Who buried Jesus?

[One Bad Pig]

If you follow the Markan account (i.e. the one most likely to be tied to history), the entire Sanhedrin finds Jesus guilty.

If you take a synopsis strictly literally and disallow the possibility of hyperbole in a society which freely indulged in it, yes.

I don't find an contradiction with Joseph finding Jesus guilty and then burying his body dishonorably.

I find the idea that what was recorded in the canonical gospels/Acts was significantly embellished to be a huge stretch. From the get-go, you have people running in all directions telling what had happened. Assume whatever late date you want for the gospels, people had been hearing the salient details in their various communities the whole time. If someone presented an account which was significantly different than what they'd been told, it's absurd to think that they'd have uncritically accepted it - especially in a predominantly oral society. Critical scholars who methodologically discount the supernatural have been given far too much credence.

There's significant debate as to how much of the speeches in Acts is actually a Lukan creation, but also an understanding that these speeches are kerygmatic, rather than every single issue.

Given the brevity of the speeches, they're very not likely verbatim (although Stephen's may be, more or less; it's difficult to imagine a hostile crowd letting him speak on and on). I see no reason to doubt that they're accurate summaries, however.

[tabibito]

I think you're missing the point here. I don't think the gospel accounts or Acts paint an accurate picture of what happened, partly because none of the disciples were around to witness what happened. What they tell us are the beliefs of the apostles who wrote them down several decades later.

Leaving aside the debatable issue of "decades later" - where did I ever refer to the gospel accounts? (except in response to someone else's comments)

Let's back up a moment. The most natural explanation for who buried the body of Jesus, if no other information was given other than "he was buried in a tomb", is that his family buried him, or that he was in fact left up on the cross despite what the gospels say.

I have made no assessment of who did the burying, beyond that they were the same that lowered him from the cross. The only points of consideration have been what the text itself declares.

However, the family didn't bury Jesus.

The text in Acts neither precludes nor affirms that possibility - the identity of the people concerned it isn't even on the radar.

[tabibito]

If you follow the Markan account (i.e. the one most likely to be tied to history), the entire Sanhedrin finds Jesus guilty.

I don't find an contradiction with Joseph finding Jesus guilty and then burying his body dishonorably. There's significant debate as to how much of the speeches in Acts is actually a Lukan creation, but also an understanding that these speeches are kerygmatic, rather than every single issue.

Mark's account shows that the Sanhedrin met in session. For the Sanhedrin to make a decision, only a quorum was needed. If that doesn't satisfy - the decision of the Sanhedrin is carried on the base of a majority vote. Dissenting votes among the members doesn't change the fact that the vote carries - and the decision is a decision of the Sanhedrin.

Once investigation of Luke's account in Acts is complete, the interplay between that account and others, of course, becomes appropriate. But that depends on examining the others to determine exactly what they themselves say.

Well ,

Acts 13:29,
. . . And as they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, the ones having taken [Him] down from the tree, [also] put [Him] in the tomb. . . .

In a dynamic equivalent Bible, that would be reasonable - the meaning is not in conflict with the Koine Greek accounts. However, it doesn't preserve the nuances of the source texts: for use in a Bible for study purposes, it would be deficient. "Had fulfilled" for example, does not quite say the same thing as "fulfilled."

[psstein]

Mark's account shows that the Sanhedrin met in session. For the Sanhedrin to make a decision, only a quorum was needed. If that doesn't satisfy - the decision of the Sanhedrin is carried on the base of a majority vote. Dissenting votes among the members doesn't change the fact that the vote carries - and the decision is a decision of the Sanhedrin.

I'm quite aware what Mark's account says. What I'm saying, and what many scholars also say, is that it's implausible for the Sanhedrin to be convened in the middle of the night because of an itinerant preacher from Galilee who likely caused a disturbance at the Temple. The basic historicity of the trial account is not in doubt in my mind, but you have to keep in mind that the gospels do have anti-Judaizing tendencies, even as early as Mark.

[psstein]

I find the idea that what was recorded in the canonical gospels/Acts was significantly embellished to be a huge stretch. From the get-go, you have people running in all directions telling what had happened. Assume whatever late date you want for the gospels, people had been hearing the salient details in their various communities the whole time. If someone presented an account which was significantly different than what they'd been told, it's absurd to think that they'd have uncritically accepted it - especially in a predominantly oral society. Critical scholars who methodologically discount the supernatural have been given far too much credence.

I'm methodologically agnostic to the existence of the supernatural, though I do think there are elements of the gospels that are better explained on a supernatural occurrence than anything else. Oral societies, as decades of research have shown, are very good at maintaining the general gist of stories. That is, there's some control over what specifically is remembered and told and what is dismissed. I think it's ludicrous to claim that the gospels have little connection to what the disciples thought and preached. That idea strikes me as Bultmannian skepticism run amok.

Beyond that, there seem to be two main reasons for the gospels being written in the first place: 1. The first Christian generation was dying off and 2. Eschatological fervor was waning- Jesus wasn't returning anytime soon.

Given the brevity of the speeches, they're very not likely verbatim (although Stephen's may be, more or less; it's difficult to imagine a hostile crowd letting him speak on and on). I see no reason to doubt that they're accurate summaries, however.

It depends on when you want to date Acts/if you assume Luke has earlier sources/etc. I tend to think that the speeches of Acts are rooted in what was said by Peter and Paul and at least somewhat represents their own preaching and the kerygma. I find the idea that Luke just made them up to be as implausible as the idea that they're transcriptions.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

The burial by Joseph of Arimathea doesn't really make much sense.

You have to believe Joseph (a non-relative) goes out of his way to bother with the corpse of a man which he had just condemned to death, (Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin) has no problem going to visit a gentile (Pilate) on Passover no less (even though John 18:28 says Jews thought this would make them "unclean"), ask for Jesus' corpse (thereby becoming "unclean" - Numbers 19:11-16 and unable to take part in the rest of Passover week), goes and "buys linen" which was illegal as it was forbidden to work or buy/sell things on Passover, then give the cursed criminal messianic pretender Jesus a decent burial in his own family tomb even though the Sanhedrin had rules forbidding this?

Yeah right!

[One Bad Pig]

The burial by Joseph of Arimathea doesn't really make much sense.

You have to believe Joseph (a non-relative) goes out of his way to bother with the corpse of a man which he had just condemned to death, (Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin) has no problem going to visit a gentile (Pilate) on Passover no less (even though John 18:28 says Jews thought this would make them "unclean"), ask for Jesus' corpse (thereby becoming "unclean" - Numbers 19:11-16 and unable to take part in the rest of Passover week), goes and "buys linen" which was illegal as it was forbidden to work or buy/sell things on Passover, then give the cursed criminal messianic pretender Jesus a decent burial in his own family tomb even though the Sanhedrin had rules forbidding this?

Yeah right!

Your selection of facts and interpretation thereof doesn't really make much sense. Of course, it's easy to make just about any complex situation make little sense if one leaves out bits which impact the situation and spin what's left.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Your selection of facts and interpretation thereof doesn't really make much sense. Of course, it's easy to make just about any complex situation make little sense if one leaves out bits which impact the situation and spin what's left.

Are you even capable of responding with something that surpasses the level of puerile?

[tabibito]

Your selection of facts and interpretation thereof doesn't really make much sense. Of course, it's easy to make just about any complex situation make little sense if one leaves out bits which impact the situation and spin what's left.

You would be referring to this bit, yes?
"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death"
The council of 71 - and not every pharisee, saducee, and scribe but select members of Judaism - including family heads: which is to say that sons of family heads (for example) would not be entitled to a vote even if they were present.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

You would be referring to this bit, yes?
"And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death"
The council of 71 - and not every pharisee, saducee, and scribe but select members of Judaism - including family heads: which is to say that sons of family heads (for example) would not be entitled to a vote even if they were present.

So Mark is wrong? Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin.

The word for "whole" is ὅλος holos which means all, whole, completely. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3650.html

[tabibito]

The whole Sanhedrin was the council of 71.

[One Bad Pig]

Are you even capable of responding with something that surpasses the level of puerile?

Well, yes, when the situation calls for it. Are you capable of making an objective presentation?

[tabibito]

Just as a matter of completeness - ολος (holos) whole, and the παν,πασα,πας (all: pan, pasa, pas) group, do not automatically preclude the possibility of a small number of exceptions.

[37818]

So Mark is wrong? Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin.

The word for "whole" is ὅλος holos which means all, whole, completely. http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/3650.html

In the preceding context of Mark 14:64 identifies who that "all" were comprised of. So why do you suppose also what Mark later wrote (15:1) was not true?

[37818]

The burial by Joseph of Arimathea doesn't really make much sense.

You have to believe Joseph (a non-relative) goes out of his way to bother with the corpse of a man which he had just condemned to death, (Mark 14:64 says they "all" condemned him to death and Mark 15:1 says the "whole" Sanhedrin) has no problem going to visit a gentile (Pilate) on Passover no less (even though John 18:28 says Jews thought this would make them "unclean"), ask for Jesus' corpse (thereby becoming "unclean" - Numbers 19:11-16 and unable to take part in the rest of Passover week), goes and "buys linen" which was illegal as it was forbidden to work or buy/sell things on Passover, then give the cursed criminal messianic pretender Jesus a decent burial in his own family tomb even though the Sanhedrin had rules forbidding this?

Yeah right!

Only the 15th of the first part Passover week it would not legal to buy and sell on that day (also the 21st).