The burial of Jesus: Something smells rotten
2/24/2008 | 2:08 PM | Evolved Rationalist
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?
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 eheaded or strangled, and one for those who were stoned or burned.(6.5e, f)
According to the Mishnah, since Jesus was accused as a blasphemer, he would be buried in the graveyard for the stoned or burned. The Mishnah explains further that only "when the flesh was completely decomposed were the bones gathered and buried in their proper place" (in this case, this would mean the ancestral tomb of Jesus).
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.
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.
According to the Semahot:
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.
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].
From the Semahot:
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.
Christianity does sound a lot like a load of borrowed mythical stories blown out of proportion now, doesn't it?
Posted in
Atheism,
Skepticism
|
Try to read something from Zoroaster and the zoroastrians. There is a parallel between third day resurrection and many christian and jewish beliefs. Well, the zoroastrians were known as the "magi", the same kind of people who visited the baby Jesus... There is a possibility than Christianity came from Zoroaster's teachings.
Another explanation might be that Jesus was the Sun God, just like Horus... Third day resurrection, 12 followers, treason by one of them, etc. This explanation is shown in the Zeitgeist movie (a free movie, look for it in the internet).
I note your rational comments. Thank you.
Could not the body of Jesus have been placed temporarily in the family tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea by him or his servants before the sabbath, and then later removed to the burial ground for the stoned and burned for ordinary burial? Thus when the female followers came to check the tomb it would be found to be empty.
Is it not possible that the church of the Holy Sepulchre is still the burial site of Jesus in that the mother of Constantine could, on her visit, have exhumed the body from the burial ground and reburied in at the site of the new church built at Golgotha, now the latter-day church of the Holy Sepulchre?
Could not the whole concept of a physical resurrection be a literal mistake and the resurrection be seen as a spiritual event, not a physical event. That is, the soul or spirit of Jesus left his body and ascended to the spiritual realm, but the spiritual station, teachings and example of Jesus remained with his followers, a fact that was only really apprehended by them after three days, being the period recognised by Jewish law? It was only at that point that those followers arose with the same spirit to spread the message.
Is this not quite consistent with the Gospels accounts? The dreadful sacrifice of Jesus remains a fact, and we dont have to get into some debate about whether his body is still floating around somewhere in some state ready to come to earth again. This taxes all reasonable sensibility. The Christian message remains just as valid with a spiritual resurrection and looses none of its force.
If this is so, the site of the Holy Sepulchre is quite rightly sacred to Christians. Their faith does not need to stand or fall on some concept of physical resurrection, but it does stand on the sacrifice of Jesus for the sake of his spiritual father (the one supreme God) and his followers. The spirit of Christ still exists and can return again in another physical temple.
What do you think?
Graham