No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe
doubts that Jesus ofNazareth really lived in the first century
and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the
governor ofJudea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be
aware of this. Objections, though, still persist. In fact, a
recent book has recycled the odd notion that Jesus wasn't
really executed but actually faked his death, with the assistance of the Roman governor and a few others,and then fled
to Egypt. Proof of this assertion, it is claimed, is found in two
letters said to be written in Aramaic and alleged to have been
found under a house in Jerusalem forty years ago. These
writings are alleged to be carefully preserved by a collector
whose name cannot be revealed and who lives in a city that
cannot be disclosed .. Of course, neither the author of this
fantasy nor the owner of these letters can read Aramaic or
possesses the requisite expertise to verifY ancient writings.
Regrettably, the utter silliness of this scenario escapes many
in today's reading public.
The death of Jesus is not only affirmed (or at least
presupposed) in every writing of the New Testament and
early Christianity, it is attested by early Jewish and Roman
writers as well. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian,
apologist, and survivor of the catastrophic rebellion against
Rome (AD 66-70), states that Jesus, having been accused
by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to the cross by Pilate
(Ant. 18.63-64). According to the Roman historian
Tacitus, "Christ ... suffered the death penalty during the
reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius
Pilate" (Annals 15.44). Although Tacitus errs slightly in



upgrading Pilate's rank (he was a prefect, not a procurator),
his terse summary agrees with. what we find in Josephus
and in the Christian Gospels. Lucian of Samosata, in a
mocking reference to Peregrinus and the Christians with
whom for a time he associated, refers to Jesus as "the man
who was crucified in Palestine" (Passing of Perepinns §11;
cf. §13 "that crucified sophist"). Finally, Mar bar Serapion,
a Syrian, in a letter written to his son perhaps toward the
end of the first century, makes reference to the death of
Jesus, the Jewish "wise king."
The reality of the death ofJesus also finds confirmation in the simple fact that it was not anticipated by his followers. When Jesus spoke of his impending suffering and
death, Peter, spokesperson for the disciples, took his master aside and rebuked him (Mark 8:31-33), a sure sign of
Peter's lack of this expectation. What then did they'
expect? They expected to sit at Jesus' right and left, that is,
to form Israel's new government (Matt. 19:28; Mark
10:35-40; Luke 22:28-30). The kingdom (or rule) of God
had dawned, and the rule of Satan was coming to an end
(Mark 1:15; 3:11, 22-27; Luke 10:17-19; 11:20). How
then did the martyrdom of God's Chosen One fit into this
The death of Jesus actually was a source of embarrassment for Jesus' early followers. It is to this embarrassment that Paul alludes when he declares that he is "not
ashamed of the gospel" (Rom. 1:16). In the thinking of the
Roman world, sons of God, heroes, and saviors did not die
on crosses. In that time, there was no sentimentality
attached to Jesus' death and certainly not to the cross, a horrifYing symbol in Roman antiquity. In what way any of this
could be termed "good news" (the meaning of the word
"gospel") would be far from clear to jews and Gentiles alike.



Had Jesus not been executed, had Jesus not been crucified,
why make up such a preposterous story?
No, the death ofJesus is no fiction. It was a grim historical reality. It was known to non-Christians, and it was a
demoralizing event for Jesus' followers-at least initiallyand an ongoing embarrassment as the church proclaimed
Jesus as Savior and Son of God throughout the Roman
Empire. There can be no doubt that Jesus was executed.
But why?


Many people, including Christians, do not know why Jesus
was executed, why he encountered deadly opposition. I
have heard people say that Jesus was put to death because
he was a good man or because hypocritical Pharisees feared
him. This really, though, is the stuff of nonsense. The New
Testament Gospels reveal several historical factors, all near
the end of] esus' life, that led to his execution; his goodness
and his quarrels with Pharisees were not among them.
The first reason that Jesus aroused opposition was
because of the manner of his entry into Jerusalem at the
beginning of the final week of his ministry. He entered the
holy city mounted on a donkey, amid shouts of" Hosanna!
Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!"
(Mark ll:l-10; here vv. 9-10, NRSV, modified). Entering
the city in this way deliberately mimicked Solomon,
David's son, who one thousand years earlier rode the royal
mule as part of his declaration of kingship ( 1 Kgs.
prophecy of the anticipated humble king (Zech. 9:9). Not
only did Jesus' act recall hopes of a coming son of David,



but the crowd's response reflected the same popular interpretation of it. Their Hosannas, as an allusion to Psalm
118, were a pronouncement that this one who comes to the
temple "in the name of the Lord" is none other than David,
the one destined to be Israel's king and ruler (see Ps.
118:19-27, according to the Aramaic paraphrase). Such an
event suggested in unmistakable terms that Israel's king
into Jerusalem, Jesus was set on a collision course with
Roman authority.
The second reason that Jesus aroused opposition
was because of his actions in the temple precincts or
grounds. His well-known action here disrupted sacrificial
trade and traffic and challenged the ruling priests with very
troubling words (Mark 11:15-18):
"Is it not written,
'My house shall be called a house of prayer for
all the nations'?
But you have made it a 'cave of robbers."'
(v. 17, NRSV, modified)
The first part of these words is a quotation taken from
Isaiah 56:7, part of an oracle that looks forward to the day
when all peoples, Gentiles and Jews from afar, will come to
Jerusalem and will be welcome. All peoples will worship
the God of Israel; their gifts will be received and their
prayers will be heard. This oracle expressed nothing new
for Jews at that time; it reflects the original purpose for the
temple, as reflected in Solomon's ancient prayer of dedication (1 Kgs. 8:41-43). Jesus' action and his questioning
appeal to Isaiah's oracle implies that the temple authorities
have failed to live up to their calling. The temple has not



become a place of prayer for the nations. Rather, it has
become a "cave of robbers." Here in the second part jesus
alludes to jeremiah's scathing criticism of the temple establishment of his day (J er. 7: 11 ), warning that God will
destroy the temple. The ruling priests, scribes, and elders
would have been deeply offended by Jesus' critical and
offensive words.
That preaching angry ser.mons based on Jeremiah 7
could get one into trouble is attested injosephus.Josephus
tells us of one Jesus ben Ananias, who beginning in AD 62
began prophesying the doom of the city of Jerusalem and
her famous temple. Like Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus ben
Ananias alluded to Jeremiah 7, while in the vicinity of the
temple (Josephus, J. W. 6.300-305; cf. Jer. 7:34). This
later jesus was lucky. Unlike Jesus of Nazareth, jesus ben
Ananias was not executed (despite calls from religious leaders that he be put to death), but was released. However,his
luck ran out seven years later when, during a siege, Jesus
ben Ananias was killed by a catapult stone that came
hurding over the walls.
The third reason that Jesus aroused opposition was
his telling of the parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12:1-12). He
narrated this parable as an indirect answer to the question
put to him by the ruling priests and their supporters, who
demanded to know by what authority Jesus did what he had
done in the temple precincts (Mark 11:27-33). It is bad
enough that jesus based his parable on Isaiah's parable of the
Vineyard, which warned Israel of impending judgment
because of its failure to pursue justice (Isa. 5:1-7). What
made Jesus' parable particularly annoying to the ruling
priests was that Isaiah's parable had come to be understood
as primarily directed against the temple establishment. We
see this perspective in the Aramaic paraphrase oflsaiah 5, in



later rabbinic interpretation, and in a scroll from Qumran
(4Q500) that dates to the first century BC. Jesus' point was
hard to miss: because of their rebellion against God, especially as seen in their plotting to murder his own Son, the ruling priests face judgment. This threat, together with the
implied threat earlier when Jesus appealed to Jeremiah 7,
prompted the ruling priests to seek Jesus' life.
The fourth reason that Jesus aroused opposition was
his anointing by the unnamed woman (Mark 14:3-9). For
years commentators were reluctant to interpret this act as a
messianic anointing on the part of the woman, suggesting
instead that it was a Passover holiday anointing, akin perhaps to today's Christmas mistletoe. This scholarly reluctance was probably due to the faulty assumption by some
that Jesus did not understand himself in messianic terms.
This odd notion has been seriously challenged of late, not
least because of the discovery of a scroll from Qumran
(4Q521) that speaks of the works of healing that will take
place when the Messiah makes his appearance, works that
parallel closely Jesus' summary in his reply to the imprisoned and discouraged John the Baptist (Matt. 11 :2-6; Luke
7:18-23). From this important discovery, scholars are now
more open to affirm what the Gospels have said all along,
that Jesus understood himself as Israel's Messiah. How to
account for the ubiquity of the identity ofJesus as Messiah,
had Jesus never thought of himself in these terms, was a
question that apparently had not sufficiently impressed itself
upon these skeptical scholars.
The important point in this event is that immediately
after the woman's anointing ofJesus,Judas Iscariot departs
to betray his master (Mark 14:10-11). The contrast
between the named disciple, who commits an act of treachery, and the unnamed woman, who commits an act of devo-



tion, has been commented upon frequently. It is a piece of
literary artistry, to be sure. But sometimes overlooked is
that this woman's actions very likely would have been
reported to the ruling priests, with whom Judas struck his
bargain. Not only would Judas earn his pay by directing the
officers and thugs of the ruling priests to the place ofJesus'
private prayer, he would have offered them testimony as to
what Jesus taught and how his followers regarded him. The
woman's anointing ofJesus would have been too important
to miss. It would have provided all the more reason to
destroy Jesus.
In the end, the Jewish authorities sought to kill Jesus
not because he was a good man but because Jesus was perceived as a very serious political threat. His message of
God's rule threatened the status quo, which the ruling
priests did not want overturned. Jesus entered Jerusalem as
the anointed son of David, he assumed authority in the
temple precincts as though possessed of messianic authority, he appealed to the purpose of the temple in a way that
recalled Solomon's dedication of the temple and in a way
that implied him to be king, and he was in fact anointed by
at least one follower, an anointing that in all probability was
interpreted as having messianic significance. It is hardly
surprising that an angry high priest would directly ask
Jesus, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?" and that the
Roman governor would place near the cross a placard that
read, "This is Jesus, king of the Jews."


Before considering the trial and execution ofJesus, we must
ask ifJesus anticipated his death. Some critics insist that he



did not: that it took him by surprise or that he had simply
got caught up in a riot and was arrested along with others.
I find this quite unlik~ly as a historical reading of the
Gospels, for several reasons.
The.obvious place to begin is with Jesus' formal predictions of his suffering and death (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31;
10:32-34, among others). Of course, many critical scholars
claim that these passion predictions are prophecies after
the fact, or what are sometimes called vaticinia ex eventu
(prophecies from the event). It must be admitted that these
predictions have a formulaic appearance and contain
details (such as being mocked, spat upon, and scourged)
that suggest knowledge of what in the end actually happened to Jesus. But even if it is acknowledged that the passion predictions have been edited or further stylized in the
light of what actually happened to Jesus, it does not necessarily mean that he in fact did not anticipate his death, even
death specifically by crucifixion. What is the evidence outside the formal passion predictions that would suggest that
Jesus really did anticipate suffering and death?
First, I think it is probable that Jesus anticipated his
death, for the violent fate of John the Baptist surely had
impressed itself on him (Matt. 11:2-15; Mark 6:14-29;
9: 13). It would be strange to think that it never occurred to
Jesus that what had happened to his ally John might happen
to him. In fact, Jesus may well have drawn this comparison
and conclusion himself and spoke of it. In a saying whose
wording and context admittedly are not easy to interpret,
Jesus speaks ofJohn the Baptist as Elijah, who "has come"
but was not treated with respect. By analogy, Jesus, who
already has directly linked his own ministry withJohn's, suggests the same fate also awaits him. He too will "go through
many sufferings and be treated with contempt" (Mark



9:11-13). Accordingly, the execution of John surely suggested to Jesus that the same may well overtake him.
Second, and what I think is impressive evidence that
Jesus anticipated his death, is the scene in Gethsemane.
Here we see the frightened Jesus fall on his face, begging
God to take away the cup of suffering (Mark 14:33-36).
This is not the stuff of pious fiction or dogma. Indeed, it
stands in stark contrast to the serene Jesus portrayed in
John 17, where he communes with God in peace, prays for
his disciples, and adds a prayer for all those who will follow
after him.
What makes the Gethsemane scene compelling evidence is that Jesus' words and frightened behavior stand in
tension with his earlier teaching, in which he exhorts his
disciples to "take up their cross" and follow him (Mark
8:34). In view of such a teaching, it is hard to see how a
story such as the Gethsemane prayer could circulate and
find its way into the Gospel tradition if it were not based on
solid, credible eyewitness testimony. It would simply be too
risky for Jesus' identity if it were not true.
Third, ifJesus anticipated his death, we should expect
that he attempted to find meaning in it during his life. In fact,
that is the case. The widely attested "words of institution"
(Mark 14:22-25; 1 Cor. 11:23-25; Didach,e 9:1-5) provide
further evidence that Jesus anticipated his death and sought
to understand it. His words allude to several important scriptures (Exod. 24:8;Jer. 31:31; Zech. 9:11). In the shedding of
his blood,J esus finds guarantee of the covenant and the kingdom of God. Luke's addition of "new," as in "the new
covenant" (Luke 22:20), may well reflect Christian editing
for clarification, but in all probability it correctly captures the
sense ofJesus' words. The "new covenant" hearkens back to
the promise of the prophet long ago: "The days are surely



with the house oflsrael and the house ofjudah" (Jer. 31:31 ).
The new covenant cannot be established until the blood of
God's Son, Israel's Messiah, is shed.
The idea of the saving benefit of a righteous man's
death is hardly unusual in the Jewish world, or in the
Mediterranean world in general, for that matter. There are
several expressions of the belief that the death of the righteous will benefit, or even save, God's people (e.g., 1 Mace
6:44; 4 Mace 1: 11; 17:21-22; 18:3-4; T. Moses 9-10; Ps.Philo,Bib. Ant. 18:5). Among the most important are traditions associated with the torture and death of the
Maccabean martyrs, who in the second century BC bravely
opposed the Syrian tyrant Antiochus IV: "And if our living
he will again be reconciled with his own servants .... I, like
of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation"
(2 Mace 7:33, 37-38, NRSV, with emphasis added).
Similarly,Jesus believed that God was angry with his people
for having rejected his message. We see this in Jesus' weeping over the city (Luke 19:41-44; Matt. 23:37-39 =Luke
13:34-35) and in his ominous allusion to the shepherd in
Zechariah 13:7, whom God would strike down.
IfJesus did anticipate his death, then one might also
ask, did he anticipate his resurrection as well? Had he not
anticipated being raised after death, it would have been very
strange, for many pious Jews very much believed in the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3; 1 Enoch 22-27; 92-105; Jub.
23:11-31; 4 Mace 7:3; 4 Ezra 7:26-42; 2 Bar. 21:23;
30:2-5;Josephus,J. W: 2.154, 165-66;Ant. 18.14, 16, 18).



One is reminded of the seven martyred sons and their
mother, several of whom expressed their firmest conviction
of the resurrection (2 Mace 7:14,23,29;cf. 4 Mace 8-17).
Would Jesus have faced death and then, having earlier
affirmed his belief in the resurrection (Mark 12: 18-27), have
expressed no faith in his own vindication? Surely not. It
seems probable that jesus would have reassured his disciples
(and himself) with a confident prediction of his resurrection.
The words of Jesus, "after three days rise again"
(Mark 8:31), and-in the other Gospels-"on the third
day" (Matt. 16:21; Luke 9:22; cf. 1 Cor. 15:4), probably
allude to the oracle ofHosea that promised the renewal of
"After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him." (6:2)
This is refracted, though, through the Aramaic tradition:
"He will revive us in the days of consolations that will come;
on the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up
and we shall live before him" (Hos. 6:2, according to the
Targum, with italicized portion indicating differences in
the Aramaic). Not only has the text been paraphrased to
give expression to the resurrection (which was not exactly
the original meaning of the underlying Hebrew), it has also
taken on a messianic nuance with the words "in the days of
consolations" (cf. 2 Sam. 23:1 in the Aramaic). The coherence ofjesus' words with the Aramaic tradition is striking.
Jesus' confidence that God would raise him up provides additional evidence that Jesus did in fact anticipate
his death. More will be said about the resurrection ofjesus
in chapter 3 below.




Since the nineteenth century the trial ofJesus has been hotly
debated, often with reference to Christian anti-Semitism.
Some scholars have argued that the trial ofJ esus was entirely
a Roman affair, while others have asserted that it was mostly
a Jewish affair. Today most scholars rightly recognize the
involvement both ofJewish and Roman authorities.
All four New Testament Gospels relate appearances
of Jesus before Jewish and Roman authorities, who to one
degree or another work in concert. According to Mark,
Jesus is arrested by people acting under the authority of the
ruling priests, scribes, and elders (14:43-50).Jesus is taken
to the high priest (14:53).Jewish authorities then gather at
"the courtyard of the high priest" (14:54), which may imply
that the proceedings took place at the home of Caiaphas,
though that is only an inference. The ruling priests and
council seek testimony against Jesus (14:55-56). Various
accusations are made, including Jesus' threat against the
temple (14:57-58; cf. 13:1-2). When Jesus confesses that
he is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God, who will be seated
at the right hand, he is accused of blasphemy and condemned as deserving death (14:61-64). The following
morning the Jewish authorities deliver Jesus to Pilate, the
Roman prefect of Judea and Samaria (15:1). Pilate questions Jesus ("Are you the King of the Jews?") and offers to
release him, as part of the governor's traditional "Passover
pardon" (15:2-14). The crowd requests the release of
Barabbas and calls for Jesus' death, whereupon Pilate gives
Jesus up to be crucified (15:15).
There are distinctive elements in the other Gospels
that further flesh out these events. The noticeable addition
in Matthew is seen in the reference to the disturbing dream



Pilate's wife had, warning the governor to "have nothing to
do with that innocent man" (27:19). The Matthean version
of the trial before Pilate ends with the governor washing his
hands and declaring that he is "innocent of this man's
blood" (27:24), to which the crowd responds with the fateful words, "His blood he on us and on our children!"
(27:25). Luke's version of the trial before Pilate exhibits a
few more distinctive features. Jesus is accused offorhidding
the payment of tribute or taxes to Caesar (23:2) and of stirring up the people ·(23:5). The evangelist also adds the
interesting account of Herod Antipas meeting Jesus and of
Pilate and Herod's newfound friendship (23:6-12). Luke
also strongly emphasizes the innocence ofJesus (23:20-25).
The innocent Jesus stands in stark contrast to the murderer
Barahhas, whose release the crowd demands.
The trial of Jesus, especially before Pilate, is quite
distinctive in the fourth Gospel. When arrested, ] esus is
taken to Annas, a former high priest and father-in-law of
Caiaphas, the current high priest (18:12-13). While being
questioned, Jesus is struck (18:22-23). Thereafter Jesus is
sent to Caiaphas (18:24) and from there to the Roman
Praetorium (18:28). Here the fourth Gospel differs noticeably from the Synoptic Gospels, in that nothing is said of
any interrogation or exchange between Caiaphas and Jesus.
But the most distinctive feature of the trial of Jesus in the
Gospel of John is the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus
(18:29-38), in which Jesus declares that his kingdom "is
not from this world" (18:36) and Pilate asks, "What is
truth?" (18:38). From a theological point of view, perhaps
the most important feature is the emphasis on the legal
point that the Jewish authorities were not allowed to execute anyone (18:31-32). Not only would this guarantee
crucifixion (and, therefore, jesus would he "lifted up"; cf.



12:32), but it may have served an apologetic purpose, mitigating the embarrassment of execution at the hands of the
Roman authorities.
The trial ofJesus is mentioned in passing elsewhere
in the New Testament writings. In the Pentecost sermon,
Peter refers to Jesus as "a man attested to you by God with
deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through
him among you ... handed over to you according to the
definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and
killed by the hands of those outside the law" (Acts
2:22-23). Peter's "you" refers to the Jewish people (cf. Acts
2:14), while the "lawless men" doubtlessly refers to the
Roman authorities. The point is made again in the temple
sermon, where Peter this time accuses fellow Jews: "God
... has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over
and rejected in the presence of Pilate ... and you killed the
Author oflife" (Acts 3:13-15). Peter's accusations presuppose (rightly) the collaboration between Jewish and Roman
authorities in examining and condemning Jesus. We hear
this again in Acts as part of an interpretation of Psalm 2,
which asks why the nations plot against the Lord and his
Anointed. The apostles in prayer declare that "For in this
Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together
against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed" (Acts
4:27). This theme is echoed in a sermon attributed to Paul:
"Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death,
they asked Pilate to have him killed" (Acts 13:27). Also, in
one of the Pastoral Letters the author charges his readers,
"in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of
Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate
made the good confession" (1 Tim. 6:13).



According to the Gospels Jesus was arrested at night,
more or less in private, while in prayer at a place called
Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives. Mark describes the
arresting group as "a crowd with swords and clubs, from the
chief priests, the scribes, and the elders" (14:43; cf. John
18:3: "a detachment of soldiers together with police from
the chief priests and the Pharisees"). This group knew
where to find Jesus because of information received from
Judas Iscariot and because he himself led them to Jesus
(Mark 14:10-11, 43-45). Both of these details-men sent
by the ruling priests armed with weapons and priests offering bribes-are in a general sense corroborated by Josephus,
who tells of similar actions taken by the most powerful of the
ruling priests in the first century (cf. Josephus, Ant.
20.205-7 ["servants who were utter rascals"], 213 ["using
his wealth ... bribes"]; t. Menah. 13.18-19,21 ["their servants come and beatus with clubs"]).
Exactly where Jesus was taken the evening of his
arrest is not clear. Mark says he was taken to the high priest
(14:53; followed by Luke 22:54), but this priest is not
named. Matthew identifies him as Caiaphas (26:5 7).
The fourth evangelist complicates things by saying that
"first they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of
Caiaphas" (John 18:13a). Annas is called "high priest"
(18:19), even though it was his son-in-law who was actually
in office "that year," that is, the year of Jesus' execution
(18:13b). According to the fourth Gospel, Annas interrogates Jesus and then sends him to Caiaphas (18:24). Either
the Synoptics did not know of this visit to Annas, or they
chose to omit it.
The ensuing examination of Jesus before the
Jewish authorities focused on two points: the allegation



of a threat against the temple and the identity of Jesus.
First, the testimony of the witnesses who said, "We heard
and in three days I will build another, not made with
hands'" (Mark 14:58), alludes to Jesus' prophecy of coming judgment on Jerusalem and her temple. He implies
as much in his temple action (Mark 11: 17) and in his
vineyard parable (12:1-12), and he asserts it in his
prophecy (13:1-2). Accordingly, the testimony of these
witnesses was not entirely false; Jesus said something to
this effect (see also John 2:19). What makes it false,
though, is that Jesus warned of judgment at God's hands,
not at his. Jesus had no plans to destroy and rebuild
Jerusalem's temple. But he warned that God would
destroy it if his people, especially the ruling priesthood,
did not repent.
What brings the hearing before the Jewish council to
a dramatic conclusion is Jesus' confession. The high priest
asked him: "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed
One?" (Mark 14:61 ). As we have seen, he has every reason
to ask this question. Jesus' entry into the city, the shouts of
the crowd, his audacious behavior in the temple precincts,
and the report of his anointing all point to a messianic selfunderstanding. Even his ministry of healing and exorcism
could be understood as paralleling the remarkable stories
about the famous King Solomon. To the high priest's question Jesus replies boldly:
"I am; and
'you will see the Son of man
seated at the right hand of the Power,'
and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'" (14:62)



Jesus' reply combines two Old Testament passages, both
concerned with judgment. The words "Son of man" and
"coming with the clouds of heaven" are taken from Daniel
7:13, while the words "seated at the right hand" are drawn
from Psalm llO:l. Both Daniel 7 and Psalm llO envision
scenes in which God's enemies will be judged. Though our
contemporary ears may not rightly hear the audacity of
Jesus' claim, the high priest clearly does, and he condemns
Jesus for it, not only for his daring claim to be God's
anointed Son, but for implying that he will sit injudgment
on the high priest, as though he were an enemy of God. It
is hardly surprising that jesus' bold reply is met with shouts
of blasphemy and calls for death (14:63-65).
That morning the Jewish authorities confer and
decide to send Jesus to Pilate, the Roman governor. The
ball is now in Pilate's court. The Jewish rulers have
decided. From this point on all they can do is cheer or jeer
from the sidelines. But before we turn to jesus' trial before
Pilate, one thing needs to be made crystal clear: the Jewish
people should never be blamed for the condemnation and
death ofjesus. Not only is such an accusation bad theology,
it is bad history. Historically speaking, Jesus was condemned by a very small number ofinflueniialjewish men.
He was not condemned by the people as a whole. Even
those who cried out for his crucifixion later in the day were
but a relatively small number. Theologically speaking,] esus
died for the sins of the whole human race. In that sense we
all sent him to the cross. No one particular people should
be blamed. Now on to Pilate.
According to all four Gospels the focus of Pilate's
examination of jesus was on the allegation thatjesus had
presented himself as the king of the jews (Mark 15:2; Matt.


27:11; Luke 23:3; John 18:33). This appears to be confirmed by Jesus' crucifixion as "King of the Jews" (Mark
15:18,26, with parallels in the other Gospels). It has been
persuasively argued that such an epithet was no Christian
creation, confessional or otherwise. Christians regarded
Jesus as the Messiah (or Christ), Son of God, Lord, and
Savior, not "King of the Jews," a title the Roman Senate
granted to Herod the Great (cf.Josephus,J. W. 1.282; Ant.
14.36; 15.373, 409; 16.291).
Under normal circumstances, I doubt that Pilate
would have much hesitation in executing a troublemaker.
But the occasion is the eve of Passover, the holiest of the
Jewish holidays. Worse yet, Passover celebrated God's
deliverance of his people from foreign bondage. Pilate
would certainly have made this connection in knowing the
workings of the people over whom he ruled. Though he did
not lack in desire to demonstrate his and Rome's power, sustaining his position as governor of this region and keeping
the pax romana (Roman peace) at times required greater
precision and acumen. Did he really want to put to death a
popular prophet and healer on the eve of the Passover, just
outside the walls ofJerusalem? Perhaps a beating or imprisonment would suffice. Let the people decide.


All four New Testament Gospels know of Pilate's so-called
Passover pardon (Mark 15:6-15; Matt. 27:15-23; Luke
23:18-25;John 19:10-12). Although some critical scholars
have cast doubts on the historicity of this tradition, it is
improbable that inauthentic tradition, whose falsity could so
readily be exposed, would be utilized by all four evangelists.



Besides, there are other accounts of Roman and other officials releasing prisoners on occasion of special days that are
not questioned. For example, the Roman historian Livy (c.
25 BC) speaks of special cases where prisoners were
released ("Books from the Foundation of the City," 5.13.8).
Herod's son Archelaus, as the newly appointed ethnarch of
Judea and Samaria (4 BC), acquiesced to popular demands
to release many prisoners (Josephus, Ant. 17.204).
Josephus also says that Albinus; procurator of the whole of
Herod's former kingdom (AD 62-64), released many prisoners as he prepared to leave office, something akin to a lastminute presidential pardon. One official document, dating
from the year AD 85, reads, "You were worthy of scourging
... but I give you to the crowds" (P.Florence 61). Here a
Roman official forgoes scourging, which was often a prelude
to crucifixion, and releases the criminal. In a slightly different scenario, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (in
Asia Minor) in the days of Emperor Trajan (c. AD 110),
refers to pardons for criminals, whereby "these people were
released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants" (Epistles 10.31). Finally, according to the Mishna
(c. AD 200), the edited and published collection of Jewish
oral law, it is said that "they may slaughter (the Passover
lamb) for one ... whom they have promised to bring out of
prison" on the Passover (m. Pesahim 8:6).
The evidence as a whole suggest~ that Roman rulers,
as well as at leas( one Herodian prince, on occasion
released prisoners (so apparently did other rulers in the
eastern Mediterranean). This was done for purely political
reasons, to satisfY the demands of the crowds and to curry
their favor. The Passover pardon, therefore, reflected
Pilate's shrewd political instincts, not political weakness or
human kindness. The Passover pardon was intended to



show Roman respect for the great Jewish holiday, in effect
to say, "In keeping with your celebration of freedom from
bondage we shall set free anyone of your choosing." The
tradition of the Passover pardon gave Pilate the opportunity to pass responsibility for the fate of Jesus onto the
shoulders of his accusers. If they so badly want him dead,
then let them take responsibility for passing judgment.
Pilate is neither cowardly nor principled. He is clever.
Another factor that supports the historicity of the
Passover pardon is the improbability of asserting such a
custom, if there had been none. If Pilate had not released
prisoners on the Passover or on other holidays, or at least
on one occasion, the evangelists' claim that he did so could
have quickly and easily been shown to be false and would
therefore have occasioned embarrassment for or even discredited altogether the early church. That all three of the .
later evangelists take over the story (and the fourth evangelist probably did so independently of the Synoptic Gospels)
argues that no such embarrassment clung to the story.
Knowing, then, that Jesus had been handed over to
him. on account of envy, Pilate treads carefully. Before condemning Jesus to death, he seeks in essence a plebiscite, a
decree from the people. Did the people really want Jesus
executed, or was it only .the few ruling priests who brought
the charges and demanded his death? There is no interest
in justice here; only politics are at work. Pilate probably
knew that Jesus was popular. He was not about to risk
offending the populace, especially at Passover season, and
so instigate a riot. This was· the very thing he wished to
avoid. Some might challenge this interpretation by pointing
to incidents in which Pilate seemed more than willing to
use violence against his subjects. But in these cases, Pilate



was defending his own actions. In the case of Jesus, Pilate
has nothing at stake other than maintaining the peace.
As the scene unfolds, the ruling priests urge the
crowd to call for the release ofJesus bar Abba-not Jesus of
Nazareth (Mark I5:ll-I5). They have vigorously lobbied
the governor. Now they vigorously lobby the crowd. From
their point of view, the danger that Jesus of Nazareth would
be released was a very real one. After all,J esus was known as
a popular teacher and healer, and led no army. He was therefore not an obvious threat to Rome. At most, he was guilty
of speaking of a coming kingdom of God and of having a key
role in it-things not too different from visions and dreams
of others. Perhaps it was politically more expedient to
release him than make a martyr of him. Hence, the ruling
priests encouraged the crowd to call for the release of bar
Abba, or Barabbas (on noisy crowds clamoring before a
Roman authority, see Acts 24:I ;Josephus,Ant. I8.264-73).
IfJesus of Nazareth is not to be released, then what
shall the governor do with him? The alternatives are fairly
obvious: either execution or imprisonment. But Pilate
forces the crowd to make the decision. This way, he can
"wash his hands" (literally in Matt. 27:24) of the matter.
Politically, Pilate has acted shrewdly and entirely in keeping
with his character as we know it from unsympathetic
sources (e.g., Philo and Josephus).
Once again "they"-that is, the crowd (cf. Mark
I5: II )-as well as the ruling priests themselves, shout their
demands to Pilate. They shout for the release ofBarabbas,
but in reference to Jesus, they shout "CrucifY him!" They
do not want prison for Jesus; they want the ultimate penalty
for him: crucifixion. The death ofJesus will hopefully end
his movement and fatally discourage his closest followers.



In asking, "Why, what evil has he done?" (Mark
15:14), Pilate has committed no "tactical blunder," as one
commentator suggests, nor is his answer "feeble," as another
has supposed. The governor is happy to accommodate the
ruling priests' recommendation that Jesus be put to deathas long as in doing so he incurs no political risks. His only
concern is that his condemnation of Jesus not provoke the
Jewish people or be seen as yet another example of Roman
brutality. Pilate is not about to create a problem for himself.
He wishes only to extricate himself from responsibility (as
also does the Roman proconsul Gallio in Corinth, who
judges the controversy set before him as a Jewish dispute and
. not one that falls under his jurisdiction; cf. Acts 18: 12-17). If
the crowd insists that Jesus be crucified, he would like to
know why and he would like for them to announce it publicly.
Not wishing to provoke the crowd, Pilate ultimately
releases Barabbas (Mark 15:15). Again, this maneuver is not
one that shows weakness. Indeed, in this case, Pilate wishes
not to offend his allies, the ruling priests. In his other controversies, the Roman governor came into conflict with the
"rabble" or commoners, not the ruling priests. What he has
done here is to accede to the wishes of the ruling priests, but
not until he is satisfied that to do so was not a mistake.
Having released Barabbas to the people, Pilate hands Jesus
over to the Roman troops, who will carry out the crucifixion.
The Gospels' portrait of Pilate as wavering, wishing
to release Jesus, but finally acquiescing to the demands
of Jerusalem's influential elite has often been questioned.
Many assume that this portrait grew out of apologetic interests, in a desire to present Jesus and early Christianity on
the side of Rome. It was the Jewish leaders, after all, not the
Roman governor, who desired Jesus' death; so goes the
argument. That the evangelists literarily exploited the story



of the wavering, uncertain Pilate is quite probable, but its
wholesale invention is quite doubtful. When we remember
the political and social setting of Jewish Palestine in the
time of Pilate, we should not be surprised that Pilate was
reluctant to execute in such a public and provocative manner a popular prophet from Galilee, whose many followers
were present in Jerusalem. Nailing Jesus to a cross could
very well instigate a riot, the very thing Pilate hoped to
avoid. IfJesus had no military intentions, then he was little
more than a pest. A beating and some jail time would suffice. But no, the ruling priests wanted him dead. Pilate
obliged, but only when it had been made clear that the decision to have Jesus executed was not really his.


Crucifixion victims were often mocked before and during
execution. In the case ofJesus, his mockery began with the
Jewish council. His face is covered and he is ordered to
"prophesy" (Mark 14:65). After all, if he were truly a
prophet, he would possess clairvoyance and, without benefit of sight, could identify those who struck him. I am sure
the officers and thugs employed by the ruling priests found
it all quite amusing.
The soldiers under the command of Governor Pilate
also mocked Jesus, this time reflecting the Roman fashion:
"And they clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting
began saluting him,' Hail, King of the Jews!' They struck his
head with a reed, spat upon him, and knelt down iri homage
to him" (Mark 15:17-19). The mockery of the soldiers is
modeled after the homage paid to Caesar. The crown of



thorns, meant to resemble a wreath oflaurel worn by Caesar,
is part of the mockery of Jesus. This mockery includes a
purple cloak, a reed (symbolizing the scepter), and being
addressed as a king (Mark 15:18-19). The offer of spiced
vinegar to the dying Jesus is also probably part of the ongoing mockery (Mark 15:23; Luke 23:36), in that this drink
mimics spiced wine, often served to kings. Sources from late
antiquity describe others mocked in a similar fashion.
The mockery of Jesus as a Jewish king finds an
approximate parallel in Philo, an older contemporary. It was
on the occasion of King Agrippa's visit to Alexandria, where
the people seized a lunatic named Carabas, a street person
who was often made sport of(In Flaccum 36-39). They
drove the poor fellow into the gymnasium and set him
up high to be seen by all and put on his head a sheet
of byblus spread out wide for a diadem, clothed the
rest of his body with a rug for a royal robe, while
someone who had noticed a piece of the native
papyrus thrown away in the road gave it to him for his
scepter. And when as in some theatrical farce he had
received the insignia of kingship and had been tricked
out as a king, young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard. Then others approached him,
some pretending to salute him, others to sue for justice, others to consult him on state affairs. Then from
the multitudes there rang out a tremendous shout
hailing him as Mari [Aramaic: "My lord"], which is
said to be the name for "lord" with the Syrians.
The mockery of Agrippa I is quite significant, well illustrating the mockery to which Jesus was subjected. It does not,



however, require us to conclude that Mark and the other
evangelists are dependent in some way on this incident or
on Philo's work itself. Other incidents approximate the
mockery ofjesus. One thinks of the harsh and humiliating
treatment of deposed Emperor Vitellius (AD 69) at the
hands of Roman soldiers, who mockingly made the former
emperor revisit various stations where at one time he was
held in honor (cf. Dio Cassius 64.20-21). Now the honor
has turned to shame and mockery.
The mockery of Jesus also mimics aspects of the
Roman triumph, whereby Caesar is hailed as emperor and
receives homage. The purple cloak, the ctown of thorns
(resembling the crown of ivy), the reed with which jesus is
struck on the head, and the bowing in mock homage are all
components of the apparel worn and homage received by
the Roman emperor, who at the triumph wore a purple
robe and laurel wreath and held a scepter (e.g., Dio Cassius
6.23; 44.11 [Julius Caesar]; Appian, Civil Wars 5:130
[Augustus]; Dio Cassius 59.25.3 [Gaius Caligula]). Being
dressed in purple would also recall the attire of Hellenistic
kings of an earlier period (cf. 1 Mace 10:20 ["purple robe
and golden crown"], 62 ["clothe him in purple"]; 11:58
["to dress in purple"]; 14:43-44 ["clothed in purple"];
Luke 16:19 ["dressed in purple"]).
We think too of the savage and humiliating treatment
ofMaccabean martyr Eleazar, who was stripped, scourged,
tortured, and then in his dying breath prayed for the salvation oflsrael (4 Mace 6:1-30). One is also reminded of the
deposition recording the words of the new emperor
Hadrian and a jewish embassy, with reference to the jewish
revolt that occurred toward the end of Tr'\ian's reign (AD
115-17). In this fragmentary document mention is made
of the mockery of a would-be monarch: "Paulus (spoke)



about the Icing, how they brought him forth and (mocked
him); and Theon read the edict of Lupus ordering them to
lead him forth for Lupus to make fun of the Icing . . ."
(P.Louvre 68 1.1-7). Writing in the early second century
AD, Plutarch (Pompey 24. 7-8) relates a story in which
pirates mocked a prisoner who had claimed the rights of
Roman citizenship. They dressed him up ("threw a toga on
him"), extended to him various honors (including falling to
their knees), then finally made him walk the plank.
Everything we are told about jesus' arrest, trial(s), and
mockery is consistent with what we know of Roman practice
in the first century anp consistent with the political and
social establishment ofjudea in the time ofJesus. Although
hyper-critics have called into question this and that detail,
there is every reason to regard the Gospel accounts of the
juridical process that overtook Jesus of Nazareth as essentially reliable. Most of the noted objections, then, amount to
something other than valid historical reasoning.


Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, a form of execution practiced in late antiquity, whereby a person was tied
or nailed to a pole or cross. To be crucified is, literally, to
be "staked." Crucifixion was practiced in the eastern
Mediterranean long before the Romans adopted the practice.
It was practiced by Persians (c£ Herodotus 1.128.2; 3.125.3)
and other peoples, such as Assyrians, Scythians, and
Thracians. Alexander the Great is said to have crucified thousands (cf. Curtius Rufus, Hist. Alex. 4.4.17), and his successors continued the practice. It is not surprising, then, that in
time the Romans adopted this form of execution. It was pri-



marily reserved for murderous or rebellious slaves (and for
this reason was known as "slaves' punishment"; Latin: servile
supplicium). Its primary purpose was to deter rebellion.
Some readers may not be aware that Jewish authorities before the Roman period also practiced crucifixion.
Most notorious was Alexander Jannaeus (ruled 102-76
BC), who, Josephus tells us, on one occasion crucified a
large number of Pharisees who had opposed him and had
allied themselves to a foreign enemy (]. W 1.97-98; cf.
Ant. 13.380). Josephus's testimony helps explain a reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where in one of the pesharim
(a type of scriptural interpretation common in these scrolls
from Qumran) there is reference to the "Lion of Wrath"
(understood to be Alexander Jannaeus) who "used to hang
men alive" (4QI69 frags. 3-4, col. I, line 7). This may well
be in reference to the incident ·mentioned by Josephus.
Indeed, the practice of crucifixion in Israel in late antiquity,
whether by Jewish authorities or Roman authorities, influenced the understanding of Deuteronomy 21:22-23:
"When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by
corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall
God's curse. You must not defile the land that the LoRD
your God is giving you for possession." Originally, the passage meant that the body of the executed man was to be
hung on the tree, then taken down and buried before nightfall. But by the time ofJesus, the passage was understood to
apply also to those hung while still alive, a practical alteration that reflects the common practice of crucifixion.
As a prelude to his crucifixion, Jesus is scourged
(Mark 15:15). Scourging was apparently standard precrucifixion procedure in Roman times (cf. Digesta;



Josephus, J. W 2.306). It was done with a whip made of
several leather straps, to which were attached sharp, abrasive items, such as nails, glass, or rocks. Scourging resulted
in severe laceration of the skin and damage to the flesh
beneath. Jesus son of Ananias should be mentioned again.
His prophecies of Jerusalem's doom resulted in his being
brought before the Roman governor. Although in the end
the man was not executed (as the ruling priests wished), he
was "flayed to the bone with scourges" (J. W 6.304), the
same word used in reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed,
Jesus himself warned his followers that they too face the
danger of scourging (cf. Matt. 10:17; 23:34).
Supporting the weakened state that Jesus would have
been in (most immediately from the scourging), Mark 15:21
relates that the Romans "compelled a passer-by, who was
of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus." The authenticity of this scene is supported by the observation that Jesus
had earlier instructed his disciples to be ready and willing to
take up the cross and come after him (Mark 8:34). It is not
likely that early Christians would invent a story about Jesus
being unable to follow his own instruction .to the letter.
Mark's reference to the names of Simon's sons,
Alexander and Rufus, may suggest that these men were
known to Mark's church. What we have here in Mark's narrative may well be eyewitness testimony, in which it was
remembered that Jesus was beaten so severely he could not
carry his cross, even though in earlier and happier times he
had exhorted his own followers to be prepared to do so.
Perhaps Simon and eventually his sons also became followers of the man whose cross Simon carried.
Jesus eventually arrives at the place of execution and
he is crucified. The Gospels say that a titulus, or placard,



was placed on the cross of Jesus (cf. John 19:19; Matt.
27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38) and that it was written in
more than one language, describing Jesus as "King of the
Jews." The epithet "King of the Jews" is Roman and was
originally applied to Herod the Great (cf. Josephus, Ant.
15.409: "the king of the Jews, Herod"). As mentioned
already, this epithet did not originate in Christian circles,
for Christians referred to Jesus with different titles. The significance of the titulus is that it confirms the messianic selfunderstanding ofJesus. Jesus had encouraged his disciples
to regard him as Israel's _anointed king, or, in the language
of Rome, the "King of the Jews."
As a matter of custom, Roman authorities placed
crosses along well-traveled highways, on tops of hills, and at
city gates. The condemned man usually carried the crossbeam, or patibulum (cf. Plautus, Carbonaria 2; Miles gloriasus 2.4.6-7 §359-360; Plutarch,Mor. 554A-B), sometimes
with a titulus around his neck, declaring his name and punishment, later to be affixed to the upright cross (cf.
Suetonius, Caligula 32.2; Dio Cassius 54.3.6-7). This cruel
punishment later also befell Christians. Fourth-century
church historian and apologist Eusebius tells of one Attalus
the Christian, who "was led around the amphitheatre and a
placard was carried before him on which was written in
Latin, 'This is Attalus, the Christian"' (Hist. Eccl. 5.1.44).
Normally crucifixion victims were left to die, however long that took (sometimes several days). The longer
delay of death for victims of crucifixion is evident in that on
occasion friends and relatives were allowed to feed their
loved one (cf. Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23;John 19:28-29). It
was typical protocol for guards to be stationed by the cross
until the victim expired, in part due to possible attempts by
friends o.r relatives to rescue the victim. The bodies of the



crucified were usually left unburied, to rot and to be picked
apart by birds and animals (though Roman law did permit
bodies to be taken down and buried; cf. Digesta 48.24.1, 3;
Josephus, Life 420-21). I will leave the questions and
issues surrounding the burial of Jesus until chapter 2,
which is devoted solely to that subject.
According to Cicero (Verr. 2.5.168) and Josephus
(]. W. 7.203), crucifixion was the worst form of death (see
also the disturbing comments inJuvenal, Satires 14.77-78;
Suetonius, Augustus 13.1-2; Horace, Epistles 1.16.48;
Seneca, Dialogue 3.2.2; 6.20.3; Isidore of Seville,
Etymologia 5.27.34; Mek. on Exod. 15:18 [Shirata §10]).
Indeed, the words "cross" and "crucify" actually derive from
the word for torture (Latin:· cruciare). The primary political
and social purpose of crucifixion was deterrence: "Whenever
exemplary effect" (Ps.-Quintilian,Declamatious 274; Aristophanes, Thesmophoriamsae 1029; Ps.-Manetho, Apotelesmatica 4.198-200; cf.Josephus,J. W. 5.450-51).
In the Gospels the soldiers who crucify Jesus divide
his garments among themselves (Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24;
Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24). This is consistent with
Roman practice (cf. Digesta 48.20.1 ). Tacitus, for example,
tells us that "people sentenced to death forfeited their
property" (Annals 6.29).


The death of Jesus comes suddenly and dramatically.
According to the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 27:45; Mark



15:33; Luke 23:44), at about three in the afternoon Jesus
suddenly cries out: "Elo-i, Elo-i, lama sabach-thani?"
These Aramaic words, taken from Psalm 22:1, mean "My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Interpreters are
perplexed. How are these words to be understood?
The details of Psalm 22 are echoed in various places
in the passion narrative. Here, though, we have an explicit
quotation, and one that is on the lips ofJesus. Some wonder ifJesus has the whole psalm in mind, especially the concluding part that relates vindication and restoration:
I will tell of your name to my brothers and sisters;
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you ...
For he did not despise or abhor
the affliction of the afflicted;
he did not hide his face from him,
but heard when he cried to him ....
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord,
and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
saying that he has done it. (vv. 22, 24,30-31, NRSV,
modified according to the Hebrew)
Perhaps Jesus did have the whole of the psalm in mind,
including the optimistic conclusion, but the reality of his
sense of abandonment must not be minimized. Jesus has not
lost his faith in God, as the twofold address, "My God, my
God," might imply on its own. However, he clearly feels
utterly abandoned. It is not surprising that the later evangelists choose different concluding utterances: "Father, into
your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46); "It is finished" (John 19:30). The seemingly faith- and identitydenying words Jesus utters may well have been capitalized



on by some seeking to discredit him and even avoided by
those who followed after him. Again, except that they be historically true, these words are much too scandalous to report.
As he is staked to the cross, bystanders think Jesus
has called for Elijah (eloi ["my God"] approximating the
sound of elia ["Elijah"]). We are told that "someone ran,
to him to drink" (Mark 15:36). If this act was one of mockery, and not of sympathy, the soldiers probably would not
have hindered him. "Let us see whether Elijah will come to
take him down" may be part of the mockery and, if so, it
parallels what the ruling priests said earlier: "Let the
Messiah, the King oflsrael, come down from the cross now,
so that we may see and believe" (Mark 15:32).
It is possible that a sympathetic bystander races up to
Jesus, to give him a stimulant to help keepJesus conscious
long enough to see if Elijah would indeed appear, either in
his eschatological role (as Jesus, it would have been assumed,
hoped), or in his occasional role as assistant of the troubled
and stricken. It is more probable, however, that the gesture is
part of the mockery that has been going on since the conclusion of the hearing before the ruling priests (Mark 14:65).
While on the cross, Jesus has been mocked as the one who
threatened to destroy and rebuild the temple in three days
(15:29), he has been invited to come down from the cross
and so convince skeptics that he really is Israel's King
Messiah (15:32), and now the mockers wish to see "whether
Elijah will come" in answer to Jesus' anguished cry.
The bystanders do not have long to wait. "Then
Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last" (Mark 15:37).
The act ·of shouting is itself the death. That is, Jesus does
not shout out and then a moment later dies. His death man-



ifests itself as a shout. By telling it this way, the evangelist
Mark, if not the tradition before him, shows that] esus' very
death displays his power; the release of his spirit (as
implied in the verb exepneusen) is awesome.
Stunned by what he has witnessed, the centurion
declares, "Truly this man was God's Son!" (Mark 15:39).
Impressed by the manner ofjesus' death and the signs that
attend it, the Roman centurion confesses of Jesus what he
should only confess of the Roman emperor: Caesar is not
the "son of God"; Jesus the crucified Messiah is. The
mockery is now over. In calling Jesus the Son of God, the
centurion has switched his allegiance from Caesar, the offi,
cial "son of God," to jesus, the real Son of God. The centurion now ascribes to Jesus what he had earlier ascribed to
Caesar: Caesar is not divi filius ("son of God," alluding to
the Latin title of the great emperor Augustus).Jesus is.


The theological implications of the death ofJesus are several and varied. From the Jewish perspective that embraced
aspects of the popular messianism in late antiquity, jesus is
a failed Messiah. The Messiah is supposed to prevail over
Israel's enemies, as seen in several writings from this
period. According to the men of Qumran, at least as we find
in the War Scroll and related scrolls, the Messiah will lead
his priestly warriors to victory over the hated Romans.
Indeed, according to one scroll (4Q285, called the Rule of
War), the Messiah, the Branch ofDavid, will personally slay
the Roman emperor. We find similar sentiments expressed
in the Psalms of Solomon 17:



Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel,
and swore to him about his descendants forever,
that his kingdom should not fail before you.
Undergird him with the strength to destroy
the unrighteous rulers,
to purge Jerusalem from gentiles ...
to destroy the unlawful nations
with the word of his mouth ....
He will gather a holy people whom he will lead
in righteousness;
and he will judge the tribes of the people ....
He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even)
to pause among them,
and any person who knows wickedness
shall not live with them ....
And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy
as it was even from the beginning.
(vv. 4, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30)
But Jesus gained no victory over the Romans. The
Gentiles have not been driven out. His rule ended before it
began. Instead of enthronement, his end was crucifixion;
and as already has been mentioned, crucifixion was a
degrading form of execution, reserved for slaves and the
worst of the criminals.
A m~or reason for doubting the messianic identity of
Jesus, on the part of the Jewish people, was the fact that
Jesus died by crucifixion. This is the objection raised
against Jesus in the Gospel of John: "We have heard from
the law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say
that the Son of Man must be lifted up?" (John 12:34). This
objection continued to be raised by Jewish writers. It is the
very point raised by Trypho in Justin Martyr's second-



century Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Jesus may well
have fulfilled prophecy; he may well have performed many
impressive miracles; he may even have been raised from
the dead; but where in Scripture does it say he was to
be crucified and to die so shameful a death? In the end
Trypho cannot bring himself to believe that Jesus of
Nazareth, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, is Israel's
Messiah and God's S<m.
Of course, from the Roman perspective Jesus is little
more than an executed criminal. There is no honor in such
a death. Indeed, it is the death of slaves and the worst malefactors. Little wonder an ancient Christian song in honor of
Christ has words that link Jesus with slaves:
taking the form of a slave ...
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of deatheven death on a cross.
(Phil. 2:7-8)
But from Jesus' perspective, a perspective his disciples will embrace after the resurrection, his death has
opened up a new understanding of sacrifice and atonement. The death of the one has atoned for the sin of the
many. The promised new covenant has been established.
The awaited redemption of Israel can now happen, but
without a violent overthrow of Gentile powers. The Gentile
nations will be conquered by the good news of the rule of
God and of the atoning death of his Son, not by the sword.
But on the Friday afternoon in which Jesus died,
none of this occurred to the disciples. Their master was
dead. Their movement had been stopped in its tracks.
They themselves had fled. Only Peter, a few women, and a
few others lingered behind to see what would happen. Of



these only the women had courage enough to observe the
place where Jesus was buried.


Bammel, E., and C. F. D. Moule, eds.Jesus and the Politics
of His Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1984.
to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. Anchor Bible
Reference Library 7. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Carrol, J. T., and J. B. Green, with R. E. Van Voorst,
J. Marcus, and D. Senior, The Death ofJesus in Early
Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
Chilton, B. "The Trial of Jesus Reconsidered." In Jesus in
Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration. Edited by
B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, 481-500. Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums 39. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Green, J. B. The Death ofJesus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.33. Tiibingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1988.
Hengel, M. Crucifixion. London: SCM; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977.
McGing, B. C. "Pontius Pilate and the Sources." Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991): 416-38.
Sherwin-White, A. N. The Trial of Christ: Historicity and
Chronolog;y in the Gospels. London: SPCK, 1965.

Chapter Two

Craig A. Evans

In recent years the reading public has been surprised and
befuddled with some outlandish theories about jesus' burial, and in some cases, nonburial. In a book published in
the rnid-l990s, a well-known New Testament scholar and
frequent guest on news programs and documentaries made
the startling claim that in all probability the body of Jesus
was not buried at all, at least not in a tomb, as Christians for
two thousand years have thought. This scholar suggested
that jesus' body was either left hanging on the cross, or at
most was cast into a shallow ditch where it was eaten by
dogs. This remarkable theory made headlines around the
world. Why this idea has not the slightest chance of being
correct is discussed below.
More recently, another writer, who pretends to do
serious research but whose work utterly lacks respectability, has suggested that jesus was indeed buried, but that he
was comatose and later with the aid of friends and collaborators (among whom was Roman governor Pilate!) was rescued from the tomb. The "evidence" put forward for this
hypothesis is quite bizarre and unconvincing. Fortunately,
this piece of pseudo-scholarship received in the popular
media the debunking it richly deserved.
More credible writers and commentators have from
time to time raised doubts about theN ewTestament Gospels'



accounts of the burial ofjesus, yet I find much of their skepticism a bit strange and running straight against the evidence of the New Testament. After all, we are told that three
women observed where Jesus was buried and then
returned to the tomb early Sunday morning (Mark 15:4 7;
16:1-4). They knew where Jesus had been buried and
knew where to return for graveside mourning. One would
think that fictional accounts of Jesus' burial would feature
men as principal witnesses, not women, who in late antiquity were not always respected as credible. Additionally, the
story of the tomb ofjesus receives important corroboration
in Paul, who speaks of the burial ofJesus (I Cor. 15:3-4).
When Paul says Jesus "was buried," a tomb of one kind or
another is clearly in mind. So why do some scholars
express doubts about the burial ofJesus? Should we wonder if he actually was buried? Or, if we oelieve he was
buried, should we wonder if his followers knew where?
In my view, much of the skepticism, not to mention
the more speculative and improbable theorizing, is due to
lack of familiarity with Jewish burial practices. It may also
be due to condescending attitudes on the part of modern
scholars and writers of pseudo-history when assessing the
narratives of ancient sources. These moderns make unwarranted assumptions about Palestinian Jews oflate antiquity,
supposing that ascertaining burial locations and maintaining accurate records were either outside the interest of
Jesus' contemporaries or beyond their capabilities.
What we shall find is that a review of Jewish burial
practices, historical documents from late antiquity, and
archaeological data will provide more than sufficient reason
to regard the narratives of the New Testament Gospels as
informed, credible historical witnesses. The burial ofJesus,



as the Gospels describe it, is a datum of history, not a legend or a hoax.


The Jewish people buried their dead, then later gathered
the bones and placed them in containers called ossuaries or
a vault set aside for this purpose. The practice of gathering
the bones of the deceased is called ossilegium, or secondary burial (cf.y. Moe'ed Qatan 1.5, 80c: "At first they would
bury them in ditches, and when the flesh had decayed, they
would gather the bones and bury them in ossuaries"). How
far back this practice may be traced and where the practice
originated are major questions that lie at the heart of the
debate surrounding the significance of the numerous
ossuaries found in and around Jerusalem, dating to the
Hero dian period (c. 35 BC-AD 70).
In my view, the most plausible explanation for the
dramatic increase in the number of ossuaries put into use in
the time of Herod the Great and his successors is Herod's
extensive building projects in and around Jerusalem, especially those concerned with the Temple Mount and the new
sanctuary. According to Josephus, Herod "prepared a
thousand wagons to carry the stones" for the temple and
employed "ten thousand of the most skilled workmen,"
training "some as masons, others as carpenters" (Ant.
15.390). The Temple Mount was enormous (and still is)
and included a series of buildings and colonnades, with the
sanctuary itself the most impressive of all of the structures.
Josephus emphasizes the size and beauty of the stones
(e.g., Ant. 15.399; cf. Mark 13:1: "Look, Teacher, what



large stones and what large buildings!"). Although the
sanctuary itself and other key structures were completed in
Herod's lifetime, work on the Temple Mount continued
until AD 64, throughout the respective administrations of
his surviving sons, his grandson, and his great-grandson.
Accordingly, the meaning of the remark in John 2:20
implies ongoing construction and not completion. It
should read: "This temple has been under construction for
forty-six years." When work on the Temple Mount was
finally completed, josephus tells us that eighteen thousand
workers were laid off (c£ Ant. 20.219). This massive layoff
contributed to the growing social and political instability
that just two years later exploded into open rebellion. Some
of the laid-off stone-cutters would later employ their tools
and skills in building secret passageways for the rebels
(J. 7.26-27).
It is in this chronological coincidence between
Herod's massive building program, which employed thousands of stone-cutters during his reign (in the 30s BC to AD
64 ), and the appearance of thousands of ossuaries, carved
from the same type of stone (limestone) from which almost
all of the Temple Mount buildings were fashioned, that we
find the answer to our question. The number of ossuaries
that were made oflimestone increased dramatically during
the one century of temple-related building inj erusalem, not
because of a shift in theology or foreign influence, but
because of the great number of stone-cutters, quarries, and
rejected blocks oflimestone. The increase of the city's population and its urban and suburban sprawl also encouraged
greater density in burial sites. Simply put, more dead relatives can be interred in the family vault if they are placed in
ossuaries than if they are left lying in niches or in full-sized
sarcophagi. Although these factors came into play primarily




in jerusalem, their influence may account for the appearance
of ossuaries in jericho and elsewhere during this time.
Now is a good time to review Jewish burial practices
of antiquity. First, burial took place the day of death, or, if
death occurred at the end of the day or during the night, on
the following day. Knowing this lends a great deal of pathos
to some otherwise familiar Gospel stories. We think of
the story of the widow from the city of N ain: "As he
town" (Luke 7:12). Her only son had died that day (or the
evening before). Her sorrow is at its rawest when Jesus
encounters her. We also think of the desperate father, who
hurries Jesus to his home, hoping he will arrive in time to
heal his dying daughter: "When Jesus came to the leader's
house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a
commotion" (Matt. 9:23). As it turns out, by the time they
arrive, the girl has died and the funeral process, complete
with music and weeping, was already under way.
Following death, the body is washed and wrapped.
We can find this custom mentioned in several episodes in
the Gospels and elsewhere. We see it in the story of Lazarus,
who was bound and wrapped with cloths (John 11:44).
The body ofjesus is wrapped in a clean linen shroud (Matt.
27:59; Luke 23:53; John 19:40). The body of Ananias is
wrapped and buried (Acts 5:6); so also Dorcas, who
"became ill and died. When they had washed her, they laid
her in a room upstairs" (Acts 9:37). Moreover, the corpse
was usually perfumed (Josephus, Ant. 15.61; for spices, see
Ant. 17.196-99;John 19:39-40).
The day of burial was the first of seven days of mourning (Semahot 12.1 ). This is clearly stated by first-century



Jewish historian Josephus, in reference to the death, burial,
and funeral of Herod the Great (d. 4 BC): "Now Archelaus
[Herod's oldest surviving son] continued W mourn for
seven days out of respect for his father-the custom of the
country prescribes this number of days-and then, after
feasting the crowds and making an end of the mourning, he
went up to the temple" (Josephus, Ant. 17 .200). The custom of seven days of mourning arose from Scripture itself:
Joseph "observed a time of mourning for his father seven
days" (Gen. 50: 10); and, in reference to the remains of king
Saul and his sons, Israelite men "took their bones and
buried tl,em under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted
seven days" (1 Sam. 31:13).
Mourning normally took place at the tomb's entrance
or within the tomb itself, which is why archaeologists
sometimes find a portion of the floor carved out more
deeply, allowing mourners to pray standing upright,
according to the Jewish custom. Of course, standing inside
the tomb was why the corpse was perfumed. Many perfume
bottles and jars have been found in tombs and burial caves.
One can only imagine how unpleasant the tomb would
have become by the sixth and seventh days.
One year after death it was customary to gather the
practice, sometimes called secondary burial, is readily
observed in the archaeological excavations of] ewish tombs
in the time of] esus. It is also attested in later rabbinic literature: "When the flesh had wasted away they gathered
together the bones and buried them in their own place" (m.
Sanhedrin 6:6); "My son, bury me at first in a niche. In the
course of time, collect my bones and put them in an ossuary
but do not gather them with your own hands" (Semahot
12.9; cf. Semahot 3.2). The custom of the interval of twelve



months from primary burial to secondary burial is also
attested in rabbinic literature (cf. b. Qiddushin 31b).
For executed criminals, however, the rules were different. Criminals were to be buried properly, but not in
places of honor, such as the family tomb. This is clearly
taught in the earliest writings of the rabbis: "They did not
bury (the executed criminal) in the burying-place of his
fathers. But two burying-places were kept in readiness by
the Sanhedrin, one for them that were beheaded or strangled, and one for them that were stoned or burnt" (m.
Sanhedrin 6:5); "Neither a corpse nor the bones of a
corpse may be transferred from a wretched place to an honored place, nor, needless to say, from an honored place to
a wretched place; but if to the family tomb, even from an
honored place to a wretched place, it is permitted"
(Semahot 13. 7). Not only was the body of a criminal not to
be buried in a place of honor, no public mourning for executed criminals was permitted: "They used not to make
[open]lamentation ... for mourning has place in the heart
alone" (m. Sanhedrin 6:6).
The Jewish people believed that the soul of the
deceased lingered near the corpse for three days: "For three
departs" (Lev. Rab. 18.1 [on Lev. 15:1-2]). The change of
the face on the third day explains, we are told, why the grief
is felt most in the early days of mourning: "The full intensity
of mourning lasts up to the third day because the appearance of the face is still recognizable" (Qoh. Rab. 12:6 §1).
This interesting belief likely lies behind the dramatic story
of the raising of Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha (John
11:1-44). The comments that Lazarus had been dead
"three days" and that by now his corpse has "a stench"



(11:39) imply that all hope is now lost. Lazarus has been
dead for more than three days. His spirit has departed; his
face has changed its appearance. Resuscitation, it was
assumed, is no longer possible.
These are the burial customs of the Jewish people.
But did the Jewish people always bury the dead? Was burial important to them? Were they willing to leave people,
such as executed criminals, unburied?


In the Mediterranean world oflate antiquity, proper burial of
the dead was regarded as sacred duty, especially in the culture and religion of the Jewish people. The first reason for
providing proper burial was for the sake of the dead themselves. The importance of care for the dead and their proper
burial is well attested in Scripture, from the amount of attention given to the story of Abraham's purchase of a cave for
the burial of Sarah (Gen. 23:4-19), to the burial accounts of
the patriarchs and monarchs of Israel. Of special interest is
the story of jacob's body taken to the land of Canaan, to be
buried in a tomb that he had hewn (Gen. 50:4-14 ). So also
Joseph; though buried in Egypt, his bones were exhumed
and taken with the Israelites at the time of the exodus, to be
eventually buried in Canaan (Gen. 50:22-26; Josh. 24:32).
The bones of the slain Saul and sons were buried injabesh
(1 Sam. 31:12-13). David later commended the men who
did this (2 Sam. 2:5: "May you be blessed by the LORD,
because you showed this loyalty to Saul your lord, and
buried him!"). Saul's bones were later taken to the land of
Beqjamin (2 Sam. 21:12-14). Even the wicked and divinely
judged were buried, too, such as those in the wilderness who



were greedy for meat (Nurn. 11 :33-34 ), or individual criminals who were executed (Deut. 21:22-23). Israel's enemies,
slain in battle, were buried (1 Kgs. 11:15). Even the eschatological enemy hosts of Gog were to be buried (Ezek.
39: 11-16). To leave the dead, even enemy dead, lying about
unburied was to bring a curse on the land (Deut. 21:22-23).
The great importance of proper burial provides the
backdrop for the passages that speak of those who will not
be buried, usually because of sin and divine judgment.
Moses warned the Israelites that if they disobeyed the
covenant, their enemies will slay them and their unburied
bodies will be food for birds and animals (Deut. 28:25-26).
Generations later, this judgment befell the families of the
wicked kings jeroboam (1 Kgs. 14:11) and Ahab (1 Kgs.
21 :24). According to the prophetic warning, one from these
families who dies in the city "the dogs shall eat; and anyone
eat" (1 Kgs. 21:23-24).Jezebel herself is eaten by dogs and
becomes "dung on the field" (2 Kgs. 9:33-37); that is, she
has been eaten and then defecated. There will be no marker
that says, "This isJezebel."Jeremiah warns his own generation with the same disturbing imagery: "The corpses of this
they shall not be gathered or buried·, they shall be like dung
on the surface of the ground" (Jer. 7:33; 8:2; cf. 14:16; 16:4;
20:6; 22:19; 25:33; cf. Ps. 79:2-3; Ezek. 29:5; Josephus,
J. W 1.594: "he would have her body torn to pieces by torments, and leave no part of it to be buried").
The ghastly image of Jews in exile, murdered and
then left unburied beside the road or flung outside the city
walls, is reflected in the book of Tobit. The book's namesake is a righteous man, who observes Jewish food laws,



shares food and clothing with the poor, and buries the
dead, even at great personal risk. The theme of Tobit burying the dead may well reflect Jeremiah's earlier warning:
Israelites judged and exiled are now murdered and left
Of all Tobit's virtues, it was his burying the dead that
Some of the persons whose bodies Tobit buried evidently
had been executed by state authority, and not simply murdered. The righteous Tobit explains: "I also buried any
whom King Sennacherib put to death when he came fleeing from Judea .... For in his anger he put to death many
Israelites; but I would secretly remove the bodies and bury
(ethapsa] them. So when Sennacherib looked for them he
could not find them" (1:18). The dead man mentioned in
2:3, whom Tobit als·o buried, was also executed, either
"strangled" (so the NRSV) or "exposed,'' in the sense of
being publicly hanged. This Jewish sense of obligation that
Jews executed by Gentile authorities must be buried, even
at personal risk, is very significant for the present study.
Josephus's perspective is consistent with that
expressed in Tobit. Explaining Jewish ethical obligations,
Josephus states, "We must furnish fire, water, food to all
unburied (ataphon], show consideration even to declared
enemies" (Against Apion 2.211; cf. 2.205).
Perhaps Philo gives the most eloquent expression to
Jewish sensitivities on this question, in his imaginative
recounting of Jacob's grief over the report that his son
Joseph had been killed and devoured by wild animals. The
patriarch laments: "Child, it is not your death that grieves
me, but the manner of it. If you had been buried [etaphes]
in your own land, I should have been comforted and ·



watched and nursed your sick-bed, exchanged the last
farewells as you died, closed your eyes, wept over your
body as it lay there, given it a costly funeral and left none of
the customary rites undone" (De Iosepho 22-23).
The imaginative dirge goes on to speak of the importance of proper burial:
And, indeed, ifyou had to die by violence or through
premeditation, it would have been a lighter ill to me,
slain as you would have been by human beings, who
would have pitied their dead victim, gathered some
dust and covered the corpse. And then if they had
been the cruelest of men, what more could they have
done but cast.it out unburied and go their way, and
then perhaps some passer-by would have stayed his
steps, and, as he looked, felt pity for our common
nature and deemed the custom ofburial to be its due.
(De Iosepho 25)
Jacob concludes his lament by saying that he has experienced no greater tragedy, in that nothing ofJoseph remains
and that there is no possibility of burial (26-27). Jewish
sensitivities with respect to proper burial could hardly have
been given more eloquent expression than what we find
here in Philo.
Concern with proper burial continues beyond the
first century. For the Rabbis, burial of the dead was
regarded a sacred duty (cf. b. Megillah 3b ), taking precedence in the study of the Law, the circumcision of one's
son, or in the offering of the Passover lamb. Indeed, even a
high priest or a Nazirite has the obligation to bury a "neglected corpse," since there is no one else to do it (cf. Sipre
Num. §26 [on Num. 6:6-8]).



A second reason for burying the dead is to avoid
defilement of the land of Israel. This requirement is
grounded in the Mosaic law: "When someone is convicted of
a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang
the LORD your God is giving you for possession" (Deut.
21 :22-23). It is also expressed in Ezekiel: "They will set
apart men to pass through the land regularly and bury any
invaders who remain on the face of the land, so as to cleanse
it. ... Thus they shall cleanse the land" (Ezek. 39:14, 16).
This tradition remained current at the turn of the era,
as seen in its elaboration in the Temple Scroll, one of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, where we read:
If a man is a traitor against his people and gives them
are to hang him on a tree until dead. On the testimony of two or three witnesses he will he put to
death, and they themselves shall hang him on the
to the nations, cursing his people and the children of
dead. But you must not let their bodies remain on the
tree overnight; you shall most certainly bury them
that very day. Indeed, anyone hung on a tree is
accursed of God and men, hut you are not to defile
the land that I am about to give you as an inheritance
[Deut. 21:22-23]. (llQT 64:7-13a = 4Q524 frag.
14, lines 2-4, emphasis added)
Whereas Deuteronomy 21:22-23 speaks of one put to
death and then hanged, 11 QTemple speaks of one hanged



"until dead?' Most think crucifixion is in view in this latter
instance (as also in 4Q169 frags. 3-4, col. i, lines 6-8, and
perhaps also in 4Q282i, which refers to the hanging up
[probably crucifixionJof those who lead the people astray).
This form of execution is notably linked to treason.
It should also be observed that the requirement to
bury the executed person on the day of his death is emphasized. Deuteronomy simply reads, "You shall bury him the
same day," but the Temple Scroll adds, "You must not let
their bodies remain on the tree overnight." The reason
given for taking the bodies down and burying them the day
executed person is "cursed of God."-This is probably the
rationale that lies behind the concern regarding slain
enemy soldiers.
In the fragmentary conclusion of the War Scroll,
another famous scroll from the region of the Dead Sea, :.Ve
Priests, including the high priest, stand over the corpses
and praise God. What is said is not preserved ( 1QM
19:9-14 = 4Q492 frag. 1,lines 8-13),butit is probable that
the priests oversee burial of the corpses and cleansing of
the land. The related 4Q285, or Rule of War, which is also
fragmentary, supports this interpretation. It seems to say
that while Israel celebrates victory over the Kittim (with
women beating timbrels and dancing, as in the great victories recounted in Scripture; cf. Exod. 15:20;Judg. 11:34;
perhaps also 4Q163 frag. 25, col. iii, lines 1-3), the high
priest shall give orders for the disposal of the corpses, evidently to avoid corpse impurity (4Q285 frag. 7, lines 1-6,
esp.lines 5-6; cf. frag. 10, lines 4-6: "and you shall eat [the


JESUS, THE'·FtNiltL -D'A¥8

..."). This then explains the meaning in the War Scroll,
where it refers to the men who "strip the slain, plunder the
spoil, cleanse the land ..." (1QM 7:2-3, emphasis added).
Cleansing the land would include burying the corpses of
the enemy.
In a section concerned with holiness, the Temple
Scroll enjoins Israel: '"For you are a people holy to the
Lord your God' [Deut. 14:2]. 'Thus you shall not defile
your land' [Num. 35:34]. You are not to do as the nations
do: they bury their dead everywhere, even inside their
homes. Rather, you must set apart places in your land
where you will bury your dead. For every four cities you
must designate one burial ground" (llQT 48:10-14).
What is important here is that even in the case of the executed criminal, proper burial was anticipated. Various
restrictions may have applied, such as being forbidden burial in one's family tomb-at least until the flesh had decomposed-or not being allowed to mourn publicly, but burial
was to take place, in keeping with the scriptural command
of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and the Jewish customs that
had grown up alongside it.
The commands of Scripture, taken with traditions
regarding piety (as especially exemplified in Tobit), corpse
impurity, and the avoidance of the defilement of the land,
strongly suggest that under normal circumstances (i.e.,
peacetime) no corpse would remain unburied-neither Jew
nor Gentile, neither innocent nor guilty. All were to be
buried. What is especially interesting is that some of the tradition reviewed above may have been specifically linked to,
If this is the case, then the relevance of these laws and traditions for the execution ofJesus ofNazareth and its aftermath
becomes more evident, for it was the ruling priesthood who



condemned Jesus to death and would have primary responsibility for seeing to the proper burial of his body.
We have reviewed the most important literary evidence concerning] ewish attitudes toward burial. What can
we learn from the archaeological evidence?


As .it so happens, there is significant archaeological evidence that has a direct bearing on the question of whether
the body ofJesus of Nazareth, crucified by order of Pontius
Pilate, was placed in a tomb, as the New Testament Gospels
say it was. As we shall see, the evidence suggests that Jesus
was indeed buried, in keeping with] ewish customs, Roman
tolerance ofJewish customs, and the views expressed by all
Christian and non-Christian literature from late antiquity.
There is in fact not one shred of evidence from antiquity
that suggests Jesus was not buried, which makes it all the
more curious how these ideas and rumors persist.
The important discovery in 1968 of an ossuary
(ossuary no. 4 in Tomb I, at Giv'at ha-Mivtar) of a Jewish
man named Yehohanan, who had obviously been crucified,
provides archaeological evidence and insight into 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 very Roman governor who condemned Jesus to the cross. The remains of an iron spike
(11.5 em in length) are plainly seen still encrusted in the
right heel bone (or calcaneum). Those who took down
the body of Yehohanan apparently were unable to remove



olive tree) remained affixed to the spike. Later, the skeletal
remains of the body-spike, fragment of wood, and allwere 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 of
Yehohanan is consistent with a reference in Pliny the Elder
(AD 23-79), who refers to rope being used in crucifixion
(cf. Nat. Hist. 28.4). Nevertheless, it is recorded by others
that many victims of crucifixion did have their hands or
wrists nailed to the beam. Writing in the second century BC
Plautus refers to the crucifixion victim with "his ar