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

[psstein]

You are severely misinformed. The most popular theory for the Synoptic Problem is the two source hypothesis, meaning Matthew and Luke copied Mark's Gospel and used another sayings source known as Q. We know they copied Mark due to the verbatim Greek copying. How else do you explain that? Another strong piece of evidence is editorial fatigue. https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...e-copied-mark/

If the Farrer or Wilke Hypotheses are correct, then Q doesn't exist. The "verbatim copying" doesn't prove anything; it's the Lachmann fallacy. What it proves is that Mark is the middle term of the gospels, not that Mark was written first.

The argument from fatigue is the best argument for Markan priority, in my opinion.

[Adrift]

90% of Matthew stems from Mark (probably). Provided Q exists, Matthew and Luke both make use of it. However, the passion narrative is commonly understood to not contain Q material (which is why the Minor Agreement at Mark 14:65 is odd).

Right. Not much sayings material that could be used for the burial narrative.

[Sparko]

I have. From Matthew 1:1 all the way through to the end of the Book of Acts.

Have you ever read the Gospels and Acts straight through? Interesting isn't? I remember coming to the end of one Gospel and thinking, "Hey. The last Gospel I read said something completely different. What's up here?"

Is the information I quoted incorrect? If so, please give specifics?

well gee, if they just copied Mark, why would they say anything different? Makes you think doesn't it?

[Gary]

Stein: Do you believe that it is "plausible" that the author of Mark invented the Empty Arimathea Rock Tomb Story? If not, briefly why not?

[psstein]

Gary, you have to be more specific. Are there particular elements you're asking after, or are you considering the story wholesale?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If the Farrer or Wilke Hypotheses are correct, then Q doesn't exist. The "verbatim copying" doesn't prove anything; it's the Lachmann fallacy. What it proves is that Mark is the middle term of the gospels, not that Mark was written first.

Then you'd have to believe the author of Mark deliberately left out the virgin birth, Sermon on the Mount, resurrection appearances, etc which is a ridiculous position. Markan priority has reached a consensus view and there is no good reason to doubt it.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Matthew and Luke also contain quite a bit of their own unique material coming from an alternative tradition or source other than Mark and Q. On the burial narrative, for instance, Matthew's unique material describes the guards posted at the tomb. Luke tells us that Joseph did not consent to the deeds of the council that condemned Jesus. And then we have John who not only gives us more details about Joseph of Arimathea, the preparation of the body, the location of the tomb, but (re)introduces Nicodemus as a co-preparer of the body. Matthew and Luke don't need to add much more than they have about the burial because the unique traditions they're familiar with agree with that found already in Mark. No need to reinvent the wheel.

How do we know the "unique" material comes from a "tradition" or earlier "source" rather than the author's own hand? Moreover, how do we know this "tradition" or "source" reflects actual history rather than theological or legendary embellishment? Keep in mind, both Matthew and Luke contradict Mark's ending by having them run and immediately tell the disciples they found an empty tomb. Mark says "they left and told no one." This is a contradiction as you can't have them leave and "tell no one" then have them immediately tell the disciples. Also, Luke deliberately replaced the tradition of appearances in Galilee and instead has them in Jerusalem. He leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee.

Luke 24:46-49
Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city

Acts 1:4
Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about."

[psstein]

Then you'd have to believe the author of Mark deliberately left out the virgin birth, Sermon on the Mount, resurrection appearances, etc which is a ridiculous position. Markan priority has reached a consensus view and there is no good reason to doubt it.

I agree there aren't good reasons to doubt Markan priority. Yet, the argument from order is still a poor argument.

[Gary]

Gary, you have to be more specific. Are there particular elements you're asking after, or are you considering the story wholesale?

That Jesus was buried in the rock tomb of a man named Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Sanhedrin.

[psstein]

That Jesus was buried in the rock tomb of a man named Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Sanhedrin.

It probably wasn't Joseph's personal tomb.

[Adrift]

How do we know the "unique" material comes from a "tradition" or earlier "source" rather than the author's own hand? Moreover, how do we know this "tradition" or "source" reflects actual history rather than theological or legendary embellishment?

Probably a question best answered by a text critic. We know the synoptics had to come from someplace, and there's really just too much unique and detailed material in special Luke and Matthew that was obviously not rejected by their communities. Also, quite a bit of their material fits with facts we know about Jewish beliefs and behaviors including a number Semitisms not found in Mark. Luke literally tells us that his account comes from a number of sources. It seems unlikely that the authors of Matthew and Luke just...made it up. At any rate, scholars generally believe that there really is a separate tradition for Special Luke and Matthew. This isn't a fringe belief. But then again, you've been citing and plagiarizing Carrier and brojangles who think that almost all of it was made up, so I suppose you'll accept what you'll accept.

[Gary]

It probably wasn't Joseph's personal tomb.

Do you believe it is plausible that the author of Mark:

-invented the story that Jesus was given a proper Jewish burial, by a member of the Sanhedrin, in a rock tomb.
-invented the story of women visiting the rock tomb, finding it empty, and meeting a "young man" inside the tomb.

[psstein]

Do you believe it is plausible that the author of Mark:

-invented the story that Jesus was given a proper Jewish burial, by a member of the Sanhedrin, in a rock tomb.
-invented the story of women visiting the rock tomb, finding it empty, and meeting a "young man" inside the tomb.

1. Joseph of Arimathea is probably not a fictitious character. He probably had some role in Jesus' burial. The rock tomb follows what we know of Jewish burial customs.

2. The "young man," who's implied to be an angel, possibly is some sort of theological point. Angels often mean some sort of divine message is being conveyed. I'm not a theologian and can't speak as to what the deeper significance may be.

[Gary]

1. Joseph of Arimathea is probably not a fictitious character. He probably had some role in Jesus' burial. The rock tomb follows what we know of Jewish burial customs.

2. The "young man," who's implied to be an angel, possibly is some sort of theological point. Angels often mean some sort of divine message is being conveyed. I'm not a theologian and can't speak as to what the deeper significance may be.

I agree that the Gospels appear to properly describe Jewish burial customs for burial in a rock tomb, but if the author was familiar with these customs, his accurate portrayal of burial in rock tombs does not necessarily mean that his rock tomb burial story is historical.

I find it very hard to believe that the Sanhedrin would not have prepared for the death of Jesus so close to the Passover. Why not have a dirt trench dug and ready into which they could place the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves? Magness seems to suggest that this would have been the burial pattern for most persons who died in first century Palestine. Allowing Jesus, even temporarily, to be buried in a rich man's rock tomb, just seems very odd.

[Gary]

Let me expand on my last comment (time has expired for me to add it).

To me, the Arimathea Tomb Story makes sense only under the following conditions:

---Arimathea truly was a secret disciple of Jesus.
---Pilate viewed Jesus as a non-threat to Rome. The sign "King of the Jews" was in jest. Jesus was not crucified for treason, but simply as a trouble-maker.
---Arimathea either had very good relations with Pilate or he "paid off" Pilate to take possession of the body.
---the Sanhedrin cared less what happened to the body of Jesus as long as it was in the ground, in some form, prior to the Sabbath, so Arimathea's act was not threatening or offensive to them.

Unless all these conditions existed, the story seems very unbelievable to me.

1. If Arimathea were NOT a disciple of Jesus, why bury Jesus in his tomb, even if it wasn't his personal/family tomb? Why not bury Jesus in the ground, in a dirt trench, as was the typical custom for most people buried in first century Palestine? Magness says it is incorrect to suggest that burial in a dirt trench was dishonorable.

The Sanhedrin was a very well-organized governing body. Why weren't they prepared for Jesus' burial? Why panic at the last minute to find a burial spot in a rock tomb prior to the sun going down? Wouldn't it be more in character with this institution for them to have had everything planned out in advance, including having a dirt trench ready to bury the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves?

2. If Pilate believed that Jesus was in any way a threat to Rome, why let a "traitor" be buried in a rock tomb---where every future trouble-making Jew could visit as a shrine---instead of an unmarked, secret, hole in the ground?

3. If Arimathea went to Pilate as a representative of the Sanhedrin, AND, Pilate did not view Jesus as a threat to Rome, I can see giving the body to the Sanhedrin, but why hadn't the Sanhedrin arranged this with Pilate beforehand? Seems odd. Why so many visits down to Pilate's residence when all these issues could have been arranged to begin with. It seems poorly planned. The Sanhedrin did not have a reputation of being so sloppy and disorganized.

4. If the Sanhedrin wanted the body, why would they want to give the peasant Galilean a burial in a rock tomb among the noble families of Jerusalem, and not in a hole in the ground? And if this was solely Arimathea's idea, why didn't the Sanhedrin protest the body being given to someone other than the Sanhedrin leadership? If Pilate was already "afraid of the Jews", why was he willing to tick them off regarding the burial of the body?

The whole story just has too many oddities in it. Is it possible, yes, but it sure seems contrived, to me.