Diogenes the Cynic

I read the article and Lowder does not explain why he believes Mark should be considered as specific evidence. This is all he says:
This is a completely circular statement. Lowder says it's easier to accept Mark's burial than it is to "explain away" the burial story but Mark's account IS the burial story. There IS no "legend" before Mark. There is nothing to "explain away." The entire story originates with Mark. The legend follows Mark, it doesn't precede it. I would like to know exactly what it is that Lowder believes needs to be "explained away."

Lowder also accepts Joseph of Arimathea as historical but doesn't really explain why except to say that he agree with Craig. I wouldn't mind seeing some clarification on that point as well.

jlowder

Out of curiosity, what was the motion? Should I infer that another thread was merged into this one?

pharoah

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that a member of the Sanhedrin council would risk his career with his peers and possibly his life with the Romans by being overtly sympathetic to an executed criminal.

Diogenes the Cynic

Hi Jeff.

My question about Joseph of A was posted before reading your explanation. So ok, you're going with the criterion of embarrassment. Ok, a few questions about that.
1. Does Mark really say that Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrin? He describes him as a euschemon bouleutes, ("honorable counsellor"). Is it a given that bouleutes must be taken as an indication that Mark was saying Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin? The word refers more often to other positions like senators. In prior references to the Sanhedrin, Mark uses the word sunedrion (translated as "council") Is it necessarily a given that Mark's Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin? Are there no other possibilities?

2. Mark claims that the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus to death. Wouldn't that have included Joseph of Arimathea? How could a member of the Sanhedrin who had joined in a death sentence publicly reverese himself later that day and offer his own tomb to the criminal?

3. Why would a member of the Sanhedrin have any ability to persuade Pilate to relinquish the body of a crucified insurgent- ESPECIALLY if said insurgent was crucified (as Mark claims) for claiming to be the "King of the Jews?" That would be a direct challenge not only to the authority of pilate but to Caesar himself. Why would Pilate insult the Emperor by allowing a proper burial to an insurgent who tried to usurp his authority in Judea?

Amaleq13

IMO, the flaw in your reasoning is that you are ignoring that the author already had the disciples abandoning Jesus at this arrest so they could not be depicted as burying him. While, IIRC, Mark is not as explicit as subsequent authors in identifying this as a scriptural requirement, it clearly is a theological control on the author's creativity. This restriction completely negates any attempt to use the criterion of embarrassment because your estimated probability is based on a non-existent choice.

Having Jesus buried by a member of the Sanhedrin is far less embarrassing than having Jesus left on the cross to rot or be thrown into a common grave. Given an abandoned Jesus, the author had no choice but to introduce a new character to provide an escape.

Vorkosigan

...and of course, it should be added that empty tombs and resurrections are staples of the Greek fiction of the era. The writer of Mark used the conventions of his day to imagine the death and burial and resurrections of Jesus.

Joseph is essentially depicted as a disciple by Mark. That is prefigured in two of the typological scenes earlier in the Gospel, when Jairus the Synagogue ruler (= J of A) begs Jesus to raise his dead daughter, and when John the Baptist is depicted as being buried by his disciples. The first half of the gospel prefigures the second. It does not make sense in light of the writer's literary structures to have Jesus buried by a non-follower. Additionally, the fact that this is the culmination of literary work laid down earlier in the gospels suggests that nothing in it history.

Further, the embarrassment criterion is worthless if the Gospel tales are fiction. The use of it is entirely circular, as the EC presumes that there is some history down there. Hence your construal of it is wrong here. First you must demonstrate -- not assert -- that there is some mix of historical elements in the Gospel tale. I see that nowhere done in your essay, which is admirable in its depth if limited in its scope, essentially conceding the core of Craig's position while attempting to refute him on his own ground. I admire that as a debate tactic, but it is unacceptable as a historical approach.

I agree. It is much easier to accept it as history, since explaining how it is legend takes work.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yep. It also has the added polemical value that the writer of Mark has removed the disciples from any possible witness to the core events of Jesus' life and Christian faith: the death, burial, empty tomb, and resurrection. All of the witnesses to those tales come from outside the circle of 12. Essentially Joseph of Arimathea became necessary when the writer of Mark decided to lampoon the Jerusalem pillars.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I read the blog - this was just an offhand comment, not a full critique.

I think that would be best, and you might as well link to this thread.

I see nothing embarrassing about having Jesus buried in the lovely new tomb of a rich, high status Jewish official. It would be embarrassing if his body were thrown in a common grave and eaten by dogs.

I still see no basis for the historicity of a member of the Sanhedrin burying Jesus.

I had hoped that you had granted those points for the sake of argument, because that is the only way they make sense to me.

The criterion of embarrassment has been analyzed and criticized extensively in this forum. If you already have some indication of historicity, or if you want to assume it, you can use the criterion of embarrassment to sort out the part of the narrative that is least likely to have been an invention or an embellishment. But you can't use that criterion to demonstrate that a fact is historical. There are too many fictional narratives that contain embarrassing "facts."

jlowder

Since I am not a regular reader of this forum, I am not familiar with the relevant thread(s). Can you point me to it (them)?

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

There is no circularity. Consider the following three mutually exclusive (but not exhaustive) hypotheses:

H1 = Joseph of Arimathea was a pious, non-Christian Jew; a member of the Sanhedrin who may have approved of their decision to condemn Jesus; and who buried Jesus dishonorably in a tomb in the graveyard of the condemned, in accordance with Jewish burial customs concerning condemned criminals.

H2 = Joseph of Arimathea was a pious, non-Christian Jew; member of the Sanhedrin who did not approve of their decision to condemn Jesus; and who buried Jesus dishonorably in a tomb in the graveyard of the condemned, in accordance with Jewish burial customs concerning condemned criminals.

H3 = Joseph of Arimathea was a secret Christian; a member of the Sanhedrin who did not approve of their decision to condemn Jesus; and who buried Jesus honorably in his (Joseph's) own expensive and unused tomb.

H1 represents what I consider to be what actually happened regarding the burial of Jesus. Following NT scholar Byron McCane, I think H2 is consistent with the Gospel of Mark. I think H3 is representative of later gospels.

Any of these hypotheses are compatible with the statement, "Jesus was buried." So, as a simple matter of logic, there is no circularity involved with making a distinction between the fact (if it is a fact) of Jesus' burial and later stories about Jesus' burial. H1 could be true (and hence Jesus was buried) and yet the gospels account of the burial could be false.

This statement moves beyond a critique of my own arguments and makes an assertion of its own. This is an assertion that needs to be proved, not assumed. I do not find an argument for this conclusion in your post.

The reference to "explaining away" was a reference to the non-burial hypothesis: the view that Jesus was not buried at all. On the non-burial hypothesis, Joseph did not bury Jesus, so Joseph's role in the burial (and, for practical purposes, Joseph himself) has to be explained away. Note: I am not using the phrase "explain away" here in any sort of derogatory way. My intent was simply to highlight the fact that if one denies the fact of Jesus' burial (and hence of Joseph's role in that burial), then the fact that the Markan story has a Sanhedrist, as opposed to a disciple, bury Jesus cries out for an explanation.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder