In the Gospels, it is related that after having been executed as some kind of subversive, he was buried in a tomb. That seems exceptionally odd for someone who had died as he had died -- I'd imagine that his body would have been left on that cross as some kind of object lesson.

Also, JC and his followers had not been depicted as being able to easily afford a tomb; the most they could have afforded is some land somewhere for a coffinless burial.

First off, it's not entirely unlikely that Jesus managed to get a rich follower or two. I mean, look at Scientology.
Secondly, they certainly wouldn't have left him up; they had other people to crucify. Most likely, had not Joseph stepped forward for his body, it would have been thrown on a mass grave or something of the like.

I do believe that the bible actually explains where the whole tomb thing came from. I'm too tired to look it up. But I think I remember from my sunday school reading of my youth that a Simon or someone he Jesus buried in his tomb or something like that....

I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm falling asleep....

Andrew

Hmmm... I have a dim memory that one point of crucifixion was to have an unburied body which was considered bad.

Meta => No it is not odd at all. Because in the OT it says 'cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.' That euphimism was carried over to crucifiction after the Romans took over. So in the OT it applied to hanging up the body as an object lesson, and the law forbade leaving it up after sun down. The Jews were very strict about this and the law even provided for burial of convicted murderers who were exicuted having been found guilty.

Now the Romans were very good about allowing people to maintain their own religion and their religious customs. Thus they allowed the jews this custom and that's why the Nazereth law was passed which makes desicration of a tomb that has been prepared under the aupecies of any religious tradition a serious crime.

Moreover, since Jesus was exicuted under the charge of treason to Rome he didn't even come under the charge of being guilty of a crime in the Jewish law, thus he could be afforded honorable burriel.

Meta => No actually it doesn't. It depitics the tomb as being donnated by Joseph of Aremethia. Now the scholar Raymond Brown argues that Jospeh was not a follower he was just concerned to do his duty as they were racing agaisnt time to get the body in a tomb before the passover, becasue that would defile the holy day had it been left up. So he was just a concerned citizen (member of the sandhedrin) doing his duty and donnated his own tomb.

A good book to read that documents all of this is Death of the Messiah By Raymond Brown.

Meta => AS I pointed out above, Joseph didn't have to be a follower to have a motive to bury the body. And many shcolars don't think he was a follower. Of course in latter lore he was turned into one. But he wanted to prevent the holyday form being defiled and was doing his duty. Since Jesus was crucified as a treater to Rome and not one who violated the Moseic law he was not only allowed an honorable burriel but the law mandated that he have one. They were very strict about that. The Romans left Bodies on the Cross as examples, the Jews did not. And the Romans did allow the Jews their privilege in this. In fact Jospehus had three friends crucified and was able to get them taken down before two of them died and all before sunset on the grounds that to leave them up past sunset violated their religious tradition.

I'm sorry, but Jesus was not executed as a rebel against Rome; Pilate clearly felt he did NOT deserve crucifixion, and had Jesus been arrested on treason charges, Pilate would have had no such qualms. Jesus was placed under arrest by the Pharisees (see the betrayal in the garden), who demanded his death for his blasphemy.


[This message has been edited by daemon23 (edited January 26, 2001).]

Meta => No it is not odd at all. Because in the OT it says 'cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree.' That euphimism was carried over to crucificion after the Romans took over. So in the OT it applied to hanging up the body as an object lesson, and the law forbade leaving it up after sun down. The Jews were very strict about this and the law even provided for burial of convicted murderers who were exicuted having been found guilty.

BigD: If you are hanging on a tree, yes you are cursed –duh! What, if you were hung and died and they leave you up over night you are worse off than if they took your body down before sundown? Is there a verse that says it is against the law to leave the body up after sundown? Is it a Jewish law or a Roman law? Or is that verse you quoted just misapplied? Actually, the OT says a whole bunch of people are cursed so why the big hang-up about dead bodies for such a blood thirsty people and psycho God? Hacking, maiming and killing were standard fare!

Lev 21:19 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire.” (I like mine medium rare, please)

Numbers 15: 15:32
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that had gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. They that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. (And they did! Watch out for those Union rules!)

Numbers 25:4

And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. (A bloody showing of the gore wwas exactly what God wanted and enjoyed, so it seems leaving a body on a tree shouldn't be that much of a crime!)

Duet 25:11
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (umm, cajones):
Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Of course this isn’t mentioning all the countless slaughters the “Lord” called upon men, women, and children (and animals!) The Peta group must be really angry at God too! (LOL).

Can you really worship such a sick “god”? If so, that is very sad.

While it is true that in some cases the Romans did leave the bodies of crucified victims on crosses for extended periods of time (typically to horrify rebellious locals), the basic rules for how to treat the crucified was laid out in "The Digest of Justinian" 48:24 in which Ulipian tells us that the bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be denied to their relatives, and this is extended by Julius Paulus to include any who seek them for burial (see R.E. Brown, "Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, pg. 1207).

Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary developement in the account by the Gospel authors themselves.

Quoting from "The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2" (Doubleday, 1994):

...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1)....
Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239

The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16) as mentioned by Josephus in Jewish War 4.5.2; #317 “The Jews were so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset.” These practices arise especially Mosaic Law (as was mentioned by Metacrock).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 “If there shalle be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged.”

Further, we have from Josephus again mentioning of the command to bury on the same day one who has been hung on a tree after being stoned to death, in a first-century context Antiquities 4. 202 and Jewish War 4. 317.

In his concluding remarks on the burial of Jesus, Raymond Brown had this to say:

”That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea,” a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible… While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus’ burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical.”
(R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)

One of history’s most liberal theologians concurs. Commenting specifically on Mark 15:42-47:

”This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vs. 44-45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark.”
R. Bultmann, “History of the Synoptic Tradition”, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pg. 274.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited January 26, 2001).]

Yes he was. That's why the sign "King of the Jews" above his head. Where does it say that the acutal charge they got him on was that of violating Moseic law? Herod asks him if he is the King of the Jews and he says "you say I am" and Herod basically says, "Ok that's it." And that is the basis of his condmenation. Just becasue Pilate sent him on to Herod in no way means that Herod didn't have the authority to exicute him as an insurrectionist.