¶1If there's one name that Christian apologists like to throw around with authority, it's Craig Evans. >> Craig Evans, who is a well-known uh historical Jesus scholar. >> This is something that is discussed by the New Testament scholar Craig Evans in his contribution to the response book, How God Became Jesus. >> Craig Evans has argued that >> Craig Evans highlights a digesta. >> Craig Evans is really convinced.
¶2>> Craig Evans, professor dean actually at Houston Baptist University. And Craig Evans has done a really good job with that. >> Right. Craig Evans points out that >> Craig Evans, a fine historical Jesus scholar, remarked to me a couple years ago. >> So, no one was more surprised than me when I got the invitation to sit down with Dr.
¶3Evans. >> What do you say I buy you a cup of coffee? >> Yeah, sure. Let's go. >> Follow me.
¶4>> [music] >> Welcome to Apologia, where a former Christian takes a look at the claims of Christians. September has become one of my favorite months of the year because of the annual New Insights into New Testament virtual conference put together by the folks at Biblical Studies Academy. This year the topic of the weekendl long event is Apocrypha and canon lost scriptures and the making of the New Testament and it features 13 worldclass scholars to elucidate early Christian writings that didn't quite become scripture. We'll talk about this more later in the episode but one of the scholars speaking will be Dr. Craig Evans on his latest research on the book dubbed secret mark.
¶5Now, obviously, my own work on the channel and quite specifically my writing project has come up against the work of Dr. Evans on many fronts, including gospel authorship and the burial of Jesus. If you're familiar with my minimal witnesses hypothesis, you'll know that I advocate that three, the resting place of Jesus's body was unknown to his followers. Dr. Evans and I agree on nothing when it comes to conclusions, but it is my hope that we will be able to find some common understanding in the details that get us there or at very least I will get clarity and push back to my own thoughts.
¶6So, I just couldn't pass up this opportunity to learn. Unfortunately, my time with Dr. Evans is short, so I'm going to let him do most of the talking, but stick around after for some of my observations and conclusions. Without further ado, welcome to the channel. Dr.
¶7Evans, distinguished research professor at the Bible seminary, champion of archaeological evidence for historical Jesus, author or editor of more than 70 books and hundreds of scholarly articles and twotime debater of Bart Airman right here in Nova Scotia, Canada. Thanks for joining me. >> My pleasure. Glad to be with you. It is my contention that getting the burial traditions and evidences right in 2014's How God Became Jesus is one of the best cases out there for Jesus being buried in a known location.
¶8>> As you can see, the uh title of the book plays on the title of Bart Airman's book. And so his title was How Jesus Became God. Our title is How God Became Jesus. I I disagree with what he says about Jesus's burial or lack of it. and uh and professor man's failure to engage archae archaeological evidence.
¶9There's not one archaeologist he engages at all including his own colleague Jody Magnus. Uh he doesn't deal with uh Eric Meyers and what he says about Jewish burial traditions. Eric Myers is a distinguished archaeologist at Duke University and he doesn't engage Byron McCain, Jim Strange, my work or anyone else who has looked at archaeology. So he makes a number of very questionable statements and in some cases uh flatoutright wrong statements as well. And that leads him then to uh conclude that Jesus probably wasn't buried and probably wasn't in a tomb that would have been known to anyone.
¶10And therefore, there would have been no empty tomb to find. And the empty tomb tradition is just a later spurious tradition that was intended to lionize women, Mary Magdalene or whatever, but had nothing to do with the earliest belief. uh he suggests there was no Joseph Arythea either and the reasons for doubting that I find are uh uh not very convincing. >> But that's 12 years old now. So before I press against the arguments you made there, does that chapter still reflect your current thinking about the burial of Jesus or have you changed at all?
¶11>> One of the things that really bothers me on this whole question, it actually goes back to Cursup Lake and his infamous wrong tomb theory. >> Right. When I started visiting Israel annually, and this was almost 35 years ago, and one of the things that captured my interest was Jewish burial traditions, the archaeology of it, but also the tradition of it, the literature that relates to it, the artifacts, the bone boxes, the skeletal remains, everything. I wrote a book on that subject, Jesus and the Ashuaries. Baylor University Press published it in 2003.
¶12And if I were to do it again, I'd just simply be adding new information. I don't think I'd have to correct anything. I'd just be updating it and I'd have a few more examples to add. >> Okay. >> And so one of the things I learned along the way and this is what really bothered me with cursive lakes theory.
¶13It is preposterous that people would not actually know where Jesus was buried. And so so a lot of the criticism of the narrative about Jesus being buried and then his a tomb being discovered empty and then these cocky theories about well he wasn't dead. He escaped from the tomb or there was a Passover plot. Pilate was involved in it. Joseph Arythea, they wanted to smuggle the seriously wounded Jesus out of the tomb.
¶14You know, they gave him smelling salts, doctorred him up. He appears to his disciples as resurrected. How stupid can people be in antiquity? You see a mugged, beaten, dying Jesus, you think he's been resurrected. And so anyway, the more I got into it, the more silly these skeptical theories are.
¶15If you say, "I don't believe that Jesus was resurrected." Well, then just say that. Don't come up with a real dumb explanation of the evidence that we know. You get more sensible arguments like Jodie Magnus who is Jewish. She isn't a Christian. She doesn't think Jesus was raised up, but she says, "You know what?
¶16The Gospels get it right." And that why does she say that? She's an archaeologist. she knows what she's talking about. And so the the idea that they don't know where the tomb is or they don't know a dead body when they see one and all that kind of stuff is just patent nonsense. So the more I got into it, the more I realized, hey, you know, and by the way, just archaeology in general, when I talk to archaeologists, Jewish archaeologists, not necessarily Christian archaeology, and they're interested in the first century, they're interested in the Herodian period.
¶17They're interested in the Roman governors leading up to the year 70 when the city is captured and the temple's destroyed. So there, so in other words, the end of the second temple period, they always use Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the book of Acts, and Josephus. Isn't that interesting? Five of the six primary sources that archaeologists, all of them use are New Testament. Why?
¶18Because they're accurate. the late Gabby Barkai, Ronnie Reich who's still living. I can list a bunch of guys, Ramy Arav, and Ellie Shukron and so on. I know these people. I've been to sites with them.
¶19I've discussed archaeology with them. They're citing, quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, right and left. They cite these texts because they find them helpful, useful. And I'll tell you this, I don't know if you've ever been on a dig or know what's involved. You get 50 people, a hundred people, sometimes more than that, to volunteer for at least two weeks, some of them four weeks, and they literally dig up 50 tons of earth and debris.
¶20You want to dig in the right spot. >> And so you use the best sources. Nobody uses Secret Mark. Nobody uses the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Philip. Nobody uses any of the Gnostic Gospels.
¶21Nobody uses the Gospel of Peter. Why? Because of theological prejudice, canonical prejudice? No. It's because those sources are unreliable.
¶22Nobody uses the Gospel of Barnabas? No. Nobody uses that. They use the sources that are first century and actually know what they're talking about because an archaeologist wants to know where to dig and wants to be able to interpret what he digs up. So, they use their best historical sources.
¶23that it's always Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and Josephus. Now, hey, man, that tells me something right there. So, when you have guys telling you that they're not Christian apologists, they don't teach in a seminary, they're not pastors, they're not trying to prove something, they just say, "Look, I'm pragmatic. I use the best stuff I can find." And I find Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Book of Acts, and Josephus extremely helpful. I wouldn't I wouldn't make a dig proposal.
¶24I wouldn't dig anywhere without consulting those sources. You mentioned Jodie Magnus. I've actually had Dr. Magnus on here as a guest, and I asked her about how you quoted her at the end of your chapter, but it's on this front where you are a darling of Christian apologists. >> I had no idea.
¶25>> You wrote, "The gospel accounts of Jesus's burial appear to be largely consistent with the archaeological evidence." >> Yes. >> And also, the gospel accounts describing Jesus's removal from the cross and burial accord well with archaeological evidence and Jewish law. You are off quoted. >> Yeah. I I look, so I just want to clarify when I say they're consistent with they are consistent with.
¶26Does that prove the historicity of the gospel accounts? It doesn't prove that the accounts are historical. But it means that whoever wrote those accounts was familiar with how the Jews of Jerusalem disposed of their dead in the time of Jesus. >> Of course. Of course she has to she has to pull back.
¶27That makes sense to me what you just said. Otherwise, basically, she she can't go so far as to say, "Oh, by the way, I think Jesus was raised up, and so the tomb was found empty, and the best explanation was the resurrection." If she starts saying that, she's she's wandered right into the Christian fold. >> So, I would expect her to pull back at some point, but she when she says the gospels are consistent, the gospel writers know what they're talking about. She would never say that about the Gospel of Peter, for example. >> Fair.
¶28No. Okay. So, I see her in a general sense as an archaeologist, as an ally. She knows what she's talking about. I agree with her, but I don't expect her to take that next step.
¶29I think it'd be great if she did. There are Jewish Christians after all out there, but you know, I respect her as a professional archaeologist and not as some kind of demagogue with a string on her banjo. Anyway, fair enough. >> She's good. I like her.
¶30Before we get to the fate of the body of Jesus, what do you think was the fate of the bodies of the thieves crucified next to Jesus? >> Well, they very likely were taken to the tombs. The Jewish sources tell us this. Tombs were set aside for those who are ex executed. And that's likely where they went.
¶31And that's where Jesus's body would have gone also had it not been for the intervention of Joseph Arythea, who out of pity felt that it was wrong. He didn't vote for Jesus's death. And so he decided, well, at least we can avoid that final indignity of having his body placed along with other criminals in a tomb set aside by the Sanhedrin for those who are executed. This is another thing that some skeptics don't understand. The sanctity of burial in the Jewish world, that is hugely significant.
¶32And you could be the worst guy in the world, terrible criminal and murderer and so on. Doesn't matter. Your body is supposed to be not buried with honor. It's shameful, but still properly buried. Why?
¶33It's it's the sanctity of the land. That's why. That's what Deuteronomy 21 teaches and that's how it was understood. So, it doesn't matter who you are. You could have been Adolf Hitler.
¶34You're still going to be placed underground. Not necessarily in an ornate tomb. not necessarily with great honor. Joseph Arythea took pity on Jesus and his family and so had him placed in a private tomb instead of the dishonorable tomb set aside for the criminals who were executed. >> Right.
¶35And when you say tomb, you're talking about like the graveyards of the condemned. Those weren't necess like Jod said, those aren't necessarily like rock cut tombs outside of town. >> He's right on that. Yeah. It could easily be a trench grave where your body is placed and simply covered over.
¶36There's no, in other words, no tomb as such at all, but it is a burial. >> Gotcha. So, if we didn't have the Joseph of Arythea story, if that hadn't survived, one might imagine that Jesus was also handled the same way. Like that's the most likely thing that happened. >> I think that's a perfectly legitimate assumption.
¶37While I agree that it would not be unprecedented that a crucifixion body be released in first century Jerusalem, I wanted to ask you about the section of the digesta you frequently use. For the audience, the digesta is a massive 6th century collection of Roman legal rights. 48:241 the bodies of those crucified to death should not be refused their relatives and the divine Augustus in the 10th book on his life said that this rule had been observed. At present, the bodies of those who have been punished are only buried when this has been requested and permission granted. And sometimes it is not permitted, especially where persons have been convicted of high treason.
¶38So to whatever extent this may have applied to the first century, it seems very clear that the bodies were explicitly denied when the crime was high treason. Am I correct on that? >> More than likely would not. And that would be somebody who has attempted to assassinate Caesar or somebody who's raised an army and marched against the empire against Caesar. In cases like that, no one in antiquity would be surprised if burial was denied.
¶39Remember Spartacus and that uprising? That was treason and an army. They're all crucified. I don't know if any of them was buried. I mean, the sources don't go into that much detail, but in a case like this, Jesus is accused.
¶40There's a mixed accusation. It's enough to get him executed if the ruling priest demand it because he did create a ruckus in the temple precincts. There are allegations that he's claiming to be Israel's king. Hey, Rome decides who's Israel's king. Rome appointed Herod.
¶41Rome will decide what to do with Herod's surviving sons. No, you know, there were other Jewish men when Herod died and after that who tried to dawn the diadem as Josephus puts it. So, it's a serious charge, but it isn't like Jesus was raised an army and attacked Rome or tried to kill Caesar. So, he's eligible for burial. But the other thing is Josephus himself flat outright states that in Jewish wars book four.
¶42He flat outright says that Rome kept the peace by observing Jewish practices and he says we bury even crucified malifactors. Josephus says that >> but that was in a different context right >> comparing and >> but he's talking about a general principle. He's not saying under these circumstances we do it always. So you think you think Josephus Jewish War 4 3:17 says that it's they always did it. >> Oh, that's clearly the implication.
¶43He's and of course he's telling this to Roman readers. Josephus is writing Jewish wars for the family of Vespatian and their friends. He's lionizing Vespatian who wins the war and by the way grants him pardon and privilege and so on. as you know, as a survivor of the war, friend and confidant of Titus. >> Mhm.
¶44>> He's not writing to Christians. He's not writing really so much to Jews. He does say there's a Aramaic version that he sent to the Jews in the East, but this Greek version that is unfortunately the only version that we have of JW, he's writing that for the Roman elite. And he explains to them, we Jews bury everybody, even the crucified. And he's saying this to Romans who have the authority, and only the Romans have the authority in Josephus's day, Jesus's day, to execute people.
¶45>> But would you not agree that Josephus often was like trying to make Jews look good? Yes. >> In front of the Romans. >> He does. >> I guess I just don't see this Josephus passage as a prescriptive absolutely every time always scenario.
¶46It's about attitude that the Jews prefer to bury when they can. For example, it seems like you agree that they wouldn't have been able to in cases of high treason. So, it can't be an always situation. Or am I pushing too hard here? >> Yeah, high treason would be outside of the the norm.
¶47All I'm saying is Josephus is claiming that the norm is to bury everybody, even criminals, even people who are crucified, >> right? >> And and of course, from the Roman point of view, that usually means slaves and and nobodyies. Roman citizens were sometimes crucified, but that was pretty rare. And so he's just saying that's the practice. And I know there's apologetic going on there.
¶48He's kissing up to his Roman masters. There's no question. But I doubt if his claims are, you know, flagrantly false because how would that wash then? Roman readers would be reading saying, "Oh, come on, Joe. You know, that's not true.
¶49We trample all over you." No, not at all. uh the story of Petronius the legot you know in the you know when Caligula wanted his image put up dramatic example in this case of a high ranking Roman official who recognizes Jewish sensitivities he writes to Caligula and says for crying out loud you got to rescend your order and we can't put up an image of you in the Jewish temple we'll have a war on our hands that's a good example of that this is not fiction it's not being made up And I think the same thing, Pilot, Pilate gets a bad rap. I'm not trying to defend him, but I remember in a television program years ago with John Dominic Cross and he says, you know, you could sum up Pilot's administration with one word, slaughter. Oh, come on. He was governor for at least 11 years.
¶50That's a long tenure as governor. One of the longest in the history of Rome. He would not have lasted that long if he killed people every time he turned around. He had two bloody clashes and the second one with the Samaritans ended his tenure. He backed down on the question of images.
¶51>> He backed down, but he was trying to provoke them. He had fun toying with the Jews, right? >> Whoa. >> With the gold. >> I'm not trying to defend him.
¶52I'm just saying, look, >> the guy was governor for 11 years and all the governors were corrupt to one degree or another. So, I'm not trying to say, you know, he's not some saint or anything like that. They accepted bribes. I mean, isn't it interesting that Pilate did not appoint one single high priest? Gratus, his predecessors, is appointing one every year.
¶53You know why? Because they pay for it. >> So the what I'm saying is the family of Annis and his son-in-law Kaias are probably greasing Pilot's palm every year. He says, "You can stay in power." >> They both get thrown out at the same time because of the Samaritan conflict. Yeah.
¶54>> And by the way, >> Pho agrees, right? Pho that that that Pilot was basically grievous cruelty. >> Oh, I know. He lays it on thick. >> Okay.
¶55>> Uh and Pho scholars recognize he's doing that. I'm not saying he's lying. I'm not saying that the real pilot is a nice guy. No, no. I'm not saying that at all.
¶56>> Okay. >> He'd be more than happy to have an innocent person murdered if it did not create a political problem. But he knows perfectly well he's already backed down on one occasion. He knows perfectly well crucifying Jesus. If if that triggers a revolt, it ain't worth it.
¶57But once he operates it and he's smart, he gets people condemning him. Well, of course, they're the ruling priest crowd aligned with the Barabus crowd. It's a deal. You call for the release of Barabus, you high priest. Then we will call for the crucifixion of Jesus, which is what you want.
¶58They do works fine. Pilot in effect, whether he literally washes his hands or not, >> politically, he's got away with it. No problem. Once they're all dead, everybody's happy. He doesn't care.
¶59And if Joseph comes to him, and you know, are the men already dead? Well, you know, the sun's coming down. They got to be taken off the cross. Fine. So, the two guys who are still alive, legs are broken.
¶60Jesus is already dead. Is it confirmed? You know the the centurion? Yeah. Yeah, he's dead.
¶61You could have his bodies. I don't care. Rome is done with it. Whether the bodies are left hanging on the crosses are buried or not. He didn't care.
¶62The ruling priests care because of the sanctity of the land, especially the land right around Jerusalem. The all three bodies are taken down. All three bodies are buried. Nobody with honor. No public lamentation.
¶63Joseph intercedes only in the sense that he gets Jesus's body placed in its own tomb. And so that's just out of pity and sympathy and that's the end of it. >> Gotcha. And so we're clear on the record. You think that despite the idea that Jesus was crucified with the sign hanging that said king of the Jews, it is your position that the crime that got Jesus executed was not high treason.
¶64That's your take? >> Yeah, I I think so. It would not be regarded as high treason. It would be similar when Paul is hauled in before Gallo in where is it? In Corenth or Athens?
¶65Maybe it's A. Anyway, and he's he's listening to everybody. These men are creating a problem. They're talking about this Jesus guy, you know, in what sense? He's the king.
¶66Jesus the Messiah. And he's listening to this. He goes, "Oh, for Pete's sakes. This is just some Jewish thing. You're quarreling over names.
¶67I have no interest in it." Walks away. So, I think what Pilate is doing is it's actually politically very astute. Does he really want to get dragged into some Jewish theological question? He's not stupid. He knows the Jews have some kind of a messianic hope.
¶68But Jesus has no army. So it's not like troops showing up, guys with swords. There's no big battle. He's simply seized. So he'll crucify him.
¶69If that's what you want, fine. And I'm done with it. Once he's crucified, by the way, Passover is over. He packs up and goes back to Cesaria Meritima. So if you want to bury him, go ahead.
¶70If you don't, I don't care. It's your call. You do it. >> I appreciate the clarity. Thank you.
¶71I could definitely go back and forth with you for another hour on all kinds of things, but we do need to talk about the 2026 New Insights into the New Testament conference that I'm very excited about, particularly this year. Our topic this year is Apocrypha and canon, lost scriptures, and the making of the New Testament. Most of you are probably familiar with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the other writings of the New Testament. But how well do you know the Christian apocryphal writings from outside? These include lost gospels, disputed letters, rediscovered acts, martyrdom stories, infancy traditions, and apocalypses that many Christians once read, copied, debated, and sometimes treated as scripture.
¶72They didn't make it into the New Testament. But as it turns out, they can help explain the New Testament. over a dozen worldclass scholars like Mark Goodaker, Ian Mills, Travis Proctor, Elaine Pagels, Bart Arman, and yourself to name a few. Your lecture is called Forged, a new proposal on the origins of secret mark. What is Secret Mark and why is it important?
¶73Well, it's important because if it is genuine, if the letter that Clement wrote to Theodore talking about a longer version of Mark, if that's correct, if Clement really wrote that letter and knew what he was talking about, this this sheds a new light on the Gospel of Mark itself, it would suggest that the version we have is a shorter version, that at one time there was a longer version. And aren't we lucky we have two quotations of that longer version, so we have something to talk about. The question though is, is it genuine? Does it really go back to the first century, second century, and so on? Most scholars don't think so.
¶74Then there's a secondary question as well, if it isn't original, who actually wrote it? And some have thought Morton Smith himself did. >> Mhm. >> And so it's a 20th century forgery. I'm going to suggest a third alternative.
¶75Smith didn't fake it, but it isn't original either, and provide what I think is a better explanation of Morton Smith's behavior. So, I am going to suggest Smith wasn't totally honest about when and where he found it, and that's going to help us sort out some of these questions. >> The conference is streamed live September 25th to 27th and includes some mixers with the speakers and the other attendees and a Q&A on every session, but it's also all recorded and you get lifelong access. To register and join us there, go to tinyurl.com/nint2026 or tap on the link in the description. And by using that link, you'll be helping the mission of this channel, which I greatly appreciate.
¶76>> Thank you so much. I have enjoyed this discussion greatly. I will definitely be at the conference and we'll see you there. Thank you so much, Dr. Evans.
¶77>> You're very welcome. >> Wow. Okay. I definitely would have loved to continue that longer and get into other Jesus burial topics like the historicity of Joseph Arythea, the Greek word at Tephe used by Paul for buried in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, and maybe even gospel authorship. That said, I won't introduce any new information here since Dr.
¶78Evans wouldn't have a chance to reply. But what I would like to do is reiterate exactly what I think happened here. According to Dr. Evans, for the thieves crucified with Jesus on the same day in the same location, their bodies would have been >> placed along with other criminals in a tomb set aside by the Sanhedrin for those who are executed. Yeah, it could easily be a trench grave where your body is placed and simply covered over.
¶79There's no, in other words, no tomb as such at all. And that's where Jesus's body would have gone also had it not been for the intervention of Joseph Arythea. >> And I confirmed. So if we didn't have the Joseph of Arythea story, if that hadn't survived, one might imagine that Jesus was also handled the same way. Like that's the most likely thing that happened.
¶80>> I think that's a perfectly legitimate assumption. This is exactly what I've been saying for years. And apologists have treated me like I was saying something unreasonable. That the most expected thing that would have happened to the body of Jesus was an unremembered disposal. This would also have been known in Jesus's day.
¶81Which is precisely why the Joseph of Arythea story seems like an invented post hawk story to explain away why what would most likely have happened isn't in fact what actually happened. Those who advocate for an empty tomb are not doing so because of historical or archaeological evidence. Those who advocate for a remembered burial place are doing solely and completely for the Bible tells them so. The most likely thing to have happened to any given body, the most reasonable assumption about what happened is obviously a very reasonable position for a skeptic like me to take. The empty tomb burden is entirely about reliability of the gospels and nothing else.
¶82Since the gospels say Jesus rose from the dead, all possible naturalistic explanations for the origin of Christianity must definitionally contradict the gospels at some points. That the location of Jesus's body was remembered is just one of those points. To be clear, Dr. Evans doesn't agree with my conclusion. To be sure, >> it is preposterous that people would not actually know where Jesus was buried.
¶83>> But we've established today his only reason for disagreeing with me is a story from the Gospels. Your mileage may vary. Again, thank you so much, Dr. Evans, and thank you for watching. And for more of this former Christian taking a look at the claims of Christians, tap on the link on screen now, and I'll see you over there.
¶84Until next time. Later.