I think Dr. Erhman stated that he believed Jesus was most likely buried in a common pit with others crucified. As far as needing a credible explanation of how the story developed, we have no source extant. However, Bart’s latest book provides ample explanations of how and why such narratives arise. It is in our genes to seek patterns and to impose explanations of events based on our current understanding of how the world and its people work, but sometimes the most accurate thing to say is “we don’t know”.
Blackwell said
Of course no-one knows exactly what Paul or anyone else thought about the burial of Jesus before Mark wrote his gospel, but you need to provide a credible explanation of how the story developed in order to support a hypothesis that it developed gradually.
Absolutely. Fortunately, I NEVER made such a claim, Blackwell. Why I should need to support a hypothesis I never advanced is curious (Did I miss the point again?)
no-one knows exactly what Paul or anyone else thought about the burial of Jesus before Mark wrote his gospel
Or after Mark wrote his gospel. Paul in all likelihood was dead by the time Mark’s gospel was written. So I would say he didn’t think anything after Mark wrote his Gospel. There’s not a shred of evidence about what Paul thought about who buried Jesus, but since we probably don’t have all of Paul’s correspondence, we can’t make any claims about what he knew or believed outside of what is stated in them.
I suggest that Christians actually believed the Joseph of Arimathaea story right from the start. It does not seem that you have any credible alternative
Hoist on your own petard! the criteria is not possible explanations (one can always spot an apologist, whether mythicist or Christian by how lenient their arguments are for the point they want to make). It’s POSSIBLE that your next meal will be poisoned, but you aren’t going to hire a taster based on that. Further, just because you can’t come up with an explanation doesn’t mean a given hypothesis is wrong. A hypothesis can’t exist without a “possible explanation” that’s the very definition of hypothesis.
The Consensus on Mark is that it was written after the year 70- FORTY YEARS after Jesus death. Why, that, by itself, should mean people “actually believed the Joseph of Arimathaea story right from the start” is incredible. The problem isn’t a question of “exactly what Paul or anyone else thought”, it’s that no one knows ANYTHING about what Paul or anyone else thought about who buried Jesus. A very credible alternative is, that there was no decent burial. The very early tradition about burial is consistent with burial in a common pit; It’s more likely that the Romans, specifically Pilate, would not allow a decent burial for insurgents or challengers to Caesar’s legitimacy.
I suggest that Christians actually believed the Joseph of Arimathaea story right from the start. It does not seem that you have any credible alternative
from acts 13
The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. ** you do not have permission to see this link **When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb.
according to acts, it seems like jesus’ killers buried him
according to ehrman , paul should have included j of a’s name if j of a buried jesus
“It is important to realize that all the statements of the two sections of the creed are tightly parallel to one another in every respect — except one. The second section contains a name as part of the tangible proof for the statement that Jesus was raised: ‘He appeared to [literally: ‘he was seen by’] Cephas.’ The fourth statement of the first section does not name any authorizing party. There we are told simply that ‘he was buried’ — not that he was buried by anyone in particular. Given the effort that the author of this creed has taken to make every statement of the first section correspond to the parallel statement of the second section, and vice versa, this should give us pause. It would have been very easy indeed to make the parallel precise, simply by saying ‘he was buried by Joseph [of Arimathea].’ Why didn’t the author make this precise parallel? My hunch is that it is because he knew nothing about a burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea.”
page 141 of how jesus became god.
The Consensus on Mark is that it was written after the year 70- FORTY YEARS after Jesus death. Why, that, by itself, should mean people “actually believed the Joseph of Arimathaea story right from the start” is incredible. The problem isn’t a question of “exactly what Paul or anyone else thought”, it’s that no one knows ANYTHING about what Paul or anyone else thought about who buried Jesus. A very credible alternative is, that there was no decent burial. The very early tradition about burial is consistent with burial in a common pit; It’s more likely that the Romans, specifically Pilate, would not allow a decent burial for insurgents or challengers to Caesar’s legitimacy.
The suggestion that there was no decent burial is just a starting point, not a credible alternative. It does not explain how the story of Joseph of Arimathaea and the empty tomb originated.
It is not credible to suggest that the story came from the disciples, who would have known if it was false. Led by Jesus’ brother James, they were antagonistic towards Paul and his followers so it is unreasonable to suppose that a story invented by Mark would be accepted by them without dispute. But if Mark did invent the story, why is there is no trace of a dispute over this matter?
The story was written about forty years after Jesus’ death, which is well within a human lifetime. In any society there are people who remember what happened forty years previously, particularly if the events involved prominent people, which is the case with Mark’s gospel. It is not credible to suggest that there was no-one among the opponents of Paul’s followers – not just the Jerusalem group but also Romans and orthodox Jews – who could tell whether Mark’s story was false and raise objections. Why is there no trace of Christian response to accusations that they were making things up?
Blackwell said
The suggestion that there was no decent burial is just a starting point, not a credible alternative. It does not explain how the story of Joseph of Arimathaea and the empty tomb originated.
Ok B
If there’s no decent burial. That is, in a tomb, then the story of Joseph has to be wrong about a crucial detail. The story makes no sense if that detail is wrong.Since there is no evidence where the story came from, trying to explain where it came from is entirely speculative. So you’re offering flat out speculation against a very probable historical reality and pretending speculation trumps anything that doesn’t suit your pet theory.
That the Romans would not have allowed any burial, let alone a decent one is highly probable. However, on the face of it the creedal reference to burial that Paul cites appears consistent with burial in a common pit (Still no tomb) We don’t need to know where the story of Santa Claus came from to know a man doesn’t fly around the world delivering toys every year on Dec 24th. And we don’t need to know the origin of the Story of Joseph of Arimathea to know there is a big problem.
…they were antagonistic towards Paul and his followers so it is unreasonable to suppose that a story invented by Mark would be accepted by them without dispute. But if Mark did invent the story, why is there is no trace of a dispute over this matter?
Nice try, but I never argued that Mark invented the story. would be nice if you responded to what I actually wrote rather than what’s in the apologetic script.
The story was written about forty years after Jesus’ death, which is well within a human lifetime. In any society there are people who remember what happened forty years previously, particularly if the events involved prominent people, which is the case with Mark’s gospel.
Yet it’s not clear that such people knew about or were involved with Mark’s work or the what they remember was accurate. The fact that Mark gets a lot wrong, suggests that either such people either weren’t involved or their memories weren’t that good. Further, one can’t argue that people remember things therefore Mark’s Gospel is accurate. Peter, is the only person claimed to be a source for Mark. Either Peter got a lot wrong or Mark did.
It is not credible to suggest that there was no-one among the opponents of Paul’s followers – not just the Jerusalem group but also Romans and orthodox Jews – who could tell whether Mark’s story was false and raise objections. Why is there no trace of Christian response to accusations that they were making things up?
Here again, I never made such an argument and do not believe Mark mad it up. You, on the other hand are making stuff up and need to stop. Now since the literacy rate for that time and place has been reliably estimated by Hezser to be about 3% (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine) it’s not clear 1.) why there would be any written records 2.) why, if there were such things, we would have them. Your argument suffers the same fallacy mythicism does: The assumption that the historical record is complete SOMEHOW and that everyone was aware of such things and would have written their assessment down.
spiker said
Since there is no evidence where the story came from, trying to explain where it came from is entirely speculative. So you’re offering flat out speculation against a very probable historical reality and pretending speculation trumps anything that doesn’t suit your pet theory.
That the Romans would not have allowed any burial, let alone a decent one is highly probable. However, on the face of it the creedal reference to burial that Paul cites appears consistent with burial in a common pit (Still no tomb) We don’t need to know where the story of Santa Claus came from to know a man doesn’t fly around the world delivering toys every year on Dec 24th. And we don’t need to know the origin of the Story of Joseph of Arimathea to know there is a big problem.
Trying to explain where the story came from is essential for credibility. If you proposed that Santa Claus flies round the world every year on Dec 24th, you would need to provide a complete credible explanation of how this is possible. Similarly, if you propose that the story of Joseph and the empty tomb developed gradually (rather than being entirely invented by Mark) then you need to provide a complete credible explanation of how this could have occurred. It should be a simple matter if this is what really happened.
Blackwell said
What has this got to do with the story of Joseph of Arimathaea and the empty tomb?
Well the verses I quoted don’t refer specifically to J of A and the ET but they do imply that Christians were responding to accusations of, as you put it, “making things up”, and trying to differentiate their teachings from others who they thought were “making things up”.
Blackwell said
spiker said
Since there is no evidence where the story came from, trying to explain where it came from is entirely speculative. So you’re offering flat out speculation against a very probable historical reality and pretending speculation trumps anything that doesn’t suit your pet theory.
That the Romans would not have allowed any burial, let alone a decent one is highly probable. However, on the face of it the creedal reference to burial that Paul cites appears consistent with burial in a common pit (Still no tomb) We don’t need to know where the story of Santa Claus came from to know a man doesn’t fly around the world delivering toys every year on Dec 24th. And we don’t need to know the origin of the Story of Joseph of Arimathea to know there is a big problem.
Trying to explain where the story came from is essential for credibility. If you proposed that Santa Claus flies round the world every year on Dec 24th, you would need to provide a complete credible explanation of how this is possible. Similarly, if you propose that the story of Joseph and the empty tomb developed gradually (rather than being entirely invented by Mark) then you need to provide a complete credible explanation of how this could have occurred. It should be a simple matter if this is what really happened.
It would help if you didn’t present your own argument as a quote. Quoting is for arguments you respond to. Not your own assertions.
if you propose that the story of Joseph and the empty tomb developed gradually (rather than being entirely invented by Mark) then you need to provide a complete credible explanation of how this could have occurred.
AGAIN, I never made such a proposal. If all you can do is make stuff up, I think we’re finished here.
If you actually want to respond to what I’ve argued that’s another matter. But I don’t need to know who told the story or how it developed. All I need to know is that it is probably not true: The credible alternative is , AGAIN, Jesus probably did not receive a decent burial. Without that fact the Joseph story can’t possibly be true.
Stephen said
Well the verses I quoted don’t refer specifically to J of A and the ET but they do imply that Christians were responding to accusations of, as you put it, “making things up”, and trying to differentiate their teachings from others who they thought were “making things up”.
I think these passages refer to claims by the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive after crucifixion, not to claims that he had been buried by Joseph of Arimathaea and then the tomb found to be empty.
Blackwell said
I think these passages refer to claims by the disciples that they had seen Jesus alive after crucifixion, not to claims that he had been buried by Joseph of Arimathaea and then the tomb found to be empty.
You asked. I answered. The honest truth is that no one knows if the story of J of E is a historical memory or the provenance of the story at all. The hard part is accepting that a man can rise from the dead. The rest is just details.
Stephen said
You asked. I answered. The honest truth is that no one knows if the story of J of E is a historical memory or the provenance of the story at all. The hard part is accepting that a man can rise from the dead. The rest is just details.
Perhaps english is his second language. The origin of a story hardly matters if one can show good reason why it is probably not true. Further, the idea that there would be some sort of record of objection if someone made up the story relies entirely on unwarranted assumptions. In addition, Ehrman, himself, pointed out that Christians had very good reasons to make up that story: How could you hope to “prove” a resurrection if you didn’t know where he was buried and therefore could not argue against objections like maybe the body was misplaced. Taken together, we have good reason to think the story is false and therefore it hardly matters where it came from
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert