User:Rbreen/sandbox

Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011) Joseph of A motivated by concern for Jewish law - even criminals had to be buried within 24 hours, Deut21:22-23. But burial was not possible on Sabbath or festivals, so Jesus would have to be buried before sunset on the Friday. No time to dig a grave, so Magness reckons he would have been stored temporarily in Joseph's family tomb. Martin Hengel argued that since crucifixion was a sadistic and humiliating form of corporal punishment reserved by the Romans for the lower classes (including slaves), fesus "died a criminal's death on the tree of shame"14' Hengel's claim that Jesus was buried in disgrace because he was an executed criminal who died a shameful death is widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature.146 In my opinion, this view is based on a misunderstanding of archaeological evidence and Jewish law. Jesus was condemned by the Roman authorities for crimes against

[page 168]: Josephus indicates thai Jews took care to bury victims of Roman crucifixion by sunset in accordance with Deut 21:22-23: Nay, they proceeded to (hat degree of impiety, as to cast away their bodies without burial, although the lews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified (anestaurdmenous), and buried them before the going down of the sun. (War 4.317)167 Although crucifixion victims often were left unburied, the Roman authorities sometimes granted permission to bury them, as Justinian's Digest indicates:

The bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be re- fused to their relatives; and the deified Augustus writes in the tenth book of his de Vita Sua that he observed this [custom]. Today, however, the bodies of those who are executed are buried in the same man- ner as if this had been sought and granted. But sometimes it is not allowed, particularly with the bodies] of those condemned for (reason. The bodies of those condemned to be burned can also be sought so that the bones and ashes can be collected and handed over for burial. (48.24.1)168 The bodies of executed persons are to be granted to any who seek them for burial. (48.24.3)169 Roman legislation is consistent with the Gospel accounts, according to which Joseph of Arimathea requested from Pilate permission to bury Jesus' body: "Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of JesusWhen he [ Pilate | learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph" (Mark 15:43, 45)-170 The discovery of the remains of a crucified man named Yohanan in an ossuary demonstrates that crucifixion victims could be interred in

[p.169] rock-cut family tombs.171 John Dominic Crossan claims that Yohanan's interment in a rock-cut family tomb is exceptional and extraordinary because victims of crucifixion would not have received an honorable burial.172 However, the Mishnah attaches no stigma to crucifixion by the Roman authorities and does not prohibit victims of crucifixion from being buried with their families.173 On the other hand, the Sanhedrin excluded those executed for violating Jewish law from burial in family tombs or burial grounds: And they did not bury [the felon] in the burial grounds of his ancestors. But there were two graveyards made ready for the use of the court, one for those who were beheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned, (m. Sanh. 6:5)174 Crossan argues that, "with all those thousands ol people crucified around Jerusalem in the first century alone, we have so far found only a single crucified skeleton, and that, of course, preserved in an ossuary. Was burial then, the exception rather than the rule, the extraordinary rather than the ordinary case?"175 In fact, the exact opposite is the case: the discovery of the identifiable remains of even a single victim of crucifixion is exceptional. Crossan's assumption that we should have the physical (archaeological) remains of additional crucified victims is erroneous for several reasons. First, with one exception (the repository in the late Iron Age cemetery at Ketef Hinnom) not a single undisturbed tomb in Jerusalem has ever been discovered and excavated by archaeologists.176 This means that even in cases where tombs or ossuaries still contain the original physical remains, the skeletons are often disturbed, damaged, or incomplete. Second, the Jerusalem elite who owned rock-cut family tombs with ossuaries favored the preservation of the status quo through accommodation with the Romans. Presumably, relatively few of them were therefore executed by crucifixion. Instead, the majority of victims crucified by the Romans belonged to the lower classes177 — precisely those who could not afford rock-cut tombs. Third, and most important, the nail in Yohanan's heel was preserved only because of a fluke: The most dramatic evidence that this young man was crucified was the nail which penetrated his heel bones. But for this nail, we might never have discovered that the young man had died in this way. The nail was preserved only because it hit a hard knot when it was pounded into the ol-

[p. 170] ive wood upright of the cross. The olive wood knot was so hard that, as the blows on the nail became heavier, the end of the nail bent and curled. We found a hit of the olive wood (between 1 and 2 cm) on the tip of the nail. This wood had probably been forced out of the knot where the curled nail hooked into it. When it came time for the dead victim to be removed from the cross, the executioners could not pull out this nail, bent as it was within the cross. The only way to remove the body was to take an ax or hatchet and amputate the feet.1'8 In other words, the means by which victims were affixed to crosses usually leave no discernable traces in the physical remains or archaeological record. Some victims were bound with ropes, which were untied when the body was removed from the cross.179 When victims were nailed to a cross, the nails had to be pulled out so that the body could be taken down. This is exactly how the Gospel of Peter (6:21) describes Jesus' crucifixion: "And then they drew the nails from the hands of the Lord and placed him on the earth."180 The nail in Yohanan's ankle was preserved only because it bent after hitting a knot in the wood and therefore could not be removed from the body. Jesus came from a family of modest means that presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb.181 Had Joseph not offered to accommodate Jesus' body in his tomb (according to the Gospel accounts), Jesus likely would have been disposed of in the manner of the lower classes: in a pit grave or trench grave dug into the ground. When the Gospels tell us that Joseph of Arimathea offered Jesus a spot in his tomb, it is because Jesus' family did not own a rock-cut tomb and there was no time to prepare a grave — that is, there was no time to dig a grave, not hew a rock-cut tomb (!) — before the Sabbath.182 It is not surprising that Joseph, who is described as a wealthy Jew and perhaps even a member of the Sanhedrin, had a rock-cut family tomb.183 The Gospel accounts seem to describe Joseph placing Jesus' body in one of the loculi in his family's tomb. The "new" tomb mentioned by Matthew probably refers to a previously unused loculus. The Gospel accounts include an accurate (although not necessarily historical) description of Jesus* body being wrapped in a linen shroud.184 When Joseph departed, he sealed the entrance to the tomb by blocking the doorway with a rolling stone.185 This understanding of the Gospel accounts removes at least some of the grounds for arguments that Joseph of Arimathea was not a follower of Jesus or that he was a completely fictional character (although, of course, it

[p. 171] does not prove that Joseph existed or that this episode occurred).186 In addition, the tomb must have belonged to Joseph's family, because rock-cut tombs were family tombs (see below).187 There is no evidence that the Sanhedrin or Roman authorities paid for and maintained rock-cut tombs for executed criminals from lower-class families.'88 Instead, these unfortunates would have been buried in pit graves or trench graves. This sort of tradition is preserved in the New Testament reference to the Potters Field (Matt 27:7-8).189 There is no need to assume that the Gospel accounts of Joseph of Arimathea offering Jesus a place in his family tomb are legendary or apologetic.190 The Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial appear to be largely consistent with the archaeological evidence.191 In other words, although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus' body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus' removal from the cross and burial accord well with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law. The source(s) of these accounts were familiar with the manner in which wealthy Jews living in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus disposed of their dead. The circumstances surrounding Jesus' death and burial can be reconstructed as follows. Jesus expired on the cross shortly before sundown on Friday. Because Jesus came from a lower-class family that did not own a rock-cut tomb, under ordinary circumstances he would have been buried in a pit grave or trench grave. However, there was no time to prepare (dig) a grave before the beginning of the Sabbath. Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy follower of Jesus, was concerned to ensure that Jesus was buried before sundown in accordance with biblical law. Therefore, Joseph hastened to Pilate and requested permission to take Jesus' body. Joseph laid Jesus' body in a loculus in his own rock-cut tomb, an exceptional measure due to the circumstances as rock-cut tombs were lamily tombs. When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus' body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this phenomenon is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a pit grave or trench grave, as it would have been unusual to leave a nonrelative in a family tomb.192 No matter which explanation one prefers, the fact thai Jesus' body did not remain in Joseph's tomb means that his

[p.172] bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts.

Gerald O'Collins, Daniel Kendall, Focus on Jesus: Essays in Christology and Soteriology (Gracewing Publishing, 1996)

p.95 For a critical assessment of the New Testament tradition(s) about Jesus' empty tomb much depends on one's evaluation of the burial story (Mark 15:42-47 in its first intracanonical form). A reference to Jesus' burial turned up in the early kerygma quoted by Paul (1 Cor 15:4a; see Rom 6:4). But it was ten or fifteen years later before Mark ended his passion narrative with the episode about Joseph of Arimathea following the prescriptions of Deut 21:22-23 and burying Jesus* body before sunset on the day of the crucifixion. Obviously if we deny any historical reliability in this burial story and dismiss it as a legend created either by the evangelist (or one of his sources), we would have to make the same negative judgement about the subsequent empty tomb narrative (Mark 16:1-8 in its first intracanonical form). Among the pioneers of form criticism, Rudolf Bultmann accepted the essential credibility of the burial narrative. He described the basic story (Mark 15:44-45, 47) as 'an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend'.1 More recently Joseph Fitzmyer wrote: 'Joseph of Arimathea is otherwise unknown, but in all four gospels he is linked to the burial of Jesus, clearly a historical reminiscence being used. Who would invent him?'.2 In his Anchor Bible Dictionary article on 'Joseph of Arimathea', Stanley E. Porter3 obviously followed p.96 Bultmann, Fitzmyer and many other biblical scholars who acknowledge an historically reliable core in the story of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus' body after the crucifixion.4 Nevertheless, every now and then the burial story is dismissed as completely non-historical, a story created by the evangelist Mark. In three recent books5 John Dominic Crossan has argued inter alia that the tradition about Joseph of Arimathea originated with Mark and was then derived from him. Essentially four arguments come into play to support Crossan's position: three are general propositions (about the original source for the gospel passion narratives in an earlier version which, though no longer extant, is embedded in the Gospel of Peter; the tendency to historicize Old Testament prophecies; and Mark's extraordinary creativity), and one deals with a specific point (Joseph of Arimathea as an 'in-between* figure). Let us look at them in turn. From the first of his trilogy. Four Other Gospels, Crossan has argued that much of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter antedated Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, and provided the narra- tive from which all their passion (and resurrection) stories derive. In particular, the passion narratives in the four canonical gospels can 'all be adequately and plausibly explained as layers of redactional expansion on that single primary source* (p. 145). In Four Other Gospels Crossan calls the source or major part of the Gospel of Peter 'the original Passion-Resurrection Source' (pp. 145, 160-161, 164). In The Cross that Spoke it becomes the 'Cross Gospel, a document presently embedded in the Gospel of Peter, just as Q is in Matthew and Luke' (p. xm). According to 'the original Passion-Resurrection Source' (soon to be called 'the Cross Gospel'), 'Jesus* burial was completely under the motivation and control of his enemies'. Crossan refers his readers to the Gospel of Peter 2:15; 5:15 and 6:21 - verses which belong, he claims, to the original Passion-Resurrection Source or Cross Gospel.* Denying incidentally the presence of the female disciples at Jesus' death and burial, Crossan draws an important conclusion from his position that Jesus' enemies were totally in charge not only of his execution but also of his burial: 'Those closest to Jesus had fled his Crucifixion and had no idea how or where he was buried'.7 In The Historical Jesus he makes the same claim more [p.97] rhetorically: 'With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care' (p. 394). In his 1986 presidential address to the Society of New Testament Studies, Raymond Brown exposed the weakness in Crossan's first general claim: the dependence of the canonical gospels on the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (or rather the first half of it, 1:1—6:22, but without 2:3-5a) for their passion narratives.8 Brown denied all such literary dependence: there are noticeable inconsistencies in the narrative of the Gospel of Peter which cannot be explained by Crossan's thesis of an earlier self-coherent passion story (=Crossan's 'Passion-Resurrection Source*) and a later redaction under the influence of the canonical gospels. Brown then points to examples of a massive transferral or switching of details affecting the dramatis personae when incidents in the Gospel of Peter are compared to similar incidents in the canonical gospels. This all tells against Crossan's thesis. Brown concludes that the Gospel of Peter 'does not constitute or give the earliest Christian account or thoughts about the passion* (p. 339). One might have expected Crossan to have explicitly answered this very public challenge to his thesis that the sole source for the passion narrative in all four canonical gospels was embedded in the Gospel of Peter. Instead he made no reference to Brown's 1986 address when developing at length his same thesis in his 1988 The Cross That Spoke and using it in his 1991 The Historical Jesus. As much as anything, this silence about Brown's sustained critique gave substance to Meier's remark in America magazine for 7 March 1992 about 'Crossan's refusal to debate other scholars who hold alternate views' (p. 199). Apart from one or two sympathetic reactions,* scholars generally have remained quite unconvinced by Crossan's 1988 lengthy and tortuous attempt to rehabilitate the Gospel of Peter and claim that its core (his 'Cross Gospel') served as the sole source for Mark's story of the passion (and resurrection). The reviews of The Cross That Spoke by Black, Fuller, Green, Matera, Meier, Wink and others were little less than devastating in demolishing Crossan's case for an early date for the core of the Gospel of Peter and a literary dependency from it on the

[p98.] pan of Mark and other canonical gospels. As regards the passion narrative, our earliest source remains Mark's gospel. The existence still has to be proved of any written passion narrative antedating the canonical gospels - let alone such a mid-first-century document embedded in the second-century apocryphal Gospel of Peter.10 In his (later published) 1993 presidential address to the Society of New Testament Studies, Martin Hengel spoke for many scholars when he stated that the attempt to Tix earlier dates' for apocryphal gospels, including the Gospel of Peter, 'have not convinced me at all*. A second presupposition that underlies Crossan's rejection of the historicity of the Marcan burial narrative is his conviction that historical prophecy rather than historical recall 'ruled the creation of the passion narrative', particularly the earliest such narrative (= that, according to him, embedded in the Gospel of Peter).11 Such historicizing of Old Testament 'prophecies'. Four Other Gospels assures its readers, was a 'pervasive process' (p. 138); right from the original passion narrative, biblical prophecy dictated 'the very details' in the formation of the story (p. 147). Historical memory could hardly play any role, as the followers of Jesus knew 'absolutely little' about the events of his passion, crucifixion and burial (p. 148). (So much, once again, for any information coming, for example, from faithful women disciples of Jesus!) Hence the burial tradition found in the Passion-Resurrection Source to be identified in the Gospel of Peter was simply derived from Old Testament texts, especially from Deut 21:22-23 and its legal injunction about burying the executed on the same day. 'It is because of respect for this law", Crossan maintains, 'that the [earliest Christian] tradition presumed the Jewish authorities would have buried Jesus themselves. Since they were in total charge of the crucifixion, they were in total control of the burial as weir (p. 164; see pp. 153-154). Right through to the last work of his trilogy. The Historical Jesus, Crossan has maintained the Old Testament origins for the Cross-Resurrection Source or Cross Gospel. His hypothetical Cross Gospel created from different prophetic allusions 'a narrative passion* in *a coherent and sequential story' (p. 389). In short, Crossan presumes the highly creative contribution of Old Testament texts to a passion tradition that practically lacked all historical memory. In their reviews of Tfie Cross

[p.101] disciple of Jesus' and *a rich man' (Matt 27:57-58).14 Luke 23:50-56 makes various redactional omissions and additions in the Marcan burial narrative. For instance, he names Joseph as 'a good and upright man' who is not a party to the Sanhedrin's decision against Jesus - thus stressing his 'moral character' (Fitzmyer, p. 1525) and perhaps also, indirectly, the innocence of Jesus and his followers. The redactional changes Matthew and Luke introduce in the burial story reflect their normal theological interests rather than show them grappling with some dif- ficult problem created for them by Mark.15 'The rest of the intracanonical tradition' which had to solve the problem (that Crossan believes was left by Mark's creation of Joseph of Arimathea) includes John's gospel, which - he claims - depends on the Synoptics at least for the passion.16 However, as Meier points out, 'most of the major commentators on John in recent decades' hold that John represents 'a tra- dition independent of the Synoptics'.17 Third, is there anything historically so suspicious about Mark's burial story centering on an 'in-between figure', someone 'within the Jewish leadership elite' and 'still connected with Jesus*?18 By the end of Jesus* public ministry we would expect the presence of some 'in-between' figures, devout and leading Jews who were attracted by Jesus' message of the kingdom but had not (yet) become his disciples. Crossan's suspicions here fly in the face of antecedent historical probability. Unquestionably, the essential historicity of the burial story in Mark cannot be demonstrated absolutely, but at least we can conclude that Crossan has done nothing to undermine its historical credibility, which remains accepted by very many biblical scholars from Bultmann to Fitzmyer and beyond.

John Dominic Crossan, Richard G. Watts Who is Jesus?: Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus Westminster John Knox Press, 1999 [p.112] I regard this story as the creation of Mark. (By the way, the naming of Joseph of Arimathea, as in the case of Barabbas, does not necessarily guarantee historical accura- cy. If you are inventing a person, it is easy to invent a name for him as well.) Notice what Mark has done. Joseph is both "a respected member of the council"—that is, on the side of those who crucified Jesus—and also "waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God"—that is, on the side of Jesus and his followers. Matthew and Luke each try to improve on the story. Matthew describes Joseph as "a disciple of Jesus"—rather than as a member of the council that condemned Jesus. Luke keeps Joseph on the council but says that "though a member of the council, he had not agreed to their plan and action." Both Matthew and Luke are trying to solve the problem in Mark's story; namely, how is it that Joseph was both part of the council that condemned Jesus and the one who sought his body for respectful burial? Finally, when John tells the story, he combines Joseph of Arimathea with the Nicodemus who had shown up earlier in his gospel, and has them giving Jesus what we may only term a royal burial in a brand new tomb located in the [p.113] midst of a garden. And now Joseph is described as a disciple of Jesus, "though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews." As I watch the development of the burial story, I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that we have here an intense and understandable effort to avoid the stark horror of crucifixion's final act. The worst possible horror was no burial at all, Jesus left on the cross for the scavengers. The next best hope was burial by his enemies. But it was better not to imagine how soldiers might have done that: with lime? in a shallow grave? under a pile of stones? The next best possibility was some authority figure deciding to bury Jesus. But that would create credibility problems and besides, unless Jesus was in a separate grave all to himself, you could not have a story about finding an empty tomb! Best of all would be to have Jesus buried by those who loved him. But is it possible that be was buried? Yes, it is possible. What I must deal with, as a historian, is probability. If I were giving testimony in a courtroom, and I were asked in cross-examination, "Now, Professor Crossan, isn't it possible that ..." I would have to answer, "Yes—of course." In historical reconstruction we do not deal in certainties. What I have offered here—and else- where—is my best judgment, based on my historical research—of the most likely scenario.

Gerd Lüdemann, Alf Özen What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection [p.19] The burial of Jesus

The traditions in Mark 15.42-46 [42] The note of time 'and when evening had come' comes from Mark himself, like those in 4.35; 6.37; 14.17. However, there is probably a basis in tradition for the mention of the day of rest. Mark explains it for his readers as the day before the sabbath (cf. the similar explanation of Jewish customs in Mark 7.3L), [43] The characterization of Josephus as a 'respected member of the council* hardly goes back to old tradition. For this description is urgently necessary only for Mark's conception: Joseph, a member of theSanhedrin which condemned Jesus to death (Mark 14.55; I5-1)y at the same time expected the kingdom of God. Here Mark, while not depicting Joseph as a Christian, does single him out from the group of Jesus' opponents. By this characterization, and given the quite positive significance that the 'kingdom of God' has in the Gospel of Mark (cf. 1.15), Joseph becomes a positive figure. Certainly Mark would have preferred to relate a burial of Jesus by his followers, like the burial of John the Baptist (6.29). But as he had no tradition of this, and at the same time a report about the burial of Jesus by a member of the council, Joseph of Arimathea, was in circulation, he made the improvements to Joseph's character mentioned above. In that case the assumption that Joseph's membership of the Sanhedrin is part of the tradition has a good deal to be said for it, whereas his characterization as 'respected' comes from Mark himself. [44—46] These verses were certainly composed by Mark himself. This is already suggested by the shift in the Greek terminology: in v.43 Joseph had asked for the body of Jesus; in v.45 Pilate gives him the corpse of Jesus. The two verses link the scene to what has gone before. The death of Jesus is real, and as it were officially confirmed. [46] The statement of the burial of Jesus by Joseph is part of the tradition. The information about the rock tomb with a stone rolled in front of it already prepares for Mark 16.3 and was not originally pan of the story. As this description of the tomb of Jesus is presupposed in Mark 16.1-8 (otherwise the story there would make no sense), whereas here at any rate it is an expansion, the mention of the rock tomb with the stone rolled in front of it may possibly have been taken over from there. The shroud of (used) linen may be part of the tradition. It is customary in all forms of burial in Judaism. But it is striking that

[p.20] Joseph buys linen. That implies that it is new. If we could say that the burial of Jesus by Joseph goes back to tradition, the new linen may represent a change to prevent any element of dishonour in the burial of Jesus.*6 On the other hand, there are indications of deviations from the circumstances of a normal burial. Thus we must note that Jesus was certainly not buried in the family tomb in Nazareth, which would have been an essential feature of an honourable burial. Furthermore Mark had reported the anointing of Jesus before his death in ch.14 and understood it as an anointing for death. But there is no honourable anointing of the body of Jesus, as is known from the burial ritual elsewhere. So the tradition in Mark 15.42-47 reports a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. However, we cannot discover any more historical information about the nature of the burial from this narrative alone. Still, there are indications that Mark was confronted with the tradition of a dishonourable burial and reinterpreted this. The revision of Mark 15.42.-47 by Matthew and Luke The parallels Matthew and Luke, and also John, have Christianized the figure of Joseph or drawn it in an even more positive way than Mark before them. Matthew differed from his Markan model by making Joseph of Arimathea a rich man and a disciple of Jesus (Matt.27.57). Luke portrays him as a good and just man (Luke 23-50) who took no part in the judgment by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23.51), and in Gospel of Peter'7 6.23 he is called 'friend of the Lord*. In John, too, Joseph of Arimathea is described as a disciple of Jesus (John 19.38), but he keeps this discipleship hidden for fear of the Jews (cf. John 12.42; 9.22). The narrative contains the further detail that Nicodemus, 'who had first (viz.John 3.2) come to Jesus by night* (19.39a), came to help Joseph prepare Jesus' body for burial (19.391.). The tendency in the early Christian narrative tradition of the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea should have become sufficiently clear. The counsellor has become a disciple of Jesus —

[p.22] one could almost say that the foe has become a friend - and finally yet another friend of Jesus, Nicodemus, takes part in the burial. But the burial, too, is painted in increasingly positive colours. Whereas Mark merely says that it was a rock tomb, the parallels not only presuppose this but also know that it was Joseph's own tomb (Matt.27.60; Gospel of Peter 6.2418). John (20.15) and Gospel of Peter 6.24 even locate it in the garden, which is a distinction (cf. II Kings 21.18,26). Finally, Matthew (27.60), Luke (23.53) a°d John (19.4 if.) describe the tomb as new: this is a mark of honour for Jesus, and also excludes the possibility that Jesus was put, for example, in a criminal's grave. We can now state that only Mark's account can serve as a source for the question of the historical value of the tradition. At the same time it should be noted that if the post-Markan tendency is to Christianize Joseph, my thesis that the Markan report probably already makes a positive change in the figure of Joseph is reinforced. If the story of the burial increasingly becomes a mark of honour for Jesus, is that not perhaps to displace a dishonourable burial? In other words, is there not already in the Markan version a developed tradition which seeks to work over the terrible fact of Jesus' death to indicate that Jesus was at least given an orderly burial by a prominent counsellor?

The account in John 19.31-37 John 19.31—37 is a further source for reconstructing the burial of Jesus: 31. Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; 33. but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

[p.22] 35- He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth - that you also may believe. 3 6. For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled (Exod. 12.46), 'Not a bone of him shall be broken.1 37. And again another scripture {Zech.12.10) says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced.' The text is shaped in such a way as to translate Ps. 3 4.21,19 Exod. 12.46 and Zech. 12.10 into action (cf. the explicit phrase 'that the scripture should be fulfilled', v.36). But that does not prove that the whole narrative is a later invention. What remains as the core of the tradition is the request of the Jews for Jesus' body to be taken down from the cross (v.31). That this is an earlier tradition is indicated by the fact that the request was not granted. Why should anyone invent such a marginal note which plays no role in his literary plan? Verse 38 begins all over again with Joseph's request, and he himself (not the Romans!) takes down the body from the cross. The incompatibility of the two accounts cannot be denied. Evidently the original conclusion of the narrative (the 'burial' of Jesus by James) has been removed. It was later replaced by the account of a burial of Jesus by Joseph and Nicodemus (John 19.38-42). There is a parallel to what may be conjectured as the original note behind John 19.31-37 in Acts 13.29 (Jews 'took... him [Jesus] down from the tree and laid him in the tomb'). Certainly it is often asserted that this verse is exclusively governed by Lukan language and theology and therefore comes from Luke himself. But that has by no means been proved. Normally Luke always lays the blame for the death of Jesus on the Jews in the mission speeches in Acts (1.23; 3.13-15; 4.17; 5.30; 7.51; 10.39; 13-18). But at this point (Acts 13.29) Jews see to taking the body away and to the burial, and that is hardly compatible with the motif of attaching blame. An interest in this course of action on Luke's part can hardly be explained. So this is an independent tradition which Luke took over and which corresponds to that behind John 19.31-37- How Jesus really was buried From the evidence that I have sketched out, in all probability we can conclude that the tradition of a burial of Jesus existed in two

[p.23] independent narratives: (a) Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for the body of Jesus and buries it; (b) Jews ask Pilate for the body of Jesus and bury it. Here it is clear that tradition (b) will be the earlier one and (a) represents a later formation, at least as far as the tendencies towards a Christian interpretation indicated above are concerned. This raises the question how Jesus really was buried. First of all it must be explained how the burials of those who had been crucified were usually carried out at that time. Roman legal practice provided for someone who died on the cross to rot there or to be consumed by vultures, jackals or other animals. This was to be a warning to the living. This possibility is excluded for Jesus, as the traditions agree in relating that his body was taken down from the cross (I Cor. 15.4 also presupposes this). So the 'burial of Jesus1 may be one of those cases in which the Roman authorities released the body. The Jewish writer Philo, at the beginning of the first century, reports such exceptions.10 Presumably Jews took Jesus down from the cross, because someone who had died from crucifixion might not hang on the cross overnight (Deut.21.z3) and because a feast day (= Passover) was imminent. Moreover the release of Jesus' body and its removal from the cross might also have suited Pilate, because this would a priori avoid unrest among the large numbers of visitors for the festival. We can only conjecture the precise place of the burial of Jesus. The hypothesis that he was buried in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathea comes to grief on the tendency of the early Christian accounts, which betray knowledge of a dishonourable burial of Jesus, or fear one. The assumption that Jesus was buried in a cemetery for those who had been executed, a Jewish practice, is almost impossible, because Jesus had not been executed by the Jewish authorities. As neither the disciples nor Jesus' next of kin bothered about Jesus' body, it is hardly conceivable that they were informed about its resting place. The two strands of tradition reconstructed above perhaps agree in knowing Joseph of Arimathea. In that case he would have been the one who was charged (by the Jews) with seeing to the burial of Jesus. It is improbable that he was a disciple or a friend of Jesus. The opposite conclusion, that as a member of the Sanhedrin he was automatically one of Jesus' enemies, is equally improbable, since - historically speaking - there are serious doubts about a condemna-

[p.24] tion of Jesus by the Supreme Council. We can no longer say where he (or unknown Jews) put the body. Evidently not even the earliest community knew. For given the significance of tombs of saints in the time of Jesus, it can be presupposed that had Jesus* tomb been known, the early Christians would have venerated it, and traditions about it would have been preserved.*'