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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

There is no reason to assume that when Mark says "they all" that he is referring to both the Great and Lesser Sanhedrin.

Unless, of course, if Mark really did mean "all".

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.

Only if you're ok with reading that ad hoc hypothesis in the text in order to get out of the most straightforward reading of it. And why are you automatically assuming Joseph was not part of the Great Sanhedrin? Surely, since he's referred to as a "prominent/respected member of the Council" then that makes him a suitable candidate.

Care to take a crack at the other improbabilities found in Mark's story? I'm interested to hear how "scholars" get around these.

The whole trial scene is actually illegal as it violates numerous Jewish laws. https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

Moreover, this whole event takes place on the Passover festival so instead of Joseph going and taking part in the festivities before the Sabbath he spends his time going to visit a gentile (Pilate) and touching a corpse where thereby he would be considered "unclean" for seven days - Numbers 19:16. He also "buys linen" - Mark 15:46 but it was illegal to work or buy/sell goods on Passover - Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Yet, Mark still has Joseph, "a prominent member of the council," violate Jewish law in full public view! Was Mark familiar at all with Jewish law/custom?

[Adrift]

Unless, of course, if Mark really did mean "all".

Yes, as in "all of the Great Sanhedrin". I'm not sure what you're missing here.

Only if you're ok with reading that ad hoc hypothesis in the text in order to get out of the most straightforward reading of it.

It's not really ad hoc, and it's easily straightforward.

And why are you automatically assuming Joseph was not part of the Great Sanhedrin?

Why automatically assume he is?

Surely, since he's referred to as a "prominent/respected member of the Council" then that makes him a suitable candidate.

I don't see what being a respected member of the Council has do to with which Sanhedrin he served on.

Care to take a crack at the other improbabilities found in Mark's story?

No, not really.

I'm interested to hear how "scholars" get around these.

Oh, I'm sure you are.

[Gary]

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

Ok. I can't engage in a conversation with you if you are going to be so difficult.

[Adrift]

Ok. I can't engage in a conversation with you if you are going to be so difficult.

Post #15.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Yes, as in "all of the Great Sanhedrin". I'm not sure what you're missing here.

Oh, where does Mark say that? That's what "I'm missing."

It's not really ad hoc, and it's easily straightforward.

You're the one reading that into the text in order to get around taking "all" at face value. You're saying "oh Mark really doesn't mean all. He only means all of the "Great Sanhedrin" - which Mark doesn't actually mention. This is, by definition, ad hoc.

Why automatically assume he is?

According to your own reasoning, Joseph was just as likely to be a member of the Great Sanhedrin. You've yet to provide
a case against this and shifting the burden of proof won't help you.

I don't see what being a respected member of the Council has do to with which Sanhedrin he served on.

I don't see where Mark makes a distinction between Sanhedrins...

No, not really.

So do you concede the improbabilities? In so doing, you also must concede that Mark was not familiar, or did not care to portray accurately, Jewish legal proceedings and customs.

[DesertBerean]

Ok. I can't engage in a conversation with you if you are going to be so difficult.

Ppphhhhffttt... haha.... you can't be bothered to check back on your own thread? It's not that long. Your problem.

[Adrift]

Oh, where does Mark say that?

See post #44

You're the one reading that into the text in order to get around taking "all" at face value. This is, by definition, ad hoc.

It's not reading into the text. It's a reasonable assumption based on known facts about the Sanhedrin. And you of all people are the last to condemn others of reading into the text to get around its face value.

According to your own reasoning, Joseph was just as likely to be a member of the Great Sanhedrin. You've yet to provide
a case against this and shifting the burden of proof won't help you.

I could say the same for you. Looks like we're at a stalemate.

I don't see where Mark makes a distinction between Sanhedrins...

Why should we expect him to? Do you know for a fact that his Greek audience wasn't aware of the two Sanhedrins?

So do you concede the improbabilities?

Not necessarily.

[Gary]

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.

We've gone down a rabbit trail. Let's just go with your claim that "all" of the Sanhedrin didn't necessarily include Arimathea.

So back to the OP, why would the Sanhedrin allow the hated Galilean peasant, Jesus, to be buried in a rock mausoleum among the graves of the rich and upper class of Jerusalem society when they could have very easily arranged for a grave digging party to have dug a dirt trench immediately after Pilate gave the authorization to crucify Jesus? The Jewish authorities were meticulous for preparing for the Sabbath and Passover. If they knew that there was a danger of the bodies being up on the cross as the sun set on Friday evening, they could have easily avoided any time crunch by having the trench grave dug and ready. Why the scramble to find a rock tomb prior to sunset? It just seems very contrived.

And if it is true that the Sanhedrin had "dibbs" on the body, why would Pilate allow a follower of Jesus to have the body and not the leadership of the Sanhedrin? That makes no sense! If the reasoning for Pilate to allow the bodies to be taken down was to avoid upsetting Jewish sensitivities, then why turn around and enrage the Jewish leadership by giving Jesus a proper burial in a rock tomb of one of Jesus's followers, when the Sanhedrin most likely had a dirt trench ready and waiting?

There are so many odd twists and turns to this story. It is so convoluted that it certainly appears to me and many other skeptics, including skeptical NT scholars like Bart Ehrman, to be an embellishment with the very purpose of giving some physical evidence for the Resurrection claim, which up until the writing of the Gospel of Mark, had been based solely on the appearance claims as listed in the Early Creed. The author of Mark needed a rock tomb. An unmarked, common dirt trench wasn't going to be very good evidence, so he invented a rich secret admirer to provide the physical evidence he needed to counter the criticism of Jews and other skeptics.

[Cow Poke]

So back to the OP, why would the Sanhedrin allow the hated Galilean peasant, Jesus, to be buried in a rock mausoleum among the graves of the rich and upper class of Jerusalem society when...

A) It was Joseph's to do as he saw fit.
2) Jesus only needed it for the weekend.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

See post #44

You're the one arguing for the distinction, therefore the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

It's not reading into the text. It's a reasonable assumption based on known facts about the Sanhedrin. And you of all people are the last to condemn others of reading into the text to get around its face value.

According to Mark, he shows no knowledge of a Great/Lesser Sanhedrin. He says the "whole Council". And even still, Joseph could just have likely have been a member of the "Great" Sanhedrin so this evasion still doesn't work.

I could say the same for you. Looks like we're at a stalemate.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Why should we expect him to? Do you know for a fact that his Greek audience wasn't aware of the two Sanhedrins?

Haha! His gentile audience probably didn't know of the two Sanhedrins precisely because of the fact that they were Greek! Wow, you sure are a genius aren't ya?

Not necessarily.

Was working or buying/selling goods illegal on Passover or not?

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Sorry for hijacking your thread Gary. Sometimes I get a little carried away.

[rogue06]

According to Mark, Joseph of Arimathea (a respected member of the Council) goes to Pilate to request Jesus' body but this is after he had just condemned him to death -

Mark 14:55
"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any."

Mark 14:64
"They all condemned him as worthy of death."

It seems extremely improbable that Joseph would go out of his way to concern himself with the dead body of a criminal messianic pretender that he just condemned to death. The whole trial scene is actually illegal as it violates numerous Jewish laws. https://books.google.com/books?id=lX...page&q&f=false

Moreover, this whole event takes place on the Passover festival so instead of Joseph going and taking part in the festivities before the Sabbath he spends his time going to visit a gentile (Pilate) and touching a corpse where thereby he would be considered "unclean" for seven days - Numbers 19:16. He also "buys linen" - Mark 15:46 but it was illegal to work or buy/sell goods on Passover - Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Yet, Mark still has Joseph, "a prominent member of the council," violate Jewish law in full public view! Was Mark familiar at all with Jewish custom?

This is not history.

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.

[Cow Poke]

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.

And John pointed out (chapter 19) that he was a 'secret disciple'.

[Sparko]

So are you saying Mark exaggerates stories about Jesus?

no. I am saying that he was speaking normally using normal figures of speech. And not hyperliterally, like you are trying to make him seem. You are like a nagging wife, trying to trap her husband when he says he wants to go to the bar with all of the guys. "ALL of the guys are going? REALLY? EVERY single one?" "well, no...I think Fred is out of town" "HA!!! See! You are a LIAR! NOT ALL of your friends are going to the bar!"

[rogue06]

Probability says that Jesus was buried in a Dirt Trench not in a Rock Tomb


This isn't my invented theory, it is what Bart Ehrman thinks probably happened...


The empty rock tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is most probably an embellishment...

19789999.jpg


Your continued reliance upon Bart Ehrman for your information is sort of like depending on Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons for the facts on nuclear fusion or Thomas Gold when it comes to oil formation