Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Realize reasons for belief
By: Cameron Johnson
Daily Mississippian (U. Mississippi)
04/09/2007

(U-WIRE) OXFORD, Miss. — With the passing of Easter, I am reminded of a debate which has been quietly argued since the crucifixion. The debate tenuously persists in dark corners of libraries where zealots have failed to recognize the heretical nature of a handful of books, and haven't stolen them away to wood stoves. The questions haunting Christianity revolve around the burial of Jesus, inconsistancies in otherwise oddly identical synoptic gospels, and the supernatural myth of the resurrection.

Many people exploring Jesus' death recently have been building on the work of Martin Hengel, a professor of religious studies who's an authority on crucifixion. The widely accepted reality is that, in addition to death, the goal of Roman crucifixion was to dishonor the condemned and make a spectacle of them. Burial was an honor, so the crucified were denied one and left to rot. Those attempting to bury the condemned were also crucified. After falling to the ground, the unmarked bones were stacked in mass burials and covered with lime. Jesus was not likely buried.

In their defense, pro-burial theologians rebut the parsimonious burial skeptics by suggesting that there were regional variations in crucifixions. They suggest that Pilate was sensitive to Hebrew laws, and that even those least deserving had to be buried during Passover or it would offend Hebrew sensibilities.

I don't think the crucifixions differed much in Judea. Of the thousands of Hebrews crucified in that place and time, there exists only one archeological finding of a burial for someone who was crucified. Also, the translation of Golgotha literally means "Hill of Skulls," suggesting a pile of bones, and no burials for the condemned. Contrary to the pro-burial theologians, Pilate was notorious for his ruthlessness and disregard for Hebrew law. He was basically an extension of the despots, Sejanus and Macro, back in Rome. I also find it hard to believe that Pilate would placate the Hebrew mob and later defy them by granting Joseph of Arimathea access to the publicly displayed corpse. Finally, I find the Passover-sensibilities theory contradictory to both the Sanhedrin having conducted a trial in the first place, and the Pharisees demanding a dishonorable death, all during Passover.

Not surprisingly, there was no shortage of people witnessing the apparition of Jesus. Pro-burial theologians, in a bit of circular illogic, consider these eyewitnesses evidence of a burial, pointing-out that the authorities could have gone to the tomb and pulled out the corpse to squelch such rabble, if Jesus hadn't indeed risen from the dead, and his corpse were still in the tomb. The corpse, of course, was publicly displayed on a cross right outside the city walls. Realistically considering the rebellious Christians, bitter about their loss, I think they were probably thumbing their noses at the authorities, not unlike a bunch of slaves screaming "I'm Spartacus," but in this case it was more like "I saw Jesus of Nazareth."

The added benefit of all this is that later converts would not have been able to accept any resurrection story without a burial. The witnesses claim a death-defying resurrected Jesus, and that resurrection would have required a burial. The convenient resurrection-ascension explains the lack of evidence (i.e. body), it alleviates his followers of guilt for lack of a burial and facilitates the realization of a novel outlook on life after death. It kind of reminds me of Three's Company, where Jack piles on lies in order to facilitate an initial lie, until it all spirals out of control.

Another recent argument regarding the resurrection is that of J.D. Crossan. Crossan investigated what the word resurrection meant to early Christians. People at that time didn't believe there was anything after death, at least not immediately, and years later there would be an apocalyptic judgment involving a general resurrection of the dead, followed by varying forms (bodily or otherwise) of eternal life, depending on your sect. Jesus' resurrection is an artful hybrid of general resurrection and ascension to eternal life. His resurrection was initially sold as the beginning of an ongoing general resurrection for everyone. It was heralded as the beginning of the end, and not a nepotistic exaltation.

I sometimes ask Evangelicals, particularly those attempting to move me with vivid accounts of their lord's suffering, why they insist on the supernatural resurrection as a matter of fact, and why it holds so much more sway than what Jesus, the ultimate hippy, had to say. A friend responded by saying: "...without the resurrection, we've got bupkis." In my opinion, the opposite is at least as true: if it is wishfully factual rather than faith, then it isn't spiritual meaningful. There is no way to really know what happened, but failing to critically explore it all deprives one of a more genuine appreciation and connection with it all.

[ Back to Student Voices ]