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

[Adrift]

OK let me modify that. No serious professional NT scholars dispute that the Gospel authors are Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. Plenty of fringe "scholars" and nutjobs like Gary do however.

There. happy now?

Eh, I don't know if that's quite accurate. It might be better said that, generally speaking, most scholars accept the general anonymity of the Gospels, though, of course, there are good reasons to accept the traditional authorship. And concerning Joseph, I'm not certain anyone maintains that he was currently living in Arimathea at the time, only that he originated from there. I think the general view is that, because his tomb was in Jerusalem, and he worked in Jerusalem, it's likely he lived in Jerusalem, or very nearby. I could be wrong about that though.

[Gary]

Dear lurkers....you will note his dishonesty in quoting sources?

Specifics, please?

[Sparko]

It depends on which translation you read. http://biblehub.com/mark/14-55.htm Are you saying the "council" was something other than the Sanhedrin?



Correct. It says:

Mark 14:53
They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.

Mark 14:55
Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

Mark 14:64
All of them condemned him as deserving death.

So was Joseph a member of the council or not?

Do you think someone could be a member of the council and NOT be a priest, elder or scribe? Like a prominent politician or rich businessman? That not the entire council could vote on matters like this? Or that not actually every single member was even there? Especially if they lived out of town? Your claim has so many holes in it you could drive a camel through it.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Is there a reason we absolutely must assume that both Sanhedrins are in mind here rather than just the Great.

...............

1. Mark says "THEY ALL"

2. Mark does not make a distinction between a Great/Lesser Sanhedrin.

3. Mark's knowledge of Jewish procedures/customs does not seem very accurate.

[Gary]

OK let me modify that. No serious professional NT scholars dispute that the Gospel authors are Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. Plenty of fringe "scholars" and nutjobs like Gary do however.

There. happy now?

No. Sparko. You are still wrong. Plenty of well-respected NT scholars doubt the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Ask Stein. STein may not believe that a majority of NT scholars doubt the traditional authorship of the gospels, but I'm fairly certain he will say that your claim that this position is only held by a "fringe" is false.

[Adrift]

Please provide a contemporary, truly independent source to the Gospel of Mark which corroborates the following events:

---the trial before Pilate.
---the burial in the rock tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin
---Mary Magdalene and other women finding an empty tomb on Sunday morning.

But why should I have to do that? That isn't what I was responding to. You have once again moved a goalpost. At any rate, it wouldn't be hard to answer. The Gospel of John records all of those events, and most scholars do not believe that John relies on Mark. We've had that discussion. Have you forgotten already?

[Sparko]

Eh, I don't know if that's quite accurate. It might be better said that, generally speaking, most scholars accept the general anonymity of the Gospels, though, of course, there are good reasons to accept the traditional authorship. And concerning Joseph, I'm not certain anyone maintains that he was currently living in Arimathea at the time, only that he originated from there. I think the general view is that, because his tomb was in Jerusalem, and he worked in Jerusalem, it's likely he lived in Jerusalem, or very nearby. I could be wrong about that though.

The thing is, every single manuscript we have of the various gospels does have their names attached to it. Just because the text doesn't say "I Mark, am writing this..." doesn't mean that the gospels were not associated with those 4 authors right from the beginning. If they were not, we would expect some gospels of matthew to turn up with another name attached to them, but we don't. And we have a LOT of manuscripts.

[DesertBerean]

Please explain.

No. Sparko called you out on this. Go back and read his response.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Do you think someone could be a member of the council and NOT be a priest, elder or scribe? Like a prominent politician or rich businessman? That not the entire council could vote on matters like this? Or that not actually every single member was even there? Especially if they lived out of town? Your claim has so many holes in it you could drive a camel through it.

Mark says the "whole council" and that Joseph himself was a "member of the council." Matthew omits this and Luke makes sure to say Joseph did not consent to their plan and action. Obviously, they rewrote Mark's glaring error.

[Adrift]

The thing is, every single manuscript we have of the various gospels does have their names attached to it. Just because the text doesn't say "I Mark, am writing this..." doesn't mean that the gospels were not associated with those 4 authors right from the beginning. If they were not, we would expect some gospels of matthew to turn up with another name attached to them, but we don't. And we have a LOT of manuscripts.

I absolutely agree, but it's probably going too far to say then that "No serious professional NT scholars dispute that the Gospel authors are...". There are some very good professional NT scholars that dispute the authors, and many scholars simply sidestep the topic altogether, agreeing that all we can really know is that they are anonymous.

[Sparko]

Mark says the "whole council" and that Joseph himself was a "member of the council." Matthew omits this and Luke makes sure to say Joseph did not consent to their plan and action. Obviously, they rewrote Mark's glaring error.

If I say "the whole senate voted to pass a vote", does that mean that every member of the Senate was present and that 100 percent of the Senate voted the same? no.

[Adrift]

...............

1. Mark says "THEY ALL"

2. Mark does not make a distinction between a Great/Lesser Sanhedrin.

3. Mark's knowledge of Jewish procedures/customs does not seem very accurate.

There is no reason to assume that when Mark says "they all" that he is referring to both the Great and Lesser Sanhedrin. It is perfectly in line with the text to assume that he only has in mind the Great Sanhedrin (as in, "they all of the Great Sanhedrin"), and a number of scholars accept that as a possibility.

[Sparko]

There is no reason to assume that when Mark says "they all" that he is referring to both the Great and Lesser Sanhedrin. It is perfectly in line with the text to assume that he only has in mind the Great Sanhedrin (as in, "they all of the Great Sanhedrin"), and a number of scholars accept that as a possibility.

Don't you just love the hyperliteralism of fundy atheists? They are just like fundy Christians. Two sides to the same coin. yeesh.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

If I say "the whole senate voted to pass a vote", does that mean that every member of the Senate was present and that 100 percent of the Senate voted the same? no.

So are you saying Mark exaggerates stories about Jesus?

[Gary]

But why should I have to do that? That isn't what I was responding to. You have once again moved a goalpost. At any rate, it wouldn't be hard to answer. The Gospel of John records all of those events, and most scholars do not believe that John relies on Mark. We've had that discussion. Have you forgotten already?

Spark originally said: which is why Joseph went and asked Pilate for permission. derp.

I said: So the anonymous, written-decades-later, in a far away land, uncorroborated by contemporary sources, book, which is the current topic of discussion regarding whether or not it contains non-historical embellishments, says...

You said: Also, they are corroborated. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky as one canon, they were all originally separate sources (though they may have depended on one another for some details). So we have. Mark, Q, the L-source, the M-source, John, Paul's epistles, the Corinthian creed, and plenty of extra-biblical sources within the same century, both Christian and non.

I then said: Please provide a contemporary, truly independent source to the Gospel of Mark which corroborates the following events:

---the trial before Pilate.
---the burial in the rock tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin
---Mary Magdalene and other women finding an empty tomb on Sunday morning.


Therefore: My entire point of this thread and my above comments is that almost all of the details regarding Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, and alleged resurrection first appear in the Gospel of Mark, written circa 70 AD. Do we have any contemporary sources of these events (that would mean a document written in the 30's)? Answer: No.

Yes, the later Gospels do mention many of these details, however, since the first Gospel, Mark, was written several decades prior to the writing of Matthew, Luke, and John, it is therefore very possible that these authors simply adopted and adapted these details into their story as most scholars do not believe that they personally were witnesses to any of the events described. Yes, the author of John did not copy whole sections of Mark word for word, but you have ZERO proof that John's story of an Empty Tomb is original and independent of Mark.