jlowder

I just discovered the following misguided objection to my reply to Craig on the empty tomb. A person named Mike D wrote the following:

I am "surprized" (sic) also, since that is not what I wrote in my essay. I stated that the burial hypothesis has a low prior probability ("the prior probability that Jesus was given a burial of any sort is low" -- see p. 255), but a high final probability ("the specific evidence in Mark for Jesus' burial in a tomb is sufficient to overcome the intrinsic improbability of a crucifixion victim being buried" and "the same historical precedent that disconfirms the nonburial hypothesis also confirms the reburial hypothesis as the best historical explanation"-- p. 258). Note: the "final probability" of a hypothesis is the probability of the hypothesis, relative to background information *and* the specific evidence relevant to the hypothesis at hand. So when I state that "the specific evidence in Mark for Jesus' burial in a tomb is sufficient overcome" its intrinsic probability, that means I think Jesus *was* buried in a tomb!

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Toto

Caricature? or simple misunderstanding because you use too many words of more than one syllable, or too many technical terms? Can you post a reply on that blog?

And I doubt that many of us would agree with you when you say There is no indication that Arimathea was an actual city or location, or that any of the details in the passion narrative are historical, or that Mark intended to write history, or that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea was anything more than a plot device, or that William Lane Craig has a respectable argument for the empty tomb.

You might want to assume those points for the purposes of a debate, but I don't think it makes for good history.

Diogenes the Cynic

I am also quite curious as to why you think GMark could be considered as specific evidence for anything. I think you're conceding far too much.

ynquirer

It happens that I pretty well understand JJL and am convinced that his argument is fine Bayesian probabilities.

Diogenes the Cynic

Explain it then. Why should GMark be accepted as any sort of specific historical evidence for any of its claims?

Vorkosigan

Motion seconded and passed.

ynquirer

Have you read my post?: … pretty well understand… and … his argument is fine Bayesian probabilities. Do you want me to explain anything in reference to this?

Otherwise, you ought to read JJL’s article and address any questions to him directly. And if I find any of your objections to be incorrect, I’ll address you my own comments. This is how an orderly debate on the topic should be conducted, at least this is the intention of the OP and how I am ready to participate in it.

Steven Avery

How many dozens of cities and towns and villages are mentioned in the NT. ?

If every one was recognizable today, wouldn't the skeptics be strongly using that as evidence that the Gospels were written in a far-away land simply using maps, and not really an account of the times ?

So ... what geographical mix of recognizability and unsurety would have a priori satisfied the skeptic so that he would not use either recognizability or unsurety as an attack on the historicity of the NT ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Toto

No.

jlowder

Hi Toto,

You are correct that this could be and probably was a simple misunderstanding, as opposed to a caricature. Regarding the use of many technical terms and multi-syllable words, I realize that you may have been offering an explanation for why the misunderstanding took place. Given that the article was originally published in a peer-reviewed, academic journal, I think it is appropriate to expect that anyone who critiques such an article should understand the meaning of the words in that article.

Yes, I can. Do you think I should?

The argument for the historicity of Joseph is based upon the role Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, played in the burial of Jesus. It is probable that having Jesus buried by a member of the Sanhedrin would have been more embarrassing to the gospel authors than having Jesus buried by a disciple. So if the gospel authors were going to fabricate a story about Jesus' burial, one would expect them to have one of the disciples do the burial, not Joseph. (And notice how the story of burial by Joseph grows in accounts that are more recent than the Gospel of Mark; we find a tendency to turn Joseph into a 'secret disciple' in later gospels.)

I don't disagree with you. For the record, I consider myself an agnostic regarding the existence of Arimathea. When I say that I consider Joseph of Arimathea a historical person, all I mean by that is that there was a man named Joseph, who provided the historical basis for the gospel stories that claim Joseph was from Arimathea.

Besides, the argument for the historicity of Joseph is not based upon the existence of Arimathea. Rather, as I mentioned above, the argument is based upon the role Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, played in the burial of Jesus.

You raise important points here. I think there are other options besides "Mark intended to write history" or "Mark intended to write pure fiction." I could be wrong, but my view is that the gospels contain a mixture of historical and non-historical elements, and the fact of Jesus' burial is one of the historical elements (even if some of the details of the various stories about the burial contain non-historical elements).

I certainly agree with you that it is possible that "the burial by Joseph of Arimathea was [nothing] more than a plot device," but I don't believe that is the most likely explanation. As I've argued, the criterion of embarrassment provides evidence that the Markan story of the burial is rooted in Joseph's actual, historical role in the burial.

Perhaps you have confused me with someone else? I agree with you that none of Craig's arguments for the empty tomb are successful as they stand. In fact, the whole point of my paper was to criticize all of Craig's arguments for the empty tomb.

I'm not sure if you think I was granting those points just for the sake of argument ("for the purposes of a debate"), but, for the record, I wasn't. I could, of course, be mistaken in concluding that Jesus was buried after his crucifixion, but that conclusion is a sincerely held belief and not just a "for the sake of argument" belief. If I had merely intended to grant the point for the purposes of a debate, I would have explicitly said as much.

Regards,

Jeffery Jay Lowder