The resurrection of Jesus is the central claim of Christianity. The entire
faith hangs upon this one event being historically true. That's one reason
why so many skeptics have placed the resurrection in their crosshairs; they
actually agree with the Apostle Paul in holding "if Christ has not been raised,
your faith is worthless" (1 Cor. 15:17).
Of course, with every challenge to the resurrection of Jesus, there have been
responses. One that seems to crop up time and again is that Jesus' body did not
rise, but was simply thrown into the shallow grave of a paupers' field and was
subsequently devoured by wild animals. Then, as his disciples sought to preach
his resurrection, there was no body to prove them wrong.
John Dominic Crossan popularized this explanation. In his book
Excavating Jesus,
he explains how crucifixion victims were never buried, but left for the carrion.
He then goes on to claim:
In the ancient mind, the supreme horror of crucifixion was to lose public
mourning, to forfeit proper burial, to lie separate from one's ancestors
forever, and to have no place where bones remained, spirits hovered, and
descendants came to eat with the dead. That is how Jesus died.1
Crossan has elsewhere asserted that the account of the resurrection were
originally invented in Mark and the resurrection of Jesus were interpolations of
disciples seeing visions and reinterpreting them into a bodily resurrection
2.
I have already explained why it isn't reasonable to see the resurrection
narratives as an invention of the Gospel writers to build a following.
The charge of intentional fraud fails. But what of this idea that Jesus was
probably buried in a shallow grave and his body had been eaten by dogs? The
theory has multiple issues against it.
1. An empty tomb is accepted by historians
For the shallow grave/carrion theory to be true, Crossan must deny that Jesus's
body had a proper burial. However, this conflicts with the findings of other
secular historians. Michael Grant writes:
Even if the historian chooses to regard the youthful apparition [recorded in
Mark's resurrection account] as extra-historical, he cannot justifiably deny the
empty tomb. True, this discovery, as so often, is described differently by the
various Gospels—as critical pagans early pointed out. But if we apply the same
sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then
the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the
tomb was found empty.3
Given that Grant does not believe in the resurrection. Still, he holds there was
a tomb and it was found empty, which as Michael Licona points out is the most
popular view by historians who study this area.
4
2. Christianity's detractors assumed an
empty tomb
Another point we must note is that the earliest detractors of the resurrection
didn't claim that Jesus's body was cast off to suffer the ignomy of being eaten
by scavengers. Matthew 28:11-15 explains:
Now while they were on their way, some of the guard came into the city and
reported to the chief priests all that had happened. And when they had assembled
with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the
soldiers, and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him
away while we were asleep.' And if this should come to the governor's ears, we
will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did
as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews,
and is to this day.
Notice the phrase "and is to this day," which shows that explanation was what
the Jews were using to counter the Christians' resurrection claims. They never
pointed to a shallow grave, even when Peter was declaring the resurrectionin
Jerusalem where the audience would be intimately familiar with such practices
and locations.
3. No source material for this
explanation
The shallow grave theory that Crossan explains suffers from the Gospel accounts
in another significant way. While conflicting accounts in different documents
may lead historians to argue with one another about which theory is correct, it
is the record within the document itself that gives a evidential basis for the
argument. In the case of the shallow grave, there is no testimony in any
document from antiquity that this is what happened to Jesus's body. This is a
theory made up in contradiction to written accounts (the Gospels) with no
counter-testimony at all. Why should we give it equal weight in such a
circumstance?
Certainly, some would side with Crossan saying there's historical evidence that
this was the most common way Romans treated their victims, but that doesn't mean
it is universally applicable. In fact, while trying to make the point, Crossan
himself highlights the archaeological find of a man whose right ankle bone still
held the bent nail of his crucifixion. IT was found in an ossuary, or Jewish
burial box, which means his body was buried in accordance with Jewish custom of
the day. The discovery proves not every crucifixion ended with an abandoned
corpse.
In all, there's much greater evidence to believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb
and not abandoned to the elements and carrion. It makes assumptions but doesn't
offer any evidence as support. That the tomb was empty
cries out for an explanation, and the resurrection fits that explanation the
best.
References