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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

And as both you and I hammered on throughout that thread, the burial a) matches what we know of Jewish customs,

It actually violates burial rules for criminals as laid out in the Mishnah/Tosefta and it is more probable that Jesus, the guy with a sign over his head that read "King of the Jews", would be left up on display to serve as a warning to those passing by. So no, it doesn't actually match with Jewish customs or Roman practice at all. It's the exception to the rule.

b) fulfills the criterion of embarrassment,

Jesus' burial is depicted in increasingly noble detail as the story goes on. We know that Joseph's purchase of linen was illegal on Passover but Mark could not depict his Lord being buried naked which is what most likely happened to crucified criminals. It almost looks as though the authors were trying to cover up an even more shameful burial.

and c) fulfills the criterion of coherence.

There are at least 5 other burial traditions that paint a somewhat different picture.

In addition to Acts 13:27-29 which Luke has Paul say it was "the Jews" plural, "those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers" who executed Jesus and then says "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb", an early variant of John 19:38 also has "they" as in "the Jews" taking Jesus away for burial. This is also found in the Gospel of Peter 6:21 and in Justin Martyr: Dialogue 97.1 "towards evening they (the Jews) buried him". The Secret Book of James has Jesus refer to how he was "buried in the sand" meaning it was a shameful burial and mentions no tomb at all. All of these sources are attested early enough to reflect another burial tradition. https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...page&q&f=false

There is no clear independent attestation since Matthew and Luke copied Mark and John's gospel was written so late that the author likely knew of it.

Paul certainly indicates no knowledge of it. A detail which would have greatly helped his argument in 1 Cor 15.

[Adrift]

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

Some (perhaps even many) but not all NT scholars believe that the claim that Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus was an embellishment.

Not true.

It is so true. Reread your own thread.

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.

Exactly. As far as I can tell, there's nothing mutually exclusive about asking for the body privately, but with the authority of one who was on the Sanhedrin to legitimize the claim.

[Adrift]

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

Why do you care? Lack of scholarly majority or consensus has never stopped you from making a contrary argument in the past.

[Adrift]

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.

You honestly sound like you're trying to convince yourself more than you are us at this point.

[shunyadragon]

It is not probability. It is whether the claims of the Bible and the beliefs of most Christians concerning the events of his life are true or not. If the accounts of the Bible are reasonably true, than he was buried in a tomb. This does not necessarily mean he was physically resurrected, just reasonable events where his body was taken by friends and family and placed in a tomb.

If he was considered to have been only a rebel who committed treason against Rome, his end may be dumped in a trench, burned with other bodies, or left to be eaten by crows and vultures. His friends may have been crucified with him, and/or in this scenario disbursed in fear.

I opt for the body was taken by friends and/or family and buried in a tomb, because it is reasonable he had friends and family.

[Gary]

Some (perhaps even many) but not all NT scholars believe that the claim that Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus was an embellishment.



It is so true. Reread your own thread.



Exactly. As far as I can tell, there's nothing mutually exclusive about asking for the body privately, but with the authority of one who was on the Sanhedrin to legitimize the claim.

What would be the reaction of the leadership of the Sanhedrin for any one of its members to give this despised, hated little Galilean a proper, rich man's burial right in the middle of the tombs of Jerusalem's elite families? It defies common sense! It's down right stupid to anyone looking at it with common sense.

Matthew then has the Sanhedrin trotting down to Pilate's residence...again...to ask for guards.

What???

If Joseph of A. was acting on their behalf, why wasn't the guard request made when Joseph of A. was asking for the body???

My goodness! How many times are the authors of the Gospels going to be having these Jews schlepping back and forth between Golgotha/Gethsemane and Pilate' residence??? These Jewish leaders were either completely disorganized idiots or the Arimathea Tomb detail is one big, (Gentile) tall tale!

[Cow Poke]

What would be the reaction of the leadership of the Sanhedrin for any one of its members to give this despised, hated little Galilean a proper, rich man's burial right in the middle of the tombs of Jerusalem's elite families. It defies common sense. Matthew then has the Sanhedrin trotting down to Pilate's residence to ask for guards.

What???

If Joseph of A. was acting on their behalf, why wasn't this request made when Joseph of A. asked for the body???

My goodness! How many times are these Jews going to go schlepping back and forth between Golgotha/Gethsemane and Pilate' residence??? They are either completely disorganized idiots or the Arimathea Tomb detail is one big, tall tale!

wow SO much assumin' goin' on here!

[Gary]

wow SO much assumin' goin' on here!

Where?

I asked, "what would be the reaction...". I didn't tell you what the reaction would be. That would be an assumption.

[Adrift]

What would be the reaction of the leadership of the Sanhedrin for any one of its members to give this despised, hated little Galilean a proper, rich man's burial right in the middle of the tombs of Jerusalem's elite families.

I don't know. What do you think the reaction would be? Would they stone Joseph of Arimathea? Is that what you're getting at? Arrest him for placing into his own private tomb a man who is no longer a threat? Did Arimathea break a law? That can't be, we know according to your own source that he buried Jesus according to Jewish law.

It defies common sense. Matthew then has the Sanhedrin trotting down to Pilate's residence to ask for guards.

What???

Of course it doesn't defy common sense. Christianity is the world's largest religion, and it's growing. It's the largest religion in the very country that you live in. If it defied "common" sense, then no one would believe it, but millions and millions of people do. Furthermore, the very early enemies of Jesus who had opportunity to point out that "it defies common sense" did not, as far as we can tell. We know from the gospels and other sources that they held plenty of other arguments contra Jesus' resurrection, but "it defies common sense" that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb isn't among them.

What it defies is Gary's sense, but I don't know anyone who's charged you with having good sense.

If Joseph of A. was acting on their behalf, why wasn't this request made when Joseph of A. asked for the body???

What makes you think he didn't, or that he wasn't, at the very least, recognized for who he was?

My goodness! How many times are these Jews going to go schlepping back and forth between Golgotha/Gethsemane and Pilate' residence??? They are either completely disorganized idiots or the Arimathea Tomb detail is one big, tall tale!

[Gary]

It is not probability. It is whether the claims of the Bible and the beliefs of most Christians concerning the events of his life are true or not. If the accounts of the Bible are reasonably true, than he was buried in a tomb. This does not necessarily mean he was physically resurrected, just reasonable events where his body was taken by friends and family and placed in a tomb.

If he was considered to have been only a rebel who committed treason against Rome, his end may be dumped in a trench, burned with other bodies, or left to be eaten by crows and vultures. His friends may have been crucified with him, and/or in this scenario disbursed in fear.

I opt for the body was taken by friends and/or family and buried in a tomb, because it is reasonale he had friends and family.

But unless Jesus' family and friends were rich, he most likely was buried in a dirt grave.

And here is another thing, if Pilate is going to allow the body to receive a proper burial, why give it to J. of A. instead of to his mother who was allegedly right there, the whole time, at the foot of the cross? If Christians say that the Sanhedrin had "dibbs" on the body, then why would they give the hated Jesus a rich man's burial in a rock tomb, and not bury it, in full compliance with Jewish custom and Jewish law, in a dirt trench, the typical burial pattern for the non-upper classes?

This story is so very, very contrived. It reeks of embellishment.

[Adrift]

But unless Jesus' family and friends were rich, he most likely was buried in a dirt grave.

And here is another thing, if Pilate is going to allow the body to receive a proper burial, why give it to J. of A. instead of to his mother who was allegedly right there, the whole time, at the foot of the cross? If Christians say that the Sanhedrin had "dibbs" on the body, then why would they give the hated Jesus a rich man's burial in a rock tomb, and not bury it, in full compliance with Jewish custom and Jewish law, in a dirt trench, the typical burial pattern for the non-upper classes.

We've already discussed why Mary couldn't claim the body. Don't you remember?

[Cow Poke]

Where?

I asked, "what would be the reaction...". I didn't tell you what the reaction would be. That would be an assumption.

You constructed a really dumb scenario.. there's the assumin'.

[Adrift]

You constructed a really dumb scenario.. there's the assumin'.

I'm going to ask some leading questions, but I'm not assuming anything!!!

He is so so so bad at this. It just cannot go without repeating.

[Gary]

I don't know. What do you think the reaction would be? Would they stone Joseph of Arimathea? Is that what you're getting at? Arrest him for placing into his own private tomb a man who is no longer a threat? Did Arimathea break a law? That can't be, we know according to your own source that he buried Jesus according to Jewish law.



Of course it doesn't defy common sense. Christianity is the world's largest religion, and it's growing. It's the largest religion in the very country that you live in. If it defied "common" sense, then no one would believe it, but millions and millions of people do. Furthermore, the very early enemies of Jesus who had opportunity to point out that "it defies common sense" did not, as far as we can tell. We know from the gospels and other sources that they held plenty of other arguments contra Jesus' resurrection, but "it defies common sense" that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb isn't among them.

What it defies is Gary's sense, but I don't know anyone who's charged you with having good sense.



What makes you think he didn't, or that he wasn't, at the very least, recognized for who he was?

" Christianity is the world's largest religion, and it's growing. It's the largest religion in the very country that you live in. If it defied "common" sense, then no one would believe it, but millions and millions of people do."

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Populum

I'm sure that Muslims use this same argument in Muslim areas of the world and Hindus in Hindu areas of the world: "Everyone" (or almost everyone) in our culture, which includes millions of people, including very educated people, believe this and this Muslim/Hindu claim to be true...so IT MUST BE!

"Furthermore, the very early enemies of Jesus who had opportunity to point out that "it defies common sense" did not, as far as we can tell."

If the Arimathea story did not exist prior to 70-75 AD, who would have been around when a copy of the Gospel of Mark first reached Palestine (at the end of the first century?? We don't know.) to say, "Hey. That didn't happen!"

"...but "it defies common sense" that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in his own tomb isn't among them.

It may well not have been among one of the arguments used by first century Jews against Christianity because they had never heard of it prior to the end of the century when a copy of this story finally arrived in Palestine!

[Adrift]

" Christianity is the world's largest religion, and it's growing. It's the largest religion in the very country that you live in. If it defied "common" sense, then no one would believe it, but millions and millions of people do."

Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad Populum

I'm sure that Muslims use this same argument in Muslim areas of the world and Hindus in Hindu areas of the world: "Everyone" (or almost everyone) in our culture, which includes millions of people, including very educated people, believe this and this Muslim/Hindu claim to be true...so IT MUST BE!

You're so dang predictable. No, it's not an argumentum ad populum. I really wish you people would stop acting like you know your logical fallacies. If I had argued that Christianity was true because it was the most popular religion, then I would be guilty of the fallacy. I did not make that claim. The claim I made was that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb does not defy common sense because it's commonly agreed that it does make sense.