Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[Gary]

Joseph of Arimathea obviously didn't agree with the assessment that Jesus was a "criminal messianic pretender." The fact that Matthew expressly describes him as being a "disciple of Jesus" ought to have been a clue.

As for the "whole Sanhedrin" it is likely that this was a quorum or something along those lines, very possibly called together by the chief priests in charge of the prosecution among like-minded members, rather than every single member.

NT scholars and even Stein believe that the claim that Arimathea was "a disciple of Jesus" is most likely an embellishment.

[Gary]

Joseph was a "secret disciple" - He was a wealthy man



Pilate had declared Jesus innocent.



He kinda did. "Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the council...."

Do you believe that Arimathea acted as a "private party" when he asked Pilate for the body or do you believe that he asked for the body as an agent of the Sanhedrin?

[Gary]

Gary, you might be interested in Maurice Casey's The Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, which argues that there are Aramaic sources, written by eyewitnesses, behind the Gospel of Mark.

Is this position a scholarly consensus? A majority scholarly position? A minority position? Or just one scholar's view?

[Gary]

He must be experiencing a severe case of amnesia because all of these questions were answered exhaustively in his "The Empty Tomb is most likely not Historical" thread.

Not true. The issue of how first century peasants were typically buried was not discussed at length in that discussion. That is the topic of this thread: If first century peasants were typically buried in dirt trenches, why would the Sanhedrin bury Jesus in a rich man's mausoleum? And, does this anachronism in Mark's story indicate that the author of Mark invented this detail to give physical evidence to an otherwise weak supernatural claim, which up until circa 70 AD, had been based solely on ghost sightings by a handful of grieving, superstitious, uneducated Galilean peasants?

[DesertBerean]

Here. Since I mispelled the scholar's name I'll cut you a break and give you Sparko's FULL CONTEXT of the quote you mangled.

ah thanks.

Hey I have an idea. since you like this NT scholar and consider her authoritative, why don't we go ahead and take her entire quote, in CONTEXT?

https://www.sbl-site.org/publication....sxXSfnIY.dpuf

Gee, Gary, she seems to actually believe the gospel stories are accurate and that Jesus was not buried in a trench.

Thanks, buddy!

[Cow Poke]

Do you believe that Arimathea acted as a "private party" when he asked Pilate for the body or do you believe that he asked for the body as an agent of the Sanhedrin?

First, his name was Joseph. The "of Arimathea" was a qualifier. Second, it's a dumb question. It's likely Pilate knew him as a rich man who was a "ruler of the Jews", and surrendered the body to him without asking.

[psstein]

Is this position a scholarly consensus? A majority scholarly position? A minority position? Or just one scholar's view?

Most NT scholars can't read Aramaic, so it's a minority position by default. I think there are some problems with Casey's thesis, though it's an interesting concept.

He's building off Matthew Black's work on Aramaic in the Gospels and Acts.

[Gary]

And as both you and I hammered on throughout that thread, the burial a) matches what we know of Jewish customs, b) fulfills the criterion of embarrassment, and c) fulfills the criterion of coherence.

I'd rather start discussing something more interesting on this website, honestly. Maybe somebody can argue with me about the dates of the gospels.

Just because someone writes a story about the death and burial of someone whose details accurately describe the burial habits of a particular culture at a particular time is NOT proof that the story is true. Nor does meeting the criterion of embarrassment and coherence confirm that a story is true.

The fact is this: Christians have no good evidence that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus and the subsequent events thereafter was still alive when the first gospel was written in circa 70 AD. Therefore it is very possible that the Empty Tomb story, which contradicts first century burial practices with a very bizarre, contorted tale of a secret disciple (who is simultaneously a rich member of the Sanhedrin) providing Jesus with a rock mausoleum, is a theological embellishment (fiction) just as Matthew's story of dead saints roaming the streets of the city is considered by most scholars (including evangelical NT scholar, Mike Licona) to be fiction.

Without the Empty Tomb, conservative Christians are left with tales of Jesus' grieving, emotionally distraught, uneducated, peasant friends and family having ghost sightings as proof of this very extra-ordinary supernatural tale.

[psstein]

NT scholars and even Stein believe that the claim that Arimathea was "a disciple of Jesus" is most likely an embellishment.

Yes, it goes with the anti-Judaizing tendencies of the early church. The early church needed a way to rationalize how a member of the Sanhedrin came to bury Jesus.

[DesertBerean]

First, his name was Joseph. The "of Arimathea" was a qualifier. Second, it's a dumb question. It's likely Pilate knew him as a rich man who was a "ruler of the Jews", and surrendered the body to him without asking.

That's right. Since Pilate considered Jesus innocent, he had hesitation about checking that he was actually dead before releasing his body out of Roman custody.

[Cow Poke]

Therefore it is very possible that the Empty Tomb story, which contradicts first century burial practices with a very bizarre,

Jesus was no ordinary "peasant".

contorted tale of a secret disciple (who is simultaneously a rich member of the Sanhedrin)

Surely you're not claiming that he couldn't be both. If he was a rich member of the Council, it's no surprise that he would keep his disciple status secret.

providing Jesus with a rock mausoleum,

Which was only needed for a few days.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Have to chime back in for this.

Joseph of Arimathea obviously didn't agree with the assessment that Jesus was a "criminal messianic pretender." The fact that Matthew expressly describes him as being a "disciple of Jesus" ought to have been a clue.

Conspicuously, this detail isn't mentioned by Mark, the earliest evangelist, and Matthew omits the part about Joseph being a member of the same council that just condemned Jesus to death.

As for the "whole Sanhedrin" it is likely that this was a quorum or something along those lines, very possibly called together by the chief priests in charge of the prosecution among like-minded members, rather than every single member.

Mark is quite explicit in that it was the "whole council." He says this twice in Mark 14:55 and 15:1. If you guys are really interested in discussing possibilities then why not accept the likelihood that Mark had no idea about Jewish customs (that's why he has an illegal trial and depicts Joseph illegally buying linen on Passover) and made up the whole scene in order to pin it on "the Jews" while whitewashing Pilate's hands of any wrongdoing? That's certainly a valid reading that is consistent with the text and what we know of authorship/provenance of Mark's gospel.

[Gary]

That's right. Since Pilate considered Jesus innocent, he had hesitation about checking that he was actually dead before releasing his body out of Roman custody.

So says the anonymous story teller.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions all based on claims in the very book under scrutiny in this discussion for historical accuracy.

Logical fallacy: Begging the Question.

[Gary]

Jesus was no ordinary "peasant".



Surely you're not claiming that he couldn't be both. If he was a rich member of the Council, it's no surprise that he would keep his disciple status secret.



Which was only needed for a few days.

"Jesus was no ordinary "peasant"."---so says the story in question.

For all we know, Jesus was of no more significance to the Romans than is some loud-mouth fundie, conspiracy-spewing, preacher from a small rural town in Idaho to the federal government of the United States.

The Jewish authorities didn't like Jesus behavior in the Temple in overturning the money changers. Asked the Romans to snuff him out. The Romans obliged. Done.

Jesus didn't become a "big deal" until Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome or Antioch in 70-75 AD, after Jerusalem had been leveled and most of its occupants (and therefore eyewitnesses) were either dead or in hiding in far away lands, and therefore were unable/unwilling to rebut "Mark's" sensationalist claims.

[Gary]

Jesus was no ordinary "peasant".



Surely you're not claiming that he couldn't be both. If he was a rich member of the Council, it's no surprise that he would keep his disciple status secret.



Which was only needed for a few days.

Do you think that JOSEPH of A. was acting on behalf of the Sanhedrin or as a private party?