The Burial of Jesus
Oct 28th, 2008 | By Shalini Sehkar | Category: CommentaryOne of the questions that we should be asking when considering the story of the burial of Jesus is: Does the account of the burial and resurrection of Jesus in the gospels match up with what is known about Jewish laws and traditions at the time?
Let us first take a look at the law concerning the burial of condemned men in the Mishnah:
They did not bury the condemned 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.(6.5e, f)
It has been clearly shown according to Jewish law that Jesus could not be buried in a private tomb as he had to be placed with the criminals. The problem here is that the gospels clearly say that he was buried in a private tomb (Matthew 27:60, Luke 23:53, John 19:41). So, does this mean that Jesus was not formally buried on Friday night?
Another interesting fact is that Jews were not allowed to bury their dead on the Sabbath or on the first day of any festival (according to the Talmud). Now, as the Mishnah requires prompt burial, Jews get around this by placing the corpse in a temporary grave before the real burial. Jesus supposedly died on the first day of Passover, and Joseph asked for the body right before the Sabbath. Therefore, there was no way that Joseph could have done all the burial rites. The only way to reconcile to gospel story of Jesus being buried in a private tomb would be if it actually refers to a temporary grave.
Whosoever finds a corpse in a tomb should not move it from its place, unless he knows that this is a temporary grave.
By law, Joseph would have been required to place Jesus in a temporary grave. The body could not have been in Joseph’s tomb Sunday morning (where the Gospels claim the women visited it). Yes, they found it empty, but by law, by then his body would have to be in the Graveyard of the Stoned and Burned.
The story gets even more interesting when considering the myth of Jesus being raised from the dead on the third day. There is an interesting third-day pattern in the Midrash Rabbah, which is related to the Mishnah. It shows an overall third-day pattern in the current Jewish understanding of the dead.
Bar Kappara: “Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back [into the body]; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it [the body].”
The full force of mourning lasts for three days. Why? Because [for that length of time] the shape of the face is recognizable, even as we have learnt in the Mishnah: Evidence [to prove a man's death] is admissible only in respect of the full face, with the nose, and only [by one who has seen the corpse] within three days [after death].
One may go out to the cemetery for three days to inspect the dead for a sign of life, without fear that this smacks of heathen practice. For it happened that a man was inspected after three days, and he went on to live twenty-five years; still another went on to have five children and died later. (8.1)
Thus, in Jewish tradition, it was considered possible for a soul to reunite with its body within three days but not after that as sometime on the third day the soul realized the body was rotting, and then departed.
No, the burial story does not match up with what we know about Jewish law and ritual at the time. All I smell so far is a huge stink.
Last 5 posts by Shalini Sehkar
- Another family destroyed by religion - December 18th, 2008
- “Behold, it was very good.” - December 6th, 2008
- I am not a Darwinist - November 21st, 2008
- Mental abuse for Jesus - November 11th, 2008
- Stalin, Stalin, Stalin! - November 4th, 2008
Loading ...
It pains me to say this, because I value honesty and the freedom of information.
As many of you probably know, I am a student of biological anthropology, including paleontology.
Due to the nature of my studies and certain connections I have in academia, I am actually aware of certain details concerning the historical Jesus and his burial which I cannot reveal in full here. I wish I could cite my sources, but the information I am referring to is not public knowledge. If it were, Israel would very well be the battleground of a holy war by now, between Jews, Christians and Muslims (this was the reasoning behind the decision not to make the information public, as I understand). One day, I very much hope the information I refer to will be permitted by certain governments weary of decades of continued war.
I leave it to the wisdom of Tyler Handley and others to decide whether this comment should stay on Edger, or be deleted.
[Reply]
Charles Reply:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
So…you’re suggesting that this post should be deleted because you have secret knowledge that is your privilege to know but which you cannot share nor cite? Umm…I’m going to vote no on this one. Secret knowledge that you claim to have cannot be used to support any conclusion. If you think this post should be removed (which though you didn’t say, you hinted at) then you would need to provide some of this top secret information. Furthermore, you’d need to give us some evidence backing this information. Especially considering that there is debate as to whether or not historical Jesus existed at all (to my best understanding, if there’s solid evidence either way, and you can provide it, I’d like to see it.)
[Reply]
Barry Greenstein Reply:
October 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Charles-
I think you misunderstood.
I wasn’t suggesting this article be deleted. I think it’s a great article. I was talking about my comment, specifically, because my reasons for not divulging the source are, frankly selfish.
I can’t provide the solid evidence, but I would prefer not to say why. My reasoning, again, is selfish. It has to do with religious tensions in Israel and frankly, a real-life coverup by the Israeli government.
Here is what I am willing to say:
The remains of Jesus (and his family) were indeed discovered. By whom I would prefer not to say.
A certain paleontology professor of mine was there when it happened.
The Israeli Government ordered these remains to be re-buried. My professor personally was there when they re-buried the remains.
However, there was enough DNA (of the individual Jesus in question and his family members, including Mary and Joseph) remaining to be tested
I don’t care if this sounds like a conspiracy theory. I know it to be true, but I have no concrete evidence. It’s something I can’t prove, no matter how much I’d like to. And if I had concrete evidence other than witness testimony, I hope I would have the cajones to leak it to the right people.
Needless to say, this is why I do not support the Jesus Mythicist hypothesis. There was a real person named Jesus Christ living in and around 0 CE. This person was born out of wedlock, to a woman named Mary. His DNA indicated that he was a son of the woman, Mary, but not Joseph. So he was born out of wedlock. In no way did this DNA reveal him to be “divine” (I don’t know how it could), and it is clear from the results of the test that Mary was not a “virgin” (in the most widely understood context) when she had this individual.
I know this sounds like a wild claim. I don’t blame you if you don’t believe me, as I would not have believed it myself had I not been privy to this information.
However, I was not suggesting this article be deleted. I was suggesting that, because of MY inability to prove this claim, it is up to the people at Edger whether they want to keep my comment here.
If my professor is reading this now, I stand to lose a lot, in terms of my potential for academic success. Hence my selfish motivation.
Of course, there’s always the off-chance that either he doesn’t know about this site, or that he appreciates the truth coming to light here.
Either way, I can’t prove what I am saying here in any concrete way. Trust me, I wish I could.
[Reply]
Charles Reply:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Ahh. I have something of a hair-trigger when it comes to claims to secret knowledge, and often assume the worst. Now, even if what you say is true (that certain 2000 year old corpses have been discovered in Israel) there is still the question of demonstrating that they are in fact Jesus and his family, as well as anything else. If your professor was really there when something like this was discovered, then it is shameful that he hasn’t called the Israeli government on this coverup, though I am skeptical of its existence.
And one more thing: how could there be any test to indicate whether or not a dead woman was or was not a virgin at some point before she was dead? Now, I assume that Mary was no virgin, because she had a child and we’ve never had a case of a human being born to a virgin mother. However, it seems somewhat disingenuous to claim that you can know that she wasn’t a virgin when “Jesus” was born, because even if she had died a virgin (with hymen intact and everything), she’s had 2000 years to decay, which could remove all the relevant physical evidence.
Now, you say that the only evidence you have is an eyewitness account of someone who is apparently just sitting on what should be one of the biggest archaeological finds of all time at the request of the government of Israel. As you said, I’m very skeptical, but I’m wondering why you would believe something this implausible. If I were an archaeologist and had found something of this sort, I would document it thoroughly, get the hell out of Israel, and publish it from somewhere safe. After all, this would make your professor (or whoever else publicized it) one of the most famous archaeologists ever. Probably better than Howard Carter could ever have hoped for.
[Reply]
Barry Greenstein Reply:
October 28th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Charles-
Thanks for taking the time to read my response to your comment and reply rationally.
I would like to clarify a few things, and respond to your reasonable criticisms.
Charles: “And one more thing: how could there be any test to indicate whether or not a dead woman was or was not a virgin at some point before she was dead?”
Quite right. DNA tests don’t test for virginity. Forgive me for my clumsy use of language here. What I meant was that if the ossuary is of her purported son, and DNA was taken from the bodies identified as Jesus (I should not have said Christ, that was a mistake, as he would not have been known by that appellation, which is an English equivalent of a Greek word meaning “the annointed”- forgive me for my instinctual anachronism), Joseph and Mary shows that the individual Jesus was the child of Mary, but not of Joseph, than it can safely be inferred that the individual Mary was not a virgin (as the DNA was human, just not indicative of descent from the individual Joseph). Note my use of the word “infer.” The point made is that Mary Magdalene (as this individual was identified on her ossuary) had sex with someone other than her husband, Joseph (as my professor claimed was identified on his ossuary) in order to conceive her son.
Charles: “As you said, I’m very skeptical, but I’m wondering why you would believe something this implausible. If I were an archaeologist and had found something of this sort, I would document it thoroughly, get the hell out of Israel, and publish it from somewhere safe.”
It’s a terrifying moral quandary, as such knowledge would be the cause (as the Israeli government apparently feared in this case) of much religiously inspired violence.
Charles: “Ahh. I have something of a hair-trigger when it comes to claims to secret knowledge, and often assume the worst. “
This I absolutely understand, as it would normally be my reaction as well. You don’t know me personally, I don’t expect you to automatically believe when I tell you that I wouldn’t make this up, and that I was extraordinarily skeptical of it at first as well. My resistance to the idea weakened as details were further revealed to me (this was in class, and I believe my professor’s recounting of this event was an attempt to make up for his unwillingness to reveal this information to other sources). Trust me, I know how incredible this sounds, and I know that “I know how incredible this sounds” is the first recourse of so-called alien abductees and those who claim to have met God/Jesus/etc. I am making, as you know, no such claims of supernatural or paranormal phenomenon, and to a degree I am still skeptical of this.
Like I said, if I were an archaeologist, and I had the proof in my hands, I hope I’d have the balls to go to the right people with it. It was documented, actually, but the archaeologist in question later recanted (as I understand, this was because of pressure from the Israeli government). The documentation was in the form of a video that has unfortunately been relegated to the “Bigfoot” category.
“After all, this would make your professor (or whoever else publicized it) one of the most famous archaeologists ever.”
My professor is a major skeptic himself (and a paleontologist, not an archaeologist, though there is much disciplinary overlap). Of course, he wouldn’t be the most famous archaeologist ever if this information came to light. That honor would fall to his friend, an Israeli archaeologist.
My professor has been around long enough to know that 1) political pressures sometimes can override the scientific establishment and 2) he probably had concerns about Israeli domestic security which, while understandable, are unfortunate.
It’s too bad these domestic security issues are very real for Israel, otherwise I doubt the Israeli government would have felt the need to cover this up. I don’t agree with the decision in principle, but I understand the pragmatic decision. It sucks. It really does, because for someone like myself (believing as I do that science should not be a political issue in the sense of partisanship of factionalism) this hits me where it hurts.
Please note that I am not trying to paint the Israeli government as some sort of evil conspiracy, and I do not believe that Israeli Intelligence officers will hunt me down and force me to recant. I’m just not that important. Israel’s security is not threatened by posts on Edger, and my reasons for publicly divulging certain names have everything to do with my desire to complete my degree. Otherwise, I would have posted here under a different name. To my knowledge, a decision was made based on political as opposed to scientific considerations. If tensions in the middle east were less volatile, if certain religious factions weren’t dedicated to the destruction of those they consider infidels, I believe a different decision would have been made. Alas, the potential for religious violence (a potential of which Israel, for obvious reasons, is quite sensitive) overrides the reality of the truth.
If, some day, violence is not an issue in this case, and further testing revealed this discovery to be a hoax, I would not continue to insist that my knowledge regarding this in any way overrides expert analysis.
I’m not necessarily trying to convince anyone to believe me, and especially not to take what I say on blind faith. That would be inordinately hypocritical. But as I explained to a friend of mine, the suppression of knowledge (which I believe to be the case with regard to this issue) is a terrible thing. That a very real political situation affected the careers of well-meaning scientists is a terrible thing. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I think Area 51 and Roswell are B.S. But on this, given what I know, I’m not going to recant. I only wish that 1) some day, the political situation will not be tense, and 2) that if and when that day comes, the authorities involved will admit their complicity in the suppression of what would have been one of the biggest archaeological finds in history (as well as something that would cause people like Francis R. Collins [see his answer to DJ Grothe's questions on the Point of Inquiry podcast] question their faith in the face of evidence).
—Barry
[Reply]
An unbelievable, somewhat anti Israeli hearsay account. Sorry - I don’t believe a word of it.
[Reply]
Gingerbaker Reply:
November 7th, 2008 at 4:18 am
I also have to say that I can not think of a reason to believe that the announcement of these so-called remains would be a problem for anybody. We see announcements of discoveries of early Christian artifacts all the time ( almost always fakes) without any problems. We just recently had the fake Joseph ossuary box, and the Gospel of Judas. Jerusalem still stands.
Additionally, the reason that the Mythical Jesus hypothesis was developed is because the Argument from Silence - a distinctly surprising and all-encompassing lack of expected historical evidence of the existence of Jesus - presents real problems for any historical Jesus. Serious, big problems. And we are expected to believe that somehow these three bodies are all buried together, presumably now in a cemetery not reserved for criminals, yet no records of these events survived?
Add to this the persuasive evidence of the Mishna (?) origins of the Jesus Messiah story well in advance of his supposed existence, the fact that the earliest writings so far found describe Jesus as a Heaven sent God, not a man, and the subsequent internally-botched rehabilitation efforts of historical apologists to then assign a mortal coil for the mythical messiah and the reasonable conclusion is that the Historical Jesus model is a bucket of dingo kidneys.
Your professor is having you on.
[Reply]
Barry –
Your professor is having you on, or you have fallen for a hoax.
For one, Jesus’ mother was not MARY MAGDALENE, as you stated in you post thus: “The point made is that Mary Magdalene (as this individual was identified on her ossuary) had sex with someone other than her husband, Joseph (as my professor claimed was identified on his ossuary) in order to conceive her son.” If the alleged ossuary really had that inscription, the individual in it would not have been Jesus’ mother. Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus’ followers, and some conspiracy theorists claim she might have been his WIFE). Any DNA testing would have proven nothing about the paternity of an historical Jesus.
Two, any scientist who prefers to “publish” his results by discussing them in a classroom rather than presenting them in a peer-reviewed journal either doesn’t have a strong enough case for mainstream publication or knows his findings/conclusions won’t survive scrutiny by his peers. Either way, they’re suspect.
As a budding scientist, your willingness to accept the incredible on scant hearsay accounts and no physical evidence is scary. Have you forgotten your studies of empirical skepticism? Time to brush up. Assuming a find was made, judgment should be withheld as to its significance until it has been thoroughly examined. You, and your professor, it would seem, have jumped to some hugely unwarranted conclusions.
[Reply]