Introduction

Why is it important whether Jesus was buried in a tomb or not? When it comes to the historical question of whether Jesus rose from the dead, one of the main components is to determine what happened to the body of Christ. If Jesus was buried in a private tomb, one must then explain if and how the body was removed from that tomb. However, if Jesus was never buried in a private tomb, it invalidates the story of the empty tomb as told in the Gospels. The skeptic would no longer need to explain an empty tomb if there was no tomb to begin with. As Bart Ehrman explains, if one has “suspicions about the burial tradition,” then one must also question the tradition of an empty tomb.[1] Thus, the historicity of Christ’s burial in a private tomb plays a crucial role in adding to the cumulative case on the Resurrection. This paper will examine the probability that the burial narrative of Jesus as described in the Gospels is historically accurate.

Proper Burial

Before examining the burial of Christ, one must first ask, was it possible for a crucified victim to be given a proper burial? According to New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, Jesus would not have received a proper burial but would have been placed in a common grave with other executed victims.[2] He argues that criminals were denied proper burial and cites several examples from ancient history.[3] However, all of the examples cited by Ehrman are either after AD 70, describe what happened to enemies of Rome, or describe circumstances outside of Jerusalem. Yet, none of these examples are applicable to the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the death and burial of Christ. Jesus was crucified pre-AD 70, He was not an enemy of Rome, and He was crucified in Jerusalem. Thus, in order to properly understand if Jesus could have received a proper burial, one must examine first century burial practices in Jerusalem before the Fall in AD 70.

First, it is important to know that Jews believed strongly in burying the dead. According to Deuteronomy 21:22-23, Jews were to bury the dead, including criminals, so that the land would not be defiled. An example of this takes place in Joshua 10:26-27. After executing the Amorite kings and hanging their bodies on trees, Joshua has the bodies removed from the trees and buried before sundown. Many more examples from ancient literature could be given. The point, however, is that Jews preserved the tradition of burying the dead so as to keep the Law of Moses.

Second, it is important to know that, in order to keep peace, Rome allowed conquered people to continue their practices as long as it did not interfere with Roman law. For example, Josephus tells us that the Romans did not force “their subjects to violate their national laws.”[4] Additionally, New Testament scholar Craig Evans sums up the first century Jewish philosopher Philo’s appeal to Caesar saying, “it had been customary of Roman authority to respect the customs of the Jewish people.”[5] Moreover, Philo, writing in the AD 30s, explains: “I have known cases when, on the eve of a holiday of this kind [a celebration for the emperor], people who have been crucified have been taken down and their bodies delivered to their kinsfolk, because it was thought well to give them burial and allow them the ordinary rites.”[6] The Roman Digesta tells us that “the bodies of persons who have been punished should be given to whoever requests them for the purpose of burial.”[7] In the Jewish War 4.317, Josephus, in reference to the rebels who had gained control of Jerusalem, says, “even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset.”[8] Thus, Craig Evans concludes that “it is simply erroneous to assert that the Romans did not permit the burial of the executed.”[9]

Third, archeological discoveries provide evidence that criminals sometimes received a proper burial. Perhaps the greatest example of this comes from the discovery in 1968 of an ossuary in Jerusalem which contained the remains of a man who lived in the AD 20s named Yehohanan.[10] What is interesting about this find is that an iron spike was found in his right heel bone along with the “remnants of wood” providing evidence that he was the victim of crucifixion.[11] It is difficult to know how common it was for first century crucifixion victims to receive proper burials. However, there is evidence that it was more common than previously believed. Dozens of nails “have been recovered from tombs and ossuaries, some of which bear traces of human calcium…. The presence of calcium… indicates its use in crucifixion and suggests that the corpse, still pierced by the nails, was buried and sometime later… the nails were recovered and put to new use.”[12] Thus, based on the archaeological evidence, Evans concludes, “We possess archaeological evidence from the time of Jesus that confirms the claims we find in Philo, Josephus, the New Testament, and early rabbinic literature, to the effect that executed persons, including victims of crucifixion, were probably buried.”[13]

For these three reasons, Ehrman’s claim that crucified victims would not receive a proper burial is false. Both textual and archaeological data provides evidence that crucified victims could receive a proper burial.

Joseph of Arimathea

Having shown that proper burial was possible for crucified victims, one can now apply this background knowledge to the case for Jesus. Is it probable that Jesus received a proper burial? A key component to the burial tradition of Jesus is the character of Joseph of Arimathea. According to the Gospel of Matthew, after Jesus was crucified, a man named Joseph from Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus and laid the body in his own private tomb (Matt. 27:57-61). Some have cast doubt upon this episode in Matthew, as well as the other Gospels, questioning whether Joseph ever existed. For example, Ehrman doubts the existence of Joseph because “Paul shows no evidence of knowing anything about a Joseph of Arimathea or Jesus’s burial by a ‘respected member of the council.’”[14] If Joseph of Arimathea never existed, it casts serious doubts about the entire burial account.

Yet, Paul’s silence on Joseph should not cause one to doubt his existence. Many things are not mentioned by Paul in his writings. For example, Paul makes no mention of women discovering the empty tomb. This is not to say that Paul was unaware of such an account. Rather, what we have from Paul are only snippets of his knowledge, not an exhaustive list. Thus, it is unfair to think that because Paul does not mention Joseph of Arimathea, he must have had no knowledge of him. Rather than a lack of evidence, there are several good reasons to believe in the likelihood that Joseph of Arimathea existed.

First, if Joseph was a made-up character, it would undermine the Gospel accounts. According to the Gospels, Joseph was a member of the Jewish council (Mk 15:43). If Joseph never existed or if he was not a member of the council, the Jews would easily dismiss this story as fantasy. The Gospel writers would have undermined their case by placing a non-existent figure into the narrative at such a crucial point.

Second, the burial narratives are full of embarrassment which lend credence to their credibility. According to the Gospels, women are at the scene of Christ’s burial, while the disciples had fled out of fear. Scholars generally agree that a woman’s testimony was less than that of a man’s in the first century Greco-Roman world.[15] To say that women discovered the empty tomb was an embarrassment. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Gospel writers invented the idea that women discovered the empty tomb. How does this add to the validity of the existence of Joseph and the burial place of Christ? The women, the burial, and the discovery of the empty tomb are embedded in the same narrative as Joseph. If the Gospel writers would not invent the narrative of women discovering the empty tomb due to embarrassment, it seems highly unlikely that Joseph was a made-up character in the midst of an accurate account. It is unlikely for the writers to tell an embarrassing truth, while at the same time inventing a non-existent character. In other words, it would make more sense for the authors to lie about the women witnesses than the existence of Joseph. The fact that Joseph is included within an already embarrassing narrative makes it much more likely that the narrative, in its entirety, is true. Additionally, Joseph himself presents an embarrassment to early Christianity. While the disciples, Christ’s closest followers, coward away at Jesus’ death, Joseph took responsibility for the burial. This would add insult to injury for early Christians. It would not be profitable for Christians to invent a story about a man, from the very council that had Jesus put to death, bury Jesus while Christ’s closest followers were nowhere to be found. As seen with the burial of John the Baptist in Mark 6, followers of a teacher were expected to take responsibility for the burial of their teacher. If the authors of the Gospels are in the realm of fantasy, why not have Jesus’ disciples bury Him instead of Joseph? Why not have the disciples at the tomb instead of the women? Thus, the embarrassment of the burial narrative lends to its credibility.

Third, New Testament scholar Dale Allison remarks that “it would be contrary to Mark’s habit to depict a member of the Sanhedrin doing a kindness to Jesus.”[16] Since it was the Jewish council that called for Christ’s death, it would not make sense for Mark to depict one of them as good. If Mark was inventing the account of Christ’s burial, he could have very easily chosen any number of people. Simon of Cyrene, one of Jesus’ brothers, or even “a sympathetic Roman soldier” could have played the role of Joseph.[17] As Allison puts it, “Mark’s ‘a respected member of the council’ remains unexpected.”[18]

Another reason scholars question the existence of Joseph of Arimathea is due to a possible lack of multiple attestation. Mark is believed to be the source for Matthew and Luke; thus, providing one source for the existence of Joseph.[19] It is debated whether the Gospel of John provides an independent witness of Mark or if it is dependent on Mark.[20] Even if Joseph is not multiply attested, it seems unreasonable to posit imagination as the source for Joseph’s existence.[21] There are thirteen characters named in the passion narrative of Mark; “over half of” these “are not fictitious.”[22] Thus, Allison concludes, “… like most or all the other characters in Mark’s passion narrative, he [Joseph of Arimathea] belongs to history.”[23] He goes on to say, “Why is Joseph of Arimathea at Jesus’ interment in Mark? One sensible explanation is that he was there in fact.”[24]

The Burial of Christ

If it was possible for crucified victims to receive a proper burial, and if it was probable that Joseph of Arimathea existed, what is the probability that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea as portrayed in the Gospel accounts? This is an important question because if the account regarding Christ’s burial is questionable, it also casts doubt upon the empty tomb. As New Testament scholar Dale Allison points out: “The historicity of the discovery of the empty tomb does not require the historicity of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea. Yet to judge the latter to be fictitious is to up the odds of the former being fictitious. For most scholars, then, the two stand or fall together.”[25] Thus, the argument for the empty tomb and Christ’s resurrection can be strengthened or weakened by the historicity of Christ’s burial.

As previously discussed, Ehrman believes that Jesus would have been placed in a common grave and that the story of Joseph of Arimathea was a later invention.[26] Likewise, historian and mythicist Richard Carrier says, “His grave… would not really have been a private grave owned by Joseph but the graveyard owned by the court for the burial of convicted criminals.”[27] Other scholars believe that Jesus was never buried but rather left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers.[28] Although these hypotheses are plausible, it does not appear that they are the best explanation for several reasons.

First, it would have been easy for the Jews to quash the burial story if it did not occur. Jesus was buried in a Jewish tomb by a member of the Jewish council. If this was untrue, it “would have been easy for the Jews to refute.”[29] Thus, it would undermine the credibility of the Gospel writers by including it in their narratives.

Second, the narrative regarding Joseph aligns with the data one would expect for a man from Arimathea. According to Allison, because Joseph “was not born in Jerusalem but arrived there later,” his tomb would not have been “filled with his ancestors.”[30] In the first century, it was a common practice for the dead to first be placed in a temporary grave “to allow the body to decay for a period of about a year.”[31] Afterward, the bones would be taken and placed into the family tomb.[32] However, since Joseph was not originally from Jerusalem, his family tomb would have remained in Arimathea. Thus, it is probable that Joseph’s tomb was empty and that no body had ever been lain in it as the Gospels describe.[33] 

Third, it is highly unlikely that Jews would have allowed the body of Christ to remain on the cross. The Jewish council had requested and consented to Christ’s death. However, due to their devotion to the Law of Moses, the Jews would have wanted to bury Jesus before sundown so as to not defile the land (Deut. 21:22-23). As Allison points out, “The commandment not to defile the land required the burial of criminals, and that on the day of execution.”[34] Thus, even Christ’s enemies were motivated for His immediate burial. Although this fact does not make a private burial more probable than a common grave, it does weaken the probability that Jesus was left on the cross as food for scavengers.

Fourth, Joseph of Arimathea’s request is consistent with the type of requests that one would make in history. According to Evans, Joseph’s “request for the body of Jesus reflects the language used in petitioning officials in Roman late antiquity” (P.Pintaudi 52; O.Did. 344).[35] As already established, Rome acquiesced to Jewish traditions in order to keep peace. Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann suggests that “the release of Jesus’ body and its removal from the cross might… have suited Pilate, because this would a priori avoid unrest among the large number of visitors for the festival.”[36] Since the Jews were concerned with burying the dead, it would not be odd for one of the Jewish leaders to request the body from Pilate. In fact, it would be fitting for one of the Jewish leaders to be responsible for fulfilling the Law of Moses and make sure the deceased were properly buried. As Evans concludes, “In short, there is nothing irregular about the Gospels’ report that a member of the Sanhedrin requested permission to take down the body of Jesus and give it proper burial, in keeping with Jewish burial practices as they related to the executed.”[37]

Lastly, the tomb of Joseph described in the Gospels aligns with archaeology. According to the Gospel of Mark, Joseph owned a rock-hewn tomb. These “tombs were common around Jerusalem in the second temple period.”[38] Additionally, the Gospels portray a stone being rolled over Christ’s grave. “The archaeological record features such stones.”[39] Lastly, “Mark purports that Jesus was buried by a ‘respected member of the council.’ Only people of means owned rock-hewn tombs. So Mk 15:42-47 lines up with much of what we know.”[40] For these reasons, archaeologist Jodi Magness believes that the Gospel accounts “are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law.”[41] Although consistency with archaeology does not mean the Gospel accounts are true, it does add to their plausibility.

Conclusion

The earliest Christians were proclaiming the empty tomb in Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified and buried.[42] If there was no tomb to begin with, it seems improbable for Christianity to get off the ground. The tomb was central to the earliest Christian claim, and thus, the validity of the burial account is a crucial component to Christianity. Although one cannot prove the burial tradition of Christ, the consistency of the burial narratives with the historical and archaeological evidence provides that the account contained in the Gospels is more probable than not.

  

Citations

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2014), 164.

[2] Ibid., 160-161.

[3] Ibid., 160-161.

[4] Josephus, Against Apion 2.73 as quoted in Michael F Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon J. Gathercole, Charles E. Hill, and Chris Tilling, How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 77.

[5] Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 77.

[6] Philo, Flaccus 83 as quoted in Dale C. Allison Jr., The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (London, GB: Bloomsbury, 2021), 104.

[7] Digesta 48.24.3 as quoted in Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 104.

[8] Josephus, Jewish War 4.317, as quoted in Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 78-79.

[9] Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 76.

[10] Ibid., 83.

[11] Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 2020), 195.

[12] Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 86.

[13] Ibid., 83.

[14] Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 153.

[15] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic, 2010), 349-351.

[16] Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 110.

[17] Ibid., 111.

[18] Ibid., 111.

[19] Ibid., 97.

[20] Ibid., 97.

[21] Ibid., 102.

[22] Ibid., 102.

[23] Ibid., 103.

[24] Ibid., 103.

[25] Ibid., 94.

[26] Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 160-161.

[27] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix, 2014), 370.

[28] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 307; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 157-161.

[29] W. David Beck and Michael R. Licona, Raised on the Third: Defending the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 328.

[30] Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 115.

[31] Beck and Licona, Raised on the Third, 41.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 115.

[34] Ibid., 104.

[35] Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 89.

[36] Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 44.

[37] Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 89.

[38] Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 112.

[39] Ibid., 112.

[40] Ibid., 112.

[41] Jodi Magness, “Jesus’ Tomb: What Did it Look Like?” in Where Christianity Was Born (ed. H. Shanks; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2006), 224 as quoted in Bird, et. al., How God Became Jesus, 89.

[42] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2011), 129.