How far back can the supposed tomb of Jesus be traced?

Factual Questions
121

The way I see it, Jesus is peripheral at best, incidental at least to the whole matter. Consider.

  1. Pilate had from the time he was appointed Prefect taken a “my way or the highway” approach to the locals concerned. Putting standards in the Temple? Damn will do it and if the Jews don’t like it, they can jump into the Mediterranean. Using Temple funds to build an aqueduct? Hey, they are as Roman as Roads, and if I have to break a few Jewish heads to do it, I will. All these are attested in Philo and Josephus, the former only a few years after the event.

  2. Sejanus falls. Tiberius returns to the centre. Sejanus had been very notably anti-Semitic. Tiberius had said that the Empire was now going to be Judeophilic, if that’s a word. As the man in charge of the place with the most Jews, Pilate had to change his tune.

  3. And to rub salt in his wounds, the Jews complained to Tiberius about those damn standards and he sent back a letter telling Pilate to stop placing the standards in the Temple and start respecting Jewish law.. As related by Philo in that link.

  4. So how does this effect Jesus’s trial you may ask. Well, I think it’s clear that the Temple authorities were against Jesus because of theological reasons. And the only way they could get Pilate to sign off on the death sentence was to convince him that said theological reasons translated into security reasons.

  5. The thing is, Pilate’s room to overrule the Priests had reduced considerably as a result of events in Rome. All they had to say was “we’ll take this to Tiberius” and he has to start being more “reasonable”. Which, in the Gospel account they did and he was.

  6. Jesus’s guilt or innocence in Roman eyes was not the issue. The issue was the changed power dynamics in the region. He had to be a lot more careful about what battles he fought. He might have fallen out on some other issue and hell, probably did in the future.

  7. As you said, the fate of a preacher in Judea would not be an issue for Rome. Neither would the placing of Cohort standards. However, those things were emblematic of a different thing, fighting between Rome’s representative and their puppets, which was a matter for Rome.

  8. And one which had a very good chance of being decided against him, Rome would probably send back an answer along the lines of “seriously? Why are you interfering”.

  9. Are we really disagreeing on much?

122

Nice thread. I presume you guys have scholarly references up the wazoo.

I’m reading a lot now on the historical situation, the codicology of the first Christians and their contemporaries, and the other cultural transmission elements up to about AD 300.

Any throwaway lines like “according to Mr. x” would be most happily accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, particularly at the general and genial level shown here.

123

No, this is mostly speculation. We know little about Pilate. For some reason, people toss out the Gospels as biased, but have no issues with Josephus and Philo.

124

Two words: Track record.

125

I guess we’re disagreeing on whether Pilate had “a battle to fight” with the priests here. I guess I just profoundly don’t get it. I mean, just logically. As in, primary school logically. Maybe I just don’t logic all that good.

It’s not like they would have been contractually obliged to disagree on everything. Again, your link link isn’t much help. It concludes that Pilate executed Jesus for crimes against Tiberius. So, sedition or treason. In other words, he was a threat to Rome. Which is consistent with him ending up affixed to a cruciform contraption. (Now, no one get any ideas based on the phrase “threat to Rome”. Jesus wasn’t going to overthrow the Roman Empire. Although I’d watch that movie, if there were dinosaurs with lasers in it.) The rest of your link is baloney that tries to associate Jesus with famous Romans.

So there is no room for a “battle to fight” with the priests in the first place. The question never comes up. Pilate can’t first find Jesus innocent of treason and sedition, clear him of all charges, tell him to get lost, only to be reminded that, oh yeah, despite being innocent, there’s the matter that he’s guilty of it, so how about you just execute him. Pilate would just find him guilty to begin with. Which is what I’m assuming really happened. (“What Really Happened!” New show on the History Channel. Yeah, I know, I’m an optimist.)

Why, then, is there even such a thing to consider as a “reluctant Pilate”? For the obvious reason that the Gospels all tell of a reluctant Pilate. That’s the only reason. And, hey, it’s not a bad reason. As a rule, when someone writes that something happened, I tend to assume that it happened. For most other things, I don’t usually go “bah, it’s invented”. But, you know, track record. Bonus points since we can explain exactly why it would have been invented.

There is, of course, the option that Pilate refuses to execute Jesus just to piss off the priests. “I won’t execute the messianic rebels that *you *bring me. I only execute the messianic rebels that *I *find. Hah! And I fart in your general direction.” But what is this, kindergarten?

126

See, this sounds good. But how would that work, exactly? So, they drag Jesus in by the ears. They tell Pilate:

“Security risk. He’s a leader of a messianic cult. He caused a massive kerfuffle in the Temple. He has, like 20 dudes with him, and they all look fishy. He claims to be King of the Jews. I think we’re talking just the kind of guy you like to crucify.”

“What, that guy? No. Doesn’t sound crucifiable to me. Tell him to get lost.”

“OK, how about this? Security risk. He’s a leader of a messianic cult. He caused a massive kerfuffle in the Temple. He has, like 20 dudes with him, and they all look fishy. He claims to be King of the Jews. I think we’re talking just the kind of guy you like to crucify.”

“Wait, that’s what you just said. I think you just literally hit copy-paste, although you probably managed to magically generate a typo on the way. That’s what usually happens.”

“Well, what do you think?”

“Still not crucifiable.”

“So, what are your criteria for crucifying people around here, exactly?”

“Well, we crucify security risks. Leaders of messianic cults. Those who cause massive kerfuffles in the Temple. Especially if they have 20 fishy-looking dudes with them. People who claim to be King of the Jews. That’s treason. You know, those guys.”

…

“Right. Good point.”

127

I don’t think Pilate cared much about Jesus one way or the other.

The Jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead, because He threatened the very concession business in the Temple, and because they were scared (after the Palm Sunday incident) that Jesus was going to try to overthrow the Romans. So they grabbed Jesus, found Him guilty after a quick trial, and dragged Him off to Pilate.

“This guy needs crucifixion.”

“Why, what’s he done?”

“He says he’s the king of the Jews”.

Pilate has Jesus brought in, questions Him for a bit, decides it’s another crazy Jewish messiah thing.

“He hasn’t done anything. Let’s compromise - I’ll have Him flogged just on general principles. Will that get you people out of my hair?”

“No no no - he should be crucified. And we are going to kick up a stink until he’s dead, both here and with Rome. You don’t want that, do you?”

“Fine, whatever. Hey, centurion - we got any crucifixions on the docket?”

“Yes, sir - we got a couple, and we have to get them nailed up ASAP because of some silly religious festival.”

“Good enough - throw this one in with them, and let me know when He’s dead. Here” -(writes something on a scrap of wood or paper) - “put this up over his head so everybody knows who the real King of the Jews is”.

everyone leaves

“Jupiter, these people. First it’s standards in the Temple, then they don’t want to take a bath, now another harmless nut they think might hurt their profits. Can’t wait to get back to Rome and talk to civilized people.”

Regards,
Shodan

128

Mostly, IIRC, Aslan is recounting what Josephus tells us, with perhaps some additional supporting Roman documentation. Of course, this covers the era from a decade or two BC to the Mother of all Messiah battles, the first Jewish revolt which was a real shit-show. As I mentioned, Paul was arrested after being mistaken for another of these bandit leaders (“The Egyptian”?)

The group in Masada was not attacked because they represented the spirit of the Jewish homeland. They were a militant refugee group who raided for supplies (seen how barren that area is?) raided the area nearby, including Ein Gedi area which produced a much-in-demand oil. After the revolt, these guys couldn’t be ignored.

Is Josephus reliable? Well, he was a Jew sucking up to the Romans and embellishing Roman accomplishments (for example, the numbers regarding Masada don’t add up - plus, nobody’s found the bones from Masada). But he wrote his stuff with excruciating detail well before the Christians seized the means of propaganda production, and his histories seem to be consistent and fairly accurate. Ditto with Philo - taking into account his biases, they certainly were not of a nature to make him a Christian apologist. There isn’t that slant in either’s writing.

Some debate whether that “render unto Caesar” was a later embellishment. Apparently the whole “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”, for example, was totally made up.

However, in a tense and difficult dictatorship, with lots of political infighting, people who cause mass demonstrations - even if they just seem to shouting “Hosanna!” - are highly suspect. That they express views anathema to the established order, and have wild crowds at their beck and call is not good. Also remember this was Passover, when the city was crammed with visitors from the countryside, so a very large crowd of strangers whose actions were unpredictable and didn’t necessarily respect the city’s established order.

On top of that, this guy had trashed a very important market for some obscure religious reason. He was a loose cannon. This wasn’t a tolerant city nor a tolerant administration, neither the Temple Priests or the Romans. Don’t misinterpret tolerance for demonstrations based on modern day freedoms. The key to keeping order in an unsophisticated land was to squash any potential problems fast and furious. Which they did. And the Romans, as much or more than the Temple, had an interest in maintaining public order.

129

And of course, let’s fall back on the supreme expert:

Who killed Jesus? - The Straight Dope

130

I suppose what ticks me off (and not just me, obviously, it ticks off plenty off people, and has for a long time) is this weird spin on this whole business in the Gospels.

The Jewish priests and religious authorities are basically cartoon villains. And if you think that’s an unfair description, go back and read the Gospels again. It really does get very silly. They’re always popping up behind every bush, to foil our hero. You can just picture them twirling their mustaches. They get no respect. You get a sense sometimes that these texts are written by a cult made up of teenage punks, who have a massive beef with their elders, and have no interest in engaging with them on a reasonable level. (Although, I have to admit that I’ve never had my cult leader crucified. Maybe it does certain things to your attitude.)

Add to that how the Romans don’t feature at all, really, until you get to the actual crucifixion. It’s like they’ve been written out. You get no sense that there is such a thing a messianic tradition which is totally tied up with the business of kicking out foreign occupiers, be it the Seleucids or then the Romans. You would never know that this was basically occupied territory. And then, when a Roman does show up, he’s all sweet and gentle, and would never crucify a fly unless bullied into it by the cartoon villain priests. Give me a break, would you? I know the Romans.

And to that again how tacked on the whole Pilate business feels. When Jesus enters Jerusalem, the crowds are all cheering, and now suddenly they want him dead? What happened there, exactly?

It all just smells bad, you know? Like something’s not right here. But now I seem to be ranting again. and I wasn’t supposed to do that. BTW, I went a bit off the rails in this thread, for which I apologize. It was partly because of some completely unrelated RL stuff. But it was also, I think, at least a little bit, because this aspect of the Gospels seems to push some of my berserker buttons.

But then of course, you get things like “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”, which is practically Churchillian in its inspirationalness. And then I feel a bit bad about picking on the Gospels, of all things. I dunno. Sometimes it’s talking to one’s grandmother, you know? She’s very kind and sweet and gentle, until she suddenly says something weirdly racist.

131

I guess that’s the problem - at its core, the “new religion” was mostly fabricated by St. Paul, who ignored the people in Jerusalem, called himself an apostle, warned in his epistles about the awful people in Jerusalem who were trying to mislead “his” followers, etc. When Jerusalem was wiped out, his religion was the winner. And of course, his religion was specifically tailored to appeal to gentiles, specifically the Roman Empire inhabitants who were not Jews.

Three hundred years later no surprise that what was accepted as gospel, so to speak, was the edits and versions of the holy books that promoted that orthodoxy. Whole books that didn’t make sense were dropped. Epistles by others but attributed to one or another famous player in the drama were accepted. Versions were edited to remove uncomfortable bits.

Considering the whole “George Washington and the Cherry Tree” story, it’s no surprise that there are cartoony episodes inserted into the new testament. Eichenwald (see below) quotes experts who thing the whole “first stone” is an embellishment from 100 years after.

But the Temple spies trying to trap Jesus - not so cartoonly. The question about taxes was a no-win situation. If he said “don’t pay taxes” he was advocating treason; if he said “pay taxes” he was advocating a position extremely unpopular with his followers, since as a messiah, his “mission” was to liberate Israel from the foreign oppressors which is what attracted many of his following crowd. the bigger the crowds of followers, the more incentive for the Temple hierarchy to take him down. He weaseled out of it, much as he did with other situations, by deflecting; “render unto Caesar [only] that which is Caesar’s” was the perfect answer, since it left both sides thinking he had not disagreed with them. Same as answering “are you the King of the Jews?” with “you’re the one who said that, not me.” Doesn’t answer the question. Clever son of a god.

I’m sure the more he was seen as a threat, the more they tried to nail him (sorry) with questions that could be used to accuse him of treason or heresy.
This is another interesting take:

132

cite?

133

Actually it was doubly clever, since of course those coins had a image on them and were technically unfit.

134

See the Newsweek article by Eichenwald I linked above…

135

Yeah, well, that’s doubtful. Some think so, others disagree.

136

The translators of the New English Translation (NET) come down firmly on passage.

You can read the full note at John 7 | NET Bible . They have extensive citations and explanations.

137

How could it have been made up “in the Middle Ages” if it was cited in the 5th Century AD?

Regards,
Shodan

138

And earlier.

139

That’s what I was about to say, too. If this part was inserted as late as the 400s, that is pretty darned late indeed (and thanks to everyone for the super interesting info), but in fairness, we’re still solidly in Late Antiquity here.

I recognize that glint in your eye. And I sort of admire your commitment to masochism. But, look: Yes, on the one hand, we’re in Late Antiquity. But on the other hand, we’re in Late Antiquity. Know what I mean?

140

I just hate all this stuff about Paul hijacking the religion. That entire idea comes from the Bible, but adding strange interpretations of the text. What Acts says is that Paul and the Judaizers came to an agreement. There’s also reference to Peter, who is sorta in the middle.

I also will point out that the stuff against the Pharisees and teachers of the law is in Matthew, too, which is clearly putting g a Jewish slant on everything Really, only John comes off as antisemitic.

I also find it weird that something would just be added so long after the Gospels were written. There has to be some reason they thought the story with the stones was authentic. My guess is an oral legend, maybe passed down by a supposed family member of the woman.